Loading...
11-09-09 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9,2009 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 Monday, November 9,2009. Vice Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Chair Keysser was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes September 29, 2009 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Eck referred to the first sentence in the last paragraph on page 3 and asked that it be clarified. McCarty referred to the second paragraph on page two and noted that a comma was missing in the first sentence. He also noted that the minutes stated that Waldhauser chaired the meeting. She didn't, Keysser was in attendance and he chaired the meeting. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 29, 2009 minutes with the above noted corrections. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding the Building Board of Review Applicant - City of Golden Valley Purpose - To amend Section 11.35, Subd. 7(A) and Section 11.36, Subd. 7(A) (Light Industrial and Industrial Chapters of the Zoning Code) to remove language regarding the Building Board of Review Grimes explained that staff is recommending that the Building Board of Review be discontinued because they rarely meet and their duties regarding city ordinances can be done by staff. He stated that there are a couple of places in the Zoning Code and the Sign Code where the Building Board of Review is mentioned in regard to reviewing landscape plans. It is now being suggested that the review of landscape plans is something that can be reviewed by staff or City Manager designee. Waldhauser asked if the Building Board of Review was established originally because some of the reviews were considered more subjective and not straight forward. Grimes said back in 1988 when the Board was originally established there might have been more concerns about the aesthetics of buildings, but having aesthetic requirements is difficult if a building meets the requirements of the building code. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 2009 Page 2 Waldhauser said when there has been discussion in the past about the pros and cons of having a design review process it has often come back to the fact that the City does have the Building Board of Review that looks at projects apart from the Planning Commission and that the Building Board of Review would have some say over the appearance of a development. She added that she is getting the sense from the information in the Zoning Code that the Board just reviews landscaping and not other structures. Grimes explained that the City has a landscaping standards policy in place that is enforced by City staff which is the same policy currently enforced by the Building Board of Review. He explained that the Building Board of Review is advisory to the Building Official and it is not a design review board. McCarty asked if a design review board could be appointed on an ad hoc, per project basis. Grimes said a design board ordinance process would have to be developed to do that. He explained that many of the design issues involved in specific projects are addressed through the PUD process and the other review processes already in place. He stated that staff feels there should be standards and requirements in the City Code that applicants are required to meet rather than having to go through another board. Cera asked about the possibility of referring the design review process to the Planning Commission. Grimes reiterated that the Planning Commission, in effect, already does review the design of many of the projects in the City through the Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit processes. Cera asked when in the process a project goes to the Building Board of Review. Grimes explained that it is a discretionary process by the Building Official as to whether a project goes to the Building Board of Review or not. He stated that staff would rather "beef up" the standards in the City Code and have those standards enforceable by city staff. Kluchka said he is having trouble with this issue because he doesn't see a clear understanding of the purpose of the Building Board of Review and how its purpose is translated into new skill sets, new policies or specific staff process that would accommodate what the intent of the Building Board of Review is supposed to be. He said he has seen perceptions of decisions being made by the City that weren't necessarily in everybody's interest, but rather a city staffer making a decision, so he is concerned about a lack of oversight and perception. Waldhauser said if there is something warranting review she agrees that it seems odd that the decision would be left to staff to make the decision whether or not the application goes to a city board. She said it would make more sense for direction to come from the Planning Commission. Grimes clarified that the City Council is considering the decision to discontinue the Building Board of Review therefore the language in the City Code referring to the Building Board of Review has to be removed. He also clarified that the Planning Commission isn't deciding whether or not to discontinue the Building Board of Review; that is done by City Council resolution. The Planning Commission is only charged with reviewing the Zoning Code language. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 2009 Page 3 Cera stated that it sounds like there is the desire by the Planning Commission to further discuss design review standards either through the Commission or some other entity. Grimes said staff would bring the Planning Commission the language and standards other communities use in their design review process. McCarty asked if the City Council is abolishing the Building Board of Review but looking at how other cities handle design review what the likelihood is of putting a board back in place. He said it seems premature to him to eliminate the Building Board of Review if the City is going to have some sort of design review board replacing it. Grimes said he thinks the design review process can be well addressed through the ordinance process similar to the language in the Mixed Use zoning district which requires certain design standards and review processes. Eck asked if the City Council has already decided to eliminate the Building Board of Review because the staff report states that it is being recommended that the Building Board of review be eliminated. Grimes explained that the language in the Zoning Code needs to come out at the same time the City Council decides to eliminate the Building Board of Review. Kluchka said that from an oversight perspective he hasn't seen enough information that designates what the process is today or what the process will be, which in his role, seems like he would not be doing his job so he is inclined to say no to this recommendation. McCarty said he would agree with Commissioner Kluchka if the Building Board of Review was more consistent and had specific powers, but he doesn't think the City would lose any control by eliminating the Building Board of Review. He said he would like to revisit how the City can get a design review process established but he is not convinced the Building Board of Review is the answer because it seemed too arbitrary. Kluchka said he would rather have a plan than a hope that something will replace the Building Board of Review. Grimes suggested that the Planning Commission review specific policies and design review guidelines at some point in the future. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried 5 to 1 to recommend approval to amend Section 11.35, Subd. 7(A) and Section 11.36, Subd. 7(A) (Light Industrial and Industrial Chapters of the Zoning Code) to remove language regarding the Building Board of Review. Commissioner Kluchka voted no. --Short Recess-- 3. Other Business a. Planning Commission Meeting Schedule Grimes explained that over the past several years many Planning Commission meetings have been cancelled due to the lack of agenda items. He asked the Commission if they Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 2009 Page 4 would like to switch the schedule to have only one meeting per month and if so, which Monday of the month they would prefer. McCarty said he'd like to meet the fourth Monday of the month if possible. Waldhauser said she would like to meet the second Monday of the month. Eck said he would like to keep the schedule the way it is and cancel meetings as necessary so that applicant's schedules wouldn't be affected. Grimes said he would keep the meeting schedule the same and make an effort to put items on one agenda per month if it can be helped. The Commissioners agreed. 4. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:32 pm.