Loading...
06-28-10 PC Minutes 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, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes April 26, 2010 Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 26, 2010 minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Building Height Requirements in the High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) - ZOOO-75 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the building height requirements in the High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) section of the City Code. Grimes stated that currently, the R-4 Zoning District allows structures up to eight stories, or 96 feet in height without a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He explained that there has been some concern about the current height requirements so staff has reviewed the zoning code language and is now recommending that the R-4 Zoning District allow structures up to five stories or 60 feet in height without a CUP. He referred to the Zoning Map and pointed out the properties zoned R-4. Keysser asked what the criteria would be for allowing a taller building. Grimes explained that the CUP section of the Zoning Code lists the criteria a proposal must meet. Eck questioned 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 requirement. Grimes explained that the R-2 Zoning District allows a height of 30 feet and the R-3 Zoning District allows a height of 48 feet so allowing 60 feet in the R-4 Zoning District is the next logical step up. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Kluchka said he thinks using the CUP process is the correct approach because it allows the City to place conditions on proposals. Cera agreed. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of amending the building height requirement to 5 stories or 60 feet without a Conditional Use Permit in the High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) section of the City Code. 3. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Fence Regulations in the Residential and Multiple Dwelling Zoning Districts - ZOOO-83 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To clarify the language regarding fence regulations in the Residential and Multiple Dwelling Sections of the City Code. Grimes stated that fence issues such as height and location are issues staff deals with frequently. He said at this time the City does not require building permits for fences so staff is working on fence regulations that are easier to understand. He added that the City Council has asked staff to evaluate the need for fence permits and that is something that will be coming to 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. Cera asked about neighborhoods with homes set further back on the lot or homes aren't lined up at the same distance on the lots. He said he is concerned about houses on the same street having fences at different locations. Waldhauser said this is no way to solve that issue. Kluchka suggested the proposed language be sent back to staff in order to rewrite the language regarding the "predominant plane" because it is too confusing the way it is currently proposed. Grimes stated that staff could work on the language and bring it back to a future Planning Commission meeting. He suggested possibly removing the word "predominant" . McCarty stated that he likes the idea of using site plans and different planes to determine fence location. Waldhauser said she would like fences to be set back to where the house is and not where the garage is. Kluchka asked about the driving factor behind the proposed new language and asked why there is a problem with using the 35-foot front setback language. Grimes stated that using the 35-foot front setback is confusing for residents because it is difficult to determine where that line is without a survey. It is easier to determine where the front plane of a house is. Waldhauser questioned if a 4-foot high fence in a front yard could have something decorative across the top. She asked about the likelihood and the hardship for granting a variance for fences on properties along busier streets. Keysser opened the public hearing. Harriet Lerdal, 2215 Xerxes Avenue North, stated that a few years ago she was notified by a surveyor that a neighbor's fence was installed 6 to 8 feet on her side of the property line. She stated that something needs to be done regarding fence requirements. She suggested that the City require a current certified survey, notification to neighbors and that upkeep and maintenance issues be addressed 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 clearly identified and also neighbor notification. Grimes said he thinks staff should suggest that people installing fence talk to their neighbors as a courtesy. Cera agreed that requiring a survey would be a good idea and suggested that staff also study irregularly shaped lots and neighborhoods that don't necessarily have houses set back 35 feet from the front property line. Grimes said he would clarify the proposed fence language and bring it back to the Planning Commission in the future. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried 6 to 1 to table the proposed fence regulation amendment. Kluchka abstained from voting. 4. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Freestanding Photovoltaic Module Requirements in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1) and Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District - ZOOO-84 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To add photovoltaic module regulations to the accessory structure requirements in the Single Family (R-1) and Moderate Density Residential (R-2) sections of the City Code. Hogeboom explained that the City has received a request to allow for the installation of a photovoltaic module (solar panel on a pole) in a front yard. He stated that staff has some concerns about the aesthetics and about these types of devices being too close to a neighboring property. He stated that staff along with the City Council and Environmental Commission is 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 a house. Waldhauser asked about the rationale behind the language requiring 10 feet of separation. Hogeboom said the separation language is in the accessory structure section of the Zoning Code and is required for safety and electricity issues. Eck referred to the proposed new language and stated that the word "for" should be changed to the word "as". Keysser asked if there should be language regarding solar thermal devices as well. Schmidgall noted that solar thermal devices would never be placed on a pole. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed language regarding photovoltaic modules with the correction noted by Commissioner Eck. 5. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Establish Regulations for Wind Energy Conversion Systems - ZOOO-85 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To add regulations in the Zoning Code regarding Wind Energy Conversion Systems. Hogeboom stated that this proposed ordinance came from discussions with the City's Green Team and 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 wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked if the City Council will be encouraging the use of wind energy conversion systems. Hogeboom said he thinks if a system makes economic sense for a property owner the issues will take care of themselves. He said isn't sure if the Council is interested in offering economic assistance. McCarty referred to section 3(A)(1) regarding height and asked if it is referring to the overall height of the entire system or just the pole. Hogeboom said he would clarify the language but that it means the entire height of the system, from the base to the top of the blade. McCarty referred to section 3(A)(4) which states that mounted wind energy conversion systems shall be placed no lower than the primary roof line and asked for clarification. Hogeboom stated that refers to not allowing systems to be placed on the side of a building. McCarty referred to section 3(A)(6) regarding obtaining a building permit to install a wind energy conversion system and asked if the permit would require proof of structural capability. Hogeboom stated that part of the building permit process includes proving structural integrity. McCarty referred to section 3(8)(3) regarding the minimum distance between the ground and the vertical length of any extensions and suggested the word "distance" be changed to the word "clearance". McCarty referred to subdivision 5 and suggested that the second sentence be changed to say "the standards" 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 on August 9. Grimes stated that a Lot Consolidation proposal from Mortenson will be coming to the Planning Commission in July. 7. Other Business Kluchka said he would like to get the City Council's opinion on how they feel about the re-use of buildings and also what they think about corporate architecture and franchise architecture. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 pm. ikrSeil~ ?2