07-12-10 PC Agenda
AGENDA
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, July 12, 2010
7pm
1. Approval of Minutes
a. June 28, 2010 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
2. Informal Public Hearing - Subdivision (Lot Consolidation) - 700 Meadow
Lane - SU07 -09
a. Applicant: North Wirth Associates, LLP, Applicant
b. Address: 700 Meadow Lane
c. Purpose: To allow for the removal of an existing property line between
two lots so the building can utilize one address.
3. Short Recess
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
5. Other Business
6. Adjournment
cument is available in alternate formats hour request.
3.8006 (TTV: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of al
may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28,2010
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, June
28, 2010. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchk McCarty,
Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning an ment Mark
Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Li
1. Approval of Minutes
April 26, 2010 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Eck and m
the April 26, 2010 minutes as submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning
Requirements in the High Densi
Building Height
g District (R-4) - ZOOO-75
Applicant: City of Golden V
Purpose: To amend th
Zoning District (R-4)
ht requirements in the High Density Residential
ity Code.
Grimes stated that
or 96 feet in height
been some co rn
zoning code la
structure
Mapa
-4 Zoning District allows structures up to eight stories,
itional Use Permit (CUP). He explained that there has
nt height requirements so staff has reviewed the
n recommending that the R-4 Zoning District allow
r 60 feet in height without a CUP. He referred to the Zoning
operties zoned R-4.
the criteria would be for allowing a taller building. Grimes explained
n of the Zoning Code lists the criteria a proposal must meet.
Eck ques if a CUP is the appropriate vehicle. He asked if a building was
constructed taller than 60 feet what condition could cause a CUP to be revoked. Grimes
said other than requiring a variance, he didn't know what other vehicle could be used
other than the CUP or Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. Waldhauser asked why
it couldn't be done by variance. Grimes said this is the way it has traditionally been done
in the other zoning districts so he kept it consistent. Kluchka said not to talk about
tradition but instead talk about what the City wants to accomplish. He said he thinks the
CUP process is the best vehicle for allowing a building to be taller because there would
be no hardship to grant a variance and a PUD seems overburdensome. He questioned
the pros and cons of a CUP versus a PUD. Grimes stated that many of the proposals in
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 2010
Page 2
the R-4 Zoning District will be done in a PUD because there is likely to be more than one
building. He said both the CUP and PUD processes allow the City to place conditions on
approval such as landscaping, architectural design, etc.
Waldhauser noted that most residential buildings are constructed with wood construction
which can only be four stories in height. If a building is taller than that a different type of
construction is required.
McCarty asked why staff is proposing 5 stories or 60 feet for the height r
Grimes explained that the R-2 Zoning District allows a height of 30 fe
Zoning District allows a height of 48 feet so allowing 60 feet in the -
the next logical step up.
Kluchka said he thinks using the CUP process is th
the City to place conditions on proposals. Cera
Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no
Keysser closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Schmidgall
recommend approval of amending the b
without a Conditional Use Permit in th
section of the City Code.
unanimously to
ment to 5 stories or 60 feet
ential Zoning District (R-4)
3. Informal Public Heari
Residential and Mu
ode Amendment - Fence Regulations in the
Zoning Districts - ZOOO-83
Purpose: To clar
Multiple Owe .
e regarding fence regulations in the Residential and
the City Code.
ues such as height and location are issues staff deals with
at time the City does not require building permits for fences so
nce regulations that are easier to understand. He added that the City
taff to evaluate the need for fence permits and that is something that
the Planning Commission in the future.
Grimes reviewed the current Zoning Code requirements regarding fences and stated that
the biggest concern is that it is hard to determine where a front yard ends and side yard
begins and establishing a front plane will make the Code more understandable and more
enforceable. He noted that staff is also proposing to remove the language regarding A
and B Minor Arterial streets. He showed several examples of where a fence could be
located using the current Code language and the proposed new Code language.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 2010
Page 3
Waldhauser referred to the "predominant plane" language and asked if a garage could be
considered the predominant plane. Grimes referred to the proposed new language and
noted that the predominant plane refers to the front plane of the house. He added that
attached garages are considered to be part of the house.
Keysser said he doesn't think the proposed new language regarding the predominant
plane is very clear. Waldhauser agreed and said the language needs to be clear if the
predominant front plane means the front plane of a garage.
Waldhauser q
decorative acr
a varianc
McCarty stated that he likes the idea of
location. Waldhauser said she would Ii
not where the garage is.
ns to determine fence
ack to where the house is and
Cera asked about neighborhoods with homes set further back on the
lined up at the same distance on the lots. He said he is concerned b
same street having fences at different locations. Waldhauser sa' is
that issue.
Kluchka suggested the proposed language be sent back to s
language regarding the "predominant plane" because' . too
currently proposed. Grimes stated that staff could
to a future Planning Commission meeting. He su
"predominant" .
Kluchka asked about the drivin
why there is a problem with
using the 35-foot front s
determine where that lin
plane of a house is.
hin proposed new language and asked
-foot front setback language. Grimes stated that
g for residents because it is difficult to
ey. It is easier to determine where the front
igh fence in a front yard could have something
h sked about the likelihood and the hardship for granting
perties along busier streets.
1 Xerxes Avenue North, stated that a few years ago she was notified
at a neighbor's fence was installed 6 to 8 feet on her side of the property
line. She that something needs to be done regarding fence requirements. She
suggested that the City require a current certified survey, notification to neighbors and
addressing upkeep and maintenance issues for anyone wishing to install a fence. She
asked how far a fence has to set back from the street. Grimes explained that fences can
go right up to the property line.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 2010
Page 4
Grimes referred to the issue of maintenance and stated that maintenance is addressed in
the property maintenance section of the City Code. He reiterated that the City Council has
asked staff to research fence permit requirements. He said he thinks requiring people to
find their property line is a legitimate concern.
Kluchka asked Grimes if he has seen people "build up" the grade on their lot to install a
fence. Grimes said he is not aware of that happening.
Cera said he would support the City requiring a permit to install fences.
Waldhauser said she likes the idea of requiring that property lines be
also neighbor notification. Grimes said he thinks staff should sugg t
installing fence talk to their neighbors as a courtesy.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by C
proposed fence regulation amendment
it back to the
Cera agreed that requiring a survey would be a good idea a
study irregularly shaped lots and neighborhoods that don't n
back 35 feet from the front property line.
Grimes said he would clarify the proposed fence
Planning Commission in the future.
d 6 to 1 to table the
from voting.
4. Informal Public Hearing -
Photovoltaic Module
and Moderate Den .
plendment - Freestanding
in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1)
(R-2) Zoning District - Z000-84
Applicant:
Purpose:
requireme
secti
odule regulations to the accessory structure
amily (R-1) and Moderate Density Residential (R-2)
ne t the City has received a request to allow for the installation of a
(solar panel on a pole) in a front yard. He stated that staff has some
e aesthetics and about these types of devices being too close to a
erty. He stated that staff along with the City Council and Environmental
Commis recommending that these types of devices follow the same requirements
as accessory structures. He added that the proposed new language does not apply to
roof-mounted solar panels.
Kluchka asked about the approach to solar rights. Hogeboom stated that there is a state
statute regarding limiting access to solar energy. He added that a request for a
photovoltaic device could go the Board of Zoning Appeals if there is no other access to
solar energy on the property.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 2010
Page 5
Waldhauser questioned what would happen if someone installed a solar panel and a
neighbor planted trees to screen it. Hogeboom explained that the City wouldn't get
involved in a case like that and added the City Attorney has said cities are allowed to
place controls on solar panels, they just can't ban them or deny somebody access to
solar energy.
Keysser asked about how a solar panel on a roof would affect the height of a structure.
Grimes said a solar panel on a roof would not be considered part of the structure.
Cera questioned the possibility of poles being attached to the side of
one wishing to comment,
Waldhauser asked about the rationale behind the language req
separation. Hogeboom said the separation language is in the
of the Zoning Code and is required for safety and electricity
Eck referred to the proposed new language and stated at t
changed to the word "as".
Keysser asked if there should be language rega
Schmidgall noted that solar thermal device
Keysser opened the public hearing. Se
Keysser closed the public hearing.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded
recommend approval the pr
correction noted by Com
nd motion carried unanimously to
age regarding photovoltaic modules with the
5. Informal Publi
Wind Ener y C
oning Code Amendment - Establish Regulations for
tems - ZOOO-85
lations in the Zoning Code regarding Wind Energy Conversion
d that this proposed ordinance came from discussions with the City's
Green d has been reviewed by the City Council and the Environmental
Commission. He referred to a PowerPoint presentation and explained that most windmills
and wind turbines are more appropriate in rural areas or open spaces so this ordinance
will prohibit any wind energy conversion systems in the residential zoning districts. He
explained that the ordinance will require a Conditional Use Permit for installation of a wind
energy conversion system and will limit them to parcels that are over one acre in size.
The ordinance also regulates the color and material used for wind energy conversion
systems. He added that regular setback rules apply, they must comply with regulations
established by local utility companies and may not be used for advertising.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 2010
Page 6
Keysser asked if the City envisions any type of rooftop system being used in the R-4
zoning district. Schmidgall said he didn't think that application would be technically
practical because they would need a lot of support. McCarty said he thinks regulations for
the residential zoning districts should be addressed. Grimes stated that in conversations
he's had with industry professionals he's learned the a wind energy conversion system
would have to be at least 30 feet above the tree canopy so it is not going to be practical in
the residential zoning districts. He added that the City Council has also said they don't
want to see these types of systems on residential properties.
Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishi
Keysser closed the public hearing.
's referring to the
sai he would clarify the
m the base to the top of the
Kluchka asked if the City Council will be encouraging the use
systems. Hogeboom said he thinks if a system makes econ
owner the issues will take care of themselves. He said isn't s
interested in offering economic assistance.
McCarty referred to section 3(A)(1) regarding he'
overall height of the entire system or just the pol
language but that it means the entire heigh
blade.
McCarty referred to section 3(A)(4)
systems shall be placed no lowe
Hogeboom stated that refers to
building.
ounted wind energy conversion
ry roof line and asked for clarification.
ms to be placed on the side of a
McCarty referred to secti
energy conversion tern
capability. Hogeboo
structural inte .
e ing obtaining a building permit to install a wind
ked if the permit would require proof of structural
art of the building permit process includes proving
McCarty Ii
and th
to the w
3(8)(3) regarding the minimum distance between the ground
y extensions and suggested the word "distance" be changed
t subdivision 5 and suggested that the second sentence be changed to
ds" apply instead of "they" apply.
McCarty referred to subdivision 5(D)(3) and suggested the second sentence read as
follows: The base of the wind energy conversion system shall maintain a minimum
distance from public right-of-way equal to the vertical height of the system plus 10 feet.
Grimes stated that the first sentence could probably be removed.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the proposed new language regarding wind energy conversion
systems with the corrections noted by Commissioner McCarty.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 28, 2010
Page 7
--Short Recess--
6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Grimes stated that the proposed new Walgreens store proposal went to the June Board of
Zoning Appeals meeting where it was tabled. A Conditional Use Permit application and a
Lot Consolidation application will be coming to the Planning Commission n August 9.
Grimes stated that a Lot Consolidation proposal from Mortenson will
Planning Commission in July.
7. Other Business
Kluchka said he would like to get the City Council's 0
re-use of buildings and also what they think abo
arch itecture.
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:56
t e feel about the
cture and franchise
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
June 14, 2010
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Lot Consolidation of Lot 2 and
Lot 3, PUD #33 (North Wirth Parkway, 2nd Addition) - North Wirth Associates,
LLP (M.A. Mortenson), Applicant
Summary of Request
North Wirth Associates, LLP (M.A. Mortenson) is proposing to consolidate two of its parcels.
The parcels that are proposed to be consolidated include 4000 Olson Memorial Highway (Lot 3
of North Wirth Parkway, 2nd Addition) and 700 Meadow Lane North (Lot 2 of North Wirth
Parkway, 2nd Addition.) The consolidation will allow the company to use one formal address.
Originally, two separate buildings occupied each parcel. However, a construction project in
2008 has effectively joined the two separate buildings as one building. Because North Wirth
Associates/M.A. Mortenson is part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), a minor PUD
amendment is also a requirement of this process.
Qualification as a Minor Subdivision
The proposed two-lot consolidation qualifies as a minor subdivision because both parcels are
part of a recorded plat. In addition, this proposed consolidation will involve fewer than four lots
and will not create need for public improvements (such as street reconstruction.) The applicant
has submitted the required information to the City that allows for the lot consolidation to be
evaluated as a minor subdivision.
Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision
According to Section 12.50 of the City's Subdivision Regulations, the following are the
regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions with staff comment related to this
request:
1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the
requirements of the appropriate zoning district. The newly proposed lot will meet the
requirements set forth by the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District.
2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are
not buildable. The Planning Department has not received negative feedback from the City
Engineer.
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 the new lots. Sewer and water
connections are already provided to the existing building.
4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to
the City. The final plat must show all necessary easements as required by the City
Engineer and City ordinances.
5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the
minor subdivision, the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. The
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the preliminary plat and
has found it to be acceptable as submitted per the email dated June 8, 2010.
6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for 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. No park
dedication fee will be assessed for this action.
Recommended Action
The Planning Department recommends approval of the lot consolidation.
Attachments:
Location Map (1 page)
Aerial Photo (1 page)
Email from William Goff, MnDOT (1 page)
Site Plan/Conceptual Sketch (1 page)
4:JllO
~
// .--
/ / Subject Property:
Property line to be removed
4Ull
4210
z
3
I
~
:E
88B
HlGHWA Y 5$
O~ M~~9~I.AI,~....
cf~ 4205 536
! 532
~ 524 529 Z 528
520 525 !! 524
:E <:
fi! 521 ~ 520
<: 516 S
517 516
512 i!l 512
509
508 5lI8
500 4:JllO
500
537
529
521
515
513
581
~
650
3
!
;!
i
i
845
28
...HlGHWAY 55
.
I
I
r
r
I
~.. ~.
~'
, '.
i. ~ ~........;.:- .----a- =
~ R -e= - --
U~a~"",,lkcA.tS Cco,nviCCILOGlSGtS:uJS -. """'"
'.~..
..
--'::ii:ii;O=_
~ ...
Wittman, Lisa
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Grimes, Mark
Tuesday, June 08,201010:23 AM
Wittman, Lisa
FW: Plat at 700 Meadow Lane
From: Goff, William (DOT) [mailto:William.Goff@state.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7: 19 AM
To: Grimes, Mark
Cc: Sherman, Tod (DOT); Solberg, Jon P (DOT)
Subject: Plat at 700 Meadow Lane
Mark,
After review of the preliminary plat for the lot combination at 700 Meadow Lane, please note that Mn/DOT has no
formal comment. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (651) 234-7797.
Sincerely,
William Goff
Mn/DOT Senior Planner
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL ANDiOI{ OTHEHWISE FHOPHIETAHY MATEHIAL and is thus for Lise only
Llllautl\Ofll.ed review, use, disclosure or distribution Is prohibited, If YOLl received tillS in error, please notify the semler and delete
frorn ail computers,
1
(
SET MAG
NAIL
,
,
,
,
I
I
,v......., '""
t IrH....
...../
lP
~-:_ e;~~'- ''''~''t
r....'\._Ilt'l~ --
..._, " HYO I J .
"-,,,.,CO ----r-' " .;,;." r I
'^'''' , _ \ -"- _'^' I ..:," C ; '. ~ CBOX
.., IS"?PCG ~. :1..-.1 I ~,.J\ I ' (' TCS
'^v' _. - "..,co .;.;.. ,', \1" .'".: TL
'" UTILITY EAS .J " · "..eo: :
;i PER PLAT MENT I.........,.J , : \ TPIT
G R ASS ~ _^ r- ; C TRAN S
., .> ~ , \ (
in " "T I ,I "15"AS r UGC
1.IS"~CG '~ " - r... UGE
...'''' w'---'~
G R ASS :::E .:5 }- VCP
~ga. ~ <- w
.U' ~0" ~ WMH
~ g 8 r WV
_ I"} ,..
:!a:li'l \..
f-wl"}..... (
__? a. ~ i '15""6 (ARB
~\--2----~--- 01' (BAS
I 9.9 - ." ,.
'...... :.,_.J 0: f BIR
_ ~ CEO
ll:l{ CRAB
i{ ~ EVG
~ C HACK
~ s., LOC
C5 t MPL
~ ~ PINR
~ ~ SPCB
~ C SPCG
~ >- SPNOR
"t TR
)....(
~~r
"t
~r
~~
~ (...
<::> ,.
l
r
I
i-
t
r
t
CB
, ("'1.,
(,Z-=II"A
:> ~
(/)
::>
o
z
~
~
:::E
::>
f-
LP
-1
/
CD
9
.~
1"-
I~
~
~i:::'
'"
,s
.~
~....
~' ~
~~ (/)
, l3
10l~ ::>
~ 0
<:::> z
<=
PKS
~
~~
~:s.1iI
6"~~
~
PKS e
:::E
::>
f-
CD
/
L.
G ~-{ ('\'
\J\~ ~ 0,
<o..j.IvO~~'v -J:~ ~\ 9
O~-{ ~~~ 'v~-{''j,'j,?
r,' o~ -1~1v ~
'({ O'v9\J~~ ri'
,,00 GOIv o'<?
t.v ~a
~G
10~O
o
~ ~:
r..: (
"'J (
~(
'OJ (
~
~
~ ~::t:
~~
!'i~
~I~
_r
\) {
~t
(
r
1-
t
<...
\
~ t
"'! ~
0:::'
- ~
~t
. (
1-(
('
en ,-
\.
'r
8 'r
U) ~
l1.. ,.
o \
r,.
\.
I;,
'-
( 30
~~
( SCA
(~
(
w
Z
......J
PKS lP
HCS e ...v
C~S
6~
HC~
~
EB
GP
i'
'.
l
f
.,..
~
c...
(
,.
'r...
'--<...,
,
CONCRETE
STEPS
f