Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 01/13/2020APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2020 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher Villarreal, Carole Mette CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Commission members Kirk, Weber and Villarreal were absent. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Mette to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: DeSanctis moved, seconded by Farr to approve the minutes of December 9, 2019. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT- PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING CURRICULUM Klima presented a PowerPoint and explained the curriculum. Staff had identified the creation of a curriculum for new Planning Commission members. There was the potential for six openings on the commission. Staff was looking for feedback on this curriculum, but no formal action at this meeting. Staff would incorporate the feedback into a revised curriculum. The curriculum was broken in five sections: the commission’s role, legal aspects, City Code, Regulations and Policies, Meeting Procedures, and Application Review. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 13, 2020 Page 2 Klima presented the organizational chart. She explained the commissions were all advisory instruments to the City Council. The Planning Commission’s composition was seven to nine members, each with a typical term of three years. The City Council looked to appoint commissioners with varying backgrounds and experience. The Planning Commission also served as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, granting it the power to approve zoning variances without a recommendation to the City Council. It also measured projects against compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, considered resident comments and public testimony, assessed a project’s impacts, ensured compliance with zoning standards and design guidelines, and provided expertise as applicable or relevant. Legal training was included as a refresher section; each commission member receives in the legal aspects of a commissioner’s roles from the City Attorney. The commission had zoning and regulatory power at the local level, following state and federal laws. Other regulators such as MnDOT, the DNR, the Metropolitan Council, Hennepin Council, and Watershed Districts coordinated with application review. The Pyramid of Discretion outlined the relationship of the more or less public participation at the creative/legislative level (such as the Comprehensive Plan), moving through the quasi-judicial level which included variances, conditional use permits or subdivision applications, to the regulatory/administrative level (building permits, plan reviews). The 60-Day Rule was a statutory process giving the City a timeline to review an application. This could be extended an additional 60 days (for a 120-Day Review). If the City missed this deadline, the application was automatically approved. Written findings of fact was required if an application was denied. Farr asked if a deeper dive on the processes of denials from the Planning Commission versus the City Council was necessary. Klima agreed a variance review denial would require a finding of fact. A zoning change or subdivision denial would indeed require a findings of fact carried to the City Council. These situations are infrequent and staff would guide the Planning Commission through those instances. Regulations, City Code and Policies included the Comprehensive Plan, the blueprint for the City (usually renewed every 10 years); Zoning Regulations (City Code Chapter 11); Subdivision Regulations (City Code Chapter 12); and Design Guidelines; Mette asked if Design Guidelines were regularly reviewed. Klima replied there was no set schedule; the Design Guidelines were three years old. Staff remained mindful of changes in trends and would raise the issue. However, the Work Plan could include a review schedule. Mette agreed perhaps a 10-year review could be a good idea, of Design Guidelines and also of variances in past projects over the previous 10 years. Klima agreed. Meeting procedures required regular Planning Commission meetings that were always open to the public, along with Council Workshops. Robert’s Rules of Order was the standard etiquette of all commissions in Eden Prairie. Klima described the process of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 13, 2020 Page 3 making a motion. She recommended that new commissioners watch the video of at least one meeting. Discussion followed on how formal the language for this should be. Klima urged the commission find the level of formality its current members found most comfortable. Mette asked for other reasons for abstaining. Klima stated a financial conflict of interest, such as with a former employer, or a nearby property where the project is a neighbor’s, might give rise to an abstention, especially if a quorum already exists to approve or deny a motion. In most cases an abstaining commissioner should also abstain from the conversation and inform staff beforehand. She explained valid versus invalid findings of fact. DeSanctis asked if staff looked at grants or tax incentives to lower our carbon footprint that could be built into the review process. Klima replied staff worked with a variety of entities to promote the City’s efforts on sustainability. This was a different level than the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Some might find their way into Code, but financial incentives was a City Council discussion, and other incentives could be the result of a partnership with another entity. There was a variety of ways to address this, rather than writing it into the City Code. Land Use Applications: these included site plans, subdivisions, plats, code amendments, Comprehensive Plan amendments, rezoning, Planned Unit Development (PUD), and conditional use permits. The Planning Commission factored in many considerations in reviewing subdivisions, variances, PUDs, PUD waivers versus variances, site plans, and City Code/Text Changes. Discussion followed on including some language on the outside time commitment which could include site visits. Klima agreed to include this. DeSanctis asked if plan reviews could be made electronic, and Klima replied the City was exploring this option. The feedback she had received in the past encouraged her to continue to send the commission members the full size plan sets, as opposed to the 11”x17” plan sets sent to the City Council. Mette added she agreed with both suggestions. Mette also suggested including language that described what did not fall under the Planning Commission’s umbrella. Pieper concurred with the suggestions. Klima agreed and gave the example of financial considerations: these were handled by the City Council. She agreed to give examples in the curriculum. Farr noted the applications were heavy on civil design, and these could be ignored in favor of relevant drawings. Most of the submittals were difficult documents that commissioners were not mandated to read anyway. Klima agreed to include a slide to show which documents were being reviewed by staff or other departments, and did not require detailed review by a commissioner. Klima went through the development review and approval process. She went through the approval or denial of variances and how they differed from waivers. She explained the PUD process. She explained Conditional Use Permits, which were used less frequently in Eden Prairie than variances and waivers. She explained the process of a project after review and decision or recommendation by the Planning Commission. Mette asked to add the various roles of the Planning Commission (chair and vice-chair, et cetera) to the slide about the commission’s composition, and how each was determined. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 13, 2020 Page 4 Pieper added it might be helpful to include language on reappointment and how many years one could serve on the commission. Higgins noted the rule might have changed since she joined the commission. Mette also suggested updating planning terms: Comprehensive Guide Plan and Aspire 2040. She expressed concern that Comprehensive Plan, Guide Plan, and Aspire 2040 were used interchangeably. Farr suggested adding language to describe what could be included under the Members’ Report portion of the agenda, and set out preliminary plat versus final plat. DeSanctis asked for a definition of “small” cell towers. Klima agreed to get an answer to DeSanctis’s question and incorporate these suggestions. Pieper suggested including a bullet point about the Work Plan under commission roles, as well as the Commission Banquet. He suggested having a link to this under the Planning website after this was complete. Klima agreed the polished version could be available to the public online. The commission members commended Klima’s effort on this curriculum draft. Klima thanked the commission members for their feedback. VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by DeSanctis to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 5- 0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m.