Loading...
03-10-08 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10,2008 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, March 10, 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, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes February 25, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting McCarty referred to the second paragraph on page four and clarified that he would like there to be no "stone requirements" in the proposed Mixed Use Ordinance. He added that what he said about the "stone requirements" was just a suggestion or a compromise, but not what he would prefer. Waldhauser referred to the first sentence on page four and suggested that the second "and" be replaced with the word "by". MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 25, 2008 minutes with the above noted changes. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - SU09-12 -1017 Ravine Trail Applicant: Thomas Hunt & Linda McCracken-Hunt Address: 1017 Ravine Trail Purpose: The Subdivision would create two separate lots. Grimes referred to a location map and explained the applicant's proposal to divide their property into two lots. He stated that the new lot will be created to the south of the existing home and at this time the applicants are not proposing to build a second home on the newly created lot. Grimes discussed the subdivision requirements and noted that the proposed new lot will be a corner lot so both street sides of the lot have to be 100 feet in width. Both lots also have to be at least 10,000 square feet in size and meet setback requirements. In this case, one lot will be approximately 13,000 square feet and the other will be approximately 16,000 square feet. He referred to site plans submitted by the applicants and discussed the potential building area of the new lot, setback areas, preliminary grading plan, utility plan and as-built survey of the existing property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10,2008 Page 2 Grimes stated that all of the subdivision and zoning requirements have been metfor this proposed subdivision and staff is recommending approval of this request. He added that staff will also be working on a subdivision agreement for this property that will incorporate City Engineer Jeff Oliver's comments regarding right-of-way permits, sanitary sewer issues, grading and erosion controls plans, tree preservation, easements and park dedication fees. Keysser asked where Wayzata Boulevard ends. Linda McCracken-Hunt, applicant, referred to the location map and explained that the road on the south side of their property has always been a frontage road and that it "dead-ends" slightly east of their property. Keysser asked if there are easements on the property for maintenance of the sound wall and if the wall would affect any of the setback areas. Grimes said he is not aware of any easements on this property. He stated that there is a significant amount of right-of-way for the wall and the maintenance of the wall and it does not affect any of the setbacks. Kluchka asked if there would be any impacts to this property as a result of the proposed new infill ordinance. Grimes explained that the proposed infill ordinance does not affect this subdivision request but if may have an affect when a new house is built. McCarty asked Grimes if there is any concern about MnDOT possibly wanting additional right-of-way in the future. Grimes stated that he has talked to MnDOT and they have said that they have no concerns or additional needs regarding this property. McCracken-Hunt confirmed that they have no agreements or easements with MnDOT so they must have sufficient space to maintain the wall. Keysser asked when the sound wall was built. Tom Hunt, applicant, stated he thought the wall was built in 1990 or 1991. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of a minor subdivision of the property located at 1017 Ravine Trail with the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. The recommendations found in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, dated February 28, 2008 to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development shall become a part of this approval. 3. A park dedication fee in an amount determined by the City Council shall be assessed at the time of final plat approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10,2008 Page 3 4. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that include issues found in the City Engineer's memo dated February 28, 2008 3. Discussion Regarding Mixed Use Zoning District Language Grimes reminded the Commissioners of their last discussion regarding the proposed Mixed Use zoning district language. He stated that he thought it would be best to bring the proposed ordinance to them one more time for discussion before they have a public hearing. Eck referred to page six and asked what "sustainable" means. Grimes stated that "sustainable" is a fairly common term in planning. Waldhauser added that "sustainable" is the same as "green" and "environmentally friendly" and that it is something that can be sustained with minimal upkeep. Eck questioned if the average resident would understand what "sustainable" means. Keysser suggested adding the word "sustainable" to the definition section of the code. Grimes noted that "sustainable" development is also addressed in the purpose section of the proposed new language. Hogeboom stated that the most widely accepted definition of "sustainable" and the City's Comprehensive Plan definition of "sustainable" is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". Keysser questioned if that definition is too general or not technical enough. Waldhauser said she would like the definition to be general, not technical. Kluchka questioned if the definition should include "re-use". Cera stated that low-impact development, energy efficiency, green space and re-usable materials are all part of sustainability. McCarty said he thinks the architecture and building industries will help foster the "sustainability" language because "sustainable" is well understood throughout those industries. Schmidgall stated that trying to define "sustainable" will make the language clumsy. He agreed with McCarty that the term "sustainability" is well known in the industry. McCarty suggested leaving the language regarding sustainability as it is written and if it turns out that people don't understand it the issue can be revisited. Hogeboom stated that there is also a sustainable guidebook that staff will refer to when reviewing developments. Kluchka suggested creating a brochure about sustainability that could be handed out with development applications. Eck referred to page seven and asked what "integrally colored" means. Schmidgall stated that it means the color goes all the way through a material. McCarty stated that there are many materials that are not integrally colored and he questioned the validity and intent of the wording. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 2008 Page 4 Cera suggested the language say material should be integrally colored where possible or practical. Schmidgall suggested eliminating the sentence regarding integrally colored materials. The Commissioners agreed to strike the language regarding integrally colored materials. Kluchka referred to Subdivision 3 on page two regarding permitted uses and said he didn't capture that it was talking about multiple uses. He said he would like to make it less confusing and more usable. Grimes noted that Subdivision 7 explains when mixed uses are required. Kluchka asked what the ordinance is trying not to allow. Cera stated that if a use is not mixed then it will require a Conditional Use Permit. Grimes added that the ordinance also states that if a development is over two acres in size it has to be mixed use. Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 5 regarding live-work units and stated that she doesn't agree that these types of units should maintain a generally residential character in which the work space is subordinate to the residential use. She questioned why the City would care if a live-work unit looks residential. Kluchka asked what "neighborhood-oriented commercial services" means. Grimes said those are businesses that serve a neighborhood. Kluchka said he thinks that is limiting. Grimes suggested using the words "small-scale commercial services" instead. Waldhauser suggested striking the words "and to provide neighborhood-oriented commercial services". Keysser suggested also striking the word "larger" in Subdivision 5. Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 5(D) regarding live-work units and questioned why they would want to exclude wholesale and manufacturing businesses. Grimes stated that live-work units are limited by the number of employees they can have so the words "wholesale business and manufacturing business" could be stricken. Cera questioned if a commercial food service business would need a Conditional Use Permit. Grimes stated the City could require a Conditional Use Permit for any type of business dealing with food but any time food is involved there is going to be some type of license required by the City or the State. Keysser suggested requiring all live-work units to have an association or covenants so that the owners can restrict some of the issues that might arise. Grimes said he would add language to the ordinance that requires live-work units to have covenants or rules regarding their use. Kluchka referred to Subdivision 5(D) and suggested striking the words "by appointment only". Keysser thought those words would help limit traffic. Keysser referred to Subdivision 5(F) regarding minimum height and questioned how a restaurant would fit in. Waldhauser suggested the language regarding height say "buildings occupying 5,000 square feet (rather than 10,000) or more must be two stories Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10,2008 Page 5 in height. Schmidgall said he doesn't think they can anticipate every development scenario. The Commissioners agreed that it should be changed to 5,000 square feet. Grimes referred to Subdivision 7(A) and suggested the words "in height subdistrict C" be stricken. The Commissioners agreed. Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 7(A) and asked what uses would be allowed by saying development sites over two acres in size shall be mixed use. She said she thinks it should be less than two acres. The Commissioners agreed to change the language to say sites over one acre in size shall be mixed use. Kluchka said he would like to see some examples or scenarios of the types of developments that would be allowed on sites over one and two acres in size. Grimes stated the 1-394 Corridor Study has illustrations showing which lots in the Corridor area are one or two acres in size. Kluchka questioned if there will be any inclusion of on-street parking in this area. Grimes said he doesn't think live-work units will create much traffic. Kluchka said he wants to be sure that there are no "no parking" signs installed. Grimes explained that developers will still have to follow the City's parking requirements. He added that the parking requirements may have to be amended to allow for live-work units. Waldhauser said she thinks developers will find a way to "squeeze in a ramp" or provide for parking some how. McCarty referred to Subdivision 8(E)(2) requiring that 20% of the fac;ade facing the primary street be faced with Kasota stone or other indigenous dolomitic limestone. He said that he thought that language was stricken because the Planning Commission vote at the last meeting was three to three. Waldhauser said she would like to keep the language in the proposed ordinance for discussion purposes. She added that requiring Kasota stone says the City has a clear intent and theme in the area. Kluchka said he likes Kasota stone, but he would be willing to compromise with the word "stone" instead, but he doesn't want the requirement removed completely. Keysser said he agrees that requiring Kasota stone limits architectural freedom. Schmidgall asked if a developer could propose using a different material. Grimes noted that Subdivision 9 allows for alternative approaches to development standards with City Council approval. Cera said he thinks there are two separate issues. One is requiring Kasota stone or just stone and the other is having the language regarding requiring stone in the ordinance at all. Keysser suggested the Commissioners vote on whether or not to remove the language regarding Kasota stone. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Cera and motion failed to remove the language regarding Kasota stone being required on 20% of the fac;ade facing the primary street. Cera, Keysser and McCarty voted yes to remove the language, Eck, Kluchka, Schmidgall and Waldhauser voted no. Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 8(C)(3) regarding the display area behind windows and suggested that area be required to be lighted. Cera said he would prefer not to mandate lighting for energy reasons. The Commissioners agreed not to require lighting in display areas. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10,2008 Page 6 McCarty said he would like consistency with the way numbers are written in the ordinance. He said he would like the numbers one through nine spelled out and numbers ten and higher can be figures. The Commissioners agreed. Kluchka referred to Subdivision 8(M) regarding public art being encouraged. He said he would like public art to be a requirement. Grimes stated that the language could be changed to require public art in developments over two acres in size. Keysser said he doesn't want to require public art, but he would like to keep the word "encourage" in the ordinance. Grimes explained that the next step in this process will be a public hearing at the April 14 Planning Commission meeting. 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kluchka reported on the March 5, 2008 City Council meeting. He stated that the ordinance allowing employee-only child care facilities was tabled because the City Council did not want to limit child. care facilities to "employee-only" child care facilities. 5. Other Business Kluchka said he would like to volunteer for the Douglas Drive Corridor Study Scoping Committee. The Planning Commission volunteers for this committee will be Kluchka, Keysser and Waldhauser. Keysser requested that email reminders be sent to the Commissioners regarding the March 18 City Council meeting and the March 19 Board of Zoning Appeals special meeting. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 pm. kd Llster Eck, Secretary -