Loading...
01-08-07 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room Monday, January 8, 2007 7pm 1. Approval of Minutes December 11, 2006 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Discussion Regarding Infill Housing Issues 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 4. Other Business . Duke Realty's (St. Louis Park) AUAR results . January 22 at 6 pm - Joint meeting with Environmental Commission to discuss the Comprehensive Plan - Water Supply Plan . February 12 at 6 pm - Joint meeting with City Council and URS to discuss the draft 1-394 Corridor final report 5. Adjournment . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 11 , 2006 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, December 11, 2006. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka (by speakerphone), McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was City Council Member De De Scanlon, Director of Planning and Development Mar Planning Intern Bryan Gadow, Planning Intern Teresa Murphy and Administ nt Lisa Wittman. Keysser stated t changed reg di imously to approve the 1. Approval of Minutes November 27,2006 Regular Planning Commis 'on MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Eck and November 27, 2006 minutes as submitted. . 2. Discussion Regarding Infill H Grimes referred to a report that th techniques to address the issue Planning Commission to nar like to address infill issue~ administer. Keysser adde input. Grimes agreed s ns ut together listing various lopments. Grimes said he would like the list to their main concerns and how they would he would like to keep the techniques easy to mint in this process he would like to have public the open house forum works well. . Ike to talk about whether or not anyth1ng should be ivision ordinance. d like to hear the Commission's feedback on what they feel the are so he and Murphy can do some more in depth research on . He referred to the list of techniques that he and Murphy wrote and technique is developing neighborhood conservation districts. He explained t nservation districts can be established for areas that have specific shared housing characteristics. He stated that this option would have the most administrative work and is usually done in larger cities. He added that the issue in Golden Valley is that there aren't strict boundaries of individual neighborhoods and that staff would probably have to divide the city into zones. . Keysser asked if conservation districts are usually defined by the neighborhoods themselves or if cities define the neighborhoods. Gadow said it is done both ways. Schmidgall noted that the City of Bloomington has established small conservation districts that were set up by the residents. Waldhauser stated that the neighbors themselves came up with their own restrictions and are responsible for administering them. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 2 Schmidgall said he can't think of any areas in Golden Valley where conservation districts would apply. Cera suggested they go through each idea on the list and decided if they do or do not want to consider them. Waldhauser noted that there are many different reasons why cities are looking at these infill/redevelopment issues. One example she read about was that a city was concerned about smaller homes disappearing and becoming upscale mansions which would price people out of the market. She said the Commission needs to figure out what they are trying to accomplish by doing this study. Gadow stated th coverage requir technique w additions on the size tions. She space s Murphy stated that the next technique on their list is impervious su said that Golden Valley has some regulations regarding the am t per property but that there are a lot more techniques regardin . itin surfaces. Keysser asked about Golden Valley's current impervi.~~~ s stated that there are currently regulations regardin buT!i;' coverage in the front yard. Cera said he thought would be good for the environment. ons. Grimes ge and driveway s surface regulations . Murphy stated that the next technique 0 would require a new home to be at the adjacent properties. Schmidgall sai close to the front yard setback a than a new house would have a it. Waldhauser said she thi setbacks. Grimes added t years. Cera said he's not age front yard setback which e front yard setback of hat if there is a house nearby set set back from the front yard setback not fit in with, or match anything nearby alley is pretty standard with its front yard f,{ont yard setback has been in place for many out 6flanging the front yard setback requirements. ~ e on their list is Floor-Area-Ratios (FAR) and lot h er said she likes this technique. Keysser asked if this t for new homes. Cera said no. If the FAR applied to new y add so much square footage to their existing house based at is more objectionable, a house that rambles over the whole lot or a user said she thinks it's both issues. Keysser said that the character of communities ange over time. Grimes agreed and said that the size of homes has increased dramatically over that last 30 years. Gadow stated that the next technique on their list is building volume ratio which deals with height more that than the floor area ratio. Keysser stated that if the City has height requirements and FAR requirements then a building volume ratio would not be needed. . Eck noted that the list of techniques says that building volume ratio measures the volume of a