07-08-13 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 8, 2013
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 8, 2013. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Boudreau-Landis, Kluchka,
McCarty, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were Community Development
Director Mark Grimes, Planning Intern Brett Angell and Administrative Assistant Lisa
Wittman. Commissioner Cera was absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
June 10, 2013 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Boudreau-Landis referred to the eighth sentence in the eighth paragraph on page three
and stated that the word "be" should be changed to the word "but."
Segelbaum referred to the first sentence in the sixth paragraph on page 3 and stated that
the word "exited" should be changed to the word "excited."
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously ta
approve the minutes with the above noted corrections. Waldhauser abstained from voting.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit (CUP) — 6124 Olson
Memorial Highway — Auto Repair/Wheel Alignment in the Industrial Zoning
District— CU-134
Applicant: Jeff M. Forss DBA The Alignment Guy
Ad�ress: 6124 Olson Memorial Highway
Purpose: To allow for an Auto Repair/Wheel Alignment business in the
Industrial Zoning District.
Angell explained that the applicant is seeking approval af a Conditional Use Permit to
operate an auto repair/wheel alignment business at 6124 Olson Memorial Highway which
is zoned Industrial. He stated that the exterior of the building will not be changing and that
the applicant is not proposing to do engine repair or fluid changes. He reviewed the ten
factors that the City must consider when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit request and
said that staff is recommending approval of this request.
Segelbaum referred to the land use designation and the zoning in this area and noted
that it is the same area that the City has been considering rezoning. He asked what
changes the City has been contemplating and how this proposal fits in with plans for that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 8, 2013
Page 2
area. Angell stated that the zoning in the area is being studied, however existing uses in
the area wauld be allowed to remain even if the properties were to be rezoned.
Segelbaum asked if parking is an issue. Angell said staff feels that there is plenty of
parking available.
Waldhauser asked about the type of signage proposed. Jeff Forss, Applicant, stated that
he would just need a small sign so people can find his space. Waldhauser asked about
the hours of operation. Forss said his hours are generally 7 am to 6 pm daily and some
Saturdays.
Kluchka asked who owns the property. Forss stated that a representative is in
attendance.
McCarty asked the applicant why he chose Golden Valley. Forss said that it is the perfect
space for his business. The space is larger than his current space, it's easy to get to, it is
within his budget and there is adequate parking.
Kluchka opened the public hearing.
Colin Quinn, Colliers International, representing the owner of the property, Welsh
Partners, stated there is a large mix of tenants in this building and that the proposed use
is suitable for this type of a small bay industrial building. He noted that the applicant has a
lot of support for his business and that this building would be a long term home for the
applicant's business.
Phil (no last name or address given), said he has known the applicant for a while and he
is a technician he can trust. He said he would like to see the applicant find a place that is
stable and in a central location since his customers come from all over the Twin Cities.
Kevin McCarthy, Minneapolis, said he knows the applicant personally and professionally.
He said he is socially and community engaged and realiy goes above and beyond the
average business owner.
Dr. Charles Kim, University of Minnesota, stated that trust is a big issue and something
that is important to him and he really trusts the applicant. He said the applicant's business
is done mostly through word of mouth and through his roots in the community.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Segelbaum said he thinks the proposal satisfies the ten factors the Planning Commission
considers when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit application.
MOVED by Baker, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of a Conditional Use Permit at 6124 Olson Memorial Highway to allow for an
auto repair/wheel alignment business in the Industrial zoning district subject to the
following findings and conditions:
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 8, 2013
Page 3
Findinqs
1. The applicant has demonstrated need for the use.
2. The proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
3. There will not be a negative effect on property values in the area.
4. The traffic generated from the proposed use will not conflict with current traffic in the
area.
5. The density or population in the area will not increase due to the proposed use.
6. There will not be an increase in noise by the proposed use.
7. The proposed use will not create dust, odor or excessive vibration.
8. The proposed use will not attract animal pests.
9. The proposed use will not significantly alter the visual appearance of the existing
building.
10.No other negative effects of the proposed use are anticipated.
Conditions
1. The site plan shall become a part of this approval
2. All signage shall meet the requirements of Section 4.20 of City Code.
3. All future improvements to the building shall meet the City's Building Code
requirements.
4. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
5. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for revocation.
3. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Adding Section
11.75 "Solar Energy Systems" —ZO00-91 (Continued Item)
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To consider the addition of Section 11.75 "Solar Energy Systems" to
the Zoning Chapter of the City Code
Angell reminded the Planning Commissioners that they tabled this item at their May 13,
2013 meeting. He reviewed the changes made to the ordinance based on the discussion
from that meeting.
Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 3(A)(2) and the language regarding non-flush solar
systems not extending more than three feet above the surface of the roof and asked if
that requirement is due to safety issues. Angell said yes, it has to do with safety and wind
issues.
Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 4(F) regarding installation and asked if the term
licensed contractor means a general contractor or an electrical contractor. Angell said he
believes "licensed" means an electrician license. Grimes added that a general contractor
could install the panels but an electrician would need to do the electrical work.
Segelbaum referred to Subdivision 3(E) regarding setback requirements and stated that
five feet seems like a small setback for solar energy system that might be quite large.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 8, 2013
Page 4
Waldhauser noted that five feet is the same setback requirement for all accessory
structures. Grimes agreed and added that a solar energy system would also count
against the amount of impervious surface coverage allowed. Kluchka asked if the five foot
setback would be measured from the pole or from the outer perimeter of the system.
Grimes said it would be measured from the outer perimeter. Kluchka suggested that be
clarified to the ordinance language
Baker referred to Subdivision 3(D) regarding a maximum allowed height of 10 feet and
stated that that might be too restrictive. Angell stated that the language regarding height
follows Minneapolis's ordinance and the Minnesota Solar Challenge suggested language.
Waldhauser added that a 10-foot high pole could be screened.
Baker stated that he doesn't think iYs appropriate to count solar energy systems against
the amount of impervious surface allowed because they are not on the ground. He
suggested language be added to state that these systems are not considered to be
impervious surface because he doesn't want this ordinance to be too restrictive.
Segelbaum referred to Subdivision 3(A)(3) and asked about the definition of "rooftop
equipment." Angell stated that rooftop equipment refers to flush and non-flush mounted
systems and everything that entails.
Segelbaum questioned why screening is discussed in Subdivision 4(A) and in Subdivision
3(A)(3) and suggested the language be combined. Angell said the language in
Subdivision 3(A)(3) could be removed and that it could remain in Subdivision 4(A).
Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Baker questioned if a definition for "Solar Gardens" is needed. Kluchka questioned what
the language "grid connected subscriber" means. Segelbaum said he thinks it means that
people are sharing electricity but they are still "on the grid." Baker questioned if the
definition for "Solar Gardens" would be just as effective without using the words "grid
connected subscriber." Kluchka agreed the definition sounds confusing and suggested it
be changed. Angell said he would provide a better definition.
McCarty referred to the definition of "Non-Flush Mounted Solar Systems" and suggested
the word "pitch" be changed to the word "angle."
Boudreau-Landis referred to Subdivision 3(A)(2) which states that non-flush mounted
solar systems shall not extend more than three feet above the surface of a roof and
questioned if that is adequate for a flat-roof commercial building or if it would be too
restrictive. Angell explained that that language was modeled on St. Paul's ordinance and
the Minnesota Solar Challenge language. Waldhauser added that if the system is taller, it
would likely have to be structurally stronger and tied in to the building differently with
added expense.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 8, 2013
Page 5
McCarty asked if solar energy systems would count against the 1,000 square feet af
accessory structure space allowed on each property. Waldhauser stated that it would be
more permissive to use pervious surface requirements rather than to use accessory
structure requirements. Kluchka said he thinks using the accessory structure
requirements for solar energy systems is a good place to start. Grimes agreed that
massing and impervious surface issues could be further studied.
Segelbaum referred to Subdivision 3(C) and stated that the first use of the word energy
should be removed.
Boudreau-Landis stated the Subdivision 4(C)(2) regarding compliance is not needed
because compliance is already covered in Subdivision 4(B).
Baker questioned if anything will be lost by removing Subdivision 4(E) regarding systems
not having more than a 100 kilowatt capacity.
Boudreau-Landis stated the word "required" in Subdivision 4(G) should be removed.
McCarty said he wants consistency in the language throughout the ordinance and
suggested the following changes: delete the words "building mounted" from Subdivision
3(A), change the word "must" to "shall" in Subdivision 3(A)(5), delete the word "all" in
Subdivisian 3(D), change the word "must" to "shall" in Subdivision 3(A)(E), delete the
word "all" in Subdivision 4(B), delete the word "the" in Subdivision 4(D), reword
Subdivision 4(F) to read "Solar Energy Systems shall be installed by a licensed
contractor" and delete the words "required" and "all" from Subdivision 4(F)(G).
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimously
to recommend approval of the addition of Section 11.75 "Solar Energy Systems" to the
Zoning Chapter of the City Code with the changes discussed.
--Short Recess--
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No other meetings were discussed.
5. Other Business
• Discuss 2012 Planning Commission Annual Report
Grimes explained that the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to provide an
update about their activities during the past year. He stated that the report to the Council
could also include items of interest for future study and trends in planning and
development. Kluchka added that his intent is to bring the Commission's priorities and
issues the Commission would like highlighted to the Council.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 8, 2013
Page 6
The Commission discussed the items listed in the staff report and additional items such
as reviewing the height limits in all of the zoning districts, senior housing and it's tie-in
with transportation, affardable housing, housing variety, sections of the City Code that
need revisiting, deciding if the Mixed Use zoning district is still appropriate in the I-394
Corridor and other areas it could be applied to, the proposed Performance zoning district
language and form-based zoning.
Kluchka said he would work on the report with staff and will be presenting in to City
Council at their August Council/Manager meeting.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 pm.
--
Charles D. Segel a m, Sec