Loading...
05-08-00 PC Minutes . e . e . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 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, May 8, 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, and Groger; absent was 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 24, 2000 Eck made a correction in the Approval of Minutes for April 10, 2000. On Page 2, the minutes stated, "Those uses...in the Industrial Zoning district." The original statement of the April 10, 2000 minutes was correct as written. McAleese noted a change on Page I, Para. 6, the following comment should be inserted after the first sentence, "As a result of attending City Council meetings, he noted that they were working with unapproved minutes during the meeting." The sixth sentence in that paragraph should read, "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. McAleese would like to omit a sentence on Page 8, Para. 7. The statement, "He added there are several camouflaged towers already in the City.", should be omitted. On Page 10, the statement, "McAleese suggested that the Commissioners learn about the fundamental philosophy.", should be omitted. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by McAleese, and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 24, 2000 minutes with the above corrections. II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other Meetings Pentel said she attended the City Council meeting, which addressed the sidewalk issue along the Olympia Street. She said the Council decided parking should be on one side of the street and a sidewalk on the other side. A number of people attended the meeting. Shaffer attended the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. He said one topic of concern was a variance for a new log house that brought up extensive discussion among the members of the BZA. Some ofthe issues concerned the foundation and extensions of logs beyond the foundation. He noted that it was discussed that if the applicant had kept the old foundation, then there would have been a reason to grant the variance allowing the new house to go into a setback area. Shaffer said the old foundation was demolished thereby requiring the owner to construct a foundation and new house according to code. There was not a hardship presented for granting the variance. In reviewing a current survey of the site, it was found that the proposed house could be placed in a conforming location on the property. The Board denied the request for a variance and recommended that the owner move the house 9 inches to the north, which would remove the structure from the front setback area. The owner concurred. The Board believed the log extensions on the home should be looked at as a cantilever that Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 2000 Page 2 does not occupy living space. Shaffer suggested that the extensions from log homes be addressed when the zoning code is being discussed for revisions. . Eck attended the Laurel-Winnetka Open House last Wednesday. He said it was a well-attendeE! meeting. The main issue was the Laurel-Pennsylvania intersection to be reconstructed to discourage traffic on Laurel. Pentel noted that Rasmussen would take Eck's place at the next HRA meeting. ID. Other Business A. Discussion on Golden Valley Zoning Code Amendment for Auto Related Uses Pentel made a chart of specific zoning code requirements from Golden Valley and the other suburbs. She found that it was difficult to understand the codes without seeing the zoning maps of the other cities. She would like more information to compare the city codes. Pentel said the Golden Valley City Code has been changed incrementally as regulations were created from specific requests. Shaffer found that the wording of the City's Zoning Code seemed too restrictive. - Eck inquired which zoning district allows service stations as a conditional use. Grimes said service stations are allowed as conditional uses under the Industrial and Commercial zoning districts. Shaffer stated that each city has its own way of writing the code, but may have the exact same type of districts. Eck had difficulty understanding the definition of auto related uses. The zoning code does not sufficiently define auto repair and other auto related uses. Grime noted that auto wrecking and auto sales are defined. . McAleese pointed out that the City of Crystal has divided the definition of auto repair into major and mmor. Grimes added that tire places in Golden Valley are the most cluttered and messy of the auto-related e uses. There are parked cars and tires outside the building. Other uses, such as a transmission shop, are much "cleaner". Most of the work is done inside; therefore, there is not outdoor storage. McAleese said that uses that keep the work indoors do not create much dust or noise. He added that outdoor storage is a problem. Parking should also be addressed in the parking section of the code. McAleese inquired if battery and tire services are defined in the code and noted that battery and tire service uses are allowed in the Industrial zoning district. Grimes added that many tire service stations do more work than just tires, such as brakes, air conditioning, and some major repair. McAleese said that the City has been trying to cooperate with applicants, thus allowing more than what is written in the code. He believes that instead of changing the code, uses are being allowed to expand. . . e . - . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 2000 Page 3 Pentel noted that if the uses were detailed in the code, then it would be easier to hold to the definition of the code. Eck commented that what precipitated this issue was a previous use prior to Airborne Express moving into the building at 10th and Boone. Grimes added that vehicles, at one time, were being repaired in the building. He said the truck/van terminal use, as found in the code, was created for this building in Qrder for Airborne Express to occupy it. Grimes said that the Commercial zoning district allows auto repair. Grimes also said that he does not believe that a body shop is an appropriate use in the Commercial zoning district. Groger noted that the location is a factor to determine if the use is appropriate. Appropriateness pertains to that adjacent to the location, such as residential. Each property has its own unique circumstances. He said he is reluctant to make the code too restrictive, thus making it difficult to deal with unique locations. City Planner Olson said that the City of Plymouth has divided the specific auto uses into major and minor uses. He noted that many conditions are included in the code. Grimes said that the City should look at defining performance standards. For example, air conditioning in the summer might reduce noise from open doors, or a fence around outdoor storage might help to "clean" up the area. McAleese commented that zoning code ordinances are infrequently standard oriented. Codes are often written as definition or legal statements of what is allowed. He said that it may be possible to define auto repair as major and minor, and then create some standards. McAleese said that he does not disagree with performance standard based codes, but has not seen many codes written in this form. Grimes added that the code is harder to enforce if it is written with performance standards. Many people are used to the zoning code defining what is okay to do in the specific district. Shaffer said that if Luther Company wanted to put a body shop in the existing building at the southeast corner of 10th and Boone, it would not be possible due to the definition of the Light Industrial Code. Grimes added that much depends on the interpretation of the definition as found in the code for public garages on repairing and storing motor vehicles as found under the "conditional uses" in the Light Industrial zoning district. He read from the code. The definition is unclear for public garages for repairing and storing vehicles. Pentel suggested continuing the discussion after a map has been reviewed. Grimes added that the definitions should be addressed. Eck concurred. Pentel inquired about the definition of a public garage. She felt that the "public garage" is an outdated term for the City. A public garage is a gas station within a garage, not as common as in the past. Shaffer agreed that this is an outdated term. The City should change the wording of the definition. Grimes said that there are many issues in the zoning code that are not up to date. As technology changes, the code needs to be revised in accordance to the changing times. The cell tower issue, discussed at the last meeting, is an example of advancing technology. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 2000 Page 4 B. Discussion of Golden Valley Zoning Code Revision . Grimes said that the Commission members should start thinking about questions that can be discussed at a workshop. Pentel commented that she is not happy with the role of the Planning Commission as stated in the PUD ordinance. She would like to read what other city codes have written. Pentel commented that the Planning Commission could make better decisions with more information at the PUD stage. McAleese noted that we may have to reevaluate the code language for a PUD. The issue of Breck School was an important issue in which PUD definition came into play. Grimes commented that in some cases, the Planning Commission requests applicants to supply more information than is required by the code. Often the applicant will supply the extra information because it is in their best interest to do so. McAleese added that at Preliminary Design Plan review, landscape plans are not addressed by the Commission. He believes the Planning Commission should review the plans. e Shaffer interjected that the Commission should also address signage since it is often times incorporated in the building design. He noted it is the Building Board of Review and the Building Inspector who currently address signage. Shaffer believes it is important during the planning process to deal with signage issues. Grimes said that there is a separate ordinance for signage. McAleese said that the Planning Commission should be involved in the General Plan of Development . review. He said that on occasion, the design that was reviewed during the Preliminary Design Plan stage is different that what the Council reviews during the General Plan of Development stage. Pentel added that the code does state that the Council can refer an issue back to the Planning Commission. Shaffer added that he would like to discuss the code on "home occupations", He commented that he does not believe architectural service fits under this section of the code. He said he could not have an employee with his home occupation, even though it would not disturb the neighbors. Grimes said that some home occupations, with employees, have disturbed neighborhoods. Minneapolis allows one person, from outside the home, to work in a home occupation. Grimes said it is impossible to write a zoning code to fit every circumstance. - Pentel stated that the garage setback and front yard setbacks need to be addressed. Grimes suggested that a lot coverage requirement might be beneficial. The zoning code was written in the 1960s-1970s. He would like to help make the code more understandable. McAleese said the definitions in the code are circular. He would like to see the code written more clearly. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M. Richard Groger, Secretary .