Loading...
07-24-00 PC Minutes . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 24, 2000 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, July 24, 2000. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00 P.M. Those present were: Chair Pentel and Commissioners McAleese, Rasmussen, Groger, Shaffer, and Eck; absent was Hoffman. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson, and Recording Secretary Heidi Reinke. III. Approval of Minutes - June 26, 2000 Chair Pentel requested in the future that the approvals and the minutes reflect all stated conditions. __ Commissioner Shaffer noted an error on page 10. The statement should read, "not too many". MOVED by Groger, seconded by Eck, and motion carried unanimously to approve the June 26, 2000 minutes with the above stated correction and recommendation. . - . II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment No.2 - Preliminary Design Plan - Medley Hills P.U.D. No. 76 Applicant: GV Development Address: Southwest Comer of Medicine Lake Road and Ensign Avenue Purpose: To provide four units within the development with 10'xI2' additions abutting inside property lines (common wall). Director of Planning and Development Grimes reviewed the request by GV Development to amend the Medley Hills P.U.D. No. 76. Grimes noted that this is the second amendment since Medley Hills was developed in 1998. In late 1997,33 town home units were built on Medicine Lake Road and Ensign Avenue. He said some units are still under construction, but most ofthem have been completed. Grimes told the Commission that this development has provided an alternative for housing within Golden Valley. Grimes stated that the 1998 amendment was to allow for the GV Development to have flexibility for porches and decks. He showed the revised development map with locations of decks and porches located on the rear of properties. At that time, the City Council stated that decks or porches could be built within these areas of up to 240 square feet. A combination of a deck or porch could not exceed 240 square feet and a deck or porch could be no larger than 10 feet by 12 feet. Grimes commented that it came to the attention of the City that there had been an error in the placement of two porches that were under construction. They were not constructed as in the footprint areas on the approved plan. He said the option is either to amend the P.U.D. or move the porches. Grimes noted that if the porches remain, building code issues would need to be addressed. Grimes said the Commission should help to define the terms deck or porch used in the P.U.D. Staff suggested that the amendment include a porch or an addition. It is difficult to determine the difference, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 24, 2000 Page 2 especially between a 3 and 4-season porch. A 4-season porch is insulated and a 3-season porch has . limited heating/cooling system. The amendment could state that an addition or deck, in combination, could be built up to the 240 square feet maximum. Shaffer inquired about the difference between an addition and a porch. Grimes said that if the structure fits within the rule, any type of addition could be built up to required square footage. Pentel said that decks are usually unenclosed. Porches are usually enclosed. 4-season porches look similar to an addition. Grimes said the developer told him that buyers would like more flexibility with the unit they are buying. If an addition is allowed, the buyer could build a 2, 3, or 4-season porch, addition, or a deck within the guidelines. Grimes noted that in reviewing the plan, the sites that contain three units may limit the middle unit in placement of a deck and/or porch. Arne Zachman, GV Development, LLC, commented that the deck or patio must remain within the footprint. He said he needed some flexibility for buyers to build a 3 or 4-season porch. The original plan included a deck or patio option. The deck or patios cannot exceed 12'. Zachman said he is only asking for an amendment for four units (Lots 4 and 7, Block 2; Lot 4, Block 3; and Lot 7 Block 1). He commented that when the footings were done on two of the units, the City's Building Inspector noted that they weren't in line with the P.U.D. requirements. - Zachman said that he applied for the amendment so that this problem could be eliminated for two future 4-season porch requests. The application includes those already built and the requests in the future. He said the developer would only offer to build a 2-season or 4-season porch. It would be against the bylaws of the development to build additions. The 4-season porch is built with footings and posts, and has ajoist system. The difference between a 4-season porch and an addition is that the addition has a foundation. . Pentel commented that the amendment should include decks or 4-season porches. Shaffer suggested that the amendment include additions or decks, to include all different types of porches. - Commissioner Rasmussen noted that the additions do not share any common walls. They abut the property line, but do not have a common wall. Zachman stated that there is a 2-inch air space between the units. The addition does not infringe on the air space of other units. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel said that she is in favor of the amendment. The units are visually appealing. The occupants are able to personalize their units with porches and decks. The amendment should include decks and additions. Commissioner McAleese stated that the amendment should use the broadest language, so that the P.U.D. does not have to be amended again. The broad terminology would allow for someone to build an . addition in the future, if so desired. McAleese stated he advocated this position not because it is a wise one but rather to be consistent with prior precedent. . . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 24, 2000 Page 3 Shaffer noted that the bylaws could hold the association to specific restrictions. Commissioner Groger added that the association could alter their bylaws in the future without having to amend the P.D.D. MOVED by Eck, seconded by McAleese, and motion carried unanimously to approve the Medley Hills P.D.D. No. 76 as follows: A. To provide four units within the development with 10'xI2' additions abutting inside property lines (common wall). B. To allow for decks or additions to be built within a 240 square foot maximum space within the footprint, without the deck or addition exceeding the maximum of 10 feet in width and 12 feet in depth. The owner can construct either a deck or porch of required size or both of required size. ITI. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Commissioner McAleese commented that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) is granting numerous substantial waivers for decks. He noted that there seems to be numerous existing structures that are nonconforming. McAleese questioned the cause for the number of variances being requested. Shaffer, who represents the Planning Commission at the BZA meetings, replied that most of the nonconforming structures are older buildings. It is possible that the code was different at the time they were built or a permit was not needed at that time. It is important to review any nonconforming structure before granting a variance. Commissioner Eck said that on July 11, the Laurel Avenue issue was presented to the Council. The next step is to have another open house for the public to review the comments for the proposed planning. He noted that there was significant opposition by businesses along Pennsylvania Avenue. The open house may be held in September. Eck added that the proposed plan presents enough traffic calming measures to be applied to Winnetka to slow down the traffic. He added that it is his understanding that the City has not determined whether money is available for this project. IV. Other Business A. Discussion of Zoning Code Amendment - Telecommunications Ordinance City Planner Olson stated that the Commission should address the definitions to be used in the wording of the Telecommunications Ordinance. As in Bloomington, the Class II Essential Services was eliminated and renamed to fit the specific ordinance. The issue of where the accessory use or permitted use is allowed needs to be discussed. It is also important to understand how companies have overlapping jurisdictions when it comes to media needs. There is a possibility of working with a telecommunications consultant because the technology is changing so rapidly. The consultant would be able to advise the City. Eck commented that a number of ordinances were cited in the packet provided by Olson. The City of Bloomington has a lengthy ordinance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 24, 2000 Page 4 Pentel said that she received a telephone call from a concerned citizen with questions about the ordinance. . Shaffer noted that the City of Bloomington's ordinance covered many issues that were discussed at the last meeting. Several topics, including signs and advertising, were worded well. Olson said that the City of Bloomington has one of the best ordinances. Several cities have used the Bloomington ordinance as a basis for their own. Some cities have cell towers as conditional uses. Golden Valley might look into that option. Grimes noted some uses permitted in the Light Industrial zoning district are also permitted in the Industrial zoning district. There are a few radio and television districts within Golden Valley. McAleese suggested incorporating the radio and television districts within the scheme. Grimes said that a consultant would be very helpful to answer questions and address issues of concern. A consultant is necessary to help prove that the antenna is needed in the area proposed. B. Future Business . Pentel said that the August 14th Planning and Development meeting needs to have four voters. She has attended several of the meetings and was concerned that there may be a conflict of interest. Grimes suggested that Hoffman might want to be in the audience on that evening. McAleese said that Pentel could step down during the discussion to avoid conflict of issue. He said four . commissioners are needed at the start of the meeting to meet the requirements of a quorum. He added that if Pentel should step down, a three-person vote would still maintain the quorum. He noted that Pentel would only need to step down in the case of pecuniary interest. v. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8: I 5 P.M. . .