Loading...
01-25-10 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 25, 2010 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, January 25, 2010. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty and Schmidgall. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Waldhauser was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes January 11, 2010 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Eck noted some typographical errors. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Keysser and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 11, 2010 minutes with corrections. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 7575 Golden Valley Road - CU-126 Applicant: Starboard Media Foundation Inc. Address: 7575 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To allow the applicant to place two satellite dishes on the roof in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. Grimes explained that Relevant Radio is going to be leasing space at 7575 Golden Valley Road and in order for them to do their broadcasts they need to install two satellite dishes on the roof of the building. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposal because it complies with the ten factors of analysis used when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit application. Keysser asked if the satellite dishes will be lit. Grimes said no, only towers or dishes that are 75 to 100 feet in height need to be lit. Eck asked if there is a code that specifically deals with satellite dishes. Grimes explained that the Building Code addresses items attached to roofs and that the City will also require a report from a licensed structural engineer. Brian Acker, General Manager, Relevant Radio, stated that they are currently leasing space at 919 Lilac Drive. They are in the process of downsizing their operation and they want to stay in Golden Valley so they are pursuing leasing space at 7575 Golden Valley Road. He reiterated that there will be no lights on the proposed satellite dishes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 25, 2010 Page 2 McCarty asked Acker if there is the potential that they would increase their staff. Acker said yes, and explained that their production department moved to Green Bay so they are able to downsize their Golden Valley location. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Kluchka suggesting adding the following two conditions of approval: 1) the satellite dishes cannot be used for signage and 2) the satellite dishes are required to be removed if this business moves from this location. Grimes stated that the City's current sign code doesn't allow signs to be located on roofs. He added that language could be added to the conditions of approval that the dishes must be removed if they are abandoned or if they are serving no business purpose. Acker stated that their lease with the property owner already states that if they move from this location the satellite dishes have to be removed. MOVED by Cera, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the request to allow the applicant to place two satellite dishes on the roof at 7575 Golden Valley Road with the following conditions: 1. The satellite dishes may not be artificially illuminated, unless required by law or the Federal Aviation Administration. 2. The placement, design, use, and operation of the satellite dishes must comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. 3. Each satellite dish must not exceed nine meters in diameter. 4. The satellite dishes must be approved by a licensed professional structural engineer. The dishes must conform to the City's Building Code. 5. The satellite dishes must be removed from the rooftop when they are no longer needed by this applicant. 6. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times. 3. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit Amendment #1 - 9400 Golden Valley Road - CU-121 Applicant: RHT Office, LLC Address: 9400 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To allow the existing employee only daycare to accommodate up to 20 children rather than the approved 10 children in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. Grimes stated that the City issued a Conditional Use Permit to the applicant in 2008 to allow for the operation of an employee only daycare center for 10 children. The daycare center has been successful and now the applicant is asking to increase the amount of children allowed to 20. The daycare would remain only for the children of employees. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 25, 2010 Page 3 He added that the Deputy Fire Marshal would like to see a report from an architect showing the daycare center meets the fire code requirements. Keysser asked if there have been any issues from the Department of Health regarding the daycare operation. Grimes said no. Rebecca Thomley, CEO, RHT Office LLC, stated that when they started the daycare the first 6 months were slow but now it is full. She added that the daycare is for employees only and the people using the daycare are already in the building, so traffic will not increase. She submitted a copy of the report done by her architect per the Deputy Fire Marshal's request. Cheryl Vennerstrom, COO, RHT Office LLC, explained how they will have to change their type of daycare license if this proposal is approved. She added that they are a social service agency so they understand the licensing process. Cera asked if the existing daycare space will be expanded. Thomley showed the Commissioners a floor plan and explained how they will be reconfiguring the existing space. Eck noted that when the original Conditional Use Permit was approved in 2008 the applicant noted that the space could accommodate 28 children. He asked if that was still true. Vennerstrom explained that the space could accommodate 28 children, but they still need to apply for a slightly different type of license to increase the number of children. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. McCarty suggested allowing whatever number of children the State allows so the applicant won't have to come for another amendment. Keysser asked the applicants if they would like to amend their proposal to allow for 28 children. Vennerstrom said yes. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to amend CUP #121 to allow the existing employee only daycare to accommodate up to 28 children. 4. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision -100 Brunswick Avenue North - SU12-12 Applicant: Peter Miller Address: 100 Brunswick Avenue North Purpose: The subdivision would create two separate lots for the construction of two new homes. (The existing home will be removed.) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 25, 2010 Page 4 Grimes referred to a location map of the property and explained that the applicant would like to subdivide his existing 29,000 square foot lot into two lots approximately 15,000 square feet in size which is 45% to 50% larger than the Subdivision Code requires. He explained that the applicant would have 180 days after preliminary plat approval to remove the existing home and submit the final plat. He reminded the Commission of a subdivision that was done in this area a few years ago and noted that there was discussion at the time about the possibility of owners within the Tralee area adding deed restrictions to eliminate or control the splitting of lots, but he is not aware of any covenants being placed on lots in this area. He added that staff is recommending approval of the subdivision request because the applicant's proposal meets all of the City's requirements. Kluchka asked if there have been any requests from the applicant for any special considerations. Grimes said no variances are being requested. He explained that as a result of the infill study many things were changed in the Single Family Zoning District and the applicant is meeting all the code requirements. Peter Miller, Applicant, stated that he has been a Golden Valley resident for 11 years and he would like to subdivide his property. He asked if he could wait until after the final plat is approved to demolish the existing house. Grimes explained that the Subdivision Code states that the final plat must be filed 180 days after preliminary plat approval and the final plat couldn't be approved if the existing house was still on the property. Miller asked if he could have an extension to the 180 day rule. Grimes explained that the decision to extend that deadline would be made by the City Council after preliminary plat approval. Keysser opened the public hearing. Peggy Newstrom, 6100 Glenwood Avenue, said she remembers the controversy of the subdivision on Cutacross Road a few years ago and she is disappointed with the height of those homes. She said she is glad the height issue has been addressed since then. She said the property in question has not been very well maintained. The porch is collapsing, only half of the house is painted and there are dead trees. She said the lot is wooded and the trees are beautiful and she would like them to stay. Jim Fredkove, 26 Paisley Lane, said he is not agreeing or disagreeing with the proposal he just wants more information. He said he moved to this neighborhood because it has large lots with trees. He said it sounds like the applicant is complying with all the City's requirements and he is also concerned about losing existing trees. He asked if the proposed new homes would be rental homes and if they were he would object to that. David Spencer, 211 Cutacross Road, asked if Brunswick Avenue has been reconstructed yet. Keysser said yes. Spencer said that street reconstruction will start soon on Cutacross Road and Paisley Lane and the construction of the proposed new houses will have to be monitored so it won't conflict with the street reconstruction. He asked if the cul-de-sac on Brunswick Avenue is large enough for this proposal and said he is also concerned about Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 25, 2010 Page 5 the mature trees being maintained. He asked about the square footage of the proposed homes and said it would be nice to know what they are going to look like. John Segner, 125 Paisley Lane, said he echoes the same concerns as the people who spoke before him. He said the first time he heard about this subdivision was from the hearing notice he received in the mail, which he feels is a flaw in the process. He said he realizes at some point this neighborhood will change and he appreciates the changes that have been made to the Zoning Code since the last subdivision in this neighborhood. He said he is all for private property rights, but he doesn't like that something this significant can change in the neighborhood with only a week and a half notice. Miller showed the Commissioners a tentative plan of the footprints of the proposed homes and explained that there would still be a lot of land and trees around the houses. Keysser asked about the size and price of the proposed new homes. Miller said they will be custom homes, 3,200 to 4,200 square feet in size and approximately $650,000 to $750,000 in price. He said it is not his plan to have the homes become rental properties and he would also like to preserve as many trees as possible. Keysser mentioned that Miller will have to submit a tree preservation plan. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked if the proposed new homes have to be owner-occupied or if they could be rental properties. Grimes stated that the homes could be rental properties if they have the proper licensing but at the price range being proposed he doubts they'll be rental properties. Kluchka asked if the City can talk to the property owners about the upcoming street reconstruction to make sure both construction teams are working together. Grimes noted that Brunswick Avenue has already been reconstructed and that there is a very detailed process in place regarding street reconstruction available through the Public Works Department. Kluchka asked how the Fire Department feels about the size of the Brunswick Avenue cul-de-sac. Grimes reiterated that Brunswick Avenue was recently reconstructed and won't need any revision as a result of this proposed subdivision due to the minimal number of homes the road serves. Kluchka asked how much notice is given to the surrounding property owners. Grimes stated that state statute requires cities to give 10 days notice for public hearings and to notify property owners within 250 feet of the subject property. Golden Valley notifies property owners within 500 feet and there are two public hearings when considering a subdivision. He added that the subject property has been zoned Residential and guided on the General Land Use Plan map for single family residential homes for many years and this proposal is consistent with those designations. Kluchka suggested that hearing notices include directions on how to research the City's requirements and codes. Grimes stated that the City's website could be added to the hearing notices. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 25, 2010 Page 6 Eck referred to the concerns regarding tree preservation and it has been the City's experience that builders try to maintain as many trees as possible because trees add value to property. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the request to subdivide the property located at 100 Brunswick Avenue North into two lots with the following conditions: 1. The final plat of the minor subdivision shall be consistent with the preliminary plan submitted with the subdivision application. 2. The comments in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated January 21, 2010, shall become a part of this approval. 3. A park dedication fee shall be paid at time of final plat approval. The amount of the fee shall be determined by the City Council. 4. The existing house must be removed prior to final plat approval by the City Council. 5. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Garden Structure Requirements in the Definitions, Single Family (R-1) and Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning Districts Sections of City Code Applicant City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the R-1 Single Family and R-2 Moderate Density Residential Zoning Districts regarding the addition of garden structure requirements Grimes explained thatthis is a proposal to amend the Single Family (R-1) and Moderate Density (R-2) Zoning District because staff has come across some garden structures located in front yards. He reviewed the proposed language and stated that the proposed setbacks would be 5 feet from the front yard property line, 5 feet from the side and rear yard property lines and 10 feet of separation between detached structures, similar to other accessory structures. Keysser asked if gazebos would be included in this proposed new language. Grimes said no. The proposed new language would be for pergolas, arbors, etc. Schmidgall said he would like to see examples of some existing garden structures. Kluchka suggested including pictures in the staff report when this item goes before the City Council. Schmidgall said he thinks these types of garden structures are basically transparent so they shouldn't cause any visual obstruction. Cera questioned corner visibility especially if the garden structures are covered in vines. He suggested requiring a 7 or 10 foot setback instead of the proposed 5 foot setback. Kluchka said he feels garden structures should have the same requirements as bushes. McCarty clarified that the garden structures Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 25, 2010 Page 7 would be 5 or 10 feet away from the property line, not the curb. Schmidgall said he would like the setback requirement to be 5 feet as is being proposed. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. McCarty referred to the proposed ordinance and stated that he would like the word "must" to be replaced with "shall" throughout the document for consistency. He said he would also like the language regarding height limitations to be the same in both the R-1 and R-2 sections. Eck referred to the language regarding the location requirements and said he thinks that some of the language that was struck should not have been. Specifically the language stating that an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback as the principal structure. Grimes said the language will be corrected before this goes to the City Council. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by McCarty and motion carried 5 to 1 to recommend approval to amend the R-1 Single Family and R-2 Moderate Density Residential Zoning Districts regarding the addition of garden structure requirements. Commissioner Cera voted no. --Short Recess-- 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Grimes reported that the Planning Department is working with the Environmental Commission to look at solid waste hauling and the options available to the City. Hogeboom explained that the City's municipal recycling contract is up for renewal in December 2011, so the City Council asked that staff look and how other cities handle their waste management system. He said he would send the Planning Commission a copy of the presentation given to the Environmental Commission and a timeline of the study. Kluchka reported on the District 281 Divestiture Committee meetings he has attended. 7. Other Business No other business was discussed. 8. Adjournment eeting was adjourned at 8:26 pm.