Loading...
07-14-03 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2003 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 14, 2003. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Keysser, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - June 9, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting - MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes from the June 9,2003 meeting as submitted. II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings - McAleese discussed the July 1, 2003 City Council meeting he attended where the Conditional Use Permit for the Elite Auto proposal was discussed. He said that the Council asked if the Planning Commission has come up with a way to limit the number of these types of auto uses. Grimes stated he is going to talk to the City Attorney to determine if there are ways to limit the number of auto dealerships applying for Conditional Use Permits. He suggested maybe not allowing dealers to sell used cars unless they are attached to a new car dealership. McAleese stated that not allowing auto dealerships as a conditional use would be the best way to eliminate them. Pentel suggested having a moratorium on used auto dealerships. Grimes updated the Planning Commission on recent Sheriff's Site information. He stated that the HRA has designated a developer and that there should be more information available in August or September and that there would be at least two more neighborhood meetings. III. Second Review of Single-Family Residential Zoning District (R-1) Shaffer referred to Subdivision 9 in Grimes' memo dated July 8, 2003 and stated that he agreed with staff's suggestion of using two or three different lot coverage requirements due to the varying size of lots in Golden Valley. Shaffer asked if there was going to be anything added to the Zoning Code about houses over 40 feet in length being required to increase the setback one or two feet for every five or ten feet of increase in length. Grimes expressed concern about administering that requirement. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 2 Eck referred to Subdivision 10 (A)(1) and expressed concern about the idea of changing the front yard setback from 35 feet to 30 feet because he feels people would push the 30 foot front yard setback requirement as well. Grimes suggested that another option could be to allow only open porches in the front setback area. Groger stated that he thought a 30-foot front yard setback would be fine if it were only for an open type of front porch. Groger referred to Subdivision 10 (A)(3) regarding side yard setbacks and stated that he is concerned about changing the side yard set back requirement to 10 feet which would allow anyone to build anything up to 10 feet to the property line. He stated he is worried about access to rear yards and about intruding on neighbors. Shaffer explained that most of the side yard variance requests are for kitchens, master bedrooms, bathrooms and garages. e McAleese stated that he liked the idea of having a 15-foot side yard setback requirement and that the City needs to look at the reasonable use of property. Grimes asked the Commission if he should put this revised section of the Zoning Code before a public hearing. Groger suggested holding the side yard setback issue out. Pentel referred to Subdivision 11 and asked if Rubbermaid type storage sheds would be considered an accessory building. Grimes said that staff would have to use their best judgment and look at whether it is the same size as a shed. Keyser asked Grimes to define an accessory building. Grimes read the definition for an accessory building. McAleese stated that it makes sense to regulate accessory buildings when they get to be to the 120 square foot level like the definition says. e Groger referred to Subdivision 11 (A)(2) and stated that the required front setback for accessory buildings should be 35 feet, not 30 feet as it is written. Groger referred to Subdivision 12 and asked for clarification on what Pre-1982 Buildings means. Grimes explained that if a house built before 1982 meets the requirements in Subdivision 12 then it could be added to without requiring a variance. Grimes referred to Subdivision 12(0) and stated that he is concerned about the setback for accessory buildings being three feet to the side or rear yard property Jines. He said he thinks ten feet would be more appropriate. Shaffer referred to Subdivision 14(C) which requires driveways to be the same width as garages and asked about single-car garages with a driveway on the side. He suggested possibly allowing a percentage of driveway space instead. McAleese suggested keeping the requirement of driveways having to be the same width as the garage and if a different situation comes up, then it would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 3 Groger referred to Subdivision 16(A)(8) and stated he thinks 9 pm is too late for home occupation business activities. Grimes said that when the home occupation part of Code was originally written the City wanted to be very restrictive, but now more people work from their homes. He asked the Commissioners how they felt about allowing people with home occupations to have one outside employee. They all agreed it would be okay to allow one outside employee. Keysser stated that he did not agree to Subdivision 16(A)(10) regarding parking related to the home occupation shall be provided only on the driveway of the property where the home occupation operates. Grimes explained that parking on the street is the number one complaint the City receives in regard to home occupations. e IV. Housing Plan Review Pentel asked about the maps, traffic information and demographic information she recently asked for regarding Area B. Grimes stated that the City's Traffic Engineer is looking at what certain types of densities, town homes, etc. do to the traffic and streets in that area. He added that the demographics of the Common Bond units are families with children. The Planning Commission referred to the Zoning Map and discussed areas of the City they thought could possibly be redeveloped into some sort of higher density housing. Grimes referred to the intersection of Xenia and Laurel and stated that there may be a high density, mixed-use development at the Olympic Printing site. Pentel referred to the residential area south of 1-394, east of the Westwood Hills e Environmental Education Center on Wisconsin Ave. S. as a possible housing site. Pentel referred to the area near the Metropolitan Ballroom. Grimes said there are some serious soil conditions in that area. Shaffer asked if Wells Fargo is planning to keep the bank they closed on Douglas. Grimes stated that they are holding on to it for now. Grimes stated that the area east of the Spirit of Hope Methodist Church on Highway 55 all the way over to Glenwood could also be a potential site. Pentel added that if the City tries to become a champion in getting a right turn in, right turn out on Rhode Island it would help traffic in that area tremendously. Grimes stated that another possible area could be along the Creek behind where Central Bank is being built at the intersection of 10th Ave. N. and Winnetka. Pentel stated that she thinks there are a lot of light industrial areas could be looked at for housing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 4 Rasmussen asked about the northwest side of the General Mills property. Grimes stated that is the Sheriff's Site. Pentel suggested looking along the border of Crystal and along Highway 100 in the Lowry Terrace area. McAleese referred to the intersection of Douglas and Duluth and stated that the City has had a number of proposals for that site over the years. Grimes suggested the area near Medicine Lake Road, north of Sandburg. Pentel mentioned the Light Industrial area west of Highway 100 along Lindsay Street. e Grimes referred to the northeast corner of Douglas, south of the Creek and Oak Grove Circle, behind Oak Grove Church. McAleese suggested the gas storage tank site at Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road. Grimes questioned if people would want to live near tanks, but said that it would be worth looking at. Pentel asked Grimes if the City knows what Tennant's plans are. Grimes stated that they would like to own the property all the way to Highway 55 and make Golden Valley their world headquarters. Groger referred to an under utilized Industrial area between Pennsylvania and Rhode Island and stated he thinks the area is ripe for some better use. e Shaffer asked about the church on Laurel Avenue. Grimes stated that it was his understanding that they were thinking about moving, but that he hasn't heard anything. Pentel stated that developing any of these sites they have been discussing would require a PUD which makes her think again about revising the City's PUD requirements. Rasmussen asked if the City has any vacant institutional properties such as schools, churches, etc. Grimes stated that District 281 has a vacant building but that they have. said they want to keep it as an asset. Grimes suggested coming up with a list of criteria for consideration in identifying areas that could potentially be used for housing redevelopment sites. Shaffer stated that the areas that have already been discussed have all been on arterials. Pentel stated that the ones that have been identified are next to Industrial or Light Industrial zoning districts. Grimes stated that he is also concerned about not losing affordable housing as well. Pentel asked if the City could look at proposals more positively if the developer could Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2003 Page 5 show that a project had a certain percentage of affordable housing in it. Shaffer stated that the developer should know up front how much of the project needs to be affordable because it may change the plans. Rasmussen asked if the City could just come up with an arbitrary percentage. McAleese explained that if the City doesn't come up with a percentage then the developers will come up with the higher density but not with the affordability. Pentel said that she thinks as people continue to age there is going to be another wave of affordable building. Grimes asked if anyone would be willing to meet with him and come up with some criteria for developers to follow in redeveloping any of the areas that have been identified. Pentel said she would be willing to meet with him. -- Groger stated that his concern is not with just the larger developments, but also spot properties where there are individual houses and that there may be a way to tie in larger redevelopment with smaller site redevelopment as well. Pentel said she also wants criteria for larger developments to connect to the City's existing pedestrian grid and making sure there are excellent traffic connections if there is going to be an increase in density in neighborhoods. Keysser said he would like to join Pentel and Grimes in their meeting to set up some criteria for developers to follow. Grimes said that he would set up a meeting. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 pm. -