Loading...
08-30-04 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 30,2004 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall Manager's Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday August 30, 2004. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel, Commissioners Eck, Keysser, Rasmussen, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, Planning Intern, Adam Fulton and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Hackett was absent. I. Approval of Minutes August 9, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting e Waldhauser referred to the last paragraph on page three and said the word "sale" needed to be added between the words "garage and signs". MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 9, 2004 minutes with the above noted correction. II. Informal Public Hearing - Planned Unit Development Amendment - PU74-A2 Applicant: Charles Cudd, Co. Address: 4221 Woodland Trail, Hidden Lakes Purpose: To allow the applicant to expand their lot into Outlet L in order to build a deck addition. e Grimes stated that this is a request by Charles Cudd, Co. on behalf of the homeowners, Jim and Gail Ehlen. He showed a copy of the General Land Use Plan Map and pointed out the Hidden Lakes area and the location of the lot being discussed. He explained that the homeowner's would like to expand their existing deck, but due to a drafting error their existing deck was built too close to the rear yard property line. Grimes referred to a map that indicates the building envelope for each property. He explained that when the applicant originally came to the City to get a building permit to expand the deck the I nspections Department determined that the existing deck and proposed expansion is outside the approved building envelope area. In order to allow the deck expansion to go forward, the staff's first thought was to move the existing south property line into Outlot L, with the homeowner association's approval. However, staff now believes that the best way to resolve this matter is to,change the building envelope line for this one particular lot to allow the deck to be as close to 8 feet from the south property line rather than the required 10 feet, which would allow the owners to build their deck addition. Pentel referred to the survey of the lot and asked about the dashed lines. Grimes said the dashed lines indicate utility easement areas. Minutes of the Planning Commission August 30, 2004 Page 2 Grimes stated that he asked the Inspections Department how the deck was built too close to the property line to begin with. The Inspections Department said that the original plans were correct but the as-built survey of the property didn't have any decks drawn on it and when the homeowners came to them for a building permit it was noticed that their deck was only 8 feet from the property line rather than the required 10 feet. Keysser said he noticed that this townhouse does jut out further than the others. Grimes showed pictures of the townhouse and the deck and noted how it sticks out further than the others around it. He said another option would be to cut the deck off and rebuild it to meet the setback requirements. e Pentel referred to the letter from the Hidden Lakes Association giving authorization to change the property line and asked if they need to get another letter from the Association stating that it is ok to expand the building envelope instead. Grimes said he has talked to the property management company and with the applicant from Charles Cudd Co. and they are fine with idea of expanding the building envelope rather than changing the property line. Pentel asked if there was also a community organization at Hidden Lakes. Grimes said there is and that the same property management company works with them. Pentel stated that she thinks the City will be seeing a lot of these types of requests to amend the Hidden Lakes PUD Permit because the decks are wooden and in 15 to 20 years they are going to need to be replaced and people will want to make their decks bigger. Keysser said he wants to be sure that there is no precedence being set if this request is approved. Grimes said the only other option is to make the applicant re-plat the property. He added that the all of existing decks on these townhouses are all the same size, this one just e happens, in error, to be closer to the property line. Rasmussen asked if it is important where the building envelope is located on the lot and suggested sliding the building envelope three feet toward the front and expanding it by three feet in the rear. Pentel said the Hidden Lakes Development has tighter setbacks than anywhere else in the City and that setbacks were negotiated with the City to maintain open space. Grimes said that one of the things Hidden Lakes gave up as part of this PUD is that all of these homes have to have fire suppression systems which the building code does not require. Pentel asked if this request was not part of PUD if it would have to go the Board of Zoning Appeals and show a hardship. She stated that neighbors are notified of Board of Zoning Appeals meetings and asked if neighbors were notified in this situation. Grimes said yes, if this request was not part of a PUD it would have to go the Board of Zoning Appeals, but that applicants don't need to .show a hardship in a PUD amendment. He added that more neighbors were notified for this public hearing than would have been for a Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Minutes of the Planning Commission August 30, 2004 Page 3 Pentel said that this is something that happened at the time the deck was built, so if a neighbor comes to the City with the same request in the future she thinks it will be clear that the City can justify that the first amendment to allow for a deck addition was because of an error during the building process. Keysser said he thinks the minutes of this meeting will reflect the Commissioner's concerns. Dr. Jim Ehlen, Property Owner, stated that he didn't have anything to add to Grimes' presentation. Pentel asked the applicant if they purchased their home before it was built. Ehlen stated that the home was already built when they moved in 15 months ago. He clarified that there is a community organization at Hidden Lakes and that they see this request as a reasonable way to correct this problem and not as setting precedent. e Pentel opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the public hearing. Pentel said that when she was on the Board of Zoning Appeals they looked very unfavorably upon these types of requests, however, they did make some attempt to work with people when there was a survey error. She said she is also concerned about