Loading...
06-08-15 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 8, 2015 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, June 8, 2015. Chair Cera called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Cera, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes May 27, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 27, 2015, as submitted. Commissioners Cera and Kluchka abstained. 2.Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Code Text Amendment – Mobile Food Vending – ZO00-100 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider adding language in the Zoning Code regarding mobile food vending (food trucks). Goellner stated that food trucks are a growing trend in the Twin Cities and with the recently approved Zoning Code text amendments regarding breweries it is a good time to consider allowing mobile food vending as they are a common partner for taprooms. She stated that the City’s Parks and Recreation Department currently issues permits to food vendors wishing to locate in the City’s parks. She added that five permits were issued in 2014 and one permit has been issued so far in 2015. The permits cost $40 per day and are granted for a maximum of three days. She explained that staff is recommending the permits issued through the Planning Division would be for a maximum of seven days rather than the three days allowed by Parks and Recreation. Kluchka noted that the underlined/overstruck Zoning Code language in the agenda packet states that permits would be granted for a maximum of three days. Goellner said she would change the language to allow a maximum of seven days for the permits issues through the Planning department and keep the three day requirement for the Parks and Recreation permit. Goellner referred to the potential impact of mobile vendors and stated that staff is recommending the following: mobile food vendors must obtain a license either from Hennepin County or the State of Minnesota, the hours of operation are 8 am to 10 pm unless otherwise limited or extended by the City, the removal of trash is required, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 8, 2015 Page 2 mobile food vendors would only be allowed to park on an impervious surface, no parking is allowed on sidewalks, driveways, or streets, no overnight parking is allowed, mobile food vendors are not allowed to use parking spaces that are needed to meet the minimum parking requirement, and permission from the property owner is required. She added that staff is also recommending that mobile food vendors be located more than 100 feet from another food-serving establishment (with the exception of other mobile food vendors) and more than 1,000 feet from schools while they are in session unless permission is granted by the school principal. Kluchka noted that the language allowing other mobile food vendors to be located within 100 feet from another food-serving establishment needs to be added to Subdivision 3(A)(10). Goellner agreed. Segelbaum suggested discussing the definition of eating establishments. Cera asked about creating one ordinance instead of having one for the Parks and Recreation Department and one for Planning. Goellner said there is a difference in staff expertise. The Parks and Recreation Department are experts in the operations and use of the parks and Planning has more expertise in the other zoning districts and land uses. Cera asked why seven is the suggested maximum amount of days for a food vendor license rather than three like the Parks Department allows. Goellner stated that it could become a heavy administrative commitment if a new permit has to be issued every day for three days. Cera asked if Minneapolis charges a seasonal fee. Goellner said Minneapolis requires mobile food vendors to have a brick and mortar, commercial kitchen in Minneapolis. Cera suggested that Golden Valley offer seasonal licenses. Kluchka agreed and said it would encourage trucks to come back. Goellner said she would do more research regarding seasonal licenses. Baker asked if a permit would be revocable. Goellner said yes. Baker said if the code is defining where mobile food vendors can park, he doesn’t see the sense is calling out impervious surface requirements in the ordinance because there might be circumstances where an unpaved parking area might be the only place for them to park. He said he thinks that could be addressed in the permit application. Waldhauser said the City probably doesn’t want food trucks parking on the only grassy landscaped area on a property. Baker said it is not clear in the ordinance language if the mobile food vendor would have to provide written permission from the property owner before they are issued a permit. Goellner stated the staff would get the property owner’s permission as part of the permit application review process. Waldhauser referred to the language in the Parks and Recreation application regarding events held by a recognized Golden Valley neighborhood group. Goellner noted that that language only pertains to the Parks and Recreation permit. The Commissioners Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 8, 2015 Page 3 discussed the differences in food trucks versus private catering trucks and suggested the mobile food vending license specify that catering trucks provide food only for the people at a private party, and not for the public. Segelbaum said he would like a provision added to allow mobile food vendors to park during a business’s off hours. Goellner said she would add language allowing the applicant and property owner to demonstrate that they won’t need their required number of parking spaces. Kluchka asked how commercially zoned properties are currently allowing food trucks. Goellner said they are allowing them without a permit. Baker said he wants food trucks to come to Golden Valley and he doesn’t want to be over-regulatory. Waldhauser questioned the costs and said she doesn’t want to put any local restaurants out of business. Johnson asked for clarification on where a food truck would be able to park. Goellner explained that an applicant would have to demonstrate on a site plan where they will be parking as part of the application process. Kluchka asked if food trucks will be able to serve beer and wine. Goellner said that is permitted only at Brookview Park. Blum said he would like the language in the code and the application to be clear that food truck hours would be extended until 2 am for food trucks located at taprooms. Segelbaum asked about the motivation of Subdivision 2(B) regarding events located in the public right-of-way. Goellner explained that that language is already in the Code pertaining to temporary uses, she is just proposing it be moved to this location. Johnson referred to the Parks and Recreation permit application and asked if there is supposed to be a privacy notice on the application if credit card information is required. Goellner said she would further research that. Baker noted that the staff report states that schools would need to get permission from their superintendent, but that the ordinance language states that they would need permission from the school principal. Goellner clarified that staff is recommending permission be obtained from the school principal. Johnson suggested language be added stating that trash must also be removed from the property. Goellner agreed. Cera suggested language also be added about requiring recycling receptacles. Cera opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Cera closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 8, 2015 Page 4 Baker asked if a permit would have to be renewed every day for up to seven days. Goellner said no, a permit would be issues for a seven day period. Baker asked if a vendor will be able to renew their permit. Goellner said yes. Baker said this is the kind of activity that will encourage business in Golden Valley and he wants vendors to be able to renew their permit for as long as they want. Segelbaum said he thinks issuing a permit for seven days makes sense. Kluchka suggested that the code language say seven “consecutive” days. He said he would also like to allow seasonal permits. Cera stated that the section of code is titled “temporary uses” and questioned if a seasonal permit would really mean “temporary.” Waldhauser added that food trucks would be operated year-round. Segelbaum said he is less inclined to offer seasonal permits because they could impact existing restaurants more than they realize. He said if seasonal permits are allowed he would want food trucks to be located further away from restaurants than currently proposed. Cera asked about the differences in the state license versus the county license. Goellner stated that if someone has state license they don’t need a county license. Kluchka asked if a liquor license could be granted for a non-park property. Goellner said she doesn’t think the City’s liquor laws would allow that. Johnson questioned if there needs to be more discussion about competition and which zoning districts mobile food vendors would be allowed in. Waldhauser asked if private company events would be handled differently. Kluchka said he would welcome competition. Segelbaum reiterated that he thinks mobile food vendors should be required to be further than 100 feet away from a restaurant. Baker asked Goellner if she did any analysis of different buffer areas. Goellner said she did and said requiring 500 feet would be limiting. She said she would do some further analysis before this item goes to the City Council. Kluchka said he is comfortable with the 100 foot requirement. Johnson said he’d like there to be a larger distance between restaurants and mobile food vendors. Segelbaum said he thinks 200 feet would provide a balance. Segelbaum asked if eating establishment should be defined. Waldhauser suggested that the language say “public” eating establishment. Segelbaum asked if the language regarding where mobile food vendors need to park has to say asphalt or concrete, or if it could say impervious surface instead. Baker said he thinks that would be up to the person issuing the permit. Johnson referred to the Parks and Recreation policy regarding special events and stated that basing the fee on 20% of gross revenue seems high. Segelbaum asked if the language in the Code should be restricted to only food. Goellner stated that a mobile food vendor wouldn’t be able to sell anything they don’t have a license to sell. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 8, 2015 Page 5 Kluchka asked where the residential requirements are articulated. Goellner stated that mobile food vendors won’t be allowed in residential zoning districts. Kluchka noted that the Parks and Recreation policy talks about neighborhood groups. Waldhauser clarified that the neighborhood group language in the park policy is referring to events held in a park. Baker said it is important that the two policies be reconciled. Waldhauser asked about catering a private party in a residential area. Cera stated that catering trucks would not be considered mobile food vendors because mobile food vendors serve food to the public. Kluchka asked the Commissioners if they think mobile food vendors should be allowed in residential areas. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to not allow mobile vendors in residential areas at this time. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Code amendment regarding mobile food vendors with the amendments discussed. 3. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Code Text Amendment – Distilleries – ZO00-101 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose:To consider adding language in the Zoning Code regarding distilleries. Goellner stated that craft distilleries and cocktail rooms are a growing trend and many communities are starting to allow them. She stated that staff is proposing language similar to the recently adopted brewery ordinance. She discussed the distilling process and the definitions of a distillery, a micro-distillery and a cocktail room. She referred to the state statutes regarding cocktail rooms and stated that there are limits of the amount of alcohol that can be served. The amount may not exceed .5 ounces per variety per person and no more than 1.5 ounces may be samples by any person on any day. Goellner stated that staff is proposing that distilleries be a permitted use in the Industrial zoning district only and that micro-distilleries be a permitted use in the Light Industrial and Industrial zoning districts, and a conditional use in the Mixed-Use zoning district. She stated that staff is also proposing that cocktail rooms smaller than 50% of the floor area be permitted uses in the Light Industrial and Industrial zoning districts and conditional uses in the Mixed-Use zoning district. Cocktail rooms that are larger than 50% of the floor area would be conditional uses in the Light Industrial, Industrial, and Mixed-Use zoning districts. She added that a cocktail room would require parking similar to that of a Class III restaurant so staff is recommending 1 space per 60 square feet plus 1 space per 25 square feet of bar area. Waldhauser questioned why micro-distilleries would be allowed in the Mixed-Use zoning district at all. Goellner said she thinks they could be a good economic development tool. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 8, 2015 Page 6 Baker stated that brewpubs and taprooms don’t limit consumption and questioned why consumption is limited for craft distilleries and cocktail rooms. Goellner said she is not sure why the state limits consumption. Blum referred to the state statute and said the way he reads it is that the amount of consumption is limited if there is just a micro-distillery without a cocktail room, but if there is a cocktail room the amount is not limited. Segelbaum said he believes there are also requirements about micro-distilleries selling bottles of liquor. Goellner agreed and explained the on-sale and off-sale rules. She clarified that Blum was correct in that there are no consumption limits for cocktail rooms in state statute. Segelbaum referred to the proposed definition of cocktail room and stated that “micro- distillery” should be added to the definition as well. Baker stated that everywhere in the ordinance where the word distillery is used, the word micro-distillery should be added. Goellner said she would have the City Attorney review the proposed ordinance before it goes to the City Council. Segelbaum asked Goellner if she has a sense of the size of a distillery and a micro- distillery. Goellner said staff used the same language in regard to the size of a cocktail room that was used in the brewery/taproom ordinance language. Cera opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Cera closed the public hearing. Blum said they may never come up with a perfect number regarding the size of the cocktail room but he wants to encourage investment in Golden Valley and make it easier for business to invest in this type of facility. Johnson stated that there are a lot of things that go into a cocktail that aren’t distilled spirits and that is where the competition will come in. Baker said micro-distilleries would only able to sell what they produce so they wouldn’t be able to sell mixed cocktails with alcohol products they don’t make. Goellner clarified that the state statute is what limits what distilleries are allowed to sell. Blum stated that since the proposed ordinance will incorporate the state statute by reference the City doesn’t need to have the conversation about what distilleries are allowed to sell. Baker referred to the uses that are permitted versus the ones that are conditional and questioned why all the uses couldn’t be conditional, then the language regarding 50% of the floor space being used for a cocktail room wouldn’t need to be in the ordinance at all because it could be added as a condition of approval. Blum agreed and asked about the rationale of limiting the floor space of a cocktail room. Goellner stated that if there were a really large distillery it could be more impactful on an area. Blum referred to proposed definition number 21.5 (cocktail room) and suggested that the language regarding state statute also be added to the end of definition number 31.5 (distillery). Minutes of the Go9den Valley Planning Commission June 8, 201� Page 7 Baker asked if the proper metric to determine parking is floor space as proposed, or if it should be based on seating. Goellner said it is easier to measure the floor area. She stated that if 1 space per 60 square feet of floor area isn't enough, or is too much, the code language could be amended in the future. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Code amendment regarding distilleries and cocktail rooms with the amendments discussed. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Baker reported on the final Bottineau station area planning open house held on June 4 at the Harrison Community Center. Goellner stated that staff will be bringing the station area plans to the Commission for review soon. 5. Other Business Council Liaison Report Council Member Schmidgall gave the Commission an update on some of the current projects in the City and thanked them for their work. Baker asked for an update on the Comprehensive Plan process. Goellner stated that staff is starting to do the scope of work. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 pm. � r John KI ka, Secretary Li Wittman, Administrative Assistant