Loading...
08-27-07 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday,August27,2007 7:30 pm 1. Approval of Minutes August 13, 2007 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Amending Section 11.90 4(A)(1) Board of Zoning Appeals Administration. Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the Administration section of the Zoning Code to allow for any member of the Planning Commission to serve as an alternate on the Board of Zoning Appeals. 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 4. Other Business Reschedule/Cancel the September 10,2007, November 12, 2007 and the December 24, 2007 Planning Commission meetings. 5. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hollr request. Please call 763-593-8006(TIY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 13, 2007 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 13, 2007. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Eck, Cera, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning an pment Mark Grimes, Planning Intern Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Ass. Wittman. 2. wo s "per year" should be n. 1. Approval of Minutes July 23, 2007 Joint Planning/EnvironmentallOp Commission Meeting Eck referred to the fourth paragraph on page 1 struck in the sentence regarding the 4% increas . MOVED. by Eck, seconded by Waldha the July 23, 2007 Joint Planning/Env. minutes with the above noted cor d unanimously to approve . \<ii.f\i:!?9pace and Recreation Commission Waldhauser referred to t Kluchka said the foil wing states that the grad drainage." p ,aph on page 3 and clarified that she, not auser suggested adding language to the ordinance that ot be raised beyond what is necessary for proper by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the ning Commission minutes with the above noted correction. lic Hearing - PU67 -A2 - Westwood Lake Office Park- Preliminary Bigos Management, Inc. Address: 8401, 8421 and 8441 Wayzata Blvd. Purpose: To construct a new two-story office building with parking garage below. . Grimes referred to a location map and explained that the applicant would like to amend the existing Westwood Lake Office Park PUD to allow for the construction of a new 26,000 square foot, 2 story office building with parking beneath. He referred toa site plan Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 2 and stated that there have been three office buildings on this property since the 1970s. The owners are proposing to create a new lot on the east side of the property for this proposed new building. . Grimes stated that the parking requirements for an office use are 1 parking space for every 250 square feet of office space and that this new proposal meets the requirements. However, the overall site for the existing three buildings is slightly short on the parking space requirements but parking has been adequate and there are many open parking spaces. The three buildings are currently 98% occupied. Cera asked about the pr Grimes referred to the la be removed but the Ii noted that there is a the residential aid Ii doesn't think there added there will be a few at area. Grimes referred to the site plan and stated that he is concerned ab u the proposed new parking lot on the south side of the property. ug applicant remove the four parking spaces shown along the so 0 meet that setback requirement. Grimes stated that the appli revised copy of their "Amended and Restated. Declaration of and Courtyard Easements". He added that there is po . Iy a one of the existing buildings that will have to be res Keysser asked if there would be any traffic imp will be significant traffic impacts as result of more trips but there are also a lot of tran Keysser asked about the flood plai explained that there is a portion the proposed new building is n Id be done about it. Grimes II that is located in a flood plain area but rea. . ing on the south and east sides of the property. la noted that approximately one dozen trees will nning to add a number of trees on the site. He also nt screen of trees on the south side of the property near es' memo where it states that additional parking could be ght it would be better to say that additional parking will be rimes said he would change the wording in his memo. Ric s, and Companies and architect for the project, said they would be comfo cing the parking lot by four spaces in order to meet the setback requirem ng the south property line adjacent to one of the houses in the adjoining neighborhood. He explained that the overall parking for the existing PUD that includes three buildings is more than adequate although it is slightly under the requirement of one space for each 250 square feet of office space. He said that one reason that the number of parking spaces is more than adequate is because the square footage of the existing three office buildings has been determined by measuring the outside dimension of the . three buildings. In the case of these three buildings, the walls are extraordinarily thick due to an unusual building system. Therefore, the amount of leaseable floor space is significantly less than the outside dimension of the buildings. . . . Minutes .of the GQlden Valley Planning CQmmissiQn August 13, 2007 Page 