Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 07-30-1996CITY OF PLYMOUTH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING JULY 309 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Mike Stulberg, Commissioners John Stoebner, Tim Bildsoe, Saundra Spigner, Roger Berkowitz and Jeff Thompson MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Allen Ribbe STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Anne Hurlburt, Planning Supervisor Barbara Senness, Planner Shawn Drill and City Attorney Roger Knutson 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:05 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: No change. 3. NEW BUSINESS: Director Hurlburt introduced the general subject area for the evening --the role of the Planning Commission and the Commission's relationship on various issues. She introduced Roger Knutson, the City Attorney who would provide background on the legal aspects of this subject. In response to the question of why is there a Planning Commission, City Attorney Knutson pointed out that the City Council has many issues before it of widely varying nature and cannot devote the time that development questions require. He also noted that there is not as much political pressure at the Planning Commission. He further explained that the role of the Commissioner is to give input based on life experiences. He also pointed out that staff does not always see everything on an issue. He stated that in areas where the Commission has discretion, they have a greater level of input. In response to questions about how the Commission should have viewed the congestion problem in the C.G. Rein proposal on Schmidt Lake Rd. and TH 169, staff responded the Commission needs to look at more than the single detail of one hour of congestion. They also need to look at the larger project, its benefit to the City, whether or not other types of uses would result in a similar level of congestion, the rights of the property owner to reasonable use of their land and the operational characteristics of other intersections with similar types of development. Planning Commission Minutes July 30, 1996 Page #179 City Attorney Knutson explained that the discretion that the Commission has can be described along a continuum. They have the greatest discretion on the Comprehensive Plan-- that document reflects the community's values and should set policy. The Commission also has a lot of discretion on Zoning --they can rarely get into legal trouble turning down a rezoning as long as what they do is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission has less discretion on Variances. Here the Commission can get in trouble because of the hardship standard. Attorney Knutson cautioned the Commission never to ask for a show of hands from the audience. This is not a popularity contest, rather their decision must be based on the facts in relation to the standards in the ordinance. Conditional Use Permits are the most troubling. If the neighborhood is solidly against one, the Commission can get into trouble not supporting it, unless the denial is based on not meeting the standards in the ordinance. Staff noted that the Commission can negotiate with the applicant, for example on additional conditions in the approving resolution, but not with the audience. Attorney Knutson summarized that with legislative actions (that affect more than one property), the Commission can do what they think is right. With quasi-judicial matters affecting one property), they need to apply existing law to the particular case and if the standards in the law are met, they need to support the request. In response to questions about how loss of property value should be considered, staff responded that this is almost impossible to prove because there are so many factors that affect property value. Attorney Knutson cited the law suit brought by homeowners near the International Airport. Even though one would think it would be easy to prove a loss in value related to jet noise, the homeowners did not win this suit. Staff noted that the Commission can add aesthetics -related conditions when there is a rational connection between the condition and the affected part of the project. For example, the Commission might require additional evergreens on an industrial project adjacent to a single family neighborhood. In response to a question of how well the Commission is doing its job, Attorney Knutson stated that he has only watched one of their meetings --regarding the TCF proposal. He was impressed that the Commission at that meeting was not emotional and held a rational, thoughtful discussion of the issues. In general, he stated the Commission should work on Planning Commission Minutes July 30, 1996 Page #180 establishing a good record and not asking for a show of hands from the audience on any issue. The Commission asked about how much they should be cautious about consistency. Staff responded that from a fairness standpoint, similarly situated applicants should be treated similarly. However, from a legal perspective, the Commission does not have to be consistent" as long as they create a record based on the facts of the case and their relationship to the regulations. Attorney Knutson stated that if four Commissioners are together outside a meeting, unless they are talking about the Vikings, etc., they are violating the open meeting law. He pointed out problems related to perception of wrong doing and urged caution in this area. In response to a question of the relationship of Planning Commission and the staff, Attorney Knutson stated that the staff is to give guidance and that the more technical the subject, the less discretion the Commission has. Staff also noted that they do not work for the Commission, but they also have to consider the Council. Staff gave the example of when the Commission recommends against a staff position, but staff still believes there is merit in that position, they will continue to recommend it to the Council, regardless of the Commission's vote. Staff suggested that the Commission needs to decide what they want to do when a Commissioner disagrees with the group decision. Staff further suggested that they want to develop some ground rules about this. Staff also noted that when a Commissioner is in doubt about how much discretion they have, they should ask staff. Attorney Knutson cautioned the Commission to take into account the substance of what the public says, not the passion, etc. Staff stated that oftentimes it is better to try and fix a project by attaching additional conditions, rather than turning it down. Legally, this is often the better path. Attorney Knutson stated that "hardship" could also be described along a continuum. On the one end is a regulation that would deny ALL reasonable use a property (unless it is self-created: for example, the applicant bought a particular property after the regulation was in place). On the other is a denial of reasonable use. Here the question is --what constitutes reasonable use? Staff agreed to attach the City Clerk's Notes of the Meeting to future agenda packets so Commissioners can keep up on Council development decisions. MOTION by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Bildsoe to adjourn. Planning Commission Minutes July 30, 1996 Page #181 Vote. 6 Ayes. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.