Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-08-2023 Planning Commission Minutes 1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday August 8, 2023 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Rhem called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners Adeel Ahmed, John Jacob, Beth Nielsen, Cindy Piper, Matt Plec, Justin Popp, and Braden Rhem. Absent: None. Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke 2. Changes to Agenda No comments made. 3. Update from City Council Proceedings Finke provided an overview of Council actions that have occurred since the last meeting of the Planning Commission. 4. Representative at Next City Council Meeting Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Popp volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 5. Planning Department Report Finke provided an update. Commissioner Popp inquired about noxious weed enforcement. Finke replied that Public Works handles noxious weed complaints while Planning generally handles long grass complaints in neighborhoods. 6. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to Tree Preservation Finke stated that the existing regulations were summarized within the report, noting the two- tier removal allowance. He stated that most developments fall within 25 to 30 percent allowed tree removal. He stated that staff reviewed the regulations of neighboring communities for comparison and noted that it seems common to have inch per inch replacement required. He commented that Medina is on the lower end of the allowance noting that a number of communities have discounted the lower value trees. He stated that Medina has a waiver provision for portions of replacement and noted that provision has been used in cases where there are a lot of lower value trees. He stated that the City Attorney has suggested that process be more formalized rather than following the waiver provision. He noted that there were some outliers when reviewing other communities, such as Corcoran which does not have a tree preservation ordinance and Chanhassen which established a minimum canopy amount. He provided details on an appeals court case related to tree replacement requirements. 2 Jacob asked if there is an inspection of trees to ensure the replacement is followed. Finke explained the inspection process that is followed to ensure the trees are planted and survive the two-year warranty period. Jacob asked if the ordinance only applies to new construction or whether it would apply to a homeowner that chose to clear cut their property they have been living in for a number of years. Finke replied that the ordinance does cover all properties. He noted that two trees can be removed without application of the ordinance, but any additional removal would need a permit. He stated that the permitting for the property would then be tracked to ensure a property does not go over the removal threshold. Popp referenced some definitions, such as old growth terminology and asked if that is discretion based or an actual definition. Finke stated that old growth forest remnant is a defined forestry term from the state/DNR and therefore he would not suggest adjusting that definition. Popp commented that he would guess that mature trees are declining and therefore there may not be a lot of trees exceeding 100 years in age. Finke stated that it is not just the age but the multi-age diversification. Jacob asked about trees that are poorly sited on a property. Finke commented that there is an exemption for trees that would be a hazard. Nielsen asked if there is a project on the horizon that is leading toward prompting these changes, as sometimes ordinance changes are reactive. Finke replied that there is not such a project and explained that there have been previous experiences in development that have suggested that it would make sense for the City to review the ordinance. He commented that the thought behind the policy is not to punish people for removing trees, but that the ordinance should incentivize a design that is least impactful to trees. He stated that the ordinance does not prohibit tree removal, it simply requires replacement and/or payment at a certain threshold. He reviewed the recommended changes that would formalize past practices such as allowing off-site replacement of trees and/or a contribution to the City’s environmental fund for forest management, and the public agency exemption for tree removal within the right-of-way. Nielsen asked if other cities require tree replacement for right-of-way removal. Finke replied that he could look into that. He noted that while the City would replant trees where appropriate, he would also not want to require tree calculations along a road corridor and payment by the City to the City’s own fund, essentially transferring funds from the road fund to the environmental fund. He reviewed the next proposed change which would exempt tree removal on the boundary of a property that becomes right-of-way to support a road improvement such as a turn lane. He stated that there is language within the existing ordinance that would allow planted trees to be claimed as credit for tree replacement that may be required, and staff would suggest changing that to allow planted trees to be exempt as they do not want to disincentivize people from planting trees on their property. 3 Rhem commented that he is confused by that concept and asked for additional clarification. Finke replied that it is supposed to work in the manner that trees planted would count towards replacement but could also be counted as a denominator in the calculation. He explained that the City has not enforced it in that manner. He reviewed different scenarios with the Commission and how the exemption would apply. Nielsen asked how someone would prove the number of trees that they planted. Jacob asked how trees that voluntarily grow would be counted. Finke stated that would be part of the discussion process. He used the example of Marsh Point which was a farm field in the 1980s and additional trees were planted for landscaping, which led to volunteer trees that became significant. He stated that in that case they exempted the landscaped trees as part of the PUD process. Rhem asked how often the planted tree provision has been used. Finke replied that he is aware of three developments that used that provision. Rhem commented that this is a very complicated and difficult to enforce provision, no matter how the language is written. Finke noted that aerial photos have been used in past scenarios. Rhem asked if that exemption should be reviewed in its entirety as they review the Code, asking if there is benefit in having the provision. Nielsen stated that she reviewed the provision as it is within the Code and it is fairly clear, therefore she is fine leaving it as is. Popp commented that he is also okay with how it reads. He stated that he does have concern with the transfer in ownership and how that would apply. Nielsen stated that a developer would seem to have trouble selling a development without any trees. Finke stated that staff suggests removing the old growth forest provision as it would seem not to apply to Medina. Popp commented that if it is not relevant today, it would most likely not be relevant in the future. Jacob commented that he would think there is less deforestation and more forestation, therefore it may become more applicable in 50 years. Finke commented that he would think there would be better tools in place should an old growth area come to fruition in order to protect it, rather than requiring two to one replacement of removed areas. Popp agreed that would make sense. 4 Finke stated that staff suggests removing ash trees from the allowed trees to be planted. Popp asked the type of process that would allow that species to reenter the list. Finke stated that staff would track it and if an EAB resistant ash tree is developed, it could come back similar to elms. He noted that those are the changes as proposed and the remainder are simply items for discussion. He noted that the City is on the lower end of allowed removal compared to other cities and asked for confirmation that is where the City would like to be. He did not think there had been discussion about changing those percentages and simply wanted to point out where the City falls compared to others. Rhem commented that he believes the two-tiered system is probably overly complex compared to other cities. He stated that he is fine with where the City is compared to the other cities but thinks the two-tiered system could be simplified to make it easier for applicants and staff. Finke confirmed that there is comfort from the Commission with the percentages but perhaps that could be calculated in a simplified manner. He provided density bonus incentives used by other communities, specifically Maple Grove, which actually allows a transfer. He noted that ability to transfer would be almost impossible in Medina because of the land of land available. He stated that staff could use the density bonus under the current PUD process. Rhem commented that he would be comfortable leaving the process as is, using the PUD process for density bonus consideration. Finke noted that if someone owned two sites, one with a lot of trees and one without trees, he would think the density transfer could still be considered through the PUD process. Plec noted that if the language is not specifically within the ordinance, a developer may not propose such a situation. Finke confirmed the consensus of the Commission to leave that language as it is. He noted that most cities differentiate between types of development, such as commercial and residential, whereas Medina does not. He provided an example of areas within Uptown Hamel that have large, landscaped trees that would have had significant impact on commercial development. Rhem commented that example would be inconsistent with what they are attempting to achieve in Uptown Hamel. Popp agreed that would challenge the vision for Uptown Hamel but was uncertain he would want to extend the change beyond that area. Jacob commented that there are some large silver maples on adjacent residential properties, and he would not want to see those cut down and replaced with two-inch trees. He noted that perhaps park dedication could be used to assist in preserving those trees. Finke confirmed the consensus of the Commission to lessen the replacement requirements in Uptown Hamel. He moved to the topic of park dedication noting that is a tool that could be used for tree preservation and provided suggestions of how that could potentially be used. Nielsen commented that using park dedication would seem to make things more complicated. 5 Rhem agreed that would make calculations more complicated. Finke discussed the concept of reducing the replacement requirement of certain species such as boxelders and other less desirables. He noted that previously adjustments for large quantities of those species has been done through waiver. Nielsen confirmed that she would support a lesser replacement for those types of trees. Finke asked if inch per inch replacement also makes sense for the trees. Jacob noted that they would need to consider future growth for certain trees, over density to ensure long term health and success. Finke used the example of another community that requires two trees to be planted for each tree removed. He referenced the scenario where a large tree is removed and using inch per inch replacement, that would result in many small trees being planted. He stated that he understands the concept but perhaps a cap is placed on the number of trees needed to replace a large tree to ensure they do not have that overcrowding. Jacob stated that he would support the concept of a cap. Popp commented that he would have a hard time commenting on that as he does not necessarily have that forestry expertise. Finke commented that ultimately a site cannot be designed to avoid all the trees, therefore this would be designed to recommend the number of replacement trees and/or amount that would need to be paid into the environmental fund. Nielsen commented that she would be uncomfortable placing a cap on replacement trees. Finke agreed that may not be needed, especially if they are going to reduce the replacement required for boxelders and the other less desirables. Rhem opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. No comments. Rhem noted that the public hearing will be continued at the following meeting. 7. Approval of the June 13, 2023 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Motion by Piper, seconded by Jacob, to approve the June 13, 2023, Planning Commission minutes with the noted changes. Motion carries unanimously. 8. Adjourn Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Popp, to adjourn the meeting at 8:16 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.