Loading...
10-13-08 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 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, October 13, 2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Keysser was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes September 22, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Eck referred to the Quail Woods subdivision proposal and stated that he didn't think the Planning Commission could legally add conditions of approval on a subdivision that meets all of the City's requirements. Grimes stated conditions have been placed on subdivision proposals in the past. He added that conditions could also be placed on the property in the subdivision development agreement which could be amended in the future. He said he would review the issue with the City Attorney. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 22 minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding Height of Buildings Allowed by Conditional Use in the High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider the height of buildings allowed by Conditional Use in the High Density Zoning District (R-4) Grimes noted that this is an informal public hearing regarding the height of buildings allowed in the R-4 zoning district without requiring a Conditional Use Permit. He explained that this issue came about because of the Applewood Pointe PUD proposal. The properties involved in the Applewood Pointe proposal are designated on the General Land Use Plan Map as High Density and the corresponding zoning district for that designation is R-4. He stated that the City Council held a public hearing regarding the rezoning of the properties that are proposed to make up the Applewood Pointe development and there was concern about allowing an 8-story or 96-foot high building without some sort of City review. Because of this concern the City Council wants the Planning Commission to review the language regarding height in the R-4 zoning district. Grimes stated that staff is recommending the language be changed to allow 5 stories or 60 feet in height and that anything taller would need a Conditional Use Permit. He stated that Commissioner Eck questioned if the height regulations should be linked to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2008 Page 2 the Conditional Use Permit process because Conditional Use Permits can be revoked if the conditions aren't met and the height of a building can't be revoked. He questioned if the height issue should be considered a variance issue instead. Cera asked about the height regulation in the R-3 zoning district. Grimes stated that the R-3 district allows buildings to be 48 feet in height before requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Grimes questioned if there are different construction techniques when going from a four story building to a five story building. McCarty said yes, a four story building would probably be a wood frame building whereas a five story building would most likely switch to metal frame construction. Grimes noted that taller buildings would likely be built using the PUD process. He stated that Commissioner Eck has a good point about using the CUP process and said he would get the City Attorney's opinion. Eck reiterated that a CUP is granted based on some type of condition and if an applicant fails to meet the conditions a CUP could be revoked. He questioned how a CUP could be revoked once a building is built. Schmidgall asked about the number of buildings currently in the City that are over 60 feet in height. Grimes stated that the Calvary co-op building is the tallest building in the City. Waldhauser noted that the properties in the Applewood Pointe development are all adjacent to single family homes. Grimes referred to the zoning map and stated that there are several R-4 properties that are adjacent to R-1 properties. Schmidgall said he thought they were trying to get the General Land Use Plan map and the Zoning map to match and noted that there are several properties on the Zoning map that don't match their land use designation. He asked if the Planning Commission could discuss making the two maps match each other. Grimes said yes, he is planning to bring the two maps back to the Planning Commission for review. Kluchka asked why the Applewood Pointe development is a PUD. Grimes stated that some of the reasons Applewood Pointe is being considered as a PUD is because the proposed two buildings share parking and access, the proposed setbacks are less than required and the value of the land dictates the use of the property. Waldhauser said it seems like the density is also what drives a development to use the PUP process. Kluchka asked about other differences between the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts and questioned if the setback requirements should be increased in the R-4 zoning district. Grimes stated that the setbacks in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts were recently reduced in order to create a more "urban" setting. Cera suggested having different guidelines depending on what is adjacent. Grimes explained that the zoning code used to divide the districts according to density but it was decided by the Planning Commission and City Council to implement height requirements and lot coverage Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2008 Page 3 requirements instead. He said that staff would do additional research and talk to the City Attorney regarding the issue of height and Conditional Use Permits. Schmidgall said he likes the idea of allowing 60 feet in height for buildings in the R-4 zoning district but he thinks Commissioner Eck is correct about not tying the height to the Conditional Use Permit process. Cera said he thinks the Planning Commission should look at the setback requirements in the R-4 zoning district and whether taller buildings should have to seek a variance or a PUD instead of a CUP. Grimes questioned what the hardship would be if an applicant wanted a taller building. Waldhauser said she can't imagine anything over 4 stories in height being acceptable to residents in an adjacent single family area. She questioned if the City even wants to keep the R-4 zoning district. McCarty said he would like to eliminate any reference to "stories" and just deal with height. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Kluchka said he is reluctant to change the R-4 zoning district right now. He said if the City has an R-3 zoning district and a person can ask for a variance to build something taller then it seems superfluous to have an R-4 zoning district. Waldhauser stated that there is higher density allowed in the R-4 zoning district. She asked about the density for the Applewood Pointe proposal. Grimes said the density for the Applewood Pointe proposal is approximately 30 units per acre. McCarty stated that many of the apartment buildings in the City have a higher density so he thinks they need to keep the R-4 zoning district. Cera suggested requiring larger front yard setbacks if a property is across the street from R-1 single family properties like they are for side and rear yard setbacks. Grimes stated the reason for the smaller front yard setback in the R-4 zoning district is because there is a street between the properties with 60 feet of right-of-way and 35 feet of front yard setback area on the properties across the street. Schmidgall questioned why the Planning Commission should review the setback requirements. Cera said he would like to address the issue of massing and the transition of large high rises next to residential neighborhoods. Grimes suggested looking at each lot zoned R-4 individually and then discuss setback language. Schmidgall said he is in favor of changing the allowed height in the R-4 zoning district to 60 feet. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2008 Page 4 Grimes referred to the language in the R-4 zoning district and suggested removing Subdivision 5(C) regarding requiring a Conditional Use Permit for buildings over 8 stories or 96 feet in height and adding Subdivision 10(8) stating that buildings shall not exceed 60 feet in height. He suggested the same amendment to the R~3 zoning district. McCarty said he would prefer to allow taller buildings because there would then be more green space. He suggested allowing 72 feet of height for buildings in the R-4 zoning district. Schmidgall said he doesn't think the Planning Commission is suggesting that no building over 60 feet in height would ever be built he would just like buildings taller than 60 feet in height to have to go through the review process. Waldhauser said she is concerned about the massing issue. Cera suggested waiting to discuss building height until they have further discussion about the rest of the language in the R-4 zoning district. McCarty said he thought the City Council gave this issue back to the Planning Commission strictly to discuss height. He said he is confused if they are talking about rezoning the Applewood Pointe properties or not. Schmidgall said his understanding was that the City Council was concerned about allowing a 96 foot tall building in the R-4 zoning district before a Conditional Use Permit would be required. Grimes explained that the City Council did not rezone the Applewood Pointe properties yet. Waldhauser questioned if the City Council can go to the next step in the Applewood Pointe approval process without rezoning the properties involved. Kluchka asked why the zoning of the property matters if the proposal is a PUD. Grimes stated that it has been the opinion of the City Attorney that the PUD use should match the underlying zoning district and be consistent with the General Land Use Plan map. Schmidgall said his understanding is that the struggle to keep Applewood Pointe off this property is lost so now the concern is about allowing buildings in the future to be 96 feet in height without requiring a Conditional Use Permit. McCarty said if the Applewood Pointe properties are not yet rezoned maybe they should reconsider the decision to rezone them to R~4. Cera asked Grimes how long it would take staff to research the issues that have been discussed. Grimes said approximately one month. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Cera and motion carried 6 to 1 to amend the language in the R-3 zoning district to state that buildings shall not exceed 48 feet in height and that in the R-4 zoning district buildings shall not exceed 60 feet in height. Commissioner McCarty voted no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2008 Page 5 ---Short Recess--- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. 4. Other Business A. Presentation by Michael Schroeder (LHB) regarding the Douglas Drive Corridor Study Hogeboom introduced Michael Schroeder from LHB, the consultant working on the Douglas Drive Corridor Study. Schroeder explained that the Douglas Drive Corridor Study Group has listened to the community and is ready to start working on some concept plans. He noted that Douglas Drive is a county road and there is no money available at this point to make significant improvements in the corridor so this is truly a planning study. Waldhauser stated that it has been very encouraging to see how many people have been interested in this study and what she has heard people say is that whatever is done in the corridor they want to make sure it enhances the quality of the single family properties. Schroeder referred to a PowerPoint presentation and discussed the boundaries of the study. He explained that the study is trying to accommodate existing users, especially pedestrians and bicycles and that safety is a prime concern. Schroeder discussed the stakeholder and community input from a workshop conducted on October 6,2008. He referred to a map that showed potential for change and explained that the map will help define the policies that will affect the future of the corridor. Schroeder discussed the next steps in the study process including the beginning of development concepts, pedestrian and bicycle networks, roadway options, future traffic projections and stormwater management concepts. Hogeboom stated that they are planning to have an open house in December 2008 or early 2009 and they hope to wrap-up the study early next year and bring it to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval early in 2009. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 13, 2008 Page 6 B. Discussion - Setbacks for patios and other paved areas in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1) Hogeboom explained that the issue regarding setback requirements for patios has been brought to staff's attention due to a recent variance request. He stated that currently the Zoning Code has a 3-foot setback requirement for driveways, but not for patios or other paved areas. He stated that he would like the Planning Commission to give staff direction on what they would like see regarding this issue. Schmidgall stated that a 3-foot setback requirement for patios seems reasonable. He asked about the rules regarding parking on grassy areas. Hogeboom explained that people are allowed drive over any type of surface they just can't park anywhere except on a driveway. Eck asked about the definition of a patio. Hogeboom stated that the Zoning Code doesn't define "patio" so staff uses the dictionary definition. Grimes noted that a deck or platform less than eight inches in height could also be built right up to the property line. Schmidgall asked about shared driveways. Grimes said the City does allow shared driveways. Waldhauser asked about retaining walls. Grimes said retaining walls can located in setback areas. Kluchka questioned the difference between requiring a 3-foot setback for patios versus the setback requirements for a structure. Hogeboom said he also is questioning setback requirements for sidewalks. Grimes said he is concerned about requiring a setback for sidewalks because there are many 40- foot wide lots in Golden Valley and a sidewalk setback would not leave much room for a person to build a sidewalk. Cera stated he thinks that would be considered a hardship. Hogeboom said he would work on potential language to add to the Zoning Code and bring it back to the Planning Commission for their review. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm. a-II a-- Lester ECk, S'ecretary