Loading...
05-21-01 Joint PC-CC Minutes Joint Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission and Golden Valley City Council May 21,2001 A joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, May 21,2001. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Mary Anderson at 7 pm. Those present were Mayor Anderson, Council Members Johnson, LeSuer, Micks, and Commissioners Eck, Pentel, McAleese, Groger, Rasmussen, Hoffman and Shaffer. Council Member Bakken was absent. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Dan Olson, City Planner, Allen Barnard, City Attorney and recording secretary Lisa Wittman. I. Discussion of Golden Valley Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) Ordinance- Section 11.55 of the City Code. Mayor Anderson asked City Attorney, Allen Barnard to give a brief history of the existing PUD Ordinance and then for the group to list potential changes and then try to list the pros and cons of the suggested changes. Barnard stated that a few years ago the question was raised whether or not Golden Valley had ever used its PUD Ordinance for housing projects. Barnard referred to the Land Use Plan from 1973 and how it referred to PUD's for residential use even then. He stated that in 1982, the Land Use Plan talked about how Golden Valley had .reached a fully developed stage with little land remaining for residential, commercial or industrial usage and again discussed the use of PUD's. He stated that at that time, Valley Square and Golden Hills were study areas. Barnard stated the Ordinance was originally approved in 1970 and was designed as if it were for large-scale developments in new developing communities. He stated that in 1982, the PUD Ordinance was substantially revised and the language in the Ordinance, and in the PUD Permit, was tightened up. He stated that at various times over the years the flexibility and scope of the Ordinance has increased. He stated that there is always a legal issue as to whether or not a PUD is really a zoning ordinance or not, or whether or not it's kind of an overlay, whether it's more like a conditional use permit or is more like establishing a real zone for an area. He stated that many city's PUD ordinances provide that it doesn't change the underlying zoning and for many years Golden Valley did not change its underlying zoning because of the language in the PUD Ordinance. He stated that for the last several years Golden Valley has changed the underlying zoning when necessary. Barnard stated that many of us have been critics of Golden Valley's use of the PUD and questioned when it's supposed to be used. He stated that the PUD Ordinance has provided the City with flexibility because zoning codes don't have any flexibility at all. He stated that in Golden Valley the PUD Ordinance started out as a tool to handle large developments, but it does give the City a tool, which provides flexibility to deal with new Minutes of the Joint Planning Commission and City Council May 21,2001 Page 2 development. He stated that for this reason, he doesn't have a lot of changes to the PUD Ordinance. Mayor Anderson stated that in the other city's PUD Ordinances that she's read, she's noticed there was always some accommodation for flexibility. LeSuer asked when the original laws were passed, was it developers, cities, or both that was behind them and if PUD's are a suburban tool. Barnard stated he didn't know that kind of history, but thought that both developers and cities were probably behind the laws and that PUD's are used both in cities and suburban areas for mixed-use and commercial development. Pentel stated that the PUD tool has been used equally used in cities and suburban areas in development and redevelopment. Rasmussen asked if economic pressure from developers is an underlying factor. She referred to the Hidden Lakes Development and asked if that had to be a PUD and why it couldn't just have been developed as single family homes without having to use the PUD Ordinance. Barnard said that development couldn't have been developed the way it was without a PUD. Pentel stated that there was already a PUD there because of the mixed use with the respiratory care facility and residential together. Rasmussen asked if the high price of land is driving the use of PUD's. Grimes stated that the overall density of Hidden Lakes is less than three units per acre, which is less than the normal single family zoning district and the PUD was used to protect the slopes and wetlands and to create ponding among other things. Eck referred to Subd 1, second sentence of the Golden Valley PUD Ordinance. He asked if the uses referred to in the ordinance are supposed to be part of every PUD. Barnard stated that the part of the ordinance that Eck referred to is a part of the purpose clause and is not enforceable. It is just a statement of what the overall purpose is. Eck referred to Subd. 2, the definition section, item two where it states that one of the ways a PUD can be used with developments is if there are two or more principal structures on a single parcel of land. He stated that it didn't seem to him that the purpose of the PUD Ordinance was to permit the development of large and expensive, single family homes on lots in a higher density configuration than what would otherwise be permitted under normal zoning. He gave the example of the Lions Park Development where the developer wanted to put more homes on that parcel than would be permitted under normal zoning. The Planning Commission said it would not be a proper use of the PUD Ordinance and he came back with a less dense configuration. He asked if in fact, the Commission and the Council agree that the intent and purpose of the PUD is not supposed to be used for the economic benefit of the developer. He asked if they could put some language in the Ordinance that would discourage developers from putting large homes on small parcels of land where the developer couldn't do it without a PUD. He asked what purpose it serves for the City to put these million dollar homes on parcels of land that would otherwise not be able to be developed with that large of a structure on it. Groger stated that sometimes it is appropriate to use a PUD in certain situations that are at odds with the zoning code and setbacks. He used the example of clustering the Minutes of the Joint Planning Commission and City Council May 21,2001 Page 3 homes in order to save some trees or gain some green space or a pond. He stated that on the Lions Park Development there was no other purpose than the economic benefit to the developer, but in other instances there are times where the City might want to have flexibility. Barnard stated that large and expensive homes aren't factors that are in the PUD Ordinance or in any laws. He stated that the current Land Use Plan presumes using residential PUD's and talks about clustering homes and using mixed types of housing, which Hidden Lakes does. Pentel referred to page 301 of the St. Louis Park PUD Ordinance where it states that an applicant for a PUD seeking modifications to the codes shall demonstrate how the proposal will enhance, support and further a set of listed objectives. Pentel stated she noticed in several of the ordinances that developers are required to have a packet that is much more complete at the Planning Commission stage than what Golden Valley requires. She referred to Brooklyn Center's and Eden Prairie's Ordinances and discussed what they require from applicants. Shaffer asked if there would be any way that applicants could come to the Planning Commission, prior to the 50-day rule being in effect, to show the Commission an idea of what they are thinking. Barnard stated that's what staff does. LeSuer stated he would also like to see the applicant's ideas in the beginning of the proposal. Pentel stated there is some danger in that because not all of the details are known in the beginning and that is like giving them the go ahead. She stated that it is better placed with the city staff to sort out ideas and details. Micks discussed the St. Louis Park Ordinance and stated she really liked it because it sets the tone for why a PUD is required. LeSuer referred to the Eden Prairie Ordinance and stated he liked the way it stated it was in harmony with the goals, purpose and intent with the City's comprehensive plan. Micks referred to page 297 in the St. Louis Park Ordinance where it states, no PUD shall be approved on property located in the single family residence district. Anderson stated she thinks that might be too limiting and stated that she has apprehension in setting up too many strict rules and guidelines which would then not enable the CitY to do something different and creative. Grimes stated that the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning district should be looked at before the PUD process and then the effect on the neighborhood would already be known. Barnard stated that right now the comprehensive plan and rezoning is changed at the General Plan Approval stage. Rasmussen stated she would like to see applicants show the scale of the project because it's hard for citizens to envision what the developments are going to look like. Micks asked if the City requires the applicant to do a traffic study. Grimes stated that he thought it should depend on the scale of the project. Minutes of the Joint Planning Commission and City Council May 21,2001 Page 4 LeSuer stated that he thinks the Planning Commission and Council have to be able to tell people, when they question changes in their neighborhood, why a proposal is a benefit to the City and that it's not just for a developers financial gain. Pentel stated that PUD's are about erasing the rules and trying a new way, however, she feels it is up to the applicant to justify how the erasing of the rules is going to be a benefit to the City. Grimes stated that developers, if they can, avoid doing a PUD and for the most part, try to do normal zoning. Pentel referred to page 2299 in the Maplewood Ordinance and stated it says there has to be written justification for any PUD deviations. Groger referred to page 2297 in the Maplewood Ordinance and stated he liked the purpose and intent. He stated he liked the idea of a more clear purpose for a PUD so it's not just open to anything and everything. Johnson stated that she noticed in a couple of the ordinances she read that they referred to aesthetics and that PUD's should be compatible with the design of the neighborhood. She stated she thinks it's important to put something in the Golden Valley Ordinance about aesthetics and design compatibility with neighboring houses. Grimes stated that there is no property that is zoned in Golden Valley where a developer could put town homes. He stated the City has forced developers to use PUD's and that there is no other method to use and nowhere to put them if we want town homes in Golden Valley. McAleese referred to Subd. 5 in the Golden Valley Ordinance where it talks about general standards and stated that one of the problems with providing flexibility is that the City says we can do PUD's in transitional areas. It doesn't say PUD's can be done everywhere. He stated the language needs to be updated. Eck asked why Subd. 5 doesn't address the issue of building homes or town homes and only refers to apartments. Barnard stated that that was probably the old language from the 1970's and should be updated. LeSuer stated he would like to see any kind of rewriting of the PUD ordinance involve a reeducation effort and stated that the benefits of what the City is getting needs to be clearer and that there is a perception that PUD's help the developer. Rasmussen stated that maybe the best way to educate the community would be to state why the City is approving the project and what the City is getting and to reiterate the positives. Olson stated that as part of the education process the City could require a neighborhood meeting in the ordinance. Grimes asked, "what does the City get?" mean. Pentel stated that if the City had a living comprehensive plan and a living vision for the City that it would be easier to cite in the proposals what the City is getting. Shaffer stated that citizens complain that the developer gets everything and the only thing that the City gets is tax dollars. He stated that if a developer is providing Minutes of the Joint Planning Commission and City Council May 21,2001 Page 5 something above and beyond just getting something for themselves, then it is a benefit to the City. Rasmussen asked how the Planning Commission, without making it a combative situation, could say to people at public hearings that these are the kinds of things the Commission would consider. Anderson stated that if they stuck to the land use issues as the ordinance says, that would help. Barnard stated the reason the Planning Commission looks at PUD's in the preliminary design stage only, is because the Planning Commission's job is to look at the land use element and not to have to worry about the other details. He stated if the public discussion was limited to just the land use, it would be a lot easier for them. Anderson suggested that the Planning Commission say right up front at public hearings what they are able to consider and recommend, however, comments can't be limited, they can be noted and passed on to the Council as recommendations, but the Commission is not responsible for responding to all the public comments. Pentel stated that in no other ordinances she looked at did she see Planning Commissioners hands being tied to looking only at the land use. She stated if the Planning Commission were to only look at land use they would be doing a disservice to the public hearing process. She stated she also noticed in other ordinances that before the proposal comes to the Planning Commission more information is given. She stated that often times issues are found at the Planning Commission stage that may not get the same hearing had they gotten to the Council stage. She stated that if the Commission only stuck to the land use issue people would get very frustrated because there would be no place to talk about other issues except at the Council meetings and if the Planning Commissioners hands are tied then it's a very perfunctory passing along of the status quo. McAleese agreed with Pentel and stated that in the ordinances he's read the trend was to increase the scope of the Planning Commission review. He referred to several other cities where the Planning Commission is more involved. Micks stated she would really like to go in the same direction as St. Louis Park's ordinance. Johnson stated that the concept of a PUD is not the same thing as regular zoning and that the public often times only testifies about all the variances in a proposal and doesn't look at the amenities to what the city is getting. Anderson asked staff to list the changes that have been discussed and suggested another meeting to list the pros and cons and to go over the proposed changes to the existing PUD Ordinance. Below is the list of the items that were discussed: . Findings required in Eden Prairie . Need for alternative housing, i.e. town homes Minutes of the Joint Planning Commission and City Council May 21, 2001 Page 6 . Applicant demonstrative of how they will meet city objectives (page 301 of St. Louis Park code) . Brooklyn Center (page 47), Eden Prairie page (11-42) both give more specific information for preliminary plan . Require pre-application discussion in front of Planning Commission meeting? . Tension between needing more criteria, but not limiting creativity/flexibility . Developers should show scale of the development . City of Maplewood (page 2299) justification of PUD . City of Maplewood (page 2298) purpose section . Aesthetic criteria so the proposal fits in neighborhood . PUD's only in "transitional areas" - revise language . Subd. 5 - "only apartments" - revise language The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm.