Loading...
02-12-01 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2001 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 February 12, 2001. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Hoffman, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - January 22,2001 Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Eck, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 22, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting minutes. II. Discussion of Various Zoning Code and Map Amendments A. Amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance - Zoning Code Section 11.55 Pentel asked if it would be possible to look at other cities PUD ordinances to get a feel for how Golden Valley compares to them and if the issues discussed at the joint City Council, Planning Commission meetings in the past were being reflected in our code. Grimes stated that the amendments that are being proposed now are temporary to get over the issues regarding what information is required in the subdivision code. This is the language the City Attorney suggested. Grimes clarified that the issues that were discussed at the joint meetings between the City Council and the Planning Commission are going to be policy. The policy is now handed out to people who are applying for PUD as part of the information packet rather than changing the code. When the PUD code is revised, this policy will be included in the new PUD code. Pentel asked if Hidden Lakes has submitted a complete packet. Grimes stated that that Hidden Lakes has submitted an application but it has not yet been determined if it is complete or not. Rasmussen asked if we have a list of the things discussed at the joint meetings and that she would like a copy of this list. Olson stated he's typed up the list as a hand out for people who apply for a PUD. Grimes asked McAleese what he thinks about the proposed PUD Amendments. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 2 McAleese stated that essentially, this makes the existing ordinance conform to our existing practice. He stated some major revisions need to be done on the ordinance and the subdivision code to get the two things working together better. The language now gives too much discretion and something important could be left out. Pentel stated the language in the proposed ordinance is unclear. McAleese stated that it reflects the current practice. It brings the existing code into conformance with what we're doing already. It's very important to look at the whole issue of the PUD Ordinance such as, the various residential vs. commercial areas. For example, the residential sections do not address single family residential it really only applies to the large residential developments. Grimes stated this is a discussion item tonight, but will be brought back as an informal public hearing. Eck suggested making a detailed list of what the problems are with the PUD ordinance and what things need to be changed. McAleese stated that some of these issues were addressed in the joint meetings with the Council. Once we have an agreement about a fundamental philosophy and what we want the code to look like, the City Attorney can turn. our desires into the proper language. The City Attorney can recommend whether things belong in the code, or in a policy manual for the City to use. Grimes stated there is a fundamental issue that needs to be solved between the Council, Planning Commission and Staff-does the Planning Commission see the general plan of development? This is something the Planning Commission and Council need to talk about. Pen~el stated the Preliminary Plan is usually sketchy and the City Council sees so much more in the General Plan. The Planning Commission generally just decides a PUD application is a good use for the property. Grimes stated that the information submitted with the Preliminary Plans is often the same or very similar to the General Plan. Because the Staff and Planning Commission are asking for more information at the preliminary design stage, there are not as many changes when it goes to the General Plan stage. Rasmussen stated that the difficulty she sees is that if someone comes in with a finished plan and we don't approve the concept, then they've put a lot of money into plans and all the preparation that really wouldn't be necessary if we don't approve it. Pentel stated that the Planning Commission should see the General Plan in order to advise the City Council on whether the Preliminary Plan expectations have been met. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 3 McAleese noted that the state statue which authorizes PUD's (as a conditional use) does not specify in detail the process for approval. The process that the Planning Commission goes through with preliminary design and general design is something that the City adopted. If there is a better approach we can recommend it. Grimes agreed with Pentel in seeing what other cities do in terms of the Planning Commission reviewing the General Plan. B. Revisions to the Official Golden Valley Zoning Map The following is discussion from the memo Dan Olson wrote February 8, regarding amendments to the Golden Valley Official Zoning map. Pentel stated that PUD 16 is not on the new map. It appears there may be no such PUD Number. Shaffer stated that Parkview Montessori School is really St. Margaret Mary School and that Parkview leases space from St. Margaret Mary. Eck asked what area was open development on the old zoning map. Grimes stated there was some property along highway 100 that was open space that is now going to be a MnDot pond and suggested that it be considered being called right- of-way. Hoffman asked if the City has a height limitation. Grimes stated that with a conditional use permit the Council could vary height limitations. Groger asked why King's Valley is zoned R-2 rather than M-1. Grimes stated because King's Valley is primarily side-by-side units and not stacked units and that the density is more like a two family dwelling area than a multiple family dwelling area. Eck asked about the lots that go out into Sweeney Lake and if the residents owned that part of the lake. Grimes stated technically they did own that part of the lake but in Minnesota everyone has the right to use any body of water. Groger stated the Golden Valley Historical Society is the wrong color. It should be the same color as the library. Groger also stated that PUD 8 is M-1, which has a maximum height of 3 stories, but the senior citizen center is 8 stories. McAleese stated that technically it isn't required that the underlying zoning and the PUD be brought into conformance. It's a good idea, but the PUD is the thing that really counts. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 4 Groger questioned the gas station on highway 100. Grimes stated that on our zoning map it's commercial because of the small business that exists there. MnDot purchased the rest of the property. On the comprehensive plan map it is designated as residential rather than commercial. This is something we should talk to our City Attorney about because it was zoned in the past as commercial and there is a commercial operation there. Grimes questioned if we are devaluing the property by rezoning to residential. Pentel mentioned that Old Medicine Lake Road is listed in parentheses on St. Croix Avenue. Grimes stated that used to be Old Medicine Lake Road, but it will be taken off the new map. Shaffer asked why the streets in the Hidden Lakes Development are in parentheses. Grimes stated that it's because they are not public streets. Shaffer stated the streets by Medley Park should be in parentheses too. -- Short Recess -- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Rasmussen commented on the Sheriff Site progress and that the open house was successful and well attended. IV. Other Business A. Review of Planning Commission attendance Pentel stated that as we head into spring and development time, it's important for people to attend the Planning Commission meetings B. Common Bond Update Pentel stated the Planning Commission Meeting on the February 26 will start early (6:30 pm) so they can have a presentation from CommonBond. C. Possibility of Planning Commission meeting on March 5, 2001 Olson stated there would need to be a Planning Commission on March 5, 2001 due to the number of agenda items coming up. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8: 15