Loading...
01-12-09 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, C<;>uncil Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, January 12, 2009. 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 Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom, Director of Public Works Jeannine Clancy and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes December 8, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the December 8, 2008 minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Surface Water Management Plan Element Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To recommend approval the Surface Water Management Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan Hogeboom introduced Karen Chandler from Barr Engineering. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan is in its final review stage however the Surface Water Management Plan serves as a stand-alone document as well as a chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and therefore needs separate approvals. Cera asked if it is too late to suggest changes to the plan. Hogeboom said no, the plan is still in draft form and changes could still be made. Eck referred to the staff report and noted that the plan needs to be approved in 120 days which is rapidly approaching. Clancy explained that staff is going by the Minnehaha Watershed District approval date so they are still within the 120-day approval deadline. Chandler explained that the proposed surface water management plan has already been reviewed as required by the Bassett Creek and Minnehaha watershed districts and also by the Metropolitan Council. Chandler referred to a PowerPoint presentation and stated that she was going to give an overview of the Surface Water Management Plan, talk about the approval process, regulatory requirements, key issues and policies and implementation. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 2 Chandler discussed the overall purpose of the plan including: communicating water resource policies, providing technical information as a resource for staff, residents and officials, addressing redevelopment issues and opportunities, planning and budgeting and fulfilling regulatory requirements. Chandler stated that there are six chapters in the Surface Water Management Plan and discussed three of them as follows: the Executive Summary, the Goals and Policies and Implementation. Chandler stated that the Surface Water Management Plan is also a tool to meet other requirements such as MN Pollution Control Agency requirements, Metropolitan Council requirements and MN Department of Health requirements. She referred to a map of impaired waters in the City and showed a table listing how those waters are impaired. She discussed the implementation plans to improve the water quality. Chandler referred to the key issues affecting the City including: meeting water quality and quantity standards and solving existing problems through redevelopment, rehabilitation, city improvement and maintenance. She stated that some of the key goals and policies include: water quality, streams, flood control and recreation habitat and shoreland management. She explained that some of the ways to improve surface water quality include: improving the performance of the existing stormwater system, developing a program to systematically inspect, clean and repair the system and to implement, along the 1-394 corridor, "Guiding Principal 8" from the 1-394 Corridor study which involves low impact development, permeable pavement, green roofs, etc. Cera stated he would like to see low impact development techniques used everywhere in the City, not just on parcels in the 1-394 Corridor area. Chandler said that the plan encourages these techniques throughout the City, but there is a focus on implementing them in the 1-394 Corridor. Chandler discussed other policies in the plan that will improve runoff quality such as: developing a program to manage, monitor and enforce private stormwater facility agreements, reducing annual phosphorus loading, require runoff from new developments to meet the watershed treatment standards and develop a stormwater management ordinance. Chandler stated that another important goal of the plan is to improve or maintain the quality of the water bodies in the City by identifying opportunities to maintain the water quality of Twin Lake, achieve management goals for Sweeney Lake and cooperate in preparing TMDL studies and implementing recommendations. The next goal Chandler discussed was improving the quality and reducing the volume of stormwater runoff that reaches Bassett Creek by reducing impervious surfaces through ordinance changes and best management practices, updating creek inventory for erosion problems and encouraging restoration of streambank areas. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 3 Chandler referred to a flood inundation map and discussed the goal of flood control. She discussed some of the ways to reduce flooding including: controlling rates during redevelopment, enforcing the flood plain management ordinance, consider dedicating funds to purchase homes currently in the floodplain and prohibiting new obstructions in the floodplain. Chandler discussed the goal of recreation, habitat and shoreland management and improving the quality and aesthetics of water resources by developing buffers on city property and encouraging buffers on non-city property. Chandler discussed the implementation tools including the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP), stormwater utility, ordinances, plan approvals and permits, Wetland Conservation Act administration and maintenance. She added that the Watersheds also have tools to help implement this plan such as: physical improvements and maintenance, studies, taxes (Ad Valorem), development review and leading TMDL studies. Kluchka asked about the funding sources for the projects listed in this plan. Chandler stated that money for some of the projects come from the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission and from property taxes. Clancy added that all property owners pay utility fees which help fund the projects as well. Kluchka asked if there is any risk of projects not getting done in the case of budget constraints. Clancy stated that the projects are approved on an annual basis through the Capital Improvement Plan. Cera referred to page 10-14 of the plan which discusses implementing a program to control construction site debris. He questioned if Golden Valley will be setting up a recycling program for construction site debris. Grimes said staff is looking at ways to require a certain amount of recycling and to make sure construction site debris is disposed of as "greenly" as possible. Kluchka asked what specific things are changing that might impact the work of the Planning Commission. Clancy explained that there aren't projects specifically geared toward the Planning Commission but more toward the City in general such as the TMDL studies, working with the Minneapolis Park Board regarding the water quality of Wirth Lake, protecting Twin Lake, Lake Hiawatha and Lake Pepin. She added that the Planning Commission will also be involved in writing ordinances that use more "green" technology such as solar and wind energy and collecting rain water. Grimes stated that as projects are reviewed staff will address a lot of the issues that are in the Surface Water Management plan. Kluchka referred to page 10-10, number 19 regarding the guiding principles from the 1-394 Corridor study. He asked how those principles can have a broader impact in the City other than just in the 1-394 Corridor area. Hogeboom stated that staff has formed a "Green Team" to look at new ordinances and incentives. Cera suggested striking the last four words "for the 1-394 Corridor" in number 19. Grimes asked if the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 4 Commissioners would rather have it say "throughout the City". Clancy said she doesn't see a concern with amending the last sentence but that she would like to have the opportunity to talk to the rest of the staff before changing it. Waldhauser said when she was reading this plan she was looking for a shift from encouraging water retention and pond maintenance to encouraging infiltration and she did notice a subtle shift. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval the Surface Water Management Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 721 Hampshire Avenue South - CU-124 Applicant: Imola Motorsports, Kevin Tan Address: 721 Hampshire Avenue South Purpose: To allow an auto repair/maintenance business in the Mixed Use zoning district Grimes explained that the applicant is proposing to use approximately 10,000 square feet of the building located at 721 Hampshire Avenue South for the repair and maintenance of high end vehicles. He noted that this property has been used in the past for automotive types of businesses. Grimes stated the property was previously zoned Industrial but as of December 1, 2008 the property was rezoned to Mixed Use. The application was submitted before December 1, 2008 so it can be considered under the Industrial zoning district requirements. Grimes stated that there will be no auto body work allowed. He noted that according to the applicant, the cars will be stored inside the building. There will be 5 to 10 employees, and the hours will be 9 am to 9 pm. Grimes said that staff is in support of this proposal. Keysser asked about the length of the lease. Grimes said that the applicant has a three-year lease. Keysser asked what would happen to the Conditional Use Permit if the applicant's lease is not renewed after three years. Grimes explained that the Conditional Use Permit would continue with the property as long as the same type of Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 5 business goes in the space and there is not more than a 6 month gap between owners. Keysser asked Grimes if staff has any environmental concerns with this use. Grimes said no because the building is already set up to be used for automotive repair. Kluchka asked if the Conditional Use Permit is issued to the property owner or to the applicant. Grimes said it is issued to the applicant, but that the owner of the property signed the application giving the applicant permission to ask the City for a Conditional Use Permit. Kluchka asked what would happen to this proposal if the applicant would have applied after December 1, 2008. Grimes explained that if there wasn't a 6 month gap between owners the applicant could have opened his business with no City approvals. He added that the City Council delayed the adoption of the Mixed Use zoning district, in part, to offer business owners the chance to "get in" before the Zoning Code changes went into effect. Kluchka asked what potential impacts there would be if this proposal was submitted in 2009. Grimes stated that this proposal would not be permitted in the Mixed Use zoning district. Kluchka asked if there have been any other applicants turned away due to the requirements of the Mixed Use zoning district. Grimes stated that this has been the first proposal in the Mixed Use zoning district. Kevin Tan, Applicant, explained that there is a unique market to do high end automotive repair and maintenance and that is the type of customer they will cater to. He reiterated that there will be no cars parked outside, other than employee cars and that there will be no auto body work. Keysser asked the applicant if he is going to be buying and selling cars too. Tan said no he will only being doing maintenance and repair. Eck asked the applicant if this is a new business for him. Tan stated that he has always done this type of work on the side, but having a separate business will be new to him and he already has approximately 120 customers. Eck asked about the exhaust system in the building. Tan said there is a full exhaust system in the building. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. McCarty said he is in support of this proposal. Eck said it is interesting that if this proposal was brought forward today it would not be allowed but the building has been used as a transmission shop for years. He said Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 6 he is in support of the proposal because this use in this location won't impact anyone. Cera agreed. Waldhauser said her only concern is what might be adjacent to this property in the future especially if it is residential. Kluchka said he thinks this will be a good transitional use and he is in support of the proposal. He added that hopefully Borton (the building owner) will think about other mixed uses in the future. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of an auto repair/maintenance business at 721 Hampshire Avenue South with the following conditions: 1. Imola Motorsports Inc. will operate in the south 70 ft. by 150 ft. portion of the building at 721 Hampshire Ave. S. 2. All signage shall meet the requirements of the City sign code for the Industrial zoning district. 3. If there is an outside dumpster, it must be screened from view and be constructed of material compatible with the building as determined by the Building Official. 4. The applicant will keep the overhead door closed except when bringing vehicles into the building. 5. The memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson and dated December a, 200a, is attached and. his recommendations shall become a part of this approval. (Please note that the Deputy Fire Marshal mistakenly thought that there would be auto body work and painting done by Imola.) 6. Only auto repair shall be done by Imola. No body work or painting shall be permitted. 7. All other applicable state, local and federal requirements shall be met. a. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. 4. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Paved Surface/Patio Setback Requirements in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the R-1 Single Family Zoning District in regard to paved surface/patio setback requirements Hogeboom stated that staff is recommending the zoning code be amended to require that patios and paved surfaces be required to be setback 3 feet from side yard property lines as are driveways. He explained that the reason for this requested amendment is that there was recently an applicant at the Board of Zoning Appeals who wanted to replace his existing driveway and call a portion of it a patio so that he Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 7 could construct it right up to the property line. He stated that he asked several cities about their requirements for paved surfaces and the most common response was a 5-foot setback requirement for paved surfaces. He stated that staff is asking the Planning Commission to recommend approval of requiring a 3-foot setback for all paved surfaces because that would be consistent with the driveway requirements. Keysser asked how the proposed ordinance language would allow for pervious pavers. Waldhauser reminded the Commission that pervious pavers were discussed during the "infill housing" discussions they've had in the past. At that time it was agreed that only 40% of the front yard may be covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers of any kind. Hogeboom stated that staff will be looking at requirements for pervious pavers separately. Waldhauser stated that she would like to see patios have a 5-foot setback requirement because decks and accessory structures are typically 5 feet away from the property lines and 5 feet would allow enough room for screening with plants. Grimes added that if a deck is attached then it has to follow the same setback requirements as the principal structure, which is more than 5 feet, depending on the width of the lot. Kluchka suggested using the same setback requirements that are used for structures. Grimes stated that a side yard setback could be up to 20 feet depending on the height of a structure and that could create a hardship on many lots. Cera said he would like to have different setback requirements based on the width of a lot. McCarty said he would prefer a 5-foot setback requirement for patios. Grimes stated that one issue with patios is that they don't require a building permit so it is going to be hard to regulate these setbacks. Grimes suggested requiring different setbacks for different lot widths such as requiring a 5 foot setback for driveways and paved surfaces on lots over 100 feet in width and a 3 foot setback for narrower lots. Schmidgall said he is in favor of requiring a 3-foot setback as recommended by staff. Hogeboom questioned if sidewalks should also have a setback requirement. Waldhauser asked about the side yard setback requirements for parking pads located next to garages. She reiterated that she would like the setback for paved surfaces to be 5 feet so there is enough room to provide for some screening with plants. Keysser referred to the proposed ordinance and suggested paragraph A just read "driveways shall be paved", the word "bituminous" can be removed and the word "sidewalk" could be added. McCarty suggested saying "paved areas in the R-1 zoning district shall be governed by the following provisions" because that would include every paved area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 8 Kluchka asked about gravel and if a homeowner could "gravel" their entire side yard. Grimes said yes, people could use landscape rock or gravel in their side yards, but driveways have to be paved. McCarty referred to paragraph A regarding materials and suggested that the word "driveways" be replaced with the words "paved areas". Schmidgall stated that the word driveway needs to be in that paragraph because driveways are required to be paved. Kluchka asked about the requirement for air conditioner pads. Grimes stated that air conditioning units have to be located in the side or rear yard, not the front yard. Eck questioned if an area made of gravel or wood chips could go right to the property line. Keysser said yes because those are not paved surfaces. Cera suggested language saying that driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc. cannot be located closer than 3 feet to the property line and not mention "paved surfaces" at all. The commissioners agreed that only paved surfaces would need to have setback requirements. Grimes suggested saying all paved areas shall be setback 3 feet from the property lines and all driveways must be paved. Kluchka suggested defining "paved areas". Waldhauser suggested language right at the beginning defining paved areas as those areas constructed of concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers. Paragraph A would state that driveways must be paved. Paragraph 8 would be the setback requirements for all paved areas and Paragraph C would be about coverage. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to amend the language in the R-1 Single Family Zoning District regarding paved surface/patio setback requirements as follows: 1. Add a definition for paved areas as follows: paved areas are those constructed of concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers. 2. Subdivision 19(A) states that all driveways shall be paved. 3. Subdivision 19(8) states that paved areas shall be setback 3 feet from a side yard property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 9 5. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding Definition of "Building Height" Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the definition of Building Height in the City Code Hogeboom stated that staff is asking to amend the zoning code's definition of building height. He explained the reason staff is asking for this amendment is because recently there was a home that was torn down and the building department's policy establishing the grade for a new home was in conflict with the zoning code's definition for establishing the grade. Grimes added that the floor elevation of a garage needs to be two feet above the centerline of the street in order to provide for proper drainage. In this particular case the grade of the lot was lower than the street and the zoning code (with the new infill development rules) states that the grade for a new home can only be raised 1 foot above the previous grade of the former home. He stated that there are some situations where the grade needs to be brought up more than 1 foot to provide for adequate drainage. Waldhauser said she thought there was an exception in the zoning code that allowed staff to decide if the grade could be raised as necessary to allow for proper drainage. Kluchka stated he remembered staff saying during the discussions regarding infill development that allowing 1 foot of increased grade would be enough. Cera said he would like the language to remain as is with the addition of saying that an exception could be made in order to allow for proper drainage. That way a homeowner couldn't say they needed to add 10 feet of fill in order to make the lot drain properly. Grimes said he thinks allowing for an exception when needed for proper drainage is really what staff is trying to accomplish. Kluchka asked if needing to fill a lot more than 1 foot could be considered a hardship. Grimes stated that in this case the homeowner wasn't asking to put in more fill; staff was telling them they had to bring the grade up in order to get proper drainage. Kluchka suggested requiring the homeowner to obtain a variance or adding language to the code that requires staff to make a finding when the City requires the grade to be increased more than the code allows. Keysser said he would be comfortable keeping the language as it is with the addition of allowing the Director of Public Works to decide if there needs to be an exception to allow for proper drainage. The Commissioners agreed. McCarty noted that the last sentence in the definition of building height is redundant to definition 8.5 and should be struck. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 10 Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Ce~a and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to amend the definition of Building Height in the City Code as follows: 1. Add language stating that the Director of Public Works can set the grade of a lot where a house has been demolished higher than 1 foot above the previous grade if drainage issues exist. 2. The last sentence in definition 12 should be struck because it is redundant to definition 8.5. -Short Recess- 7. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kluchka noted that at the last Planning Commission meeting they tabled the consideration of the Redevelopment Plan for the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Project Area, but they neglected to table it to a specific date. Waldhauser added that the Planning Commission didn't really have the power to table that item and that the details of that document were not for the Planning Commission to review. They were just supposed to decide if it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or not. Grimes stated that the HRA will be discussing this item at their next meeting and they will be reviewing what the Planning Commission discussed. 8. Other Business Cera told the Commissioners that Duke Realty is having a neighborhood open house on January 13 at 6:30 pm regarding their West End Towers development. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 pm. &t7;t a Lester Eck, Secretary