Loading...
09-08-03 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 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, September 8, 2003. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Keysser, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. Commissioner McAleese was absent. - I. Approval of Minutes - August 11, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting Groger referred to the first sentence in the first paragraph on page nine and stated that the word "his" should be the word "is". Shaffer referred to the sixth paragraph on page four and stated that he was referring to the materials being used for the building addition, not for the trash enclosure. Rasmussen referred to the third paragraph on page seven and asked that the wording being changed to reflect that she asked Grimes to clarify for the audience why the noise issue was being discussed. - Pentel referred to page six and stated that there were comments she made that weren't in the minutes about how it is the Planning Commission's job to listen to the concerns of the neighbors at the public hearing for as long as it takes. Pentel referred to page eight and stated that she made a comment that the City doesn't want to control what the church does within its sanctuary, but that when they are outside they want to hold them to the same standards as other businesses are held to. Pentel stated that condition number four should be changed to read as follows: The Church shall cease the electronic amplification of music and spoken word for services and events at Calvary Park on July 1,2004. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Keysser and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 11, 2003 minutes with the above noted changes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 2 II. Informal Public Hearing - City Code Text Change Amendment Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To approve the new Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1) Section 11.21 of the City Code Grimes explained that he sent the Commissioners a Draft #5 of the Single Family section of the Code and a final copy of the same section so the Commission could approve this version if they felt it was ready to be approved. He said a public notice isn't required for text change amendments but if they would like, an article about the text changes could be put in the Sun Post newspaper. - Pentel suggested the Commissioners discuss any changes to Draft #5 and then recommend them as Draft #6 and forward it on for approval to the City Council. Grimes said he would like to talk to the City Attorney and the Building Official about Commissioner McAleese's additions and that the issue of the height of accessory buildings needs to be addressed. Pentel opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one Pentel closed the public hearing. Grimes said that the Council would like the Planning Commission to look at ways to address the small variance requests like the ones that are for tenths of feet. He explained that they would like to make the process easier for people who need very slight variances. He gave the Commissioners a proposed ordinance regarding this issue to review. - Shaffer stated that the ordinance would be doing the exact opposite thing that the Board of Zoning Appeals would want and that he didn't understand why it is being done backwards. Groger stated that the ordinance is rounding the setback requirement up. Grimes said he would ask the City Attorney for clarification. Eck asked if a variance request was within 9/10 of a foot if it would be permitted without having to have a hearing. Grimes explained that the ordinance would not let any proposal go closer than three feet to any side or rear property line. He said again, that he would get further clarification from the City Attorney. Eck referred to Subdivision 10(A)(1)(a) and stated that the word "in" should be replaced with the word "on". Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 3 Rasmussen asked if anything was going to be added to the Code regarding mother- in-law apartments. Grimes stated that they aren't going to be allowed. Groger said that he thought Subdivision 3(B) could be construed to mean mother-in- law apartments. He suggested saying no separate entrances would be allowed instead. Grimes clarified that the word lodging means bedrooms only. Pentel asked if the Code states how many people can live in a house. Grimes stated it does in the definition section of the Code. e Shaffer asked if a pool if considered to be a structure and asked if pools are included in Subdivision 9 regarding lot coverage. He said he would rather pools were not included in lot coverage. Grimes stated that pools are considered structures but that they could be excluded from Subdivision 9. Eck referred to Subdivision 10(3)(C) and stated that it should read "of structure depth" instead of "to structure depth". Shaffer submitted the following new paragraph which will replace Subdivision 10(3)(C): "If a principal structure is greater than 40 feet in depth along a side yard adjacent to another property, that side yard shall increase by one foot for each additional ten feet of structure depth or portion thereof." Keysser asked for clarification. Shaffer explained the new wording. e Grimes asked if the new wording for Subdivision 1 O(3)(C) applied only to new construction. Shaffer stated yes. Groger asked why it would not apply to additions as well. Shaffer explained that there would probably be more variance requests but that it should probably also apply to additions. Grimes asked if a one-story addition would be different than a 2-story addition and said that another thing to remember is that the new Single Family Code has the lot coverage section that it has never had before. Grimes asked Shaffer if he wanted to work on the wording some more or if he thought it should just apply to new construction. Shaffer said he would work on it some more. Groger referred to Subdivision 10(3)(a) and said he is uncomfortable with a 10-foot side yard setback in the case of lots that are 100 feet or greater. He said he is more comfortable keeping the 15-foot side yard setback requirement like it currently is. Rasmussen asked why a 10-foot side yard setback is being proposed. Groger stated that it is partly because of the amount of variances being requested for side yard setbacks for garages. Shaffer stated that if the BZA is making policies they should be in writing. Groger asked if the subdivision regarding Pre-1982 homes would deal with a lot of the problems the BZA currently has. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 4 Pentel stated that she also likes the 15-foot side yard setback requirement as well. Shaffer said that the Council asked the Planning Commission to look at the residential part of the Zoning Code partly because of the large number of variances the BZA has been granting and are being asked to grant. Pentel asked if most of the variances given are on pre-1982 houses. Shaffer stated yes, but that additions have to conform to current setback requirements and that 1/3 of the variances requested are for garages that want to go into side yard setbacks. Rasmussen said that she thinks if a house was built in 1982 that the Board of Zoning Appeals would want the addition to follow 1982 rules too. Shaffer explained that doesn't mean that is the way the City wants the additions to be now. e Groger said a lot of this gets back to the age old question of the necessity of a 3-car garage. Shaffer said that many builders push garages to the side of the lot and use one garage stall for living space and then add on another garage stall to get a 2-car garage. Groger said that there are a number of changes being made that should help with the quantity of side yard variance requests. Grimes asked if there was any room for compromise and suggested a side yard setback of 12.5 feet for lots that are 65 to 100 feet wide. e Rasmussen asked Shaffer if he thinks these Code changes will make the BZA hold to the letter of the law. Shaffer said his hope is yes, that these changes will be drawing the line in the sand. Shaffer referred to Subdivision 10(E) regarding the height of decks and stated that he thought if decks were under 30" that the Code didn't apply. Grimes stated that the Code applies if the deck is attached. Rasmussen asked if a deck is considered a part of the 30% lot coverage. Shaffer stated yes, if it is a structure. Grimes added if it is detached and under 8". Eck referred to Subdivision 12(A)( 1) and stated that the words "it is" should be taken out of the first sentence. He stated that the word "as" should be changed to "than" in the second sentence. Eck referred Subdivision 11 (H) and stated that the word "for" should be changed to "as". Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 5 Grimes read McAleese's emailed comments that referred to Subdivision 13(C) and stated that then word "shall" should be changed to the word "may". Pentel said she thinks there should be a separate subdivision for recreational vehicles. Grimes said he would create a new Subdivision 14 called Storage of Recreational Vehicles and Boats. Pentel referred to the driveway requirements and asked at what point the City would require a driveway to be paved. Grimes said that the subdivision regarding driveway requirements only applies to new construction. e Groger referred to Subdivision 14(B) and said that the word "setback" should be two words. Eck referred to Subdivision 16(A)(8) and said to take out the word "between". He added that Subdivision 16(A)(1 0) regarding parking related to home occupations shall be provided only on the driveway of the property where the home occupation operates is essentially impossible to enforce. Groger explained that the intent is to avoid homes being a staging area for employees to come and park their cars and go work somewhere else for the day. Pentel said she thinks Subdivision 16(A)(10) should stay because it gives the City some recourse. Rasmussen asked why cars couldn't be parked in the street. Grimes explained that if there are lots of cars parked outside of a home that is a good indication that there is e a home occupation that does not meet City requirements. Pentel asked the Commissioners if they feel comfortable passing this version of the revised single family section of the Zoning Code on to the City Council or if they would like to review one more revision. Keysser said he would like to review it again. Groger said he would also like to see it again. Grimes suggested they just continue the public hearing to their next meeting. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to continue the public hearing to approve the new Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1) Section 11.21 of the City Code. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2003 Page 6 III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Groger stated he was at the September 2,2003 City Council meeting and that Calvary's PUD amendment request was delayed to the September 16 meeting and that Lupient's Preliminary PUD amendment request to add on an approximate 15,000 square foot addition to their Infiniti building was approved. Grimes noted that Arnie Zachman was in attendance and suggested that the Planning Commission set another meeting date to discuss the housing policy. Zachman asked when the City would have some decisions made about higher density housing. Pentel stated that she thought after the first of the year there may be some decisions made. Grimes explained that the Planning Commission is in the process of developing criteria for higher density housing, they are not looking at specific sites, just at developing the criteria. He explained that the City Council are the ones that have to change the Comprehensive Plan and that they have no obligation to change it. Grimes suggested meeting at 6 pm before the next Planning Commission to discuss the housing policy. The Commissioners agreed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm.