Loading...
2-25-08 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, February 25,2008 7 pm 1. Approval of Minutes February 11, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Discussion Regarding Mixed Use Zoning District Language 3. Appointments to the Douglas Drive Corridor Study Scoping Committee 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 5. Other Business 6. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72.hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print,electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. Regular Meeting of the Goldel'l Valley Planning Commission February 11, 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, February 11, 2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and opment Mark Grimes, Planning Intern Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Ass' t LI Wittman. January 14, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Mee 1. Approval of Minutes McCarty referred to the third paragraph on page 2 anq stat the word "the". He referred to the fifth paragraph "also" should be omitted. He referred to the last the language regarding 10% of a building's Commission decided to leave it as it wa 2. the "to" should be ed that the word page 5 and questioned if ed correctly. The MOVED by Cera, seconded by Wa the January 14, 2008 minutes wi carried unanimously to approve ted corrections. Informal Public He Family Zoning D' Applicant: g Code Amendment - Amending the R-1 Single R-1 Single Family Zoning District in regard to infill lopment lanning Commission meeting and reminded the iggest issue raised at that meeting was how to determine the uirements and when the proposed new requirements should be the other issues addressed were clarifying how the height of a house aking sure that existing conforming structures don't become non- e the new ordinance is adopted and defining the average grade of a lot. Cera asked about the requirements for new construction versus the requirements for a house that is torn down. Grimes explained that if a house is destroyed or torn down it can be rebuilt exactly as it was, however it can not be expanded. Cera referred to the proposed new language regarding side yard setback requirements and stated that it was his understanding that the entire setback was supposed to become larger once a house was taller than 15 feet, not that the setback was supposed to be larger only on the part of the house that is over 15 feet in height. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 Page 2 Grimes clarified that would mean that the side yard setback requirement for a house 28 feet in height on an 80-foot wide lot would be 16.5 feet. Kluchka said yes. He added that the Planning Commission agreed at their last meeting that for new construction the entire structure would have to be set back further from the side yard property lines, not just the part of the structure that was greater than 15 feet in height. Grimes asked the Commissioners if they wanted this requirement on both side yard lot lines. Kluchka said yes because it would help avoid the "alley affect" between houses. Waldhauser said she thinks both sides should be looked at separately. Keysser referred to houses that are torn down. Grimes reiter if a structure was built in a conforming way it can be r but not expanded. Keysser asked if a one-story co with a two-story home as long at the same footp that would be considered an expansion. aw says that d maintained rn down and replaced es said no because Keysser clarified that there are two options for new construction to c to increase the side yard setback requirements on both sides of a ~ taller than 1 q feet. The other option is to consider increasing th e yar requirement only for the side of the house that is taller than 1. Keysser referred to the Ian estioned wl;l~~~rnebody would be allowed to use the same way when the net result ey to tear a house down they can Eck said he wants to be consistent and remodel one way but not allowed to bu is the same. Cera said if someone' spend the money to rebuild it ri Waldhauser suggested a addition up to 10% e f setback requiremen be more comfo Ie addition to be 1 ce al umber of square feet instead of saying that an could be built without following the proposed new with Waldhauser's suggestion. Keyser said he would rcentage but suggested language that would allow an nglnal footprint, not to exceed 400 square feet. g to be difficult to figure out 10% of a structure's footprint rements are going to have to be verified before and after construction. uring houses using the outside dimension. He questioned if the 10% on y apply one time or to one addition. The Commissioners agreed on addition one time based on the current footprint of the house. Eck stated that the proposed new side setback language doesn't address new construction. He suggested different language. Keysser opened the public hearing. Marcia Fluer, 225 Janalyn Circle, stated that the City has been working on the "McMansion" issue for nearly two years and she is proud to say that Golden Valley will Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 Page 3 soon join the ranks with other cities that have moved to protect their communities. She urged the Planning Commission to keep it simple and recommend the proposed new changes so the City Council can act quickly. She also urged the city to apply the new recommendations to remodels and partial teardowns as well as new construction. She noted that some Planning Commissioners have expressed concern about young couples who buy homes in Golden Valley with the dream of expanding later and asked about current home owners' dreams being threatened by the potential of monster houses that take away their light, their view, their neighborhood's character an ue of the existing homes. She added that thousands of residents fit into this cryan he doesn't think the City should be worrying about the "could-be" you rs be se they'll find something that fits and their first home probably won' McCarty stated that he do proposal and he would irements, build at there is e code isn't applied petition for a She said she feels that if an expansion or rebuild won't mee the current house is already right-sized for the lot. Owners or anything they want within the setback and height limit nothing ambiguous about applying the rules to all across the board, it is meaningless and homeo variance. She suggested the City keep the curren security and rules everybody concern giving them a measure of nd follow. Seeing and hearing no one else ent, Keysser closed the public hearing. t Councilmember Shaffer's proposal is a simple o go pack to the Planning Commission's original report. Cera showed the C second story additio worried that th am should be trea 10% incr aerial photo of a house in St. Louis Park that had a nt straight up on top of the first floor. He said he is pen in Golden Valley so remodels and teardowns way as new construction. He said he is against allowing a before the new setback language applies. Keysser going through the proposed new ordinance one item at a time and vo on th~idually. He started with the first one which is the definition of "Average Gra fa L McCarty asked if the measurements are equidistant. Grimes stated that one m nt would be taken on both sides of a proposed house and one in the middle. K er said he thought measurements should be taken at the lowest point and the highest point on a lot. McCarty stated that the language regarding grade should be either "average grade" or just "grade" but it should be consistent. The Commissioners agreed that the language regarding grade/average grade should be changed to just "grade". Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11,2008 Page 4 MOVED by Eck, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following definition: "Grade of a Lot" - The ground elevation of a house or structure taken at three points along a building line facing a street. If the house or structure faces more than one street, the grade shall be for all sides facing the street. Keysser referred to the next item which is the definition of "Building Height Determination" . he next item regarding side yard setbacks. Eck read his proposed cCarty questioned if an addition up to 10% of the building's footprint owed to be built straight on top of a first floor addition without having to be stepped b . Grimes said yes. Schmidgall said he doesn't support the language regarding 10% of the building's footprint and that any addition should have to meet the new requirements. bsite. Kluchka asked if illustrations are going to be added to this ordinance. G . illustrations could be added to the code or they could be handed out building permit process. Waldhauser suggested putting illustration~\;on MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Waldhauser and motion c recommend approval of the following definition: "Building H vertical distance or height of a structure shall be measured fr building line (street side) to the average height of the point of a flat roof structure. The grade of a lot is e approval by the City. If the grade was not estabr by the City, the Director of Public Works shall e the structure. In the case where a house 0 construction of a new house or structur be no more than one foot higher than t was removed. In the case of a cor structure facing a street. o -The the front or the highest time of subdivision i subdivision approval rade prior to construction of n removed from a lot for the w house or structure shall ~radet~.~!.~ d for the house or structure that th~.grade<.is:::taken from all sides of the house or Keysser referred to the ne impervious surface requ' the sentence regarding t Grimes said yes. . g building lot coverage. Waldhauser asked if swimming pools. Grimes said yes. Cera asked if rface can be made into a separate item. by Eck and motion carried unanimously to following subdivision: Subdivision 10. Total impervious R<< surface, including swimming pools, on any loter parcel shall not helot!~I;parcel area. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Eck and motion carried 4 to 3 to recommend approval of the following language in Subdivision 10(A)(3): Cera, Schmidgall and Waldhauser voted no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 Page 5 (a.) In the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or greater, the side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in height shall be 15 feet. The side setbacks for any structure greater than 15 feet in height shall be 15 feet plus one-half foot for each additional one foot (or portion thereof) of structure height over 15 feet. In the case of additions to existing structures, these setback rules shall apply if the foundation size or footprint of the structure is increased by 10% or more. If the foundation size or footprint is not increased by 10% or more, vertical additions may be made without increasing existing side setbacks. Keysser referred to side wall articu tion language rega as is bec 'de setbacks for structures 10% of the lot width and to 12.5 feet). The side t shall be 15 feet plus one-half f) 0 structure height over 15 feet. In setback rules shall apply if the e is in eased by 10% or more. If the d by 10% or more, vertical additions may be e Setbacks. (b.) In the case of lots having a width greater than 65 feet and less side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in height shall be 12. setbacks for any structure greater than 15 feet in height shall foot for each additional one foot (or portion thereof) of struc the case of additions to existing structures, these setback ru foundation size or footprint of the structure is increase y 10 foundation size or footprint is not increased by 10% or made without increasing existing side setbacks. (c.) In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet 15 feet or less in height along the north 0 along the south or east side shall be 2 setbacks for any structure greater th foot for each additional one foot the case of additions to existing foundation size or footprint foundation size or footpri made without increasing egarding side wall articulation. McCarty asked if the ies to a second story. Grimes said he could add a second story. Schmidgall said he likes the language all". The Commissioners agreed. ed by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend ing language in Subdivision 10(A)(3): (d.) For any new r a new house, addition or replacement through a tear-down, any 32 feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of a least 2 feet in st 8 feet in length, for every 32 feet of wall. Keysser referred to the next item regarding height limitations. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following language in Subdivision 10: B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District to exceed a height of 28 feet for pitched roof houses and 25 feet for flat roof houses. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 Page 6 Keysser referred to the next item regarding the amount of accessory structure space allowed on a lot. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following language in Subdivision 11: E. Each property is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the following accessory structures: detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses and gazebos. Swimming pools are not inCluded in this requirement. No one detached accessory structure may be larger than 800 square feet in area and any accessory structure over 1 e feet in area requires a building permit. Keysser referred to the next item regarding the roof design on mmend ansard than 120 MOVED by Eck, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried u approval of the following language in Subdivision 11: J. Roof. roofs are not permitted on any accessory building wit square feet. Keysser referred to the next item regarding the for structures built prior to the adoption of . e setback requirements ordinance. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Schmi recommend approval of the followi Setback of Pre-2008 Structures Zoning District prior to Janua with the Zoning Code at th are considered conformi additions to such propert g!.I..gn ried unanimously to .Suldiivision 13. Height and Side structures constructed in the R-1 th e setback and height were compliant g permit was issued, the location and height ing Code. However, new construction and ith current requirements of the Zoning Code. Keysser referred to the use of pe requirements i not to ad egarding driveway requirements. Cera asked about ways. Grimes explained that part of the driveway enng the look of a driveway. The Commissioners decided to the driveway requirements. conded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to I of the following language in Subdivision 17: C. Coverage. No ercent (40%) of the front yard may be covered with concrete, ment, stone or pavers. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 Page 7 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. Hogeboom reminded the Commission that at their meeting last m Conditional Use Permit to allow an employee only daycare cen zoned Business and Professional Offices. At that meeting th to amend the Business and Professional Offices Zoning Dis centers as a conditional use. Hogeboom stated that after that daycare centers were already allowed as a conditional3ic .n Professional Offices Zoning District, the language code so this public hearing is to recommend tha to the section that lists the uses allowed as a co da operty d staff care ealized sand rent section of the language be moved Keysser asked if the Planning Commisso Hogeboom said yes, because a dayca Use Permit. daycare center proposals. need to apply for a Conditional Waldhauser asked why it is limi limiting daycare centers to Offices Zoning District w other types of daycare ce I nly daycare centers. Hogeboom that centers in the Business and Professional sistency with the other zoning districts and that bettefsuited to the Commercial Zoning District. Keysser said he wa agreed. e employee-only daycare centers. The Commissioners g of existing daycare centers. Grimes stated that most of the Golden Valley are located in churches in the Institutional the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, he public hearing. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to amend the language in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District to list employee-only daycare centers as a Conditional Use. - Short Recess- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 Page 8 Keysser said he would like to switch agenda items four and five. 4. Discussion Regarding Duke Development Grimes showed the Commissioners a site plan of the proposed Duke development in St. Louis Park. He stated that the St. Louis Park Planning Commission has done a preliminary review of the proposal and the St. Louis Park and Golden Valley City Councils are still discussing the possibility of having a joint powers agreement. He explained that the proposal is to build the parking structure in Golden Valley and the re development in St. Louis Park. He stated that the proposal is for 340 retail space and 1.1 million square feet of office space in three or f r would like to start the retail portion this summer and the office s e la e year. eet of ey or next He referred to the proposed joint powers agreement and stat that it made more sense to have one zoning authority Golden Valley City Council has not yet approved it was felt lopment but the He stated that there have been neighborhood m tings w the residents in the area to discuss traffic and sewer capacity issues. iso sed s of the traffic calming options and noted that the biggest concE?rn i <t~.j~ w much traffic from this development will go to the east. Another con pedestrian and bioycle connections. mission will be reviewing this proposal. nt not signed by the two cities than the 'ng Commission for review as a PUD. Keysser asked if the Golden Va Grimes stated that if a joint po proposal will probably com Keysser suggested havin Golden Valley. Gri s respective City Cou ann Commission meeting with St. Louis Park and ks these major issues would be better dealt with by the Waldhauser a 1-394. Gri pedest oposal is looking at providing better pedestrian acoess over explained that both cities have reoeived grants to look at velopment is proposing two hotels. Grimes said yes and noted that ndpoint hotels are a good use because they don't create peak hour trips. 5. sion Regarding Mixed Use Zoning District Language Hogeboom stated that the City Council has adopted the 1-394 Corridor Study as a part of the Comprehensive Plan so now the Planning Commission and City Council need to look at adopting the Mixed Use Zoning District language in order to match the Comprehensive Plan designations. He asked the Commissioners to review the proposed Mixed Use Zoning District language and stated that staff will be putting this item on an agenda in the near future for another discussion. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2008 Page 9 Grimes added that the last time the Planning Commission reviewed this language it was slightly premature because the Comprehensive Plan hadn't yet been amended. So now that the Comprehensive Plan has been amended this language needs to be adopted. Cera asked if this proposed Mixed Use Zoning District language is only for the 1-394 Corridor area. Grimes said yes, this zoning district is very specific to the 1-394 Corridor area. He told the Commissioners that they will also be reviewing the proposed sign code for this area. Keysser discussed an amortization clause that would allow the City t property after a certain amount of time. Grimes stated that he doe 't direction the City Council wants to take. scuss hardships on March Kluchka asked about variances from this language. Grimes zoning code is subject to variances. 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing an~iRe Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and ther Grimes reminded the Commission of the 19,2008 at 7 pm. 7. Other Business Kluchka asked about the st that staff is still working 0 scheduled in May. Kluch explained that at th open the various chapter mpreh nsive Plan update. Hogeboom stated hapters. He added that there is an open house owth~ public will be reviewing it. Hogeboom there will be booths with consultants available to discuss ters will also be posted on the City's website. ent public hearing earlier this evening and stated that it he had changed his vote from the last discussion the d it on record that he meant to vote against the language increase in a structures' footprint before the proposed new 8. The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 pm. Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 76~-593-81 09 (fax) Date: February 21, 2008 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Continued Discussion on Proposed 1-394 Mixed-Use Zoning District Staff provided the Planning Commission with a copy of the proposed 1-394 Mixed-Use Zoning District with the February 11, 2008 Planning Commission agenda packet. At the February 11 meeting, staff said that this District will be placed on the February 25,2008 agenda for detailed discussion. This proposed district is very different from any of the other zoning districts. Therefore, the staff and Planning Commission must have a clear understanding of how it works. ' Staff would like to go through the proposed ordinance by section. Joe and I have spent quite a bit of time going over the ordinance and trying to understand how it will be administered. Hopefully, we will be able to answer your questions. Please feel free to make suggestions regarding language and content. Proposed Future Ordinance Related to Mixed-Use Zoning District The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Section 11.03 is amended by adding the following as new paragraphs in alphabetical order and renumbering the remaining paragraphs: "Display Window" - A window at street level, typically part of a storefront facade, used to display merchandise. "Live-Work Unit" - A dwelling unit in combination with a shop, office, studio, or other work space within the same building, where the resident occupant both lives and works. "Park" - An open space with natural vegetation and landscaping, which may include recreational facilities, designed to serve the recreation needs of the residents of the community. "Play Area" - A small park developed primarily for use by children, which typically contains play equipment, seating, and may include other facilities such as basketball or tennis courts. "Plaza" - An open space that is generally open to the public and used for passive recreational activities and relaxation. Plazas are areas typically provided with amenities such as seating, paving, water features, public art, shade trees, grass and other landscaping. Section 2. Section 11.12 of the City Code is hereby amended by changing it to read as follows: SECTION 11.12. PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON ONE LOT. Except for properties within the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District or regulated under the Planned Unit Development Regulations of this Chapter, every principal structure erected in the City after the effective date of this section (October 3, 1991) shall be located on a separate lot and in no case shall there be more than one principal structure on a lot. Section 3. A new Section 11.47 entitled 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District, is hereby adopted to read as follows: SECTION 11.47.1-394 MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The City of Golden Valley has undertaken a study of the 1-394 Corridor with the intent of improving the area's cohesiveness, attractiveness, and sustainability. The purpose of the 1-394 Mixed Use ("MU") Zoning District is to implement the principles and recommendations of the 1-394 Corridor Study. The principles are as follows: July 1 0, 2007 1 A. Enable the corridor to evolve toward a diverse mix of land uses, including residential as well as commercial and industrial. B. Maximize integration rather than separation of land uses, where appropriate. C. Maintain the corridor as an employment center. D. Improve the visual coherence and attractiveness of the corridor. E. Improve connectivity for all modes. F. Foster neighborhood-serving retail and services. G. Maintain or improve the functioning of intersections and highway interchanges. H. Foster sustainable development and work to establish a balance between urban and natural systems. The District includes specific standards for building form, height, bulk and placement in order to encourage development that is varied, visually appealing, accessible to non- motorized transportation and pedestrian-oriented. It is designed to complement the standards of the 1-394 Overlay District. Subdivision 2. District Established. Properties shall be established within the 1-394 MU Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter. The district thus established and/or any subsequent changes to such district shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11 .11 of this Chapter. Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the 1- 394 MU District: A. Multiple Dwelling (3 or more units) B. Elderly and Handicapped Housing C. All permitted uses in the Commercial Zoning District, provided that such uses are combined with other permitted or conditional uses within a mixed- use building, and that the gross floor area occupied by any such single use shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. D. Class III Restaurants E. Business and professional offices, provided that the gross floor area occupied by the use(s) on any lot shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. July 10, 2007 2 F. Medical clinics G. Live-work units H. All uses permitted in the Institutional Zoning Districts, 1-1 through 1-3 I. Child Care Facilities J. Adult Day Care Centers K. Structured parking accessory to any permitted use Subdivision 4. Conditional Uses. A. Class II Restaurants B. Any permitted commercial use or restaurant in a free-standing building C. Any commercial use occupying more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area D. Business and professional offices occupying more than 10,000 square feet on any zoning lot. The City Council may establish a maximum amount of office development that will be permitted on any zoning lot, based upon traffic studies as required by the 1-394 Overlay Zoning District, using appropriate minimum Levels of Service. E. Research and development laboratories F. Convenience stores, including the sale of gasoline. G. Drive-in or drive-through facilities accessory to any permitted or conditional use. H. Buildings exceeding the height limits specified in Subdivision 6.D Subdivision 5. Standards for Live-Work Units. The purpose of a live-work unit is to provide a transitional use type between a home occupation and a larger commercial enterprise, and to provide neighborhood-oriented commercial services, while maintaining a generally residential character in which the work space is subordinate to the residential use. A. The work space may be located on any floor of the building, but businesses serving the public shall generally be located on the first floor for accessibility. Office or studio spaces or other low-traffic activities may be located on upper floors or basements. July 10, 2007 3 B. The dwelling unit component shall maintain a separate entrance located on the front or side facade and accessible from the primary abutting public street. C. The work space component of the unit shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the total gross floor area of the unit. D. A total of two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for a live-work unit, located to the rear of the unit, or in an underground or enclosed space. E. The business component of the building may include offices, small service establishments, home crafts which are typically considered accessory to a dwelling unit, or limited retailing (by appointment only) associated with fine arts, crafts, or personal services. It may not include a wholesale business, a manufacturing business, a commercial food service requiring a license, a limousine business or auto service or repair for any vehicles other than those registered to residents of the property. F. The business of the live-work unit must be conducted by a person who resides in the dwelling unit. The business shall not employ more than 2 workers on-site at anyone time who live outside of the live-work unit. Subdivision 6. Dimensional Standards. A. Minimum front yard setback, buildings: 1. Nonresidential or mixed uses facing an R-1 zoning district across a public street: 75 feet (measured from right-of-way) 2. Residential uses facing an R-1 zoning district across a public street: 30 feet. 3. Buildings with residential uses at ground level: 10 feet from edge of right-of-way. 4. Buildings with nonresidential uses at ground level: no minimum setback 5. All setbacks shall be landscaped according to the standards of Subdivision 8 hereof. B. Front, side and rear yard setbacks, surface parking: at least 15 feet, landscaped according to the standards of Subdivision 8 hereof. C. Side and rear yard setbacks, buildings: 1. Adjoining an R-1 or R-2 zoning district: 50 feet 2. Adjoining any other district: 10 feet July 10, 2007 4 D. Maximum height: three height subdistricts, designated as "A" through "C" are established, as shown on Figure 1. Maximum height shall not exceed the following except by Conditional Use Permit: 1. Subdistrict A (Low): 3 stories 2. Subdistrict B (Medium): 6 stories 3. Subdistrict C (High): 10 stories E. Transitional height: Buildings or portions of buildings located within 75 feet of a residential district boundary shall not exceed the maximum height permitted within that residential district. F. Minimum height: 2 stories. A one-story wing or section of a taller building may be permitted if it comprises no more than 25 percent of the length of the fac;ade. G. Maximum impervious coverage: The maximum impervious coverage is 65%. Subdivision 7. Density and Mix of Uses. Mix of uses, minimum densities and floor area ratios are established to ensure that new development or redevelopment achieves the goals of the 1-394 Corridor Study and contributes to a lively, pedestrian-oriented environment. A. Required mix of uses. Development sites over 2 acres in size in height subdistrict C shall include at least two use types from the following categories: 1. Residential 2. Commercial 3. Office 4. Other, including studios and other live-work uses B. Required open space. Development sites over 2 acres in size shall reserve at least 15 % of the site as designed and landscaped open space, consisting of a plaza, green, park, play area, trail or parkway or combination thereof. C. Minimum density, residential development 1. If housing is part of a mixed use development, no minimum density is required. 2. Freestanding residential buildings shall be developed at a minimum density of 15 units per net residential acre, with the exception of buildings or July 10, 2007 5 portions of buildings located within 75 feet of a residential district boundary (no minimum density applies in this transitional area). D. Maximum floor area ratio. Non-residential and mixed uses: 0.6 except by Conditional Use. Subdivision 8. Development Standards. This section establishes objective development standards for all uses within the District. Standards are intended to encourage creative approaches to development, and therefore allow some degree of flexibility in that some are mandatory and others are suggested: A. Building placement. Buildings shall be placed close to the adjacent primary street where practicable. Primary streets include: Laurel Avenue and the north-south streets of Xenia, Colorado, Hampshire, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. (Additional primary streets may be established in the future.) Parking and services uses should be located in the interior of the site in order to create a vibrant pedestrian environment, slow traffic, and increase the visual interest and attractiveness of the area. B. Building design. Building facades over 30 feet in length shall be visually divided into smaller increments by architectural elements such as recesses, openings, variation in materials or details. Building tops shall be defined with the use of architectural details such as cornices, parapets, contrasting materials or varied window or roof shapes. Buildings should have a defined base, middle and top, and employ elements that relate to the human scale and appeal to the pedestrian, such as awnings, windows or arcades. C. Transparency. Views into and out of nonresidential buildings shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and enhance security. 1. Where nonresidential uses occupy the ground floor level, window and door openings shall comprise at least 60 percent of the length and 30 percent of the area of the ground floor fayade facing the primary street and shall be located between 3 and 8 feet above the adjacent grade level. Window and door or balcony openings shall comprise at least 15 percent of upper stories and side and rear facades. 2. Where residential uses occupy the ground floor level, window and door openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the primary fayade and 15 percent of each side and rear fayade. 3. Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and out of buildings. Views shall not be blocked between 3 and 8 feet above grade by storage, shelving mechanical equipment or other visual barriers. Display windows, if designed to provide equivalent visual interest, may be considered as an alternative approach as provided in Subdivision 8. The display area behind the window Shall be at least four feet deep and shall be used to display merchandise. July 10, 2007 6 D. Building entrances: Building entrances shall be provided on the primary street on which the building fronts, in addition to any entrances from rear or side parking areas. Street entrances shall be lighted and defined by means of a canopy, portico, recess, or other architectural details. E. Building materials: 1. Exterior wall finish. Exterior wall surfaces of all buildings, excluding those portions of foundation walls extending above finished grade, shall be faced with glass, exterior cement plaster (stucco), natural stone, brick, architectural concrete, non-corrugated metal, or an equivalent or better. Use of masonry and other durable materials is preferred. Except for glass, all color shall be integral to the exterior wall finish material. 2. At least 20% of the fa9ade facing the primary street shall be faced with Kasota stone or other indigenous dolomitic limestone. 3. When used as architectural trim, up to 15 percent of the exterior wall surface of a building elevation may be wood, metal, exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) or other equivalent materials as approved by the Director of Planning. 4. Fa9ade treatment. All building facades shall be constructed with materials of equivalent levels of quality to those used on the front fa9ade, except where a fa9ade is not visible to the public. F. Building colors. Bright or primary colors shall be limited to 15 percent of all street-facing facades and roofs, except when used in public art or on an awning. G. Parking location. Parking shall be located to the side and rear of buildings to the maximum extent feasible. Parking within front yard setbacks between buildings and the primary street shall be limited to a maximum depth of forty (40) feet. H. Parking screening. Parking areas shall be screened from public streets, sidewalks and paths by a landscaped frontage strip at least five (5) feet wide. If a parking area contains over one hundred (100) spaces, the frontage strip shall be increased to eight (8) feet in width. 1. Within the frontage strip, screening shall consist of either a masonry wall, berm or hedge or combination that forms a screen a minimum of three and one-half (3.5) and a maximum of four (4) feet in height, and not less than fifty percent (50%) opaque on a year-round basis. 2. Trees shall be planted at a minimum of one deciduous tree per fifty (50) feet within the frontage strip. July 10, 2007 7 I. Structured parking. The ground floor facade of any parking structure abutting any public street or walkway shall be designed and architecturally detailed in a manner consistent with adjacent commercial or office buildings. 1. Upper floors shall be designed so that sloped floors typical of parking structures do not dominate the appearance of the facade. 2. Entrance drives to structured parking (including underground parking) shall be located and designed to minimize interference with pedestrian movement. Pedestrian walks should be continued across driveways. 3. The appearance of structured parking entrances shall be minimized so that they do not dominate the street frontage of a building. Possible techniques include recessing the entry; extending portions of the structure over the entry; using screening and landscaping to soften the appearance of the entry; using the smallest curb cut and driveway possible; and subordinating the parking entrance (compared to the pedestrian entrance) in terms of size, prominence, location and design emphasis. J. Pedestrian circulation. 1. Sidewalks shall be required along all street frontages, and sidewalk and trail design shall be consistent with the City of Golden Valley Public Sidewalk and Trail Policy. 2. A well-defined pedestrian path shall be provided from the sidewalk to each principal customer/resident entrance of a building. Walkways shall be located so that the distance between street and entrance is minimized. Walkways shall be at least 6 feet in width, and shall be distinguished through pavement material from the surrounding parking lot. Walkways shall be landscaped for at least 50 percent of their length with trees, shrubs, flower beds and/or planter pots. 3. Sidewalks of at least 6 feet in width shall be provided along all building facades that abut public parking areas. 4. Sidewalks shall be maintained by the adjacent property owner. K. Drive-through facilities. 1. Drive-through elements shall not be located between the front fayade of the principal building and the street. No service shall be rendered, deliveries made or sales conducted within the required front yard, although tables may be provided for customer use. 2. Site design shall accommodate a logical and safe vehicle and pedestrian circulation pattern. Adequate queuing lane space shall be provided, without interfering with on-site parking/circulation. July 10, 2007 8 3. Drive-through canopies and other structures, where present, shall be constructed from the same materials as the primary building, and with a similar level of architectural quality and detailing. 4. Sound from any speakers used on the premises shall not be audible above a level of normal conversation at the boundary of any surrounding residential district or on any residential property. L. Outdoor seating and service areas. Outdoor seating and garbage receptacles are encouraged within front, side or rear setback areas, and temporary seating may be permitted within rights-of-way, provided that sidewalks remain clear to a width of five (5) feet. Service windows for serving food and beverages may be permitted as part of any building fayade. Garbage receptacles shall be maintained by the property owner. M. Public art. Public art is encouraged as a component of new development within the 1-394. Subdivision 9. Alternative Approaches to Development Standards. Although many of the development standards in this Section are mandatory, there may be other ways to achieve the same design objective. The City may permit alternative approaches that, in its determination, meet the intent of the development standards equally well or when specific physical conditions of the site or building would make compliance infeasible or inappropriate. Section 4. A new Section 11.48 entitled Site Plan Review, is hereby adopted to read as follows: SECTION 11.48. SITE PLAN REVIEW. Subdivision 1. Purpose. Site plan review standards are established to promote development that is compatible with nearby properties, neighborhood character and natural features, and consistent with the comprehensive plan and/or area plans adopted by the City Council. The regulations in this Section are intended to minimize pedestrian and vehicular conflict, to promote public safety, and to encourage a high quality of development. The regulations recognize the unique character of land and development throughout the City and the need for flexibility in site plan review. Subdivision 2. When Required. Within the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District, site plan approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit for any proposed construction or issuance of a zoning certificate for any proposed use, with the following exceptions: A. Construction or alteration of a single-family dwelling or accessory building; July 10, 2007 9 B. A use within an existing building that has received site plan approval, if the establishment of the use does not alter the approved site plan for the property. C. Proposed modifications that are strictly related to the interior of the building. D. Modifications, additions, or enlargements to a building which do not increase the gross floor area by more than 500 square feet or 10 percent, whichever is less, and which do not require a variance from the provisions of this ordinance. E. Alteration or expansion of an existing parking lot that results in a change of no greater than 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces. F. Grading or site preparation that results in minor modifications to the existing site, as approved by the City Engineer. Subdivision 3. Required Information. All site plans shall be drawn to scale and shall contain all the following information, except to the extent specifically waived in writing by the Director of Planning and Development: A. Project name, location, developer, and designer of the project. B. Evidence of ownership or an interest in the property. C. Property dimensions and boundaries. D. The existing and intended use of the property and all structures upon it, including floor area, number of dwelling units proposed, parking, circulation, landscaping, signage, and stormwater management and snow storage facilities. E. Any other information deemed necessary by the Director of Planning and Development. Subdivision 4. Site Plan Application. Applications for site plan approval shall be made on forms provided by the City. A. Site and building plans which do not involve a variance or conditional use, and do not involve other matters requiring consideration by the Planning Commission or City Council may be approved by the Director of Planning and Development. An administrative review shall be completed within 30 days of receipt of complete plans, and the applicant will be notified by mail. Administrative decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission. B. Site or building plans involving a conditional use, or other matters requiring consideration by the Planning Commission shall be reviewed by that body. The Planning Commission shall make findings and recommendations to the Council. July 10, 2007 10 C. Site or building plans involving a variance shall be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Subdivision 5. Site Plan Review Standards. Site plans shall be reviewed with reference to: A. Conformance to the applicable standards of the City Code and other city requirements B. Where applicable, consistency with the development standards and objectives established for the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District or specific areas or districts in the Comprehensive Plan or other area plans adopted by the City. Section 5. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 6. This Ordinance shall take effect after its publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this _ day of ,2007. Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Virnig, City Clerk July 10, 2007 11 Planning 763~593~8095 I 763~593~81 09 (fax) Date: February 20, 2008 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Appointments to the Douglas Drive Corridor Study Seoping Committee At the February 12, 2008 City Council/City Manager meeting, the Council reviewed the status of the grant that the City received from the Federal government to plan for improved bike and pedestrian routes within the Douglas Dr. Corridor. The City was notified in the middle of 2007 that its application for $50,000 of funding was approved. However, there has been a significant delay in the release of the funds. Until the funds are released, the City cannot hire the consultant to prepare the planning study. The City staff has been in frequent conversation with Transit for Livable Communities, the non-profit organization chosen by the Federal government to administer the grant. They have told the City that the funds should be released in the near future. The City Council believes that there are numerous issues that should be studied along the Douglas Dr. Corridor in addition to the improvement of bike and pedestrian routes. As the Planning Commission knows from its comprehensive plan studies, there are numerous land uses along the corridor ranging from single-family homes to heavy industry to schools and churches. Transportation and transit are also serious issues. The City Council believes that this corridor needs to also be looked at from a land use perspective similar to the 1-394 Corridor Study. The goal of the Douglas Dr. Corridor Study Scoping Committee would be to identify or "scope out" the issues that should be addressed within the Corridor Study. This Scoping Study would be used by the City Council to focus the direction of the Corridor Study. Three members of the City Council have shown initial interest in servicing on the Scoping Committee. Staff would like to have up to three members of the Planning Commission to join them. At this time, no consultants would be involved. It is anticipated that the Scoping Study would have its first meeting in April or May 2008 and meet at 7:30 am on a weekday. Staff does not anticipate that there would be more than one meeting per month. Recommended Action Appoint three members of the Planning Commission to the Douglas Dr. Corridor Study Scoping Committee