Loading...
06-10-02 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 2002 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 June 10,2002. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Hoffman, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were City Planner, Dan Olson and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes was absent. I. Approval of Minutes - May 13, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting e MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 13, 2002 minutes as submitted. Chair Pentel excused herself from the first public hearing due to a conflict of interest so Vice Chair Shaffer chaired the meeting through the first item on the agenda. II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (SU 07-08) Applicant: Paul Pentel and Warren Rottmann Address: Lots 11 & 12, Block 4 Thotlands Twin View Terrace, located at 941 and 1021 Angelo Drive, both in Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicants are requesting a subdivision of the two parcels of land in order to redraw the property line between these parcels. This property line change will allow for a gazebo encroachment to be corrected. e Olson referred to a location map and pointed out the two properties involved in this subdivision request. He explained that the applicants are proposing to redraw the property line because of the encroachment of a gazebo at 941 Angelo Drive. He stated that this subdivision would not require any variances from the Subdivision Code and that all of the buildings on the property would meet the setback requirements after the property lines were redrawn. He stated that Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: the City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat and the Certificate of Survey submitted by the applicants, dated April 17, 2002 shall become a part of this approval. Eck stated that he sees no problems with the subdivision but asked if the City knows how the gazebo encroachment occurred. Olson stated that the applicants weren't Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 2 aware of where the property lines were when they built the gazebo and that the gazebo probably didn't require a building permit. Paul Pentel, applicant stated that he put up a fence where he thought the property line was and then built the gazebo five feet away from the fence. He stated that it has been wrong for 15 years and that they want to get it corrected for the future. Warren Rottman, applicant stated that the way the properties look now is natural and that it makes sense to subdivide the property the way they are proposing. Vice Chair Shaffer opened the public hearing, seeing and hearing no one he closed the public hearing. - MOVED by Groger, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the request to subdivide two parcels of land located at 941 Angelo Drive and 1021 Angelo Drive in order to redraw the property line to correct an encroachment. III. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit Amendment (CU-75 A) Applicant: Borton Volvo Address: 905 Hampshire Avenue South, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant would like to amend the existing CUP to allow for a car wash and oil change and lubrication bay to this automobile dealership. e Olson explained that the applicant is requesting an amendment to their existing conditional use permit (CUP). He stated that the applicant would like to add an oil change/service bay, wash bay and two prep/detail bays on the northeast side of the building right away and a second addition on the southeast side of the building in the future when additional service bays are needed. Olson discussed an analysis done of the parking. He stated that the applicant would be decreasing the number of parking spaces but they have more than adequate parking on the site. Olson stated the Deputy Fire Marshall has requested that the applicants have a 45-foot turning radius around the building to allow room for emergency vehicles. Olson discussed the conditions of approval from Mark Grimes memo dated June 5, 2002 and stated that the Deputy Fire Marshal's memo dated June 5, 2002 should be added as a condition. Olson stated that while he was doing some research on this property he found the minutes from the Planning Commission when this CUP was first approved. He stated Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10,2002 Page 3 that at that time, there was a property line running down the middle of the property and that the applicant was asked then to go through the subdivision process either with the County or with the City. There was nothing in the City's files that showed a subdivision was done. He suggested adding another condition of approval to require proof of the subdivision. He stated that according to the applicant the issue of the property line has been corrected. Hoffman asked if the oil change service would be available to the public and questioned how they would be disposing of used oil and if having the new oil change bay would cause an increase in traffic. Olson stated that he wasn't sure of the technical details but that the Inspections Department would have requirements they would need to follow. Pentel added that there are also county and state laws about the disposal of oil. Eck asked if adding the 45-foot turning radius around the building would reduce the e amount of parking spaces. Olson stated ~hat the applicant could answer that question. Rasmussen asked Olson to point out the display areas, setback areas and parking areas because she has seen cars parked on landscaped areas in the past. Olson explained the grassy area in front is the setback and that the requirement for a front yard setback is 35 feet. Pentel asked what the process is for the City to be able to enforce the no parking in setback areas requirement. Olson explained that photos are taken of the violation and letters are sent to the owners. The next step would be to involve the City Attorney and the last resort would be revoking the CUP permit. e David Constable, architect for the project showed the Commission a site plan and pointed out the designated parking areas and the setback areas. He stated that adding the 45-foot turning radius wouldn't be a problem. He confirmed that the property was replatted into one parcel through Hennepin County and not through the City's subdivision process. He stated that he would talk to the employees about not parking in the setback areas. He clarified that the lube and car wash service is only for service customers and that their oil is disposed of properly. Pentel suggested that Staff get something from the County proving that the property has been replatted. Pentel opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, she closed the public hearing. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Hoffman and motion carried unanimously to approve the requested CUP amendment with the following conditions of approval: Deputy Fire Marshal's memo dated June 5, 2002 shall be added as condition number 9 and the following language shall be added as condition number 10: "Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 4 conditional use permit." Also the ten findings found on pages two and three of the staff memo were adopted. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (SU 04-03) Applicant: Linda Lund and Ann and Faison Sessoms Address: Lots 8 & 9, Block 7 Woodlawn Park, located at 4930 and 4940 Normandy Place, both in Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicants are requesting a subdivision of the two parcels of land in order to redraw the property line between these parcels. This property line change will allow for a garage encroachment to be corrected. Olson stated that the applicants are requesting this minor subdivision to correct an encroachment of a garage over the property line. He explained that the applicant at 4940 couldn't get a building permit to rebuild their garage because of the encroachment. Olson showed the Commission a site plan and pointed out the existing property lines and the proposed new property lines. He stated that the way the applicants are re-drawing the property lines ensured that neither applicant would lose any property. Olson discussed the minor subdivision regulations and the setback requirements. He stated that 4930 Normandy Place would not meet the minimum required frontage, the front yard setback requirements and the side yard requirements. The 4940 Normandy Place property would not meet the minimum required frontage, the west side yard setback requirements and the accessory building requirements. Olson referred to a maintenance easement, signed by both applicants in 1987, which allows the owners to perform maintenance and make repairs to the garage, fence and driveway. He stated that the garage at 4930 would have a zero foot setback atter the minor subdivision and that Staff is not comfortable with that. Staff is recommending that there be a minimum of three feet - the width needed for fire apparatus. He asked the Commission if they recommend approval to also recommend the additional three- foot setback area. Rasmussen stated that she would be more comfortable recommending that any new property owner at 4930 would have to meet the setback requirements if they decide to rebuild the garage rather than the property owner at 4940 having to give up three feet of their property. She stated that the way the applicants have worked together to redraw the property lines resulted in an even trade and she didn't think it would make for good neighbors to require them to negotiate for the additional three feet to make the City more comfortable. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 5 Groger asked if an alternative could be to create an easement or to not allow a fence or construction in the three-foot setback area. He stated that he didn't think it was fair to penalize the owner at 4940 because it is the owner at 4930 whose garage is encroaching the property line. Olson stated he wasn't sure if the City could prohibit someone from building a fence. Pentel stated she was pleased that the neighbors have worked together to redraw the property line and she also understands why the City would like to have at least a five- foot setback but she is also sympathetic toward 4940 having to give up more property. e Ann Sessoms, applicant, stated that the easement agreement is recorded with the county and that as long as the garage at 4930 exists they have three feet to maintain the garage. She stated that she would like to replace her garage and found it hard to understand why she should have to give up any property. She stated that whoever buys the property at 4930 would have to meet the setback requirements if they ever wanted to replace the garage. Eck asked if the easement recorded with the county would stay in effect if there were new owners. Sessoms stated yes, the easement would stay in effect even with new owners. Rasmussen asked if the easement agreement would stay in effect if the property lines were redrawn. Sessoms referred to the easement agreement and stated she wasn't sure if it would stay in effect if the property lines were redrawn but that she would be willing to redraft the original easement agreement. Pentel opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one she closed the public hearing. e Pentel stated that this is a difficult proposal because she doesn't want to penalize one neighbor because of the other neighbor's encroaching garage. McAleese stated that handling the subdivision is not such a difficult issue and the fact that they are required to go this process is unfortunate but the neighbors have made an agreement and now it is before the Planning Commission. He stated that he is convinced the City has a problem with the way the Subdivision Code and Zoning Code are written and the way the process goes for subdivisions. He referred to a recently approved subdivision on Quail which required a variance from the Subdivision Code and stated that everyone was in agreement of the proposal but that Staff didn't prepare a separate motion for the variance from the Subdivision Code. He stated that the Council wasn't prepared to address the variance, which was an essential issue for them to address and that they were prepared to deal with that request as one issue when it was really two issues. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 6 McAleese referred to Section 12.50 Subdivision 3A of the City Code and stated that it says that a minor subdivision shall be denied unless they comply with the underlying zoning. He stated that the City could allow a variance but it seems the City ought to be recommending a denial. He was referring to the process in general and not to this specific proposal. He stated the approach should be to recommend denial and then have a second motion recommending the subdivision variance. He explained the reason for doing minor subdivision requests in two steps is so the Council understands that it really doesn't comply with the Zoning Code and that it really does require a variance. He stated that variances are an extraordinary process and it is important to call that out to the Council. If these requests are handled in one step like the City has been doing, the variance part of the request slips through. He stated in this proposal it is not important to do the two steps but it is more important as the cases become harder. Pentel asked if a condition could be added to subdivision proposals that states variances would be granted by Council to permit nonstandard lots. McAleese stated that a motion could be worded that way, but the Subdivision Code doesn't allow for conditions to be attached. If the proposal complies with the Subdivision Code the applicant is entitled to the subdivision. McAleese stated that his recommendation to handle minor subdivision requests in a two-step process doesn't have a lot to do with this particular proposal but it has a lot to do with the Subdivision Code and the Zoning Code and that these issues need to be reconciled. He stated that he has no problem recommending approval for this minor subdivision request. He doesn't like where the garage is located, but that it is not really being changed and he doesn't see an advantage to making the applicant at 4940 give three feet of property because the garage at 4930 is illegal. Shaffer asked McAleese if he was saying that the Planning Commission should recommend denial of this request, but recommend 'approval of the subdivision variance request. McAleese explained that he was saying the Council shouldn't approve subdivision requests without approving variances. MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the subdivision request for Lots 8 & 9, Block 7 Woodlawn Park, located at 4930 and 4940 Normandy Place with the following conditions: 1) The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2) The Certificate of Survey submitted by the applicants, dated January 29, 1987 shall become a part of this approval. Shaffer stated that he wants it noted that if a new garage is ever built at 4930 Normandy Place that it couldn't be built in the same location as it is in now. -- Short Recess -- e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 7 V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Rasmussen reported on the June 4,2002 City Council meeting where the request for a conditional use permit for 3rd Lair Skate Park, 850 Florida Avenue, was approved. Shaffer reported on the May 29, 2002 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting and discussed a variance request where an applicant owned three lots on Plymouth and wanted to verify if the vacant third lot was a buildable lot. VI. Other Business Pentel stated that the minutes from the May 13, 2002 meeting mentioned that the telecommunications ordinance was going to be on the agenda and asked why it wasn't. Olson stated that he was in the process of removing the Radio and Television Zoning District from the ordinance. VII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 PM.