Loading...
011508 pl mn CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 15 JANUARY 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners, Geng, Gniffke, Hutchins, Meyer, and Ruoff; Planning Director Nielsen; Engineer Landini; and Councilmember Woodruff Absent: Commissioner Gagne APPROVAL OF MINUTES ?? 4 December 2007 Gniffke moved, Geng seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 4 December 2007 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 1301 REGARDING PARK DEDICATION FEES Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on a January 28, 2008, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen commented that the main reason this was before the Planning Commission was the Commission was the group that held public hearings relative to any land use ordinance change. Nielsen explained the City collected park dedication fees at the time land was subdivided for development. The current fee of $2,000 per residential lot was established in 2002 and it had not been adjusted since. Council had directed Staff to propose an updated fee which would be included in the City’s Municipal Fee Schedule. Nielsen then explained State Statutes allowed for park dedication to be required in two ways: 1) the City could require that a certain amount of land be set aside in the development projects for use as future parks; or 2) the City could require fees in lieu of land. The City’s policy for the last several years had been to require cash in lieu of land (the maximum amount collectable appeared to be 10 percent of the raw value of the land). In order for a city to require park dedication through development, the Statutes required a city to have a comprehensive plan and a capital improvements budget for parks (of which the City had both). The Statutes only allowed park dedication fees to be used for the acquisition of land or the development of park property; maintenance and operations had to be funded in other ways. Nielsen stated past park improvements had been largely funded through land development (i.e., the collection of park dedication fees). Although the City was approximately 95 percent developed, the City’s CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 January 2008 Page 2 of 5 park system still had needs. The 2008 General Fund budget included a transfer of $10,000 for park system related projects; that amount would not be sufficient to fund the projects identified. Nielsen explained that after reviewing the current Statutes the first thing Staff did in formulating a recommendation was to research what other cities were charging relative to their park dedication fees. Staff researched a survey prepared by the Association of Metro Municipalities, several Lake Minnetonka communities that did not participate in the survey, and certain cities with relatively contemporary development regulations that the City routinely reviewed. The fees ranged from $1,000 to as much as $25,000 per lot in Minnetrista. Nielsen stated he presented the research findings to the Park Commission and suggested the Commission consider fees in the range of $4,000 – $6,000. After a fair amount of discussion, the Park Commission recommended a fee of $5,000. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Schmitt opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:07 P.M. Commissioner Geng questioned why the park dedication fee for residential properties was a flat fee. Director Nielsen stated a flat fee was much easier to administer and to explain to a developer upfront. Chair Schmitt stated the interpretation of when the value of raw land should be determined varied; therefore, it was easier to have a flat fee. Director Nielsen explained the fee for commercial lots was based on a residential equivalent unit (a unit equaled 20,000 square feet of area). A lot the size of 40,000 square feet would pay a $10,000 fee ($5,000 times two residential equivalent units). Geng moved, Meyer seconded, recommending the park dedication fee for a residential lot be increased to $5,000. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M. 2. DISCUSS REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 1102 – WETLAND DEVELOPMENTS Director Nielsen stated a small corner in the southeast area of the City was in the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) and the rest of the City was located in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). He explained in the past the City had delegated the authority for administering the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) to the respective boards of the RPBCWD and MCWD. The RPBCWD Board had recently chosen to no longer be the Local Governing Unit (LGU) for WCA permits; this action necessitated modification to the City Code Title 1100 Chapter 1102 Wetland Developments. Nielsen then stated the Planning Commission had been provided with a draft amendment to Chapter 1102 for discussion this evening. He explained the most significant element of the amendment was a requirement that wetland filling, dredging or alteration was subject to the conditional use permit procedures found in the City’s Zoning Code. The amendment would only apply to the area located in the RPBCWD jurisdiction; similar procedures were already in place for the area within the MCWD jurisdiction. Nielsen commented there was little area remaining for development in the area located in the RPBCWD (with the exception of a 20-acre parcel); therefore, the number of permits that would have to be issued would be minimal and those permits would come before the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 January 2008 Page 3 of 5 Nielsen noted that because the amendment would result in a land use ordinance change a public hearing would be held during the February 19, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Nielsen stated Engineer Landini was present this evening to answer any questions the Commission may have. Engineer Landini commented the RPBCWD had established a transition period for the City to put the necessary procedures in place for the City to perform its own WCA permitting responsibilities for the area in the RPBCWD jurisdiction; the transition period would end May 1, 2008. Landini explained the draft amendment would adopt, by reference, the regulations and standards of the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 (a law found in Minnesota Statute Chapter 103G, “the Act”), and the accompanying rules of the State Board of Water and Soil Resources (Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420, “the Rules”). Director Nielsen stated