Loading...
09-23-02 PC Minutes e e e - e Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 23,2002 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 September 23, 2002. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Those present were Chair Pentel, Commissioners Eck, Groger, Keysser, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, City Planner, Dan Olson. Absent were Commissioner McAleese and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. Pentel introduced the new Planning Commissioner, Don Keysser. I. Approval of Minutes - August 26, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting Pentel referred to page two, paragraph two and stated that the first sentence should read, "Pentel questioned (not stated) if towers were something the City would want in residential areas." MOVED by Groger, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 26,2002 minutes with the above correction. II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (SU19-04) Applicant: Reid Loidolt and Viola Saari Address: Lot 8, Block 6 Medley Hills located at 8945 23rd Avenue North; and Lot 9, Block 6 Medley Hills located at 2200 Ensign Avenue North both in Golden Valley, MN The applicants are requesting a subdivision of the two parcels of land in order to redraw the property line between these parcels. Purpose: Grimes informed the Planning Commission that the applicant wasn't able to attend this meeting, but that he felt it was okay to continue with the public hearing because it is a fairly straightforward proposal. He gave some background information about the property and explained that the applicant would like to redraw a property line, which would allow them to build an addition to the home. Grimes referred to the site plan sketch and noted that there is a shed on the property that should be removed as a condition of approval and that the applicants have stated that they wou Id move it. e e e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 2 Pentel questioned why there was no survey included with this proposal and asked why this proposal is being considered a minor subdivision and not a replatting. Grimes stated that the applicants would have to replat the property, but that the City allows minor subdivisions to go forward with a site plan sketch. He added that the next step of the approval process requires the applicant to provide a survey. Rasmussen asked how the front of a lot is determined. Grimes stated that the narrowest side of a lot is considered to be the front and that generally it is to the advantage of the homeowner. Pentel opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the public hearing. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to allow the applicant's request for a subdivision of the two parcels of land in order to redraw the property line between the two parcels with the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat and dedication of easements. 2. The sketch titled "Existing and Proposed Property Lines - 8945 23rd Ave. N. and 2200 Ensign Ave. N." shall become a part of this approval. 3. The shed located on Lot 9 shall be moved to a conforming location prior to approval of the final plat. III. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendments Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: The City would like to delete the sign requirements in the Zoning Code. Olson reminded the Commission that at their August 12, 2002 meeting he had shown them a draft copy of the new Sign Code for their comments. He explained that during the process of updating the Sign Code with the Commission's comments staff realized that there were references to signage throughout the Zoning Code that now need to be deleted. Therefore, staff is proposing that any language regarding signs be removed so all language about signage would be in one location in the Code. Pentel asked when the sign ordinance is going before the City Council and stated that she is concerned about the City not having a sign code for even a few days. Olson explained that the adoption of the new Sign Code and the request for removing the current sign regulations in the Zoning Code would go to the Council at the same time so there wouldn't be any time between the old sign regulations and the new Sign Code. e e e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 3 Pentel asked if all the recommendations from the Planning Commission were somehow handled in the new Sign Code. Olson stated they have been incorporated and discussed a number of the changes the Planning Commission had recommended. Grimes added that the reason the Sign Code is not part of the Zoning Code is because signs could then be susceptible to variances. Pentel opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one, Pentel closed the public hearing. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to delete the current sign requirements from the Zoning Code. -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Pentel stated she attended the September 3, 2002 City Council meeting. She reported that the proposal from TCF Bank was denied and the proposal from Central Bank was continued to the October 15, 2002 Council meeting. V. Other Business A. Discussion of possible changes to the Zoning Code. The Planning Commissioners referred to Olson's list of possible changes to the Zoning Code and discussed the following items in varying order. Miscellaneous: 1) Revising the requirements for daytime activity centers, day care, and childcare. Grimes stated that staff would like to write a better a better definition. 2) Adding an adult use section to the Zoning Code. Pentel suggested allowing adult uses only to the Industrial section of the Code. She also suggested rezoning some of the properties that are currently zoned Industrial before this type of use is allowed. Section 11.21 Residential zoning district: 1) Looking at the definition of structure and building. Shaffer discussed clarifying the city's deck height regulations. He stated the Board of Zoning Appeals only considers a deck to be a structure if it is higher than six inches. He recommended the City also set standards regarding stoops and suggested looking at the standards for fences, walls and structures. e e e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 4 2} Clarifying side yard and front yard areas on corner lots. Shaffer suggested clarifying side yard setbacks and how they are calculated. He also suggested defining how the front yard area is determined. 3} Looking at the allowed size of garages. Grimes suggested studying the current requirements and deciding if garage size should be a percentage of the lot or kept at 1,000 square feet. Olson added that the 1,000 square feet includes sheds, gazebos, garages, etc. 4} Deciding if a permit from Planning should be required for accessory buildings. Olson stated that the Inspections Department explains to applicants the accessory building requirements and the setbacks they are supposed to abide by, but there is no enforcement of the regulations and therefore, there are a number of illegal accessory buildings in the City. Pentel asked if the fees from these proposed permits would help offset the time for staff to enforce the regulations. Grimes stated that staff probably wouldn't charge for the permits because they wouldn't be inspecting the structure, they would just be inspecting where it is built on the lot. Shaffer stated that most people put up an accessory building and find out they need a permit later. He added that he felt if there were no cost for the permit from Planning, people probably wouldn't apply for the permit at all. Grimes suggested doing some education in the City News about accessory buildings. 5) Setback requirements for driveways. Grimes stated that the current Zoning Code allows for driveways to go right to the property line. Shaffer suggested setbacks only for new driveways. Pentel stated she likes the idea of requiring a paved surface. Groger stated he likes the idea of having setback requirements for driveways for snow storage. Grimes stated that staff would come up with some wording for driveway setbacks for new construction and driveway re-configurations. 6) Side yard setbacks for second stall garages. Olson stated that most variance requests for second stall garages are granted and suggested that the side yard setback requirements be updated. Groger stated that there should be standards to preserve the integrity of the neighborhoods. Shaffer stated that some of the side yard variance requests granted in the past were because of existing conditions. He stated that generally the BZA is improving an existing condition and that making changes to the Code regarding setbacks for second stall garages would lessen the number of variances. Grimes stated that staff would do some more research. Pentel suggested having a consent agenda at Board of Zoning Appeals meetings for variance requests dealing with existing conditions. She stated that she thinks reducing the setback requirements for second stall garages is a good idea. 7) Home occupations. Grimes stated that he would like to update the current home occupation regulations and make them more realistic because the City is getting more and more requests for home occupations. Shaffer suggested allowing home occupations to have one employee. e e e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 5 8) Adding requirements on temporary outdoor storage. Grimes stated that staff is trying to come up with some regulations in regards to PODS (portable on demand storage), dumpsters, etc. He stated that he has talked to a local PODS representative and that they have agreed to keep their storage units on any given property for up to 7 days only. 9) Establishing fence requirements. Grimes stated that staff would like to have some fence height regulations and some materials requirements. 10) Deleting M-3 and M-4 subdistricts. Grimes suggested that if property owners want to build a structure higher than allowed in the M-2 subdistrict, the City could require a conditional use permit. 11) Deleting Section 11.45, Subd. 8 (B)(7) ("compatible uses" allowed as CUP). Grimes stated that the "other uses deemed compatible by Council" section of the Code needs to be deleted or rewritten because it is too vague. 12) Creating a new zoning district called 1-394 Business and Light Industrial zoning district. Pentel asked why there needs to be a separate zoning district along 1-394. Olson stated that the new district would better match what is currently there and would include light industrial, restaurants, hotels, and office uses. Pentel stated that she thinks the proposed new zoning district would take some more study and recommended that the Planning Commission go on a field trip. The Commission discussed the various uses along 1-394 and decided to schedule a field trip on November 9, 2002 at 9:00 AM. 13) Review properties that are zoned Industrial - would they be appropriately located in a Commercial or Light Industrial zoning district? Pentel suggested looking at uses that are currently zoned Industrial. Shaffer thought it would be a good idea to review properties in the Industrial zoning district. 14) Planned Unit Developments -Implementing changes as have been discussed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Pentel stated that suggested that the recommended changes would need to be studied separately. Grimes stated that staff might look into hiring a consultant for a fresh view. 15) Off-street parking and loading and loading requirements. Shaffer suggesting 20-foot long parking spaces if car-to-car and 18-foot long spaces if the nose of a car can hang over, but not onto sidewalks. He added that Golden Valley has no aisle width requirements. 16) Subd. 4 - Change to allow "Administrative Variance" in hold-harmless situations. The Planning Commissioners agreed with this proposed change. . e e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 23, 2002 Page 6 B. Election of Officers MOVED by ECk, seconded by Keysser and motion carried unanimously to retain the current slate of officers as follows: Pentel - Chair, Shaffer - Vice Chair and Groger - Secretary VI. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM.