Loading...
1-14-08 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, December 17, 2007. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Council Member Bob Shaffer, Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, Planning Intern Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes December 17,2007 Joint Planning/Environmental/Open Space and Recreation Commission Meeting Eck referred to the last sentence on page 2 and asked for clarification on the "best management practices" regarding bacteria levels and geese. Grimes stated that Lundstrom didn't specifically discuss the best management practices but be did discuss buffer zones around ponds and how geese tend to stay out of those buffer zones which helps keep bacteria levels down. MOVED by Eck, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the December 17,2007 joint Planning/Environmental/Open Space and Recreation Commission meeting minutes as submitted. December 17,2007 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the first paragraph on page 2 and stated that the second sentence should read as follows: He said that increasing the volume "of space between houses" would mean more than reducing the height... MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the December 17, 2007 regular Planning Commission meeting minutes with the above noted correction. 2. Informal Public Hearing - RHT Office LLC - 9400 Golden Valley Road Applicant: RHT Office LLC Address: 9400 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To allow the applicant to operate an employee only daycare center in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 2 Hogeboom explained that RHT Office LLC is the owner of the property at 9400 Golden Valley Road and that Meridian Services and Orion ISO currently occupy the building. He stated that the property is zoned Business and Professional Offices and the applicant is proposing to operate an employee only daycare center in approximately 1,000 square feet of the building which requires a Conditional Use Permit. He discussed the ten factors that the Planning Commission must consider when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit application. He noted that the daycare will have approximately 2 employees and staff believes that traffic in the area won't be impacted by this proposed use and there should be no effect on the surrounding properties. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of this Conditional Use Permit. Keysser asked about the building expansion currently under construction. Hogeboom said he would like the applicant to discuss the building expansion. Kluchka noted that the applicant's narrative states that they would like to provide daycare for 10 children. He asked if that number (10 children) is space specific or operation specific and if the space would actually allow for more than 10 children. Grimes stated that the space could allow for more children but that the State specifies the limits. He added that the Planning Commission could be more flexible and allow the applicant to have 10 to 15 children instead of limiting it to 10. Keysser said he thinks it makes sense to allow for 10 to 15 children so the applicant wouldn't have to amend their Conditional Use Permit for an 11th child. Kluchka noted that the applicant's narrative states that the daycare will serve 10 employees, not 10 children. Steve Johnson, TOB Builders, applicant, referred to a site plan of the interior of the building and pointed out the proposed daycare space and outdoor play area. He noted that the neighboring property to the north would be screened from the outdoor play area. He clarified that the narrative submitted with the application should have stated that the daycare will serve 10 children, not 10 employees. He explained that the daycare area has the capacity for occupancy for 28 children. However, the owner of the business does not want to apply for licensing beyond 10 children. He referred to the building expansion currently underway and stated that it is a LEEO certified building. Eck asked why this business would have a greater need for a daycare than another business might have. Johnson stated that this business has a predominately female work force and he thinks more businesses will be providing this type of amenity in the future. Kluchka said he thinks other businesses should be encouraged to offer this amenity and suggested putting an article about this building and the daycare use in the City newsletter. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 3 Grimes stated that daycare facilities are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the Light Industrial and Industrial zoning districts and suggested the same could be allowed in the Business and Professional Offices zoning district. Kluchka asked if the owner will be installing bicycle racks as a part of their expansion. Johnson stated yes and explained that the LEED certification process requires bicycle racks. He also stated that they will have special parking stalls for hybrid cars and they are recycling the demolition materials as well. Waldhauser asked about sidewalk connections to the site. Johnson said the architect is currently working on that part of the plans. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Kluchka suggested removing condition number three that states there can be no greater than 10 children attending the daycare since it's regulated by the State licensing process. Waldhauser agreed. Cera said he would like to keep that condition in the approval because the City would like to know if the applicant ever considers changing that number. Grimes said staff will review the existing zoning code as it relates to daycare centers in order to allow daycare centers in additional zoning districts. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to allow the applicant to operate an employee only daycare room in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District with the following conditions: 1. No outdoor signage may be used to advertise or otherwise promote the daycare. 2. Children attending the daycare must have a parent who is employed in the facility. 3. The number of children attending the daycare at any time must be no greater than ten. 4. The hours of normal operation shall be Monday through Friday from 7 am to 7 pm. 5. All improvements to the building must meet the City's Building Code requirements. 6. All necessary licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Department of Human Services. 7. All requirements must be met for the installation of fire safety equipment. 8. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times. 9. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for revocation. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 4 3. Discussion Regarding In-fill Housing Issues Grimes reminded the Commission of their December 17 meeting where Councilmember Shaffer made several suggestions on the proposed ordinance changes regarding in-fill housing development. Grimes referred to his memo dated January 11 and reviewed his proposed language changes. The first proposed change states that the setback requirement for houses and structures would be increased after the height goes over 15 ft. For all lots 65 ft. or greater in width, the side setback would increase % ft. for every foot of height over 15 ft. up to the maximum allowed height. For lots less than 65 ft. wide, the side setback would increase % ft. for every two feet of height over 15 ft. up to the maximum allowed height. This change would require that all new houses and additions to existing houses be "stepped back" as the height increases. Keysser asked how the above language would apply to additions to houses. Waldhauser said it would mean a second story addition would have to comply with the proposed new language. Keysser said he strongly objects to applying this language to additions. Cera asked about the height of a one-story house. Grimes said a one-story house is approximately 15 feet in height. McCarty said he is also against the proposed new height language applying to additions because it will cause the Board of Zoning Appeals to get a lot a variance requests. Keysser added that he wants people to be able to add on to their homes. Waldhauser stated that reducing a second story would help create more space between houses. Cera agreed and stated that if a second story goes straight up on top of a first story it creates an alley affect between houses. Kluchka suggested requiring the proposed new height language only if the footprint of a house changes because of an addition. Keysser said he likes that compromise. He added that people buy houses with expectations of expanding it in the future. McCarty suggested requiring the proposed new height language if the footprint were to change by a certain percentage. Waldhauser questioned if the 28 foot height limit would allow for a two-story house. Schmidgall disagreed with the suggestion of only requiring the proposed new height language if the footprint changes and stated that if this new language doesn't apply to remodels and additions they might as well do nothing to the current ordinances. Keysser said he doesn't think it is fair to limit people. McCarty agreed and questioned how the proposed new language would work if someone just wanted to add a small front entryway Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 5 addition. Keysser said that is why he likes the idea of allowing a certain percentage of the footprint to be changed before the new height language applies. He suggested allowing 10% of an existing footprint to be changed before the height language would apply. Waldhauser questioned if that would force people to expand into the side yard setback area. Eck said he doesn't understand the rationale of allowing a new structure to be built one way and an addition or a remodel being required to be built a different way because the end result is the same. McCarty said that people would know the rules from the beginning if they were building a new house. Cera questioned the difference between a "tear down" and an addition if the existing foundation is used. McCarty said he thinks there is a difference if the footprint changes. Schmidgall said he would support the first change referenced in Grimes' memo as is. Keysser asked the Commissioners what they thought about allowing a small percentage of change in the footprint of a house before the new height language would apply. Schmidgall said he wants the new ordinance to apply whether there is a new house or an addition built. Keyser said he would be willing to support the new height language if it allows for a small percentage of a footprint to be changed without having to conform to the new language. He proposed that the percentage be 10%. McCarty said he would be comfortable with 20%. Kluchka questioned how much of a hardship they want to put on people with narrow lots. Eck reiterated that he thinks the end result of a new home and an addition would be the same. Grimes said it is a question of what is better and what is worse, building up or building out, because a person could put a large addition on the back of their home that could ruin a neighbor's view also. Kluchka said he wants to encourage people to improve their homes and from an environmental and energy perspective it makes more sense to "build up" rather than out. Grimes noted that there are other parts of the proposed new ordinance that will address these infill development issues such as reducing impervious surface. Keysser suggested the Commissioners vote on each item in Grimes' memo individually. Grimes told the Commissioners that any of them could write a minority report to the City Council. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried 4 to 3 to recommend approval of the following language to be added to the R-1 Single Family zoning District: The setback requirement for houses and structures would be increased after the height goes over 15 ft. if the foundation size or footprint of the structure is increased by 10% or Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 6 more. For all lots greater than 65 ft. in width, the side setback would increase % ft. for every foot of height over 15 ft. up to the maximum allowed height. For lots 65 ft. or less in width, the side setback would increase % ft. for every two feet of height over 15 ft. up to the maximum allowed height. This change would require that all new houses and additions to existing houses increasing the footprint of the house be "stepped back" as the height increases. Commissioners Schmidgall, Cera and Eck voted no. Keysser referred to the second suggestion in Grimes' memo regarding grade. Grimes noted that all subdivision applications now require a subdivision agreement that will establish the grade before a new house is built. Keysser added that drainage problems could be considered a hardship. MOVED by Cera, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following language to be added to the R-1 Single Family zoning district: The height is measured from the grade established at the time of subdivision approval. If a house existed on a lot and was torn down to make way for a new house, the grade of the house that was torn down would be the established grade with up to a one foot increase permitted. Keysser asked for clarification of the language in item number three in Grimes' memo. Grimes explained that item number three prevents homes from becoming nonconforming if they were legally built prior to the proposed new language being adopted. This allows a house that was legally built at 30 ft. in height to be added on to if the addition meets the requirements of the zoning code. If this section was not added, houses that were taller than the new height requirement could only be expanded if a variance was granted. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following language to be added to the R-1 Single Family zoning district: houses built prior to Jan. 1, 2008 are considered compliant. However, any new construction would have to meet the requirements of the current zoning code. Keysser referred to the fourth suggestion in Grimes' memo regarding how the average grade of a lot is determined. He asked if the average grade means the mathematical average of the high point and low point. Grimes said yes. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following language to be added to the R-1 Single Family zoning district: grade is determined at the building line facing a street. If the lot is a corner lot, the average grade would be for all sides facing a street. 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 7 Cera stated that he attended a meeting in St. Louis Park where they discussed the Duke (VVest End) development project that involves a small portion of the southwest corner of Golden Valley. He stated that the discussion involved the proposed various uses including retail, office, a grocery store and a movie theater. Grimes stated that Golden Valley has been having discussions with St. Louis Park regarding traffic calming, better pedestrian connections and sanitary sewer capacity in the area. 5. Other Business No other business was discussed. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm. !i>>-}i( cJ Les Eck, Secretary