Loading...
03-22-99 PC Minutes 258 Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 I 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, March 22, 1999. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:05 p.m. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Kapsner, Martens, McAleese and Shaffer; absent was Johnson. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, and Tammi Hall, Recording Secretary. Lester Eck and Jay Hoffman were also in attendance. Chair Pentel reviewed the schedule for the evening. She suggested the Land Use Plan Map Workshop be moved to the last item on the agenda. I. Approval of Minutes - March 15. 1999 Commission members had received only the portion of the minutes containing the Capital Improvement Plan. It was decided that approval of the March 15 minutes would be considered when they are complete. II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals I There were no reports. III. Other Business Draft Ordinances.. Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control and Tree Preservation City Environmental Technician, AI Lundstrom, was present for review of the draft ordinances. There was some general discussion in regard to the draft ordinances to be reviewed. Chair Pentel asked about the procedure for introduction and implementation of new City ordinances. Lundstrom indicated that the draft ordinances to be reviewed by the Commission were recommended to the City Council by the SWAMP Committee. The City Council then requested staff begin working on the ordinances. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, added that proposed ordinances can come to the City Council from a variety of sources. Lundstrom indicated that, after discussion with City staff and with other cities, it was decided the draft ordinances should be added to I Chapter Four of the City Code. He stated that this portion of the code is administered by the Inspections and Engineering Departments. He indicated that the Planning I I I ^/c:o te,l u iJ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 2 Commission would not be required to hold an informal public hearing for the draft ordinances, since they will not be part of the Zoning Code. Grimes stated that there will be a formal public hearing on the draft ordinances at the City Council level. Commissioner Shaffer asked about the procedure for obtaining a variance from the ordinance. Lundstrom responded that there is no process for obtaining a variance. Knoblauch stated that there is a provision within the City Code for individuals to go directly to the City Council if they have a problem with an administrative decision. Lundstrom stated that staff obtained information on similar ordinances from several metro area communities. He indicated that the draft erosion control ordinance is based largely on the Maple Grove ordinance and the draft tree preservation ordinance on the Eagan ordinance. Commissioner McAleese expressed concern with the lack of an administrative process for appeal. Knoblauch, City Planner, indicated that it has been suggested that the City may want to re-establish the Environmental Commission, which could become a review body for these ordinances. Draft Ordinance - Tree Preservation Lundstrom stated that the tree preservation ordinance impacts only new construction and that existing homes do not fall under the scope of the ordinance. Lundstrom explained how the ordinance will be applied. Commissioner Kapsner asked if trees that are removed can be replaced. Lundstrom responded that a certain percentage of removals are allowed before replacement is required. Commissioner Martens expressed concern that, under the ordinance, it would be impossible to develop a site that is heavily wooded. Lundstrom responded that the goal of the ordinance is to ensure that tree preservation is considered before development occurs so that proper planning can be done to minimize the number of trees lost. Knoblauch added that the ordinance would not prevent a site from being developed but it would increase the cost. McAleese asked if statistics are available on the number of trees presently in the city compared to prior years. Lundstrom responded that the ordinance is not designed to protect the City's native environment, but to protect its current environment. McAleese asked how much impact this ordinance will have considering that Golden Valley is a fully developed community. Commissioner Groger stated that there is incentive to preserve trees because they increase the market value of property. Lundstrom responded that one of the problems with implementation of the ordinance is that everyone has a different idea of the value of a tree or block of trees. Lundstrom 2," (.... . t;,.J Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 3 I stated that he currently reviews all landscape plans that are submitted to the Building Board of Review (BBR) and makes recommendations in terms of tree removal and replacement. Pentel stated that the ordinance would formalize this process by making it a part of the code. McAleese stated that he would favor an approach that was more cooperative. He added that developers generally do not find it in their best interests to clear-cut a lot. Kapsner stated that he was in favor of the tree preservation ordinance. He added that the ordinance simply elevates the value of trees to equal the value of wetlands, which are also protected by ordinance. Kapsner indicated he felt the ordinance shows foresight on the part of the City and that it will be important as land becomes more valuable. Lundstrom stated that the majority of the west metro communities have tree preservation ordinances. Martens stated that he felt most of this could be addressed in the existing