Loading...
2-11-08 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, February 11, 2008 7pm 1. Approval of Minutes January 14, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Amending the R-1 Single Family Zoning District Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the R-1 Single Family Zoning District in regard to infill housing development 3. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding Employee Only Daycare Facilities in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the language in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District to list employee-only daycare centers as a Conditional Use. 4. Discussion Regarding Mixed Use Zoning District Language 5. Discussion Regarding Duke Development - Short Recess- 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 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, December 17, 2007. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluc Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Council Member Bob Planning and Development Mark Grimes, Planning Intern Joe Ho Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Waldhauser reft0Ir should read as {I' < would m 1. Approval of Minutes December 17, 2007 Joint Planning/Environmen Commission Meeting Eck referred to the last sentence on page 2 and management practices" regarding bacteria Lundstrom didn't specifically discuss the buffer zones around ponds and how g helps keep bacteria levels down. rification on the "best Grimes stated that ractices but be did discuss of those buffer zones which MOVED by Eck, seconded by December 17, 2007 joint P Commission meeting mi d n carried unanimously to approve the nmental/Open Space and Recreation d. December 1 r Planning Commission Meeting agraph on page 2 and stated that the second sentence at increasing the volume "of space between houses" cing the height... on d by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the regular Planning Commission meeting minutes with the above noted 2. I Public Hearing - RHT Office LLC - 9400 Golden Valley Road Applicant: RHT Office LLC Address: 9400 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To allow the applicant to operate an employee only daycare center in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 2 Hogeboom explained that RHT Office LLC is the owner of the property at 9400 Golden Valley Road and that Meridian Services and Orion ISO currently occupy the building. He stated that the property is zoned Business and Professional Offices and the applicant is proposing to operate an employee only daycare center in approximately 1,000 square feet of the building which requires a Conditional Use Permit. He discussed the ten factors that the Planning Commission must consider when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit application. He noted that the daycar '1 have approximately 2 employees and staff believes that traffic in the area w acted by this proposed use and there should be no effect on the surroundin p refore, staff is recommending approval of this Conditional Use Permit. Keysser asked about the building expansion currently undel1 he would like to applicant to discuss the building expansion. Kluchka noted that the applicant's narrative states tha for 10 children. He asked if that number (10 chil specific and if the space would actually allow for that the space could allow for more children but added that the Planning Commission co have 10 to 15 children instead of limiti like provide daycare ific or operation o ch ren. Grimes stated specifies the limits. He nd allow the applicant to Keysser said he thinks it makes wouldn't have to amend their C r 1 0 15 children so the applicant ;4ermit for an 11th child. Kluchka noted that the aR employees, not 10 childr 've states that the daycare will serve 10 licant, referred to a site plan of the interior of the ed daycare space and outdoor play area. He noted e north would be screened from the outdoor play area. . e submitted with the application should have stated that the en, not 10 employees. He explained that the daycare area has y for 28 children. However, the owner of the business does not nsing beyond 10 children. He referred to the building expansion nd stated that it is a LEED certified building. Eck ask this business would have a greater need for a daycare than another business might have. Johnson stated that this business has a predominately female work force and he thinks more businesses will be providing this type of amenity in the future. Kluchka said he thinks other businesses should be encouraged to offer this amenity and suggested putting an article about this building and the daycare use in the City newsletter. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 3 Grimes stated that daycare facilities are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the Light Industrial and Industrial zoning districts and suggested the same could be allowed in the Business and Professional Offices zoning district. Kluchka asked if the owner will be installing bicycle racks as a part of their expansion. Johnson stated yes and explained that the LEED certification process requires bicycle racks. He also stated that they will have special parking stalls for hybrid cars and they are recycling the demolition materials as well. 1. ere n be no greater ate licensing process. at co ition in the approval iders changing that number. Waldhauser asked about sidewalk connections to the site. Johnso s currently working on that part of the plans. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no Keysser closed the public hearing. Kluchka suggested removing condition number three than 10 children attending the daycare since it's Waldhauser agreed. Cera said he would also lik because the City would like to know if the ap Ii Grimes said staff will review the existi order to allow daycare centers in ad lates to daycare centers in MOVED by McCarty, secondedA approval to allow the applic Business and Profession ion carried unanimously to recommend an e loyee only daycare room in the District with the following conditions: ed to advertise or otherwise promote the daycare. 2. ust have a parent who is employed in the facility. 3. attending the daycare at any time must be no greater than ten. 4. peration shall be Monday through Friday from 7 am to 7 pm. 5. to the building must meet the City's Building Code requirements. 6. All n ry licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Department of Human Services. 7. All requirements must be met for the installation of fire safety equipment. 8. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times. 9. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for revocation. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 4 3. Discussion Regarding In-fill Housing Issues Grimes reminded the Commission of their December 17 meeting where Councilmember Shaffer made several suggestions on the proposed ordinance changes regarding in-fill housing development. Grimes referred to his memo dated January 11 and reviewed his proposed language changes. Waldhauser stated t at r houses. Cera agre story it creates houses. Waldhauser ply Ith the proposed new nguage to additions. The first proposed change states that the setback requirement for ho would be increased after the height goes over 15 ft. For all lots 65 ft. the side setback would increase % ft. for every foot of height ove ft. maximum allowed height. For lots less than 65 ft. wide, the si ba % ft. for every two feet of height over 15 ft. up to the maxim change would require that all new houses and additions to e back" as the height increases. Keysser asked how the above language would a said it would mean a second story addition woul language. Keysser said he strongly objects to a Cera asked about the height of a one- approximately 15 feet in height. McCarty said he is also against because it will cause the 80 Keysser added that he w height language applying to additions Appe s to get a lot a variance requests. e able to add on to their homes. second story would help create more space between at if a second story goes straight up on top of a first en houses. g the proposed new height language only if the footprint of a an addition. Keysser said he likes that compromise. He added ith expectations of expanding it in the future. requiring the proposed new height language if the footprint were to ain percentage. Waldhauser questioned if the 28 foot height limit would allow for a two-story house. Schmidgall disagreed with the suggestion of only requiring the proposed new height language if the footprint changes and stated that if this new language doesn't apply to remodels and additions they might as well do nothing to the current ordinances. Keysser said he doesn't think it is fair to limit people. McCarty agreed and questioned how the proposed new language would work if someone just wanted to add a small front entryway Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 5 addition. Keysser said that is why he likes the idea of allowing a certain percentage of the footprint to be changed before the new height language applies. He suggested allowing 10% of an existing footprint to be changed before the height language would apply. Waldhauser questioned if that would force people to expand into the side yard setback area. Eck said he doesn't understand the rationale of allowing a new structure to be built one way and an addition or a remodel being required to be built a different w end result is the same. McCarty said that people would know the rule if they were building a new house. Cera questioned the difference e and an addition if the existing foundation is used. McCarty said in difference if the footprint changes. Keysser asked the Commissioners what they thought of change in the footprint of a house before the Schmidgall said he wants the new ordinance to addition built. Keyser said he would be willin to allows for a small percentage of a footpri the new language. He proposed that th comfortable with 20%. cause the eginning down" Schmidgall said he would support the first change reference Ing a all percentage e would apply. r th is a new house or an ew height language if it hout having to conform to Yo. McCarty said he would be Kluchka questioned how much want to put on people with narrow lots. Eck reiterated that he thi same. It of a new home and an addition would be the t is better and what is worse, building up or building arge addition on the back of their home that could ruin aid he wants to encourage people to improve their mental and energy perspective it makes more sense to "build G' th .. \':I'. ere are other parts of the proposed new ordinance that will address opment issues such as reducing impervious surface. Keysser ted the Commissioners vote on each item in Grimes' memo individually. Grimes told the Commissioners that any of them could write a minority report to the City Council. MOVED by McCarty, seconded py Kluchka and motion carried 4 to 3 to recommend approval of the following language to be added to the R-1 Single Family zoning District: The setback requirement for houses and structures would be increased after the height goes over 15 ft. if the foundation size or footprint of the structure is increased by 10% or Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 6 more. For all lots greater than 65 ft. in width, the side setback would increase % ft. for every foot of height over 15 ft. up to the maximum allowed height. For lots 65 ft. or less in width, the side setback would increase % ft. for every two feet of height over 15 ft. up to the maximum allowed height. This change would require that all new houses and additions to existing houses increasing the footprint of the house be "stepped back" as the height increases. Commissioners Schmidgall, Cera and Eck voted no. Keysser referred to the second suggestion in Grimes' memo regarding noted that all subdivision applications now require a subdivision agre establish the grade before a new house is built. Keysser added tha could be considered a hardship. r three in Grimes' memo. om becoming nonconforming uage being adopted. This allows a e a ed on to if the addition meets the as not added, houses that were taller panded if a variance was granted. MOVED by Cera, seconded by McCarty and motion carried approval of the following language to be added to the R-1 Si The height is measured from the grade established at e tim a house existed on a lot and was torn down to make w the house that was torn down would be the esta increase permitted. Keysser asked for clarification of the Ian Grimes explained that item number thr if they were legally built prior to the house that was legally built at 30 requirements of the zoning cod than the new height require MOVED by Schmidgall, recommend approv of t zoning district: hou new constructi wo y ~dhauser and motion carried unanimously to ng language to be added to the R-1 Single Family Jan. 1, 2008 are considered compliant. However, any et the requirements of the current zoning code. Keysserr grade averag h suggestion in Grimes' memo regarding how the average . He asked if the average grade means the mathematical and low point. Grimes said.yes. M ser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to roval of the following language to be added to the R-1 Single Family zoning rade is determined at the building line facing a street. If the lot is a corner lot, the average grade would be for all sides facing a street. 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 7 Cera stated that he attended a meeting in St. Louis Park where they discussed the Duke (yVest End) development project that involves a small portion of the southwest corner of Golden Valley. He stated that the discussion involved the proposed various uses including retail, office, a grocery store and a movie theater. Grimes stated that Golden Valley has been having discussions with St. Louis Park regarding traffic calming, better pedestrian connections and sanitary sewer capacity in the area. No other business was discussed. 5. Other Business 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm. Planning 763-593-8095 rI 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: February 5,2008 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: MarkW. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Various Text Amendments to Section 11.21, Single Family (R-1) Zoning District Related to Infill Development At the January 14, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission met to discuss various changes that were suggested to the draft zoning code amendments related to infill development. As you will recall, the Planning Commission met with City Councilmember Bob Shaffer on December 17, 2008 to discuss his ideas related to the changes needed to the zoning code to address infill issues. I am attaching a copy of a memo I wrote to the Planning Commission dated December 12, 2007 and a copy of my memo to the Planning Commission dated January 11, 2008. The later memo summarized the changes that were discussed at the meeting on December 17,2007. At the January 14, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission agreed that several new changes would be included in the proposed changes to the zoning code related to intirl issues. These are outlined in the January 11 memo. These changes are included in the attached changes to Section 11.03 (Definitions) and Section 11 ~21 Single-Family (R-1). The issue that created the most discussion at the January 14 meeting related to the increase of side setback requirements for homes that are over 15 ft. in height and how this would effect additions or expansions of existing houses. The Planning Commission was split on this issue. One position was that any additions must meet the requirement that additions to homes over 15 ft. in height must have an increased side setback-the same as new structures. The other position was that the requirement to increase the building setback for additions over 15 ft. would "kick in" if the building footprint or foundation size was increased by 10% or more. (The proposed ordinance indicates the later position which allows the 10% increase in footprint size before the increase setback is required for height over 15 ft.) After the informal public hearing, the Planning Commission may vote or table consideration of the infill changes. Changes can also be made to the proposal. As I indicated at the January 14 meeting, the Planning Commission may attach a report to the recommendation it gives to the City Council. This report could include a "minority report" to explain a position that was held by members but not approved. The City Council encourages such feedback. Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the attached changes to Section 11.03 (Definitions) and Section 11.21 (Single Family R-1) that address issues related to concerns about infill development in the single-family zoning district. Attachments Memo from Mark Grimes dated December 12, 2007 (2 pages) Planning Commission Minutes dated December 17,2007 (3 pages) Memo from Mark Grimes dated January 11, 2008 (2 pages) Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated January 14, 2008 (2 pages) Underline/Overstrike version of the code pages reflecting all proposed changes (7 pages) Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: December 12, 2007 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Reconsideration of R-1 Zoning Code Changes Related to Infill Development At the August 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held an informal public hearing to consider various changes to the Single Family (R-1) Chapter and one change to the definition chapter of the Zoning Code. After the hearing, the Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the changes to the City Council. This recommendation was originally scheduled to go to the City Council at a public hearing on September 4, 2007. At the September 4, 2007 meeting, the Council voted to continue the public hearing in order to allow the Council to go over the recommendation from the Planning Commission at a Council! Manager study meeting. Due to some staff absence and other delays, the infill recommendations did not get to a City Council/City Manager meeting until November 13, 2007. At the November 13 meeting, Council Member Shaffer outlined his concerns about the changes proposed by the Planning Commission related to height and volume of houses. He provided drawings and models to demonstrate his concern. The direction from the Council was for Council Member Shaffer to meet with the Planning Commission to consider altering the Planning Commission's recommendation related to height and setback. Also, the Council asked the staff to better define the method for determining the grade of a lot. Council Member Shaffer believes that new height suggested by the Planning Commission of 28 ft. for a pitched roof house and 25 ft. for a flat roof house is fine. However, he is concerned about from what point the measurement is taken. He is suggesting that Golden Valley consider that the grade of a lot be maintained at the grade when the subdivision was approved or the same grade as the house was when it was demolished to make way for a new home. With this requirement, new houses or additions could be built to the full height allowed by code but the height would start from a historical point. Council Member Shaffer would also like to consider a change that would increase the side setback when a house if over a certain height. For instance, the code could state that a home that is 17 ft. high may be placed right on the side setback line. For each foot of height over 17 ft. to the maximum allowed height, the setback would have to be increased by 'Y2 ft. for each foot of height over 17 ft. As an example, for a house on an 80 ft. wide lot, if the maximum height house of 28 ft. was to be constructed, the side setback would be 12.5 ft. plus 5.5 ft. (1/2 ft. for each foot of height over 17 ft.) for a total side setback of 18 ft. There may have to be some adjustment made for lots less than 65-75 ft. side. Council Member Shaffer also believes that it is important to require that walls over a certain length are articulated. He may have a suggestion on the one proposed by the Planning Commission. The proposal suggested by the Planning Commission states that for walls over 32 ft. in length, there must be a shift of at least 2 ft. in depth, for at least 8 ft in length for every 32 ft. of wall. After meeting with Council Member Shaffer, the Planning Commission may want to amend the infill changes approved back in August 2007. Staff would suggest that a hew informal public hearing be held to get public input. Attachments Minutes from the November 13, 2007 Council/Manager meeting (1 page) Underline/Overstrike version of the Code pages reflecting original Planning Commission recommendations (5 pages) Minutes from the August 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting (4 pages) Golden Valley Survey Requirements (1 page) Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 17, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning Com ission was held at the Golden Valley City C cil Chambers, 7800 Golden ValleY: oad, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Mo Dece er 17, 2007. Chair Keysser call ',the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Those pres were Planning Commissiers C~ra, Eck, Keysser, ka, McCarty and Schmidgal . so present was Counc ,. ember Bob Shaffer ector of Planning and Development Grimes, Planning" tern Joe Hogeb and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. ent. 1. Approval of Minutes November 26, 2007 Joint Plann Commission Meeting ,'; . unanimously to approve the ace and Recreation ysserabstained from voting November 26,2 Eck referred to th the word "were" ck, seconded by Schmidgall and i otion carried unanimously to approve r 26,2007 regular Planning Commiss n minutes with the above correction. Issioners Keysser and McCarty abstained from voting because they were not ent at the meeting. 2. Discussion Regarding In-fill Housing Issues Shaffer referred to the Planning Commission's report on In-Fill Housing and Redevelopment. He said he thinks that lessening the height requirement as suggested isn't going to make a big difference. He suggested that the volume of a house and the volume between houses is what will make a bigger difference. He gave the Commissioners drawings and showed them models that illustrated massing and the air space between different types of houses on different sized lots. Shaffer said he is also recommending that the proposed language regarding side wall articulation be removed or be made applicable to all floors of a house and that the entire side yard setback needs to become larger as a house gets taller. McCarty asked if that means the entire structure would have to be set back further from the side yard property line. Shaffer said yes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Planning Commission December 17, 2007 Page 2 Shaffer stated that existing structures would be "grandfathered in" and new additions would have to meet any new setback requirements. He said that increasing the volume of space between homes would mean more than reducing the height and the idea is to pull houses away from each other so he is proposing that if a house is over 15 feet in height, the side yard setback requirement should increase 6 inches per foot over 15 feet. Keysser asked if the City has seen examples of large homes being built on 75 foot wide lots. Schmidgall asked how many "monster" houses have been built. Shaffer thought 5 or 6 "monster" houses have been built, but thatthere will be more. He suggested having different requirements on 40-foot wide lots. Keysser questioned the costs involved in having to "set back" a second story addition when remodeling a house. He said he is not sure what is wrong with a small house being located next to a bigger house. Shaffer agreed that there will be costs involved in 1faving to set back a second story addition but he is trying to protect neighborhoods. He stated that when houses are out of scale is when the City receives complaints. Rich Baker, 224 Janalyn Circle, stated that the problem is the visual impact on the neighborhood. He said he knows it is difficult to measure the volume of a house and questioned how that would be done. Shaffer agreed that it is difficult to measure the volume of a house and explained that he is trying to affect the volume of houses without actually measuring the volume. Grimes noted that the proposed new ordinance does have impervious surface requirements which will also help determine the size of a new home. McCarty stated that the Planning Commission spent a lot of time on the Infill Development Report and the residents that attended the meetings seemed happy with the recommendations in their report. Shaffer said he thinks the recommendations have to be visualized in 3-D in order to better understand the issues. Keysser said he's concerned about fewer people being able to build and it being more expensive to add on to their homes and that is not fair to property owners. Shaffer stated that other communities are adding language to their codes similar to what he is suggesting and people are working with it and have been alright with it. Kluchka said he thinks the biggest issue is houses that are torn down and rebuilt with larger houses. He added that it is more efficient to "build up" and it is better for the environment and for water run-off. Cera agreed with Shaffer and stated that if a second story addition is required to be set- back further it would affect the scale of the house. Keysser said he agrees that Shaffer's proposed language would work for new construction but not for remodels or additions. Shaffer discussed the issue of grading and "building up" the grade in order to make a house taller. Kluchka noted that the Planning Commission's proposed language stated Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Planning Commission December 17, 2007 Page 3 thatthe grading on a lot can only be "built up" as high as necessary to get the proper drainage. . Grimes stated that there are so many unique lots in Golden Valley that it is difficult to measure the grade. Shaffer suggested measuring the height of a new home from the existing grade or setting the new house based on the current grade of the lot because proportions of new houses start to match if they are built where they originally started. Keysser stated that there are a number of lots that need fill brought in, in order to make the drainage work properly. Shaffer agreed and stated that in those types of situations the homeowner might have to request a variance. Cera suggested looking at the grade on a lot during the subdivision process. Grimes stated that new plats now require subdivision agreements and drainage plans at the time a lot is subdivided. Kluchka said he likes the idea of measuring from the initial grade. Grimes stated that the City would have to require a survey to set the grade and it would have to be checked before and after construction. Shaffer reiterated that height isn't the issue, it's the volume. He explained that he is trying to give the Planning Commission ideas that he thinks could be incorporated into the code that will work. Eck referred to the language regarding the height of homes and questioned the last sentence. Grimes explained that the last sentence "grandfathers in" existing homes. Keysser summarized the proposed changes discussed. Grimes said he will draft some new language for the Planning Commission to discuss the following items: measuring grade from the existing grade point, structures higher than 15 feet will require 6 inches of additional side yard setback area for each additional foot over 15 feet, sidewall articulation on second stories and roofs, and second stories being setback further from side yard property lines. Shaffer added that he will work on some drawings that can be put in the code. 3. Reports on Meeting f the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City neil, Board of Zo' ng Appeals and other Mee . , 4. Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: January 11, 2008 To: Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Additional Changes to Zgning Code Related to Infill Development At the December 17,2007 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission met with City Councilmember Bob Shaffer to discuss his concerns related to the proposed changes to the zoning code related to infill development. As indicated in the minutes of the meeting, there were several areas where changes were suggested to the proposed changes recommended earlier by the Planning Commission. At the end of the meeting, I told the Commission that I would consider the points brought up at the meeting and bring back some alternatives for the Planning Commission to consider. These proposed changes relate to the determination of grade, increasing the setback distance with the increase in building height and additional definitions to help make the code easier to understand. The following are changes to the infill suggestions after the December 17 meeting: 1. The setback requirement for houses and structures would be increased after the height goes over 15 ft. For all lots over 65 ft. in width, the side setback would increase Y2 ft. for every foot of height over 15 ft. up to the maximum allowed height. For lots less than 40 ft. wide, the side setback would increase Y2 ft. for every two feet of height over 15 ft. up to the maximum allowed height. This change would be require that all new houses and additions to new houses be "stepped back" as the height increases. This was the major concern addressed by Councilmember Shaffer. 2. The method for determining building height is clarified. The height is measured from the grade established at the time of subdivision approval. If a house existed on a lot and was torn down to make way for a new house, the grade of the house that was torn down would be the established grade with up to a one foot increase permitted. 3. In order to prevent homes from becoming nonconforming that were legally built prior to the adoption of the new side setback and height requirement, staff is suggesting that houses built prior to Jan. 1, 2008 are considered compliant. However, any new construction would have to meet the requirements of the current zoning code. This allows a house that was legally built at 30 ft. height to be added on to if the addition meets the requirements of the zoning code. If this section was not added, houses that were above the new height requirement could only be expanded if a variance was granted. 4. A definition of average grade of lot is included that states that the grade is determined at the building line facing a street. Staff will determine policy for determining the average. If the lot is a corner lot, the average grade would be for all sides facing a street. Attachments Memo from Mark Grimes dated December 12, 2007 (2 pages) Planning Commission minutes dated December 17, 2007 (3 pages) Underline/Overstrike version of the code pages reflecting past and current proposed changes (7 pages) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 4 3. Discussion Regardingln-fiU Housing Issues Grimes reminded the Commission of their December 17 meeting where Councilmember Shaffer made several suggestions on the proposed ordinance changes regarding in-fill housing development. Grimes referred to his memo dated January 11 and reviewed his proposed language changes. Cera asked about the height of a one- approximately 15 feet in height. houses. Waldhauser mply ith the proposed new nguage to additions. The first proposed change states that the setback requirement for ho would be increased after the height goes over 15 ft. For all lots 65 . the side setback would increase % ft. for every foot of height ov ft. maximum allowed height. For lots less than 65 ft. wide, the si tba % ft. for every two feet of height over 15 ft. up to the maxim change would require that all new houses and additions to e back" as the height increases. Keysser asked how the above language would a said it would mean a second story addition wou language. Keysser said he strongly objects to a aid a one-story house is McCarty said he is also against(' because it will cause the Bo Keysser added that he w height language applying to additions Appe s to get a lot a variance requests. e able to add on to their homes. second story would help create more space between at if a second story goes straight up on top of a first en houses. g the proposed new height language only if the footprint of a an addition. Keysser said he likes that compromise. He added ith expectations of expanding it in the future. requiring the proposed new height language if the footprint were to ain percentage. Waldhauser questioned if the 28 foot height limit would allow for a two-story house. Schmidgall disagreed with the suggestion of only requiring the proposed new height language if the footprint changes and stated that if this new language doesn't apply to remodels and additions they might as well do nothing to the current ordinances. Keysser said he doesn't think it is fair to limit people. McCarty agreed and questioned how the proposed new language would work if someone just wanted to add a small front entryway Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 5 addition. Keysser said that is why he likes the idea of allowing a certain percentage of the footprint to be changed before the new height language applies. He suggested allowing 10% of an existing footprint to be changed before the height language would apply. Waldhauser questioned if that would force people to expand into the side yard setback area. Eck said he doesn't understand the rationale of allowing a new structure to be built one way and an addition or a remodel being required to be built a different w cause the end result is the same. McCarty said that people would know the rule eginning if they were building a new house. Cera questioned the difference down" and an addition if the existing foundation is used. McCarty said difference if the footprint changes. Kluchka questioned how much ng a mall percentage e would apply. r th is a new house or an ew height language if it hout having to conform to o. McCarty said he would be Schmidgall said he would support the first change reference Keysser asked the Commissioners what they thought of change in the footprint of a house before the n Schmidgall said he wants the new ordinance to addition built. Keyser said he would be willin to allows fora small percentage of a footpri the new language. He proposed that th comfortable with 20%. want to put on people with narrow lots. Eck reiterated that he thi same. It of a new home and an addition would be the Grimes said it isa out, because a r a neighbor's vi homes a 0 up" rat t is better and what is worse, building up or building arge addition on the back of their home that could ruin aid he wants to encourage people to improve their mental and energy perspective it makes more sense to "build ere are other parts of the proposed new ordinance that will address ent issues such as reducing impervious surface. Keysser ted the Commissioners vote on each item in Grimes' memo individually. Grimes told the Commissioners that any of them could write a minority report to the City Council. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried 4 to 3 to recommend approval of the following language to be added to the R-1 Single Family zoning District: The setback requirement for houses and structures would be increased after the height goes over 15 ft. if the foundation size or footprint of the structure is increased by 10% or Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Page 6 more. For all lots greater than 65 ft. in width, the side setback would increase % ft. for every foot of height over 15 ft. up to the maximum allowed height. For lots 65 ft. or less in width, the side setback would increase % ft. for every two feet of height over 15 ft. up to the maximum allowed height. This change would require that all new houses and additions to existing houses increasing the footprint of the house be "stepped back" as the height increases. Commissioners Schmidgall, Cera and Eck voted no. Keysser referred to the second suggestion in Grimes' memo regarding noted that all subdivision applications now require a subdivision agre establish the grade before a new house is built. Keysser added tha could be considered a hardship. M ser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to roval of the following language to be added to the R-1 Single Family zoning grade is determined at the building line facing a street. If the lot is a corner lot, the average grade would be for all sides facing a street. Y to r mmend g district: v n approval. If house, the grade of p to a one foot MOVED by Cera, seconded by McCarty and motion carried approval of the following language to be added to the R-1 Si The height is measured from the grade established at th~ tim a house existed on a lot and was torn down to make way the house that was torn down would be the est a increase permitted. Keysser asked for clarification of the Ian Grimes explained that item number thr if they were legally built prior to the 0 house that was legally built at 30 requirements of the zoning cod than the new height require r three in Grimes' memo. om becoming nonconforming age being adopted. This allows a a ed on to if the addition meets the as not added, houses that were taller panded if a variance was granted. MOVED by Schmidgall, recommend approv of t zoning district: hou . new constructi wo b dhauser and motion carried unanimously to ing language to be added to the R-1 Single Family o Jan. 1, 2008 are considered compliant. However, any et the requirements of the current zoning code. h suggestion in Grimes' memo regarding how the average . He asked if the average grade means the mathematical and low point. Grimes said yes. 4. development Authority, City er Meetings S 11.03 activities of daily living, such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working; or (2) having a disorder of thought or mood that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to cope with the ordinary demands of life; and (3) requiring support to maintain independence in the community. Source: Ordinance No. 264, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12-13-01 3. "Affected Persons" - Any or all persons who own property located within 500 feet of the subject premises under zoning review. 4. "Alley" - A public or private way affording only secondary means of access to abutting property. 5. "Apartment" - A room or suite of rooms in a multi-family or multi-use building arranged and intended as a place of residence for a single family or a group of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit. 6. "Apartment Building" - Any building or portion thereof which is designed, built, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or which is occupied as the home or residence of three or more families living independently of each other and doing their own cooking in the said building, and shall include flats and apartments. 7. "Automobile Sales" - An open or enclosed area (building or structure), other than a street, used for the display, sale, or rental, of new and used motor vehicles in operable condition. 8. "Automobile Wrecking" - The dismantling or disassembling of used motor vehicles or trailers, or the storage, sale or dumping of dismantled, partially dismantled, obsolete or wrecked vehicles or their parts. 8.5 "Averaae Grade of a Lot" - The averaae around elevation of a house or structure taken at three points alona a building line facina a street. If the house or structure faces more than one street, the averaae arade shall be for all sides facina the street. 9. "Basement" - That portion of a building with at least three walls having at least one-half (1/2) or more of their floor-to ceiling height underground. 10. "Buildable Area" - That area of a lot which is exclusive of all yards and within which the principal building must be constructed. Source: Ordinance No. 585 Effective Date: 1-14-83 GOLDEN VALLEY CC 245 (6-30-04) S 11.03 12. "Building, Height of' The vertical distance above "grade" as defined herein to the highest point of the coping of 0 flat roof, or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched roof or hipped roof. The measurement may be taken from the highest adjoining side'Nalk or ground surface within a fi'.'e (5) foot horizontal distance of the exterior ~Nall of tho building, v.'hon such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than ten (10) feet above grade. 12. "Buildinq Heiqht Determination" The vertical distance from the average qrade plane at the buildinq focinq the street to the a'Jeraqe heiqht of the hiQhest pitched roof or tho hiqhest point of a flat roof structure. On lots that havo more than one side facinq the street. the distance for heiqht is from the averaqe qrade plone of all sides that face tho street. 12. "Buildinq Heiqht Determination" The vertical distance or heiqht of a structure shall be measured from the qrade at the front buildinq line (street side) to the averaqe heiqht of the hiqhest pitched roof or the hiqhest point of a flat roof structure. The grade of a lot is established at the time of subdivision approval by the City. If the qr:ade was not established at the time of subdivision approval the City. the Director of Public Works shall establish the qrade prior to construction of the structure. In the case where a house or structure has been removed from a lot for the construction of new house or structure, the qrade for the new house or structure shall be no more than one foot hiqher than the averaqe qrade that existed for the house or structure that was removed. In the case of a corner lot. the average qrade is taken from all sides of the house or structure facinq a street. 13. "Business" - Any occupation, employment or enterprise wherein merchandise is exhibited or sold, or which occupies time, attention, labor and materials, or where services are offered for compensation. 14. "Car Wash" - A building and/or premises used principally for washing and cleaning automobiles, using either manual or automatic production line methods. 15. "Cemetery" - Land used or intended to be used for the burial of human dead and dedicated as a "cemetery" for such purposes. Source: Ordinance No. 585 Effective Date: 1-14-83 16. "Child Care Facilities" - A service provided to the public in which children of school or pre-school age are cared for during established business hours. Source: Ordinance No. 712 Effective Date: 6-23-88 GOLDEN VALLEY CC 246 (6-30-04 ) S 11.21 C. Home day care facilities licensed by the State of Minnesota serving 12 or fewer persons. Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses. A. Residential facilities serving from seven to 25 persons. B. Group foster family homes. Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots. No dwelling or accessory structure shall be erected for use or occupancy as a residential dwelling on any tract of unplatted land which does not conform with the requirements of this Section, except on those lots located within an approved plat. In the R-1 zoning district a platted lot of a minimum area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum width of 80 feet shall be required for one single family dwelling. Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility. All structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision 8. Easements. No structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. Building Lot Coverage. No lot or parcel in the R-1 Zoning District shall have a lot coverage of more than 30 percent for a lot or parcel over 10,000 square feet in area, 35% for a lot or parcel between 5,000 square feet and 9,999 square feet in area and 40% for a lot or parcel less than 5,000 square feet in area. This requirement excludes swimming pools. Total impervious surface on any lot or parcel shall not exceed 50% of the lot or parcel area. Subdivision 10. Principal Structures. Subject to the modifications in Subdivision 12, below, principal structures in the R-1 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-1 zoning district. Garages or other accessory structures which are attached to the house or main structure shall also be governed by these setback requirements. except for stair landings up to 25 square feet in size and for handicapped ramps. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Open frontporches, with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front property line along a street right- of-way line. GOLDEN VALLEY CC 264 (6-30-04 ) ~ 11.21 (a.) In the case of a corner lot, the side with the narrower street frontage shall be considered the front of the lot. 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be 20 percent of the lot depth. 3. Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the minimum required front setback line. The distance between any part of a structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: (a.) In the case of lots having a ~::idth of 100 feet or greater, the side setback shall be 15 feet; (a.) In the case of lots havino a width of 100 feet or oreater. the side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in heioht shall be 15 feet. If the foundation size or footprint of the structure is increased by 10% or more, the side setbacks for any structure oreater than 15 feet in heioht shall be 15 feet plus one-half foot for each additional one for (or portion thereof) of structure heioht over 15 feet. (b.) In the case of lots having a '::idth greater than 65 foet and less than 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 12.5 feet; (b.) In the case of lots havino a width greater than 65 feet and less than 100 feet. the side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in heioht shall be 12.5 feet. If the foundation size or footprint of the structure is increased by 10% or more, the side setbacks for any structure greater than 15 feet in height shall. be 12.5 feet plus one-half foot for each additional one foot (portion thereof) of structure heioht over 15 feet. (c.) In the case of lots having a 'Nidth of 65 foot or less, the North or V\!est side yard setback shall be 10 percent of the lot width, and the South or East side yard setback shall be 20 percent of the lot width (up to 12.5 feet). (c.) In the case of lots havino a width of 65 feet or less. the side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in heioht alono the north or west side shall be 10% of the lot width and alono the south or east side shall be 20% of the lot width (up to 12.5 feet). If the foundation size or footprint of the structure is increased by 10% or more. the side setback for any structure oreater than 15 feet in heioht along the north or west side shall be 10% of the lot width and alono the south or east side 20% of the lot width plus one-halt foot for each additional two feet (or portion thereof) of heioht over 15 feet. (d.) If a principal structure is greater than 10 feet in depth along a side yard adjacent to another property that side yard setb:mk shall increase by one toot for each additional tenfeet of structure depth or portion thereof. (d.) For any new construction, whether a new house. addition or replacement throuoh a tear-down, any wall lonoer than 32 feet in lenoth must be articulated, with a shift of a least 2 feet in depth, for at least 8 feet in lenoth. for every 32 feet of wall. 4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the rear yard setback, use the longer lot line. To determine the side yard setback, use the shortest lot line. GOLDEN VALLEY CC 265 (6-30-04) S 11.21 B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R 1 Zoning District to exceed a height of two and a half stories or 30 feet as defined in the City's building code, 'Nhichever is less. No principal structure shall be erected in the R 1 Zoninq District to exceed a heiqht of 28 feet for pitchod roof houses and 25 feet for flat roof houses excopt for those structures constructed prior to October 1. 2007. In the case of structures construed prior to October 1. 2007. the buildinq heiqht shall be 30 feet. The building heiqht is defined as follows: The vertical distance above qrade to the highest roof structure of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the averaqe heiqht of the hiqhest qable of a pitched or hipped roof. The measurement of qrade shall be taken from the hiqhest adioininq side\',,'alk or qround surface with a 5 foot horizontal distance of the exterior 'Nail of the building 'Nhere such sidewalk or qround surface is not more than 10 feet above qrade. (Refer to Section 11.03. Definition 12 "Buildinq Height Determination" for details on measurement.) B. Heiqht Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoninq District to exce.ed a heiqht of 28 feet for pitched roof houses and 25 feet for flat roof houses. GOLDEN VALLEY CC 265-1 (6-30-04 ) S 11.21 E. Each property is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the follO'.\'ing accessory structures: detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses, and gazebos. S'.vimming pools arc not included in this requirement. E. Each property is limited to a total of 1.000 square feet of the followinQ accessory structures: detached and attached QaraQes, detached sheds. Qreenhouses and Qazebos. SwimminQ pools are not included in this requirement. No one detached accessory structure may be larQer than 800 square feet in area and any accessory structure over 120 square feet in area requires a buildinQ permit. F. Size of Accessory Structures. No accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. (See Subdivision 4.A(1)). G. Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location requirements for accessory structures. Setbacks shall be measured from the property line to the pool's edge. Decks surrounding above ground pools shall meet setback requirements. H. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory buildings shall meet the same setback requirements for accessory buildings. (See Subdivision 14.) I. Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall not be allowed in the front yard of a single family home. J. Design. All accessory structures constructed after the construction of the principal structure must be designed and constructed in a manner consistent \~.'ith the design and general appearance of the principal structure. J. Roof. Gambrel and Mansard roofs are not permitted on any accessory buildinQ with a footprint of more than 120 square feet. Subdivision 12. Pre-1982 Structures. For all existing structures constructed in the R-1 zoning district prior to January. 1 , 1982, the following structure setbacks shall be in effect. A. Front Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no closer than 25 feet to the front yard property line. B. Side Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no closer than three feet to the side yard property line. C. Rear Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no closer than ten feet to the rear yard property line. Subdivision 13. Height and Side Setback of Pre-2008 Structures. For all existinQ structures constructed in the R-1 Zonina District prior to January 1, 2008. if the side setback and heiaht were compliant with the Zonina Code at the time a buildina permit was issued. the location and heiaht are considered conforminQ to current Zonina Code. However, new construction and additions to such properties must comply with current requirements of the Zonina Code. GOLDEN VALLEY CC 267 (6-30-04 ) S 11.21 Subdivision 17. Driveway Requirements. Driveways in the R-1 Zoning District are governed by the following provisions: A. Materials. Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1, 2005 shall be constructed of concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers. B. Setbacks. Driveways built on or after January 1, 2005 shall be setback three (3) feet from a side yard property line, except for shared driveways used by multiple property owners pursuant to a private easement. C. Coverage. No more than fifty forty percent (W-% 40%) of the front yard may be covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, stone or pavers. GOLDEN VALLEY CC 269 (12-31-04) Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: February 5,2008 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, Planner Subject: Child Care Services in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District At the January 14, 2008 meeting of the Planning Commission, RHT Office LLC requested preliminary approval for a Conditional Use Permit allowing an employee-only child care facility to be located at 9400 Golden Valley Road. The site is located in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. At the time, planning staff assumed that child care facilities were not a specified conditional use in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District, since such.a provision was not listed under Section 11.45, Subdivision 7, Paragraph B of City Code. Upon further examination of the Zoning Code, staff discovered child care facilities are, in fact, permissible conditional uses in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. The language of the Chapter reads as follows: "Without limiting generality and foregoing, such uses may include Child Care Facilities as defined in this chapter." The above clause is listed in Section11.45, Subdivision 7, Paragraph A of City Code. To create a more well-structured document, staff is recommending removing the above clause from Paragraph A and creating a new item in Paragraph B that specifically lists employee-only child care facilities as a conditional use. Staff feels that child care facilities that serve employee dependents are compatible to the overall uses contained in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. Amending the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District to include this change will instill uniformity throughout the City's zoning districts with regard to child care opportunities. Staff asks for your support in amending Section 11.45, Subdivision 7 of City Code to relocate language pertaining to child care from Paragraph A to Paragraph B. Attachments: Section 11.45 Business and Professional Offices Zoning District showing proposed language revision (5 pages) 9 11.45 Section 11.45: Business and Professional Offices Zoning District Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District is to provide areas wherein there may be erected, maintained and used, offices for persons engaged in business pursuits not involving the sale of or handling of goods, wares, merchandise or commodities, as for example, accountants, insurance brokers, realtors, fiscal agents and the like; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit in such districts the sale of goods, wares,merchandise or commodities by sample, as for example, by manufacturer's representatives. Subdivision 2. District Established. Properties shall be established within the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.45, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.45 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the Business and Professional Offices Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5-8-81 Subdivision 3. Building Height. No building in this zoning district shall exceed three (3) stories in height at the front or street grade level, unless a Conditional Use Permit has been granted allowing such building or structure to exceed three (3) stories in height. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 Subdivision 4. Yard Restrictions. A. Front Yard Setbacks. Front yards shall be provided for all buildings as follows: 1. No building or other structure in the Business and Professional Offices District shall be located closer than 35 feet from the property line along any abutting street. The 35 foot front setback as described above shall all be landscaped. Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 5 9 11.45 2. In the case of a building over three (3) stories, the front setback shall be increased five (5) feet for each additional story over three (3) stories or each additional ten (10) feet above the height of thirty (30) feet. B. Side and Rear Yard Setbacks. Side yards and rear yards shall be provided for all buildings as follows: Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5-8-81 1. In the case of premises abutting a Residential or R-2 Residential Zoning District, side and rear yards of such premises shall be not less than 50 feet in depth or width, of which at least 25 feet adjacent to the lot line or property line shall be planted, landscaped and maintained as a buffer zone. Source: Ordinance No. 271, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-15-02 2. In the case of premises abutting on a Multiple Dwelling Zoning District or an Institutional Zoning District, side and rear yards shall be not less than 30 feet in depth or width, of which at least'the 15 feet adjacent to the lot line shall be planted, landscaped and maintained as a buffer zone. 3. In the case of premises abutting on another Business and Professional Offices Zoning District, side and rear yards shall be not less than 20 feet in depth or width for each building, tract, lot or premises of which at least one-half the setback as measured from the lot line shall be landscaped and planted. 4. In the case of premises abutting on a Commercial or Industrial Zoning District, side yards and rear yards shall be not less than 20 feet in depth and width of which at least one-half the setback as measured from the lot line shall be landscaped and planted. 5. In the case of a building over three (3) stories, the side and rear setbacks shall be increased five (5) feet for each additional story over three (3) stories or each additional ten (10) feet above the height of thirty (30) feet. Subdivision 5. Area Restrictions. No building or other structure in this zoning district shall occupy more than 40% of the tract of land on which it is located. An additional 20% of the tract of land shall be allowed for the construction of a parking structure. Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 5 9 11.45 Subdivision 6. Lot Area. No building or other structure located in this zoning district shall be located on a parcel of land that is less than one acre in area or less than 100 feet in width. Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5-8-81 Subdivision 7. Conditional Uses. A. Conditions. In addition to those uses specifically classified and permitted within this district, there are certain uses which may be allowed in a Business and Professional Offices District because of their unusual characteristics or the service they provide to the public. These conditional uses require particular considerations as to their proper location in relation to adjacent established or intended uses, or to the planned development of the City. The conditions controlling the location and operation of such conditional uses-care established under Section 11.80 of this Chapter. Witheut limiting the gener;Jlity of the foregoing, such uses m;JY include Child C;Jre F;Jcilities ;JS defined in this Ch;Jpter. Source: Ordinance No. 712 Effective Date: 6-23-88 B. Authority. The Council shall have the authority, after having received the recommendations of the Planning Commission, to permit the following types of the conditional uses of land or structures, or both, within a Business and Professional Offices District, if the Council finds that the proposed location and establishment of any such use will be desirable or necessary to the public convenience or welfare and will be harmonious and compatible with other uses adjacent to and in the vicinity of the selected site. Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5-8-81 1. Buildings exceeding three (3) stories in height, subject to the provisions of Subdivision 5, Subparagraph A, Item 2, and Subparagraph B. above, and all other applicable provisions of this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 2. Recreational facilities such as ballfields, swimming pools and playgrounds. 3. Daytime activity centers and/or other facilities providing school and/or training for retarded or handicapped people. 4. Financial institutions, including drive-in facilities. 5. Limited retail services within a professional office building. Source: Ordinance No. 541 Effective Date: 5-8-81 6. Heliports, as herein defined. Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 5 !3 11.45 7. Other uses which, in the opinion of the Council, are compatible with the uses specifically described above. Source: Ordinance No. 643 Effective Date: 11-16-84 8. Adult Day Care Center. Source: Ordinance No. 264, 2nd Series Effective Date: 12-13-02 ~ Day care facilities provided that said facilities serve only the dependents of persons employed on the same premises as are otherwise permitted by this chapter. Source: Ordinance No. ,2nd Series Effective Date: Subdivision 8. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the Business and Professional Office District: A. Offices B. Essential Services - Class 1. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 Subdivision 9. Accessory Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in this Zoning District: A. Essential Services - Class 1. B. Accessory Structures. The following regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in this Zoning District: 1. Location. A Detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least 10 feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the 10 feet of separation can be met. Golden Valley City Code Page 4 of 5 ~ 11.45 2. Front setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for this Zoning District from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 3. Side and rear setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for principal structures in this Zoning District from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 10 feet from any principal structure .and from any other accessory structure. 5. Alley setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 10 feet from an alley. - 6. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in this Zoning District to exceed a height of one story. One story may not exceed 10 feet from the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory structures shall be used only for storage and/or utility space. 7. Cornices and eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback. 8. Number and Size of accessory structures. Only one accessory structure shall be allowed on each property and no accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. In no case shall an accessory structure be greater than 1000 square feet or less than 120 square feet in area. Accessory structures include storage buildings, detached sheds, greenhouses, gazebos and other shelters. Accessory structures not used solely for storage and related activities shall have open sides from floor to ceiling, except that they may have railings and temporary screening (used only on two sides at a time), all constructed in accordance with the building code. 9. Design. All accessory structures constructed after the construction of the principal structure must be designed and constructed of similar materials as determined by the City Manager or his designee. 10. Building Permits. All accessory structures located in this Zoning District require a building permit. 11. Parking structures and garages. In this Zoning District, parking structures and garages shall not be considered accessory structures if they are used to meet the required number of parking spaces. Source: Ordinance No. 344, 2nd Series Effective Date: 05-25-06 Golden Valley City Code Page 5 of 5 Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: February 4, 2008 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, Planner Subject: 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District Update On July 5, 2006, the City Council adopted the Mixed Use land use category to be part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Mixed Use category, intended to be overlaid across the 1-394 Corridor Study area, includes tracts of land, buildings, or structures that support two or more land uses which are complementary to one another, support the ability to live, work, shop and/or play within a defined land use area, and are in a compact urban form. At the August 13, 2007 meeting of the Planning Commission, an informal public hearing was held to discuss the re-designation of the land use of the properties in the 1-394 Corridor Study area to Mixed Use. After discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this re-designation. On December 18, 2007, the City Council agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation to re-designate the concerned properties to Mixed Use, thereby amending the Land Use Map. Per Metropolitan Council requirements, the City of Golden Valley must amend the Official Zoning Map to reflect changes to the Land Use Map. City staff is reexamining the language used in the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning Code. Once final revisions are made to the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning Code draft, staff will present the document before the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Staff expects to review the document and make any necessary changes in the next month. alley !t, ~ #:11 ~,., # 'Ii ~ '\. @ Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: February 6, 2008 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Update on Duke Development at the SW Quadrant of TH 100 and 1-394 Chair Keysser asked that the proposed West End development proposed by Duke Realty Corp. be placed on the February 11 Planning Commission agenda as a discussion item. I have enclosed the latest site plan and drawings of the development. The West End development consists of about 340,000 sq. ft. of retail development that is wholly in the City of St. Louis Park. Also proposed is 1.1 million sq. ft. of office space in 3 or 4 buildings that will be located near the intersection of TH 100 and 1-394. The office buildings will be located in St. Louis Park but the 4,000 space, 7-level parking deck is proposed to be located mostly in the City of Golden Valley. In order for this development to go forward, the cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley are discussing the possibility of entering into a joint powers agreement. This agreement would outline how the buildings would be constructed over city boundaries and the responsibilities of each city in the development. At this time, the discussions have given all development review and planning approvals to the City of St. Louis Park since a smaller portion of the West End development is in Golden Valley. The construction of the retail portion of the West End development is proposed to begin this fall. The office development is proposed for construction in 2009 or as the office market dictates. The joint powers agreement is still in the process of being negotiated. As part of the agreement, there will be a concept site plan that will have to be approved by both cities. The Golden Valley City Council will be reviewing the joint powers agreement (including the site plan) at a future meeting. The City Council may invite the Planning Commission to a listening session along with the adjacent South Tyrol and Kennedy Addition neighborhood to discuss traffic calming and other planning issues. The proposed West End development is consistent with the Golden Valley comprehensive plan and if the joint powers agreement would give planning approvals to the City of St. Louis Park, there is no formal process for Planning Commission input. 12/4/2007 Duke West End Project Summary 1. East Office Development a. Number of buildings: b. Total square feet: c. Total EMV: d. Start construction: e. Complete construction: f. First tax increments: 2. West Retail/Mixed Use Development a. Retail: b. Cinema: c. Hotel: d. Office: e. Total EMV: f. Start Construction: g. Complete Construction: 3. "Associated Bank Hotel" Project a. 140 rooms b. Construction: 2009 4 or 3, 1.1 million $194 million 2008 2013 2011 334,000 sq. ft. 59,474 sq. ft 125 nns 20,500 sq. ft $52 million spring 2008 fall 2009 4. Community Spaces a. "Office green" b. West End Blvd c. Atrium meeting room and casual seating area 5. Park Place Blvd reconstruction a. Design underway now b. Construction 2008 6. Approvals a. TIF district created - 11/07 b. Redevelopment agreement to EDA & City Council - 12/17/07 c. Preliminary plat and PUD applications - 1/08 Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 3) Subject: Dulce West I!nd Development Update Meeting of Novembcr 26, 2007 (Item 3) Subject: Duke West End Development Update UNDERGROUND PARKING :, THEATER/PARKING SECOND LEVEL r ~. >--- [NEW5 . LEVEL 'ARKING tRAMP II ~W""'I".\IlKg, 1: II \ \_....~ ~:...;.;:..- ~._--=--~-:;..=;.- --,.:.;:.'-=~'~--- II " _ I( r. n r -" D\ II: -J C ~~ _ 0 = . ~tl ::::.':] ~~I .. .. --Tit "1~ , ~"....,.,,,.J!;..-......-....<"....,.~ .~ The 'Vest End TIF District ............\ Subject Area r I \:,\,j, Legend City of St. Louis Park E22Zl The West End T1F Jir,lrict Cl Rec'evelo;::ment Pre.eel 1,10. c:.:J MlIric'pal60Llndarj o O.020.[\.<: o.oe. Mies , Prepmed September 25. 1007 Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Dewlopment Department UNDERGROUND PARKING =====-==-- -- - -- THEATER/PARKING SECOND LEVEL Cl DC ~I~ fi:j~ .. 0 -=- III - W ~U C~ j _', II. ~-\~II\ I I ~\ '~ I iJ I o II ~ Ii ill ;\ )~~j'l ,Il, \ I~ ' J:; . ~ ~D . I... ,'1' OUSTlNC ......," ...".... ----=-'- - I ~ . I r; r I' f ~ j "~~'. ~t~~ J ( . . ;'~; :i~ J , "=::.'. , ..J, . 'f'.. <, ;~" ,; ::: \. ,).<.^, ,......;,. . '-"i1:{ 4{o"l'ft' -l ... ,1iI~. '.i, ;$ . ll" .