Loading...
04-09-07 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, April 9, 2007 7pm 1. Approval of Minutes February 12, 2007 Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting February 12, 2007 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Discussion Regarding Multiple Family Dwelling Ordinances 3. Discussion Regarding Infill Housing Report 4. Identification of planning "hot spots" for land Use Plan Map 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 6. Other Business Election of Officers 7. Adjournment Joint Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission and Golden Valley City Council . February 12, 2007 A joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council was held. at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, February 12, 2007 Planning Commission Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 6 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluc Schmidgall and Waldhauser, Mayor Linda Loomis, City Council Mem Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer. Also present were City Manager To Manager Jeanne Andre, Director of Planning and Development Corridor Consultants Dave Showalter and Suzanne Rhees fr Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Presentation/Discussion of the 1-394 Corrid Keysser stated that the City's Consultants, Dave URS Corp. are at this meeting to present the 1-3 anne Rhees from inal Report. . Rhees emphasized that the final report i the 1-394 Corridor Study process starte presentation and stated that the st and alternative development sce stated that there has been a lot survey and a visual prefere final report. 'd reminded the group that referred to a PowerPoint lysis, the development of principles Iy, suggesting implementation tools. She put luding a resident survey, a business of which will be part of the appendices of the inary Issues and talked about how the overall Corridor rocess. She noted the general land uses, the major and natural systems. She next showed a map titled owalter stated that he felt that portions of the land uses the freeway and major intersections were more visible, thereby value as a commercial site. He said those sites should ona attention and may be more suitable for more intense ded that the Study set a framework of the strengths and weaknesses ho Id take into account as the Corridor gets developed. . Reese dl ed the current land use in the Corridor and stated that most of the area is zoned Industrial and was originally designed for Industrial uses but the Corridor has evolved into an Industrial/Commercial mix that doesn't function all that well as one or the other. She referred to a map titled Susceptibility to Change and explained that it showed buildings that seem to be undervalued by comparison to their land values. She added that since they started the Study there have been several changes proposed in the Corridor including the former Olympic Printing site and the large development being proposed in St. Louis Park. Minutes of the Golden Valley joint Planning Commission/City Council Page 2 February 12, 2007 . Keysser asked about the time frame for the possibility for change in the Corridor area. Rhees said she thought it would take between 5 and 15 years. She noted that this study does not anticipate a proactive approach by the City for redevelopment, but rather proposes changing the zoning, which will set the framework for private development to occur. Rhees showed a graphic that illustrated circulation and connectivity and existing traffic conditions. She referred to specific intersections and discussed that some changes were recommended in the 1-394 Overlay District which is shared between Go alley and St. Louis Park. Pentel asked if the report will be available in a di doesn't know the ultimate plan at this point. both show auction hensive Rhees referred to the guiding principles and stated that they wer for the Final Report and the Ordinance. Pentel said she woul up sooner in the Final Report and suggested that they be re section. Andre added that there is also going to be a summa Plan where the principles could be highlighted. . Scanlon noted that the introduction page residents brought together to develop Report states there were 600 resid number in the Final Report. aid that there were 700 , the Envision Golden Valley . Rhees said she would clarify that Rhees referred to the propo introducing more mixed a "spine" between the 10 the corridor. She s . ano existing manufactur activity focusi rou public funds a I es an stated that one alternative focused on 'al in a tiered approach with Laurel Avenue being a ixed use with connectivity all the way through rnative is a current trends alternative that keeps the ossibly adds more manufacturing with most of the venue. Pentel stated that because there aren't a lot of at the alternatives are conceptual. inary site development data and discussed accommodating uired parking, landscaping and storm water requirements. She ceptual developments aren't necessarily what they expect to see enarios that could happen. . Rhees re to building height limits and stated that there are three height districts. The High-rise district is up to 10 stories, the mid-rise district is up 6 stories and the low-rise district is up to 3 stories. There is also a transitional provision near residential areas. She showed a development plan that focused on the Louisiana Avenue area and talked about the building footprints and prominent uses. Showalter added that the most highly visible and accessible sites have a higher intensity and higher value use. Scanlon asked why there aren't small park areas incorporated into this plan. Rhees explained that.Corridor is primarily privately owned in nature so if the City publishes a . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley joint Planning Commission/City Council Page 3 February 12, 2007 plan saying it would like a park in a certain area it indicates that the City may be willing to acquire that land. She added that parks can be required to some extent as part of private development. Showalter referred to some areas where there would be an opportunity for privately owned recreation areas that would be accessible to the public. Andre gave some examples of privately owned properties in other communities that have public easements over them which in effect make them public parks that are privately owned and maintained. Rhees referred to the design guidelines section of the report and said th as a guide for new development in the Corridor area. She stated that has more specific requirements and the guidelines are intended to r thinking. She added that there will be a site plan review process de this district and part of the review process will be to see how de the design guidelines. Rhees discussed some of the design materials, internal Circulation, screening of parking lots, a ce colors, setbacks, fac;ade articulation and a minimum a nt required to be transparent, or able to see in and ou regarding the minimum amount of transparency like the City would allow a minimal amount of tr a certain percentage such as 30% of the gr requiring more windows could reduce a ithin eets uilding of bright f would be one he wording She said it sounds hees said they could specify ront fac;ade. Shaffer said ciency. Waldhauser asked about signage r type of signs she's seen that gro those types of signs are owned added that staff is still work' ;"Corridor. She also asked about the nes~rogether on one sign. Grimes stated at the City could encourage them. He nce for the Corridor area. Rhees referred to the tra helped with the ana is. T would shift away fro so the peakin impacts would arterial st becau tated that the City's consulting engineer SEH nd that if all of the proposed uses took place the traffic and retail trips and toward residential and office trips, d be different. 3,000 trips would be added but traffic v . Showalter added that the residential streets and minor s impacted by what is proposed than what is currently allowed are more related to residential and office use. possible streetscape treatment ideas and discussed issues such as in medians rather than trees. She also discussed some gateway ted that they've identified a range of things regarding streetscape use either more space or less space depending on the available right-of- Rhees stated that the next step in the process is developing ordinances to implement a Mixed Use zoning district. She highlighted some of the issues that the ordinance will address such as open space requirements, building heights, minimum residential density, maximum Floor Area Ratios (FAR) and the required use of mixed uses. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley joint Planning Commission/City Council Page 4 February 12, 2007 Grimes explained that the City has to go through a Comprehensive Plan amendment before the Zoning Code ordinance can be amended. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan amendment has to be approved by the Metropolitan Council and reviewed by adjoining communities, which hopefully will be done by early summer. He added that sewer capacity may be a concern to the Metropolitan Council. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 pm. . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2007 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, February 12, 2007. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm. Those present were Council Member Scanlon and Planning Commissio Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also prese Planning and Development Mark Grimes and Administrative Assis n I. Approval of minutes January 22, 2007 Joint Environmental Commission/PI MOVED by Eck, seconded McCarty and motion ca . above noted minutes as submitted. Keysser abs January 22, 2007 Planning Commis . Waldhauser referred to the last senten wording seemed opened ended. M Commissioners agreed. page two and stated the riking the words "to be higher". The MOVED by Eck, seconded minutes above with the I and motion carried unanimously to approve the II. e Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Appeals and other meetings the January 23 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting where ide if City Staff correctly interpreted how the height was ntly under construction on June Avenue South. He stated that tha aff interpreted the height incorrectly. He drew a diagram ;~f3oard understands the height of a structure should be measured. fflat the property will have to go back to the Board and request a t the City Attorney feels that there is justification for a hardship with this III. Other business . Discuss draft Infill Housing report Keysser stated that he would like to focus on the broad concept and recommendations in the report and suggested that the Commissioners email him with any typographical errors or minor corrections. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2007 Page 2 . Keysser referred to the introduction portion of the report and stated that he has heard two different figures regarding the number of lots that could possibly be subdivided. Grimes said he would clarify which number is correct. Keysser referred to the Summary and Background of Issues in the draft report and stated that the most common issues the Commission hears about regarding infill development is that the "character of the community" will change and the drainage from a newly built home will effect other properties. He stated that it is his feeling that the Commission came to a consensus that they would not recommend any changes to the Sub,' . . n Ordinance in this report. . o mmendation 2 and noted that the Commissioners talked about tt;Qeight of an accessory structure to 15 feet. Eck added that he thought nQ!@6t allowing the total height of an accessory structure to be higher than cture. Grimes stated the Commission did talk about limiting the overall height 0 essory structure to 15 feet but in conversations with the City's Building Official it was decided that keeping the height as it currently is (10 feet to the top plate) will eliminate design conflicts. Waldhauser said she doesn't think the roof of an accessory structure should have to be similar to the principal structure at all. Grimes stated that the current ordinance states that the entire design has to be similar to the principal structure. Keysser said he would take out letter (b) in Recommendation 2 related to the roof style of accessory structures because the current code already address that issue, and he would also clarify Recommendation 2 to state that no one "detached" accessory structure can be larger than 800 square feet in size. Keysser talked about the study procedures and tension and bal property owners and the rights of a community to maintain ce practices. Waldhauser said she thinks the wording in the re property owners is too strong and there seems to be a lot of community standards in place. Keysser agreed that it . co more of a philosophical issue than a legal issue. Gri create their own covenants. Waldhauser said sh residents that the City can't impose restrictions, going to educate the residents how to do th e 'ghts of rights of have and that it is t nel borhoods can conflicting to tell arou d and say that we're emselves. . Kluchka stated he would like some Ian educating the residents about the 0 Grimes added that he hopes ther get resident's input on this repo ort about the importance of s being addressed in this report. some sort of open house or open forum to Waldhauser referred to stated that increasing fro setbacks was discu ed. nd Teardown Housing section of the report and ac asn't discussed but increasing side yard said he would change the language in that section. Keysser referr . definition and i an ordina ation section of the report and asked if the DNR g height is part of the Zoning Code. Grimes said it is not Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12,2007 Page 3 . McCarty referred to Recommendation 3 and stated that he thought the Commission agreed that a sidewall must be articulated, with a shift of at least two feet, for a distance of at least 8 feet if the wall is over 32 feet in depth. Keysser said he would clarify that in the report. Grimes said he thinks a diagram would be helpful with this recommendation. McCarty referred to the "height of building" definition and stated that the word "structure" should be added after the words "flat roof' because that would include parapets in the measurement. City's system. Waldhauser other than the street so t storm water rnanagemen the proposed desig uid Corridor district is a neighborhood been encouragi to slow d ordina said he su ce all at he did in the built e.He the site he would ervious e gi nfor ted that overall lot be in favor of deleting the cing them for an overall for people to manage the Cera referred to the Storm Water Management section of the report. some calculations regarding the percentage of impervious surface u Code. He stated that on a 10,000 square foot lot a 5,500 square t h and therefore approximately 66% of the lot would be covered pe said that low impact development guidelines address mana as much as possible, not draining it away to the storm water like something put into the code regarding the maxim ere surface allowed. He added that there could possibl homeowners who use more pervious surfaces. coverage can't exceed 55 or 60%. Cera stated existing front yard impervious surface requi impervious surface amount because it w water on their own site. . Keysser stated that the City Engi stated that storm water drainag iveis different. The City Engineer has ed to go out to the street and into the the idea is to get the water to go somewhere to the City system. Cera stated that the way cythe current ordinance is in direct conflict with r the 1-394 Corridor District. Keysser said the 1-394 cale than a single-family home being built in a it's fair to compare the two. Grimes said the City has rain gardens in residential redevelopment in order to try ter run-off. Kluchka agreed that the single family zoning tent with what the 1-394 Corridor Ordinance states. Grimes t other cities require regarding the amounts of impervious ned how the Board of Zoning Appeals would handle a variance request from the ious surface requirements being proposed. Grimes suggested that in the Commissioner's final report there be something noting that there were some disagreeing opinions regarding impervious surface coverage amounts. Keysser said he would add something to the report saying that the Commission discussed impervious surface requirements, but have not come to a recommendation. . Grimes stated that he would have the Planning Interns do some research on permeable pavers and impervious surface coverage regulations. Waldhauser noted that the City of Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2007 Page 4 . Minneapolis has a surcharge on their sewer bills for people who have more than a certain percentage of impervious surface area. Grimes stated that the MnAPA is having a seminar on February 23 given by the Minnehaha Watershed District on Low Impact Development and urged the Commissioners to attend. · Discuss rescheduling/cancelling the February 26, 2007 regular Planning Commission meeting Grimes stated that there will be a Joint meeting with the Environm Open Space Commissions to kick-off the Comprehensive Plan Monday, February 26 at 7 pm. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm. . . . Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: April 6, 2007 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Multiple Family Dwelling Ordinances In February 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the attached multiple family dwelling ordinances. Prior to setting a City Council public hearing on the Ordinances, the City Council asked that they review the ordinances at a City Council/Manager meeting. This was finally done in March 2007. The ordinances that are attached reflect several small changes that were suggested by the City Council. These ordinances will now have a public hearing in front of the City Council. After the public hearing, the City Council can give final . approval. Staff would like to point out that in the proposed multiple family dwelling ordinances; the Planning Commission and City Council have included a maximum coverage by building and impervious surfaces for each of the new zoning districts. In the case of the Moderate Density Residential District (R-2) that is most similar to the Single Family Zoning District (R-1), the total area of impervious surface is 50% and structures cannot cover more than 30% of lots, including accessory structures. This is more restrictive than the existing requirement for the Single Family Zoning District (R-1). The R-1 district states that the building coverage be limited to 30% for lots over 10,000 sq. ft. and the only impervious surface limit is in the front yard where it is currently limited to 50% coverage. (In the Infill Report going to the City Council, the Planning Commission has recommended limiting impervious surfaces in the front yard to no more than 40%). Attachments Proposed ordinance for Section 11.22, Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) (4 pages) Proposed ordinance for Section 11.23, Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-3) (4 pages) Proposed ordinance for Section 11.24, High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) (4 pages) Proposed ordinance for deleting and adding definitions (2 pages) . 't . . . ORDINANCE NO. ,2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amendment Repealing in its Entirety Section 11.22 Two Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District and Adding New Section 11.22, Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Code, Chapter 11, entitled "Land Use Regulations" (Zoning) Section 11.22 Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District is hereby repealed its entirety and a new Section 11.22 entitled Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2), is hereby adopted to read as follows: SECTION 11.22. MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT (R-2) Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the R-2 Zoning District is to provide for single and two-family dwellings at a moderate density (up to 8 units per acre) along with directly related and complementary uses. Subdivision 2. District Established. Properties shall be established within the Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.22, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross- reference to this Section 11.22 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, 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 and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Residential Districts: A. Single Family dwellings B. Two-Family dwellings C. Townhouses D. Foster Family Homes E. Home occupations, as regulated by Section 11.21, Subdivision 15 F. Essential Services - Class I Subdivision 4. Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Zoning District: " . A. Accessory structures, including private garages as defined in this Chapter. Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. Residential facilities serving from seven to 25 persons B. Group foster family homes Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots. In the R-2 Residential Zoning District a lot of a minimum area of 11,000 square feet shall be required for any principal structure. A minimum lot width of 100 feet at the front setback line shall be required. No more than one kitchen area and one kitchenette shall be permitted in each dwelling unit. Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility. All structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision 8. Easements. No structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. . Subdivision 9. Maximum Coverage by Building and Impervious Surfaces. Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than 30% of the lot area. Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed 50% of the lot area. Subdivision 10. Principal Structures. Principal structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-2 Zoning District. Garages or other accessory structure which are attached to the house or main structure shall also be governed by these setback requirements, except for stair landings up to 25 square feet in size and for handicapped ramps. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be 20 percent of the lot depth. 3. Side Setback. The required side setback shall be 15 feet. . , . . 4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the rear yard setback, use the longer lot line. To determine the side yard setback, use the shortest lot line. B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District to exceed a height of three (3) stories or ae 30 feet as defined in the City's building code, whichever is less. C. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback. D. Decks attached to principal structure. Decks over eight inches from ground level shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure. Subdivision 11. Accessory Structures. Accessory structures shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-2 Zoning District: 1. Location. A Detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback and side setback as the principal structure. If an addition is buil1 on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least 10 feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the 10 feet of separation can be met. 2. Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 35 feet from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 3. Side and Rear Setbacks. Detached accessory structures shall be located no less than 5 feet from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between Structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 10 feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. B. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District to exceed a height of one story. One story may not exceed 10 feet from the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory structures shall be used only for . storage and/or utility space. 1 . . . C. Garage Construction Required. No building permit shall be issued for the construction of a new principal structure in the R-2 Zoning District not including at least a one stall garage per dwelling unit. D. Accessory structures including detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses and gazebos shall be limited in size to a total of 650 square feet per dwelling unit. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. E. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory structures shall meet the same setback requirements for accessory structures. F. Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location requirements for accessory structures. G. Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall not be allowed in the front yard of any single or two-family dwelling. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code-Including Penalty for Violation", Section 11.03 entitled "Definitions", and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this day of , 2007. IslLinda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: IslSusan M. Virniq Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk . . . ORDINANCE NO. ,2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amendment Repealing in its Entirety Section 11.25 Multiple Dwelling Zoning District and Adding New Section 11.23 Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-3) The City Council of the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.25 entitled "Multiple Dwelling Zoning District" is hereby repealed its entirety. Section 2. City Code Chapter 11 is hereby amended by adding a new Section 11.23, entitled "Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-3)", reading as follows: SECTION 11.23. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT (R-3) Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-3) is to provide for medium density housing (up to 10 units per acre with potential for 12 units per acre with density bonuses) along with directly related and complementary uses. Subdivision 2. District Established. Properties shall be established within the R-3 Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.23, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.23 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the R-3 Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, 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 and no other shall be permitted in the R-3 Zoning District: A. Townhouses B. Two-family dwellings C. Multiple-family dwellings of 12 units or less per acre D. Foster Family Homes E. Essential Services, Class I Subdivision 4. Accessory Structures. The following accessory structures and no others shall be permitted in R-3 Zoning Districts: . . . A. Enclosed parking structures similar in construction and materials to the principal structure. B. Storage structures similar in construction and materials to the principal structure not exceeding 500 square feet in area or 10 feet in height. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-3 Zoning District to exceed a height of one story, which is 10 feet from the floor to the top horizontal member of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened, known as the top plate. C. Accessory structures D. Private indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, including but not limited to swimming pools and tennis courts E. Underground parking structures Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. Residential facilities serving 25 or more persons. B. Group Foster Homes C. Principal structures in excess of 4 stories or 48 feet D. Retail sales, Class I and II restaurant establishments, and professional offices within principal structures containing 20 or more dwelling units when located upon any minor or major arterial street. Any such sales, establishment or office shall be located only on the ground floor and have direct access to the street. Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots. In the R-3 Zoninq District a lot of a minimum area of 15.000 square feet shall be required for any principal structure. A minimum lot width of 100 feet at the front setback line shall be required. No more than one kitchen area and one kitchenette shall be permitted in each dwellinq unit. Subdivision 6 Z. Corner Visibility. All structures in the R-3 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision '1- ~. Easements. No structures in the R-3 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. Maximum Coveraae bv Buildina and Impervious Surfaces.-(;.. Maximum Coveraqe by Buildinq and Impervious Surfaces. Structures. includinq accessory structures. shall not OCCUpy more than 40% of the lot area. Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed 60% of the lot area. . Subdivision 8 10. Principal Structures. Principal structures in the R-3 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-3 Zoning District. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 25 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. An open front porch for each building, with no screens, may be built on the ground level to within 17 feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. When directly abutting any R-1 Zoning District, the required side and rear yard setback shall be 30 feet. In all other instances, the required side and rear yard setback shall be 20 feet. S. Lot Area. No primary structure shall be built upon a lot of less than 15,000 square feet. B. G:- Maximum Density. Dwelling units shall not be built at a rate greater than 10 units per acre. C. ~ Height. No building shall exceed 4 stories or48 feet in height, whichever is less. E. Maximum Coverage by Building and Impervious Surfaces. Struotures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than 40% of the lot area. Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed 60% of the lot area. . Subdivision 9 .11. Enclosed Parking Structures and other Accessory Uses. Enclosed parking structures and accessory uses in the R-3 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for all enclosed parking structures and other accessory uses in the R-3 Zoning District. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. The required minimum side and rear setback for enclosed parking structures shall be 30 feet when abutting any R-1 Zoning District and 20 feet in all other instances. The required minimum side and rear setback for other accessory uses shall be 15 feet. . 3. Separation Between Structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 10 feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. . . . Subdivision 40 12. Density Bonus. Multiple Family dwellings providing sidewalks as required by the City shall be granted one of the following density bonuses. A. Underground parking. The provision of one or more underground parking space per dwelling unit shall increase the maximum allowable density by two (2) units per acre. B. Public Transit. Scheduled public transit route within 1000 feet of the primary entrance accessed by public sidewalk shall result in an increase in the maximum allowable density by one (1) unit per acre and reduce required parking to 1.5 per dwelling. C. Recreation. Indoor or outdoor recreation facilities such as swimming pools, porches, tennis courts, or other facilities requiring a substantial investment equaling at minimum five percent of the construction cost of the principal structure shall increase the maximum allowable density by two (2) units per acre. Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation", Section 11.03 entitled "Definitions", and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this day of , 2007. Is/Linda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Is/Susan M. Virniq Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk . . . ORDINANCE NO. ,2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amendment Adding New Section 11.24 High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) The City Council of the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11 is hereby amended by adding a new Section 11.24, entitled "High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4)", reading as follows: Section 11.24. High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) is to provide for high density housing (over 12 units per acre) along with directly related and complimentary uses. Subdivision 2. District Established. Properties shall be established within the R-4 Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.24, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.24 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the R-4 Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, 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 and no others shall be permitted in the R-4 Zoning District: A. Multiple-family dwellings B. Senior and Physical Disability Housing C. Foster Family Homes D. Essential Services, Class I and II Subdivision 4. Accessory Structures. The following accessory structures and no others shall be permitted in R-4 Zoning Districts: A. Enclosed parking structures similar in construction and materials to the principal structure . . . B. Storage structures similar in construction and material to the principal structure, not exceeding 500 square feet or 10 feet in height. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-4 Zoning District to exceed a height of one story, which is 10 feet from the floor to the top horizontal member of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened, known as the top plate. C. Underground parking structures D. Private indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, including but not limited to swimming pools and tennis courts. Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. Residential facilities serving 25 or more persons B. Group Foster Homes C. Principal structures in excess of 8 stories or 96 feet in height. D. Retail sales, Class I and II restaurant establishments, and professional offices within principal structures containing 20 or more dwelling units when located upon any minor or major arterial street. Any such sales, establishment or office shall be located only on the ground floor and have direct access to the street. Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots. In the R-4 Zonina District a lot of a minimum area of 20,000 square feet shall be required for any principal structure. A minimum lot width of 150 feet at the front setback line shall be required. No more than one kitchen area and one kitchenette shall be permitted in each dwellina unit. Subdivision 7.6..- Corner Visibility. All structures in the R-4 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision 8. h Easements. No structures in the R-4 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. 8. Maximum Coverage by Buildings and Impervious Surfaces. Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than 45% of the lot area. Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed 60% of the lot area. Subdivision 10.3. Principal Structures - Multiple-Family. Multiple-Family Dwellings in R-4 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-4 Zoning District. . . . 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 25 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. When directly abutting any R-1 Zoning District, the required side and rear yard setback shall be 40 feet. In all other instances, the required side and rear yard setback shall be 20 feet. Subdivision 11. 9. Principal Structures - Senior and Physical Disability Housing. Senior and Physical Disability Housing in the R-4 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-4 Zoning District. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 25 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. When directly abutting any R-1 Zoning District, the required side and rear yard setback shall be 40 feet. In all other instances, the required side and rear yard setback shall be 20 feet. B. Height. No building shall exceed 8 stories or 96 feet in height, whichever is less. C. M3ximum Coverage by Building and Impervious Surfaces. Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy 45% of the lot area. Tot31 impervious surface on any lot Sh311 not excoed 60% of the lot area. Subdivision 12. 4-0. Enclosed Parking Structures and other Accessory Uses. Enclosed parking structures and accessory uses in the R-4 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for all enclosed parking structures and other accessory uses in the R-4 Zoning District: 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 25 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. The required minimum side and rear yard setback for enclosed parking structures shall be 40 feet when abutting an R-1 Zoning District and 20 feet in all other instances. The required minimum side and rear setback for other accessory uses shall be 15 feet. B. Location. No enclosed parking structure or accessory use shall be located closer to the front property line than the principal structure. - . . . . Subdivision 13. 44. Parking Space Reduction. Applicants providing sidewalks on all street frontages may pursue the following non-enclosed parking space reduction: A. Underground parking. The provision of one stall of underground parking per unit shall result in a 10% reduction in the number of required non-enclosed parking spaces. B. Public Transit. Scheduled public transit route available within 1000 feet of the primary entrance accessed by a public sidewalk shall result in a 10% reduction in the number of required non-enclosed parking spaces. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation", Section 11.03 entitled "Definitions", and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this day of , 2007. IslLinda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: IslSusan M. Virniq Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk , . . . ORDINANCE NO. ,2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amendments to Section 11.03, Deletion and Addition of Definitions The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Chapter 11 of the City Code is amended in Section 11.03, entitled "Definitions" by deleting the following: 35. "Elderly (Senior Citizen) and Handicapped Housing" - A multiple dwelling building with open occupancy limited to disabled or handicapped persons and/or persons over sixty (60) years of age. No more than ten (10) percent of the occupants excluding disabled or handicapped persons, may be persons under sixty (60) years of age (spouse of a person over sixty (60) years of age or caretakers, etc.). 70. "Parking Lot" - A parcel of land containing one or more unenclosed parking spaces whose use is principal to the lot as differentiated from an accessory use, as on a residential lot. 71. "Parking Ramp" - A structure designed and used for the storage of motor vehicles at, below, and/or above grade. 72. "Parking Space" - An improved surface area, enclosed or unenclosed, sufficient in size to store on (1) motor vehicle,. together with a street or alley and permitted ingress and egress of an automobile. Section 2. Chapter 11 of the City is amended in Section 11.03, entitled "Definitions" by adding the following: 30.5 "Dwelling - Senior and Physical Disability Housing" - A multiple dwelling building with open occupancy limited to disabled or handicapped persons and/or persons over sixty (60) fifty five (55) years of age. except that Nno more than ten (10) percent of the occupants {excluding disabled or handicapped personsl, may be persons under sixty (60) fifty five (55) years of age (spouse of a person over sixty (60) fifty five (55) years of age or caretakers, etc.). 33.5 "Dwelling Units" - A single, secure dwelling space providing independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. . 49.3 "Impervious Surface Area" - Any surface that cannot be effectively penetrated by water, thereby resulting in run-off. Examples are pavement (asphalt, concrete), buildings, structures, driveways and roadways, parking lots and sidewalks. 52.3 "Kitchen" - A kitchen shall be any room containing cabinets, shelves, countertops, and any two of the following: a sink, a kitchen range, or refrigerator. , . . . 52.6 "Kitchenette" - A kitchenette shall be any room containing both an operable sink and a refrigerator measuring not more than 6 cubic feet. 72.5 "Permeable/Pervious Surface" - A surface that presents an opportunity for precipitation to infiltrate into the Qround. 76.5. "Rain Garden" - a strategically located low area with plants that intercepts stormwater runoff. It slows the water down in order to prevent erosion and allow it to be absorbed into the ground. In many cases the plants are chosen for their ability to remove pollutants. pollution and toxins. Section 2. 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 3. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this day of , 2007. /s/ Linda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: /s/ Susan M. VirniQ Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: April 5, 2007 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Report of the Planning Commission on Subdivisions and Housing Development The Report of the Planning Commission on Subdivisions and Housing Development (infill report) was prepared by the Planning Commission for submission to the City Council. The Council had requested this report in October 2006. This report will be before the City Council at the April 11, 2007 City Council/Manager meeting. Chair Don Keysser will be attending on behalf of the Planning Commission. I will also be at the meeting. All members of the Planning . Commission are invited to attend. The meeting begins at 7 pm. The City Council has had the report for several weeks. One comment I received was from Council member Shaffer regarding the height of houses and how height is measured. He asked that the Commission look at the definition of height used by the City of Edina. Gary Johnson, the City's Building Official, and I looked at the Edina definition of height. Edina has the same height requirement for the residential zoning district as Golden Valley (30 ft. or 2 % stories). However, they define how they measure the height differently than Golden Valley. I am attaching a copy of the portion of both the Edina and Golden Valley codes that indicate how height is measured. Both Gary and I like the way Edina defines the height of buildings because it specifically states that the height is measured from the average proposed ground elevation at the front building line. The Golden Valley code states that the measurement is taken from the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground level. The staff believes it makes sense to take the measurement from the front of the building at the average proposed ground level. . At the request of the Planning Commission, staff said they would study the requirements of other cities regarding impervious pavement and the use of pervious pavement. I am attaching a copy of a memo from Planning Intern Teresa Murphy dated April 4, 2007. This memo looks at impervious surface and pervious pavement requirements from several other cities. The recommendation in the infill report is that the impervious surface requirement be reduced from 50% to 40% in the front yard. There is no requirement for the rear or side yard. The example used .in Ms. Murphy's memo indicates that these cities include the entire lot in impervious surface requirements. The memo also discusses pervious pavement. . . . .. Attachments Report of the Planning Commission on Subdivisions and Housing Development (9 pages) City of Edina and City of Golden Valley Height Definitions (1 page) Memo from Teresa Murphy dated April 4, 2007 (3 pages) . REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SUBDIVISIONS AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Introduction The City of Golden Valley is dealing increasingly with the issues of subdivision requests, infill housing developments, and teardown housing developments, over the last few years. In part, these issues have come as a response to housing development pressures, increases in land values, ever-worsening metro commuting patterns, a market trend towards a preference for larger homes, and an increased desire by families to live closer to the downtown and avoid long commutes. To a large extent, these trends are inevitable. 1:1 The Metropolitan Council has projected a population increase for the Twin . Cities of as much as one million people over the next 25 years. 1:1 The Twin Cities economy is relatively robust, and is projected to remain so into the foreseeable future, including a strong dynamic downtown economy, and the continued growth of middle and upper income jobs. 1:1 Highway traffic patterns, particularly during rush hours, continue to worsen, and there is little reason to expect significant improvements in commuting over the next few years; this puts increased development pressure on c1ose- in suburbs, given their proximity to the downtown. 1:1 The inner-ring suburbs, including Golden Valley, are well served by school districts considered to be among the best in the state. For the most part, these trends are favorable for the City of Golden Valley. Continued housing development, if managed intelligently, will provide broader homeownership opportunities by current and future residents, continued healthy growth in the City's tax base, and a continued economic vitality in, and demand for, commercial and retail services. . Nevertheless, concern among residents over the impact on established communities of the interrelated issues of subdivisions, in-fill and teardown developments has grown. These concerns are understandable and deserve a reasoned response by the City government. 1 Report on Subdivisions and Housing Development . Summary and Background of Issues While the City is largely a "built" community, with virtually no raw land, there are several opportunities for redevelopment, including commercial and industrial areas that will inevitably go through an adaptive reuse phase. In addition, the City has approximately 225 lots out of over 1,000 lots that, at least theoretically under current ordinances, could be subdivided into two or more lots. Furthermore, the City has a number of smaller homes, dating to the 1950's and 1960's, that are potential candidates for teardown and redevelopment. The City has had 3 requests for subdivisions in 2006, 4 in 2005, 3 in 2004 and 4 in 2003. Although we do not have firm data on the number of in-fill developments and teardown developments, there is at least a perception that the rates of these has been increasing in the last couple of years. Market conditions, and the factors described above, make it feasible to purchase an existing house, tear it down, and build a new and larger one in its place; these conditions also give a strong incentive to property owners of large lots to subdivide their lot and sell a new lot to a housing developer. . State statutes require that the City conduct a public hearing for all subdivision requests, even when the request meets all statutory and code requirements. Each of these public hearings has brought some measure of citizen input and concern. In general, the comments from community members have centered on two themes, both of which contribute to the perception of increased housing density and "massing": A) "Character of the Community" - the perception a new or reconstructed home, being larger and/or of a different style than the surrounding homes, adversely impact the character of the community. An example is a 1,500 SF one-story 1950's ranch-style home that is replaced by a modern 4,000 SF 2112 story home. Another example is a neighborhood of large lots and smaller homes, where one lot is subdivided into two parcels, and a new and larger home is built on the new parcel. In both instances, the perceived "massing" effect from smaller lots and larger homes is seen as adversely changing the character of the community, both in the sense of increased density and in the sense that the new home is a discordant architectural element in the surrounding neighborhood. . B) "Storm-water drainage" - the concern that new developments, by increasing impermeable surfaces and changing the existing grading, could exacerbate any current problems in the neighborhood with storm-water drainage and basement flooding. Much of the soil in the City is clay, and there are numerous swampy areas in the City, so to some degree flooding 2 . . . Report on Subdivisions and Housing Development issues are inevitable. But adding impermeable surfaces does have the potential for contributing to this problem. Study Procedures The Planning Commission met on several occasions to discuss this assignment. There was relatively little public commentary at our meetings, even though our meetings and agenda items are posted. It is possible that the recent slowdown metro-wide in housing construction has slowed the rate of subdivision and housing construction in Golden Valley, and therefore reduced the intensity of this issue, for now. But there is little question that the pace and pressure of housing construction will renew in the future. The Planning staff assisted us by providing reviews of the attempts by other cities to manage this issue, including Edina, Hopkins, St. louis Park, Bloomington, Minnetonka, Oak Park (Il), and Atlanta (GA). The Public Works staff assisted us in reviewing and understanding storm-water management issues and concepts. Although the issues of subdivision, infill development and teardown development are closely linked, we have separated them out here for purposes of discussion. Finally, one of our guiding principles and concerns is the inherent tension and balance between the rights of property owners to develop their property as they see fit, and to benefit from market conditions that lead to an enhanced value for their property, versus the rights of a community to maintain certain standards and practices and to shelter the property values of others. Subdivisions Our current subdivision ordinance establishes a number of parameters for approving a subdivision request in an R1 zone, including: (a) a minimum lot size of 10,000 sf; and (b) eighty feet of street frontage, eliminating "flag" lots. In reviewing other cities' ordinances, we noted that some of them (e.g., St. louis Park) permit smaller lot sizes, and none of the inner-ring suburbs require more than a 10,000 sf minimum lot size. Some communities also require neighborhood meetings, which implies that neighborhoods can veto a subdivision request. Under state statutes, the City is required to hold a public hearing on any subdivision request, at the Planning Commission and then the City Council. However, if the request meets all of the requirements of our ordinance, there is no legal grounds for denying the request. 3 . . . Report on Subdivisions and Housing Development In our OpiniOn, the existing subdivision ordinance establishes appropriate parameters and procedures, and strikes a reasonable balance between property- owners' rights and neighborhood rights. We do not recommend any changes to the subdivision ordinance. We do recommend, however, more of a focus on educating the public on the statutory provisions of subdividing properties. Infill and Teardown Housing We have combined these two issues into one discussion, because they share common attributes: the construction of a new, or substantially rebuilt, home in an Rl district that is perceived by the neighborhood to be substantially larger than the other homes in the immediate neighborhood, and of a style and "massing" that is out of context for the neighborhood. More generally, there is often expressed a sense that something has been "lost" in the community through this new development. A number of ideas are discussed in the planning literature, and have been implemented, or attempted, in other communities. These have included: 1. Conservation districts (defined districts within a community or neighborhood, considered to have special architectural or historical significance, where development is substantially limited and narrowly defined, to preserve existing neighborhood characteristics); 2. Neighborhood or community districts (defined districts within a community or neighborhood, sometimes self-defined by the neighborhood itself, where development can be limited through actions taken by the residents of that neighborhood) ; 3. Requiring public hearings in a neighborhood before development is permitted (a forum in which the developer/owner must conduct a hearing within the neighborhood, giving the residents at least some measure of influence, if not veto, over the characteristics of the development); 4. Floor-area ratios (FARs) or volumetric measurements (various measurements meant to define, and thereby limit, the size and scale of a new/rebuilt home); and 5. Increasing side yard setback (creating more open space, which may serve to blunt the massing effect of a new home). Each of these measures, while interesting and offering the potential of significantly reducing and slowing the rate of development, or at least ameliorating the development, also has two problems. First, each represents a considerable logistical and management burden on the City, and on the community. Communities would be required to self-identify and self-organize, and city staff 4 Report on Subdivisions and Housing Development . would have a considerable added work load and regulatory complexity in managing these processes. Second, to the extent that neighborhoods and citizens are given some new added measure of control over the development rights of a property owner, we are concerned that this may create a conflict with the existing and historic rights of property owners to manage their own p,roperties. There are also measures that the City could implement administratively, to slow- down in-fill and teardown developments, including: 1. Moratoriums on subdivision, residential demolitions, and building permits (above a certain size); 2. Lengthier building review and permitting processes (especially for demolitions of residential properties); 3. More expensive permitting fees; As before, we felt that these measures, while possibly effective in the short-run, would create unreasonable constraints on the rights of property owners, and would greatly harm the City's appeal to future property owners and developers, potentially driving them away from the City. . Finally, part of the controversy surrounding in-fill and tear-down developments relates to the issue of "massing" - the sense that the new home is substantially larger and "different", and therefore out of context, for its immediate neighborhood. However. we do not think there is any interest, at least on our part, in imposing a design code for residential properties. We focused, instead, on three specific measures that we think would be of value in addressing these concerns: RECOMMENDATION 1 Change the zoning code as it relates to building heights in R1 districts (Section 11.21, Subdivision 10(B)), as follows: (a) drop the reference to a height of 2V2 stories, and leave the height limit simply at 30 feet; (b) formally adopt the definition of height (below) that we are currently using informally, as stated in the MN Rules, but establishing this definition as 'our own definition, rather than referencing the MN Rules, so that if the Rules are ever changed, we have the option of whether or not modify our definition accordingly: . "Height of building" means the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level, which is lowe0 and the highest point of a flat roof or average of height of the highest gable of a pitched or hip roof" (MN Rules, part 6120.2500) 5 . . . Report on Subdivisions and Housing Development In our opinion, focusing on building height, in conjunction with the existing limits on site coverage, allows us to approximate more complicated formulas of Floor/Area ratio (FAR) and volumetric limits, effectively accomplishing at least part of the task of limiting the massing of a home without creating an administrative burden on staff. RECOMMENDATION 2 Change the zoning ordinance (Section 11.21, Subdivision 11(E)) as it relates to accessory structures, so that (a) no one detached accessory structure can be larger than 800 sf, and anyone property may have no more than a total of 1,000 sf of attached and detached accessory structures; (b) the height of any detached accessory structure is limited to no more than 10 feet, measured from the floor to the top plate; and (c) any accessory structure greater than 120 sf will require a building permit. RECOMMENDATION 3 For any new construction, whether a new house or replacement through a tear-down, if any sidewall is longer than 32 feet, that side wall must be articulated, with a shift of at least 2 feet in depth, for at least 8 feet in length, for every 32 feet of sidewall. Storm-water Management The City, in most areas, is characterized by clay soils, swampy land, and high water tables. This creates on-going issues of storm-water management. The City is responsible for all storm water once it arrives at the street. However, because of improper grading and dense clay soil, a number of properties experience a ponding effect after heavy rainfalls, where the water stands on the surface and does not drain immediately to the street. In some instances, storm-water can seep into basements, usually due to improper grading. Some homes also have basement water problems due to the high groundwater table, which may lead some homeowners to incorrectly conclude that storm-water run-off is to blame. One of the underlying problems is that relatively few R1 properties in the City have rear yard storm sewers or catch basins. When the City was initially developed, there was little thought given to that, which now contributes to the problem of storm-water retention. The concern about new housing developments exacerbating existing storm-water management problems, due to the increase in impermeable surfaces, is 6 . . . Report on Subdivisions and Housing Development understandable. However, the City has implemented a method to address this concern . The City requires a comprehensive Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan ("Grading Plan") for all housing construction and reconstruction. The purpose of the Grading Plan, which is prepared by the applicant's contractor and is reviewed by the City's Public Works staff, is to ensure that storm-water is drained successfully away from the proposed house, and away from neighboring properties, out into the street, where storm-water drains can capture it. This review has proven to be successful, in the opinion of Public Works. In some instances, a Grading Plan for a new construction or reconstruction can actually improve existing drainage problems, since, over time, drainage systems become blocked with debris and non-maintenance, and in many instances, the original properties were not graded properly. Since a new project triggers the requirement for a Grading Plan, existing problems may actually be ameliorated, while new problems caused by the construction are avoided. The requirement of a Grading Plan approval is accompanied by the requirement of a security deposit for temporary erosion control and final stabilization, further increasing the incentive for a homeowner to comply with the requirements. The Public Works staff has also implemented requirements that new home developments utilize such technologies as rain gardens and environmental manholes to further mitigate potential storm-water management issues. Furthermore, through the Rl zoning code ordinance, we have stipulated that the maximum amount of impermeable surface in a front yard is 50%. However, at this time, there are no limits to the percentage of surface area that can be impermeable in the side and back yards. In theory, a homeowner could pave his/her entire backyard, potentially causing a storm-water drainage problem. But in practice, since most homeowners value green grass and gardens, very few homeowners do pave their entire back yards. Relatively few homes have front yards that are 50% impermeable. But given the demand for large three-car garages, it is possible to reach that limit. We therefore recommend a reduction in the 50% limit, on the assumption that a 40% maximum still leaves sufficient room for a wide driveway and parking apron. RECOMMENDATION 4 Continue to encourage, and where appropriate require, the implementation of environmentally sound methods of on-site storm-water management, such as rain gardens, as an adjunct to the grading plan requirements. To the 7 . . . Report on Subdivisions and Housing Development extent that storm-water can be managed successfully on site, the burden on the storm-water system is reduced. RECOMMENDATION 5 Lower the percentage of the front yard that can be covered with an impermeable surface from 50% to 40%. A further issue that we discussed, but did not reach a consensus on, was the idea of establishing an overall limit on the impermeable surface in the entire lot, taking into account all surfaces: the house footprint, driveways, detached accessory structures, and patios. Some Commissioners preferred to establish a maximum total cap in the range of 40-50% of the total lot size; other Commissioners felt that this would be too difficult to enforce, and would not be needed very often. We offer this thought to the City for additional research and deliberation, if you think it has merit. Other than the above comments, we do not see the need to make further changes in the zoning code or other ordinances as it relates to storm-water management. The current system of requiring detailed Grading Plans and encouraging alternative on-site storm-water management, as administered by the City Engineer, seems to work well. Summary of Recommendations RECOMMENDATION 1 Restrict house height to 30 feet; drop reference to 2 V2 stories; adopt formal definition of height RECOMMENDATION 2 (a) no one detached accessory structure can be larger than 800 sf, and anyone property may have no more than a total of 1,000 sf of attached and detached accessory structures; (b) the height of any detached accessory structure is limited to no more than 10 feet, measured from the floor to the top plate; and (c) any accessory structure greater than 120 sf will require a building permit. RECOMMENDATION 3 For any new construction, whether a new house or replacement through a tear-down, if any sidewall is longer than 32 feet, that side 8 . . . Report on Subdivisions and Housing Development wall must be articulated, with a shift of at least two feet in depth, for at least eight feet in length, for every 32 feet of sidewall. RECOMMENDATION 4 Continue to encourage the implementation of environmentally sound methods of on-site storm-water management, such as rain gardens, as an adjunct to the grading plan requirements. RECOMMENDATION 5 Change the percentage of the front yard that can be covered with an impermeable surface from 50% to 40%. 9 . City of Edina Building Height or Structure Height. The distance measured from the average proposed ground elevation adjoining the building at the front building line to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch-type roof, or to the average distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. References in the Section to building height shall include and mean structure height, and if the structure is other than a building, the height shall be measured from said average proposed ground elevation to the highest point of the structure. City of Golden Valley "Building, Height of' - The vertical distance above "grade" as defined herein to 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. . . . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: April 4, 2007 To: City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development From: Teresa Murphy, Planning Intern~ Subject: Impervious Surface and Pervious Pavement This includes a review of information on the impervious surface regulations found in other cities as well as a summary on the use of pervious paving techniques for use in storm water management. Impervious Surface ReQulations Minneapolis The City of Minneapolis allows maximum impervious surface coverage of 75 percent in the R-1 through R-3 districts. The minimum lot size for a residential dwelling in these districts is between 5,000 sq. ft. and 6,000 sq. ft. Dayton, MN The City of Dayton, MN allows a maximum impervious surface coverage of 25 percent for any parcel within 1,000 feet from any lake or 300 feet from any river. The R-1 district, which has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet, has a maximum impervious surface coverage of 40 percent per lot. The R1-S, which has a minimum lost size of 6,000 square feet allows up to 65 percent per lot and 50 percent per development. Bloominqton, MN The City of Bloomington, MN allows a maximum impervious surface coverage of 35 percent in R-1 single family lots. There is also a maximum of 12,000 square feet of impervious surface coverage allowed, plus an additional 1 ,000 square feet for each acre of lot size over one acre. Rockville, MD The City of Rockville, MD allows between 30 percent and 60 percent impervious surface coverage; depending on the zoning district. An additional 10 percent is allowed for driveways and pathways. The City allows for planned, cluster developments to have an increased amount of impervious surface per lot if open space is maintained elsewhere in the development. . . . Evanston, IL The City of Evanston, IL allows a maximum of 45 percent of impervious surface coverage on an R-1 zoned lot. This percent includes, but is not limited to, building lot coverage, swimming pools, paved areas, parking and driveway areas, graveled areas, and sidewalks. There is an exemption for porches that excludes 50% of the surface area of front porches in the impervious surface calculation. Twenty percent (20 %) of areas covered by paving block and/or pervious pavers, so long as the area maintains a demonstrable level of porosity, can be excluded from the impervious surface calculation. In addition, driveways or walkways that legally existed before the effective date of the impervious surface regulations may be replaced or repaired so long as the replacing or the repairing is in the same or lesser dimensions as existed before the adoption of the ordinance. Tvpciallmpervious Coveraqe of Land Uses The followin chart was included in resentation by Fuss & O'Neill in March, 2006. Impervious Cover land Use Commercial and Business District Industrial High Density Residential i.e.1/8 ac zonin Medium-High Density Residential i.e. 1/4 acre zonin Medium-Low Density Residential i.e. 1/2 acre zonin Low Density Residential i.e. 1 acre zonin 20% Source: Adapted from USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1986 as presented by Mark Debalzo and Jennifer Smith,2006 85% 72% 65% 38% 25% Pervious Pavement Pervious pavement is designed to allow storm water to infiltrate into the soil where it can be filtered as opposed to draining into a storm water drain and then into lakes and streams. Lake Superior Duluth Streams.org claims that pervious pavements are a recognized runoff reducing alternative for traditional pavement including but not limited to: . driveways (including residential) . low traffic roads . fire lanes . overflow parking . sidewalks . pool decks and patios. This and other groups claim that the use of pervious pavement has been found to do the following: . reduce storm water runoff . replenish ground water . reduce flooding, which can over-load sewer treatment plants . require less land set aside and cost for development of retention basins . reduce pollutants in run-off . lessen evaporative emissions from parked cars . . . limitations of pervious pavers include: (from the MN Stormwater Manual, Version 1.0) . construction costs of some systems are more expensive than traditional paving . maintenance costs are higher than conventional paving . not recommended for high traffic areas because of durability concerns Duluthstreams.org identifies additional concerns associated with the use of permeable pavement, especially in northern climates that include: . pavement is easily compromised by plowing that dislodges pavers and sanding which clogs and disrupts the infiltration process . heavy clay soils can limit the usefulness of the pervious pavement . sanding compromises pervious pavement by clogging pavement pours . salt treatment will kill grass and adjacent plantings . snow plowing can catch the edge of pavers and damage th~ pavement surface . . . Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) ~. Date: April 3, 2007 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: "Hot Spot" Mapping for Updated Land Use Plan The staff has begun the process to update the City's Comprehensive Plan. It was our hope that we would have a "kickoff' session last month with the Environmental Commission and Park and Open Space Commission. This session was cancelled because the City Council wanted to review the budget for consultants. We are planning on doing this "kickoff' session on April 23, 2007 to bring all the Commissions up to date on the timing of the Comp Plan update. The Planning staff (with Planning Commission oversight) will be responsible for coordinating the entire Comp Plan. However, the Planning staff (again with Planning Commission oversight and input) will be responsible for writing only the Land Use and the Housing chapters. The other chapters are the responsibility of the Public Works Department and the Park and Recreation Department. The Land Use chapter is a key chapter to the overall Comp Plan. Much of what is written in the other chapters depends on the Land Use Plan. For instance, the planning for the upgrading of water and sewer lines depends on where the City plans for new or more intense development. The Planning staff would liketo get a started on drafting the Land Use chapter so that it can be brought to the Planning Commission for input over the next several months and be used in the preparation of the other chapters of the Comp Plan. The Planning staff is working with Planning Consultant Perry Thorvig (he helped with the lighting ordinance) to draft the language inthe chapter. Perry will be working closely with me and the interns on this process. Perry would like to get input from the Planning Commission throughout the writing of the chapter since this is to be a document approved by the Commission. For the April 9 meeting, he would like the Planning Commission to each look at the current Land Use Plan Map of the City and identify planning "hot spots". "Hot spots" are areas with issues or the likelihood of change. These can be positive or negative. These "hot spots" will then be inventoried and brought back for discussion with the Planning Commission at a future meeting. (Examples of "hot spots" may be an area where you may see a change in land use from low density housing to high density housing or an area of the city showing deterioration.) The new land use plan map will take into consideration the ideas from this "hot spot" mapping. Attachments General Land Use Plan Map (1 page)