landscape review process. He indicated the current review process provides more opportunity to address the individual situation of each property. He expressed concern that this ordinance gives tremendous power to the City staff responsible for its implementation. Pentel stated that the ordinance does accommodate individual properties because a formula is applied based on the number of trees present. McAleese stated that the I ordinance would not prevent a developer from clear cutting a lot if they were willing to pay the extra cost required for lost trees. He stated that appears to be no historical basis for implementing a tree preservation ordinance since the number of trees in the City has been increasing rather than decreasing. He stated that it seemed the best reason for having the ordinance is that other west metro communities have them and he did not believe this was sufficient reason. Lundstrom responded that the thought behind the ordinance is recognizing that the City currently has a limited number of trees and that we want to preserve them. Pentel stated that the City has lost trees to development and that they will continue to be lost if we do not require their preservation. Martens stated that trees can be preserved without going to the extreme of the draft ordinance. Kapsner commented that currently the City looks at development plans and their impact on trees through the BBR process. He stated that the ordinance will formalize this process. Groger stated that he felt the concept was excellent, but that the draft ordinance is too rigid and will not be understood by the average citizen. Lundstrom responded that City staff obtained input from other cities on what has been successful in implementation of the ordinance. He indicated that the City of Eagan said that developers did not have a problem with the ordinance. Martens asked if the Planning Commission could review a project in terms of tree preservation. Grimes responded that most projects do not come before the Planning Commission. Knoblauch added that communities that review all projects have established a design/review board for this purpose. Lundstrom stated that currently erosion control I plans are reviewed by the City Engineering Department and landscape plans are reviewed by the Building Board of Review. He stated that he reviews both erosion I I I 261 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 4 control and landscape plans when they are submitted to Engineering and the BBR. He indicated the plans are reviewed in terms of tree preservation and recommendations are made for changes as needed. He added that building permits are not issued until the plans are approved. Pentel asked Lundstrom if he felt the ordinance would be beneficial to him in administering this process. Lundstrom responded that the process of forwarding erosion control and landscape plans to him for review has only been in place for the past three to six months. Kapsner stated that the current procedure would allow the Environmental Technician to block a building permit and the ordinance simply provides a formal, written document that explains the requirement and the procedure. Pentel stated that the City Council believes in this process enough that they want to formalize it in the form of an ordinance. McAleese stated that the wording of the draft ordinance indicates it would apply to single family homes. Lundstrom responded that the scope of the draft ordinance is new construction or an expansion of the footprint of commercial or industrial buildings. He stated that the City Attorney is reviewing the document with the goal of ensuring that the ordinance does not cover single family homes. There was brief discussion regarding the wording of the document. Lundstrom indicated that the wording would be changed to ensure that it does not apply to the construction of new accessory structures. Shaffer commented that the community of Eagan, which the ordinance was drawn from, has more undeveloped land than Golden Valley. Lundstrom responded that the ordinance would be more problematic in Eagan than it would be in Golden Valley because Eagan has more heavily wooded areas that have yet to be developed. He stated that Golden Valley does not have any heavily wooded areas left to develop and that these areas would be the most challenging under the ordinance. Grimes stated that, outside of Hidden Lakes, the City generally has only three to five new single family homes built per year. Knoblauch suggested that Lundstrom should review the Medley Hills development to determine if the outcome would have been any different if the tree preservation ordinance had been in place. McAleese stated that the ordinance excludes existing single family residential, which is approximately 70% of the land in Golden Valley. He stated that most of the remaining 30% is developed. He asked how much land will be affected by the ordinance. Pentel responded that there are several large parcels of land that would be affected. Groger stated that it is beneficial to protect trees if possible, but that it should be balanced with the desire to obtain the best use for the property. He added that this ordinance seems so specific and detailed that it may not take into account the overall best use for the property. There was further discussion regarding whether or not there is a need for a tree preservation ordinance. Lundstrom stated that the ordinance is not being proposed to 262; Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 5 I address a problem, but rather to show that the City recognizes the value of existing trees and wishes to preserve this value. Kapsner stated that, based on the discussion, he concluded there were four possible recommendations the Commission could make to the City Council regarding the tree preservation ordinance. He reviewed the four alternatives and Commission members present voted for their preference. 