Loading...
09-23-02 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - August 26, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (SU19-04) Applicant: Reid Loidolt and Viola Saari Address: Lot 8, Block 6 Medley Hills located at 8945 23rd Avenue North; and Lot 9, Block 6 Medley Hills located at 2200 Ensign Avenue North both in Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicants are requesting a subdivision of the two parcels of land in order to redraw the property line between these parcels. III. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendments Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: The City would like to delete the sign requirements in the Zoning Code. -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings V. Other Business A. Discussion of possible changes to the Zoning Code. B. Election of Officers VI. Adjournment - . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 26, 2002 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 August 26, 2002. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. cAleese, elopment, man. Those present were Chair Pentel, Commissioners Eck, Groger, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Pia Mark Grimes, City Planner, Dan Olson and Recording Se I. Approval of Minutes - August 12, 2002 Plannin e Eck stated that some of the items in the minutes referred to page 9 of the minutes and stated t rezoning of 917 Lilac Drive. Groger referred the word "exits" should be "exists". McAI be changed to "McAleese stated that Map requests could be considered in referred to page 7, paragraph 6 a "asked" (not "stated") if there w stations. red incorrectly. Eck asn't a motion written for the last paragraph and stated that at page 7, paragraph 4 should n1ng nd Comprehensive Land Use Plan " (not "motion"). McAleese again t the sentence should say that he districts that wouldn't allow switch MOVED by Eck, seconde the August 12, 2002 Aleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the above noted changes and corrections. ublic Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment he City would like to revise the telecommunication requirements of the Zoning Code. Olson referred to his memo dated August 22, 2002 and discussed the changes that the Planning Commission recommended at the August 12, 2002 meeting. He stated that language was added about favoring roof top antennas instead of monopoles in the Multiple Dwelling zoning district. He also stated that language has been added to encourage applicants to exceed the setback requirements when located adjacent to a property zoned Residential, Two Family Residential (R-2) and Multiple Dwelling. e Olson discussed taking the definition of switch stations out of the ordinance and including requirements for switch stations in with essential services instead. He stated that the Planning Commission has to decide if switch stations are considered a Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 2 . permitted use or a conditional use. He added that the aesthetics of the building would be reviewed by the Building Board of Review. Pentel stated that maybe towers were something the City would want in residential areas. She said she is concerned about the height of the towers. Eck stated that the City might then get more towers and less co-location. Shaffer added that because a Conditional Use Permit is required for towers, then each request c be looked at individually. Tony Dorland, Moss & Bar opposed to the property stations be a permitted u were correct not a permitted Eck questioned whether the language changes to Section if the changes to that section would make telecommunica use in the Commercial zoning district, which is contrary Telecommunications Ordinance states. Olson stated th height restrictions, not whether these structures ar discussion Olson stated that Eck is correct thaR" be seen as not allowing telecommunication sture Eck suggested including language that woul mit refer to the new Telecommunications 0 suggested this language be included' ion 9 deals with or not. Upon further o language changes could the Commercial zoning district. structures in Subdivision 9, but ight requirements. Eck also elevant sections of the Zoning Code. e Pentel opened the public hearin nting Verizon Wireless, stated that he is not on to Commercial, but he would like to see switch ot a conditional use in the Commercial zoning district. tel closed the public hearing. Pentel aske permitted conditional use s e Ci Groger more contro . ioners if they thought switch stations should be allowed as a mercial zoning district or if it they should be allowed as a A stated that he thought switch stations should remain a conditional ou d have some say about the outside appearance of the buildings. d stated that making switch stations a conditional use would allow for McAleese asked staff if they had any concerns about impacts to infrastructure. Grimes stated that there is a permit process in the Public Works Department to allow digging in right-of-way. He stated that if switch stations were allowed with a Conditional Use Permit that thatwould be another way for the City to control them. . Pentel asked about the radius for notification of a conditional use application. Grimes stated that hearing notices go to properties within 500 feet of any site applying for a Conditional Use Permit. . e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 26, 2002 Page 3 Groger asked about parking regulations for switch stations. Grimes stated that he thought it would be more advantageous to the applicant to come up with as many parking spaces as they can or to have them meet the parking requirements for the Commercial zoning district. Pentel referred to page three of Olson's memo and questioned the feasible and practical" in regard to towers near residential areas also thought that wording should be changed. Rasmussen st t Planning Commission meeting she thought the words "no I were recommended. Shaffer suggested saying that tow requirements by up to 50%. McAleese suggested havi force applicants to prove that their request is "feasible a ding "where e said he e last n amount" d the setback nguage that would I". 4) MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Hoffman an the Telecommunications Ordinance with the f unanimously to approve anges: 1) Switch stations will be made a condi . e.Commercial zoning district 2) Subdivision 4(C) should read: setback requirements b 50DA Residential, Two Family Re feasible and practical, a located on building ro ble and practical, towers shall exceed the I d adjacent to a property zoned (R-2) and Multiple Dwelling. Also, where properties zoned Multiple Dwelling shall be an have a monopole design. 3) The words "as pr zoning district ection 11.71 of this Code" be included in relevant ing to essential services. be made to the Zoning Code relating to essential services n's memo dated August 22, 2002. III. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment, ezoning, and Comprehensive land Use Plan Map Amendment Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: The City would first like to delete the Radio and Television zoning district from the Zoning Code. Then secondly, the City would like to rezone 251 0 Mendelssohn Avenue North to Commercial. Finally, the City is requesting that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map be changed for 2510 Mendelssohn from Light Industrial to Commercial. . e . Minutes o.f the Go.lden Valley Planning Co.mmissio.n August 26,2002 Page 4 The deletio.n o.f the Radio. and T elevisio.n zo.ning district, the rezo.ning o.f 2510 Mendelsso.hn Avenue No.rth to. Co.mmercial and the. change to. the Co.mprehensive Land Use Plan Map far 2510 Mendelsso.hn from Light Industrial to. Co.mmercial were discussed at the August 12,2002 Planning Co.mmissio.n so. the fo.llo.wing mo.tio.n was made: MOVED by Shaffer, seco.nded by Ho.ffman and mo.tio.n carried una the fo.llo.wing: 1) Rezo.ne 2510 Mendelsso.hn Avenue No.rth to. Co.mmerci 2) The Co.mprehensive Land Use Plan Map be chang Light Industrial to. Co.mmercial. 3) The deletio.n o.f the Radio. and Televisio.n zo m the Zo.ning Co.de. IV. Reports on Meetings of th Council, Board of Zonin and Redevelopment Authority, City d other Meetings Shaffer discussed the Aug stated that she will be att meeting in Shaffer's plac Bo.ard o.f Zo.ning Appeals meeting. Pentel tember 24, 2002 Bo.ard o.f Zo.ning Appeals V. o.f po.ssible changes to. the Zo.ning Co.de. eeting the Planning Co.mmissio.n had with the City Co.uncil and nd Recreatio.n Co.mmissio.n regarding the PUD sectio.n o.f the Co.de uggestio.ns made at that meeting were go.ingto. be inco.rpo.rated in the changes to. Zo.ning Co.de. Olso.n stated that at this time he just wanted to. Co.mmissio.n to. discuss the po.ssible changes and that he will begin wo.rking o.f preparing draft ordinances for the Co.mmissio.n to. review. Shaffer asked if the Planning Co.mmissio.n co.uld have mare time to. Io.o.k at the po.ssible changes to. the Zo.ning Co.de. He suggested reading S1. Lo.uis Park's Co.de. Pentel agreed with Shaffer and the Co.mmissio.n decided to. discuss the Zo.ning Co.de changes at their next meeting an September 23,2002. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 26,2002 Page 5 B. Information about first ring suburbs forum in Richfield - September 9, 2002. Olson asked the Commissioners if they would like to attend the first ring suburbs forum in Richfield on September 9,2002. Commissioners Eck, McAleese, Pentel and Shaffer stated that the the forum. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM. t' e e e Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Hey To: Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Minor Subdivision (Boundary Line Change) for properties at 8945 23rd Ave. N. and 2200 Ensign Ave. N. - Reid Loidolt, Applicant Date: September 17, 2002 Background Reid Loidolt, owner of the lot and home at 8945 23rd Ave. N. is requesting that the property line between his property and the property to the south at 2200 Ensign Ave. N. be changed. This property line change would add about 1,980 sq. ft. to the Loidolt lot. The owner of the property to the south is Viola Saari and she has agreed to the property line change. It is my understanding that the property at 2200 Ensign Ave. N. was a farmhouse for the farm that was located in this area years ago. When the area was platted into the Medley Hills Addition, a lot was created for the farmhouse that accommodated the farmhouse and a barn located at the northeast corner of the lot. This barn has since been removed so the 30 ft. by 60 ft. portion of Lot 8 at the northeast corner of the lot is no longer needed by the Saari family. The Loidolt family has asked to purchase this portion of Lot 8 from the Saari family in order to allow a future addition to their home. Qualification as a Minor Subdivision The lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property is part of an existing, recorded plat, creates fewer than four lots, and does not create the need for any additional public improvements. The applicant has submitted the required information to the City that allows for the subdivision to be evaluated as a minor subdivision. Staff Review of the Minor Subdivision Since this minor subdivision involves the change of one property line between two already existing lots with homes located on them, the application is straightforward. City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, has reviewed this minor subdivision and found it to be acceptable with the understanding that all required utility easements will be indicated on the final plat. e e e The Subdivision Code states that all lots within a minor subdivision must meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. In this circumstance, the residential zoning district requirements apply. After the proposed subdivision, the lots and buildings on the lots will meet or exceed the requirements of the residential zoning district. There is one issue that will be taken care of by the Loidolt family prior to approval of the final plat. The existing storage shed that is located south of their house must be moved to a conforming location on the new lot for 8945 23rd Ave. N. This shed is now in located too close to the south property line and within the side setback area. Accessory buildings, such as storage sheds, may only be located within the rear yard and at least 10ft. away from the main dwelling. Within the rear yard, sheds must be at least 5 ft. from a rear or side property line and 35 ft. from any street. The new lot will provide for adequate space for relocation of the shed. Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision According to Section 12.50 of the Subdivision Code, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions and comments regarding this case: 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. In this case, the two lots and buildings on the two lots will meet the requirements of the residential zoning district after the final plat is approved. The existing shed owned by the Loidolt family will have to be moved to a conforming location on the new lot for 8945 23rd Ave. N. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not buildable. In this case, there are already homes on the lots with existing utilities serving the homes. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems by the addition of new lots. In this case, the two lots are already developed with City services. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the City. The final plat will show all necessary easements as required by the City Engineer and City Code. 5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor subdivision, the agencies will be given the opportunity to comment. In this case, no other agencies have any jurisdiction. 6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney due to dedication of certain easements. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements. The policy of the City has been to require a park dedication fee if any new building lots are created. In this case, no new lots are being created for a new home. 2 e e e Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision of Lots 8 and 9, Medley Hills Addition in order to create a new south property line between the lots for the homes at 8945 23rd Ave. N. and 2200 Ensign Ave. N. The purpose of the minor subdivision is to add a small amount of property from Lot 8 and to Lot 9. This would allow the lot on which 8945 23rd Ave. N. to be somewhat larger which would allow for the home to be expanded. Staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat and dedication of easements. 2. The sketch titled "Existing and Proposed Property Lines - 8945 23rd Ave. N. and 2200 Ensign Ave. N." shall become a part of this approval. 3. The shed located on Lot 9 shall be moved to a conforming location prior to approval of the final plat. C: Site Plan Map showing existing and proposed property lines Sketch of sites 3 e EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES - 8945 - 23RD AVENUE NORTH AND 2200 ENSIGN AVENUE NORTH -. -.._ _.'0' _ ~ ~~. ,.~ o 5 8 ~ 4t) 'iv"E. tZ"W, 125 <:;) _~:C> ~I ~ \~~~- ~.,I ~ os f ! c--I; ~ ~! c;:) M Nt I U I =-1 00 Lor'q ~ Lot-- g ::/ , . (~: 1" = 50~] . . ?3 ~D AVE, N, , '-(0' 31 -ro' 1,0 :s 't "L~ , <.. \ . 100 \Q -. \f\ \ 'Z "/$1 Sf)' lJJ , ItOD _I I 35 t7 e ~ I '\>:> l~b,17 N e '. e Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095 /763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing - Deletion of sign requirements in the Golden Valley Zoning Code Date: September 18, 2002 Background e At the August 12, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed a draft Sign Code to revise current requirements in Chapter 4 of the City Code, as well as a revision to advertising requirements on bus benches in Chapter 6. The City Council has set a Public Hearing date to review these revisions for October 1, 2002. Upon further review of the Zoning Code, it was noted that there are currently some sign regulations in the Code that should be deleted. These citations in the Zoning Code have been addressed in the Draft Sign Code. Therefore, staff recommends that all references to signs in the Zoning Code be deleted. This will result in all sign regulations being placed in Chapter 4 of the City Code. In addition, some of the sign regulations in the Zoning Code conflict with those in the Draft Sign Code. Recommended Action Recommend to the City Council that the sign regulations in the City Zoning Code be deleted. Attachments: . Deleted sign regulations in the Zoning Code e . The following language is to be deleted from the Zoning Code: Section 11.03 Definitions "Sign" - A name, identification, description, display, or illustration which is affixed to, or pointed, or represented directly or indirectly upon a building, structure or piece of land and which directs attention to an object, product, place, activity, institution, organization, idea or business. Section 11.21, Subd. 3 (B): Permitted Uses in Residential zoning district Inconspicuous real estate signs and "for sale" signs, relating to the property upon which they are located, and of not more than 4 square feet in area. Section 11.22, Subd. 3 (B): Permitted Uses in Two-Family Residential (R-2) Inconspicuous real estate signs and "for sale" signs, relating to the property upon which they are located, and of not more than four (4) square feet in area. Section 11.35, Subd. 12 (G): (Relating to signs for temporary retail sales) e Signs in excess of the signage permitted under other sections of this code shall be permitted for the temporary retail sale. Such signs shall be located only on the sale premises, shall be 32 square feet or less, shall be approved by the Chief of Fire and Inspections Services and shall be erected and secured in a place and manner approved by the Chief of Fire and Inspections Services. The square foot limitation applies to all signs associated with the temporary retail sale including those attached to vehicles. The signs for the temporary retail sale shall be erected no more than 48 hours prior to the commencement of the sale and shall be removed within 24 hours after the temporary retail sale ends. Section 11.36, Subd. 11 (G): (Relating to signs for temporary retail sales) e G. Signs in excess of the signage permitted under other sections of this code shall be permitted for the temporary retail sale. Such signs shall be located only on the sale premises, shall be 32 square feet or less, shall be approved by the Director of Zoning and Community Services, and shall be erected and secured in a place and manner approved by the Director of Zoning and Community Services. The square foot limitation applies to all signs associated with the temporary retail sale including those attached to vehicles. The signs for the temporary retail sale shall be erected no more than 48 hours prior to the commencement of the sale and shall be removed within 24 hours after the temporary retail sale ends. . Section 11.78, Subd. 2 (B) (3): (Relating to signs for seasonal sales) Signage for the sales operation may be .counted separate from the maximum allowed for the normal business otherwise occupying the site. However, this waiver shall cover a maximum of two signs per site, each of which may be two sided; and shall cover a maximum combined size, based on one side only, of 32 square feet.. Such signs shall be located either within the area occupied by the sales operation or as an attachment to an existing sign for the normal business otherwise occupying the site, provided that the City review staff must in any case approve the exact sign location. Section 11,,78, Subd. 2 (C) (3): (Relating to signs for seasonal sales) Signage shall be based on the same considerations as found in paragraph B (3) above. e . e e e " POSSIBLE REVISIONS TO GOLDEN VALLEY ZONING CODE Miscellaneous: · Make revisions to daytime activity centers, day care, child care requirements. Daytime activity centers are not defined in the Zoning Code, and the differences between day care and child care are not readily apparent. In City Code Section 11.21, Subd. 3 (H), this State Statute cited was repealed by Legislature in 1987. · Add Adult Use Section to the Zoning Code. These uses are Permitted in the Commercial zoning district. Also, no clear regulations on this land use. · Delete language that should have been previously deleted, but was not (for example, references to Railroad and Terminal Warehouse zoning districts) Section 11.03 Definitions. · Expand this definition section to include more terms. Section 11.12 Principal structure on one lot. · Refer to this requirement in each zoning district chapter. Section 11.20 Open Development zoning district · Delete this section and all references throughout Zoning Code. Section 11.21 Residential zoning district · Rename "Single Family Zoning District - R-1" · Establish various requirements for accessory structures: 1. 1,000 square foot maximum for accessory structures (what Inspections Department requires). 2. Require permit from the Planning Department for accessory buildings? 3. Include swimming pools in accessory structures definition? 4. Look at the definition of structure and building (does this include walls, for example?). Swimming pools are subject to setbacks, but stone walls are not. Discuss what types of structures should be subject to setback requirements. 5. Delete requirement that detached structure has to be completely behind the principal structure? · Establish lot coverage requirements? · For corner lots, front and side clearly defined. Have lesser setback for one Side? Refer to corner visibility requirements. e e e .. · Subd. 7 (A) - reduce front yard setback in certain situations (Le. front porches) · Subd. 7 (C) - reduce side yard setback in certain situations (Le., second stall garage) · Subd. 14 Mark Grimes would like to make some changes to the Home Occupations regulations. · Add requirements on temporary outdoor storage (PODS, dumpsters, etc.)? · Establish fence requirements and place these requirements in Zoning Code? . Air conditioning units not allowed in front yard of home (what Inspections Department requires). · Establish driveway setbacks and require that driveways be hard surface? Section 11.22 Two-Family zoning district . Accessory building requirements? Section 11.25 Multiple Dwelling zoning district · Delete M-3 and M-4 subdistricts (we have no properties zoned that way)? If an applicant would like to build a higher structure, put in a CUP Permit for M-2? . Accessory building requirements? Sections 11.30, 11.35, 11.36, 11.45, and 11.46 Commercial, Light Industrial, Industrial, Business and Professional offices, and Institutional zoning districts · More thorough listings of Permitted and Conditional Uses? · Review # of parking space requirements for legitimacy. . Accessory building requirements? · Do we have requirements for trash enclosures? . Define mini-storage facilities? · Require screening of mechanical equipment. . Lighting standards for parking lots? · Delete Section 11.45, Subd. 8 (B)(7)? ("compatible uses" allowed as CUP) · Delete Section 11.46, Subd. 4 (H)? ("compatible uses" allowed as CUP) . Establish landscape standards? · Regulate outside paging systems and loudspeakers? · Are medical offices and medical clinics considered offices? · In Institutional zoning district, delete concept of sub-districts. Instead, have schools and churches as a Permitted Use and every other use is a Conditional Use? · Along 1-394, create a new zoning district called 1-394 Business and Light Industrial zoning district. This would include light industrial, restaurants, hotels, and office uses. e e . . · Review properties that are zoned Industrial- would they be appropriately located in a Commercial or Light Industrial (we don't have a lot of "heavy" industrial properties)? Then expand uses in Light Industrial? Section 11.40 Radio and Television Zoning District · Rezone 3 properties in this district and then delete this section and all references throughout the Zoning Code? Section 11.55 Planned Unit Development · Implement changes as have been discussed by the Planning Commission and City Council. · Establish sign design standards as part of the PUD process? Section 11.60 Flood Plain Management · Up to date with State Statutes? Have Engineering Department review. Section 11.65 Shoreland Management · Up to date with State Statutes? Have Engineering Department review. Section 11.70 Off-street parking and loading regulations · Loading requirements not used - should be make more practical? · Refer to these requirements in each zoning district chapter. · Requirements for aisle width, islands, landscaping, etc.? Section 11.90 Administration · Subd. 4 - Change to allow "Administrative Variance" in hold-harmless situations?