building above finished grade then it goes on to say that the basement is also Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 3 . accounted for when using building volume ratio. He asked how basements can be accounted for if it only calculates "above grade" space. Gadow said he didn't know, but he could research it further. Gadow stated that the next technique on their list is side wall articulation which breaks up the plane of a wall after a certain number of feet in depth or height. Waldhauser said she thought the current zoning ordinance had something in it about that. Grimes explained that for buildings over 40 feet in depth the entire side yard setback is increased but the house is not required to articulate. Cera added that it is a visual issue; it doesn't get at the massing of a house but would be useful for additions. 'ssue regarding height limitations is where people measure from is figured. Grimes stated that some cities require that grade is treet level but there are issues with that method when there is a slope. He explaine ow height is currently measured in Golden Valley. Waldhauser stated that people can back-fill their lots in order to get the grade they want. She said the new norm is a two story house on top of a walk out basement which means it has three levels. Keysser added that height is the one thing he thinks the City can have some control over. ndards ce or n Valley Gadow stated that the next technique on their list is setback an which require that a certain percentage of a lot is required to landscaped space. Keysser said he thinks the vast majorit are fairly well landscaped. Waldhauser asked how the setback techniques Iiste currently has. . Schmidgall said he liked the examples that people can build in. Murphy said that tec little more complicated to administer. dimensional zone that alculations involved and it is a Waldhauser said she liked the e lines because it would help nei said that method would be d setback planes and angles for roof o s have much more daylight. Keysser h home additions. Murphy referred to some r explained that definin . examples of how more that 20% t taller than t make it al she di regarding building height limitations. She first thing that needs to be done. She gave some ight such as requiring that a new home can not be e that was torn down or a new home can only be 20% ding it. She added that some of those examples however build a two story home. . Eck stated that the City presently has setback requirements and overall height requirements. He asked what the zoning code currently allows that the Commission doesn't want to see or would like to change. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 4 Schmidgall said a viable option is to do nothing. He said the Commission has heard a few people complain about "monstrous" houses but he is also in favor of property owner's rights. Scanlon asked how "monstrous" is being defined. Cera stated that on a 10,000 square foot lot someone could potentially build a 6,000 square foot home. Eck asked again what part of what the City allows now would they want to change. Keysser said his biggest concern is losing affordable homes. He doesn't want to see homes become too expensive. Eck said he is concerned that if the Cit changes the regulations then the C' Kluchka said he thinks people ar City has the tools they need, ho would k ement "affordable" Kluchka said he came up with five ideas from their conversation. like to see happen. The five ideas are: proposal for height lim' bonuses, establish. neighborhood conservation standards, education campaign, clarify or simplify subdivision regulati development and align with Envision goals. Cera stated that the techniques he would like to impervious surface requirements, (which are rei different setback requirements depending.o loor Area Ratio, wa r) and the height with e house. . oncerns of the neighbors and ople can't build two story houses. e idea of "McMansions" but he thinks the . eed more thought and clarification. Scanlon said the City has do not allow for growth. Gr" out putting restrictions on property owners that eed a d said that education is also part of the issue. e trying to address. Is there a big enough problem at i ce changes? He said there will always be someone of house or addition in a neighborhood. He questioned if erous enough or if the regulations need to be tightened up. e IS ue is the maximum building envelope and the issue of a maximum height limitation makes more sense to him" accessory structures also need to be considered because there is an Ize and height of sheds. . Cera stated that there seems to be two schools of thought. One thought is to leave the zoning regulations alone and one thought is tweak what the City currently has. He suggested maybe having two or three proposals. Keysser thought having two or three proposals would be confusing. He said he'd rather have one report and have people respond. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 5 Eck noted that he thinks they are all in agreement that impervious surface regulations are important. Keysser stated that accessory structure issues are also important. Eck added that he would also like clarification on how height is measured. Waldhauser said she would like staff to suggest a percentage of what a reasonable amount impervious surface would be. Eck asked if they want to keep researching the Floor Area Ratio option. Keyser said he would like to keep talking about Floor Area Ratio. Waldhauser said she's not sure that Floor Area Ratios accomplish anything. Cera asked about neighborhood conservation districts. Grimes something in the City News about neighborhood covenants. g Cera asked if the Commission still wanted to discuss chan Ordinance. Grimes stated that the City's philosophy 0 sub has always been a desirable place to live and if we c good. There does not appear to be an objection . 'slon t Golden Valley n lots it's probably 000 square foot lot size. Waldhauser asked if the Commission still w regulations. Keysser thought that might about the setbacks based on the heigh work for new homes, but it wouldn' the daylight plane out. Waldhauser asked er said that would probably Keysser suggested that they sta raft and have everyone comment on it. Grimes stated that their r February. ill be on a Council/Manager meeting in 3. Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Appeals and other Meetings 4. was discussed. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9 pm. . Hey Planning. 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: 1/4/07 From: Members of the City Planning Commission Bryan Gadow, Planning InteriJz-::: Teresa Murphy, Planning Intern -<fr^-- To: Subject: Research on McMansion Regulations Based on the comments from the December 11th City Planning Commission meeting, this is our response on the regulations that were selected for additional research. . Measuring Building Height There are a number of options to consider when determining how and where to measure the vertical height of a residential building as part of zoning regulations. The Golden Valley City Code currently defines the process for measuring height as the vertical distance above "grade" as defined from the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched roof or hipped roof. The measurement may be taken from the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a five (5) foot horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building, when such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than ten (10) feet above grade. See attached figure for more information. Other communities, such as Park City, UT measure height from any or all points on a structure to the natural grade (grade prior to any construction) below that point. To determine a building's height, staff calculates the evaluation of the highest ridges and peaks, including eaves. These points are then located on the site plan, and the elevation of natural grade below the point is subtracted from the elevation of the point on the ridge, thus indicating the height above natural grade. The City of Roseville, MN measures height from the average established curb level or from the average ground level at the building line, whichever is higher, to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the flat roof portion of a mansard roof and to the mean height between eaves and ridge for a pitched or hipped roof. 1 The City of Montevideo, MN measures height from the mean elevation of the finished lot grade along the street yard face ofthe structure to the highest point of flat roofs; to the mean height level between the eaves and ridges of gable, gambrel, hip and pitch roofs, or to the deck line of a . mansard roof. I http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/info/legal/ordinances/2003/1286.htm 1 A review of other communities' methods of defining building height indicates 'that Golden Valley is following a fairly common practice across the state. At this time we have been unable to find best practice examples of communities that measure building height from street level. Thus, it seems in Golden Valley's best interest to continue utilizing its current building height definition. . Impervious Surface Regulations Golden Valley currently allows 50 percent of the front yard to be covered by driveway surface, and maximum lot coverage ranges from 30-40 percent (excluding swimming pools). The City of Evanston, IL allows a maximum of 45 percent of impervious surface ratio, which includes swimming pools, sidewalks, driveways, and gravel areas. Evanston does provide a porch exemption, and driveways that existed before the adoption of the ordinance may be repaired or replaced provided the replacing or the repairing is in the same or lesser dimensions as existed on before the adoption of the ordinance. The City of Bloomington allows a maximum impervious surface coverage of 35 percent in R-1 single family lots. In addition, R-1 lots have a maximum of 12000 sq. ft. of impervious surface coverage, plus an additional 1 000 sq. ft. for each acre of lot size over one acre. The City of Rockville, MD allows between 30-60 percent impervious surface coverage, depending on the zoning district, with an additional 10 percent allowance for driveways and pathways. . In determining whether to address impervious surface regulations, the Planning Commission should consider if they are interested in addressing the environmental or the aesthetic concerns of larger building sizes, as these considerations influence whether more explicit impervious surface or open space regulations are the appropriate means of achieving the desired outcome. While this memo focuses only on R-1 district regulations, we feel that the Planning Commission members might also consider whether impervious surface regulations for additional zoning districts would be appropriate. In a meeting with Mark Grimes, Planning Director and Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist, potential impacts of implementing either impervious surface or open space requirements were identified. There would be an increase in staff time needed address implementation, surveys would be needed which would increase the cost to residents, and additional permits would be required. A sample sketch of the largest house and driveway allowed on a typical 1 0,000 sq. ft. lot in Golden Valley (a copy of this sketch is attached) showed that a 3,000 sq. ft. building footprint could be developed on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot that meets the 30% maximum lot coverage and setbacks. As allowed in the code currently, a lot could create an impervious surface that covers 50% of the front yard; and a pool, patios, and sidewalks to the side and back yards potentially increasing the amount of impervious surface to over 70%. However, Grimes and Eckman commented that they do have not really seen lots where lot coverage was extreme~ Accessory Building Regulations Golden Valley currently allows 1000 sq. ft. of accessory building space, but all buildings must not exceed ten ft. in height. A review of other local communities reveals that Golden Valley has room to strengthen its regulation of accessory building height and coverage. For example, St. Louis Park only allows a total of 800 sq. ft. or 25 percent of accessory building coverage, but allows a height of 15 ft, provided it is less than the height of the principal structure., Richfield allows for 1200 sq. ft. of accessory spaces, with an allowance of 1000 sq. ft. for private garages. .. 2 . . . Sidewall Articulation (Building Wall Modulation) Communities vary in the limits that they placed on the length of unbroken side wall planes. The City of EI Segundo, CA requires a 2 ft offset for at least 8 ft for any wall that extends unbroken for 2~ ft. The City of Austin, TX requires that for all new residential construction, a side wall may not extend unbroken for more than 32 ft on the side yard. To break-up walls longer than 32 ft, the city requires a perpendicular articulation of at least 4 ft, for a distance of at least 10ft on the side wall. 2 Side Yard Setbacks Golden Valley currently requires an additional 1 ft. of side yard setback for each additional 10ft. of structure over 40 ft. in depth. The City of St. Louis Park requires a side yard setback increase of two inches for each foot the length of the wall of the building exceeds 40 feet.3 Although side yard setback requirements do not prevent long unbroken planes of sidewalls, it does have the affect of moving the wall further from the property line and other adjacent residential structures. Recommendations · Keep Golden Valley's current definition for how building height is measured, Sec. 11.03(12), and provide additional public education to citizens on the measuring process. One possibility could be to include a figure that depicts how building height is measured within the online city code. · Revise Golden Valley Zoning Code, Sec. 11.21(10)(3d), to include a sidewall articulation or additional landscaping requirements for w~II depth that exceeds the current 40 ft. limit. · Revise Golden Valley Zoning Code. Sec. 11.21(11 )(B)&(F), to allow a maximum of 750 sq. ft.. on anyone detached accessory building, for a total of 1000 sq. ft. of accessory building space. 2 See Sec. 2.7 of the City of Austin, TX 's Residential Design and Compatibility and Design Standards for more information at htto://www.ci.austin.tx.us/zoning/downloads/austin residential ordinance approved.pdf 3 See Sec. 36-164(t)(7) of the City ofSt. Louis Park Code 3 Average height of highest gable - - CD CD Vertical Distance (A) 10 feet above lowest ground level -ITJ--~ CD '\ (8) Highest adjoining ground level at building. In this example. use (8) because it is lower than (A). Building Height definition: The vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building (B) or ten feet above the lowest ground level (A). whichever is lower. and the highest point of a flat roof or average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. Printed: August 28. 2006 Not to Scale Building Height ley in N ..- 80' ... ." . ,. ." 0." . .. .... W' ..,. .... .. .41t.~ .6t... T'~'","":'';.'~' '\ ... ...... "... " ..., .i.. I ... .. ... '... .. . ~"" T~~'", -."~,~ "~'~" 't.. ,.., ,A, ,.~ ,., ,.., .. .oJ .... .9' .. .'- T'~' _. ~..:.A~.~ ....~".....'~. in ..- Easement The right to use property owned by another for specific purpose or to gain access to another property. For example, uUlity companies often have easements on the private property of individuals to be able to install and maintain facilities. Setback The minimum distance a structure must be from the lot line. Building Lot Coverage No lot pr parcel can have a lot coverage of more than 30 percent for a lot or parcel over 10,000 square feet in area. 1<<01 Buildable Area The area of a lot remaining after the minimum setback requirements and building lot coverage of the zoning ordinance have been met. In this scenario, no accessory structure Is aHowed because maximum lot coverage has been met. Right-of-Way Commonly referred to as the "boulevard". Property Is owned by the public but turf and driveway are maintained privately by the adjacent owner. Contact Planning Dept for more specific information. Printed: August 28. 2006 Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet Maximum Size House (10.000 s.f. lot)