Loading...
05-22-17 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 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, May 22, 2017. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Community Development Intern Kayla Grover. Commissioner Blenker was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes April 24, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Waldhauser referred to the third paragraph of the second page and asked that her comment on some cities having successfully banned outdoor storage be struck, stating that it was not relevant to the discussion that followed. Blum referred to the second-to-last paragraph of the second page and asked that his comment referencing a "neighbor's window" be revised to say "neighbor's lot line". MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 24, 2017 Regular meeting minutes with the revisions discussed. 2. Continued Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Code Text Amendment— Mobile Food Vending in Residential Zoning Districts Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider allowing mobile food vending in Residential Zoning Districts Goellner presented on the proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment to allow mobile food vending in residential districts with a permit, including the feedback from the previous Planning Commission discussion that had been incorporated in the new recommendations. Goellner stated that staff had received inquiries from residents who wanted to host a graduation or wedding reception at their home and hire a food truck for the event. At the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Amendment had been updated to include a ten foot distance required between food trucks and all structures for fire safety, to allow parking of food trucks on the street if service windows face the curb and it does not block traffic, to prohibit sales to the general public in residential areas except in cases where the street was closed for Special Events, to impose a six hour time limit on food truck sales, and to limit the permits issued for mobile food vending in residential districts to two per applicant per year. Applicants would also be given educational materials and encouraged to inform their neighbors ahead of time about the event to limit complaints. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 Page 2 Goellner revisited the regulations presented at the previous meeting, stating that mobile food vending in residential districts must occur between eight a.m. and ten p.m., a permit is for one truck and one day and would not include a liquor license, trash removal is required, the food truck cannot park overnight, and it cannot create a parking shortage. Goellner said that the persons involved must follow the existing noise ordinance, although she noted that there have been no noise complaints about food trucks in the districts where they are currently permitted. Commissioner Baker expressed that he was concerned about the need to close streets for special events. He stated that people may wish to have a food truck for an athletic event in a park which would vend to the general public and asked if the streets would be required to be closed for that. Goellner clarified that the Parks Department handles all permits for mobile food vending in parks and that the text amendment in question applies only to private events in residential districts, so the decision of whether or not to close the streets for an event in a park would be made by the Parks Department. Johnson asked about the possibility of there being multiple food trucks on the same street at the same time and wanted to know if there was a limit to how many mobile food vending permits could be issued on one street simultaneously. Goellner replied that she did not anticipate that being a problem because the permit could be denied by staff if there was insufficient space. Johnson brought up the forty dollar permit fee, wanting to know how that rate was determined. Goellner replied that it covers the administrative costs of processing the permit. Goellner stated that forty dollars was the rate that had been set as an introductory rate, but that it could be revised at a later time by City Council if it was found to be too high. Waldhauser asked whether the homeowner or the vendor pays the permit fee. Goellner said it would depend on the situation, but typically the vendor would pay the fee. Baker asked for clarification on who fills out the application. Goellner said it would typically be the vendor but that the homeowner has to sign, so both parties are part of the process. Referring to paragraph 17, Segelbaum said he was confused about the difference « „ « „ �� �, between the terms applicant , property owner , and vendor since they did not seem to be used consistently. Goellner clarified that the application could be filed by either the property owner or the vendor, so "applicant" was used when referencing the permit application process but could refer to either the property owner or the vendor, whereas "property owner" and "vendor" refer to those persons specifically. Segelbaum asked staff to take another look at how those words are used. Referring to item four, page four Segelbaum raised concern about the language that seemed to restrict vendors to only having one permit at a time. He said that might prevent vendors from having events on consecutive days. Zimmerman said that staff would take another look at that section and think about why it was written that way. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 Page 3 John Levy, president of the Minnesota Food Truck Association, introduced himself and said that he was there both to offer feedback and to answer questions the Commission might have about the food truck industry. He stated that he did not think the ban on "sales to the general public" was necessary and recommended eliminating or expanding the six hour time limit on food truck sales. He explained that people may often plan an event where they want the food truck to serve both lunch and dinner and that a six hour time limit would prevent that. He said he was unaware of any instances where food trucks being at a residence for long periods of time had caused any problems. He also questioned why there was a limit of finro permits per year. He stated that he thought there should be no limit on the number of trucks allowed on a street at one time since, in his experience, he said he has found that food trucks operate best when there is more than one food truck present. Levy brought up Johnson's concern about the permit price and said that he agreed it seemed too high to him because the margins for a food truck serving just one meal are slim. Waldhauser asked what a typical price for a permit is, in Levy's experience, and Levy replied that he did not know. Waldhauser mentioned that it was likely the property owner who was hosting the party would pay the fee, in which case the cost would not affect the vendors. Kluchka mentioned that the permit price is comparable to the price of the permits food trucks must receive from the Health Department. Segelbaum wanted to know if, in the case of a long event, a food truck would ever need to hook up to the electrical system. Levy stated that food trucks typically run off a generator and would not need to plug into an additional source of electricity. Segelbaum asked Levy if anything in the proposed text amendment stood out to him. Levy stated that nothing stood out to him, but that he was not familiar with the typical language of codes. Levy recommended adding the option of a seasonal permit for vendors, noting that many other cities provide that option. Seeing no one else come forward, the public hearing was closed. Segelbaum asked if there was a limit to the number of food trucks in non-residential areas. Goellner said there was no formal limit, but that available space would be analyzed before approval and that permits could be denied by staff if there was insufficient space. Waldhauser wanted to know why two food trucks at a residential event would be a problem, provided there was room on the street. She agreed with Mr. Levy that she thought more than one food truck would be more fun provided there were enough people and enough space. Zimmerman stated that the limit on number of food trucks applied to private events and that a special event could have more. Segelbaum asked where the recommendation for the limit on permits came from. Goellner confirmed that it was from the Planning Commission. Baker stated that the limit was imposed because there was concern that an unlimited amount of permits could Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 Page 4 encourage a party house situation. Kluchka proposed that if more trucks were desired, neighbors could collaborate with each other and that neighbors could apply for the permits for additional food trucks, which would not require a special event permit. Waldhauser agreed that a limit on permits was a good measure which would prevent frequent parties that might disturb neighbors. Mr. Levy stated that he thought this was a bad idea that could create logistical problems. He recommended simply allowing multiple food trucks and said that he has not heard of any problems created by frequent food truck events. Baker asked if staff had the ability to deny a permit if the applicant applied too frequently. Goellner said that, without a formal limit, they could only deny a permit if there had been complaints or prior violations of City Code. Johnson recommended not having a limit on number of trucks because the noise ordinance would regulate disturbances. Segelbaum speculated that the limit on number of food trucks might create long waits for food. Waldhauser pointed out that for an open-house type situation, as was likely to happen in residential districts, she did not imagine that being a problem. Baker recommended not being overly restrictive unless problems arise. Johnson agreed that the noise ordinance could always be used to control disturbances, and permits could always be denied if there were complaints. He said he would eliminate the limit entirely. Waldhauser said the size of the host's property might self-impose a limit. Zimmerman noted that current language does not actually specify that the food truck must be parked adjacent to the host's property. Segelbaum asked that the language be updated to require the food truck to park adjacent to the host's property. Blum asked for clarification about whether the limit was on number of trucks per event or number of events per year. Zimmerman clarified that there were two limits, one permit per truck per property and two permits permitted per year per property. He said that, while it had not been intended that way, the language could potentially allow hosts to have either two events per year with one truck or one event per year with two trucks. Kluchka asked what flexibility could be allowed for larger neighborhood events. Zimmerman pointed out that a special event permit could allow a larger event. Kluchka requested that a reference be added to special event permits in the text amendment to allow greater flexibility for neighborhood events. Segelbaum reviewed what had been discussed so far. He stated that they had agreed to clarify the definitions of "vendor" and "applicant", to correct item seventeen, and to state that there is an exception to certain regulations for special event permits. Zimmerman added that they had also decided to restrict parking to the host's property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 Page 5 Baker raised the question of seasonal permits. Goellner clarified that seasonal permits were permitted in other zoning districts of the city, but were not permitted in residential zoning districts. Johnson brought up the six hour time limit. Blum asked why six hours had been selected, and Goellner answered that it had been suggested by the Planning Commission. Baker brought up the possibility of a two-meal event that might take longer. Kluchka wondered if allowing an exception to the time limit could be granted for a special event permit, and Zimmerman confirmed that was the case. Waldhauser recommended dropping the time limit altogether since it was limited to between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. by the noise ordinance anyway. However, Kluchka pointed out that neighbors might object to an all-day event. Johnson wanted to know if there was a way to track how long the food trucks were parked. Goellner stated that they gather that information when the applicant applies for a permit. Blum brought up the penalty for violations, which is the suspension from mobile food vending permits for thirty days. He stated that since many private events are likely to be annual events, thirty days seemed like a penalty with no teeth. He recommended 13 months as a more appropriate penalty. Segelbaum pointed out that thirteen months might be very significant to the vendor, but that it seemed appropriate for the property owner. He recommended the language say "not exceeding thirteen months" to allow staff discretion in administering penalties. Segelbaum brought up the issue of the forty dollar permit fee. Goellner stated that any changes to that fee would need to be approved by the City Council and that forty dollars was the permit price for mobile food vending in other districts and has not been a barrier so far. Segelbaum suggested lowering the price for residential districts. Kluchka pointed out that processing the permit for the food truck in residential districts is the same amount of work as processing the permit in other districts. Johnson said that he would still like to lower the fee. Blum said that since it costs money to monitor the event for compliance and process the paper work, that lowering the fee would force the taxpayers to subsidize someone else's party. A consensus was reached to leave the permit fee at forty dollars. Returning to the issue of the time limit, Segelbaum said he would be in favor of eight hours. A consensus was reached to increase the time limit to eight hours. Blum called attention to the required ten foot distance from homes recommended by the Fire Department. He stated that a tank of propane has the explosive power of several sticks of dynamite and questioned whether they were comfortable allowing the food trucks that close to the buildings. Waldhauser stated that if they were truly that explosive, they would be too dangerous to have anywhere. Baker asked if there was a history of food truck explosions, and Blum cited several instances of injuries and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 Page 6 property damage due to food truck explosions. Baker pointed out that food trucks on streets is a common practice in Minneapolis. Blum brought up the possibility of risk to the neighboring properties in case of a fire or an explosion and recommended a required distance from the neighboring property line in addition to the required distance from structures, and increasing the required distance to thirty feet from structures. Kluchka asked what the Fire Chief's recommendation was. Goellner replied that it was ten feet from all structures and that, while there was not a national standard as of yet, the Fire Chief expected ten feet to become the national standard. Blum stated that he would still support increasing the required distance, but the other Commissioners did not support his recommendation. Kluchka expressed that he would be supportive of a ten foot distance requirement from the neighbor's property line. Zimmerman and Goellner discouraged this regulation, pointing out that it could prevent people with narrow lots from qualifying. Segelbaum pointed out that a minimum distance could help keep the party from intruding onto the neighbor's property. Johnson objected to adding a required distance from the neighbor's property line, stating that neighbors sometimes do things that annoy each other and he did not see why this was different. Goellner suggested that five feet would be more reasonable than ten feet, since ten feet would prevent a significant number of homeowners from acquiring a permit, and because five feet is consistent with the setbacks required for other structures in the City Code. Segelbaum asked if the serving window would be required to face the host's property, and Goellner replied that could be handled during permitting. Waldhauser stated that she did not think five feet or ten feet would make a significant difference in safety and would be supportive of five feet. Kluchka and Blum stated that five seemed small to them, but there was a majority consensus. Mr. Levy said that he did not see why there would be need for a required distance from the property line as long as the structures were protected. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka, and carried unanimously to recommend approval for the amendment to Zoning Code Section 11.04 Temporary Uses to allow Mobile Food Vending in Residential Zoning Districts with the following changes: 1. The time limit on mobile food vending in residential districts will be increased from six to eight hours. 2. Exceptions to certain regulations will be allowed with a Special Event permit. 3. The penalty for violations for a vendor will be a suspension of no more than thirteen months. 4. There would be a minimum distance of five feet from the property line. 5. The parking of mobile food vendors will be restricted to the host's property. 6. Language will be changed to clarify the difference between "vendor" and "applicant". Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 Page 7 3. Other Business Waldhauser discussed a meeting she had attended of local activists organizing to promote affordable housing and informed the Commission that a group of activists will be forming in Golden Valley. She asked if there was a way for Golden Valley to partner with Minneapolis's program to sell vacant properties in North Minneapolis since the two cities are adjacent to each other. She said she was unsure what such a partnership would look like but wanted to raise it as a possibility. Kluchka suggested having a formal presentation on the public art policy. • Council Liaison Report Council Member Schmidgall reported on the bikeway feasibility study of Wayzata and stated that he is expecting growth of cycle accessibility. He also informed the commission that Union Pacific had agreed to fix tunnel deterioration at Bassett Creek and that two residents had been appointed to the Light Rail Transit advisory committee. Following the Council Liaison Report, Johnson disclosed a position he had recently accepted in case it was a conflict of interest. Kluchka stated that he did not think it would be a problem but that he would recommend Johnson recuse himself from any meetings involving that business. 4. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm. John Kluchka, ecretary Kayla rover, Community Development Intern