Loading...
09-27-04 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 27, 2004 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 27, 2004. Vice Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Commissioners Eck, Hackett, Keysser, Rasmussen, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Intern, Adam Fulton and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. e I. Approval of Minutes August 30, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting Rasmussen referred to paragraph six on page two and clarified that her suggestion was to move the building envelope three feet toward the "rear" yard property line rather than toward the "front" yard property line as was written. MOVED by ECk, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 30, 2004 minutes with the above noted correction. II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to Section 11.21 of the Zoning Code - related to the Outdoor Storage of Recreational Vehicles & Boats and Driveway Requirements in the R-1 Single Family Zoning District Applicant: The City of Golden Valley Purpose: To establish outdoor storage and driveway requirements in the R-1 section of the Zoning Code. e Fulton highlighted some of the proposed revisions to the R-1 Single Family Zoning District, regarding outdoor storage such as permitting storage of only one recreational vehicle, boat, fish house or trailer in front yards. He stated that any number of these items can be stored in back yards, but they must be screened and can be located no closer than five feet to the property line. He suggested the Planning Commissioners discuss the language in Subdivision 16(C) regarding screening requirements and how to address chain link fences and whether or not they provide the desired amount of screening. He added that a provision calling for a 30 day restriction for storing all other items in front yards (such as truck toppers, etc.) was also added to this revision. Fulton referred to Subdivision 17 and discussed some of the major points regarding the proposed driveway requirements such as driveway coverage not exceeding 50% of the front yard and being constructed of concrete, bituminous pavement, or brick, concrete, or cement pavers. Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 17(C) regarding materials that can be used in constructing driveways and asked if it would include "turf block" Fulton said yes, turf block would be considered a permitted material and that they are typically classified as pavers. Minutes of the Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 2 Rasmussen referred to Subdivision 16 (C) regarding outdoor storage in side and rear yards and asked if that relates to the proposed new language in Section 11.72 regarding fences. Fulton said yes. Eck referred to Section 11.72 "Fences" Subdivision 3(A) regarding the requirements for fences in the Residential Zoning District and said it doesn't track with the rest of language in that subdivision because it only gives the height requirements for fences in the R-1 district. The language for the other zoning districts provides information regarding screening, height and permitted materials. He added that the language needs to be cleaned up because technically the way it is written, storage in residential rear yards doesn't need to be screened. e Fulton referred to Section 11.21, Subdivision 16(C) in the R-1 zoning district regarding outdoor storage and noted that it does say that there has to be screening for any storage of a recreational camping vehicle, fish house, trailer, boat, or personal motorized recreational vehicle stored in the side or rear yard using either vegetative screening or a fence in accordance with Section 11.72. Eck said that the language used in the fence ordinance regarding the regulations for residential property is left vague and confusing. Fulton stated that language could be added to the fence ordinance that explains the screening requirements of outdoor storage in the Residential Zoning District. Hackett referred to Subdivision 17 "Driveway Requirements" and said that he would not consider turf block to be a cement or concrete paver. He suggested adding language specifically permitting turf block. Fulton said he would add language to the driveway requirements permitting the use of turf block, grass pavers, or the like. e Keysser opened the public hearing. Dwayne Kloos, 8345 Duluth Street, stated that he served on the Community Standards Task Force in 1994 and thanked the Planning Commission for presenting the code changes being proposed. He said that they are roughly in line with what was discussed on the Task Force. He added that he is pleased that the language regarding the maximum length of a recreational vehicle has been removed and he finds this proposal very acceptable. Keysser closed the public hearing. Eck stated that there would in fact be a limitation on a recreational vehicle's length in effect because the ordinance states that they can only be parked behind the front property line. Kloos agreed and said he fully understands that. MOVED by Hackett, seconded by Eckand motion carried unanimously to approve the amendment to Section 11.21 "Single Family Residential" regarding outdoor storage and driveway requirements with the following additions: e e Minutes of the Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 3 1) Language to be added regarding the use of turf block, grass pavers, or the like. 2) Language to be added clarifying screening requirements in the R-1 Zoning District. III. Informal Public Hearing - Addition of new Section 11.72 to the Zoning Code - related to fences in all Zoning Districts Applicant: The City of Golden Valley Purpose: To establish requirements for fences throughout the City. Fulton reviewed the major issues regarding the proposed fence requirements such as: height, screening, requiring the nice side of fences to face the neighboring property, ensuring fences are kept in good condition and requiring that homeowners follow the corner visibility ordinance. He stated that electrified and barbed wire fencing are prohibited except in Industrial zoning districts, and that homeowners are allowed to request variances from the fence ordinance. Waldhauser asked if the City currently has requirements in the R-1 Zoning District regarding the screening of mechanical equipment. Fulton said there is a policy regarding the screening of mechanical equipment, but there is nothing currently in the Zoning Code regulating the screening of mechanical equipment in the R-1 Zoning District. Waldhauser asked if language should be added regarding the screening of mechanical equipment. Fulton said he would add language regarding the screening of outdoor storage and mechanical equipment by a wall, fence or vegetation of certain opacity. Waldhauser suggested 50% opacity because that would allow for lattice fences. Keysser asked if the City would want to impose the new fence requirements retroactively in regard to the use and opacity of chain link fences. Rasmussen said she thought that was the intent of this new ordinance and that the fence requirements should be looked at retroactively because if a neighbor makes a complaint, the City can then expect the homeowner to come into compliance by adding more screening. Keysser said he is a little reluctant to force a homeowner to replace an existing chain link fence that has been in their yard for years and years just because a neighbor complains as a result of this new ordinance. Schmidgall said he thinks enforcing the fence ordinance is similar to enforcing the new outdoor storage requirements. Fulton reminded the Commissioners that this ordinance would be enforced on a complaint basis and that the City would not proactively require chain link fences to be replaced. Eck suggested enforcing the opacity requirements of fences by a certain date, similar to the proposed driveway requirements. Keysser suggested that new fences be required to follow the opacity requirements but that existing fences be "grandfathered in" and that it seems like a burden on homeowners to make them have to replace their existing chain link fences or put it new trees for screening. Rasmussen said the City should be careful about "grandfathering in" fences because it would go with the property and as houses change hands, fences could be there forever. Minutes of the Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 4 Waldhauser said that she thinks screening is more important in rear yards than in side yards. She added that chain link fences aren't used for screening they are put in for security. Hackett stated that he thinks the point of having this fence ordinance is to help solve neighbor disputes regarding the storage of unsightly objects and the way solve the problem is to screen it. e Fulton stated that there is a provision regarding the replacement of fences if they are in disrepair and suggested adding language saying that a fence or screening would have to screen 75% of the object being stored in the back yard. Keysser referred to some of the larger recreational vehicles and said that they would then require a nine foot high fence. Waldhauser said she likes the six foot height limit even if it doesn't screen the entire object. Keysser opened the public hearing. Dwayne Kloos, 8345 Duluth Street, stated that the fencing requirements may be creating a bigger wart by trying to get rid of a wart. He said that having a fence ordinance might encourage people to build fences and store their stuff in their yards year round. He said he has a neighbor who built a wood shed right in the open grassy area of all their backyards and asked if there is really a difference between a shed and a canoe being stored in a back yard. At the present time, a 10 feet fence would be allowed. Fulton stated that it is unusual amongst other cities that Golden Valley doesn't have a fence ordinance and there is a danger in only having a policy regarding fences instead of an ordinance. e Keysser closed the public hearing. Waldhauser referred to the proposed language regarding tennis and basketball court fencing and asked about the one foot strip of landscaping requirement. Fulton explained that the one foot strip is the standard amount of landscaping next to tennis and basketball court fences. Hackett added that the one foot may only be grass. Schmidgall said he thought it could be a maintenance strip. Waldhauser stated it basically accomplishes not having a 10 foot high fence right on a property line. Rasmussen asked about fence requirements in regard to pools. Fulton said that pool requirements are addressed in a different ordinance. Eck referred to the thousands of air conditioning units located in side yards and asked if it is going to be a requirement that they need to be screened. Waldhauser suggested adding language to the fence ordinance that says all mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the street, because that is the current city policy. Minutes of the Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 5 MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Hackett and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed new Section 11.72 relating to fences in all Zoning Districts with the following additions: 1) Add item number 2 to Subdivision 3(A) that states outdoor storage in rear and side yards in the R-1 Single Family Zoning District must include screening or fencing of up to 6 feet in height and at least 50% opacity. 2) Mechanical equipment located in side yards in the Single Family Zoning District must be screened from view from the street. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Revision to Section 11.90 "Administration" of the Zoning Code Applicant: The City of Golden Valley e To correct the language in the Zoning Code to state that the Director of Planning and Development administers Chapter 11, Land Use Regulations Fulton explained that the proposed revision to Section 11.90 "Administration" would change the language in order to have the Director of Planning and Development, rather than the Director of Public Works enforce the Zoning Code. Purpose: MOVED by Eck, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to revise Section 11.90 "Administration" of the Zoning Code. -- Short Recess - e Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Waldhauser reported on the September 21,2004 City Council meeting where the Council approved the Hidden Lakes PUD Amendment request which will allow for a building envelope to be moved, so that a deck addition can be constructed. V. VI. Other Business A. Election of Chair and Secretary. Rasmussen nominated Eck for the position of Secretary. Eck accepted the nomination. Rasmussen nominated Keysser for the position of Chair. Keysser accepted the nomination. Eck nominated Rasmussen for the position of Vice Chair. Rasmussen respectfully declined the nomination. Waldhauser volunteered to be the Vice Chair. -- e Minutes of the Planning Commission September 27, 2004 Page 6 The Planning Commissioners voted unanimously to appoint Keysser as Chair, Waldhauser as Vice Chair and Eck as Secretary. VII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm.