Loading...
PL 08/30/1989 - 30707.�•� � � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COl�lI88ION MEETIN(3� AIIGIIST 30, 1989 CALL TO ORDER• - Chairperson Betzold called the August 30, 1989, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Donald Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Alex Barna, Paul Dahlberg, Bradley Sielaff Sue Sherek Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant APPROVAL OF AUGUST 16. 1989, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to approve the August 16, 1989, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE � CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPING RE4UIREMENTS Ms. McPherson stated the proposed landscape standards are for adoption in industrial and commercial districts and will standardize City requirements for developers and businesses. When developers come in with their site plans, etc., the City must tell them what is required. There are currently three lines in the ordinance to cover landscaping and screening. This language is taken from a proposed ordinance for Champlin. The proposed standards need to be worked on to see if they match some of the other requirements, ie. how much is required for parking vs. how much is left over for green areas. Mr. Barna asked if staff had considered a type of parking lot paver which would allow the grass to grow through the block. Mr. Dahlberg stated the concrete block has been tried in this part of the country but doesn't seem to do that well. They can work where the grass does not get as much trampling. The problem is that in the winter the grass will not survive if it is plowed, because the frost will penetrate deeper. If there is a lawn area that is exposed in the winter, the frost will go six to seven feet deep. With a snow cover, the frost depth will be more like three feet and the grass will survive. PLANNING COMMIBSION MEETING� AIIdIIBT 30. 1989 PAGE 2 Mr. Barna stated he was considering the times when an industry does not need as much parking as is required by the City code and that � this could be an acceptable alternative. Mr. Dahlberg stated some cities use "proof of parking". If the property owner or business can show that they have only a few employees, but the code requires 25 parking spaces, they can show they will not need that many spaces. A portion of the site can then be set aside for proof of parking so that it can be added if needed. Ms. McPherson stated several ordinance amendments would be coming through the commission. Councilmember Billings is preparing language about a reduction in the parking stall size, and she and Ms. Dacy had discussed adding language concerning the number of employees and employee parking needed. Mr. Dahlberg stated proof of parking is a bit peculiar and may not want to use the interpretation of the parking. A building could be used as a warehouse requiring few employees and few parking places. However, in the future, it could become a manufacturing facility. That is why there must be proof that there is parking space available if needed for a different use. Mr. Barna stated this is what is done here through proving there is a certain amount of square feet. This could be done through a special use permit. A business may not the amount of parking as � required by code, but should have the space available for additional parking if needed. Mr. Dahlberg stated you can run into difficulties when you start to sway. Everybody needs to understand that as a manufacturing facility so many parking spaces are required. However, there should be potentially a means for a development to conform to landscaping by not putting the entire site into bituminous when they are not going to use it. He would like to incorporate a statement into the landscape ordinance that says a business may need to pave this area later, but in the meantime, the City would like to see landscape materials. The City can not foresee everything that will occur but it can allow for less bituminous and more landscape. Mr. Barna referred to agenda page 1G, D, 3, indicating this statement should take into consideration the planting season. Mr. Betzold asked if Ms. McPherson knew how these ordinance guide- lines conform to what has been required in recent stipulations. Ms. McPherson stated berming is pretty standard. As far as plant sizes, which are on page 2, those are what the City requires now except for coniferous trees which are usually five to six feet tall. Ms. Dacy and she calculated that in an industrial district � PLANNING CO1eIIdlI88ION MEETINa. AIIGIIBT 30. 1989 PAGE 3 on a minimum lot, which is 1/2 acres, subtracting that which can be parked on and allow for setbacks, etc., that leaves '� approximately 12� of the lot for green space. Eight-eight percent of the lot can be covered by bituminous. Twenty-five percent for commercial and industrial may be high unless the City changes its standard on how it calculates lot coverage. Lot coverage is currently calculated by building only, not by impervious surface. Some other municipalities do not require lot coverage. They let building and parking setbacks determine that. Other cities have almost a 900 lot coverage for both parking and building. The City would either have to change setback requirements for parking or change the percentage to meet current standards. The City could reduce it to 120 or leave it at 25�. Mr. Betzold stated it would be important to look at what the City already has. Ms. McPherson stated the Chamber of Commerce has started a new policy of reviewing City Council and Planning Commission agendas before the meetings, and they were concerned about how this would work. There are some things that need to be worked out. Staff is trying to help developers by presenting them with a set of standards regarding plant sizes, numbers, etc. This also incorporates a section which will help preserve existing trees through a replacement policy which the City does not have now. The City has no way to require developers to replace a ratio of trees that are taken out. Staff cannot say that for every 8" tree that ,�'� is cut down, it has to be replaced with two trees, because it is not in the code. Mr. Betzold asked if the Chamber of Commerce had seen the proposed ordinance. Ms. McPherson indicated two persons who are part of the Chamber had seen the proposed ordinance. One was a representative from McDonald's came to see what would be done. She did not expect this item to get started at the public hearing level until next year. Mr. Betzold stated, as due process, the commission could take a look at the proposal and see how consistent it is. Ms. McPherson stated that many times staff has been asked to cut back on the number of trees. This will help in the future, if there is not a landscape architect on staff, to have guidelines to go by. Mr. Sielaff asked if Ms. McPherson currently looks at plans. Ms. McPherson stated she did, but without a knowledge of plants materials, it is difficult to make an objective determination on the quality of the plants. It is arbitrary. This will help. � PLANNING COMMI88ION MBETINd� AIIGIIST 30, 1989 PAGE 4 Mr. Sielaff asked if staff would look at plans. If so, then the � request would not come before the Planning Commission. Ms. McPherson stated that not everyone who applies for a building permit and comes in with a plan is required to come before the Planning Commission. For those who do not come before the commission, staff will be able to check off those things that are required. The language is currently vague and non-specific. Staff has been very consistent in the last two years in the size of the trees. Mr. Dahlberg asked if staff had gone through an evaluation of landscape ordinances other then Champlin's. Ms. McPherson stated yes. Almost all "500" cities have been called. Champlin's proposed ordinance is the most comprehensive landscape plan yet seen. Many cities have what Fridley currently has. Eden Prairie has a comprehensive plan and a shoreline ordinance. Mr. Sielaff asked how many cities have instituted a landscape plan and do not have a professional on staff. Ms. McPherson stated she did not know how many cities employed landscape architects. Mr. Dahlberg stated most cities do. Almost every city he has dealt ^ with had one landscape architect on staff. Mr. Dahlberg stated that, as an architect trying to get projects approved, there are some communities in the metro area that are too restrictive or too subjective. Ms. McPherson stated that this language is setting up the number and standard sizes of trees. It still allows the developers to use any species they want. A landscape architect can help with proper placement of plants or providing suggestions for better plants in an area, but not necessarily following the ordinance requirements. Mr. Dahlberg recommended that this not be excessive. When a project is proposed or a developer wants to do a building, the landscaping is the last thing they want to consider. It is not necessarily right, but that is just the way it is. Every project should have something that is going to add to the environment; however, excessiveness in terms of the requirements does not make sense. Mr. Kondrick stated there should be cooperation on the project on the part of the developers. Mr. Betzold felt it was better to have written standards. This is a step in the right direction. There will be criticisms alonq the � PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINO, AII6IIST 30, 1989 PAGE 5 way and there will probably be modifications along the way, but � this is better than what we have now. Mr. Dahlberg suggested, if someone states they cannot put that much money into landscaping, the City should be willing to do some compromising, and say that this is ultimately what the City wants to have done on the property, and by the time of the occupancy permit, half should be done and by the next planting season, the rest should be done. He thought the City should be flexible to a certain extent, but not forget entirely, and work with the individual to get the required landscaping done in a reasonable period of time. However, he did not think this should be part of the ordinance but it should be an internal policy to be flexible according to our requirements. Mr. Sielaff felt this should be keyed into the required process. Compliance schedules can be put in which require a landscape plan to be submitted and reviewed. This requires a staff person to do the review, but this also gets the landscape plan into the process . Mr. Dahlberg stated that, if a plan is required early enough in the process, the developer and owner understand that there is a certain amount of dollars required for the property. For example, in Plymouth, when a project is submitted, the developer is required to provide building, site, landscape, and utility plans before it will go to the Planning Commission; and even though most people despise working in Plymouth because it is so restrictive, they know � what is required. If staff can require everything before it is considered, it may help. Many times the Planning Commission is not working with a lot of information when someone comes before the Planning Commission in Fridley. If it was outlined that certain things are required before coming before the Planning Commission, everyone will understand what is required. This would not necessarily need to be part of the landscape ordinance, but should be a part of the ordinance requirements for submittal for review. Mr. Betzold stated he would also like to see from the developer, which staff could get all at once, the developer's timetable and when the developer plans to install. That way, the City would know what their priorities are. Mr. Barna stated, that in the past, there have not been excessive landscape requirements. When sites have designed a landscape plan, it has repeatedly occurred that the builders and/or owners wanted to put money into the building, not trees. If it is in the ordinance at the pre-planning level, this will not happen. Mr. Sielaff asked if the City would reguire an inventory on existing plants. Ms. McPherson stated she specifically asked for an inventory from ,n PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AIIaIIST 30, 1989 PAGE 6 Northco, but it is not currently in the code. �� Mr. Dahlberg stated an inventory is part of the Plymouth ordinance. The inventory requires to have so many caliper inches of trees on the development. If you leave trees on the site, then the caliper inches of the existing trees are credited toward required landscape. Every property is required to have a survey done. Ms. McPherson stated there is a credit for existing trees. She will go back to check that those numbers that are in the proposed ordinance are being requested are consistent with other cities. Mr. Dahlberg asked about credits for trees and if there is some formula for retaining existing trees. If a developer retains a good percentage of existing trees, why would they need to add new trees? Perhaps adding shrubs would be enough. Mr. Sielaff stated that many times it is ignorance on the part of the developer. Mr. Barna stated there are sites in the City that at one time had existing trees and that are now bare. Ms. McPherson stated she will review the proposed ordinance and will discuss with Ms. Dacy the percentage requirements. Then, it will come back to the Planning Commission to make sure nothing has been missed and then go back to the City Council. � Mr. Dahlberg asked about irrigation. He was not sure this was enough description or explanation. Ms. McPherson stated irrigation is one of three things the City does require. One of the issues of irrigation is, if there is another drought, should we require drought tolerant plants, and how to enforce the use of irrigation. If it is installed, how can the City be sure that it will be used? Mr. Dahlberg asked what would happen if there is a watering ban. Mr. Barna stated the aquifer level is dropping. If there is another drought, it is possible that irrigation will be banned. Mr. Dahlberg felt the water supply was sufficient. Irrigation does go back into the soil and will get back into the aquifer. He felt they could work together. His concern about statement is that it should be more specific. Does the City require that a developer irrigate only lawn or landscape materials? Developers can irrigate sod areas only and shrubs die, which looks worse. Should the language be more specific? Mr. Dahlberg also referred to the statement that irrigation shall be required in all industrial and commercial districts and �^ PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa. AIIaIIBT 30, 1989 PAGE 7 developments with more than three units per building. He asked if this was residential. �� Ms. McPherson stated this was R-3 zoning. Currently, every building is commercial and industrial and is required to have irrigation so that language should be changed to encompass consistent standards. Mr. Sielaff stated that many people have their own wells for irrigation. Mr. Barna stated this was not forbidden to have a shallow well as long as the water is not brought into the house and will not run through the public water system. Mr. Sielaff stated that if irrigation is required it will take from the municipal water system. Will this level be significant? Ms. McPherson stated the technology is changing fast enough that companies are designing water efficient sprinkler heads that are designed to conserve water. Mr. Sielaff stated he could see irrigation as a problem. Mr. Sielaff stated concerns about erosion control. 1, D, mentions erosion control, but felt it should be part of a plan. This could be part of a landscape plan. �''1 Mr. Dahlberg stated that engineering require grading and drainage plans. Ms. McPherson stated that grading and drainage plans will specify where and by what means erosion will be controlled. This is usually standard practice. Mr. Dahlberg stated there are grading and drainage plans prepared by civil engineers. However this is not always done correctly. Ms. McPherson did not know that this would be the case. She would say civil engineers are consistent in using those standard. Mr. Dahlberg stated the language should be something relative to slope. Mr. Sielaff also recommended material used. Mr. Dahlberg stated this should not only incorporate sodding, but if you are seeding, you need some kind of mulch or mesh, and a general measure necessary of grading. Engineering is a good source of information. 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - ENVIRONMENTAL RE50URCES CHAPTER � PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING, AIIGIIST 30, 1989 PAdE 8 Ms. McPherson stated staff is still working with the current � comprehensive plan. Much of what is in the outline included with the agenda is included in the current plan except that it has been rearranged and expanded. The wetlands portion has been expanded to include location. Fridley has the official wetland maps for the watershed districts: Rice Creek and Six Cities. The City has maps for Fridley and staff is mapping those wetlands which exist and which are gone. Staff has also added the regulatory agencies that oversee those watersheds. A section was added on air quality. The current plan does not have an inventory of unique features on vacant parcels so staff has chosen to inventory those. Staff has decided to have a section that discusses the various threats that can occur to the natural resources and which are occurring. Mr. Sielaff asked why does the City have regulatory functions over wetlands and air quality, but nothing over water bodies. If staff is going to look at regulatory functions, groundwater and surface water should be included. Under threats to resources, he suggested the inclusion of pollution as a topic and that water pollution be separated into groundwater and surface water. It is important to look at what is being impacted and what kind of waste is the problem. Ms. McPherson stated that is how staff thought about it. Mr. Sielaff felt it should be looked at as how the resources will be impacted. r''1 Mr. Dahlberg stated it was nice to see this work going on and thought it is a step forward to look at all these things. Mr. Kondrick agreed, and felt it is good to look at specifics rather than generalities. Ms. McPherson stated there currently are no policy objectives. Those will be developed later in the process. Solid waste was not included because it will be given its own chapter in the comprehensive plan. 3. RECEIVE THE MINLTTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 10. 1989 Mr. Kondrick stated that on Page 4, there is a motion recommending to the City Council, through the Planning Commission, that the City not lease or sell any portion of Edgewater Gardens Park to Redeemer Lutheran Church for parking purposes. The church is located on Mississippi Street just east of East River Road. They have a parking lot to the north and east of the church. Adjacent is the park, bounded by parking lot on one side, railroad tracks on the other side. The church wants to expand its parking lot. After much discussion, the commission's concensus was not to do this because it would set a precedent and because this is not needed. � PLANNINa COMMIBSION MEETING. AIIGQST 30, 1989 PAGE 9 Nothing was done by the church to offer other services. There are no major parking problems. The Parks & Recreation Commission is � looking for concurrence from this commission. Mr. Betzold state the park was to provide a place for recreational purposes. He agreed that if we sell part of the park here, it will set a precedent. Mr. Barna also agreed with the recommendation. Mr. Dahlberg asked for clarification of the statement that the church is requesting the use of the land but that they really don't need it. Mr. Rondrick stated the church said they needed more parking spaces for some times of the year. He felt the church would like to e�and the church. The Commission asked why, since they have people going to different services, they could not have more services. The Commission was told that people would not go to the service. He stated he was not real sympathetic to this request, because the church did not make a real attempt to add a service. There is more to a park than playground equipment. He did not feel they needed the space. The church can have other services, and such a decision to give park land could set dangerous precedent. Mr. Dahlberg asked if the neighbors were involved. ,� Mr. Kondrick stated they were and that the bulk said they did not want changes to the park. The church also contacted the neighbors. Mr. Dahlberg stated this is a captive neighborhood. Mr. Kondrick stated this is not a big park either. MOTION by Mr. Rondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, that the Planning Commission concur with the recommendation of the Parks & Recreation Commission that the City not lease or sell any portion of Edgewater Gardens Park to Redeemer Lutheran Church for parking purposes. IIPON A VOICL VOTE � ALL VOTIN�3 AYE, CBAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of July 10, 1989. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Mr. Betzold stated this item would be before the City Council on September 11. ^ w� ,� � PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. AIIGIIBT 30. 1989 PAGE 10 4. DUMPSTER ORDINANCE UPDATE Ms. McPherson stated this is an update. The charts included in the agenda indicate the places that are multi family, industrial businesses, commercial businesses that have dumpsters, whether or not they have screening, and if so, what type? The information was presented to the City Council prior to the meeting and has been tabled until it can be scheduled before the Council conference meeting. The City's Public Works department has been instructed to screen the City's dumpsters prior to this item going back for a public hearing. Mr. Betzold asked what conclusions were drawn as a result of this information. Staff concluded that 69� of establishments surveyed are not screened. Mr. Barna stated that those who had conformed had a special use permit or variance. Ms. McPherson stated that the current code requires screens. Based on this information, the City could send out many letters notifying of code violations. Mr. Dahlberg asked what conclusions were drawn. Ms. McPherson stated this was presented as an information item and asked for direction. Some recommendations were made. One is that the City screens its own dumpsters, look at recycling containers, ask for clarification of screening material types, in addition to several other recommendations and/or directions. All staff could conclude was that no one is complying except those with a special use permit or a variance or if they are required to keep inside. Basically 690 are not complying with current code let alone if we adopt a new code. Mr. Dahlberg stated it is difficult from the standpoint of enforcement. Ms. McPherson stated that the Chamber of Commerce has reviewed the proposed dumpster ordinance. In a letter to their people there was a question if it also included the top of the dumpster. Ms. Dacy stated it did not, that four sides are to be screened, not the top. PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 30, 1989 PAGE 11 ADJOURNMENT � MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to adjourn the meeting. IIPON A VOICE VOTL, AI,L VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECI,ARED THE JIINE 21, 1989, PI�ANNING COMMIBBION MEETIN(3 ADJOIIRNED AT 8t45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ����� � � Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary � �