Loading...
2023-03-02 CC Agenda PacketMISSION STATEMENT. "The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides, at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community." MOUND CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WORKSHOP AGENDA THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2023, 7:00 P.M. MEETING LOCATION COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MOUND CENTENNIAL BUILDING 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD, MOUND, MN Page(s) 1. Call to Order of City Council Special Meeting Workshop by Mayor 2. Approval of Agenda, with Any Amendments 3. Review/discussion of City Council development review procedures and practices 1-7 Including the role of the Development Committee 4. Review/discussion regarding City Attorney attendance at City Council meetings 5. Adjournment of City Council Special Meeting Workshop n MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: February 27, 2023 SUBJECT: Thurs., March 2, 2023 Mound City Council Special Meeting Workshop (Rescheduled) Overview A special meeting workshop of the Mound City Council has been scheduled by the City Council to be held on Thurs., March 2, 2023, at 7:00 p.m., to discuss City Council development review policies and practice, including the roles of the Development Committee. The special meeting workshop date was rescheduled following cancellation of the February 23, 2023 special meeting workshop due to last weeKs snowstorm. For Council member information, Staff reached out to several cities to inquire about their procedures which are outlined and summarized in the attachment. Additionally, the policy used by the City of Minnetonka for development review has also been included, along with a draft document Staff has prepared for initial Council review and discussion, as requested by the City Council special meeting workshop held last fall. The City Council minutes from the special workshop meeting on October 18, 2022 have been included for information. At the special meeting workshop, the City Council will also discuss having the City Attorney attend at some or all official City Council meetings. Sketch Plan / Concept Plan Neighborhood Meeting Chanhassen Not required for straight zoning (which is most Require before submittal of application. Note projects). Do require a concept plan for a PUD. that this is City practice but not required by The concept plan is reviewed by the PC and code. CC. Excelsior Required to be sent to City Manager. City No Manager has discretion, in consultation with applicant, to send to PC and CC for review. Minnetrista PUD requires a concept/sketch plan. PUD requires a neighborhood meeting. Orono City Administrator, PC, CC No Shorewood Projects that require a comprehensive plan Encourage them to occur before application amendment must complete a preapplication submitted. sketch plan process that includes review by the PC and CC. General concept plan is a required first step for a PUD (three stages for PUD). General concept plan process includes a public hearing with the PC and an approval/denial by CC. Victoria City code requires it for 5 or more lots. Required by practice for all projects. Practice is to require it for all projects. Review by PC and CC. Previously concept review has been at CC regular meeting. Moving towards it being reviewed at a work session. Waconia Reviewed by PC. No Wayzata Done for all projects. PC and CC review. No Public Review Process CITY OF MINNETOWA This handout summarizes the general public review process for large development projects. Please contact a planner at 952-939-8290 with questions regarding the process for specific projects. 1. Neighborhood Meeting. The developer hosts a neighborhood meeting to review a concept plan and solicit resident feedback. Comments received during the meeting may help informinfluence future plans if the developer chooses to proceed with a formal development application. City officials attended the neighborhood meeting, but only to observe the dialog between the developer and neighborhood and answer "procedure" questions. 2. Planning Commission Concept Plan Review. The planning commission Concept Plan Review is intended as a follow-up to the neighborhood meeting. The objective of this meeting is to identify major issues and challenges in order to inform subsequent review and discussion. The meeting includes a presentation by the developer of conceptual sketches and ideas, but not detailed engineering or architectural drawings. No staff recommendations are provided, the public is invited to offer comments, and planning commissioners are afforded the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback without any formal motions or votes. 3. City Council Concept Plan Review. The city council Concept Plan Review is intended as a follow-up to the planning commission meeting and would follow the same format as the planning commission Concept Plan Review. No staff recommendations are provided, the public is invited to offer comments, and council members are afforded the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback without any formal motions or votes. 4. Formal Application. If the developer chooses to file a formal application, notification of the application is mailed to area property owners. Property owners are encouraged to view plans and provide feedback via the city's website. Through recent website updates: (1) staff can provide residents with ongoing project updates, (2) residents can 'follow" projects they are particularly interested in by signing up for automatic notification of project updates, (3) residents may provide project feedback on projects, and (4) and staff can review resident comments. 5. Council Introduction. The proposal is introduced at a city council meeting. At the time, the council is provided another opportunity to review the issues identified during the initial Concept Plan Review meeting, and to provide direction about any refinements or additional issues it wishes to be researched, and for which staff recommendations should be prepared. 