Loading...
02-11-08 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden 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 Development Mark Grimes, Planning Intern Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes January 14, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting McCarty referred to the third paragraph on page 2 and stated that the word "to" should be the word "the". He referred to the fifth paragraph on page 2 and stated that the word "also" should be omitted. He referred to the last paragraph on page 5 and questioned if the language regarding 10% of a building's footprint was worded correctly. The Commission decided to leave it as it was written. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 14, 2008 minutes with the above noted corrections. 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 Grimes referred to the last Planning Commission meeting and reminded the Commissioners that the biggest issue raised at that meeting was how to determine the side yard setback requirements and when the proposed new requirements should be used. He stated that the other issues addressed were clarifying how the height of a house is determined, making sure that existing conforming structures don't become non- conforming once 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 clarified that there are two options for new construction to consider. One option is to increase the side yard setback requirements on both sides of a lot for houses that are taller than 15 feet. The other option is to consider increasing the side yard setback requirement only for the side of the house that is taller than 15 feet. Keysser referred to houses that are torn down. Grimes reiterated that state law says that if a structure was built in a conforming way it can be replaced, repaired and maintained but not expanded. Keysser asked if a one-story cottage could be torn down and replaced with a two-story home as long at the same footprint was used. Grimes said no because that would be considered an expansion. Eck said he wants to be consistent and questioned why somebody would be allowed to remodel one way but not allowed to build a new house the same way when the net result is the same. Cera said if someone is spending the money to tear a house down they can spend the money to rebuild it right. Keysser referred to the language about additions to houses. Waldhauser suggested allowing a certain number of square feet instead of saying that an addition up to 10% of the footprint could be built without following the proposed new setback requirements. Cera agreed with Waldhauser's suggestion. Keyser said he would be more comfortable allowing a percentage but suggested language that would allow an addition to be 10% of the original footprint, not to exceed 400 square feet. Grimes stated that it is going to be difficult to figure out 10% of a structure's footprint because the measurements are going to have to be verified before and after construction. He suggested measuring houses using the outside dimension. He questioned if the 10% language would only apply one time or to one addition. The Commissioners agreed on allowing a 10% 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 and the value of the existing homes. She added that thousands of residents fit into this category and she doesn't think the City should be worrying about the "could-be" young buyers because they'll find something that fits and their first home probably won't be their last. She said she feels that if an expansion or rebuild won't meet the new code requirements, the current house is already right-sized for the lot. Owners or developers can build anything they want within the setback and height limitations. She added that there is nothing ambiguous about applying the rules to all housing and if the code isn't applied across the board, it is meaningless and homeowners are still free to petition for a variance. She suggested the City keep the current residents happy by giving them a measure of security and rules everybody concerned can understand and follow. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. McCarty stated that he doesn't think that Councilmember Shaffer's proposal is a simple proposal and he would like to go back to the Planning Commission's original report. Cera showed the Commission an aerial photo of a house in St. Louis Park that had a second story addition on it that went straight up on top of the first floor. He said he is worried that the same thing will happen in Golden Valley so remodels and teardowns should be treated the same way as new construction. He said he is against allowing a 10% increase in a footprint before the new setback language applies. Keysser suggested going through the proposed new ordinance one item at a time and voting on them individually. He started with the first one which is the definition of "Average Grade of a Lot". McCarty asked if the measurements are equidistant. Grimes stated that one measurement would be taken on both sides of a proposed house and one in the middle. Keysser 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" . Kluchka asked if illustrations are going to be added to this ordinance. Grimes said illustrations could be added to the code or they could be handed out as part of the building permit process. Waldhauser suggested putting illustrations on the City's website. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following definition: "Building Height Determination" - The vertical distance or height of a structure shall be measured from the grade at the front building line (street side) to the average height of the highest pitched roof or the highest point of a flat roof structure. The grade of a lot is established at the time of subdivision approval by the City. If the grade was not established at the time of subdivision approval by the City, the Director of Public Works shall establish the grade prior to construction of the structure. In the case where a house or structure has been removed from a lot for the construction of a new house or structure, the grade for the new house or structure shall be no more than one foot higherthan the grade that existed for the house or structure that was removed. In the case of a corner lot, the grade is taken from all sides of the house or structure facing a street. Keysser referred to the next item regarding building lot coverage. Waldhauser asked if impervious surface requirements include swimming pools. Grimes said yes. Cera asked if the sentence regarding total impervious surface can be made into a separate item. Grimes said yes. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following subdivision: Subdivision 10. Total impervious surface. Total impervious surface, including swimming pools, on any lot or parcel shall not exceed 50% of the lot or parcel area. Keysser referred to the next item regarding side yard setbacks. Eck read his proposed new language. McCarty questioned if an addition up to 10% of the building's footprint would still be allowed to be built straight on top of a first floor addition without having to be stepped back. 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. 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. (b.) In the case of lots having a width greater than 65 feet and less than 100 feet, the side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in height shall be 12.5 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. (c.) In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the side setbacks for structures 15 feet or less in height along the north or west side shall be 10% of the lot width and along the south or east side shall be 20% of the lot width (up to 12.5 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 the next item regarding side wall articulation. McCarty asked if the side wall articulation language applies to a second story. Grimes said he could add language regarding articulation on a second story. Schmidgall said he likes the language as is because it says "any wall". The Commissioners agreed. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following language in Subdivision 10(A)(3): (d.) For any new construction, whether a new house, addition or replacement through a tear-down, any wall longer than 32 feet in length must be articulated, with a shift of a least 2 feet in" depth, for at least 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 120 square feet in area requires a building permit. Keysser referred to the next item regarding the roof design on accessory structures. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following language in Subdivision 11: J. Roof. Gambrel and Mansard roofs are not permitted on any accessory building with a footprint of more than 120 square feet. Keysser referred to the next item regarding the height and side setback requirements for structures built prior to the adoption of this proposed new ordinance. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following language: Subdivision 13. Height and Side Setback of Pre-2008 Structures. For all existing structures constructed in the R-1 Zoning District prior to January 1, 2008, if the side setback and height were compliant with the Zoning Code at the time a building permit was issued, the location and height are considered conforming to current Zoning Code. However, new construction and additions to such properties must comply with current requirements of the Zoning Code. Keysser referred to the next item regarding driveway requirements. Cera asked about the use of pervious pavers for driveways. Grimes explained that part of the driveway requirements include considering the look of a driveway. The Commissioners decided not to add an adjustment for pervious pavers to the driveway requirements. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the following language in Subdivision 17: C. Coverage. No more than forty percent (40%) of the front yard may be covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, 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 month they reviewed a Conditional Use Permit to allow an employee only daycare center to operate in a property zoned Business and Professional Offices. At that meeting the Commission directed staff to amend the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District to include daycare centers as a conditional use. Hogeboom stated that after that meeting staff realized daycare centers were already allowed as a conditional use in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District, the language was just in a different section of the code so this public hearing is to recommend that the daycare center language be moved to the section that lists the uses allowed as a conditional use. Keysser asked if the Planning Commission would still review daycare center proposals. Hogeboom said yes, because a daycare center would still need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Waldhauser asked why it is limited to employee-only daycare centers. Hogeboom stated that limiting daycare centers to employee-only centers in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District would provide consistency with the other zoning districts and that other types of daycare centers are better suited to the Commercial Zoning District. Keysser said he wants to encourage employee-only daycare centers. The Commissioners agreed. Cera asked about the zoning of existing daycare centers. Grimes stated that most of the regular daycare centers in Golden Valley are located in churches in the Institutional Zoning District. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the 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 rest of the development in St. Louis Park. He stated that the proposal is for 340,000 square feet of retail space and 1.1 million square feet of office space in three or four buildings. They would like to start the retail portion this summer and the office space later this year or next year. He referred to the proposed joint powers agreement and stated that originally it was felt that it made more sense to have one zoning authority over the entire development but the Golden Valley City Council has not yet approved that agreement. He stated that there have been neighborhood meetings with the residents in the area to discuss traffic and sewer capacity issues. He discussed some of the traffic calming options and noted that the biggest concern of residents is how much traffic from this development will go to the east. Another concern is pedestrian and bicycle connections. Keysser asked if the Golden Valley Planning Commission will be reviewing this proposal. Grimes stated that if a joint powers agreement is not signed by the two cities than the proposal will probably come to the Planning Commission for review as a PUD. Keysser suggested having a joint Planning Commission meeting with St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. Grimes said he thinks these major issues would be better dealt with by the respective City Councils. Waldhauser asked if the proposal is looking at providing better pedestrian access over 1-394. Grimes said yes and explained that both cities have received grants to look at pedestrian connections. Cera asked if this development is proposing two hotels. Grimes said yes and noted that from a traffic standpoint hotels are a good use because they don't create peak hour trips. 5. Discussion 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 to foreclose on a property after a certain amount of time. Grimes stated that he doesn't think that is the direction the City Council wants to take. Kluchka asked about variances from this language. Grimes stated that anything in the zoning code is subject to variances. 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Grimes reminded the Commission of the BZA's meeting to discuss hardships on March 19,2008 at 7 pm. 7. Other Business Kluchka asked about the status of the Comprehensive Plan update. Hogeboom stated that staff is still working on a few of the chapters. He added that there is an open house scheduled in May. Kluchka asked how the public will be reviewing it. Hogeboom explained that at the open house there will be booths with consultants available to discuss the various chapters and the chapters will also be posted on the City's website. Eck referred to the infill development public hearing earlier this evening and stated that it was pointed out to him that he had changed his vote from the last discussion the Commission had. He wanted it on record that he meant to vote against the language regarding allowing a 10% increase in a structures' footprint before the proposed new language applies. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 pm. ~r?ij