Planning Commission - 05/08/2000 - Workshop APPROVED WORKSHOP MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 6:00 p.m., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Kathy Nelson, Ken Brooks, Randy Foote,
Kenneth E. Clinton, Frantz Corneille, Ray
Stoelting, Vicki Koenig, Susan Stock
STAFF MEMBERS: Krista Flemming, Planner I; Stu Fox,
Manager of Parks and Natural Resources;
Mike Franzen, City Planner; Alan Gray,
City Engineer; Donald Uram, Community
Development/Financial Services Director;
Kirsten Oden, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Corneille called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners
Nelson, Brooks, Foote, Clinton, Stoelting, Koenig, Stock; Staff Fox, Franzen,
Gray.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. MINUTES
IV. WORKSHOP TOPICS
A. Video on Land use from the League of Minnesota Cities—The Board
viewed a video on land uses issues as told through the experiences of the
fictitious city of Mosquito Heights. The video emphasizes the need for city
officials to understand and follow recommended procedures for dealing with
land use, disputes, and to document the procedures thoroughly.
Brooks inquired about typical procedures for evaluating issues raised by
neighbors on projects that meet zoning requirements.
Franzen indicated that if a project meets all City requirements, the City is
obligated to approve it. Franzen said many times projects have issues such as
traffic, transition or a buffer zone, lighting or noise identified as issues by
residents. The issues are handled on a case-by-case basis and the Board
makes a judgement call based upon impacts, mitigative measures and facts.
COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MINUTES
May 8, 2000
Page 2
The Board then discussed the following:
Questions from the Mosquito Heights Video Tape:
1. What problems do you see in this Mosquito Heights hearing?
➢ The loss of control of the meeting,
➢ the staff inferred an agenda item was discussed in private, and
➢ the staff report did not bring out strictly facts, but offered opinions,
➢ speakers should be heard one at a time.
2. How could the City Council have handled this meeting more effectively?
➢ Discussion among Council should take place at the proper time,
➢ Personal attacks should not be made or tolerated,
➢ Discussions should not be held before opening a public hearing,
➢ The board is there not to offer its opinion but in a quasi-judicial role,
3. If Mega Talk Communications challenges the Council decision in court who
will win and why?
➢ Mega Talk would lose because it didn't put forth the information
requested by Council.
➢ They needed a variance but did not present the facts.
4. If Dot Hickory and the neighbors challenge the decision in court, what will
the outcome be?
➢ The decision could have been different had Megatalk complied with
Council's request
➢ Neither staff nor Council looked for an alternative decision.
B. Project Review—An overview of the city review process and procedures for
reviewing projects.
Franzen discussed the project review process. A general to specific order is
followed, from land use to project details as covered in the January 7, 2000
report.
V. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Motion by Clinton, seconded by Stoelting to adjourn the workshop.
Motion carried, 8-0.
The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.