6. Planning Commission Review. The planning commission holds an official public hearing for the development review and recommends action to the city council. 7. City Council Action. Based on input from the planning commission, professional staff and the general public, the city council takes final action to approve or deny the proposed development. For any Commercial, Industrial, or Mixed Use (Business???) district projects that include Conditional Use permitting, subdivision, or preliminary plat actions; prospective developers will anticipate the following procedural steps in coordination with Staff, Commissions, Council, and the Public for considering approval of project applications. 1. Project definition and fact-finding discussion and assistance with Staff: Staff will provide prospective development applicants with specific Comprehensive Plan guidelines, zoning code requirements and references, zoning performance standards, various land -use bulk ratio requirements, acquisition/assembly/vacation procedures that may be a component of the subdivision actions, anticipated administrative timelines, and application procedures, fees, charges, dedications, and escrow amounts that are anticipated for the described project. The privacy of the applicant and project details will be respected throughout fact finding activities. Contact Sarah Smith to initiate dialog on any prospective project. 2. Optional review by the City Council Development Committee: The prospective applicant may request a general project discussion with the 2-member Development Committee of the City Council to gain NON -DECISIONAL project feedback from elected policy -makers on the suitability, scope/scale, and fit of the project within the selected project -area. Exhibits for this meeting generally include conceptual sketches and ideas, but not detailed engineering or architectural drawings; i.e. a single -line site plan showing property lines, building footprints, parking, access and circulation, single -line elevations, a project narrative, and a listing of the anticipated applications for the project. The privacy of the applicant and project details will be respected throughout Development Committee discussions. Contact Eric Hoversten to initiate review by the Development Committee. 3. Mandatory neighborhood meeting The developer hosts a neighborhood meeting to review a concept plan and solicit resident feedback. Comments received during the meeting may help inform/influence future plans if the developer chooses to proceed with a formal development application. City elected officials may attended the neighborhood meeting, but only to observe the dialog between the developer and neighborhood and answer "procedure" questions. Staff will not participate in the neighborhood meeting. The Developer will plan, venue, announce, invite, publicize, and host the meeting independently; and provide those details to Staff for information only. The privacy of the applicant and project details can no longer be preserved from this step of the consideration process forward. 4. Project introduction to the Council including public comments: (Sketch Plan by proxy) The proposal is introduced at a city council meeting where the council is provided opportunity to review the issues identified during the neighborhood meeting and Development Committee's review (if requested); and to provide direction about any refinements or additional issues it wishes to be researched or addressed prior to making application. The meeting includes a presentation by the developer of the relevant conceptual sketches and ideas, but not detailed engineering or architectural drawings; i.e. a single -line site plan showing property lines, building footprints, parking, access and circulation, single -line elevations, a project narrative, and a listing of the anticipated applications for the project. No staff recommendations are provided, the public is invited to offer comments, and council members are afforded the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback without any formal motions or votes. Notification of the Council Introduction is mailed to property owners within 350-feet of the property lines of the anticipated subdivision or project site not later than 10 days before the docketed meeting. (web site???) 5. Formal project application Submission of an application triggers certain timelines for completion of final decision actions by the Council defined in SS 15-99. Staff will make a determination on completeness of the application materials within 15 days. For complete applications, Staff will distribute application materials to coordinating agencies for review, and prepare agency comments, staff review, and recommendations for earliest review consideration by the Planning Commission. Complete applications received NLT the first of the month will typically be docketed for Planning Commission review at the meeting of the following month; i.e. received March 1 will be reviewed first meeting in April. 6. Planning Commission review, hearings, and recommendation to Council The planning commission holds an official public meeting/hearing for the development review and recommends action to the city council. Planning Commission meetings are generally held the first Tuesday of each month. Notification of Planning Commission review and any required hearings is provided per State Statute; i.e. mailed to property owners within 350-feet of the property lines of the anticipated subdivision for project site not later than 10 days before the docketed meeting. (web site???) 7. Council review, hearings, action to approve/deny Based on input from the planning commission, professional staff, and the general public, the city council takes final action to approve or deny the proposed development. Notification of Council review and any required hearings is provided per State Statute; i.e. mailed to property owners within 350-feet of the property lines of the anticipated subdivision for project site not later than 10 days before the docketed meeting. (web site???) 5 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 18, 2022 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in a special meeting on Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Centennial Building. Members present: Mayor Ray Salazar; Council Members Paula Larson, Phil Velsor, Jason Holt and Sherrie Pugh Others present: City Manager Eric Hoversten, Community Development Director Sarah Smith Public Present: None 1. Open meeting Mayor Salazar called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Approve Agenda MOTION by Velsor, seconded by Pugh, to approve agenda. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 3. Discussion on the City of Mound Development Committee and potential alternatives Pugh introduced her concern that favorable comments or feedback from the Development Committee (DC) during its review may allow or feed misinterpretation by the applicant of project success even before review by Planning Commission (PC) and Council. The Council discussed existing procedures and reviewed a document sourced from Minnetonka that describes the project approval workflow for that community; and what, if any elements might improve the Mound process if benchmarked. Hoversten described that all of the activities in the Minnetonka workflow are described in the Mound city code except the "Council Introduction" step, noting the Mound process presently offers DC review not included in the Minnetonka workflow. The principal difference in the workflow sequence was with exception to application, Planning Commission Review, and Council review approve/deny; the remaining steps are all 'options' for Mound applicants and mandatory for Minnetonka. Discussion proceeded to evaluate each of the elements in the Minnetonka workflow and their applicability to improve the process in Mound. This discussion included the merit of continuing the current DC review step. The current intent of the DC is to provide applicants a voluntary, non -decisional review by elected -officials at the conclusion of their fact-finding and project -shaping discussions with Staff to give them a sense of project viability. DC membership is approved by the Council at its first meeting in January each year based on the Mayor's recommended appointment. In the course of discussion, the Council arrived at a consensus recommendation to adopt a workflow for projects that include major subdivision/preliminary plat following the applicant's fact-finding discussions with the Staff that includes in sequence: Optional review by the DC A mandatory neighborhood meeting — (presently optional) A project introduction to the Council that would include allowance for public comments Formal project application "' Planning Commission review Council review, approve/deny "'Applicants desiring formal sketch plan or concept plan review by PC and Council would make specific application for that versus project approval, and all the investment in formal exhibits/documentation that requires, after the Council intro is completed. 6 Minutes — October 18, 2022 Special Meeting Workshop Statutory Council review/final-action timeline clock would not begin until formal application is submitted after the Council Intro. Council also recommended that Staff produce a lay -language process description similar to the Minnetonka handout for applicants and a similar process description for residents. 4. Discussion on policies regarding sale of city owned parcels Hoversten introduced this discussion conveying past comments raised by Council members on the current process and procedures to evaluate request by others to purchase city land assets. Larson added her concern is whether the policy in place was intended to cover sale of commercial parcels as well as residential. Hoversten clarified that the policy was intended to address residential -zoned parcels only and that non-residential lands had traditionally been managed as development assets and addressed separately based on past -established development objectives of the Council. Smith confirmed that when she wrote the policy it was intended for residential -zoned lands only. Larson asked that the current Admin-10 policy be re -titled to clarify its residential -only intent; and that she would want to bring forward a request to develop a similar formal policy for non-residential lands after the New Year. 5. Discussion on how and when to proceed with evaluating governance procedures and best practices Hoversten introduced this item conveying previous input by Council members seeking clarification on Council roles, responsibilities, and processes identified to Hoversten and Director of Administrative Services Pausche at previous meetings with members. After framing and clarifying the concerns with the Council members, Pausche had connected with City Attorney Gilchrist to identify resources to assist with training/coaching and Gilchrist referred Pausche to a fellow attorney at K&G with vast experience training and coaching councils on governance. Preliminary field work and interview of several Council members indicated that training would be valuable to the Council; but timing may not be optimal as the Council undergoes foreseeable transformation; and the Council should determine its desire for further engagement, and when: prior to year-end with any "elects" invited, or after the new year. Pugh elaborated her specific governance concerns regarding roles, practices, and meeting management to the other members highlighting the need for tightly coordinated efforts in the coming year to secure outside funding for the critical City water treatment project. The Council discussed the merits of the training and timing, landing on preferring to request the training after the New Year. 6. Adjourn Motion by Holt, seconded by Pugh, to adjourn at 9:53 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Kevin Kelly, Clerk Mayor Raymond J. Salazar 7