Loading...
08-09-04 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room Monday,August9,2004 7pm I. Approval of Minutes July 12, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting July 26, 2004 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting II. Discuss Additions to the Single Family Zoning District related to the Outdoor Storage of Recreational Vehicles & Boats and Driveway Requirements. -- Short Recess -- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings IV. Other Business V. Adjournment . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held atthe Golden Valley City Hall Manager's Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, July 12, 2004. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel, Commissioners Eck, Hackett, Keysser, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present were, Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, Planning Intern, Adam Fulton and Administrative Assistant, Li an. Commissioner Rasmussen was absent. . I. Approval of Minutes June 28, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Eck, seconded by Keysser and motion ca minutes from the June 28 meeting as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Applicant: Address: Purpose: t t 'land their sales hours to include esdays from 10 am to 6 pm and to allow an feet of floor space for the store area. Grimes referred to 10th Avenue and Hi feet of space a; stated that the Hope Discount Warehouse is located at stated that Hope for the City has about 12,000 square ice warehouse building. for the City came before the City late last year with two was to change the text of the Zoning Code to allow incidental ng with their warehouse activities in the Light Industrial and Industrial second request was for a conditional use permit for 3,000 square ce at their warehouse location. . Grimes ex Ined that the applicant's original request was for a 3,000 square foot store to operate 3 days per week to aI/ow sales of some of their excess products to raise money for their operation. He said it came to his attention that the Hope Discount Warehouse was operating more than 3 days per week as allowed and that they are operating in about 3,500 square feet rather than the approved 3,000 square feet so they are now requesting the store be 3,500 square feet and open an additional 3 days, with the same hours and no added employees. Grimes said that he has not heard any issues regarding Hope for the City from any other tenants in the building, there is plenty of parking on site and that there is a proof of parking condition in their Conditional Use Permit. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 2 . Grimes stated that Hope for the City has some Fire Code violations and suggested that before this proposal is approved that Hope for the City is made to come in to conformance with Fire Code standards. Eck asked if Hope for the City would still be below the 10% footprint of the whole building allowed for retail sales in the Industrial zoning district. Grimes explained that the whole building is 40,000 square feet and that the 10% allowed would be 4,000 square feet so the 3,500 square feet of space they are proposing for their retail space comply. Waldhauser asked why the City cares if Hope for the City takes 3,00 square feet for their retail sales space. Grimes explained that th n operations in the Industrial zoning district is the parking and t e higher parking requirement for retail space than it does for I it is common in many cites for businesses located in industri sales areas. Pentel stated she visited the site and questioned' .es, located in the same building is a retail establishment. She sai the was told that they are a manufacturer's representative but she u is another retail use within this building. She stated that there is me ns are combined within the . zoning districts. Grimes stated that thi f uses and that he has never seen more than a few cars parked a . ks it fits in the Industrial zoning district. He said it is his understa Sky alleries is a furniture showroom and thatthey only sell furniture by display. He added that the City has generally permitted furniture in Ind trial zoning districts because they have large items and don't hav g demand. ty's rationale regarding the number of days per week es said that the Code was amended to specifically say e primary operation". He explained that Hope for , square feet and that only 3,500 square feet is used for e space is being used for their primary operation. Pentel issues if other retail functions such as Room & Board wanted eek. Grimes stated that the way people do business has something the Planning Commission and City Council would have to d that Room & Board's Conditional Use Permit was amended in ing the traffic and parking issues that occurred on that site when they ay sales. Pentel asked if adult oriented businesses would be allowed to have incidental retail space. Grimes stated that the City is required to allow adult oriented businesses somewhere within the City. In this case an adult use would not be allowed because this . building is located too close to a Residential district. Schmidgall stated that he is concerned about the fact that there was an agreement and it seems as if the applicant started having their sales three days per week and it snuck up to five days per week. He questioned if the organization is acting in good faith. Grimes Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 3 . explained that when the. issue came up, the applicant immediately stopped having sales five days per week and that he feels that the applicant has acted in good faith. Trent Rolfzen, Director of Retail Sales, Hope for the City, explained that Hope for City receives a lot of corporate surplus from corporations. They take the items in,sort them and distribute them to other non-profit organizations locally and internationally. He explained that they purchase everything they sell in their store so that people donating realize that what they are donating goes directly to people for purchasing. He said the profits from the store go right back into Hope for the City and that it cove. ministrative costs, shipping costs and employees wages. He said he was not aw ndition regarding being open only three days a week and that this is the 0 have that has that condition. He said that they want to be compliant a on correcting the fire code violations. . Schmidgall asked how many stores Hope for the City ope rat have an on-line store, they are in the process of openi a st that there are two others they are looking at open in in Pentel opened the public hearing. Seeing and h hearing. . elclosed the public Pentel said she has reservations abou use permit and encouraged staff to more retail sales operations are for this particular conditional Sky Galleries operation to see if building. of the definition of a retail sale. Hackett referred to Sir S . and stated that in hi opin him is something th 4;" Waldhauser sta~': districts f ated in the same building as Hope for the city s also a retail establishment. Eck stated that "retail" to by the end user rather than for wholesale use. alley has allowed furniture sales in Industrial zoning nes that she is familiar with are wholesale showrooms. ant if Hope for the City views the store as a core function of their id the retail sales are a side function and that their prime mission is the people and that the store is used to create revenue to support and their main mission. Hackett referred to the square footage of Blue Sky Galleries and Sir Speedy and asked if they would need to apply for a conditional use permit. Pentel said only if the City decides that the uses at Sir Speedy and Blue Sky Gallery have incidental retail sales. . Pentel said she won't be supporting this request for the expansion of hours for Hope for the City especially now that she realizes they purchase their overstock items and sell them. She said the store is a separate business providing an income stream for the non- profit. She added that the City can not advantage a non-profit over any other type of Industrial retail sales. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 4 . Keysser said he is concerned about expanding the hours of operation from a perspective that this is not incidental to their primary use. He added that he is not concerned about the applicant using 3,500 square feet instead of their original proposal of3,000 square feet because it is still under the 10% of the building footprint they are allowed to use. He asked if the request could be split into two motions, one for expanding the hours of operation and the other for allowing the applicant to operate the retail sales portion of their business in 3,500 square feet. Pentel said the request could be split into two separate motions. Schmidgall said he is inclined to support this request in this location situation because there does not seem to be any traffic issues. a that they may be creating a precedent for other.locations in th t conducive to this kind of activity. Grimes explained that thatl'i~ conditional use permit so the City would have some controL' meet the retail requirements for parking. He added th 'f the building that just meets the Industrial parking require 2,000 square feet of retail sales space they coul parking requirements and that this type of use c cific is ss s this is a have to y Industrial ey w ted to put in ouldn't meet the reexcess parking. Waldhauser asked where the building's 10% space that the building is allowed was discussion about whether incid building footprint or 10% of each allow retail sales in only 10% of< requirements are much mor s into play in enforcing the . Grimes explained that there uld be allowed in 10% of the d it w the advice of the City Attorney to bu Iiijg...... He added that Golden Valley's 'ii~~~f_ __ an otller cities. . Hackett said he doesn't appears that the ap ican more parking. er commissioners concerns because it mplywith the 10% rule and they are willing to create people not complying with their original approval and h the envelope beyond what their conditional use permit as concerned about the size of the retail store but thinks urs eration for Hope for the City sets a precedent and to her it is not it is not meeting the intent of the Code when they are out procuring ovide an income stream. Eck sai C1inance is quite specific about the amount of retail space allowed in a Light Industrial or Industrial zoning district but that it doesn't define what "incidental" is and that it is a subjective term. He asked Pentel what she thinks "incidental" means. Pentel said she thinks allowing retail sales three days a week is what "incidental" means to her. She said she doesn't see what Hope for City is doing in their store as incidental to . their primary use. She said if the City allows it at this location she doesn't see how it can not allow it in other Industrial areas where there area retail sales. Grimes noted that Home Run Hitters and 3rd Lair Skatepark., which are both located in Industrial Zoning Districts, have retail sales spaces that are open seven days a week and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 . Page 5 that they are allowed to because the sales are incidental to their primary business and the people demand it. Pentel said those.uses are recreational. Keysser said he is not troubled by the distinction of what Hope for the City is selling and what they are donating; he is troubled by the number of days they want to be open. Eck said that if the City is going to make the number of days a retail stores can be open a part of the definition of incidental retail sales they better put that in the ordinance or they're going to have this discussion every time this comes up. Grimes S sted that maybe incidental sales be based on total hours per week instead of n . ays. . Hackett stated that by limiting the size of retail sales areas to 100 limits the nature of the business naturally. Pentel referred to 10% of their footprint could be the size of a target store. Sh of a building wants to have retail uses maybe they should re MOVED by Keysser and seconded by Eck to recomm Hope for the City an additional 500 square feet ( their store area. lof e request to allow otal) of floor space for Hackett stated that the retail nature of th know if they've exceeded the 4,000 sq the Planning Commission can vote i existing retail uses in the buildin is uncertain and they don't owed or not and asked how what is going on in regards Grimes said his concern is t furniture is being sold it w retail es going on in the building and that if sidered incidental sales. Pentel stated that th order to ascertain t mmisslon could table Hope for the City's request in 'n the building. I g has demonstrated itself as a working facility and has a tions and he will support the request because it's been proven fties. Pentel said they've proven it illegally outside their hich is grounds for pulling their Conditional Use Permit. convinced that having the store open three days a week was not . Pentel noted that a motion had been made and seconded to approve the request to allow Hope for the City an additional 500 square feet of floor space for theIr store area and asked the Commissioners to vote. The vote was 4 to 2 and the Commissioners voted as follows: Eck, Keysser, Schmidgall and Waldhauser voted yes. Hackett and Pentel voted no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 6 . MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Eck and motion tied to recommend approval to allow Hope for the City to expand their sales hours to include Tuesdays and Wednesdays from 10 am to 6 pm. The vote was a 3 to 3 tie and the Commissioners voted as follows: Waldhauser, Pentel and Keysser voted no. Eck, Schmidgall and Hackett voted yes. III. Informal Public Hearing - Z011-1 0 - Rezone a portion of the Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Douglas Drive and Medicine Lake Road from R-1 (Single Family Residential) toR-2 (Two Family Residential) Applicant: Amain Homes, Inc. Address: Property located at the Southeast Corner of Medicine Lake Road. (South 120 feet of t NW % of the NW % of Section 28, TW Purpose: To allow the applicant to rezone (Single Family Residential to R-2 Grimes referred to a location map and showed t at the southeast corner of Medicine Lake R Grimes explained that the applicant h property owner to purchase the so currently it is zoned R-1. He add family home on an R-1 zoned p hase agreement with the perty and then rezone it to R-2, use jus to the south of this lot is a two- . Grimes stated that the a foot property, one for a z home. He said that is pr Comprehensive Pia t is to create three lots on this 40,000 square ome and one for the existing single family designated low density (0-5 units per acre) on the g ome on the lot meets all of the Zoning Code ots are large enough, each lot would be over 10,000 square concerns about sheds currently located on the property which as a ed to move. He said that basically what it comes down to is if mily home is consistent with the homes in the area. d that this rezoning request has to be recommended for approval in order for the P "g Commission to make a positive recommendation on the subdivision proposal that is next on this meeting's agenda. Schmidgall asked if the applicant could build a single family home on each lot. Grimes said no, there would not be enough street frontage. Eck referred to the staff report and asked who allowed fill to be placed on the property. Grimes stated that it is his understanding that the property owner allowed someone to dump fill on the property but that the applicant has since received a grading permit from the Engineering Department. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 7 . Keysser asked if the rezoning request were denied if the applicant would build a single- family home on the south . lot. Grimes said they could build one single family home on the south lot and that they could get three single-family lots out of the property if the existing home was removed. Keysser asked about access to the proposed new homes. Grimes said the access is proposed to be. off of Douglas Drive. a ey've designed it to fit into the look of the neighborhood and that the he front of the property. Donnay said that each twin home would be approxi ,200 square feet and they would be a split-entry style with a 2-car garage for each unit pulled toward the front so they can share one access. Keysser asked about the price of the twin home units. Comer said they would be priced between $225,000 and $250,000. Waldhauser said that seems high priced for that size of home. Keysser asked if the other duplexes in the area are also on R-1 zone said yes and that when they were built they were probably considere the R-1 Zoning District. Schmidgall referred to similar request the Planning Commi and asked what the difference is with this request. Grimes s could have four units if it were rezoned and that here ca townhome. e ago s request e additional . Hackett asked if the Code distinguishes betwee stated that the code doesn't really distinguish b interchangeably, but that the City does al lots are the same size and covenants they can be enforced. plex nd townhouse. Grimes o and they are used ubdivisions as long as both City's name as a signatory so Greg Comer, Amain Homes, 23 homeowner, Mr. Rudser, for maximize the value of the noka, MN stated that he has known the he fe that this was the best proposal to still fits with the homes in that neighborhood. Walt Donnay, Amai Ho proposing a side-b are located on bus traffic street. 92 Barium Street, Andover, MN stated that they are e on this property because the lots are so deep and id that building a twin home works best on a high ts if they have designed the twin home yet and how they see it od. . Pentel stated that the price and design are inconsequential to the Planning Commission in this proposal and that they are there to talk about the rezoning and subdivision of the property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 8 . Pentel opened the public hearing. Jim Bell, 2520-22 Douglas Drive, asked where the new driveways were.going to be placed. Grimes referred to a site map and stated that dueto drainage issues the driveways are being proposed to be on Douglas Drive. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak, Pentel closed the public hearing. re are quite a few differences between this proposal and the n . he said she thinks the City is going to be seeing a lot .of these ts and that it isn't practical to say the Planning Commission is going es of proposals aside until we can do a comprehensive review on oning. She added that she thinks this proposal will fit in with the neighbo perties and won't change character of the neighborhood Pentel said she thinks the new construction will be much closer to the street than the existing homes to the south and to the north and that the style of the twin home is going to look different than the 1950's style ramblers in the area. Eck stated that this proposal is not an exact parallel to the proposal on Planning Commission recently heard, but overall it is similar. He said being asked to do a spot rezoning of an R-2 in an R-1 District which previously said they would not support. He said the proposed ho keeping with the character of the homes in the neighborhood, one on Lilac Drive. He said if the Commission is considerin maybe all of the other lots on Douglas with duplexes on the there is not enough difference in the two situations an e ca proposal on Lilac and support this proposal. at the is . on has Keysser stated that this proposal feels different heard. Pentel stated they really need to have. rezoning and that by rezoning one R e approach regarding nefiting one individual. . Grimes said that the term "spot family homes that share a pI: Comprehensive Plan des' are a low density use. H asked where in the ity t that the prior situati homes could 0 e da be rental units. im and that this proposal is for single e sai It is consistent with the City's ensity and he thinks townhouses and duplexes think in this case it would be spot zoning and consi ercreating an R-2 Zoning District. He stated 've centered around the uncertainty with how many , on that particular lot and that the units were .going to Hackett stated that he agrees that the Planning Commission needs to look at areas that are appropriate for duplex or townhouse construction. He said he agrees with Commissioner Eck's comments and that he can't vote for approval on this proposal. He said he knows aesthetics are not the Planning Commission's concern at this point, but he personally thinks "garage forward" homes are the worst of home design that's happened . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 9 in the last 20 years. He said it is very unfriendly and it says ''welcome torny garage". He disagreed that itwill fit in with the neighborhood and said that this type of design is turning your back on the neighborhood and is not appropriate. He added that he can't support any proposal with this type of design. Pentel stated that in terms of what the Planning Commission is to consider, the design of the homes would not stand up as a valid reason to deny a rezoning request. IV. Keysser asked the applicant if they had considered having the existing Medicine Lake Road become a shared driveway for all three homes. the issue of drainage would prohibit the driveways being located 0 and there would then have to be driveway agreements. Grimes to minimize the drainage effects to the other homes to the we Engineer wants to keep the drainage much as it is today. . Pentel. said she realizes the property owners wantto certain she would support a rezoning of this propert . proposal on Lilac Drive, similar to this one there neighborhood about rezoning that property and density in that area and that has not been the c thinks it is incumbent on the Planning Co density on busier streets. ut she is not he previous uring from the ona omes and additional roposal. She said that she allowing R-2 and higher Grimes suggested looking at the' mixture of both R-1 and R-2 typ oning district that would allow a Keysser said he thinks th' inclined to support this P ce for this type of development and that he is MOVED by Keysse approval to all Douglas Drive Waldhauser and motion carried 4 to 2 to recommend zone a portion of the property located at 2548 amily Residential) to R-2 (Two Family Residential) 'ackett voted against the proposal. Commissioners , Keysser and Pentel voted in favor of the proposal. Public Hearing - SU 11-06 . Subdivision of the Property Located at the st Corner of Douglas Drive and Medicine Lake Road. Applicant: Amain Homes, Inc. . Address: Property located at the Southeast Corner of Douglas Drive and Medicine Lake Road. (South 120 feet of the North 261 feet of the NW % of the NW~ of Section 28, TWP. 118, RGE. 21) Purpose: To allow a lot for the existing Single Family Home and 2 lots for future construction of a two family home. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 10 . Grimes said he had nothing further to add to this proposal than what was already discussed regarding the rezoning of this property other than they've provided all of the information required by the Planning Department and Engineering Department and overall staff is happy with the proposal. He added that the one thing the City doesn't have control over is the design of R-1 and R-2 homes. Pentel said one of her concerns is how far forward the proposed homes sit to Douglas Drive and how much of the front yard would be impervious especially if t re going to have a turnaround on the property. Grimes explained that placing the ser to Douglas Drive reduces the amount of fill required and give the ho back yard space. He added that Hennepin County may require an ea r a bike trail. Waldhauser referred to a buffer of trees on the property and planning to maintain that buffer. Grimes said the appli nts a as many trees as they can but that the City is requirin licant is maintaining n plan. Pentel opened the public hearing. Karen Mcinnis, 2429 Douglas Drive Nort road like Douglas not many people wa duplexes. She said she doesn't see roperties are on a busy hat you're left with is . this proposal at all. . Kathy Bell, 2520-22 Douglas D having a multi-family home add value to the neighbor t that she does not have an objection to er tha "IS owner occupied and she thinks it will o speak, Pentel closed the public hearing. by Keysser and motion carried 4to 2 to recommend st for the property'located at 2548 Douglas Drive North s. Commissioners Eck and Hackett voted against the aid hauser, Schmidgall, Keysser and Pentel voted in favor of 1. be consistent with the preliminary plat of Amain Addition prepared ated 6/25/04. 2. The comments in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated July 8, 2004, shall become a part of this approval. 3. A park dedication fee shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat by the City council. The amount of the park dedication fee shall be determined prior to final plat approval by the City Council upon recommendation by staff. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 11 4. The final form of the "Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions" shall be developed and approved by the City Attorney prior to approval of the final plat. The cost of review of the "Declaration" shall be paid by Amain Homes. -- Short Recess -- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings . IV. Other Business No other meetings were discussed. Hackett said he would like to talk about aesthetic requireme Grimes agreed and said they would be discussing design st Commission meeting. Fulton added that it is almost u ard types of design guidelines. Hackett said that is not a r the way and he would like design standards disc" the issue on the next Planning Commission age o District. re Planning have blanket olde alley to not lead s suggested putting A. Discuss proposed revisions to the Zoning Code. Zoning District section. of Fulton explained that the revision were a result of the Zoning Cod He suggested using R-3, R because it would fit in be d he Multiple Dwelling Zoning District p ,..nsive Plan designations not being in line. an alternative to how the text reads now prehensive Plan Map. Pentel asked for thedefi Fulton explained th that the group f ster Zoning Code. specificall. one-family attached dwelling and a group foster home. attached home would be the same as a twin home and n would stay the same as it is currently defined in the 'cities are required to make group foster homes 'essential services" means. Fulton stated essential services are 'Iity poles, etc. o e proposed text for the R-4 High Density Residential Zoning District lear why 33% ofa lot has to be dedicated as a public park. Fulton stated open space" could be used instead. Pentel asked if 180 square feet is a standard size parking space. Grimes said yes and explained that it gives more flexibility as to the size of a parking space. . Pentel referred to Section 11.24, and stated that subdivision 6c is redundant to subdivision 4A. Pentel referred to Section 11.24, subdivision C and asked about the date of January 1, 2006. Fulton said that it was an arbitrary date that could be changed. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Page 12 ,: . . Eck referred to Section 11.24, subdivision C and asked why the parking requirements are different if the enclosed parking spaces are underground. Grimes said the City has always encouraged enclosed parking and that underground parking isa more efficient use of the land. Pentel referred to Section 11.24 and asked why there was nothing written about sidewalk requirements. Fulton said he left sidewalk requirements out of the high density section and added them in the Senior and Physical Disability section. v Pentel suggested adding a pedestrian plan as a requirement. Pentel referred to Section 11.24, subdivision 4E and asked w could occupy no more than 5% of the total floor space in a that business establishments are not allowed in the High De Zoning Code so he thought 5% was a good first step. Pentel asked why there needs to be a Senior an~, Grimes said it was mainly because the parking rt''* uirem she's not comfortable saying where these ty es housin senior and disability housing be allowed i esid added that the senior and disability ho districts just by how it is written. y Residential District. are erent. Pentel said an be located and suggested ial zoning.districts. Hackett get separated from the other . Eck asked how these proposed the Comprehensive Plan. F designations are currentl proposed changes to th 1 and R-2 low densi ,R- ultiple Family Zoning Districts tie into d that e Comprehensive Plan Map dium density and high density and with the ection of the Zoning Code that would make R- denSity and R-4 and R-5 high density; 'd like them to read over these proposed changes, anges and then he will bring in back to the Commission s adjourned at 9: 15 pm. . . Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission A joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Tuesday, July 26, 2004. The meeting was called to order by Planning Commission Chair Pentel at 7 pm. . Those present were Mayor Loomis, Council Members Freiberg, Shaffer, Grayson, and Planning Commissioners Eck, Pentel, Hackett, Schmidgall and Waldha Iso present were Tom Burt, City Manager, Allen Barnard, City Attorney, B' Planning Consultant, Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Develo Fulton, Planning Intern and Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assista Commissioner Keysser was absent. I. Discuss Draft of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Code Pentel stated that the Planning Commission sta ordinance in 2000 and that Bill Thibault was bro that the Planning Commission has seen one r this version of the ordinance was update Thibault to give a brief history of the re page by page. 'sing the PUD cons tant in 2002. She said his PUD ordinance and that ts and concerns. She asked rdinance and to go through it Bill Thibault, Thibault Associate history of the changes that evaluated the current ord' each PUD site. He said t cities. He explained ome application process the Planning C mi Blvd., Minnetonka, MN, gave a brief the P ordinance. He explained how he pproximately 60 locations and took pictures of pa Golden Valley's PUD ordinance to four other ajor changes to the ordinance such as a pre- eighborhood meetings with developers. He added that s been expanded in this PUD ordinance. ges require a 4/5 vote from the City Councilor a simple it is a simple majority in most cases unless the zoning is being mm I or Industrial to Residential. Grimes added that Comprehensive nts require a 4/5 vote. Pented~ke he existing PUDs are going to be brought into conformance with the Zoning ell!>,; rimes stated that when the Zoning Map was updated all of the PUDs were brought into conformance with the Zoning Code, but there are still some PUDs that need to be brought into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Map. . Thibault stated that the City has been approving PUDs by ordinance and that he thinks it is a fair and useable approach. Barnard explained that PUDs historically were considered an overlay district and that it wasn't until recently that the underlying zoning was made to match. . . . Minutes of a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council July 26, 2004 Page 2 Hackett asked if the way PUDs are currently done is more analogous to spot zoning because the City is reacting rather than directing. Thibault said all PUDs should be compared with the Comprehensive Land Map. A general discussion was held between the City Council and Planning Commission and several grammatical errors were identified and will be corrected in the next version of the PUD Ordinance that will be going to Planning Commission. A more specific discussion followed. Freiberg referred to page 1, line 10 and asked what "contemporary Ian principals" means and if contemporary is meant to be a fluid term an about land planning fads. Thibault said that "contemporary land p ni mixing the language from different drafts of the PUD ordinance su e using the term "contemporary land planning" at all. Grayson asked that the Planning Commission look at the Ian building materials and how that is relative to the role 0 Hackett said that is where design guidelines woul g design and of Review. Commissions. Loomis referred to the words "high quality" and and implies a judgment. She suggested c that the term "best practices" came up the language referring to "high quality" really enforceable by law. Shaffer ordinance and understand wha "quality" seems subjective to "degree". Pentel said on process. Barnard said that ose and intent clause, which is not evelopers could read this PUD Pentel said she thought th stated how much windo open. Waldhauser asked I it depends how the . an special conditions in to be something in the PUD ordinance that I covered with signs and how much had to be left y coulenforce window sign issues. Barnard stated that ritten. Pentel said that she wants to be sure that any are adhered to, and written in the PUD Permit. current sign ordinance would override what is written in a PUD ssed in the PUD permit. Grimes said the City does require a eneral Plan Application that has to be consistent with the Sign t the Sign Code is not a part of the Zoning Code, so the PUD ry from the Sign Code. o the proposed language about fountains and asked who would be or the maintenance. Loomis suggested adding something to the ordinance about what the City receives out of a PUD. Eck said he thinks Subdivision 3 (E)(3) would cover that because it states that proposed developments need to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other City plans. Loomis said that a developer wouldn't necessarily need a PUD to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. . . . Minutes of a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council July 26, 2004 Page 3 Waldhauser referred to the list regarding the provisions that need to be met for a PUD and asked why it if repeated over and over throughout the ordinance. She said if there is a concise list she would like to see it listed just once. Pentel explained why the list of provisions is listed in multiple places. Grimes suggested language be added stating that applicants must show through the PUD Plans and applications that the requested PUD meets and is consistent with the intent and purpose provisions of this and other sections instead of listing the provisions over and over. Grayson said there have been instances where a potential applicant has held neighborhood meetings prior to submitting applications. Grimes stated application process will help and that staff highly recommends that a neighborhood meetings before neighbors hear about a project fro h Grayson said maybe property owners more than 500 feet ar receive notification of a neighborhood meeting. Grimes said developers on what would be considered a reasonable area a beyond a 500 feet area. Shaffer suggested the followi owners within 500 feet of the PUD, or a zone app determined by city staff at the time of applicatio o ks with it goes bed: all property cific project to be aring notice. Rasmussen asked about net and gross d the overall area and that net density is Loomis suggested adding language re Grimes said that lot coverage cou lained that gross density is , streets, public areas, etc. rage to the list of PUD provisions. Grayson asked if there is a n Grimes said the flexibility proof parking language in the ordinance. for proof of parking. Pentel said she would Iik Council makes the te the Planning Commi d "fin gs" used more often. Thibault said that the gs so he purposely left it out. Loomis said findings from City Council know what they are thinking. 't notice in this ordinance if the City asks developers for a e City doesn't have a lighting standard now and that the ngineer review the lighting plans. Pentel said that lighting plans line 287 and suggested that it be moved to the section regarding the t a PUD's tree preservation plan has to follow the City's tree preservation rimes said that developers have to meet or exceed the City's ordinance. Loomis referred to the section regarding private streets and asked why the City would allow any street for any of the first four reasons. Thibault explained that there are some equipment requirements and that some city streets may need to be a certain width or grade. Loomis said that width isn't listed as one of the factors. Thibault gave an example of allowing a private street in a case where there were oak trees that a developer was trying to save. Grimes said allowing private streets also depends on if the buildings have a sprinkler system. . Minutes of a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council July 26,2004 Page 4 Freiberg referred to line 382 which states that private streets shall utilize a minimum grade and asked if "minimum grade" should be defined. Grimes said that "minimum grade" is a commonly understood term among engineers. Loomis asked why the City wouldn't require private streets to meet the same standards as public streets. Burt suggested referencing safety standards in the ordinance. Freiberg referred to the hard cover percentages and asked what "reasonable" means. Loomis asked if there are hard cover percentages in other zoning districts. Grimes said that there are lot coverage percentages in the R-1 zoning district. Pentel said she is not happy with 90% maximum hard cover for Commercial-Retail use. Thib hat when a development is done in the downtown area it would have almost 9, ver area. Pentel suggested that the City complete an impervious serv' ton said he could do a study on impervious surface percentages. Grayson aske letters of credit can't be Loomis asked if this ordinance covers the City's requiremen utilities. Grimes explained that water and utilities are c vered City Code and that the City does not allow wells. . Grayson referred to line 414 regarding the hour a site. Barnard said that this ordinance would n that this proposed PUD ordinance is mor ba an be removed from the existing ordinance and Grimes referred to line 420 and stated deleted because the City doesn't ge referring to garages can be ommercial zoning district. Pentel asked if in the develo might maintain the afforda ty can ask them to explain how they Loomis asked if the grou Thibault stated that vocati of a PUD Permit should be spelled out. the City would not want to revoke PUD permits. it are being used instead of bonds. Thibault stated that to work with and that bonds are a mess. Shaffer said the there performance, view the PUD ordinance is not designed to allow for high priced idden Lakes peninsula and the travesty that occurred there. He asked ay something could be added to the ordinance to protect against that. at it is ultimately up to the City Council at the time. Pentel asked if Hidden Lakes cou e done the way it was if this ordinance was used. Eck said that the reason the streets in Hidden Lakes are a mess is because the developer wanted higher density. . Grimes said he would work with Thibault to make all of the suggested changes and grammatical errors and then bring the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. . Minutes of a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council July 26, 2004 Page 5 II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:40 pm. . . .." . Hey Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: July 30, 2004 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Discussion on Additions to Single Family Zoning District Related to the Outdoor Storage of Recreational Vehicles and Boats and Driveway Requirements . In March 2004, the City Council adopted a new Section 11.21 of the Zoning Code (Single Family Zoning District (R-1 )). Prior to the adoption of the new R-1 zoning district, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance change and recommended approval of the new R-1 zoning district to the City Council. The Planning Commission also held an informal public hearing. The City Council approved the new R-1 zoning district as recommended by the Planning Commission with two exceptions. The Council did not include proposed Subdivision 14 and Subdivision 15 in the new R-1 zoning district. The Council asked that these two subdivisions be deleted and considered at a later time by the Council. At the July 13, 2004 Council/Manager meeting, the Council again discussed the content of Subdivisions 14 and 15. It was the consensus of the Council that these two matters should be referred back to the Planning Commission for study. At the July 20,2004 City Council meeting, the Council officially passed a motion asking that the Planning Commission again consider these two subdivisions. The Commission was asked to hold another informal public hearing on these proposed subdivisions whether or not changes were made from what was proposed by the Planning Commission when the R-1 section of the Zoning Code was adopted by the City Council in March 2004. Planning Commission Chair Pentel was at the July 20, 2004 City Council meeting along with me. It is my understanding that the Council would like the Planning Commission to consider alternative language related to the length of recreational vehicles that may be stored in the front yard and the number of personal recreational vehicles such as snowmobiles or ATV's that may be stored on one trailer. I am enclosing a copy of a memo that I wrote to the City Council dated July 20, 2004 that explains the Council's concerns. . Chair Pentel would like the Planning Commission to first discuss these two proposed subdivisions prior to the drafting of new language. This would be done at the August 9, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. If the Commission can agree on language, it would be placed on a future agenda for an informal public hearing. After the informal public hearing and recommendation by the Commission, it would be sent on to the City Council for a hearing and action. . . . The Council would like to have an ordinance to consider by late September or early October. The Council believes that an early fall consideration would be the time of year when more RV owners are likely to be home and not out traveling in their RV. Attachments: Executive Summary to the City Council dated July 20,2004 (1 page) Proposed Subdivision 14 & 15 not adopted by City Council in March 2004 (1 page) . . . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 20, 2004 Agenda Item 6. Storage of Recreational Vehicles and Boats and Driveway Requirements Prepared By Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Summary At the July 13, 2004 Council/Manager meeting, the Council discussed two requirements for the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District that were recommended for inclusion in the recently adopted R-1 Chapter of the Zoning Code by the Planning Commission. (These two requirements were not included in the R-1 Chapter that was adopted in March 2004.) These requirements relate to the storage of recreational vehicles and driveway requirements. The Council determined that more public input regarding these changes is necessary. In particular, the owners of recreational vehicles should be notified about the changes and that a more appropriate time to consider the changes in storage requirements for recreational vehicles may be in the summer or fall. As a result of the discussion at the July 13, 2004 Council/Manger meeting, it was the consensus of the Council that this matter should be referred back to the Planning Commission in order to refine the language proposed on these two requirements. Specifically, the Council asked that the definition of recreational vehicles be "fine tuned". In particular, there was a concern about the number of personal water craft or off-road vehicles that could be on one trailer. Also, there was concern by the City Council regarding the 25 foot length suggested by the Planning Commission. As an alternative, the Council would like to have the Planning Commission consider no length restrictions as long as the recreational vehicle is located in the front yard and not within the right-of-way. Attachments Proposed Subdivision 14 and 15 not adopted by City Council in March 2004 (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to refer back to the Planning Commission for an informal public hearing and recommendation regarding the storage of recreation vehicles and boats and driveway requirements. The Planning Commission should consider alternative language regarding the length of recreational vehicles and the number of personal water craft or other off-road vehicles that may be stored on one trailer. . . . Subdivision 14. Storage of Recreational Vehicles and Boats. A. Outdoor storage. Outdoor storage of not more than one recreational camping vehicle, recreational vehicle (Le. personal water craft, snowmobiles, four wheel off-road vehicles), fish houses, other trailers or boats on or off a trailer, may be stored or parked in the front yard. B. In no case can any of the above exceed 25 feet in length. Subdivision 15. Driveway Requirements. Driveways in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Materials. Driveways shall be constructed of hard surface materials such as asphalt, pavers, or concrete. This applies to new construction and/or driveways built from the date this ordinance is approved. B. Setbacks. 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. Coverage. No more than 50% of the front yard shall be a driveway or other hard surface area. D. Parking of Vehicles. Vehicles parked in the front yard must be parked on a driveway or other hard surface area.