Staff was proposing contracting with Barr Engineering (which the RPBCWD had used for years but had recently replaced) for technical advice. Chair Schmitt stated he was very supportive of the City regaining its WCA permitting responsibilities for the area in the RPBCWD jurisdiction. He commented based on his professional experience it was his understanding that many cities within the MCWD would prefer to regain responsibility for WCA permitting responsibilities for the area in the MCWD jurisdiction. He could also support that direction. Councilmember Woodruff stated if the City were to assume permitting responsibilities for the area in the MCWD jurisdiction, which could result in a workload burden for the Staff. Councilmember Woodruff suggested the Planning Commission ensure that its recommendation would allow for consistent application, would be easy to manage, and would allow for tracking and monitoring of the process. He thought a potential issue could be approving a process that was somewhat flexible, and that could possibly result in lawsuits against the City. The following comments or clarifications were made. The fee structure was based on the Rice Creek Watershed District fee structure. The ?? MCWD and RPBCWD fee structures were not as structured; the RPBCWD structure required $2,000 for just a permit without dealing with the WCA. The $5,000 WCA replacement escrow was relatively standard across the metropolitan area for wetland replacement plans. The proposed fee structure should cover the costs for processing a typical application. Any costs above the standard fee which would result from more complex applications would be paid for by the developer. The $4,000 WCA Permit banking fee was a separate escrow from the other replenishable ?? escrow fees identified as part of the WCA permit fee. That would be more clearly distinguished as a separate fee. In Section 1102.12 Subd. 5.b.(1) – With regard to the three person Technical Evaluation ?? Panel, the Panel was defined in “the Rules” and it would be comprised of one individual chosen by the City and the other two were appointed by State Statute. It was not clear if Engineer Landini could be the City’s representative; although, Landini did not think he was qualified to perform that function. In Section 1102.12 Subd. 5.b.(2) – With regard to monitoring as a condition of a C.U.P., ?? the City did approve C.U.P.s that had monitoring stipulations in them. With regard to a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 January 2008 Page 4 of 5 wetland with more than 400 square feet to be drained or filled, the sequencing determination would be made by the Technical Evaluation Panel. In Section 1102.12 Subd. 5.b.(4) – With regard to wetland banking, the City had ?? previously agreed to let the RPBCWD have the wetland credits because they had paid for the majority of the restored or created wetlands. A process would have to be defined for managing banked wetland credits for the area in the RPBCWD jurisdiction in the future. In Section 1102.12 Subd. 5.b.(5) – With regard to appeals to the City, the City Zoning ?? Code defines an appeal process. The statement will be clarified. In Section 1102.12 Subd. 5.b.(6) – With regard to variances, the variance requirements ?? were specified in the Wetland Conservation Act. That would be specifically stated in this subdivision. In Section 1102.12 Subd. 6 – With regard to water management plans, the State Statute ?? allowed the City to identify high priority areas through water management plans. That plan was similar to a comprehensive plan or a watershed district 10-year plan. The RPBCWD still had a watershed plan that the City would adopt. This would be clarified. “The Rules” contained sanctions and procedures for dealing with property owners that do ?? not comply with the Wetland Conservation Act. Chair Schmitt stated he thought the draft amendment was a good overview. There could be more detailed discussions at the Public Hearing on February 19, 2008, should the need exist. 3. 2008 WORK PROGRAM Director Nielsen stated the 2008 Planning Commission work program for the first half of 2008 would focus on updating the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The goal was to be able to hold a public hearing on the updates to the Comprehensive Plan during July or August, 2008. Council would have been given the opportunity to review the updates prior to that. The tentative schedule for the Comprehensive Plan work program discussions is as follows: ?? 19 February – Complete the study of Planning District 6 and identify Comprehensive Plan issues ?? 18 March – Review the Comprehensive Plan inventory and policy plans ?? 15 April – Review the Comprehensive Plan Natural Resources and Land Use Chapters ?? 20 May – Review the Comprehensive Plan Transportation and Community Facilities Chapter ?? 17 June – Final review and updates to the Comprehensive Plan Nielsen then stated the work program for the second half of 2008 would focus on the review of parking requirements and the study of platted/underdeveloped streets. Councilmember Woodruff requested that a list of key deliverables be identified. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen noted there would not be a Planning Commission meeting on February 5, 2008, because State caucuses were scheduled for that date. He stated there was a conditional use permit for accessory CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 January 2008 Page 5 of 5 space over 1200 square feet slated for the February 19, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. The Study Session portion of that meeting would be devoted to discussing Planning District 6 and Comprehensive Plan updates. 6. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Commissioner Gniffke reported on matters considered and actions taken at the January 14, 2008, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Director Nielsen further explained the amendments to the Excelsior Fire District Joint Powers Agreement which related to the State Fire Code. Council Liaisons were selected as followed: February 2008 Commissioner Geng March 2008 Commissioner Hutchins April 2008 Commissioner Ruoff May 2008 Commissioner Gniffke June 2008 Commissioner Schmitt Commissioner Meyer stated he would not re-apply to be a member of the Planning Commission when his term expired at the end of February. • SLUC No report was given. • Other None. 7. ADJOURNMENT Gniffke moved, Hutchins seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 15 January 2008 at 7:56 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder