Loading...
09-08-03 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, September 8,2003 7pm I. Approval of Minutes - August 11, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - City Code Text Change Amendment Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To approve the new Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1) Section 11.21 of the City Code III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings IV. Adjournment io . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11 , 2003 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, August 11, 2003. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. II. a concern was not there are individual houses ith smaller site Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - July 14, 2003 Planning Com Eck asked that the third and fourth paragraph on pag Groger explained that in the third paragraph he just with larger developments but also spot prop and that there may be a way to tie in larg redevelopments as well. . Pentel explained that in the fourth would need to connect to the C' have excellent traffic grid con neighborhoods. aying that larger developments strian grid and make sure that they oing to be increasing density in MOVED by Keysser, se July 14, 2003 minu Eck a d motion carried unanimously to approve the ve listed clarifications. Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 46 - Lutheran Church 7520 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN The applicant would like to add, expand and reorganize spaces such as the narthex, offices, a music wing and meeting rooms. . Grimes referred to the site plan submitted by the applicant and stated that they are proposing several significant improvements to the church to accommodate their growing programs and congregation. He stated that the total occupied space currently is approximately 97,000 square feet and that after the proposed additions are complete the.occupied space would be approximately 245,000 square feet. He explained that the majority of the space in the proposed office building would be for the new daycare facility, meeting rooms, classrooms and church offices. He referred to the current . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11 , 2003 Page 2 daycare area on the site plans and explained that that would be used for a new parking area and that future plans include a parking deck above this new parking area as well as a new chapel at Golden Valley Road and Pennsylvania Avenue. Grimes referred to the traffic study submitted by the applicant. He stated that the City's Traffic Engineer reviewed it and feels that the City's streets are adequate to handle Calvary's proposal without a significant impact. He added that the biggest impact would be to the applicant's own parking lot, but that they do have parking arra ~ nts with businesses in the area. Pentel referred to the area along Pennsylvania Avenue which d requirements and asked Grimes if there were any other area City's setback requirements. Grimes showed the other area setback requirements and explained that this site is a Plann stated that City Engineer Jeff Oliver is concerned abo,' e proposed on Pennsylvania Avenue that is narrow have to be completely restored if the freight doc recently reconstructed Pennsylvania Avenue. H that they locate the loading dock to an inter ck g the ng ent. He ea being Iso he street would e to cutting into the Mr. 0 iver has suggested site. Grimes stated that the City has receiv north of rail road tracks, regarding . services. He explained that the on Sunday morning. The first s said that the City has gone the test results have exc suggesting that represen process to resolve noi y from the neighborhood e applicant's outdoor worship nged the times for the outdoor worship s t 10 am rather than 8 or 8:30 am. He ocess to monitor the noise and that none of oise standards. He stated that he is i eighborhood and the church enter into a Groger asked outstanding is applicant. there would be enough time to resolve the e p oposal goes to the City Council. He asked when the tart construction. e plicant wants to start construction this year and that they are chedule. He stated that he would like to see something resolved on e ore they start construction. Grimes told the Commission that the City eview Calvary's application and that if they feel they need more m Calvary they can ask for it. Rasmussen asked if there would be enough time to require the applicant to move the loading dock to a different location on the site before the proposal goes to the City Council. Grimes suggested that the Planning Commission could either make it a condition of approval that the loading dock be moved or allow it to go to the City Council as it is being proposed and it can be changed before the general plan submittal. He added that the City Engineer feels very strongly about moving the loading dock off . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 3 Pennsylvania Avenue because of the narrowness of the street and the integrity of the new street. Steve Dornbusch, Sr. Pastor at Calvary Church discussed the history of the Church's decision to expand and stay in Golden Valley. He stated that they spent an entire year studying how to maximize their ministry and their needs and looking at the needs of the community. McAleese referred to the peak periods of traffic written about in the t[ asked Dornbusch if he thought it was correct that the proposed bu' i not have much of an effect on Wednesday evening traffic. Darn h correct and that some numbers would be added to Wednesd additions, but that it should not have a negative effect on tr Groger asked Dornbusch what his take was on the no' taken to help the situation. Dornbusch stated that they have been doing ou has been basically in the last year that the v He explained that the most major action changing the service time from 8:30 a to be a good neighbor. He said tha company to help them come up add speakers so they are close Another recommendation are willing to get togethe anything that will please Church is not doin td for 4 years and that it ints about the noise level. n to help solve the issue is they thought it was important ntracted with a private sound d that one recommendation was to d don't need to be turned up so loudly. itors worn by musicians. He stated that they orhood but that he is skeptical about doing n bors because they won't be pleased until the es at all. Keysser aske there hadn't b sure what they a... n the last year to cause the neighbors to complain if ai s in the last 13 years. Dornbusch stated that he wasn't hunch is that the services are somewhat louder because ople on Sunday. :f(Y have explored the option of using acoustical instruments. that the consultants have advised against that and have said ments might be worse. Eck asked if it would be accurate to say the noise level is at the minimum level to get the sound out. Dornbusch stated that there are times the sound could be lower and there are times when people have asked for the sound to be turned up. Shaffer stated that he was at the service on the previous Sunday and asked what the noise level was like for the congregation that day. Dornbusch said that was a fairly good . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11 , 2003 Page 4 indication of a typical Sunday service and that the volume could not get much lower than it was on that day. Shaffer asked Dornbusch if he could see any compromise. Dornbusch stated that they have taken a huge first step by changing the service time and adding speakers. He said that they are not willing to give up their outdoor services. Pentel suggested using acoustical music and amplified voices. Dornbu they have talked about that option, but they have not tried it. . Richard Stuerman, BWBR Architects, refer Commission where they are proposing t loading dock is not intended to be up 0 that they could make other arrang ey Rasmussen suggested renting some of the equipment that the recommended so a huge investment wouldn't have to be mad could try that. Rasmussen asked about turning the stage in Dornbusch said they could possibly do that, but there are Ian Pentel asked if they would consider one less outd Dornbusch said no, they wouldn't. and showed the k. He explained that the that it is just an entrance but ,.a different location. Pentel asked where the garbag location on the site plan. S materials as the propos be made of brick and wo be located. Stuerman pointed out the the trash enclosure would be made of similar ns. Stuerman said yes, the enclosure would materials being used in the project. Eck stated that it hi Stuerman if h ew that was not t standard that the pond may need to be increased and asked . Stuerman stated that it was his understanding that e ond does need to be increased it will meet all the e C rch has outlined how many parking spaces they'll have struction. Stuerman showed on the site plan where the staging area Ion would be located. Grimes added that they do have off-street Pentelopened the public hearing. . John Paulson, 320 Edgewood Avenue North, said that he has been a resident of Golden Valley since 1955 and that he thinks Calvary is an asset to the City. He said the Planning Commission, the City Council and the citizens should be grateful because the addition will be an asset and having Calvary in Golden Valley adds prestige. He stated that the added traffic and parking is small compared to the current amount of traffic on . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11 , 2003 Page 5 the slowest day of the week. He questioned what the people who built homes by the railroad would do in regard to noise if a train went by everyday at 6 am. Kathy Julius, 1 008 Quebec Avenue North, said that she has been a resident of Golden Valley for 16 years. She said that she has looked at Calvary's plans and that she doesn't have any particular concerns about the proposal, but she does have concerns about the level of noise. She said she does not object to the expansion but that it should be postponed until the neighborhood and the Church have had . work out the noise problems. She stated that she is aware of neighbors comp noise level of the Church's outdoor services for five years and added th it to call the Church to complain about the noise level. She said give and not knowing if part of the noise issue is the sound bouncing 0 gs, she finds it disconcerting to read that a three story building' said that the spoken word is almost inaudible, but the music blast neighborhood and the Church is forcing the neighbor at an asset Calvary the noise is very loud and lot of other countries and ion and it is frustrating t home with the windows loudly that she sometimes has poning this proposal until the noise re of the community meeting Calvary or were trying so hard to get her to join their st attempt but more of a chance to get her to n't go to the meeting. . Diane Aldis, 1012 Rhode Island Avenue North s Church is to the community but that she is a nei has been for many years. She said that sh what she really values as an American i having to listen to music that is not of closed and curtains drawn and it sf to leave. She said she strongly issue can be resolved. She sai held but that the men that Church that she felt like' join instead, so she felt i ue North said he would like the Commission to d noise. He said that he thinks before the Planning xt ing would be to hire a consultant to help deal with trol, resentment and grudges. He stated there needs to be ent to help the neighbors and the Church get along, live modations to one another which is the spirit of all of their . 012 Rhode Island Avenue North said he moved to Golden Valley five years ag when he complained to the Church he was told that he was the first person who ever complained about the noise. He said he found out later from various neighbors that they had been complaining for eight years, three years prior to him moving to Golden Valley. He said that the noise has a significant effect on their property value and had he known about it he may not have bought his house. He stated that he is a musician and that he did a recording of the outdoor service from his screen porch the previous Sunday. He played the recording for the Commission. He explained that there has been extensive research done on soundscape design and if the sound is . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 6 bouncing off of the building there are baffles, walls, trees, bushes and other things that have not been tried to reduce the noise level. David Throldahl, 1012 Sumter Avenue North, stated he is a Christian and a Lutheran but he thinks the noise is excessive and too loud. He said when he can hear a bass drum in his home with the windows down it's just simply not neighborly. He stated that he has a degree in audio engineering from the University of Colorado and that he is not seeing principles being applied that can be found in many audio text b said it is unfortunate that City time and police time has been wasted to addre at to him is embarrassingly simple. He stated that he hasn't heard anyo neighborhood asking the Church to stop worshipping outside, r compromise but don't want to be forced to hear the type of m he doesn't want to hear an electric guitar solo when he is si that they are not looking at this from a common sense point themselves in others shoes. He said he supports the F" of worship outside and that he thinks there are other ti service. He said that he took his own sound rea distance of 20 feet from one of the speakers. to e said . ch and ng u grow and to s an acoustic ecibels from a Karl Cambronne, 7310 Duluth, Chair of Church, stated they are absolutely willi dealing with a number of people w concerns him is that they have t said that they can not as a Chu type of music they play. He doesn't want the Plannin before they can go forwa neighbors in good f' but ee for Calvary Lutheran neighbors and that they are they can do is try. He said what ft to try to come up with a solution. He ho are not members to dictate the serious about trying to fix this problem, but he say that they have to solve this problem e b g project. He said they will negotiate with the r or not they "solve" the problem they won't know. g anyone say kilt the music, he is hearing them say Dayto Knoll North, Brooklyn Park, stated he is a member of Calvary th he wanted to steer the discussion in a different direction and bri the f to the PUD application. He said that the people against this pro I are e wrong forum and that it is the Planning Commissioners job to look at the pi e if they meet City standards. He asked if the noise issues are grounds for delaYI building project. He stated that the plans don't include anything in the Calvary Park area and they are not putting in towers to proselytize to the neighborhood. He said Calvary is going to start the dialogue with the neighborhood but that it is wrong to say the PUD should be delayed because of something that isn't relevant. He said the issue really is if the PUD meets the City's standards. Molly Lyons, 1012 Quebec Avenue North, stated that the noise started in 1961 with the noise from the bells and that the noise is so loud now that she could take a notebook . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 7 out and write the sermon. She said there is a total lack of response whenever she calls the church and that she thinks this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Steve Dornbusch said that the discussion that has been held at this meting is not at all a discussion he has ever heard. All he has ever heard is angry people with loud voices and intimidating language and people who have never responded to their invitation to talk about the noise issue. He said that the calmness with which this has been talked about is not indicative to what he has heard and that he is more than h have a discussion on that kind of level. Pentel, hearing and seeing no one, closed the public hearing. es sense with a few small tions. He said that in smokers saying they have aying yes, but they have the '",church plays their music it ore than the extra mile to make sure asonable way. Rasmussen asked why the noise issue is being discussed stated that since this is a PUD it includes how the church ca once a PUD is opened up the City has a right to look feels the noise issue is a legitimate concern to 100 . Eck stated that the physical plan is well thought things that would be taken care of with the regard to the noise issue he equates it t a right to smoke wherever they want t right not to breathe the smokers' ai affects the neighbors and that t people's rights are not offende Keysser stated he agree respects their right to wo anyone ask the ch to st people have brough this is the first' a is a major asset to the community and he to worship. He said that he hasn't heard music only to turn it down or re-direct it. He said that ideas to address the problems and that it is a shame ion has been held to discuss the noise issues. legal right as a city to say no to this proposal based on the that noise has been an issue in several other proposals the n s discussed and it is definitely something impacting the g an adverse effect on the neighborhood. However, there aren't ncerns about the building being constructed. Grimes s e City does have the right to look at sound as one factor in evaluating this proposal. He stated that music is a traditional part of American worship and that he feels there is room for compromise between the Church and the neighborhood and offered to be the City Representative at meetings with the Church and neighbors to help come up with a solution to the noise issues. . Groger said his concern is even though he has no objection with the building being proposed this is when the City has leverage to address the noise issue and with only . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 8 three weeks left this summer if this proposal passes through with some vague statement that the parties should attempt to mitigate the problem, there is no guarantee that anything will ever actually happen to improve the situation next summer, or for the next twenty years. He said he doesn't see any concrete condition that the City can place on this proposal that would set some quantifiable goal to be reached to make this acceptable. McAleese stated that noise pollution has only become an issue in the I so and that the Planning Commission has adopted the position that electronic noise and that is the standard applied to everybody and . seems reasonable and it is his feeling that they don't allow othe es sort of practice and he can't see a reason to draw a special Ii there is a difference between singing and worshipping and would like to see a process that will lead to a resolution but t point and a guarantee. He suggested allowing electro usi next summer with attempts to ameliorate the probl set to say no music after that point unless a sol that id said he e an end for a period dea date could be loped. Grimes said he agrees and he is recomme approval that a solution regarding the n now and the general plan e reached. Pentel.said she is also in favor of h businesses are held to. She sai that have come up and that it is the neighbor's or the neigh the same standards as other 's opportunity to address some issues sibility, not the church's job to please ange the church. Shaffer asked ifthe City that the church has d th said. Shaffer said h he sees this a ei music issues d resolved ' a stical engineers report. Grimes said no and one and reported to staff what the engineers have see a report on what the decibel levels are. He said bor issue and that there has to be a resolution to the P but sending it to mediation could mean it could be could never be resolved. w Id still be time to see an acoustical engineer's report. Grimes have the information from the Pollution Control Agency if the isslon wanted to look at it. McAlees that it seems to him that the Commissioners are all in agreement that something needs to be done, but they don't know what needs to be done and that the only thing they can do with the noise is to treat it like they have treated other noise issues in the past and that is to say stop it. He said it makes sense to let the church go ahead with the building expansion and he thinks there are solutions and he would like to see the City involved with it but he can't vote for it like it is right now because he needs to know that a solution will be in place. He said that the City shouldn't be relying on the Church's good faith only, because that won't solve problem. He said he thinks . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 9 the City is on firm ground telling them they can't have electronic amplification of music. He suggested recommending ceasing all electronic amplification of music by July 1, 2004 to allow the church to come up with a plan to resolve the noise issue. After that, the Church could come back to the City with an application to amend their PUD. Grimes said he is concerned about not allowing the spoken word to be amplified when they are speaking to 500 people. Groger stated that he his concerned about sending the church down a destination by saying they must have some sort of plan by July 1, 20 another option would be to postpone the proposal to get more info he would like to see some sort of plan by the time the General P submitted. 3. McAleese said the reason he suggested a drop-dead date is forward with the building expansion and the City woul < way it's treated many other situations. Pentel referred to the new parking area along P would like to see a berm or plantings put t that the church would be submitting a tr venue and stated that she of approval. Grimes said MOVED by McAleese, seconded b approve the request by Calvary conditions listed below. Also, th and spoken word for servi n carried unanimously to d PUD #46 as requested subject to the h ase electronic amplification of music at Calvary Park by July 1, 2004. 