Loading...
09-29-09 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 29,2009 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 Tuesday, September 29, 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 and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes June 22, 2009 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Eck and McCarty noted some typographical errors. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the June 22, 2009 minutes with the noted corrections. Chair Keysser abstained from voting. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding Front Yard Setback Requirements for Decks Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To allow decks to be located within 30 feet of the front yard property line in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1) Hogeboom stated that staff has been seeing more requests recently for decks to be located in front yards. He explained that the City Code allows an open front porch to be located 30 feet from a front yard property line but that decks have different requirements even though an open front porch without a roof is considered to be a deck. He stated that staff believes front yard decks and open front porches serve the same purpose so the recommendation is to amend the Code to allow decks to be located within 30 feet of a front yard property line just like open front porches. Waldhauser questioned the language regarding a 5' x 5' landing area or stoop and asked if front yard decks could be larger than 5' x 5'. Hogeboom explained that for a structure to be considered a stoop or landing it has to be no larger than 25 square feet in area, anything larger than that would be considered a deck. He added that a structure up to 25 square feet in size is allowed to be built in a setback area, however if it is larger than 25 square feet it has to meet setback requirements. Waldhauser asked how a raised patio would be considered. Hogeboom said if it is more than 8" in height it would be considered a deck. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 29,2009 Page 2 Keysser asked if the word deck is defined in the Zoning Code. Hogeboom said it is not defined in the Code. However, it is common to refer to a porch as having a roof and a deck as not having a roof. Keysser referred to the proposed ordinance language and asked if open front porches, along with decks, should be included in section E. Hogeboom stated that the Planning Department has an intern who is currently working on language regarding garden structures which might affect how open front porches are regulated. Waldhauser asked if a person would be able to build an open front porch with a deck in front of it. Hogeboom said with the proposed new language an open front porch and a deck could be built together if it doesn't go closer than 30 feet to the front yard property line. Eck questioned if stairs leading to a deck or porch are included in the requirements. Hogeboom said no and explained that stairs are allowed to be built in a setback area. Kluchka asked where the definition of a deck should be placed in the ordinance. He questioned if there should be some language added regarding locating the original or existing grade of a lot before a deck is built to ensure that the grade isn't being built up before a deck is built in order to get around the requirements. Hogeboom said there are controls in place regarding the grading of property, but that language could be added to this section of the City Code as well. Kluchka said he would like language regarding original grade added to sections A(1) and E of the proposed new ordinance. Cera questioned if the City would want to allow open front porches and decks to be larger and therefore, closer than 30 feet to the property line. The Commissioners agreed they want to see the front yard setback requirement remain 30 feet for open front porches and decks. Grimes explained that when the language regarding open front porches was originally discussed it was decided that 5 extra feet would be adequate space for an open front porch. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. McCarty asked if the Planning Commission will be reviewing this ordinance again. Grimes said the Planning Commission could choose to table this item in order to review any changes made. McCarty said he is not comfortable adding language regarding the original or existing grade of the property because this ordinance doesn't require that. He said he likes how the proposed ordinance is currently written. Kluchka said he thinks adding language regarding grade would be more consistent with the rest of the City Code. Keysser suggested the language regarding grade be added only to section E. McCarty suggested recommending approval of the ordinance as it is written and if there is an issue with people building up their grade just to pour concrete then the issue can be revisited. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 29, 2009 Page 3 MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Cera and motion carried 5 to 2 to recommend approval of the Zoning Code amendment to allow decks to be located within 30 feet of the front yard property line in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1) with the language currently proposed by staff. Commissioners Kluchka and Waldhauser voted no. 3. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding the Number of Street Curb Cut Access Points Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To limit the number of street curb cut access points to one per parcel in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1) Hogeboom stated that during the City's Pavement Management Project there have been several situations where people want to have more than one curb cut. He stated that it has been city policy to only allow one curb cut. He explained that approving the proposed ordinance would add language to the Zoning Code which would only allow one curb cut with certain exceptions such as a having two legally constructed garages, a physical disability which requires additional driveway access or a lot with an existing horseshoe driveway. Kluchka said he would rather "grandfather in" all existing driveway conditions and not just allow for existing horseshoe driveways. He said not allowing a homeowner to keep something they already have seems like a taking to him. Hogeboom noted that driveway aprons are on City property, not private property. Kluchka said he would still like to allow existing conditions to stay. Cera asked if it is a cost issue. Hogeboom explained that there are some secondary curb cuts that the City would like removed. Grimes added that it is a traffic issue, safety issue and a cost issue. The City would like the homeowner to pay the additional costs associated with second curb cuts. Waldhauser said she doesn't think it is an issue of cost or aesthetics, she thinks the City just wants fewer cuts into the street. Cera questioned if an underlying reason in allowing only one curb cut is impervious surface issues. McCarty asked how this issue has been handled in the past. Hogeboom stated that the policy has been not to allow second curb cuts but it is not officially in the City Code. McCarty questioned if it makes sense to put this language in the City Code this far along in the Pavement Management Program process. Waldhauser questioned if the City wants to put these requirements in the Zoning Code because people would then be allowed to ask for a variance. Hogeboom said another option would be to place the requirements in a different section of the City Code where variances aren't allowed. Cera questioned what kind of hardship would apply in requesting a second curb cut. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 29, 2009 Page 4 Keysser asked if a person building a new home could construct a horseshoe driveway. Hogeboom said city policy no longer allows horseshoe driveways at all. Grimes stated that the Planning Commission could choose to table this discussion to allow someone from Public Works to come to a meeting and talk about this issue. McCarty said he thinks there are two separate issues. One is if it is a Public Works issue or a Planning issue and the other is why the City limits property owners to one curb cut. Kluchka said he doesn't think this ordinance change is a good idea. He said he doesn't see a good reason to prevent a home owner from having more than one curb cut. McCarty added that he is having difficulty understanding why this issue is being addressed now when there is only a little bit of the project left. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table this item in order to obtain further clarification from the Public Works Department. Waldhauser added that it would be helpful to see some pictures. --Short Recess-- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 6. Other Business a. Planning Department Project Update Hogeboom gave an update of current Planning Department projects. He discussed the progress of the Comprehensive Plan update and stated that the Metropolitan Council has received a copy of the plan and has asked the City to make several adjustments such as streamlining the demographical forecast throughout the plan, providing additional housing density information, creating a section of the plan wherein the City's implementing regulations are defined, providing more detailed data concerning future land uses, providing more detailed data concerning the City's designated redevelopment areas and extending traffic forecasting data. Hogeboom discussed the Douglas Drive Corridor study. He stated that the study is in its final phase and is expected to be completed by the end of 2009. He talked about an open house that was held in August to allow property owners a chance to view Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 29,2009 Page 5 information generated by the study. He discussed a $1,050,000 allocation from Transit for Livable Communities (TLC) to construct a sidewalk along the east side of Douglas Drive. He explained that TLCsupports the City's proposal to construct a sidewalk along Douglas Drive, but believes that the City must also implement other aspects of the "complete street" philosophy into the design. The Commission discussed three lanes versus four lanes on Douglas Drive and the timeline of the project. Grimes stated that staff doesn't know the timeframe of the project yet, but they will be working with MnDOT, Hennepin County and TLC on this project and will be trying to get it on the 2015 County project list. Hogeboom discussed the Bottineau Boulevard Transitway. He explained that Hennepin County is currently studying the feasibility of constructing a light rail transit line within the Bottineau Boulevard/West Broadway Avenue corridor between downtown Minneapolis and the Arbor Lakes Shopping Center in Maple Grove. He referred to a map that showed four alignment options for Robbinsdale and Minneapolis and discussed the issues with each option. He invited the Commissioners to attend an open house on September 30 at the Crystal City Hall. Hogeboom stated that the City has extended its contract with Hennepin County to participate in the Active Living program until December 31,2010. He stated that the planning intern, Kevin Knase, will be working on incorporating development guidelines into city code which foster elements of active living. Hogeboom discussed the City's interdepartmental "Green Team" and stated that the team is working on incorporating environmentally friendly applications such as wind energy and rain barrels into city practice and policy. He stated that the Green Team- initiated ordinances are expected to be formally presented to the Planning Commission in November. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm. ~kb~ Lester Eck, Secretary