Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-11 PC Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2011 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Clayton Larson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Andy Holewa, Clayton Zimmerman, Janet Stodola and Angela Hames. Absent: Commissioners Samuel Scott and Roberta Thompson. Also present were: City Planner Meagan Beekman; Community Development Intern Mei-Ling Anderson; and Deputy Clerk Rebecca Brazys. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – NOVEMBER 9, 2011 The Agenda was approved as presented. 2. NEW COMMISSIONER Chair Clayton Larson introduced Janet Stodola as the newly appointed Planning Commission Alternate. 3. PLANNING CASES A. Parks and Open Space District City Planner Beekman explained that the Planning Intern, Mei-Ling Anderson, has prepared a preliminary outline for the Commissioners to review regarding the City’s Parks and Open Space District. Planning Intern Mei-Ling Anderson stated she had contacted several other cities to see how they address the issue of Parks and Open Space Districts. This project, and the proposed changes, is an effort to more clearly define what we want the Parks and Open Space Districts to be. She added that this would only apply to City-owned park space. She also explained that the draft for the Parks and Open Space ordinance currently includes three primary sections: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – NOVEMBER 9, 2011 2 1. A description of the intent of the ordinance; 2. A subdivision outlining permitted uses; and 3. A subdivision listing special regulations. City Planner Beekman stated the intent of the ordinance and the list of permitted uses were designed to give the City sufficient flexibility to adapt the use of these areas to the community’s ongoing and future needs. If the Commission wishes to proceed with the Parks and Open Space ordinance, it would be advisable to indicate whether the permitted uses within the ordinance reflect an exhaustive list, or if the wording should give the City additional flexibility to allow for unanticipated uses in the future. City Planner Beekman stated additional points of discussion might include the following:  How to address privately-owned park and open space;  The lease of park and open space from the City by private entities;  Other special regulations that might be appropriate. City Planner Beekman explained that it is likely that there will be privately owned park space included in the TCAAP development and we would need to address how to ensure that remains park space in perpetuity including how the property should be zoned. There is no instance of that currently in the City so there is not an immediate need to address this. City Planner Beekman explained that staff prepared a draft Parks and Open Space ordinance for the Commission’s review. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the draft ordinance and provide comment and direction. Based on the discussion, staff will revise the draft ordinance and bring it back for further discussion, or present it at a Council Work Session for the Council’s review. In order to adopt the new District, the Planning Commission will have to hold a public hearing and make a formal recommendation to the City Council. The draft ordinance follows: 1320.14 Special Requirements for the Parks and Open Space (P/OS) District. The Parks and Open Space District is established to identify those publicly or privately-owned properties that provide significant outdoor recreational or open space resources to residents of all ages, income, and abilities. These areas have been determined to be wholly or partially unsuitable for development due to their value as recreational land, location, surrounding uses, restrictive water tables, drainage and soil conditions, topography, significant and valuable vegetation, and/or valuable wildlife habitat. The creation of a comprehensive system of parks and open space is intended to contribute to the wellbeing of community members by enhancing active and passive outdoor recreational opportunities, preserving the natural environment, and by preventing the overcrowding of land due to development. The provisions that apply to this district are also meant to preserve and maintain sensitive natural areas and wildlife habitat areas. Subd. 1 Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted within the P/OS District: A. City-owned facilities and recreational amenities, such as, but not limited to: (i) Public parks, beaches, playgrounds, athletic fields, sports courts, golf courses, exterior skating rinks, aquatic facilities. (ii) Amphitheater. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – NOVEMBER 9, 2011 3 (iii)Bus benches, shelters, transit facilities. (iv) Community centers. (v) Dog Park, off-leash. (vi) Exterior signage. (vii) Gardens (public or community), greenhouses, nurseries, garden sheds. (viii) Nature centers. (ix) Parking areas. (x) Picnic areas, picnic shelters, gazebos. (xi) Play equipment. (xii) Public announcement systems. (xiii) Storage buildings, sheds. (xiv) Trash receptacles. (xv) Warming houses, restrooms, changing rooms. B. City-sponsored events. C. Trail systems. D. Public and private permanent open space, natural areas, arboretums, conservation areas, wildlife management areas. E. Private facilities and recreational amenities, as approved by the City Council. F. Other public uses. G. Essential services, renewable energy systems, and utilities. H. Expansion of existing uses which are not in conformity with district provisions. Subd. 2. Special regulations in the P/OS District. A. The City shall strive to protect and enhance the parks and open space system, and shall seek to increase the amount of park and open space land insofar as is practical. B. Uses within the P/OS District may not impede the use of adjoining properties. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – NOVEMBER 9, 2011 4 C. All renovations must be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Commissioner Hames commented that she believes we will see more of the private park space in future development. She also commented that she likes the way White Bear Lake names their open space as Open Space Conservation District and Public Facilities District. Chair Larson asked if the City could end up owning private park space eventually. City Planner Beekman responded the City can zone privately owned property as private park space. The private park space issues would be addressed as a part of the negotiations with the developer at the beginning of the process. Chair Larson questioned if it would be difficult to convince a private property owner to have their land zoned as Conservation District because it would diminish the value of the land. City Planner Beekman responded that those details are worked out at the beginning of the development. Chair Larson stated there is a key phrase in City Planner Beekman’s memo which states “give the City additional flexibility to allow for unanticipated uses in the future.” He was concerned that allowing “unanticipated uses” in an open space district could be a negative. City Planner Beekman clarified that she is not suggesting the Commission retroactively rezone privately owned land for park or open space. The important focus of this discussion is how to deal with our existing park land. Commissioner Holewa commented that there is reference to county parks but the City doesn’t have control over county park property. City Planner Beekman explained that the City does have control over the zoning in county property within City limits. Commissioner Holewa questioned the wording in the first paragraph of the proposed ordinance; specifically the reference to “unsuitable for development.” Discussion ensued and the general consensus was to reword that sentence to state that the property has been deemed valuable to the community as park or open space. Commissioner Zimmerman agreed that some word-smithing is necessary. He also objected to some of the items listed as uses such as trash receptacles, public announcement system, and exterior signage. Chair Larson stated he is concerned about listing community center as a use because that can be a very large facility. Commissioner Holewa objected to including the statement “City-owned facilities” in the list of permitted uses. City Planner Beekman pointed out that there are Public Works facilities in our City parks. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – NOVEMBER 9, 2011 5 Commissioner Holewa explained that he doesn’t have any objection to existing facilities in our park property but was concerned about what can be placed in parks in the future. He also explained that he does not object to the placement of maintenance facilities for the park itself on park property. Commissioner Hames commented that she doesn’t see a problem with the City using its own park land for some of its facilities. Commissioner Holewa explained that he is concerned about “wholesale looting of parks” which has happened in other cities. City Planner Beekman stated she would want the Public Works Director involved in a discussion regarding City facilities in parks. Chair Larson commented that in Subd. 1, Item F Other Public Uses is too broad and should include the phrase “as approved by the City Council.” City Planner Beekman stated that Item F could be eliminated. She stated that Items (i) through (xv) can also be removed. Chair Larson stated he does not like Item H. City Planner Beekman agreed that Item H is not necessary. Commissioner Stodola stated that the goal of this discussion is to identify open space and the Commission should avoid getting mired in the minutia. City Planner Beekman stated that she would prefer having one district and one color on a map because she doesn’t believe the City has enough park space to warrant more than one district. When TCAAP develops, that may change. There was some discussion about the use of the term “Public” when the park or open space is on private property. City Planner Beekman stated the goal of this ordinance is to the ability to create and designate certain areas as park and open space and it could be privately or publicly owned where development is not allowed except for recreation or City uses. The Commission consensus was to designate an Open Space District for public use and Conservancy District for private use either of which could be publicly or privately owned. City Planner Beekman explained that this proposal will be presented to the Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee and the City Council. Commissioner Holewa stated that he and the Planning Intern had talked about having a “no net loss” ordinance; in other words, if park space is taken out of use it must be replaced with an equal amount of space. B. Expansion of Nonconforming Structures Discussion City Planner Beekman explained that this issue has been on her mind for a while and affects a majority of the homes in Arden Hills which are legal, non-conforming structures. She stated that ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – NOVEMBER 9, 2011 6 staff is seeking direction on how to proceed, including feedback on whether the revision is necessary and, if so, comments on how the language might be improved. This revision would pertain to single family homes only. She presented aerial views of some properties in the City that are currently non-conforming in order to illustrate the types of issues that arise for certain homeowners. In all the examples, the structure on the property encroaches on a setback which prohibits expansion of that home without a variance. Most of these incidents occur when the setback requirements have been changed by the City after the home was built which impedes their ability to expand the front of their home but it also impedes their ability to expand the sides of the home because such expansions would encroach on the front yard setback. In addition, they can’t expand up because that would also encroach on the front yard setback. City Planner Beekman stated that staff has prepared draft language that would address the expansion of some nonconforming structures under certain circumstances. This language can be modified and staff would like to know if the Planning Commission feels there are circumstances where these types of expansions should not be done administratively, but through a more formal process. City Planner Beekman explained that with the recent revisions to State Statutes regarding variances and the subsequent amendments to the City’s variance procedures, the variance review criteria has become easier to overcome in most cases. However, the process is time and resource consuming for the City and those requesting exceptions from the Code. Minimizing the need for variances will remove road blocks by making the City process more efficient and less daunting. Commissioners then reviewed and discussed the proposed ordinance - 1325.03 Exceptions to the Minimum Requirements for All Districts. Chair Larson commented that one advantage to adopting this ordinance would be to eliminate the need for variances for such situations. Commissioner Hames stated she believes this ordinance makes perfect sense. City Planner Beekman explained that if the Commissioners have concerns, they could add limits to section D of the ordinance to give them more control. Chair Larson commented that there would still be building code and fire code restrictions to consider and he suggested we may want to include some minimum codes in the ordinance. Commissioner Zimmerman commented that homeowners should be able to rebuild if necessary and maintain the original 30 foot setback. However, there were some homes built with indiscriminate setbacks and those situations would have to be addressed differently. Chair Larson stated the virtue of an ordinance like this is that it gives the City “a line in the sand.” City Planner Beekman stated that the ordinance could set a minimum and those who don’t meet that minimum would have to apply for a variance. Commissioner Hames commented that this ordinance would make it possible for the large percentage of non-conforming structures to be improved without requiring a variance. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – NOVEMBER 9, 2011 7 City Planner Beekman asked if the Commissioners want to include a maximum square footage. Chair Larson responded that the lot coverage restriction already in the City Code is adequate. City Planner Beekman pointed out that this proposed ordinance does not apply to accessory structures. She then suggested that at some point in the future the Commissioners should contemplate amending the City Code for the R2 and R3 districts so that homes are allowed to be within 5 feet of the property line but accessory structures must be at least 10 feet away. City Planner Beekman stated that this proposed ordinance also includes requirements that the exterior material must be complimentary in color and quality. Chair Larson questioned the reference to “non-conforming impervious area.” City Planner Beekman explained if a home exceeds the maximum allowed impervious area expansion of the home would not be allowed. Commissioner Holewa asked if City Planner Beekman would, at some point, revise the wording in Subsection 1 A regarding front setbacks for existing principal buildings. 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None 5. COMMENTS AND REPORTS City Planner Beekman announced that the January Planning Commission meeting has been cancelled due to a lack of business. She also stated she has no planning cases for the December meeting and suggested they hold a Work Session. The Commissioners agreed. A. Report from City Council Commissioner Zimmerman questioned the status of the Select Senior Living project on County Road E. City Planner Beekman explained that Select Senior Living has withdrawn from their negotiations with the property owner. She added that the City Council authorized staff to proceed with the implementation plan for Phase 1 of the B2 District streetscape project. Bolton & Menk will start the preliminary engineering and design work for that project. Commissioner Zimmerman asked about the CVS project status. City Planner Beekman responded that as far as she knows, CVS is moving forward. Arden Plaza has filed their plat and signed their development agreement. CVS has not yet approved their development agreement or presented it to the City Council. Commissioner Zimmerman questioned the status of the workforce housing project on County Road F. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – NOVEMBER 9, 2011 8 City Planner Beekman stated that MHFA announces their housing tax credits on November 17 so we should know where the project stands by that date. Commissioner Holewa asked if Presbyterian Homes has started their reconstruction project. City Planner Beekman stated they have begun but have encountered some issues with unanticipated wet soils. Commissioner Holewa asked if Pulte Homes has started construction. City Planner Beekman responded they have obtained four building permits and they’ve sold six of the 39 home sites. 6. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Hames seconded the motion to adjourn the November 9, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:00 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (4-0).