11-24-03 Joint PC-CC Minutes
Joint Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission and City Council
November 24, 2003
A joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council was held at the Golden
Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley,
Minnesota, on Monday November 24, 2003. Vice Chair Shaffer called the meeting to
order at 6:10 pm.
Those present were Commissioners Eck, Groger, Keysser, McAleese, Rasmussen and
Shaffer, Mayor Loomis and Council Members Johnson, LeSuer, Tremere, Also present
were City Attorney Allen Barnard, City Manager Tom Burt, Director of Planning and
Development, Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. Planning
Commission Chair Pentel and Council Member Grayson were absent.
e
I. Discuss Draft of Residential Chapter of the Zoning Code
Grimes distributed a copy of a proposed ordinance that would go along with the revised
single family R-1 section of the Zoning Code regarding changing the setback
interpretation in order to meet variance requests of five feet or greater for front yard, side
yard and rear yard setbacks. He used the example of 14.0 feet or greater and said that it
may be rounded up to 15 feet.
Eck suggested changing the wording to read 14.1 feet or greater may be rounded up to
15 feet. Barnard questioned how a variance request for 14.05 feet would be handled in
that case.
Tremere suggested changing the wording to read 14 feet or greater may be rounded up
e to 15 feet. Grimes said he would work on the wording of the ordinance with Barnard.
Grimes highlighted the biggest changes made to the single family section of the Code
such as adding a lot coverage requirement, changing the front yard setback requirement
to 30 to a street right-of-way when the request is for an open front porch and a slight
increase in side yard setback requirements if a house has a long side wall.
Tremere referred to the fourth page and clarified that the number 35 should have been
underscored and the 30 should have been stricken in regard to the number of feet from
the front property line the required setback shall be along a street right-of-way.
Grimes noted that another change to the Code is in regard to accessory buildings. He
said that it would allow for a garage to be located next to a house, rather than wholly to
the rear of the house, as long as the garage has frost footings. Shaffer added that it is a
longevity factor and that garages with footings are sturdier.
Grimes referred to the subdivision regarding provisions for garages and explained that
that the wording would be changed to read, no building permit shall be issued for a single
family home unless the survey submitted at the time of the application for the permit
shows the necessary area and setback requirements for a future 2-stall (minimum)
garage.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission/City Council
November 24, 2003
Page 2
Grimes referred to Subdivision 12, Pre-1982 Structures and discussed the proposed
front, side, and rear setback requirements. He explained that the reason this subdivision
was added is because most of the homes in Golden Valley are older and were built
before 1982 and that it has been the reasonable practice of the BZA to grant these
variance requests.
Grimes referred to Subdivision 13 regarding temporary outdoor storage and stated that it
is referring mostly to PODS (large outdoor storage containers) and that this would limit
them to only be stored on a property for seven days.
Grimes referred to Subdivision 14 and stated that this would limit the storage of
recreational vehicles to not more than one in a front yard. Rasmussen asked if
recreational vehicles had to be parked on a hard surface. Grimes stated yes, and referred
tit to Subdivision 15(0).
LeSuer asked if the newly proposed lot coverage requirement includes driveways.
Grimes said no and explained that because some lots are not that large it would be very
restrictive to include driveways.
Grimes referred to Subdivision 17 regarding home occupation requirements and stated
that the biggest change in that section is allowing one outside employee.
Tremere referred to Subdivision 9 regarding lot coverage and asked why it doesn't say
how much is impervious. Shaffer said that the Planning Commission looked at that
requirement a lot and explained that it is really hard to enforce.
tit
Tremere asked why there would be a concern about lot coverage in a rear yard. Shaffer
stated that the current zoning code only looked at lot coverage in a two dimensional way.
He discussed how the proposed lot coverage section of the code would work and
explained the drawings he made as an example. He stated that the idea is to look at lot
coverage in a three dimensional way so the City doesn't get such massive homes.
Tremere stated that his concern is trying to stay proportional because some lots are
bigger than 10,000 square feet. Groger stated that it wouldn't be restricting people's
ability to build when you consider the size of house that can fit on a 10,000 square foot
lot. Grimes added that Golden Valley is getting to the tear down stage with houses and
people are starting to put huge houses on small lots.
Eck referred to Subdivision 10(A)(1) regarding front yard setbacks and asked how an
open porch is defined and asked if an open porch could have screens on it. Shaffer said
the BZA has not allowed screens and has required them to remain visually open.
