Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-20 ENR Minutes CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION January 20, 2009 515 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Present Chair Ginny Yingling Commissioner Judith Johannessen Commissioner Carole Lynne Commissioner Carol Mason Sherrill Commissioner Frederica Musgrave Commissioner Dale Trippler Absent Commissioner Bill Schreiner Staff DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Yingling stated the joint meeting between the Parks and Environmental Commissions scheduled for January 28th was to be rescheduled. She motioned to approve the January 20 agenda. Ayes all. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. November 6, 2008 . The phrase "ordinance encompass": one or the other should be plural. i.e. ordinances or encompasses. . The word "effects" should be "affects". . Commissioner Trippler corrected a sentence to read... "stated the purpose of having protection of slopes "is to achieve". . Commissioner Musgrave stated one of the sentences said she was a recipient of an award. She questioned if she was present at that meeting. She also requested the motions be recorded, and not in a story telling format. . Commissioner Lynne corrected a sentence from having the word "exempted" to "removed from the ordinance". . Commissioner Musgrave said there were items she had mentioned that were not included. She also thought there were visitor presentations. . Chair Yingling acknovvedged she thought there were no visitor presentations. She asked if staff could verify if there were. 1 . Commissioner Musgrave said they should be updated on visitor presentations and that it be made part of the permanent record. She suggested tabling this until they had confirmation. . Commissioner Trippler said he did not see the point of this, if there had been visitor presentations, staff could add this at a later date. . Commissioner Musgrave said this was not proper parliamentary procedure. She made a motion to table this. The motion failed for lack of a second. . Commissioner Trippler made a motion to approve the November 6,2008, minutes, seconded by Commissioner Mason Sherrill. The motion passed by a vote of five to one, with Commissioner Musgrave voting against. b. November 18, 2008 Goal Setting meeting . Commissioner Musgrave said the minutes should be in a format other than story telling. She received an e-mail from Shann Finwall regarding what was discussed at this meeting. She stated this was not included in the minutes. She wanted to submit this for the record. . Commissioner Trippler made a motion to approve November 18, 2008, minutes, seconded by Commissioner Johannessen. The motion passed by a vote of five to zero, with Commissioner Musgrave abstaining. c. December 2, 2008 . Commissioner Musgrave said some items were missing. She said there were visitor presentations. She said she received an e-mail from Ms. Finwall regarding the "open meeting" law She stated she consulted with three attorneys about this issue and she wanted this part of the permanent record. . Chair Yingling said they had formed ad hoc committees for the purpose of finding facts and bringing ideas to the commission. The city attorney said this was not covered by the "open meeting" law and was perfectly legal. . Chair Yingling stated the minutes indicated she was planning to contact the city attorney; she was under the impression that Shann Finwall was planning to do so. She stated they would check into this issue. . Commissioner Trippler stated one of the paragraphs ends vvth "1". . Planner Finwall said she would follow-up on the question of whether there were visitors at this meeting. . Chair Yingling said Ron Cockriel was at the meeting. . Commissioner Trippler made a motion to approve the December 2,2008 minutes vvth corrections as noted, seconded by Commissioner Lynne. The motion carried by a vote of five to one, vvth Commissioner Musgrave voting against. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Environmental Protection Ordinance (To be continued) 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Proposed Stop Gap Ordinance for South Maplewood-Zoning Code Amendment to the Rural Single Dwelling District (R-11) 2 Director Konewko introduced Jennifer Haskamp, who was a consultant to the city. She indicated the commissioners' packets included a draft of the ordinance which was closely tied with the Comprehensive Plan process. There were six months allowed for adjacent jurisdictions to review the Comprehensive Plan. There was a six to nine month period where they would act under the existing plan document until the update was in place. In the South Maplewood area, the city council decided that the area should be guided for rural low density, which was .5 to 1.5 units per acre, and was different than the current ordinance. There was a period where they had to allow what happened "today" versus nine months from now; thus the stop gap ordinance was being proposed. Even though the council had to allow the current 4.3 units per acre, there was a mechanism in place to allow protection of natural resources. The majority of the area in south Maplewood was zoned for 4.3 units per acre. The zoning in south Maplewood is R1 R, which are two acre lots; and farm zoning, which are 10,000 square foot lots. All of south Maplewood warrants protection in terms of conservation principles, therefore if everything was zoned the same (R1 R) there would be added protection, even on the farm designations. There were four objectives to this ordinance 1. Allow for development that would reach the maximum legal entitlement of 4.3 units per acre. 2. Create an ordinance that protects the natural resources and habitat in the area. 3. Create a list of definitions that describe the conservation principles in the ordinance. 4. Create density incentives through conservation principles. Best conservation principles would be determined, and in exchange would allow additional density. They looked at a sample site which was 5.22 acres. At 4.3 units per acre, there could be up to 22 units on the 4.2 acre site. The ordinance would encourage developers to use conservation techniques in order to gain additional density. If not, they would be entitled to a base density of two acre lots, which is R1 R Ms. Haskamp showed a table explaining how they would work toward the conservation principles, using 4.3 units per acre on a 5.22 acre site. Under the current scenario there would be 22 lots. They wculd move a developer through to achieve the maximum entitlement, requiring the developer to employ seven conservation principles. The city would work through the conservation principles with the Planning and Environmental and Natural Resources Commissions to determine what principles were best, what density range they would be in, and how many lots would be allocated. She then explained different tiers and scenarios of the units per acre, and what conservation and natural resource principles would be put in place. She stated they were trying to protect the environment and preserve the natural resources in south Maplewood. The current ordinance was built on the R1 R district. When they move to the new Comprehensive Plan and have .5 to 1.5 units per acre, they would have to find a new use for it. In order to do that, they would add conservation areas into the reserve sections of the ordinance. There is a public hearing with the planning commission on the re-zoning on the properties in south Maplewood after the Environmental Commission meeting tonight and they were welcomed to stay The intent of the ordinance is to make sure the city protects this area in the nine month period. She stated the commission's comments would be recorded and brought to the city council. Commissioner Trippler said this material had already been revised for the Planning Commission. He requested Ms. Haskamp go through the changes. Ms. Haskamp replied they did make minor revisions, however the basic concept had not changed. There was a comment with respect to concerns that the Planning Commission made sure the developer understood there were discretion in the definitions. They wanted the developer to work with them. Ms. Haskamp then gave the commission the additional changes to the proposed ordinance, clarifying the definitions on trees and woodlands, historic preservation, additional shoreline buffers, slope preservation, and creating passive parks. The view shed corridor preservation item was recommended to be removed because it was subjective. She also stated that the Planning Commission suggested more clarifying language for the process itself 3 Commissioner Trippler, referring to two paragraphs, stated he was not sure about the city staff; however the Planning Commission did not have approval rights. He said this language was used in two paragraphs in the document. He thought that within south Maplewood there was a view shed that was defined in a federal statute in the Mississippi corridor, and the view was to be protected. He suggested that they look at the statute that referred to this corridor. Commissioner Musgrave expressed deep concern that they did not have the current draft. She was concerned about non-compete clauses. She also asked who Ms. Haskamp was working for Chair Yingling stated Ms. Haskamp had been working for the city as a consultant for more than a year. She stated the reason that the commission did not have the current draft is because their scheduled meeting had been postponed. The city council had asked that Ms. Haskamp put this material together for them to work on the ordinance. Commissioner Musgrave said they were told in the first paragraph the city had to allow up to 4.3 units per acre in south Maplewood. She asked if the new plan would "grandfather" in the plan from 2002 of 4.3 units per acre. Ms. Haskamp stated the current document was being updated. The city would have to allow 4.3 units per acre to a developer coming in currently, which is what is in place until the new plan is adopted. Director Konewko said Ms. Haskamp was working for the city and working very closely with staff. The presentation she gave was a result of working with the staff. Chair Yingling said the whole point of this ordinance was to create a bridge and provide the city vvth protection until the new Comprehensive Plan and zoning was finished. Their hope is that the Co Par development would not move forvvard and that they would have this plan in the interim to meet legal requirements. Commissioner Lynne asked if there were any priorities in the list of conservation tools as to what tools were more important than others. Ms. Haskamp said this was one of the items they discussed when they devised the plan. They wanted the developer to perform a natural resources inventory on their site and then meet with staff to identify which of the principals were best for that specific site. Director Konewko said these conservation principals were above and beyond what was required, so a developer would have to preserve trees as required in the tree preservation ordinance, for instance, and anything they would do above and beyond would qualify as a conservation principle. Ms. Haskamp referred to section 44.128, definitions and conservations principles. She asked if it would it be helpful if they listed what those ordinances were so developers would understand that there are the existing environmental protections in place. Chair Yingling suggested this to read "city ordinances that relate to environmental protection include but are not limited to" because there were additional ordinances. Commissioner Trippler said he did not understand the sentence regarding "enhanced wetlands". Ms. Haskamp said this was referring to what would be encompassed vvthin the Comprehensive Wetland Management plan. 4 Commissioner Trippler referred to community values and development needs and investment with regard to wetland protection enhancement and regulation. Ms. Heskamp said the plan was a very specific one that included the investment required in a wetland and all aspects of how the community values its wetlands. This meant how the community defined the wetlands and how it preserved them. Chair Yingling suggested it would be better to say that the developer would provide a plan that follows that document, referencing where they could view it. Ms. Haskamp replied that she would place an asterisk by this item, and change it accordingly. Commissioner Lynne said she understood the intent of the plan; however in developing today, the concept in preserving land is to encourage clustered development. She thought, however, that when there were more houses, there also was increase of impervious surfaces, in terms of driveways, electricity, energy needs, and city services. Ms. Haskamp said that clustering was one conservation principle. In terms of infrastructures, it actually was far less impervious vvth clustering. Moving forvvard, the recommendation had been two acre lots, up to 1.5 units per acre. When you have larger lots, you have privatized all natural resources. In a smaller clustered subdivision, all of the natural resources were on public land, so there would be a different set of restrictions. Chair Yingling said the definition of open space was "public and private land that was natural in character" Her understanding of open space is that it was public, and if it was held in private hands, it needed a statement about permanent protection. Ms. Haskamp said this was the definition that came out of the Comprehensive Plan. She replied that it would be changed. Commissioner Musgrave said there were items that needed to be more specific or measurable. She mentioned the dedication of 50% open space credit and historical analysis. She thought that this analysis should include input from the Historical Preservation Commission. Ms. Haskamp said there had to be reasoning behind creating an area, such as prairie grass restoration, othervvise it would not succeed. In terms of open space, it was already protected, that was why only 50% of the area could be counted as credit. Chair Yingling stated she agreed with what Commissioner Musgrave said. She said it should state that 50% of the developable/buildable land be set aside as open space. This should not include areas that were already protected. If the developer wanted credit beyond that, it should be land that they could have developed but were not developing, which would not include wetlands. Commissioner Musgrave asked about prairie restoration and that there was no reference to the Historical Preservation Commission. She thought they should have reference to the commission that exists. She also asked about the slopes, which she had great concerns about development on and the construction that was allowed in tearing up the land, and the amount of soil loss. Chair Yingling said they would have to abide by that ordinance, but the slope ordinance does not allow for structures in the buffers, so why would they give them credit for not putting a structure in a buffer. This would be revisited as a possible credit for the developers. 5 Director Konewko suggested that staff make the revisions and bring this item back to the commission during their next meeting in February. Chair Yingling asked if there was time to bring it back to the commission. Director Konewko said yes, and they would bring recommendations to the council on February 9th Chair Yingling said if this was acceptable, they would table this for discussion at the February 3,d meeting. Commissioner Musgrave made a motion to table this motion, seconded by Commissioner Trippler. The motion carried by a vote of 6 to 0 Director Konewko said he would provide a copy of the recommendations and would distribute in the next week. Ms. Haskamp said this document was posted on the internet under the January 20, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. It would not include changes that occurred that night; however there would be revisions forthcoming. b. ENR Commission 2008 Annual Report Environmental Planner Finwall said the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission ordinance did not have a requirement to present a report to the city council, however staff found that the annual report would be a means of relaying important information to the city council, as well as deliver feedback on 2009 goals. There were two examples she recommended for tonight as feedback on what they wculd like to see in their annual report, and she would draft something for their review in February. Commissioner Trippler said the Planning Commission annual report talked about issues they have had, what actions have been taken and whether they approved or denied issues. It also included the city council actions on issues and a list of things that were projected for the next year. Commissioner Musgrave said guidance from the city council would be in order. It would be good to be consistent across all commissions. Chair Yingling suggested e-mailing Environmental Planner Finwall any thoughts that should be in the report and the chair could work vvth the commission on a format. Each commission should adapt their report to the work they are doing. 7. Visitor Presentations Carolyn Peterson, 1821 Gervais Ave, Maplewood, MN. Her comment was on the view shed definition in the R1 R ordinance. She suggested using the word vista, because vista was defined as a scenic panoramic view Elizabeth Sletten, 2747 N. Clarence St., Maplewood, MN. She brought information on a complaint investigation. Environmental Planner Finwall said she would hand the material out to the commission. Ms. Sletten said they should have received this information before the meeting began. She stated the microphone was not on during the presentations, so the citizens were unable to hear. 8. Commission Presentations 6 Commissioner Trippler said the first item on the agenda for the planning commission is the code amendment for R 1 R 9. Staff Presentations a. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair Chair Yingling stated that according to commission rules, anyone who wished to run for office could make that known either at a previous meeting or a current meeting. She stated they would do a vote by secret ballot. She opened the position for Chair, stating she would not run this year. Environmental Planner Finwall stated that Bill Schreiner, who is absent tonight, indicated he would not be running. Commissioner Musgrave nominated Commissioner Mason Sherrill, who said she would be willing to accept the nomination. Commissioner Trippler also nominated himself Chair Yingling stated they had two candidates. The Commissioner voted by secret ballot. Environmental Planner Finwall counted the ballots and found that five commissioners voted for Commissioner Mason Sherrill and one commissioner voted for Commissioner Trippler. Commissioner Mason Sherrill is the 2009 chair. Chair Yingling opened nominations for Vice Chair. The Vice Chair would be the acting Chair in the absence of the Chair. Commissioner Trippler nominated himself Chair Yingling asked if they could accomplish the vote by a public vote. The commissioners voted for Commissioner Trippler to be the 2009 Vice Chair by a vote of 5 to 1, vvth Commissioner Musgrave voting against. b. Environmental and Natural Resource Commission Meeting Dates Environmental Planner Finwall said the commission requested alternative dates and times for meetings at their last meeting. The alternatives would be the first Thursday of the month, or two meetings on the first and third Tuesdays. They would be able to keep their meetings on the firstTuesday of the month, 515 to 7.00 p.m., or unlimited time on Thursdays. It was decided to keep the first Tuesday of the month as their meeting date. c. Community Development and Parks Department Reorganization Director Konewko said an organizational chart was included in the commission's packets tonight regarding the reorganization of the staff. He indicated that he was the director of the nevvy organized Community Development and Parks Department. d. Nature Center Programs Environmental Planner Finwall indicated programs for January and February were the Snowshoe Frolic that will be held on January 31~t, and a Tracking Safari, where children could go out and discover different animal tracks. Another program, Who Loves Owls, was held on Valentine's Day. In addition there was adult programming on the schedule, one of which was working vvth the Audubon Society. It was the Adult Beginning Bird Identification, which was a series that would be held in February through April. The meeting was adjourned at 655 p.rn 7