Loading...
07-09-01 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2001 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, July 9, 2001. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Hoffman, McAleese and Rasmussen. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Shaffer was absent. I. Approval of Minutes - June 25, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting Eck stated that the first page, last paragraph, first sentence should read "west" rather than east. MOVED by Eck, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the June 25, 2001 minutes with the above correction. II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Zoning Voting Requirements Applicant: City of Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The Ordinance revision would change (reduce) the voting requirement for certain rezoning related matters from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority of all members of the City Council Grimes referred to his memo dated July 2,2001 and stated that this request from Staff would amend Chapter 11 (Zoning) of the City Code to change the voting requirement for certain zoning related matters from a two-thirds majority vote to a simple majority vote of all members of the City Council. He stated that effective May 30, 2001 the Minnesota Legislature amended the statutory voting requirement for rezoning matters be reducing it from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority of all members of the council. He stated that the City Attorney has recommended that there should be changes made in Golden Valley's ordinance that would bring us in line with the majority vote for rezoning matters, amendments to the Zoning Code, PUD's and Conditional Use Permits, which are passed by ordinances. He stated the City Attorney has been in contact with the League of Minnesota Cities and it is their opinion that the change from a two-thirds vote to a simple majority vote is something they are suggesting cities should do. Grimes stated that the legislation does say that any zoning amendment that would change the zoning from a residential district to a commercial or industrial district would still require a two-thirds vote of the City Council. He also stated thatthis legislation Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 2 change does not include changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map and that any changes to that plan would still require a two-thirds majority vote by Council. Rasmussen asked if this recommended change would also affect the Planning Commissioners votes. Grimes stated that it would not because they only make recommendations to the Council and that Planning Commission votes are a simple majority of the established quorum. Hoffman asked what the motive is for Golden Valley and other Cities to make this change and stated that it seems to be optional. Grimes stated that it is the City Attorney's position that even though the language from the legislation says, "may" it is his opinion that that really is in effect meant to mean shall. He stated that as far as the motivation behind cities making this change, he's heard that it's been getting difficult to approve certain affordable housing developments with the super majority vote. He stated that certain cities weren't approving certain types of developments even though the majority of the council was in favor of them. Groger asked about the nature of Grimes discussions with the League of Minnesota Cities and with other cities and asked if the discussions were specifically regarding PUD ordinances or other rezoning matters. Grimes stated he specifically asked them how they were handling the changes based on the new state statute. Pentel asked Grimes if he has talked to any adjoining cities. He stated he doesn't know what other cities are doing but that the City Attorney has researched this and has talked to staff at the League of Minnesota Cities and other city attorneys. Eck stated he is concerned about this change in voting requirements taking away the rights of one of the City Council members. McAleese asked if this change would have to be approved by the old (two-thirds) vote. Grimes stated that this would require a majority vote of the Council because it's not a zoning district change and stated that the City requires four votes when it is a change to the zoning district, a CUP or a PUD. McAleese stated that doesn't make sense to him and that a fundamental change is being made to the way the zoning code operates and it seems to him the existing rules should be followed. Grimes read from the zoning code where it states that Golden Valley only requires a two-thirds vote when it affects a boundary change. Eck asked if the City Attorney is saying that in all likelihood, if Golden Valley retains the two-thirds majority voting requirement, a court test of that would not be upheld. Grimes stated that the City Attorney, the League of Minnesota Cites and other city attorneys are all saying it wouldn't withstand a court challenge by a developer. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9,2001 Page 3 Hugh Maynard, 1420 Spring Valley Road, referred to his letter addressed to the City Council and Planning Commission dated July 5, 2001 (received by Planning Commission members and Staff members on July 9) and stated there are provisions of state law that say city councils shall adopt ordinances by a simple majority vote unless otherwise specifically provided. He stated the change says, "may" but if the other parts of the statute are read all together it is a "shall" situation. He stated he disagreed with Grimes and stated that any change in the zoning ordinance requires a two-thirds vote. He stated Golden Valley's PUD's ordinance states that the City is issuing PUD permits and nowhere in the PUD ordinance does it state that the zoning ordinance is being amended and in fact, it states adopting a PUD does not change the underlying zoning. He stated a permit is issued under a zoning ordinance and in itself, is not an amendment to the zoning ordinance so therefore, it's not necessary to change the PUD rules. He stated that it is up to the Council whether they should have a rule that says the same thing should apply to conditional use permits and PUD permits. He stated he doesn't think it's wise public policy to change the voting requirements to a simple majority regarding conditional use permits and PUD permits because PUD permits amount to throwing out the whole zoning code. He stated he thinks it should be harder to get a PUD permit because there are no standards or rules to follow. He discussed PUD developments in Golden Valley and stated anything goes with PUD's and there are no rules for variance requests considered in PUD's. He stated that for that reason he feels Golden Valley needs the heightened procedural safeguard that is the two- thirds vote. Eck asked Maynard if he disagreed with the City Attorney's memo in regards to it standing up in court against a developer. Maynard stated that he does disagree with the City Attorney and stated that there can be different standards of voting for conditional use permits and PUD permits compared to the standard of voting for amending the zoning ordinance. Groger asked Maynard if he is aware of what other cities are doing in regards to their PUD ordinances. Maynard stated he didn't poll any other cities regarding the proposed voting change. Linda Loomis, 6677 Olson Memorial Highway, stated she doesn't think it is good public policy to make this voting change. She stated it is her understanding that this legislation was bullied through the legislature by developers under the banner of protecting affordable housing and what it's done is given the developers another tool to use against citizens. She stated it is the law and rule of deep pockets again because of the potential threat of a lawsuit by a developer. She stated that individual citizens don't have time to pay attention to what is going on in their city until the bulldozers are next door. She recommended against changing the voting requirements until the City is forced to by an actual lawsuit. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 4 Hugh Maynard, 1420 Spring Valley Road, stated that a lobbyist from his firm told him that this legislation had other issues in it that made affordable housing easier. He stated that the law is not limited to affordable housing projects and that the person that authored the bill was focused entirely on affordable housing and didn't know what he was doing or the ripple affect it would cause in the rest of the types of developments. He stated that the City Attorney does the City a disservice when in the absence of a genuine threat by a real developer he raises the possibility of a lawsuit as a reason to pass an ordinance that doesn't have any good justification. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel stated she is bothered by this proposal and she doesn't read "may" as shall in this legislation and stated that moving to a simple majority vote would have a ripple affect other than just on affordable housing. She stated it squelches the ability of Council members to have opposition to developments that they believe are not in the best interest of the City. She stated she is troubled by this change and by being pushed forward on this, knowing there is a development that is waiting for this change to happen. She stated she is interested in knowing how quickly adjoining cities are pushing this change forward and stated she would like some information from some nonpartisan groups on what Golden Valley should be doing. Rasmussen stated that most PUD's in Golden Valley are infill developments and those are things that neighbors feel strongly about and to decrease the number of votes that are necessary for a PUD in a neighborhood development would be a disservice for those people and does not sound like good public policy for Golden Valley. Pentel stated she doesn't think that Golden Valley necessarily has the same issues with affordable housing that other cities have. McAleese stated that in changing the voting requirement there are two separate issues. One is the zoning code generally and the other is the PUD, which is a massive conditional use permit. McAleese stated that if he understood Mr. Maynard's comments, the City doesn't have much choice when it comes to the zoning code generally because the "may" actually does mean shall because of some of the other things in the state statute. He stated it would help when the City Attorney says something has to be done, if he would explain why it has to be done. He stated Mr. Maynard's comments regarding the PUD and Conditional Use permit made sense to him and he would like the City Attorney to review Mr. Maynard's comments before going forward with a recommendation to the Council. Grimes stated that Golden Valley has been treating PUD's like ordinances and the City Attorney's opinion is that if the City changed the ordinance twenty years ago to a two- thirds voting requirement, it should be consistent and change it to a majority voting requirement now. McAleese stated that now there is another point of view that seems to make a lot of sense and he would like to get the City Attorney's response before Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 5 going forward, particularly because the City is in the process of changing the entire PUD ordinance. Groger asked if there is a time frame in the statute and if it has to be approved right now. Grimes stated that it can be delayed but several cities have already changed their ordinances and the City Attorney thinks it's in the City's best interest to change the voting requirements before we're in a situation where we may end up in a lawsuit. Groger stated the timing is bad with the Hidden Lakes project pending and it's difficult to discuss the proposed change to the voting requirements without thinking of the impacts of the change on that specific proposal. He stated he has concerns about making the approval of PUD's even easier. He stated that his preference would be to table the item until there is more information presented. Grimes stated the Planning Commission could table the item and stated he would ask the City Attorney for more information. Groger asked if the City Council needs a vote from the Planning Commission in order to proceed or if the Council can just go ahead with this proposed voting change without delaying it. Grimes stated the Council would like a recommendation from the Planning Commission and that they are going to have to decide on this issue one way or another and it doesn't matter what issues are before them. He stated that Hidden Lakes or any other housing development could just delay their projects until the Council makes their decision. Groger asked staff to find out what adjoining cities plans are for changing their voting requirements, specifically for PUD's. MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to table the request for an amendment to the zoning voting requirements. III. Informal Public Hearing - KQRS Rezoning Applicant: KQRS, Inc.lABC Inc. Address: Lot 1, Block 1, KQRS 2nd Addition (917 North Lilac Drive), Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting to rezone the eastern portion of the property from Radio and Television zoning district to Business and Professional Offices zoning district Grimes referred to his staff report and stated that on May 12, 2001 the Planning Commission reviewed the PUD for the KQRS property to split the property into two lots. He stated that the west half will be for radio towers and the east half will be an office building. He stated that the east half of the property now needs to be rezoned to Business and Professional Office because it is currently zoned Radio and Television. He showed the Zoning Map and the General Land Use Map and stated that staff feels it Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 6 would be more appropriately zoned as Business and Professional Offices rather than Industrial because it's adjacent to residential properties. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Carol Evans, 5527 Lindsay Street stated that she agreed with Grimes and would like to see the property stay a professional office building and not an industrial area. MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the request to rezone the eastern portion of the property from Radio and Television zoning district to Business and Professional Offices zoning district. -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings There were no reports from other meetings discussed. Commissioner Hoffman left the meeting. V. Other Business A. Strategic Planning Session on Telecommunications Ordinance - Bill Thibault, Thibault Associates, Members of City's Open Space and Recreation Commission, and Garrett Lysiak from Owl Engineering. The Planning Commission moved to the Council Conference Room and met with the following members of the City's Open Space and Recreation Commission: Jim Johnson, Linda Loomis, Roger McConico, Lance Ness, Jerry Sandler, and Tom Zins. Also present were Director of Parks and Recreation Rick Jacobson, Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, Director of Public Works Jeannine Clancy, and City Planner Dan Olson Bill Thibault, Thibault Associates stated that the City of Golden Valley asked him to conduct a study of telecommunication towers and antennas to serve as the foundation for a new ordinance. He asked the group to brainstorm about what they like about the telecommunication facilities in Golden Valley. The following list is a result of that effort. . Don't have to go through the CUP process for obvious locations like the Industrial Zoning District . Reliable access to the phones, reliable communications . Provides a source of revenue for the City . There is more than one carrier on one tower (co-location) . The safety and emergency service they provide . The unobtrusive locations that they are in now Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 7 . There is only a few of them - that's good . Enhances communications systems, broadens communications options . Good use of public land . Provides income to land owners . Antennas that are disguised and integrated with buildings . Good reception . Height limits . People use cell phones as their only phone, as an alternative to a conventional phone . Improves individual efficiency and productivity . Provides a spread of new technology . More than one use for towers . Not allowed in residential areas . Short towers that are screened from residential areas and like them in industrial areas . Enhances public safety, every phone can be located in cars . Use MnDOT property for towers Thibault then asked the group to rank the above list. Safety, reliable towers and unobtrusive locations were the top three. Thibault then had the group brainstorm about their dislikes regarding telecommunications towers. The following list is a result of that effort: . Towers are ugly and a blight on the landscape . Interference with reception . The water tower is not being used . Causes conflict in dealing with neighbors . Big Brother aspect of no privacy . Quantity - growing number of towers - too many towers . Not educated enough about the towers, not enough information . Not convinced they are totally safe - safety concerns, health risks . Lack of standardization of technology . Annoyance in restaurants - interrupt social functions . Lack of coordination among carriers . Some companies are difficult to work with . Lack of clear city standards for Planning Commission . At the mercy of providers - conflicting information from providers . No CUP requirements for obvious locations . Inadequate coverage in Golden Valley . Height - proportionality . Cost to the City . The variety of the types of towers . Vehicle distraction . Distance between the towers is too close Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 8 . Environmental concerns/impacts . The advantage institutions get when surrounded by residential ex: Historical Society . No attempt to blend in to existing environment . Putting poles in wetlands . Not allowed in obvious areas ex: clinics, apartments . Too many colors . Lack of security around them . Lack of understanding for the need for other features such as creating a new road for service and maintenance needs . Location in natural areas . Can't be buried, must be above ground . Adjacent properties don't receive any income . Planning for post-technology removal of towers Thibault then asked the group to rank the list above and to brainstorm about the goals of the new ordinance. The following list is a result of that effort: . The City should provide effective service with the least amount of adverse impact . Control of location and design . Start with a clear purpose . Control/limit towers per certain areas . Include remedies for problems, or mechanisms to deal with problems . Require co-location and limit proliferation . Specified maintenance scheduling . Determine long term needs the City has for digital technology . Keep it simple enough for public and provider to understand . Prohibit advertising . Protect residents health . Better and more complete information provided by the applicant . Costs paid by providers . The application should be reviewed by a neutral third party, a technical expert . Define permitted tower uses where towers are permitted . Provision for abandonment of towers . Look at providing coverage for the entire City, no holes in coverage . Regulate the size and location of satellite dishes and antennas . Deal with the security issues . Provide for locating on existing buildings or structures . Prohibit in parks . Setback requirements . Regulate in the event of excess towers, transfer them to other owners for other uses . Current needs versus future needs - Are we investing too much now and the technology will be obsolete . Regulate lighting . Make provider prove that they need it Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Page 9 . Some kind of permit procedure or agreement with a bond . Require standardized information . Landscaping requirements . Require that providers show that existing towers can not be used and define a procedure if they can't build it, but need it Thibault stated he would take the ideas from the group and write a purpose clause and provide a full tabulation within two weeks and based on this information he will take direction from the City regarding the drafting of the ordinance. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 pm.