1. The plans submitted become a part is a pi n and prepared by BWBR Architects shall . The plans are dated June 30, 2003. 2. The finding Oliver, PE, Augus Ions found in the memo from City Engineer Jeff es, irector of Planning and Development and dated orne a part of this approval. om ents from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, to Mark ~ of Planning and Development and dated June 25, 2003 shall w rt of this approval. 4. Prior roval of the General Plan of Development by the City Council, Calvary Church and representatives of the neighborhood to the north of the railroad tracks and west of Pennsylvania Ave. shall enter into a process to negotiate an acceptable level of sound that can be generated from services and events at Calvary Park. 5. A berm or plantings shall be put in along the new parking area on Pennsylvania Avenue. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2003 Page 10 III. Informal Public Hearing - Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 66- Amendment No.2 Applicant: Jim Lupient Address: 7000 and 7100 Wayzata Blvd, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant would like to expand the Infiniti dealership building to create an attached service facility on the north en uilding. . Grimes stated that staff is concerned green space on the site. He state told them that the PUD amend only in designated parking spa 737 cars parked up to 6 d o UD Permit for working with Lupient aid that staff is iti building expansion be nee. Grimes explained that the applicant is requesting a second amen Addition PUD No. 66 which would allow them to expand their I He stated that the proposed expansion would cause a reduc . at the northwest corner of the site where it would be locate Grimes stated that Lupient has complied with the req Amendment No. 1 with the exception of signs. He to bring the site in to conformity with the City's s' recommending that no building permits for the p issued until the site is in conformity with t tI parking of vehicles in the .0 Lupient representatives and specific condition that cars be parked he site plan. Groger stated there were ited the site. afet y epartment has said that they have the . He added that when he visited the site there were and right next to the buildings which isn't acceptable o him is the signage. red when the City approved the Infiniti building that Lupient a gutter and various other improvements to the site. He 'seven considering approving another amendment when the site is crowded and when Lupient is in violation of their current PUD he has a basic objection to even hearing this proposal when they are pliance with their current PUD. Grimes said that they did do the things would do up until the time they received permission from the City Council . McAleese said that the City has some leverage in this case because there is a personal guarantee from Jim Lupient on file. Grimes said that he thought that the guarantee was expired and that it was for landscaping issues but McAleese said it was much broader than that. Grimes said he didn't know if the City was still holding the letter of credit. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11 , 2003 Page 11 Paul Lyver, Director of Construction, Jim Lupient Automotive Group, said that parking at auto dealerships is always a problem. He explained the reasons for having so many cars on the lot. (Lupient recently purchased a Buick and Pontiac dealership and took their inventory. This inventory has been squeezed on to the Lupient site.) He stated that he doesn't have any problem with the City not giving them an occupancy permit until they are in compliance in terms of signage on the site. Pentel asked the applicant what they were going to do about the outsid issues. Lyver said they would deal with it and Shaffer asked how. L not be increasing their inventory and that they would be more able move some of their inventory. Shaffer asked if they had looked at re-striping the lot to ma explained GM/Buick standards and stated that they would be those standards. Grimes asked if representatives fro ' Lyver said they would. He discussed the problems lot deterioration and explained that it is sitting 0 er Ilding up to n at the site. lot and the parking of peat. Groger asked if all of the existing service b the footprint of the building would remai they plan on doing with the space in th move to the Infiniti service building of their other functions to the sp Lyver stated yes, and that sked the applicant what nce the repair functions 'lllW are planning on moving .some Keysser suggested not iss Permit requirements. Gri Staff would not accept th of these issues are 01 rmits until they conform to their current PUD missioners that another option could be that he General Plan of Development until some Pentel opened hearing. . eeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the public sed the conditions listed in Grimes' staff report and decided itions: · parked on paved surfaces only, not in landscaped setback areas. rage shall be properly screened. . Garba mpsters shall be properly screened. . All conditions of the existing PUD Permit and the ones listed above shall be met prior to the acceptance of the general plan application submittal tor the proposed Infiniti addition. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the applicant's request to expand the Intiniti dealership building to create an attached service facility on the north end of the building with the following conditions: . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11 ,2003 Page 12 1. The Preliminary PUD Plans for Lupient Infiniti Addition prepared by RLK and dated 7/11/03 shall become a part of this approval. 2. If the property north of the Benihana Restaurant is no longer available for employee parking, the number of display or inventory parking shall be reduced to provide for adequate employee parking on-site. All parking (display, customer, inventory and employee) shall be in designated spaces as shown on the attached site plan. 3. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to approval of of Development. The landscape plan shall show all land scapi a building. 4. There shall be no signs on any vehicle on display other state law. No signs shall be painted on the window or s balloons or other inflatables shall be attached to v 5. Cars shall. be parked on paved surfaces onl setback areas. 6. All outside storage shall be properly sc 7. Garbage dumpsters shall be prop 8. The three buildings shall be specified above would req d auto service. Uses other than those t to PUD No. 66. 9. The building plans s issuance of any buil by the Building Board of Review prior to 10. The main parki the hours hall be turned down to security level lighting between requirements of the City's sign ordinance prior to the iti building. 1 o exterior public address system for any of the uses on the site. f operation shall be 7 AM to 10 PM, Monday through Thursday, 7 AM to ay and 8 AM to 6 PM on Saturday. 14. There shall be a new site plan submitted showing the designated parking spaces. 15. All conditions of the existing PUD Permit and the ones listed above shall be met prior to the acceptance of the general plan application submittal for the proposed Infiniti addition. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11 , 2003 Page 13 IV. Informal Public Hearing - City Code Text Change Amendment Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To allow for retail sales and service in both the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts as conditional uses only. Grimes said that he did an analysis of other cities and was surprised at h them allow retail sales in their Industrial Zoning Districts. He explaine recommending approvals of such uses only by Conditional Use Per would be limited to a certain percentage of the building footprint, accessory to the primary use and that the site would still requil: Pentel asked if the ordinance is changed if the City could 10 operations. Grimes stated yes, that's why he is recom endi Conditional Use. Groger asked Grimes if he found any cities that Zoning Districts. Grimes said that all the cities h eta I les in their Industrial allowed it. Shaffer asked if the word accessory is ' stated it is defined in the definition se the Zoning Code. Grimes Evan Rice, Attorney at Faegre the ordinance being propose but it is still acceptable an program works. th 7th Street, Minneapolis stated that tnctlv han what they had originally proposed ise and explained how the Hope for the City Groger asked if the residential area. Gri Industrial zon 'st request. e the right to deny a proposal if it were too close to a , a proposal for retail sales in a Light Industrial or ooked at the same as any other conditional use l-tenant property zoned Light Industrial or Industrial, a user e building and use it exclusively for retail sales if they didn't own the no, and explained that the accessory sales has to be in the same only be 10% of that building's footprint. Pentel sai she likes the way the ordinance has been written and that she would be supporting it. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to approve the City Code Text Change Amendment to allow for retail sales and service in both the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts as conditional uses only. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11 , 2003 Page 14 V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. VI. Third Review of Single-Family Residential Zoning District (R-1) The Commissioners decided to discuss this item at a later date. VII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11 :15 pm. . Planning 763.593-8095/763.593-8109 (fax) Date: September 5, 2003 To: Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Complete Revision to Single Family Residential Zoning District (Section 11.21 if City Code) Staff has prepared a Draft 5 of the revision to the Single Family zoning district. This draft reflects the latest changes that have been suggested by the Commission and staff. This draft has also been formatted into a "clean" copy of a revised ordinance. Both are attached. . There has been no mailed notice given on this informal public hearing. If the Planning Commission decides that there should be some public notice given, the informal public hearing could be continued and staff could "advertise" the hearing on the City's website and by a newspaper article. This type of informal public hearing does not require a formal public hearing notice because if does not require a change to the boundary of any zoning district. When the City Council holds a public hearing on this matter, a public hearing notice would be put in the official newspaper. . . . . l - - - - ,. ComMent: New Definitions Needed: - - - - - - h - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00 - - - - - - - - - - 00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -" - - - - -- - - - - - - - - --- - I -!'rincipalStructure Draft #5 I :~g ! .FrOlltPorch SECTION 11.21. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT (R-1). Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the R-1 Zoning District is to provide for single-family, detached dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and complementary uses. Subdivision 2. District Established. Properties shall be established within the R-1 Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.21, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this section 11.21 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the R-1 Zoning Districts thus established and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses. The following uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-1 Zoning Districts:L___ n__uuh _ h__hn____ 00__0._ h___hh__h___U___ u_n___n __ __0. _u nu_----- - Combo Meothnt: ~hlouldthere be so?mething a . ut m er-m- awapartments_ A. Single-family dwellings. B. When the property owner resides on the premises, rental of rooms to not more than two people for lodging purposes only. C. Residential facilities serving six or fewer persons. D. Manufactured homes, as defined in this Chapter. E. Foster family homes. F. Essential Services - Class I Subdivision 4. Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-1 Zoning Districts: this Chapter. A. Accessory structures, including private garages, as defined in 1. Accessory structures less than 120 square feet in area require a Zoning Permit issued by the Director of Planning and Development. The fee for the Zoning Permit is established by the City Council._The purpose of the Zoning Permit is to insure that accessory structures are located in a conforming location on the lot. . . . B. Home occupations, as regulated by this Section. C. Home day care facilities licensed by the State of. Minnesota serving 12 or fewer persons. Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses. A. Residential facilities serving from seven to 25 persons. B. Group foster family homes. Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots. No dwelling or accessory structure shall be erected for use or occupancy as a residential dwelling on any tract of unplatted land which does not conform with the requirements of this Section, except on those lots located within an approved plat. In the R-1 Zoning District a platted lot of a minimum area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum width of 80 feet shall be required for one family housed in one structure. Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility. All structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision 8. Easements. No structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. Lot Coverage bv Structure. No lot or parcel in the R-1 Zoning District shall have a lot coverage bv structure of more than 30 percent for lots or parcels over 10,000 sauare feet in area. 35% for a lot or parcel between 5,000 sauare feet and 9.999 sauare feet in area and 40% for a lot or parcel less than 5,000 sauare feet in area. Subdivision 10. Principal Structures. Subject to the modifications in Subdivision 12, below, principal structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-1 Zoning District. Garages or other accessory structures which are attached to the house or main structure shall also be governed by these setback requirements, except for stair landings up to 25 square feet in size and for handicapped ramps. 1. Front Setback. The required front setback shall be 35 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Except that uncovered front porches may be built to within 30 feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line. (a.) Except for in driveways, no parking of vehicles shall be allowed in the front yard. 2 . . . (b.) In the case of a corner lot, the side with the narrower street frontage shall be considered the front of the lot. 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be 20 percent of the lot depth. 3. Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at theminimum required front setback line. The distance between any part of a _ structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements:lh 0. 0. _ 0. 0. _ m_ _, ---- {~mdent:t. . .Mdeosetrebdiscksussion is needed mregar .0SI ac. 1. In the case of lots having a width of 100 f-oet or greater, the side setback shall be 15 foet; ~ a. In the case of lots having a width greater than :ro 65 feet and less than 100 feet, the side setback shall be 15 percent of the lot 'Nidth 10 feet: ~ b. In the case of lots having a width of 7Q-65 feet or less, the North or West side setback shall be 10 percent of the lot width, and the South or East side setback shall be 20 percent of the lot width. c. If a principal structure is oreater than 40 feet in depth, the side yard setback adiacent to another property shall increase by one foot for each ten feet to structure depth (or portion thereof) beoinnino at the point where the structure exceeds 40 feet in depth. 4. Corner Lot Setback. To determine the rear setback, use the longer lot line. To determine the side setback, use the shortest lot line. B. Height Limitation. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District to exceed a height of two and a half stories or 30 feet as defined in the City's building code, whichever is less. C. Structure Width Requirements. No principal structure shall be less than 22 feet in width as measured from the exterior of the exterior walls. D. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback. E. Decks. Decks over eight inches from ground level shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure. F. For the purpose of setbacks, fences are not considered structures. 10. hhh_ _,0.0. 0.0._ 0._ _ __. 0._____ __.. .._..__ __mh _______ 0. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ..___.__.____ _ _.., _____ _. _ _ 0._0. _ .__0.._ _____, _...- ~::::~nt: Need to define fence Subdivision 11. Accessory Structures. Subject to the modifications in Subdivision 12, below, accessory structures,shall be governed by the following requirements: 3 ~ . . . A. Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-1 Zoning District: 1. Location. Detached accessory structures shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least 10 feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the 10 feet of separation can be met. 2. Front Setback. The required front setback shall be-35 feet from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 3. Side and Rear Setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 5 feet from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 10 feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory. structure. 5. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 5 feet from an alley. B. Height Limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District to exceed a height of one story, which is 10 feet to the top plate line. C. Provision for garage. No building permit shall be issued for a single family dwelling not having a garage unless the registered survey submitted at the time of the application for the building permit reflects the necessary area and setback requirements for a future garage D. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback. E. Each property is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the following accessory structures: detached and attached garages, and detached sheds, greenhouses, and gazebos. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. F. Size of Accessory Structures. No accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. 4 . . . G. Swimming pools. Swimming pools, other than temporary swimming pools, shall meet the same setback and location requirements for accessory structures. Setbacks shall be measured from the property line to the pool's edge. Decks surrounding above ground pools shall meet setback requirements. H. Decks. Free standing or decks attached to accessory structures shall meet the same setback requirements for accessory structures. I. Air conditioning units shall not be allowed in the front yard of a single family home. Subdivision 12. Pre-1982 Structures. For all existing structures constructed in the R-1 Zoning District prior to January 1, 1982, the following building setbacks shall be in effect. A. Front yard - The building setback for principal structures shall be no closer than 25 feet to the front yard property line. B. Side yard - The building setback for principal structures shall be no closer than three feet to the side yard property line. C. Rear yard - The building setback for principal structures-shall be no closer than ten feet to the rear yard property line. D. Accessory Structures - The setback for accessory structures shall be no closer than three feet to the side or rear yard property lines. At the discretion of the Director of Planning and Development, a property owner may be required to move an accessory structure if it is located in a public easement area. Subdivision 13. Temporary Outdoor Storage. Temporary Outdoor Storage in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Duration. Temporary outdoor storage units shall not be stored on a property for more than seven days. B. Location. Temporary outdoor storage units shall be stored on a hard surface and be located completely on private property. C. Outdoor storage of not more than one recreational camping vehicles and recreation vehicles or boats (not over 25 feet in length) on or off a trailer (Le. boats, jets skis, snowmobiles, four wheel off-road vehicles) shall be stored or parked in the front yard on a hard surface. Subdivision 14. Driveway Requirements. Driveways in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Driveways shall be constructed of hard surface materials such as asphalt, pavers, or concrete. 5 .. . . . B. Driveways shall be setback three feet from a side yard property Iina, except for shared driveways agreed to by both property owners in a private easement agreement. This only applies to new construction and/or driveways built from the date this ordinance is approved. C. No more than 50% of the front yard shall be a driveway or other hard surfacearea.l_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _. _ _ _ _ n _ _ __ __ n _ _ n _ _ n_ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ n _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __- _ _ - - -j Comment: Does this address the drivewayneXltoagarageissue? Subdivision 15. Decks and Platforms. Decks and platforms not more than 30 inches but greater than 8 inches above adjacent grade and not attached to a structure with frost footings and which is not part of an accessible route shall require a Zoning Permit issued by the Director of Planning. The fee for the Zoning Permit is established by the City Council. The purpose of the Zoning Permit is to insure that decks greater than 8 inches but less than 30 inches in height are located in a conforming. location on the lot. Subdivision 16. Home Occupation Requirements. A. Home occupations in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: 1. The use of the dwelling for the occupation or profession shall be incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes. 2. The exterior appearance of the structure shall not be altered for the operation of the home occupation. 3. There shall be no outside storage or display of anything related to the home occupation. 4. An accessory structure, including a garage, shall not be used for a home occupation. 5. A permitted occupation, shall not result in noise, fumes, traffic, lights, odor, excessive sewage or water use or garbage service, electrical, radio or TV interference in a manner detrimental to the health, safety, enjoyment and general welfare of the surrounding residential neighborhood. 6. No physical products shall be displayed or sold .on the premises except such that are incidental to the permitted home occupation. 7. No signs or symbols shall be displayed other than those permittedfor residential purposes. 8. Clients, deliveries and other business activity where persons come to the home shall be limited to between the hours of 9 AM and 9 PM. 6 -" . . . 9. No more than 20 percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling shall be used for the home occupation. 10. Parking related to the home occupation shall be provided only on the driveway of the property where the home occupation operates. 11. A home occupation shall not generate more than eight client trips per day and serve no more than two clients or customers at a time. 12. There shall only be one outside employee allowed on the premises at which a home occupation is located. 13. All other applicable City, State and Federal licenses, codes and regulations shall be met. B. The following uses are prohibited home occupations: 1. Repair, service, building, or painting of autos, trucks boats and other vehicles. 2. Restaurants or cafes. 3. Animal Hospital. 4. Veterinarian. 5. Funeral Home or mortuary. 6. Medical Clinic. 7. Stable or kennel. 8. Repair and service of items that cannot be carried by one person and repair and service of any item involving an internal combustion engine or motor. 9. Retail sales. 10. Sale or repair of firearms 7 )~ . . . SECTION 11.21. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT (R-1). Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the R-1 Zoning District is to provide for single-family, detached dwelling units at a low density along with directly related and complementary uses. Subdivision 2. District Established. Properties shall be established within the R-1 Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.21, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this section 11.21 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the R-1 Zoning Districts thus established and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses. The following uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-1 Zoning Districts: A. Single-family dwellings. B. When the property owner resides on the premises, rental of rooms to not more than two people for lodging purposes only. C. Residential facilities serving six or fewer persons. D. Manufactured homes, as defined in this Chapter. E. Foster family homes. F. Essential Services - Class I Subdivision 4. Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-1 Zoning District: A. Accessory structures, including private garages, as defined in this Chapter. 1. Accessory structures less than 120 square feet in area require a Zoning Permit issued by the Director of Planning and Development. The fee for the Zoning Permit is established by the City Council..The purpose of the Zoning Permit is to insure that accessory structures are located in a conforming location on the lot. B. Home occupations, as regulated by this Section. . . . C. Home day care facilities licensed by the State of Minnesota serving 12 or fewer persons. Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses. A. Residential facilities serving from seven to 25 persons. B. Group foster family homes. Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots. No dwelling or accessory structure shall be erected for use or occupancy as a residential dwelling on any tract of unplatted land which does not conform with the requirements of this Section, except on those lots located within an approved plat. In the R-1 Zoning District a platted lofof a minimum area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum width of 80 feet shall be required for one family housed in one structure. Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility. All structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision 8. Easements. No structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. Lot Coverage h.Structure. No lot or parcel in the R-1 Zoning District shall have a lot coverage by structure of more than 30 percent for lots or parcels over 10,000 square feet in area, 35% for a lot or parcel between 5,000 square feet and 9,999 square feet in area and 40% for a lot or parcel less than 5,000 square feet in area. Subdivision 10. Principal Structures. Subject to the modifications in Subdivision 12, below, principal structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-1 Zoning District. Garages or other accessory structures which are attached to the house or main structure shall also be governed by these setback requirements, except for stair landings up to 25 square feet in size and for handicapped ramps. 1. Front Setback. The required front setback shall be 35 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Except that uncovered front porches may be built to within 30 feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line. (a.) Except for in driveways, no parking of vehicles shall be allowed in the front yard. (b.) In the case of a corner lot, the side with the narrower street frontage shall be considered the front of the lot. 2 . . . 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be 20 percent of the lot depth. 3. Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the minimum required front setback line. The distance between any part of a structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: a. In the case of lots having a width greater than 65 feet, the side setback shall be 10 feet; b. In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the North or West side setback shall be 10 percent of the lot width, and the South or East side setback shall be 20 percent of the lot width. c. If a principal structure is greater than 40 feet in depth, the side yard setback adjacent to another property shall increase by one foot for each ten fee to structure depth (or portion thereof) beginning at the point where the structure exceeds 40 feet in depth. 4. Corner Lot Setback. To determine the rear setback, use the longer lot line. To determine the side setback, use the shortest lot line. B. Height Limitation. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District to exceed a height of two and a half stories or 30 feet as defined in the City's building code, whichever is less. C. Structure Width Requirements. No principal structure shall be less than 22 feet in width as measured from the exterior of the exterior walls. D. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback. E. Decks. Decks over eight inches from ground level shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure. F. For the purpose of setbacks, fences are not considered structures. Subdivision 11. Accessory Structures. Subject to the modifications in Subdivision 12, below, accessory structures, shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-1 Zoning District: 1. Location. Detached accessory structures shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback as the 3 . . . principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least 10 feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the 10 feet of separation can be met. 2. Front Setback. The required front setback shall be:-35 feet from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 3. Side and Rear Setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 5 feet from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 10 feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. 5. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 5 feet from an alley. B. Height Limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District to exceed a height of one story, which is 10 feet to the top plate line. C. Provision for garage. No building permit shall be issued for a single family dwelling not having a garage unless the registered survey submitted at the time of the application for the building permit reflects the necessary area and setback requirements for a future garage D. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback. E. Each property is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the following accessory structures: detached and attached garages, and detached sheds, greenhouses, and gazebos. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. F. Size of Accessory Structures. No accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. G. Swimming pools. Swimming pools, other than temporary swimming pools, shall meet the same setback and location requirements for accessory structures. Setbacks shall be measured from the property line to the pool's edge. Decks surrounding above ground pools shall meet setback requirements. H. Decks. Free standing or decks attached to accessory structures shall meet the same setback requirements for accessory structures. 4 . . . I. Air conditioning units shall not be allowed in the front yard of a single family home. Subdivision 12. Pre-1982 Structures. For all existing structures constructed in the R-1 Zoning District prior to January 1, 1982, the following setbacks shall be in effect. A. Front yard - The setback for principal structures shall be no closer than 25 feet to the front yard property line. B. Side yard - The setback for principal structures shall be no closer than three feet to the side yard property line. C. Rear yard - The setback for principal structures-shall be no closer than ten feet to the rear yard property line. D. Accessory Structures - The setback for accessory structures shall be no closer than three feet to the side or rear yard property lines. At the discretion of the Director of Planning and Development, a property owner may be required to move .an accessory structure if it is located in a public easement area. Subdivision 13. Temporary Outdoor Storage. Temporary Outdoor Storage inthe R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Duration. Temporary outdoor storage units shall not be stored on a property for more than seven days. B. Location. Temporary outdoor storage units shall be stored on a hard surface and be located completely on private property. C. Outdoor storage of not more than one recreational camping vehicles and recreation vehicles or boats (not over 25 feet in length) on or off a trailer (Le. boats, jets skis, snowmobiles, four wheel off-road vehicles) shall be stored or parked in the front yard on a hard surface. Subdivision 14. Driveway Requirements. Driveways in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Driveways shall be constructed of hard surface materials such as asphalt, pavers, or concrete. B. Driveways shall be setback three feet from a side yard property line, except for shared driveways agreed to by both property owners in a private easement agreement. This only applies to new construction and/or driveways built from the date this ordinance is approved. C. No more than 50% of the front yard shall be a driveway or other hard surface area. 5 . Subdivision 15. Decks and Platforms. Decks and platforms not more than 30 inches but greater than 8 inches above adjacent grade and not attached to a structure with frost footings and which is not part of an accessible route shall require a Zoning Permit issued by the Director of Planning. The fee for the Zoning Permit is established by the City Council. The purpose of the Zoning Permit is to insure that decks greater than 8 inches but less than 30 inches in height are located in a conforming location on the lot. Subdivision 16. Home Occupation Requirements. A. Home occupations in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: 1. The use of the dwelling for the occupation or profession shall be incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes. 2. The exterior appearance of the structure shall not be altered for the operation of the home occupation. 3. There shall be no outside storage or display of anything related to the home occupation. . 4. An accessory structure, including a garage, shall not be used for a home occupation. 5. A permitted occupation, shall not result in noise, fumes, traffic, lights, odor, excessive sewage or water use or garbage service, electrical, radio or TV interference in a manner detrimental to the health, safety, enjoyment and general welfare of the surrounding residential neighborhood. 6. No physical products shall be displayed or sold on the premises except such that are incidental to the permitted home occupation. 7. No signs or symbols shall be displayed other than those permitted for residential purposes. 8. Clients, deliveries and other business activity where persons come to the home shall be limited to between the hours of 9 AM and 9 PM. 9. No more than 20 percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling shall be used for the home occupation. 10. Parking related to the home occupation shall be provided only on the driveway of the property where the home occupation operates. . 11. A home occupation shall not generate more than eight client trips per day and serve no more than two clients or customers at a time. 6 . . . 12. There shall only be one outside employee allowed on the premises at which a home occupation is located. 13. All other applicable City, State and Federal licenses, codes and regulations shall be met. B. The following uses are prohibited home occupations: 1. Repair, service, building, or painting of autos, trucks boats and other vehicles. 2. Restaurants or cafes. 3. Animal Hospital. 4. Veterinarian. 5. Funeral Home or mortuary. 6. Medical Clinic. 7. Stable or kennel. 8. Repair and service of items that cannot be carried by one person and repair and service of any item involving an internal combustion engine or motor. 9. Retail sales. 10. Sale or repair of firearms 7