Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Draft 100906 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 9,2006 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the October 9,2006, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning Director Jane Kansier and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Billington Lemke Perez Ringstad Stamson Present Present Present Absent* Present *Commissioner Ringstad arrived shortly after roll call. 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the September 11, 2006, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None S. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. 06-17S Public Hearing to consider an Amendment to the Tree Preservation provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the planning report dated October 9,2006, on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department. On January 18, 2006, the City Council approved the formation of a Tree Preservation Task Force. The purpose of this task force was to look at the tree preservation requirements ofthe Zoning Ordinance and to recommend modifications to the ordinance that will better preserve the urban forest. On September 5, 2006, the City Council considered a report on the outcome of the Task Force's work. The Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI00906.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 9, 2006 The tree preservation requirements of the Zoning Ordinance were originally adopted by the City Council in January, 1996, in an effort to preserve our urban forest but to also recognize some tree removal is inevitable. Since then, there have been some minor revisions to the ordinance. On at least 2 occasions since 1996, the Planning Commission also asked staff to review these requirements, especially as they compared to other cities' requirements; no changes were made in these cases. As with any City Ordinance, the purpose ofthe tree preservation requirements is to enhance the health, safety and welfare ofthe general population ofthe City. At the same time, the ordinance must consider the property rights of property owners, including the right to develop land. Finally, we must review each ordinance in terms of the viability, effectiveness and cost of administering the requirements. There are three parts to the proposed ordinance: 1. An amendment to Section 1107.2100, replacing the existing tree preservation requirements. 2. An amendment to Section 1101.400 adding a definition of "Heritage Trees". 3. An amendment to Section 1106 adding a new "Flexible Development" process. The specific language of the proposed amendments is included within the draft ordinance. The one major issue about the proposed language is: What percentage of caliper inches may be removed, without replacement, for building pads, 30 or 35 percent? When the staff presented a report on the outcome of the Task Force meetings to both the Planning Commission and the City Council, there was no specific direction on what the percentage should be. The proposed ordinance suggests, as a compromise, 32.5 percent. The Planning Commission should specifically make a recommendation on this number. Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states recommendations of the Planning Commission and final determinations of the City Council shall be supported by findings addressing the relationship ofthe proposed amendment to the following policies: 1. There is a public need for the amendment. There is a public need for the amendment. The proposed amendment clarifies and strengthens the existing tree preservation ordinance. The amendment also provides incentives and different development options encouraging more tree preservation. 2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or policies of the City. Objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan include: . Provide for conservation and protection of the natural environment; . Provide adequate regulations to prevent the development or existence of any industrial or commercial endeavor which will, through its operation, create a hazard to the environment L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI00906.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting October 9, 2006 . Promote sound land use; and . Provide suitable passive open space for the preservation of the natural environment and the enjoyment of residents. Purposes of the Zoning Ordinance include: . Enhance the aesthetic character and appearance of the City. . Conserve natural resources and environmental assets of the community. One ofthe five-year goals of the Natural Environment element of the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan is: . Promote unique natural areas in the City and annexation areas by promoting environmentally sensitive development. The proposed amendment strives to accomplish these goals, objectives and policies by providing strengthening the existing ordinance, and by providing incentives and alternative methods for development which will encourage more tree preservation. 3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal requirements. This amendment is consistent with Federal and State laws. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan and the enabling legislation set forth in Minnesota Statutes. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommends approval. Comments from the Public: Victoria Ranau, 2041 140th Street, questioned the motive behind the ordinance. Was it to preserve heritage trees or preserve natural resources? If natural resources preservation is the goal, she disagreed it achieved the goal. It has a lot of esthetics elements to preserving the trees but tree preservation does not equal natural resource preservation. Ranau stated she is a botanist and explained dividing up a maple basswood forest, preserving a lot ofthe trees can still destroy the forest. In the natural resource inventory there is non-forest; wet meadows and prairies. The tree preservation policy does not just work with wetlands and prairies. How does this ordinance really work for high quality natural resources that are not treed? Kansier said main focus of the task force was the tree preservation element. The idea was to accomplish all of those things but at the same time recognize property rights. There are developers who have a certain right to develop the land. The first section is specifically to do with trees. The flexible provisions are intended to preserve the entire natural environment. In addition to this ordinance, there are many other natural environmental ordinances we need to follow - stormwater ponding, W ACA, the Wetland Conservation Act, etc. Staff is trying to utilize the entire ordinance and have quality developments and preserve as many elements as possible. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI00906.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting October 9, 2006 Ranua questioned why there were so many non-native trees allowed for replacement. Kansier explained the Park Maintenance Supervisor has extensive experience in tree planting and felt the trees on the list are the best trees to survive and grow well. We're trying to maintain a big enough variety that ifthere was some sort of blight (like Dutch Elm) we wouldn't lose everything. The public hearing was closed at 6:36 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . This is a win-win. The key word is "flexible". City Staff and a developer can sit down and discuss what is available without having the rigidity of something that preceded this. . Agree with the three criteria. There is a public need for the amendment. It is consistent with State and Federal laws and will accomplish one or more ofthe purposes ofthe ordinance. . Heard this presentation before and will whole heartedly support. . Support 32.5% caliper inches to be removed. Billington: . The key to any sort of program ofthis type is that it is orderly and flexible. . Like the approach - similar to the W ACA approach makes sense. It minimizes the impact and replaces unavoidable impacts. There is some room for dealing with many situations with reasonable parameters. . Go with 35% caliper inches. . Like the draft replacement requirements and heritage definition. . Support. Lemke: . Agree with all comments. Especially there is a public need for the ordinance amendment and what it will accomplish. . It is consistent with the State and Federal requirements. . It is not perfect however it's better than what we had. The flexibility in this will allow a much better development. We can't save all the trees but we'll do a better job than we did before. . Support. . Will go with 35%. Perez: . Agree with fellow Commissioners. The task force accomplished their goals. . There are incentives to work with this ordinance. . Agree this meets the amendment findings. . Like the 32.5% as a good compromise. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI00906.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting October 9, 2006 . This would work very well with the County Roads 18 and 42 concept. . Support. Stamson: . Agreed with Commissioners - it is a great improvement over the present ordinance. What is difficult with writing ordinances is having to write them in generalities. The great thing here is that it recognizes not every tree is the same. It creates a way to adapt a piece ofthe land we are reviewing. . Our lone testifier made some good points on saving natural features. The purpose of this is primarily to save trees but there are other natural features within a development. . The City saves larger tracts of natural features through other ordinances - bluff, Shore land, wetland, park, etc. . Support. . Go with 35% caliper inches. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF REPLACING 32.5% WITH 35% CALIPER INCHES. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go to the City Council on November 6, 2006. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. Vote for new Planning Commission Chair. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO NOMINATE VAUGHN LEMKE AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1, 2006. Vote taken indicated ayes by Billington, Ringstad, Perez and Lemke. Stamson abstained. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY PEREZ, NOMINATING DAN RINGSTAD AS VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Vote taken indicated ayes by Billington, Ringstad, Perez and Lemke. Stamson abstained. MOTION CARRIED. L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMlSSION\MINUTES\MNI00906.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting October 9, 2006 8. Announcements and Correspondence: The City Council will present Commissioner Stamson with a plaque for his dedication and years of service as a City Planning Commissioner on November 6. Reminder of the joint City Council- Planning Commissioner workshop on December 4 to discuss the upcoming Zoning Ordinance. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:46 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\06 FILES\06 PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\MNI00906.doc 6