1 . The Commission does not support the concept of the tree preservation ordinance and recommends it be abandoned. There were no votes for this recommendation. 2. The Commission recommends adoption of the tree preservation ordinance with minor changes. There was one vote for this recommendation. 3. The Commission recommends adoption of the tree preservation ordinance with the additional recommendation that the percentages of trees preserved I be lowered. There were no votes for this recommendation. 4. The Commission recommends that the City adopt the tree preservation ordinance as guidelines rather than as an ordinance and that the City look for ways to strengthen the existing policies (minimum landscape standards). The Planning Commission would like the opportunity to review these revised policies before they are finalized. . There were four votes for this recommendation. Based on the votes, the Commission will recommend to the City Council that the Draft Tree PreserVation Ordinance be adopted in the form of guidelines rather than an ordinance and that City staff use the requirements of the proposed ordinance to strengthen the existing policy framework contained in the minimum landscape standards. The Planning Commission requests the opportunity to review the revised policies before they are finalized. Draft Ordinance ~ Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control I Lundstrom reviewed the draft ordinance for grading, drainage and erosion control. He stated that the City currently has an erosion control ordinance which is based on best I I I ," 0} :,d Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 6 management practices. He indicated that the SWAMP Committee had recommended that the ordinance apply to any land disturbance of 300 square feet or more. He stated that City staff felt the ordinance should apply to a minimum land disturbance of 10,000 square feet or activity that requires a building permit. Groger asked why it was necessary for the City to have an ordinance when there are already federal and state laws in place addressing this issue. Lundstrom responded that the state requires the City to create an ordinance that, at minimum, requires the use of best management practices. Knoblauch added that the law is implemented and enforced by the City so it is necessary to have the ordinance as part of the City code. Lundstrom stated that there have been numerous problems with erosion control in single family home development. Grimes added that, since the City is essentially fully developed, much of the present development is occurring on marginal land and, consequently, it is important for the City to ensure that erosion will be properly controlled. Kapsner asked about residential driveway replacement. Lundstrom stated that this would be covered under the ordinance because most residential driveways go through the City's right-of-way. Martens stated that under the ordinance you would need to submit a security deposit if you obtain a permit for paving your driveway. Pentel added that it does not seem necessary to require an erosion control plan for paving your driveway. Martens suggested that driveways be excluded from the requirements of the ordinance. Shaffer asked about the timing for release of the security deposit. He indicated that the erosion control ordinance releases the deposit after one year, while the tree preservation ordinance holds the deposit for two years. Lundstrom responded that two years is required with the tree preservation ordinance because this length of time is necessary to ensure that replacement trees are successfully established. He added that the two years also coincides with the minimum landscape standards warranty. Groger questioned if it is reasonable to require that property owners "prohibit" dust and dirt from leaving a construction site. Lundstrom responded that the wording can be changed to indicate that property owners will make a "reasonable attempt" to keep dirt confined to the construction site. Martens stated that he felt that it was unreasonable to allow 60 days for the City to respond. He indicated he felt it should be a maximum of 30 days. Lundstrom responded that the building department requires 5 to 10 days to review plans and 60 days for formal approval of plans. He indicated he would have concerns with reducing the time since the process may be affected by the length of time required to review plans in the building department. He indicated he would be comfortable changing the Z06..;< tt-F"?,", - -' 'Or., Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 7 I wording to indicate that plans would be reviewed in a timely manner not to exceed 60 days. McAleese expressed concern that the ordinance would require an erosion control plan for any activity that requires a building permit. He indicated he was required to obtain a permit for installation of a bow window in his home. Since that activity caused no land disturbance he felt it should not be necessary to submit an erosion control plan. Lundstrom responded that the City would not require submission of an erosion control plan for building permits that involved no land disturbance. He added that staff is recommending development of an educational brochure which could be distributed to residents who are not affected by the requirements of the ordinance but are undertaking a project that involves land disturbance. Grimes stated that the wording of the ordinance could be changed to include building permits that involve significant disturbance of the land. McAleese expressed concern with clarity of some of the language in the ordinance. Lundstrom responded that the ordinance is currently being reviewed by the City Attorney. McAleese also expressed concern that the City would have the authority to stop I construction on a project if there is a problem with the erosion control. He stated he felt a speedy appeals process should be in place if the City has the authority to stop construction. Martens stated that he would be in support of this ordinance because it extends to single family home development, which is an area that is not covered in the current ordinance and has been the source of some erosion control problems. Martens asked if the ordinance would apply to the installation of lawn irrigation systems. Lundstrom responded that it would apply only if the installation was occurring in the City right-of-way. Pentel stated that she felt this ordinance could be recommended for approval to the City Council with the changes in language discussed. Kapsner asked if the ordinance could address the scope in terms of the amount of land disturbance. Lundstrom responded that some communities have a requirement of 50 cubic yards of land disturbance. He added that the SWAMP Committee felt that a minimum land disturbance requirement would not adequately address all situations. The Commission concluded they were in agreement with the ordinance subject to the revisions discussed. They indicated they would like to review the ordinance a final time I after the proposed revisions are made. Lundstrom responded that the ordinance is scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council at their meeting on April 20th, which I I I 'Ire:: 4.JOu Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 8 would not allow time for the Commission to review the revisions before it is forwarded to the Council. The Commission agreed that the ordinance will proceed to the City Council with the revisions as discussed. Workshop on the Land Use Plan Map Knoblauch reviewed the four categories of proposed changes on the land use plan map: A. Changes that have actually been approved B. Map errors C. Changes due to the revision of the institutional categories D. Changes due to existing land use or projected changes in the land use The Planning Commission had no questions or comments regarding the first three categories, so staff went directly to review of properties in the final category. Knoblauch indicated that the Brookview Condominiums is currently designated Office and Professional. She indicated that the recently approved housing plan recommends consideration of designating it as medium density residential. She stated that there are serious concerns regarding access in this location for an Office/Professional use. She added that the condominiums provide good affordable housing. The Commission agreed that should be designated as medium density residential. Much of the Valley Square is currently designated only as a "study area". Knoblauch referred to Valley Square Area 0 and indicated the zoning and the existing use match and no change is being proposed. She stated that the block to the north contains one lot that is a single family home that is proposed to change to office use. She stated that no change is being proposed to the Calvary complex or the City Hall block, since the zoning and existing use match. Knoblauch stated that staff are proposing the entire Area C be changed to commercial. The post office property is one potential exception, since it combines uses that might individually fall into several categories. Groger stated he would rather see the post office designated as public facility. He added that if the post office were to move there are some commercial uses, such as a fast food restaurant, that would not be appropriate for the site. The Commission agreed that the Post Office should be designated as a Public Facility. Knoblauch stated that Area B is currently zoned commercial. She indicated that the redeveiopment plan calls for mixed uses. She suggested that the entire area be left as commercial at this time and that once the redevelopment plan is finalized comprehensive land plan changes can be done if needed. She added that if the plans 266 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 9 I are finalized soon, the changes will be added to the comprehensive plan before it receives final approval. Knoblauch indicated that the bank and the clinic are both zoned commercial and are presently study areas. She stated that the long term best use for both parcels would be office, but indicated they could be designated commercial to match the zoning. The Commission agreed that both parcels should be designated commercial to match the zoning. Knoblauch stated that the far end of the Dave Trach shopping center site is zoned for office use. She recommended the designation be changed to commercial. Knoblauch referred to the vacant lot at the corner of Golden Valley Road and Boone Avenue. She indicated that it may be impossible to develop this property in a cost- effective way. She recommended no change to the current designation of light industrial. Knoblauch then reviewed proposed changes in the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area, part of which is also now designated only as a "study area", She stated that staff are proposing that the Turner's Crossroad parcels north of Glenwood Avenue be changed I from low density residential to schools. Pentel commented that she was concerned with changing this designation since the duplexes were donated by the owner to the Minneapolis Foundation who may wish to use them to provide affordable housing. Grimes stated that the City has a purchase agreement with the Minneapolis Foundation to purchase the property and that plans are underway to relocate the tenants. He added that all ofthe tenants will receive relocation benefits as required by the state. Knoblauch stated that the area just north of Laurel and west of the Xenia Avenue Extension is a mix of railroad right-of-way and medium density residential. She proposed it be redesignated as open space - public/private, since it will become a City pond site Knoblauch stated that the west area of Golden Hills is a "study area". She proposed retaining the existing zoning, which is industrial, for about 75% of the area. She proposed that the pond area be changed to open space - public/private. In regard to the Holiday Inn, Knoblauch indicated staff would recommend retaining the industrial designation, even though the use itself is more commercial in nature. Knoblauch stated that the printing company in the central area is currently zoned light industrial. She stated that, based on the redevelopment plan, it could retain its current I designation or be changed to an office or mixed-use designation. Knoblauch recommended no change since the options for the property are open at this point. I I I ? J..-.l Minutes ofthe Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 10 Martens stated that light industrial is not the best use for this property and suggested that the designation be changed to reflect the best use for the property since that is the purpose of the comprehensive plan. Pentel stated that it is important to balance existing industrial with commercial. It was decided to leave the designation as light industrial since the options are currently open. Knoblauch indicated that the site to the south of the printing company is split. She stated that the southern part is a study area and the northern part is light industrial and commercial. She indicated that all of the proposals for the site have been mixed use. She suggested, and the Commission agreed, that the site be designated commercial. In regard to the Colonnade site, Knoblauch proposed changing th~ comprehensive plan to a commercial designation to match the current zoning. Knoblauch then reviewed the site on the east side of Turners Crossroad. She stated that Golden Hills Shopping Center is a "study area" with mixed zoning of office and commercial. She indicated that there is limited access to the vacant land east of the shopping center and the best future use may be office or residential. She proposed that the entire site be designated commercial. Knoblauch also indicated that the Mayfair Apartments are a "study areaA. She proposed the entire site be designated as medium density residential to match the existing use. None of the North Wirth redevelopment area is designated as a "study area", but staff had some minor changes to propose. Knoblauch stated that part of the Animal Humane Society site is designated as office use and part as railroad right-of-way. The zoning is a mix of light industrial with no zoning for the railroad right-of-way area. Knoblauch indicated that the use of the property best fits an industrial designation which allows kennels. She suggested that the designation be changed to industrial or light industrial. The Commission agreed to change the designation to light industrial. Knoblauch reported that the North Wirth City pond lot is designated as industrial. She stated that the zoning was changed and recommended that the comprehensive plan be changed to open space - public/private to match the zoning and the existing use. Knoblauch stated that the Dahlberg site is now designated as office. She indicated that the zoning is light industrial and the actual use is mixed. She proposed the designation be changed to light industrial. She stated that the Grow Biz site is designated as industrial. She indicated that the use and zoning are light industrial and proposed that the designation be changed from industrial to light industrial. She proposed that the remaining development site also be designated as light industrial. Knoblauch indicated that the Shaper area and the White House property designations were approved in previous plan amendments. (,1 ~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 22, 1999 Page 11 I Knoblauch stated that the Valley Village apartment site is made up of two parcels. She indicated that the apartments are located on the western site and the eastern site is a mix of very steep and very wet areas. She stated that both parcels are designated high density residential. She indicated that it would be best to leave the sites designated as high density residential with the understanding that the pond site will not be developed. Grimes stated that the eastern site could not be developed because it would be impossible to meet the setback requirement from the pond. It was agreed to leave these parcels designated as high density residential. In regard to the 1-394 corridor on the north side, Knoblauch indicated that this area will be considered separately after the plan has been adopted. She proposed no change to the current industrial designation. She stated that the City Council has established a task force to address this area. Several properties around the City have been rezoned over the years without first amending the plan map. Knoblauch stated that staff would recommend changing the plan to match the zoning at this time. The commissioners agreed. There was brief discussion regarding changing the designation from high density I residential to commercial for the Super America property on the corner of Duluth Street and Douglas Drive. The Super America has been successful in this location. It was agreed the designation should be changed to commercial to match the existing use. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p. I