Tremere referred to Subdivision 10(A)(F) regarding fences and asked if there have been
problems with fence locations. Grimes stated that staff is working on a fence ordinance
that deals with issues such as, the height of fences and fences in front yards. Shaffer
added that conceivably right now someone could build an eight foot high fence all the
way around their property.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission/City Council
November 24, 2003
Page 3
Tremere referred to Subdivision 11 (A)( 1) regarding accessory structures and stated that
the word "structures" in the first sentence should not be plural. He referred to Subdivision
11 (B) and asked if there is an easier way to explain the word "top plate". Shaffer said he
thought that part of the code was written with contractors in mind.
LeSuer asked what the top height of an accessory could be. Shaffer said it would depend
on the roof pitch but that it could be 13 feet.
Tremere referred to Subdivision 11 (H) regarding decks and said the word "decks" should
be added to the sentence, after the words "free standing".
Tremere referred to Subdivision 11 (I) regarding air conditioning units and suggested the
word "central" be added before the words air conditioning units.
e
Tremere referred to Subdivision 14 regarding storage of recreational vehicles and boats
and asked if that includes the big RV trailers. Grimes said yes and that he would be going
over the wording of Subdivision 14 with the City Attorney.
Grimes referred to Subdivision 16 and explained that the City switched Building Codes
and no longer requires a building permit for decks that are greater than 8 inches but less
than 30 inches off the ground so staff is suggesting requiring a zoning permit so the City
has a way of knowing that these types of decks are still following setback requirements.
Loomis asked how grade is defined and asked how a deck would work if the ground
started at 8 inches and then dropped to more than 30 inches. Grimes stated that it would
have to be his and the building official's judgment.
e
LeSuer referred to the home occupation requirements and asked why parking related to a
home occupation must be provided only on the driveway where the home occupation is
located. Grimes stated that parking in the street is almost always an automatic clue that
there is a home occupation going on and it is what people complain about the most.
Tremere referred to the list of prohibited home occupations and suggested adding the
word "re-building" to number one on the list regarding repairing and servicing autos,
trucks, boats, etc. He suggested adding "columbarium" to number five on the list of
prohibited home occupations.
Loomis referred to number ten on the list of prohibited home occupations regarding the
sale or repair of firearms and asked if that included on-line sales as well. Grimes stated
he didn't think on-line sales would be an issue as long as the firearm isn't in the house.
Loomis asked if retail sales would include sample sales, such as jewelry sales or clothes
sales. Grimes stated that those types of issues would be handled on a complaint basis.
Loomis referred to Subdivision 17 (A)(9) which states that no more than 20 percent of the
gross floor area of the dwelling shall be used for the home occupation and asked how
child care would fit within that 20% rule. Grimes said that child care is a permitted use in
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission/City Council
November 24, 2003
Page 4
the Residential Zoning District. McAleese added that child care is not considered a home
occupation because it is a permitted use.
Loomis referred to Subdivision 11 (C)(4) regarding accessory buildings and asked why
there has to be ten feet of separation between a principal structure and an accessory
structure. Shaffer explained that that is a building code requirement.
Loomis referred to Subdivision 10 (A)(1)(a) regarding the narrower side of a corner lot
being considered the front of the lot and stated that there are a lot of houses where that
won't work. Grimes explained that it is usually to the advantage of the homeowner to call
the narrowest side the front.
-
Johnson stated concern about the size and the materials used on a garage that was
recently constructed on Scott Avenue and asked if there is anything that could be done
about it. Grimes stated no and explained that the garage that was built met the building
requirements. Burt suggested adding language to the code that states once an accessory
building gets to be a certain size it has to match the principal structure. Grimes said he
thought that would be a good thing to put in the code.
Loomis referred to Subdivision 3(B) regarding the rental of houses when the owner
resides on the premises and asked what the policy is if the owner does not live on the
premises. Grimes said that up to five unrelated people or one family, which is defined as
related by blood or marriage, can rent a property if the owner does not reside on the
premises. Loomis suggested defining that somewhere in the code. Barnard stated that
Subdivision 3 is a list of permitted uses so if it is not listed it is not permitted.
Johnson asked if mother-in-law apartments were going to be allowed. Grimes stated no.
e
Grimes stated that his plan is to make the changes to the code that were suggested at
this meeting and then bring it to the City Council for a public hearing.
Tremere suggested the code be put on the City's web site. Grimes agreed and said he
would work with Communications to get it on the web site.
-- Short Recess --
II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No other meetings were discussed.
III. Other Business
No other business was discussed.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm.