Loading...
09-27-04 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, September 27, 2004 7pm I. Approval of Minutes August 30,2004 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to Section 11.210f the Zoning Code - related to the Outdoor Storage of Recreational Vehicles & Boats and Driveway Requirements in the R-1 Single Family Zoning District Applicant: The City of Golden Valley Purpose: To establish outdoor storage and driveway requirements in the R-1 section of the Zoning Code. III. Informal Public Hearing - Addition of new Section 11.72 to the Zoning Code - related to fences in all Zoning Districts Applicant: The City of Golden Valley Purpose: To establish requirements for fences throughout the City. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Revision to Section 11.90 "Administration" of the Zoning Code Applicant: The City of Golden Valley Purpose: To correct the language in the Zoning Code to state that the Director of Planning and Development administers Chapter 11, Land Use Regulations -- Short Recess -- V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings VI. Other Business A. Election of Chair and Secretary. VII. Adjournment , . ~ e Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 30, 2004 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall Manager's Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday August 30, 2004. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel, Commissioners Eck, Keysser, Rasmussen, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, Planning Intern, Adam Fulton and Administrative Assista . Wittman. Commissioner Hackett was absent. by Charles Cudd, Co. on behalf of the homeowners, copy of the General Land Use Plan Map and pointed and the location of the lot being discussed. He explained that to expand their existing deck, but due to a drafting error their close to the rear yard property line. Grimes referred to a map Iding envelope for each property. He explained that when the me to the City to get a building permit to expand the deck the artment determined that the existing deck and proposed expansion is outside oved building envelope area. In order to allow the deck expansion to go forward, the staff's first thought was to move the existing south property line into Outlot L, with the homeowner association's approval. However, staff now believes that the best way to resolve this matter is to change the building envelope line for this one particular lot to allow the deck to be as close to 8 feet from the south property line rather than the required 10 feet, which would allow the owners to build their deck addition. I. Approval of Minutes August 9, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the last paragraph on page thr to be added between the words "garage and signs". MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and the August 9,2004 minutes with the above note II. Informal Public Hearing - Pia Applicant: ent Amendment - PU74-A2 e Address: Purpose: t to expand their lot into Outlet L in order to build e Pentel referred to the survey of the lot and asked about the dashed lines. Grimes said the dashed lines indicate utility easement areas. e e e Minutes of the Planning Commission August 30, 2004 Page 2 Grimes stated that he asked the Inspections Department how the deck was built too close to the property line to begin with. The Inspections Department said that the original plans were correct but the as-built survey of the property didn't have any decks drawn on it and when the homeowners came to them for a building permit it was noticed that their deck was only 8 feet from the property line rather than the required 10 feet. Keysser said he noticed that this townhouse does jut out further than the others. Grimes showed pictures of the townhouse and the deck and noted how it sticks out further than the others around it. He said another option would be to cut the deck off and rebuild it to meet the setback requirements. Pentel referred to the letter from the Hidden Lakes Association gi change the property line and asked if they need to get another stating that it is ok to expand the building envelope instead. the property management company and with the applicant f they are fine with idea of expanding the building envelo e rat property line. Pentel asked if there was also a commu Grimes said there is and that the same property Pentel stated that she thinks the City will be see amend the Hidden Lakes PUD Permit be years they are going to need to be repl bigger. Keysser said he wants to be s request is approved. ese types of req uests to wooden and in 15 to 20 ant to make their decks . no precedence being set if this Grimes said the only other oR . that the all of existing dec happens, in error, to be ke t pplicant re-plat the property. He added nhouses are all the same size, this one just erty line. Rasmussen asked i suggested sliding th three feet in th r. t where the building envelope is located on the lot and lope three feet toward the front and expanding it by es Development has tighter setbacks than anywhere else in were negotiated with the City to maintain open space. e of the things Hidden Lakes gave up as part of this PUD is that all of ve to have fire suppression systems which the building code does not Pentel asked if this request was not part of PUD if it would have to go the Board of Zoning Appeals and show a hardship. She stated that neighbors are notified of Board of Zoning Appeals meetings and asked if neighbors were notified in this situation. Grimes said yes, if this request was not part of a PUD it would have to go the Board of Zoning Appeals, but that applicants don't need to show a hardship in a PUD amendment. He added that more neighbors were notified for this public hearing than would have been for a Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. e Minutes of the Planning Commission August 30,2004 Page 3 Pentel said that this is something that happened at the time the deck was built, so ita neighbor comes to the City with the same request in the future she thinks it will be clear that the City can justify that the first amendment to allow for a deck addition was because of an error during the building process. Keysser said he thinks the minutes of this meeting will reflect the Commissioner's concerns. Dr. Jim Ehlen, Property Owner, stated that he didn't have anything to add to Grimes' presentation. MOVED by Rasmu recommend ap rova south. Pentel asked the applicant if they purchased their home before it was that the home was already built when they moved in 15 months ago. ' there is a community organization at Hidden Lakes and that they reasonable way to correct this problem and not as setting pre Pentel opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no on hearing. e Pentel said that when she was on the Board of Z unfavorably upon these types of requests, howe with people when there was a survey error. She a precedent and she hopes it is clear to t not setting a precedent but sees this as Rasmussen's suggestion regarding sh y looked very m ome attempt to work Iso concerned aboUt setting the Planning Commission is e added that Commissioner envelope is intriguing. Pentel asked Grimes if decks a should have been shown on th occurred. Pentel said she location of all of the dec on surveys. Grimes said the decks d t e didn't know how this mistake pplicant to submit a new survey showing the e didn't think that would be a problem. by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to pplicant to move the building envelope two feet to the -- Short Recess -- III. s to the Single Family Zoning District related to the Outdoor ecreational Vehicles & Boats and Driveway Requirements. the Planning Commission that the last time they reviewed the proposed ordinan hanges relating to outdoor storage they asked staff to add their suggestion and bring it back to them for another review before they have a public hearing. Grimes stated that one change that was made is to allow one recreational vehicle in the front yard and any number in the rear yard as long as they follow rear yard setback requirements. e Pentel asked about the size of accessory structures. Grimes said they can be any size, but that property owners are only allowed a total of 1,000 square feet of accessory structure space on their property. . e . Minutes of the Planning Commission August30,2004 Page 4 Rasmussen referred to Subdivision 16 (C)(2) and suggested taking out the words "to the rear of the rear yard". Fulton stated that the language in that subdivision is referring to side yards and that.setback requirement for the portion of the side yard along side of a house is three feet, but after the rear yard property line starts, the side yard property line is 5 feet. Pentel suggested using the words "rear of the primary structure" or attached garage" . Pentel said that if recreational vehicles are going to be stored in rear yards that the City should require some type of screening. Fulton said that the new fence ordinance speaks to that issue and that a fence would need to be about 10 feet high to s e types of recreational vehicles. Waldhauser stated that a six foot high fence ovide screening. Pentel said that aside from the fence ordinance she doesn't storage needs to be screened. Fulton said he could add text screening in rear yards. Eck stated that they took away the reference reg and asked about houses that are setback furthe setback. Grimes said that a person could have front yard on a driveway if they wanted to f recreational vehicles UI 5 foot front yard motor home stored in the f the right-of-way. Eck asked if a large motor home is co said that is how the current ordina "recreational camping vehicles" tlonal camping vehicle". Fulton ad the current definition of Pentel said she likes the f on a trailer and not on b be considered an accesso pers that go on pick up trucks are required to be Grimes said that if it is not on the trailer it would \"pers or covers. Grimes said that most of those are part Ci recreationally. uld be stored on the ground in a front yard. Grimes said one fish house on a paved surface in their front yard. riveway requirements and asked if it meant that up until this coming build a gravel driveway. Grimes said yes. Schmidga ated that he thinks this new proposed front yard storage ordinance is only addressing about 10% of the problem and that there is also a concern about toys and cars and junk. He said he thinks the City should come down hard on all of the issues regarding storage in the front yard or they shouldn't change the way that things are being done right now. Fulton stated that he is also working on a housing maintenance code that addresses some of the other issues. Grimes added that the Council is trying to take steps regarding this issue. Minutes of the Planning Commission August 30,2004 Page 5 . Eck asked if operable motor vehicles are parked in a front yard if they have to be on .a driveway or paved surface. Fulton stated no and explained that cars that are currently licensed and operable can park anywhere on a property. Pentel suggested that the text be worded to say all vehicles shall be parked on a paved surface. Fulton stated that Chapter 9 of the City Code covers parking issues. Pentel referred to S exception about all Grimes stated that staff would make the suggested changes and seta public hearing for a future Planning Commission meeting. III. Discuss an addition to the Zoning Code regarding fences Fulton discussed the proposed new fence ordinance. He said 0 . would not allow for any variances, but that the Council has sai variance process for fences. He explained that the new ordi high fences in rear yards and four foot high fences in front ya Zoning District. Commercial and Light Industrial prope' foot high fences and the ordinance does not allow e Pentel said she is concerned about odd shaped considered the front side. She said she thin a streets. Fulton suggested maybe lookin suggested using the words "arterial" or specific street names. t side of the property is e called for along busy s for certain areas. Grimes ts rather than calling out Waldhauser asked if there is an Grimes stated that the fenc an article in the City new C n do to encourage "green" screening. e homeowner's decision and suggested putting fences and the maintenance of fences. garding exceptions and suggesting adding an nces in certain areas. IV. s 0 the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City oning Appeals and other Meetings V. A. ss rescheduling the September 18 Planning Commission meeting to September 20. Waldhauser said she had a conflict on September 20 and would not be able to attend a meeting that evening. The other Commissioners agreed to reschedule the September 18 e meeting to September 20. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8: 15 pm. - 1/ e e ~e Hey Planning 763.593.8039 I 763.593.8109 (fax) Date: September 14, 2004 To: Planning Commission From: Adam W. Fulton, Planning Intern Subject: Outdoor Storage and Driveway Ordinance Revisions An ordinance regarding outdoor storage and driveways has been discussed as an amendment to Section 11.21, "Single Family Zoning District". The proposed ordinance adds two subdivisions to the existing Section. Ordinances pertaining to the Zoning Code first come before the Planning Commission for approval. After approval by the Planning Commission, the ordinance has a single consideration before the Council. The Council must then decide whether or not to pass the ordinance into law. The outdoor storage regulations pertain to recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers stored in the front yard. These items will be allowed only upon the driveway, and only one item will be allowed in the front yard. Additionally, a provision calling for a 30 day restriction for all other items has been added in response to the Commission's concern regarding storage of items such as truck toppers. This restriction could be waived by the City Manager in cases of unusual circumstances. There are minimal regulations for outdoor storage in the side and rear yards, including screening of items and setbacks from the property line. The driveway requirement ensures that all new driveways will be paved with either a permeable or impermeable hard surface. It also restricts the size of driveways, limiting them to fifty percent of the front yard. These two subdivisions were originally proposed in February of 2004 and have since been rewritten and reviewed on multiple occasions. '. e le _e CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY ORDINANCE NO. 2nd SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Section 11.21 "Single Family Zoning District (R-1)" The City Council of the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.21, is hereby amended by adding a new Subdivision 16, entitled "Outdoor Storage", and a new Subdivision 17, entitled "Driveway Requirements", reading as follows: Subdivision 16. Outdoor Storage. Outdoor storage of items on properties within the R-1 Zoning District is governed by the following provisions: A. Front Yard Storage. 1. Storage of items in the front yard may occur solely upon a driveway, and in no other location. 2. No personal motorized recreational vehicle or boat may be stored in a front yard, except upon a trailer. 3. Nomore than one of the following may be stored in a front yard driveway: a. Recreational camping vehicle; b. Fish house; or c. Trailer. The term "trailer", as used in this Subdivision, means a trailer for multiple purposes including but not limited to hauling a boat or personal motorized recreational vehicles. 4. Storage in the front yard of items not listed in Subdivision 16.A.3. above may not exceed thirty (30) days unless a Front Yard Storage Permit is issued to the property owner. A Front Yard Storage Permit may be issued at the discretion of the City Manager or City Staff designated by the City Manager. B. Setbacks. 1. Front Yard Storage. Any storage of items in the front yard shall be behind the property line. 2. Side Yard Storage. Items stored in that portion of the side yard to the front of the rear yard, may not be stored within three (3) feet of the property line. Items stored in that portion of the side yard to the rear of the primary structure or attached garage, may not be stored within five (5) feet of the property line. . Ie t. 3. Rear Yard Storage. Items stored in the rear yard may not be stored within five (5) feet of the property line. C. Screening. Side and Rear Yard Storage. Any storage of a recreational camping vehicle, fish house, trailer, boat, or personal motorized recreational vehicle in the side or rear yard must be screened using either vegetative screening or a fence in accordance with Section 11.72 of this Chapter. Subdivision 17. Driveway Requirements. Driveways in the R-1 Zoning District are governed by the following provisions: A. Materials. Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1, 2005 shall be constructed of concrete, bituminous pavement, or brick, concrete, or cement pavers. B. Setbacks. Driveways built on or after January 1,2005 shall be setback three (3) feet from a side yard property line, except for shared driveways used by multiple property owners pursuant to a private easement. . C. Coverage. No more than fifty percent (50%) of the front yard may be covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, or brick, concrete, or cement pavers. Section 2. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.03, "Definitions" is hereby amended by adding item 73, reading as follows, and renumbering the remaining items accordingly: 73. "Personal Motorized Recreational Vehicle" - A vehicle used for recreational purposes, including but not limited to All-Terrain Vehicles, Golf Carts, Personal Watercraft, Snowmobiles, or Dirt Bikes. Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation", Section 11.03 entitled "Definitions", and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this day of ,2004 . . Ie ~. Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Donald G. Taylor, City Clerk #321534_1 M' ij' e Ie _e lIey Planning 763-593-8039 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: September 14, 2004 To: Planning Commission From: Adam W. Fulton, Planning Intern Subject: Section 11.72, "Fences" An ordinance regarding construction of fences in the City has been discussed on various occasions by the Council and the Planning Commission. As written, the present ordinance satisfies the goals of many Council Members and Commissioners as such goals developed and evolved over the past two years. Ordinances pertaining to the Zoning Code first come before the Planning Commission for approval. After approval by the Planning Commission, the ordinance has a single consideration before the Council. The Council must then decide whether or not to pass the ordinance into law. The fence ordinance contains basic provisions ensuring that homeowners maintain their fences and do not erect a fence on another person's property. In residential zoning districts, fences are limited to six feet in height in the rear yard, and four feet in height in the front yard. Exceptions are granted for tennis and basketball courts and for any property adjoining a major street. In all other zoning districts, fences are limited to eight feet in height. Fences are required screening for outdoor storage, and all mechanical equipment must be screened from view from the street right-of-way. Barbed wire fences are prohibited except in industrial and light industrial zoning districts, and then must be a minimum of seven feet high. This ordinance has been specifically located in the Zoning Code in order that residents may get a variance from the regulation under certain circumstances. Proving hardship will enable residents to receive a variance and build a fence that otherwise might have been out of compliance with this ordinance. .' e ~e te CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY ORDINANCE NO. 2nd SERIES AN ORDJNANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Adding Section 11.72 "Fences", The City Council of the City of Golden VaHey hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11, "Land Use Regulations" is amended by adding a new Section 11.72 entitled "Fences", to read as follows: SECTION 11.72. FENCES. Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms are defined as follows: A. "Berm" - An earthen mound designed to provide visual interest on a site, screen undesirable views, reduce noise, or fulfill other similar purposes. B. "Fence" - A structural enclosure or barrier used as a boundary, means of protection, or concealment. C. "Screening" - A method of visually shielding or obscuring one abutting or nearby structure or use from another byfencing, walls, berms, or densely planted vegetation. Subdivision 2. General Regulations. All fences in all zoning districts are subject to the following requirements: A. The side of a fence without primary structural supports shall be considered the finished side and must face outward from the property on which it is constructed towards the adjacent property. If a fence has two similarly finished sides, either side may face the adjacent property. B. All berms, screening, and fences, including fence footings, must be located entirely on the property for which the fence is being constructed. A property owner installing a new fence must accurately determine property lines prior to installing a fence. C. All fences shall be maintained and kept in good repair by property . owners. Any hazardous fence or fence in a state of disrepair shall be repaired or removed by the property owner within thirty (30) days of notice by the City. If a property owner fails to comply with such notice, in addition to all other applicable penalties under City Code, the City may remove the fence and assess the property owner the cost of such removal. D. All berms, screening, and fences shall comply with Chapter 7 of the City Code. e le te E. Electrified fences are prohibited. Barbed wire fences are prohibited except as allowed under Subdivision 3. Subdivision 3. Regulations by Zoning District. The following regulations apply to specific zoning districts. A. Residential and Multiple Dwelling zoning districts. 1. Fences in the front yard shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. Fences in side and rear yards shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. B. All other zoning districts. 1. Fences shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height. 2. All exterior storage shall be screened by a wall, fence, or vegetation not less than six (6) feet in height and of ninety percent (90%) opacity. 3. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the street right-of-way. 4. Barbed wire fences are prohibited in all zoning districts except the Industrial and Light Industrial zoning districts. The height of all barbed wire fences in the Industrial and Light Industrial zoning districts shall not be less than seven (7) feet. Subdivision 4. Exceptions. Any deviation from this Section shall require a variance in accordance with Section 11.90 of this Chapter except the following: A. Tennis and basketball courts in all zoning districts may have a single perimeter fence no higher than ten (10) feet. Such fences shall be located to the rear of the primary structure and shall require a minimum one (1) foot strip of landscaping around the entire perimeter. B. A fence not exceeding twelve (12) feet in height is permitted in Commercial, Industrial, and Light Industrial zoning districts solely for the purpose of screening exterior storage areas. C. A fence not exceeding six (6) feet in height is permitted in the front yard of all properties directly adjoining an A or B minor Arterial Street, as designated in the City of Golden Valley Transportation Plan. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation", Section 11.03 entitled "Definitions", and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. . Ie _e Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this day of ,2004 Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Donald G. Taylor, City Clerk #321537_1 p. e e e lIey Planning 763.593.8039 1763.593.8109 (fax) Date: September 14, 2004 To: Planning Commission From: Adam W. Fulton, Planning Intern Subject: Revisions to Section 11.90 "Administration" In the process of reviewing the City's Land Use Regulations, it was discovered that a historical update was not completed during the 1988 recodification process. The current code calls for the Director of Public Works to administer Chapter 11, Land Use Regulations. This ordinance is out of compliance with current City practices and, if strictly enforced, would require the Director of Community Development to work under the supervision of the Director of Public Works. It is also out of compliance with other parts of the City Code and may be out of compliance with State Statutes. An informal public hearing is required before the Planning Commission prior to making any changes to the Land Use Code. The changes presented are minor and involve only replacing the words "Director of Public Works" with the words "Director of Community Development. The proposed ordinance changing the text of Section 11.90 is attached. " e CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY ORDINANCE NO. 2nd SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Section 11.90 "Administration" The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11 "Land Use Regulations" is hereby amended by deleting the first paragraph of Subdivision 1, Section 11.90 "Administration" and replacing it with the following: The Director of Community Development is hereby authorized and directed to enforce all the provisions of this Chapter. The Director of Community Development may delegate this authority to any staff member under his/her supervision. The Director of Community Development is responsible for the following duties: Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and e publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this day of ,2004 Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Donald G. Taylor, City Clerk e