3 Hennings said that a neighbQrhQQd meeting was held priQr tQ the Planning CQmmissiQn meeting tQ discuss the plans fQr the new .office building. Since the neighbQrhQQd meeting was held, the site plans have been revised tQ mQve the building farther tQ the nQrth, remQve a PQnding area and reduce the number trees remQved. Henning believes that these changes are imprQvements based .on cQmments heard at the neighbQrhQQd meeting. He said that the PQnding area was remQved because they are building infiltratiQn basins (rain gardens) in the parking islands instead .of the PQnd. He referred tQ the landscaping plans and stated that they will be keeping twQ gQQd specimens .of bQX elder trees and planting additiQnal trees. Keysser asked if the prQPQsed new building will be a single tenant Hennings said that the applicant, BigQs, will .occupy apprQximat and they WQuld seek additiQnal tenants fQr the rest .of the spa ing Keysser asked if the existing amQunt .of parking has ever be nQ and that the uses in the building WQuld have tQ ch a I additiQnal parking spaces. Cera asked the applicant if they had thQught ab Hennings said that WQuld be fairly expensiv they are making the building green hQW process. He explained that they arepr a IQt .of windQws fQr day lighting, an and air CQnditiQning units that wi! ing a EED Certified building. a building. He added that g thrQugh the fQrmal LEED ulate the building, there will be se heat pumps and small heating d mQre efficient. Cera asked if they are prop bicycle racks inside and .ordinance and stated tha I bicycle racks. Hennings said they eQuid prQvide rking garage. Grimes referred tQ the parking 's required at a rate .of 5% .of. autQ parking. Kluchka asked abQ made tQ the e' . ess. Hennings stated that a sidewalk cQnnectiQn will be , ayzata BQulevard. entry dQQrs .on the nQrth side .of the building. Hennings said ain entrance is .on the SQuth side .of the building but that n entrance .on the nQrth and nQrthwest sides Qfthe building. d tQ the landscaping plan and nQted that there are . large canQPy trees rQntage but all the trees .on the interiQr .of the site are crabapples. Henning d that there are SQme pine, spruce, maple and flQwering crab trees .on the site and they WQuld be willing tQ plant mQre. Keysser .opened the public hearing. Ted Glasrud, Owner .of 8401-8441 Wayzata Blvd, (WestwQQd Lake Office Park) stated that when he purchased the property the buildings were 20% .occupied and nQW they are 98% .occupied and there is still plenty .of parking. He shQwed a sketch .of the wall cQnstructiQn and stated that the "T-waUs" reduce the square fQQtage by apprQximately Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 4 5,000 square feet. Grimes asked him to submit a plan showing normal wall construction versus "T -wall" construction before this proposal goes to the City Council. . Bryan Mintz, 1030 Wisconsin Avenue South, said when he bought his house in 1989 he was assured that the existing buildings near his neighborhood would be the closest buildings to him. He said his property is directly south of this proposal so it affects him the most He said there is currently a nice separation between the Westwood Lake office buildings and his neighborhood and no one would want this proposed building next to their home. He said there are currently no problems with the existing off' 'Idings but the proposed new building is going to impact traffic and it puts anoffi ight next to his house. It's going to affect their neighborhood no matter the a 0 ey put in. Jim Hoffman, 1120 Wisconsin Avenue South, said his neigh ce of heaven with the nature area in their backyard and he plays b on in the space between the existing office buildings. He said tr c ha n the frontage road and in the morning it can take him5 to 10 min left rn onto the frontage road. He said he is concerned that the t with the proposed new building. He said that people believe their s them around the nature center so they cut through and he is concer ety of the young children in the neighborhood. He said there has als n foot traffic because a lot of people walk at lunchtime and use their to get to the Holiday station. . He said their homes are being squ ",~e and they've invested money in their homes and want to preserv nt. He is also concerned about the environmental impact of this bu e center. Parol Witte, 1100 Wisco when 1-394 backs-up, th had water problems d h th, said his biggest concern is the traffic and o backs-up. He said since 1-394 was built he's to keep the open space that has always been there. r. Mintz saying. that he was assured that the existing sest buildings to his property. He asked if the property in the past. Grimes said the zoning has not changed. The became a PUP in the 1990s, prior to that it was zoned al Offices. He stated that the Business and Professional Office require a significant setback area from residential properties and that ing that the applicant remove four of the proposed parking spaces property line. He added that staff believes that the water situation in the er as a result of the proposed new office building. Ryan Gideon, Westwood Professional Services, Engineer for the project, explained that some of the water on the site flows to the west and some flows to the south toward Westwood Lake. Eck asked if the all the setback requirements were met if there would be any zoning issues. Grimes said that if all the setback requirements were met there would be no zoning issues. He stated that the property is designated on the General Land Use Plan as . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 5 . office and it is zoned Business and Professional Offices. He stated that if there is going to be a commercial use next to residential it is probably preferable to have office instead of retail. Kluchka said the way the proposed building is positioned on the lot isn't addressing the rest of the community, it's turning its back on the street, it's not consistent with the buildings adjacent to it, it looks like an apartment building and faces the parking lot. He said more permeable land than necessary is being used and suggested that the applicant build on pavement that is already on the site. He said he'd like to see ot tions and suggested getting rid of the entire proposed parking lot on the south . with the underground parking they may not need it. Grimes said the PIa n ion could recommend that the applicant get rid of the proposed par' 0 side and require that area to be proof-of-parking, but the applicant requirements of the zoning code and the setback requirem Bryan Mintz, 1030 Wisco and that no one would s the issue, it's that n ne i iminate. ut th need be difficult to lease ns to the north elevation but would get used. He said and an entrance on the north e property requires the said there could be a change in peop e to enter from the north would be . Keysser asked the applicants how much parking they Hennings said they'd be willing to remove a few pa approximately 90 parking spaces. If they had fe . the space. He. stated that he has been working he doesn't think an entrance on the north si 0 there are also security issues with havin side would not be accessible because elevator to be on the south side of the use of the building in the futu more inviting . uth, said that the proposed building is attractive ,north) of the building. It is not the>building that is ighborhood wants the building at all. Waldhauser s~>sh the south side of:, help sere of appr Grimes he applicant reduces the number of parking spaces on I ould allow them to plant some large trees which would m the residential area. Keysser suggested adding a condition t work with Mark Grimes to evaluate their parking needs. reducing the parking by 10% would help. isconsin Avenue South, said that from his house he won't be able to new building at all so adding more trees won't help anything. He said his cone he impact to the neighborhood and that the drive into the neighborhood is going to be impacted. . Eck said he understands the neighbors concerns but he doesn't think they can deny the owner the rightful use of his property. He doesn't think.the City has a legal basis to say they can not put a building in the proposed location because the neighbors don't want a building there. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 6 Schmidgall said he is troubled by the impact to the neighborhood and said this is similar to the infill issues the Planning Commission has been seeing. He said he would like the applicant to explore the option of moving the proposed building further to the west toward the existing buildings to condense the use of the site. . Keysser asked the applicant how much leeway they have to move the building to the west. Hennings said they are creating a new property line between the two lots and selling the new eastern lot. Keysser asked if there are ways to make less impact. Hennings said beyond additional green space and screening he doesn't of any other ways to make less of an impact to the residential area. 1. al im act to the o more screening won't to reduce the number of . Waldhauser asked if this property would meet the height standa study. Grimes .saidit would meet the standards. Grimes said that he has never received a complaint about th think it's had a negative impact on the area. He said t ar Valley where there are offices next to residential ar McCarty said the issue is not that the building w neighborhood it's just that the neighborhoo help. He added that taking out some of t tenants, people will just park in a differ Keysser suggested adding condi . amount of parking, re-examinat screening along Wisconsin McCarty said he thinks t requi~ements and h 0 t one a good job trying to meet the parking re-examining the parking is necessary. MOVED by W approval of th with the f by Eck and motion carried 5 to 2 to recommend amendment #2 Westwood Lake Office Park PUD #67 . Kluchka and Schmidgall voted no. e y Westwood Professional Services become a part of this ,1Iy{3heets C-1.0, C-2.0, C-3.0, C-4.0, C-5.0, A-0.1, A-0.2, L-1.0, and A- 2. The r endations in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes dated August 6, 2007 shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes and dated July 24, 2007 shall become a part of this approval. 4. A revised "Amended and Restated'beclaration of Parking, Driveway, Utility and Courtyard Easements" shall be submitted to the City with the Final Plan application . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 13,2007 Page 7 . for the PUD. This revision shall include language about how the new 26,000 sq. ft. office building operates within the entire Westwood Lake Office Park. 5. The parking lot at the southeast corner of the property on Lot 4 (south of the new 26,000 sq. ft. office building) shall meet the setback requirements for the Business and Professional Offices zoning district. (The site plans shall be revised to indicate this change.) If additional parking is needed after construction of the building, an additional parking deck shall be required to be constructed. The parking plan shall be re-examined by the applicant and Mark Grimes to determine if an e parking spaces shown in the plans can be eliminated.. . 3. Informal Public Hearing - Fami.ly Zoning District Applicant: dment - Amending the R-1 Single 6. A new final plat of PUD No. 67 showing four rather than thre the applicant with Hennepin County within 60 days of City approval. Proof of filing shall be provided to the City. . 7. The applicant shall re-examine the north fa~ade of determine if it can be made more inviting and w 8. The applicant shall enhance the landscape s the frontage road. Purpose: . gle Family Zoning District as per the Report of ommission on Subdivisions and Housing Development mission that at their last meeting (July 23) he said he anges' regarding the infill study to this meeting for the 'c hearing. mo and stated he is proposing a change to #5 in his memo ations. He explained that the change he's proposing adds language t are constructed prior to October 1, 2007. This will ensure that o not become non-conforming. . Grimes referred to #2 in his memo regarding grade plane and said he is concerned about the grade plane language as it relates to corner lots because it would be difficult to build a 2-story home using this method on some lots. Kluchka said he would rather keep the "grade plane" language as proposed in Grimes' memo and have applicant apply for a variance if need be. Keysser agreed and stated that no one ordinance is going to fit in every situation. Grimes stated that there has been some concern from residents regarding #2 (grade plane language) becoming a city policy rather than an ordinance. He stated that staff would rather have it be a policy because it allows for flexibility in unique Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August13,2007 Page 8 situations where fill has to be brought onto a site to make the drainage plan work properly. He explained that the lowest floor elevation of a house is required to be at least two feet above the flood elevation and the garage floor is required to be a minimum of 18 inches above the street to allow for proper drainage. . Grimes referred to #3 in his memo regarding impervious surfaces and stated that the proposed new ordinance will limit the amount of impervious surface allowed on any lot to 50%. This is consistent with the new R-2 zoning district requirements. Cera asked if that number could be lowered. Keysser said he would like to keep the R-1 r . ents consistent with the R-2 requirements. Cera asked if there would be b n to people who use pervious pavers or something similar. Grimes said not offered at this point but it could be revisited in the future. Grimes r propos structur in e. s and stated that the e 28 feet in height and flat s to clarify the definition for homes e. Grimes said he would clarify the ouncil. . Grimes referred to #4 in his memo regarding side wall artic property lines. McCarty suggested that articulation be requir length on any property line. Cera expressed concern ut a longer than 32 feet in length because then the exis . conformance. Grimes noted that the ordinance 32 feet will have to be articulated so it shouldn't Grimes referred to #5 in his memo regar proposed new ordinance allows pitche roofed houses to be 25 feet in heig constructed prior to the adoption language before the ordinance Cera asked if an older h down to the foundation i height. Grimes expl . ed t unless they sustain construction w ed to the 3D-foot height requirement was torn r be allowed to re-build a new home to 30 feet in state statute allows homes to be rebuilt as they were er than 50% of their value. He added that any new rrent ordinance requirements. memo regarding accessory structures and stated that the uld still allow a total of 1,000 square feet of accessory ut no one accessory structure can be larger than 800 square feet Grime ~ to #7 in his memo regarding the design of accessory structures and stated th existing language regarding the design of accessory structures has been difficult to administer. He said he is proposing language that says any type of roof style is alright for accessory structures under 120 square feet but for accessory structures that are .120 square feet or larger no gambrel roofs will be allowed. Waldhauser suggested mansard roofs be included also. Grimes said he would add mansard roofs to this requirement. . Grimes referred to #8 in his memo regarding driveway requirements and stated that this proposed new ordinance would reduce the amount of the front yard that may be covered Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 9 . with concrete, bituminous pavement or pavers to 40% instead of the current 50%. Waldhauser suggested adding "stone" to the driveway requirements. Keysser opened the public hearing. Rich Baker, 224 Janalyn Circle, said he appreciates all the work the Planning Commission has done regarding the infillstudy. He said he doesn't understand the issue Grimes spoke about regarding corner lots not being able to build a two-story house because there are plenty of homes that look like they are one or two sto' . the front and then they are two or three stories in the back. He said he doesn't why a variance would be needed to build a two-story house. Keysser asked Knaeble versus an ordinance. Kn ordinance because re also be made very ck door ts an He said he is also concerned about the grading provision bee way for someone to build a bigger house. He said he under flexibility and discretion but he thinks the grading issues sho ordinance and not a policy even if it's less convenient staff Grimes said he would like to have the Public Wo grading provisions from their point of view and than an ordinance. Waldhauser noted that . raise the height of the house it just bring lain the proposed Id like them be a policy rather lot does not necessarily . Pete Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Ave the proposed 3 feet grade plane hill and sloped street. j;l;;would be rare for a lot not to exceed problems occur when there is a steep about the grading provisions being a policy h Id not make the grading provisions be an any unique circumstances. He said he thinks itshould grade is measured from. out staff writing public policy. He noted that this proposed re than the Planning Commission has discussed in the past. mission agreed that the language regarding grading would be be higher than needed for adequate drainage. Grimes said he . Engineer about writing something regarding drainage. s that if the grading language is put in the code there are going to be too s. Knaeble suggested going through some previous building permits to see if the grading and height would meet these proposed new standards. He said he thinks a lot of people will be pushed into a variance situation. . Cera suggested the language be changed from "the grade plan at the building shall not exceed three feet above the street side property line" to "no more than 3 feet of fill will be allowed" . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 10 Baker said a property owner could tear down a house, leave one tree and the ground around it so they could argue the grade is higher then they could build a higher house. He said the core issue with height is how it affects neighboring houses and the ambiance of the neighborhood. Keysser suggested that they leave the grading language as it is with the caveat that the Public Works Department will write a memo addressing the issue with the City Council. Kluchka said he also wants Public Works to address why a specific number regarding grade makes instead of saying that lots can be graded no more than ne for adequate drainage. . Keysser clarified that the following items from Grim ' proposed ordinance before it goes forward to th . Number 2, the grade plane not excee also be decided if the grade plane I uld be clarified. It should policy or an ordinance. . Keysser closed the public hearing. McCarty said he is glad that the grading language is being r doesn't like the idea of limiting the grade to set number. . Number 4, the reference to si than 32 feet must articulate ken out so that any wall longer . Number 5, the langua proposed new ordi he height of homes constructed before this . Number 7,m roofs that will n size. ould be added to the language regarding the types of on accessory structures larger than 120 square feet in uld be added to the types of driveways allowed. a, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried 6 to 1 to recommend ~l,\V1e R-1 Single Family Zoning District as per the Report of the Planning Subdivisions and Housing Development with the above noted ions. Cera voted no. 4. Informal Public Hearing - General land Use Comprehensive Plan Amendment- adopting the 1..394 Corridor Study Applicant: City of Golden Valley . Purpose: To recommend the adoption of the 1-394 Corridor study as a part of the General Land Use Element in the Comprehensive Plan Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 11 . Grimes stated that the 1-394 Corridor will be adopted as a special section of the General Land Use Plan. He explained that before the study is officially adopted it will have to be reviewed by the surrounding communities and the Metropolitan Council. He explained that the study is very different than a re-redevelopment district becauseitis not the City's intent to be involved with the development of the properties and the existing businesses in the study area have every right to remain. Keysser asked if any of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments would cause properties to be non-conforming. Grimes explained that rezoning the pr . s will cause them to be non-conforming. 5. rried unanimously to tudy as a part of the General Keysser opened the public hearing. Steve Fichtel, 435 Idaho Avenue North, asked if the City is current Comprehensive Plan or if the 1-394 Corridor Study w the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. Grimes stated the be amended to include the 1-394 Corridor Study. Seeing and hearing no one el.se wishing to com . MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by KI recommend approval of the adoption Land Use Element in the current C Informal Public He . Corridor al Land Use Plan Map Amendment - 1-394 Applicant: the General Land Use Plan Map for all properties in rid or study area from their current designation to Mixed of the 1-394 Corridor study area and stated that all of the y area are proposed to be changed from their current land use ixed Use Designation. Waldha ed if the Commercial properties in the far eastern portion ofthe study area would meet the requirements in the proposed new Mixed Use zoning district. Grimes reiterated that all the properties in the 1-394 Corridor Study area can remain as they are and that almost all of them are currently non-conforming because of setback or parking issues. Schmidgall stated that the idea of the Corridor Study was not to have an impact on existing businesses but to have a vision for that area. . ~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 12 McCarty asked if every property in the study area has to have a mixed use on it. Grimes said that not every property is going tb be mixed use, the corridor as a whole will be mixed use and the City will try to encourage mixed use. . Keysser opened the public hearing. Greg Ouginski, Lupient Group, stated that they have several properties with different uses. Some are office, some are car dealerships. He asked which uses would be considered non-conforming and if they would need to apply for variance' ever want to expand their buildings. Grimes explained that Lupient is a PUO so ave to amend their PUO permit to expand, they would not have to apply f chka clarified that the Mixed Use ordinance really only then applies to s. Grimes agreed. Grimes explained t Mixed Use zon' g 01 changes mad principal una imouslyto -394 Corridor Study Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keyss MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by McCarty an recommend approval of the re-designation of th area from their current designation to the Mixed 6. Informal Public Hearing - Zon" District to the Zoning Cod Applicant: ent - Adding a Mixed Use zOning. Purpose: e Zoning district in regard to the properties in the rea. earing is being held in order to add the proposed new to the Zoning Code. He noted that there will be ction and section 11.12 regarding more than one ted on one lot. posed ordinance and explained that there will be three height ed A, Band C. Subdistrict A is low (3 stories) and will be located , adjacent to residential properties. Subdistrict B is medium (6 be located toward the middle of the district, north of 1-394 and Subdistrict ories) and will be located along 1-394. Eck asked if all of the language in the proposed Mixed Use zoning ordinance came from the 1-394 Corridor study. Grimes stated that the language came from the Corridor Advisory committee and the consultants that wrote the study. Waldhauser said that the Planning Commission has seen some of the language in the proposed ordinance but they . haven't seen some of the more specific details. ~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 13 . Eck referred to Subdivision 4 regarding Conditional Uses and asked what "any commercial use" means. Grimes said that it is referring to useS allowed in the Commercial zoning district. Eck clarified that no manufacturing uses would be allowed the Mixed Use zoning district. Grimes said that is correct, but the existing manufacturing uses can remain. Keysser opened the public hearing. Kluchka thought Subdivision 4(d) should re~ Grimes said he would provide clarificatio to 1~394 ht would in Steve Fichtel, 435 Idaho Avenue North, noted that properties directly ad' are encouraged to be taller and asked if any building less than two st be considered non~conforming. Grimes said yes, any building less a height directly adjacent to 1-394 would be considered non-confo g. Fichtel, referred to Subdivision 4(d) regarding conditional u 10,000 square feet would need a Conditional Use Permit. Gr that paragraph. He explained that the intent of the Ian e i office space so there is the ability to have some co use. g", not office "occupant". use language. . Fichtel said that when the existing conforming it will become a real that when the ordinance is rea the existing uses to remain. ridor area become non~ rope owners. He said that the reality is , the City is saying that it doesn't want Seeing and hearing no 0 comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. to clarify the issues that have been brought up. 6 and 7 on the agenda. by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to table the oning district in regard to the properties in the 1-394 Corridor 7. In Public Hearing - Rezoning - Rezoning the Properties in the 1-394 Corridor to Mixed Use Zoning District Applicant: City of Golden Valley . Purpose: To rezone the properties in the 1-394 Corridor study area from their current zoning district to the Mixed Use zoning district. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 14 MOVED by Cera, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to table the rezoning of the properties in the 1-394 Corridor study area from their current zoning district to the Mixed Use zoning district. . 8. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other business was discussed. d th the City Council perties at 650 Kluchka reported on the August 2,2007 Sidewalk Committee meeting. requested by the Sidewalk Committee that the City Council seek an Culver Drive sidewalk plan. McCarty reported on the July 24, 2007 BZA meeting. He stat variance request regarding the height of a recently construe Terrace. Eck reported on the August 8,2007 City Council m approved the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Douglas Drive and 6200 Olson Memorial Highw 9. Other Business . 10. Adjournment The meeting was adjour . . . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: August 22,2007 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Amendment to Section 11.90 of the Zoning Code Related to Alternate Members on the Board of Zoning Appeals At times, the staff has struggled to get five members at meetings of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meetings. It is important that five members of the BZA be at each meeting. If only four members are present, a tie vote is considered a no vote. (If there are only four members of the BZA present, the applicant is given the option to "hold over" the request until there is a full membership in case there is a tie vote. This situation is often times difficult for applicants because they are anxious to get going on a building project that requires the variance.) The BZA membership consists of five members that are appointed to one year terms by the City Council. Four members and two alternate members are directly appointed by the City Council. The alternates serve when one of the four regular members appointed by the City Council cannot attend. The fifth member of the BZA is the Vice-Chairperson of the Planning Commission or other Planning Commission member who may serve as an alternate to the Vice-Chairperson. The Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission or Planning Commission alternate must be at the BZA meeting for a vote to be taken. In order to reduce the possibility of not having five members at each BZA meeting, the staff met with Mayor Loomis to consider changes to the membership of the BZA that would expand the number of alternate members. The suggested change to the zoning code increases the number of BZA alternates by making each of the members of the Planning Commission an alternate member of the BZA. By making this change, there may be meetings with two or more members of the Planning Commission making up the voting members at any particular meeting. It was believed by the Mayor and staff that using the Planning Commission as alternate members makes sense because many Planning Commission members have already served at one or more BZA meetings and the issues discussed at the BZA meetings directly related to the zoning code. RECOMMEDED ACTION Recommend to the City Council an amendment to the zoning code (Section 11.90, Subdivision 4(A)(1)) that would expand the number of alternate members to the Board of Zoning Appeals by making each of the Planning Commission members an eligible alternate in addition to the two alternates appointed by the City Council. . . . ORDINANCE NO. ,2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amendment to Section 11.90 Regarding allowing Planning Commissioners to serve as alternates on the Board of Zoning Appeals The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. City Code Section 11.90, entitled "Administration" Subd. 4(A)(1) by amending it to read: 1. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall consist of five members. All members of the Board shall serve a one-year term. During the month of AprilJ. the City Council shall appoint four of the members and two alternate members. The vice-chairperson of the Plannina Commission. appointed each year at the annual meetina ot'the' Pliulnina Commission. shall be the fifth member of the Board. All ot"the"members of the Plannina Commission are alternates to the Boar& I,n ~he abse~'ce of ~nx ~ember of the Board. any member of the PlanninR Commission may serve as an alternate. At least one member of the Plannina Commis~ion sh,all be ~resent ate~ch meeting of the Board. Either of the alternate members may serve in the absence of anyone of the members appointed by the Council. The Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission shall be the fifth member of the Board, app.ointed each year at the annual meeting of the Planning Commission. Any other member of the Planning Commission may sorve as an alternate member of the Board in the absence of the Vice Chairperson. The Board shall meet at least once a month if there are any petitions pending f9F action. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 12.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. I 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 ,2007 IslLinda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: IslSusan M. Virnia Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk