Loading...
11-24-97 PC Minutes~~ ~. ~. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 1997 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, November 24, 1997. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Martens, McAleese and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary. Approval of Minutes -October 27. 1997 MOVED by Prazak, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the October 27, 1997 minutes as submitted. I I. Informal. Public Hearing -Amendment to the Zoning Code -Traffic Management Administrative Fees Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend Section 1.56, Subd. 9 of City Code regarding administrative fees that would allow the city to periodically assess the parcels subject to the traffic management fee for the cost involved in implementing capital improvements designed to reduce traffic congestion, facilitate transit use and implement traffic management plans in the I-394 corridor. Planning and Development Director, Mark Grimes, summarized the reason for the 1- 394 overlay district. He noted in particular how future development would affect the capacity of the three interchanges in Golden Valley. Grimes said that the Xenia interchange would be impacted most because Golden Valley and St. Louis Park have proposed development planned near this interchange. Grimes explained to the commission how developers affected by this ordinance must adopt a traffic management plan. (This would primarily affect office buildings which typically are three stories, or greater, in height.) He said the plan would go into effect when a certain level of service for these interchanges was obtained or when the reserve capacity for those interchange areas was reached. Grimes said the reserve capacity was determined by how much both the City's of Golden Valley .:s ~ ''.- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 1997 Page 2 interchanges and also the level of service was determined by what was thought to be reasonable. Grimes noted that neither city had received a traffic management plan until 1997 because no large, high density buildings had been constructed in the corridor. Grimes told the commission that a joint task force between Golden Valley and St. Louis Park wanted both cities to review how the cities could make capitol improvements in the corridor to help reduce congestion. He said some ideas would be to create a traffic circulator system, create bike paths to reduce traffic, or look at how to increase other forms of transportation. As suggested in the proposed amendment, each city could assess for specific capitol improvements. Commissioner Kapsner asked Grimes that when a retail establishment, like Home Depot goes in, would this not trigger the need for a traffic management plan and assessments. Grimes said no because it does not generate a peak amount of traffic, which is the concern of both cities. Commissioner Prazak asked Grimes if the City of St. Louis Park had a similar fee. Grimes told the commission that St. Louis Park had the exact same fee and ordinance. Commissioner Johnson asked if St. Louis Park had amended its ordinance and Grimes said that they are in the process of doing so. Commissioner Martens asked if the joint task force looked at staggered hours for business operation. Grimes said that that had been reviewed and anything that can reduce peak hour traffic would be looked at. Martens asked what was considered peak PM hours. Grimes stated between 4pm and 6pm. Commissioner Groger wanted to clarify that the existing law allows for the collection of fees only from new developments and up to now nothing has been collected. Grimes confirmed that the existing law is for only new development and that no fees have been collected as yet. Groger asked if the amendment would then allow for the two cities to be able to assess all properties meeting the standards. Groger noted that the amendment states that properties in the affected area could be assessed. Martens asked where the affected area lies. Grimes said the ordinance legally describes the area affected. Grimes said that it is his understanding it would be for the entire area but assessments would still have to go through a hearing process. Groger said that he believes it would be unfair to assess properties that have been in existence for sometime when it would be the new developments causing the traffic problems. Grimes commented that existing buildings do cause traffic problems, and noted the Northwest Racquet Club in St. Louis Park. 7 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 1997 Page 3 .Grimes said that the Traffic Management Plan fees for administration are assessed only towards those buildings which are above the 6/10 of a foot of floor area ratio, but assessments would be against all properties in that area. He believes it would. be very difficult to pick out only the large office buildings in the area to be assessed. Commissioner McAleese noted that other areas have implemented user fees when submitting development plans. McAleese asked that when MEPC has finished putting together its traffic management plan would the joint task force then implement the plan. Grimes stated that the joint task force would review the plan but it is implemented by the developer. He said that each City would oversee that the plan is being implemented. McAleese asked Grimes if the City of Golden Valley would be checking on MEPC to make sure they are implementing their plans. Grimes said that both St. Louis Park and Golden Valley would be doing reviews once a year. McAleese asked whom the traffic management fee would be paid to. Grimes said that it would be held in trust by Golden Valley and St. Louis Park. McAleese asked if the new wording in the ordinance would allow the City of St. Louis Park to assess properties in Golden Valley and vise versa. Grimes said that only the Golden Valley City Council may assess Golden Valley property and only St. Louis Park may assess property in its city as stipulated in Chapter 462 of State Statute. Grimes said there would have to be a joint powers agreement in order for the joint task force to assess capital improvements. McAleese said that he had no fundamental problems with assessing property owners for improvements that occur in their area and improve access to their area, but he is concerned about the wording of the ordinance in that it sounds as though St. Louis Park would have authority to tax a business in Golden Valley along I-394. Grimes said that an assessment can only be imposed by the City Council, not from the joint task force or the City of St. Louis Park. Grimes said that he would speak with the City Attorney to clarify the language of the ordinance. McAleese commented that he agrees with taxing businesses when they benefit., but the language in the ordinance seems to say that if something was happening in St. Louis Park, Golden Valley businesses would be taxed. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Johnson said that McAleese's point is a good one by adding language reflecting particular parcels in one's respective city. She said she liked the idea of expanding the ordinance to include capital improvements. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 1997 Page 4 Commissioner Groger said that he is not in favor of the proposed amendment. He said that he does not understand why this amendment is before the Planning Commission .taking into consideration that this district has been in existence for eight years and nothing has happened since that time. Groger said he is aware of the extraordinary number of taxes that exist and the taxing authorities, and that businesses are paying enough taxes now. Groger said that until he sees what the money would be used for, he sees no need for additional taxes for Golden Valley. Chair Pentel noted that she respects Groger's views but applauds the cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley for working together to form some kind of logistical arrangement to try to work together. She believes that both cities can benefit from working with one another when it comes to looking at the I-394 corridor. McAleese said that he's not sure what kind of language change he would like to see in the ordinance regarding the taxation of businesses. He said he was interested in knowing how the assessed money would be divvied up. Grimes suggested that the Commission table this item until staff can talk with the City Attorney regarding the language in the ordinance. McAleese said that the City has the power to tax and was not sure what the ordinance was attempting to achieve. He said that he would have to vote against it unless it was tabled because of the language in the ordinance. Grimes told the commission the amended ordinance would put property owners on alert that traffic management plans would be required and if that wasn't enough something else would be required. Commissioner Martens said that he wonders why public improvements are noted in the ordinance when there are assessments and public hearings that already exist. He asked if this is giving cities more rights or power by adding it in the ordinance. Grimes commented that there are no more rights but the joint task force wanted to put people on notice which suggests that something in the future could happen whereby traffic management plans may not be enough. Commissioner Kapsner asked Grimes if a decision was not made tonight would it create a problem. Grimes said that St. Louis Park would like to know that we are discussing this item and delaying it shouldn't be a problem. Kapsner talked about when the ordinance was first talked about in 1989, saying that many cities were concerned about tremendous development in the I-394 corridor. He said, if he remembered correctly, the task force was created to handle problems which could surface, but this has never happened. Kapsner now believes that the joint task force has become its own monster, saying let's make some money by taxing this district, which in turn creates another tax, which is being created because we have created a joint task force. He believes existing businesses do benefit from such things as bus shelters, but that staggered hours really don't work, so its a matter of off-street parking or being bused to an area. ~~` ~; Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 1997 Page 5 Grimes agreed to what Kapsner said noting that the market itself has made some of the decisions about development. He added that some development is not of the high density that was thought would go in, i.e. hotels which don't create peak traffic. Kapsner suggested that the item be tabled and a vote taken at a future meeting. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese to table this item to a future meeting. McAleese requested to amend the motion to include that the item be tabled until staff can resolve the issues as discussed. Grimes said that he would talk with St. Louis Park about the language noting that they may want to keep the language as is. Martens said that he doesn't see the necessity for the amended language and that the commission shouldn't presume that this would automatically happen as an additional tax. He noted that the City has the special assessment process available, if appropriate. Groger said that the money raised would be under the joint task force. The commission voted unanimously to table this item to a future meeting. III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals Commissioner Groger reviewed the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting he attended. Director Grimes told the commission that Hidden Lakes PUD permit and other items would be on the December 16 City Council meeting. IV. Other Business A. Continued Workshop Session on Technical Background for the Land Use Plan Chair Pentel suggested a task force get together and look at a rewriting of the Land Use Plan. Groger agreed that it would be easier than all seven members of the commission trying to go through it. He asked if any other members were interested. Grimes commented that he has no objection to the formation of a subcommittee going through the plan and it would then be words coming from the commission. McAleese asked if there was a time table for completion of this. Grimes said the entire Comprehensive Plan has to be completed by late spring, 1998. He said some sections would need to have an extension. Groger asked Grimes at what point would the land use plan map be reviewed, noting that the decisions made about the map may help in what is needed in the plan. Grimes said that it would be beneficial to have the whole body meet to discuss the land use plan map. Pentel commented that even without the map, the text can be in place because it speaks for itself. -y: ~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 1997 Page 6 Martens questioned whether there should be a separation of the comp plan changes and zoning changes and would like some input on this. Grimes commented that there is concern how the comp map and zoning map have been looked at as the same. He said the plan map should be something that is looked at "out in the future" and these two maps won't always agree. Grimes commented that staff has not been looking at the plan that much and that there hasn't been any drastic changes in the past years. Martens said that there were three or four items in the draft comp plan which should be brought out and suggested that the proposed small group could define these items and bring them back to the commission. Pentel asked if anyone else wished to be on this subcommittee and requested that all comments and concerns be submitted no later than December 1 to the Planning Department. McAleese agreed to be on the subcommittee with Pentel and Martens Groger commented on a section of the land use policies concerning the Hwy. 100 project which is something that he is generally in favor of but he questioned deferring consideration of all proposed land use plan amendments for individual properties along Hwy. 100 until after highway construction is complete. Martens asked how this is done when land is ready to be developed. McAleese commented by moratorium. Grimes noted that this would be only for properties that needed amendments to the land use plan. B. Reschedule December 22, 1997 meeting to December 15, 1997 After discussion of dates available, the commission decided to meet on its regular scheduled date of December 22, 1997, if a meeting was required. Pentel asked if there was any other business. V. Adjournment Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8:10pm. ~, ilie .~hnson, Secretary 1