setting a precedent and she hopes it is clear to the City Council that the Planning Commission is not setting a precedent but sees this as a one time thing. She added that Commissioner Rasmussen's suggestion regarding shifting the building envelope is intriguing. Pentel asked Grimes if decks are typically shown on surveys. Grimes said the decks should have been shown on the survey and that he didn't know how this mistake occurred. Pentel said she would like the applicant to submit a new survey showing the e location of all of the decks. Grimes said he didn't think that would be a problem. MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to allow the applicant to move the building envelope two feet to the south. -- Short Recess-- III. Discuss additions to the Single Family Zoning District related to the Outdoor Storage of Recreational Vehicles & Boats and Driveway Requirements. Grimes reminded the Planning Commission that the last time they reviewed the proposed ordinance text changes relating to outdoor storage they asked staff to add their suggestions and bring it back to them for another review before they have a public hearing. Grimes stated that one change that was made is to allow one recreational vehicle in the front yard and any number in the rear yard as long as they follow rear yard setback requirements. Pentel asked about the size of accessory structures. Grimes said they can be any size, but that property owners are only allowed a total of 1 ,000 square feet of accessory structure space on their property. Minutes of the Planning Commission August 30, 2004 Page 4 Rasmussen referred to Subdivision 16 (C)(2) and suggested taking out the words "to the rear of the rear yard". Fulton stated that the language in that subdivision is referring to side yards and that setback requirement for the portion of the side yard along side of a house is three feet, but after the rear yard property line starts, the side yard property line is 5 feet. Pentel suggested using the words "rear of the primary structure" or attached garage" . Pentel said that if recreational vehicles are going to be stored in rear yards that the City should require some type of screening. Fulton said that the new fence ordinance speaks to that issue and that a fence would need to be about 10 feet high to screen some types of recreational vehicles. Waldhauser stated that a six foot high fence would still provide screening. e Pentel said that aside from the fence ordinance she doesn't think they can say all outdoor storage needs to be screened. Fulton said he could add text to the ordinance regarding screening in rear yards. Eck stated that they took away the reference regarding the length of recreational vehicles and asked about houses that are setback further than the required 35 foot front yard setback. Grimes said that a person could have a 40 foot long motor home stored in the front yard on a driveway if they wanted to so long as it is out of the right-of-way. Eck asked if a large motor home is considered a "recreational camping vehicle". Fulton said that is how the current ordinance reads. Grimes read the current definition of "recreational camping vehicles". e Pentel said she likes the fact that the campers that go on pick up trucks are required to be on a trailer and not on braces or 2" x 4"s. Grimes said that if it is not on the trailer it would be considered an accessory building. Waldhauser asked about truck toppers or covers. Grimes said that most of those are part of an actual truck and not just used recreationally. Eck asked if a fish house could be stored on the ground in a front yard. Grimes said homeowners could store one fish house on a paved surface in their front yard. Eck referred to the driveway requirements and asked if it meant that up until this coming January he could build a gravel driveway. Grimes said yes. Schmidgall stated that he thinks this new proposed front yard storage ordinance is only addressing about 10% of the problem and that there is also a concern about toys and cars and junk. He said he thinks the City should come down hard on all of the issues regarding storage in the front yard or they shouldn't change the way that things are being done right now. Fulton stated that he is also working on a housing maintenance code that addresses some of the other issues. Grimes added that the Council is trying to take steps regarding this issue. Minutes of the Planning Commission August 30, 2004 Page 5 Eck asked if operable motor vehicles are parked in a front yard if they have to be on a driveway or paved surface. Fulton stated no and explained that cars that are currently licensed and operable can park anywhere on a property. Pentel suggested that the text be worded to say all vehicles shall be parked on a paved surface. Fulton stated that Chapter 9 of the City Code covers parking issues. e Grimes stated that staff would make the suggested changes and set a public hearing for a future Planning Commission meeting. III. Discuss an addition to the Zoning Code regarding fences. Fulton discussed the proposed new fence ordinance. He said originally the ordinance would not allow for any variances, but that the Council has said they would like to see a variance process for fences. He explained that the new ordinance would allow six foot high fences in rear yards and four foot high fences in front yards in the Single Family R-1 Zoning District. Commercial and Light Industrial properties would be allowed to have 10 foot high fences and the ordinance does not allow barbed or electric fences. Pentel said she is concerned about odd shaped lots anti what side of the property is considered the front side. She said she thinks taller fences are called for along busy streets. Fulton suggested maybe looking at certain exceptions for certain areas. Grimes suggested using the words "arterial" or "minor arterial" streets rather than calling out specific street names. Waldhauser asked if there is anything the City can do to encourage "green" screening. Grimes stated that the fence material is the homeowner's decision and suggested putting an article in the City newsletter regarding fences and the maintenance of fences. e Pentel referred to Subdivision 4 regarding exceptions and suggesting adding an exception about allowing higher fences in certain areas. IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. V. Other Business A. Discuss rescheduling the September 18 Planning Commission meeting to September 20. Waldhauser said she had a conflict on September 20 and would not be able to attend a meeting that evening. The other Commissioners agreed to reschedule the September 18 meeting to September 20. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm.