Loading...
04-24-00 PC Minutes . e . e . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 2000 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota on Monday, April 24, 2000. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00 P.M. Those present were: Chair Pentel, Commissioners Eck, McAleese, Shaffer, Hoffman, Groger, and Rasmussen. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson, and Recording Secretary Heidi Reinke. I. Approval of Minutes - April 10, 2000 Eck noted an error on page 2, "Olson stated... due to the destructiveness..." The statement should read, "Olson stated...due to the restrictiveness..." On page 4, third paragraph from the bottom, the statement reads, "These areas are not... but rather might be acceptable under.. ." This statement should be corrected to the following: "These areas are not... but rather for uses that are acceptable under Light..." Finally, page 4, second paragraph from the bottom, the statement reads, "These uses might be allowed under the Light Industrial zoning requirements." The statement would be more clear reading, "All present uses would probably be allowed under the Light Industrial zoning requirements." Chair Pentel noted an error in the minutes on page 4 in the last paragraph. The last two sentences should be omitted. MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese, and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 10, 2000 minutes with the above corrections. McAleese noted that the first agenda item is the approval of minutes from the previous meeting. From a legal standpoint, the City Council should get accurate minutes. As a result of attending City Council meetings, he noted that they were working with unapproved minutes during the meeting. McAleese said the Council reads the minutes, but may not watch the video. He added that it is not a problem for the Council to receive the draft minutes, but it is important for the Council to be aware of any changes to the public hearing items. Grimes said the minutes may not come back to the Planning Commission for its approval before a Council meeting. Staff believes the minutes should be attached to an item when it goes before the Council for approval. Pentel suggested that the Planning Commission representatives to the H.R.A. or Council should read the minutes carefully to represent the true statements from the meeting. McAleese said that it is difficult to remember what each person said during the meeting. It would be helpful to get the amended minutes to the Council before the meeting. Rasmussen inquired if a draft stamp was stamped on the minutes prior to their approval. Grimes said that Mary Dold is responsible for stamping "draft" on the minutes and believes that this is done. McAleese noted that the April 10 minutes did not reflect the "draft" stamping. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 2000 Page 2 II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment No.1 to Kings Valley PUD No. 13 . Applicant: Kings Valley Homeowners Association Address: 2100-2318 Mendelssohn Avenue North Purpose: Amend the P.U.D. Permit to allow for future expansions onto the existing dwelling units with approval by the Kings Valley Homeowners Association and review by the City's Building Official through the building permit process. Director of Planning and Development Grimes presented the request for amendment of the P.U.D. Permit to allow for future expansions onto the existing dwelling units with approval by the Kings Valley Homeowners Association and review by the City's Building Official through the building permit process. Grimes began his presentation by showing the General Land Use Plan Map for Kings Valley. Kings Valley was one of the early townhome developments in the City. The PUD permit was issued in June 1974. There are a total of 154 units. Grimes said that at the request of one of the homeowners, the KVHA has requested that the City of e Golden Valley amend the PUD permit to allow certain additions to be made to the townhome units without going through the PUD amendment process. This has been an on-going issue for the past several years with Kings Valley. (There have been other homeowners that have also wanted to put on additions. The City has permitted a couple ofsmall additions, such as decks. However, stafftold the KVHA a couple years ago that no more additions to the units would be allowed until they were addressed through the PUD process.) Instead of amending the PUD each time a homeowners wants to add an addition, the homeowners association would be in charge of approving the addition. Since the townhomes are 25 years . or older, the City should arrive at a methodology instead of amending the PUD each time. Grimes read several conditions: 1. No extension shall be permitted without prior written approval of the Board of Directors of the Kings Valley Homeowners Association, Inc. The membership of the KVHA are representatives of owners within the townhome development. The KVHA Board of Directors must send notice of the Board meeting to the adjacent and surrounding property owners within Kings Valley. This would give the nearby homeowners the opportunity to express their concerns. - 2. No extension shall be allowed that would cause the distance between a housing unit and any adjoining street to be less than the distance that exists prior to adding the extension. Because the existing setback from the private streets is minimal, the staff recommended that this condition be included. This condition would require that all extensions be to the rear or side of the units. In some cases, it may be impossible to expand a unit because of the location of the unit adjacent to more than one street. The KVHA knows that all units may not qualify for an addition under their proposed conditions. 3. No extension shall be allowed that would cause any part of a housing unit to be closer than 3 feet to any property line. This is the minimum requirement established by the City's building code. The survey indicates that the lots are not much larger than the building footprint and that the area where an addition may be placed as per the KVHA proposed rules are limited. Within Kings Valley, that area that is not owned by the homeowners is common space controlled by the KVHA as indicated on the plat map for Kings Valley. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 2000 Page 3 . 4. No extension shall be allowed that would cause the distance between any part of the extension and the common wall of the abutting housing unit to be less than 8 feet. This condition protects the adjoining property owner by not allowing any addition to come any closer than 8 feet to the common wall. This makes sense because ifthe addition was too close to the adjoining property, the view from the adjoining unit could be impaired. 5. Applications for permission to build an extension shall include drawings of the proposed extension and a certified property survey prepared by a registered surveyor. This survey is necessary in order to determine the exact location of the existing unit on the lot. As stated above, the lots are small and the units take up a large portion of each of the lots. The survey would be required as part of the building permit process. This condition should be changed to state that the survey must be licensed in the State of Minnesota. The condition should add that any extension to buildings would require a building permit from the City of Golden Valley. - Grimes said that staff has worked with the Homeowner's Association to develop these 5 conditions. The recommendations are as follows: 1. No extension shall be permitted without prior written approval of Board of Directors of the Kings Valley Homeowner's Association, Inc. The KVHA Board must notify adjacent and abutting property owners of the request and allow those property owners to be heard before the KVHA Board prior to a decision on the extension. . 2. No extension shall be allowed that would cause the distance between a housing unit and any adjoining street to be less than the distance that exists prior to adding the extension. 3. No extension shall be allowed that would cause any part ofthe housing unit to be closer than 3 feet to a property line. 4. No extension shall be allowed that would cause the distance between any part of the extension and the common wall of the abutting housing unit to be less than 8 feet. _ 5. Applications for permission to build an extension shall include drawings of the proposed extension and a certified property survey prepared by a surveyor registered in the State of Minnesota. All building extensions would require a building permit from the City of Golden Valley. The building permit application would require a survey and resolution from the KVHA Board of Directors approving the extension. Pentel noted that the Homeowners Association is composed of residents of Kings Valley. If the Board is responsible for hearing an addition proposal from a homeowner, the Board may not be impartial to the homeowner. It is much different than the homeowner presenting to the City, an impartial body. Grimes said the City has no control on how the Board makes a decision, though it probably would be by majority rule. Any homeowner is eligible to be on the Board. Pentel stated that it would be beneficial to maintain a design standard. . Grimes said that the Board would look at the architecture of any proposed addition. Minutes ofthe Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 2000 Page 4 Eck noted that the homes are in close proximity to each other. The Commission may need to define the term "adjacent" and "surrounding", as to who needs to be notified when an addition is proposed. . Grimes said that the notification would be similar to that of variances by the City. Any property that touches is considered adjacent, such as an adjoining duplex, directly across the street, and on either side. A specific footage from the property, such as 200 feet from all points ofthe prQ.perty, could be set for those that need to be notified. McAleese added that any property within 500 feet has to be notified for a PUD amendment. He inquired if residents outside Kings Valley would qualify as adjacent. Grimes said that Medley Park, to the north, and others to the east would be considered adjacent. In general, he thinks that they would not be interested. Most additions would be approximately I 0'xI2' in maximum size. The additions cannot be within 3 feet of the property line. Shaffer commented that it would be beneficial to maintain similar characteristics for the buildings. Potentially, a future Board could allow other types of materials that would be uncharacteristic for the style of the townhome development. e Grimes said that the Building Department would issue a permit for the extension and retain a copy of the resolution of the Homeowner's Association. He suggested adding a condition that they maintain the integrity of the existing structure, or architectural design. It may be difficult to decide what is considered consistent with the existing structure/architecture. Shaffer added that the Inspector in the City Building Department would make the final judgement on the . extension prior to presenting the permit. The condition could include maintaining the same style of construction for the extension, or keeping the same type of siding. Groger noted that the City approves projects, even if some are not in favor of the project. It is probable that the Association could approve something they don't like simply to improve the property. There may be some pressure on the Association to approve a project to maintain relations with the person asking for the extension. Pentel inquired to the cost of amending a PUD permit. Grimes said that the fee is $250. The time factor is significant; it is a 3-4 month procedure. In comparison, it takes only one month to process a building permit. Each extension would be dealt with on a case by case basis. - McAleese noted that they have not gone through the PUD amendment process before. They are unfamiliar with the process. Grimes said that they have the option of going through a PUD amendment. A new survey for the entire property would be required. McAleese inquired how many other townhome developments, under a pun, exist in Golden Valley. Grimes stated that there are approximately 5 to 6 townhome developments. There have been relatively few changes to the PUDs for townhomes in the past. The lots are not big, and most ofthem cannot accommodate an addition. . . e . e . Minutes ofthe Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 2000 Page 5 McAleese said that if the Commission were to pass this item, other PUD townhome developments should be entitled to similar treatment. This isa change in policy; therefore the language of ordinance and contracts should be adjusted accordingly. Grimes stated that an amendment to a PUD takes a lot of time for the City to process. People are trying to upgrade their townhomes, which is not a negative effect on the City. Kings Valley has some overall upkeep problems that the City is working to address. Shaffer suggested that the Homeowner's Association put together a plan showing where the units cannot expand. Each lot has a different scenario. There is a potential that something inappropriate could be built. The overall plan could be amended to show where the additions would be allowed. This should be defined and then we can again address the request. Rasmussen noted that it is in the best interest of the City to upgrade. The Commission seems to be making this request more complicated, when the issue is to simplify. Jerry Robinson, 2113 Marquee Road, President of the Kings Valley Homeowners Association, presented Association's ideas. He would like to encourage homeowners to upgrade their properties. He would like to create some guidelines that would allow this request. Presently, the Association is responsible for approving any improvements, such as painting. He agreed with Shaffer that maintaining the architectural style was a good idea. The main goal of the Association is to protect other homeowners. Grimes said that it would be impossible to anticipate every type of possible configuration of addition for the 154 homes. He does not see how a preliminary layout could be formed. The criteria previously stated is to protect homeowners. Groger said that many of the lots are twin homes, adjacent to other homes. He inquired ifthere is a foreseen problem of building too close to the adjacent property, only 6 feet away from each other. Robinson said that the wording of the conditions is trying to prevent such an issue. In most cases, there is common ground between two adjacent homes. This common space cannot be invaded. The Board of Directors will have to study each proposal carefully to prevent an oversight before approval. Grimes said that most footprints might take up 50-60% ofthe lot. There may not be enough room to build an addition on many lots. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one; Pentel closed the informal public hearing. McAleese said that if this is passed tonight there might be some problems in the future. The PUD amendment is time consuming and the landowner might not want to go through the amendment process. Every other townhome should be entitled to the same treatment if this request is passed. He inquired how to distinguish between this situation and the PUD for Breck School. Grimes said that this case is different because of the Homeowner's Association. McAleese retorted that the Homeowner's Association is the owner of the whole complex, similarly Breck School management assumes the same role for the School complex. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 2000 Page 6 Rasmussen questioned at what point one would want to renovate the townhome developments. It is better . to renovate them than to allow them to become dilapidated. This is a process of promoting renovation and updating to the property. Grimes said that the townhomes could be renovated within the footprint without a PUD amendment. Certain additions cannot be made without an amendment to the PUD. McAleese said the City would have to rely fully upon the Association to make the right decisions. Pentel and Grimes added that McAleese's statement is true, but the additions have to be within the criteria given. Groger noted this proposal is attempting to make the process easier for the City, within specific guidelines. He would like to add some additional conditions to the proposal. The property is old and needs some maintenance work. McAleese said that the Commission should review the PUD code. It is important to follow the language of the law. He will vote in favor, if all other PUD townhome developments receive the same treatment. Pentel said that each development would receive different treatment, based on their layouts. e Groger pointed out that the size of lots vary. Most additions would probably be minimal in scope. He noted that other townhome developments would be different and would require different considerations. He would like to add the condition that any additions be similar in style and materials to the existing structures. Also, adjacent property owners, outside the development, should be notified of any proposed addition. Robinson stated that the Association would be happy to notify everyone within the development, and . adjacent property owners outside the development. He would bring this topic up to the entire Board of Directors. Each property owner receives a notice of regular meetings. Grimes added that all property owners should be notified of any extension. Any person getting a variance should notify adjacent property owners, including those across the street, in addition to the Association's notice that would be sent. McAleese interjected that he is uncomfortable if the person is not notifying everyone within 500 feet. In e this case, everyone was notified. Although there was not a big turnout, it would be good to notify all within 500 feet. Grimes said that all adjacent properties should be notified. McAleese added that any property that physically touches the property is adjacent. Grimes noted that a buffer surrounds each homeowner's property; therefore, an imaginary line drawn outside of each property would determine what is adjacent. Pentel stated that conditions 1 through 5 and added the following conditions. The sixth condition should state that the style of architecture and construction of the existing structure should be maintained. The seventh condition should state that all properties within the Homeowner's Association would be notified of a proposed extension. The eighth condition should state that all adjacent landowners will be notified, including those outside of Kings Valley. The ninth condition should state that if the City determines that the amendment is not being properly administered, the City could revoke this amendment with or without cause. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 2000 Page 7 . MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Rasmussen, and motion carried unanimously to approve the amendment to the PUD permit to allow for future expansions onto the existing dwelling units with approval by the Kings Valley Homeowner's Association and review by the City's Building Official through the building permit process with the previously stated conditions 1 to 5 and additional conditions 6 to 9, stated by PenteI. e . e . III. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Language ofthe Zoning Code City Planner Dan Olson stated that this informal public hearing is for discussion. The Commissioners can take action ifso desired. The proposal is to allow, by Conditional Use Permit, in the Institutional (I through 4) zoning district Essential Services - Class II. Class II Essential Services allows tower of up to 120 feet in certain districts. The following uses are permitted in the Institutional Zoning Sub-Districts 1-4 at this time: Churches, Schools, Essential Services Class I, Seasonal Farm Produce Sales, public and private libraries, public clubs, nursing homes and clinics, golf courses, parks, playgrounds, City offices, fire stations, and others. Olson said that the City currently allows Essential Services as an accessory use within the Business/Professional Office, Light Industrial, and Industrial zoning districts. A previous change in these districts was prompted for allowing more types of property to have these essential service uses. He noted that the City has received many requests for essential services on golf courses and specifically the American Legion, east ofHwy. 100. Olson said that due to the amount of requests, the City would like to open up different types of properties to Essential Services - Class II uses. In addition, this would help the users to generate revenue from leasing the towers. Olson noted the conditional use on page 2-3 of his memo and a height restriction on page 4. The conditional use would permit, within the 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and/or 1-4 Institutional Zoning sub-districts, towers up to a height of 120 feet. Pentel inquired why cemeteries are not included. Olson said that there is only one cemetery in Golden Valley. Pentel would like to see this proposed at a broader scale than the Planning Commission. She expressed some concern about placing towers of up to 120 feet in height in parking lots and playgrounds, which are located in the 1-4 district. McAleese suggested that Olson also present this request to the Open Space and Recreation Commission. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one; Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Eck found the supporting material very interesting. There are many issues concerning pole location. He inquired what sort of study the City has done for potential pole locations. Grimes said that the City had met the demand for Essential Services until 5 or 6 years ago. In the past years, there has been a significant increase in cell phone use and PCS carriers. Golden Valley will not have adequate coverage in the near future. Grimes added that there are already parts of the City that have problems, such as the NE area, and believes that citizens will be very unhappy ifthey lose coverage in Minutes ofthe Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 2000 Page 8 their area. He said the issue is not about wanting the towers, but is an essential service, which the City . will have to accommodate. There are many locations that already have antennae with tower heights of 80' to 90' tall. Shaffer said he is concerned about the placement of the towers. Potentially, if the property met setback requirements, then a tower could be place in a conspicuous location. Eck inquired about the potential radiation emission from the towers as a hazard to children. It might be dangerous to have the towers located in a schoolyard. McAleese said that the emissions are low. McAleese he is in favor of building towers, as we can't resist technology. The City needs to come up with language in its ordinance that has clear guidelines. He suggested that each application go through a visual analysis before approval. Grimes stated the City has a potential to be sued if coverage is lost in an area. The City must provide coverage. He is in favor of McAleese's suggestion of creating criteria for such towers. Pentel said that she would like to continue this discussion. e Grimes told the Commission that some water towers already have the mechanics required for cell use. He said lighting structures in parks might also be able to accommodate such units. McAleese agreed that using a pre-existing structure, such as a light pole, would help with camouflaging the cell unit. Rasmussen said that she would like to see this issue move slowly and carefully. Since there is financial incentive to accommodate the towers, the City must be careful, as it may be hard to turn down some applicants. Churches, American Legions, and others might find the financial incentive very attractive. . Grimes said that the tower located in the North Wirth area, along Hwy. 55, pays about $10,000/year for rent. Pentel noted that it is a significant amount of money. Grimes suggested that this item be further discussed at the Commission's next regular scheduled meetings. IV. Reports on Meetings ofthe Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of e Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Pentel stated that the Sheriff s property was discussed at the H.R.A. meeting, and added there would be an open house at City Hall May 4t1 to discuss this site. She suggested a Planning Commissioner attend to help with the open house. McAleese noted that the Golden Valley HRA, at its meeting of April 11, voted to condemn the Olympic Printing property. Grimes added that once there is a purchase or a condemnation is filed, then the City's process could begin. McAleese stated that he attended the City Council meeting on the 18th of April noting the discussion on the Conduit Revenue Bonds, the Breck Ice Arena Preliminary Plat and Breck's request for a Conditional Use Permit for the North Wirth site. Shaffer stated that he would be attending the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on Tuesday night, April 25. . . e . e . Minutes ofthe Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 2000 Page 9 Hoffman attended the Laurel/Pennsylvania Avenue Task Force meeting. The Committee discussed four workable alternatives for the area. Signage along Winnetka and Highway 55 was an important issue of discussion. The signage would include "No Left Turn" and "No Parking." There is concern about the traffic Allianz could generate in the area. Medians will be constructed to attempt to slow the traffic. Another topic of discussion was a pedestrian crossing over Herald to the tennis courts. Pentel said she had talked with Mayor Anderson about the new street being built along the Olympia Street. She noted that a sidewalk is being proposed from Douglas Drive to the park. Pentel added that the sidewalk committee believes the right time to construct sidewalks is during a construction period. She noted that there are neighbors that do not want sidewalks. Rasmussen noted that the houses in this area are very close to the street. She inquired where people would park their vehicles if the sidewalk were constructed. Pentel said this issue would come before the Council on May 9th. She noted that various plans have been done with the latest plan narrows the street to allow for the sidewalk. Pentel added that only one or two trees would need to be removed. She added that there would be parking on one side of the street and the sidewalk on the other. Pentel told the Commission that the Sidewalk Committee would be meeting on May 10. v. Other Business Groger believed the presentation by Gunnar Isberg to the Commission was not profitable for them. He said he was not impressed by the presentation and further commented that he believed the presenter was not very knowledgeable about some questions that were raised. Pentel agreed, and noted there were too many slides, which were not tailored to Planning Commissioners. Eck said that it would have been more useful to take a subject and look at it in more in depth. Pentel had hoped to learn more about the role of the Planning Commissioner, such as ethical issues, processes, etc. Shaffer noted that zoning was addressed. He suggested that it would have been more prudent for the Board of Zoning Appeals to have heard this information. Eck told the Commission that the AP A Conference was very well done. He believes there should be a better orientation and indoctrination for new Planning Commissioners when they are elected to the Commission. A longer education period prior to the new member formally taking a seat to meet certain requirements would be helpful. There are many helpful materials available for training new members. Eck suggested that a Mike Chandler does annual Planning Commission training workshops around the country and it could be possible that the Minnesota Chapter is doing this type of presentation. He noted the Minnesota Chapter ofthe APA is having Land Use Planning workshops from now until early May. Pentel noted that the State Conference would be held in Duluth this fall. Grimes commented that each session of the conference is taped and it may be helpful to order the Chandler session on tape. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 2000 Page 10 VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9: lOP .M. . - . - .