05-29-07 PC Agenda
AGENDA
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
7pm
1. Approval of Minutes
April 23, 2007 Joint Planning/Environmental/Open Space and Recreation
Commission Meeting
April 23, 2007 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
2. Discussion regarding planning "hot spots" for land Use Plan Map
3. Discussion regarding Infill Housing Report
4. Discussion regarding Mixed Use land use designation on the
Comprehensive Plan map for the 1-394 Corridor
5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
6. Other Business
7. Adjournment
This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hollr request. Please call
763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
.
Joint Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission, Environmental Commission and Open
Space and Recreation Commission
April 23, 2007
A joint meeting of the Planning Commission, Environmental Commission and Open
Space and Recreation Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council
Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
April 23, 2007 Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes called the meeting to
order at 6:10 pm.
Those present were Council Member Freiberg, Planning Commission
Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser, Environme
Anderson, Baker, Chand lee, Hill, Pawluk, Sipala and St. Clair, 0
Recreation Commissioners Bergman, Johnson, Kuebelbeck,
Also present was Director of Planning and Development M
Works Jeannine Clancy, Director of Parks & Recreation Ric
Coordinator AI Lundstrom, Planning Intern Joe Hogeb om a
Lisa Wittman.
1. Presentation/Oiscussion of the Compr
d Zins,
Public
. onmentaJ
e Assistant
.
Hogeboom gave a PowerPoint presentati
Update process and the Metropolitan
information required in each element 0
water, water supply, housing, tran
y's Comprehensive Plan
. He discussed the
ing land use, surface water, waste
Hogeboom discussed the im
Envision Golden Valley re
o omprehensive Plan and how the
orporated into each of the Plan elements.
Hogeboom referred to th
consultants and sta
the timeline for com
hensi Plan Team handout and discussed the
nsible for each element of the Plan. He also discussed
an.
ation element of the Plan and asked what ability the City has
garding transit routes. Grimes explained that staff has met
arding bus routes in Golden Valley and hopefully they will take
osal and plans into account when planning their routes. He added
nsit has tried new routes in Golden Valley in the past they haven't
essful due to Jack of riders.
Kluchka as ed how the City can use the Comprehensive Plan to further issues that
Golden Valley doesn't have direct development control over. Grimes stated that the City
needs to show Met Council that it is planning on creating higher density mixed use areas
and would like to see these areas served by transit.
.
Baker referred to the timeline handout and questioned the amount of interaction between
commissions. Grimes explained that the Planning Commission is essentially in charge of
coordinating the drafting of the Comprehensive Plan and making a recommendation to
the City Council. He stated that staff and consultants will be touching base with each
commission throughout the process.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission/Environmental Commission/Opel]
Space and Recreation Commission
April 23, 2007
Page 2
.
He added that there will also be an open house sometime in early 2008 and several
public hearings. Baker said another joint meeting midway through the process would be
appropriate. Grimes agreed.
Sipala referred to the Met Council System Statement regarding sustaining growth and
facilitating steady growth. He said he noted that there is no mention of the energy crises
that is looming. He questioned the Met Council's population predictions and stated he
feels that by the year 2030 the population will be increasing and more people will be living
closer to the city, not in suburbs located further away. Grimes agreed a ed that the
City of Golden Valley is showing the capacity to have more residenti nt along
the 1-394 Corridor and that people really want a variety of housing. a and
said he would like to see a strong statement in the Comprehens' I ass
transit. Clancy explained that the consultants will make recom at' ress
the system statement in the goals and statements section 0
commissioners will have input.
wha degree the
He added that the
lained that the Met Council
hway system, the sewer
hey are used to their full
e else.
.
Baker referred to the Met Council System Stateme
statement guides the City and why it emphasize
City needs to look beyond the System Stateme
has very expensive systems that already e
system and the transit system and they
capacity rather than having to build ne
Waldhauser questioned the pop
regarding the projections such
has that information.
ns and asked to get more details
sehold, age, etc. Grimes said the City
Kluchka asked about the
working on the vari ele
another joint comml
s explained that the consultants have started
f the Plan and in the next few months staff will schedule
2.
.
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 23, 2007
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
April 23, 2007. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluch
Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning a
Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
2.
unanimously to approve
1. Approval of Minutes
April 9, 2007 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
McCarty referred to the fourth paragraph on Page 3 arl4~
roofs to be measured at the top of the entire buildi
structure as written.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhause
the April 9, 2007 minutes with the abov
.
Informal Public Hearing -
CUP No. 115
';fermit - First Student, Inc. -
Applicant:
Address:
Purpose:
pplicant to operate a school bus terminal with a repair
in the Industrial zoning district
kins School District sent a letter to the City requesting that
oned until they've had more time to review it. Grimes stated
still have an opportunity to express their concerns at the City
g and suggested that the Planning Commission not postpone this
ka said he would like to address the items in the letter from the
Grimes explained that First Student is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow them
to operate a bus terminal with a repair facility at this property which is the former emission
testing site. He reviewed the site plan submitted with the application and noted that there
will be an 8 foot high fence surrounding the property.
.
Grimes stated that both the City Engineer and the Deputy Fire Marshal have reviewed the
plans and find them acceptable. He stated that the City has not received any complaints
regarding traffic in this area and the City Engineer thinks a traffic study is not necessary
and that there is plenty of capacity on the streets for this proposed use.
.
.
.-
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 23, 2007
Page 2
Grimes referred to the applicant's narrative and stated that First Student will have 76
buses which will primarily serve smaller, private schools. The buses will operate from
approximately 5:45 am to 7 am and then again in the afternoon. Grimes referred to the
site plan and stated that the plan shows 9-10 parking spaces for office workers and
mechanics. First Student will shuttle some of their drivers to the site or the drivers will
park their cars behind the buses, do their safety checks and park their cars in the vacant
bus parking spaces. He stated that he is recommending as a condition of approval that no
cars be allowed to park on the street. He explained that since the applicant is disturbing
less than a half an acre they will not need to meet water quality require owever
there are adequate ponds in the area.
hat
at were
i g, buffer
traffic
re being
refuel their buses at
will have to follow.
et and that the City Engineer
Grimes referred to the Hopkins School District letter. He add res
the City is providing exceptions to City requirements on the Fi
required on the District's parcel for the same type of operati
space for refueling operations, proper run-off of fuel spills an
study. He explained that the District's parcel and the t
treated equally. He also explained that First Stud
night and that there is' a protocol for night fuelin
He reiterated that there will be no parking allow
does not feel that a traffic study is require
Keysser asked how First Student woul
Applicant, stated that they will hav
City's Fire Marshal will oversee
e. Todd Bauman, First Student,
the drains. Grimes added the
Keysser asked if the buildi
Cera asked about hazard
environmental com an
e. a an explained that they will be reporting to an
btain the necessary permits from the County.
equire the applicant to provide more drainage from the
ona Use Permit request. Grimes explained that there are
. e. Keysser asked if the grading of the site is changing.
g is not changing at all.
any of the property around the parking lot is green space. Bauman
n space around the entire site.
Cera aske he buses have been retrofitted for bio-diesel. Bauman said yes. Cera
asked if there are pervious surface requirements on this site. Grimes said no. He added
that although there is a lot of black top on this site, there is also good drainage.
Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment
Keysser closed the public hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 23, 2007
Page 3
.
Kluchka asked about the analysis used in determining that a traffic study was not
necessary for this proposal. Grimes explained that the City Engineer knows how many
buses will be coming and going and the time period. He studies the street system maps
and collector streets and feels that this is a place where there are good connections and
the City isn't near capacity on these streets.
Kluchka asked if there are preferred routes that the City could suggest the buses take.
Schmidgall noted that the routes drivers take is a self regulating thing and that if one route
is busy they will take a different route. Grimes agreed and stated that t several
routes the buses could take from this site.
.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by McCa
approval the Conditional Use Per
conditions:
n ca d unanimously to recommend
Student with the following
Kluchka asked if all of the School District's concerns had been
yes, the concerns raised will be addressed by either the Condo
Fire Marshal.
Cera referred to condition number 4 in Grimes' staff r
should be changed to the word "fuel".
Kluchka suggested adding a condition regardin
"stormwater requirements" to number 6 in
1. nt by Genesis Architecture and dated 4/19/07
val.
2. r Ing a public street.
3. . fence codes and requirements.
4. Deputy Fire Marshal, to Mark Grimes, dated April 2,
s approval. Fueling of buses by fuel trucks must be
e City's fire code.
5. the site shall be cleaned up prior to start of any bus operation
6. Ie s ormwater, City, State and Federal requirements shall be met
f'~fPf any bus operation or repair.
7. ply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for revocation.
3. Re on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
.
Keysser stated that he and several other Planning Commissioners attended the last
Council/Manager meeting where the infill housing report was discussed. He stated that
the Council would still like to see a better definition of height requirements.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 23, 2007
Page 4
.
4.
Other Business
The Commissioners discussed the Comprehensive Plan update. Grimes said he would
put the Comprehensive Plan Update on all Planning Commission agendas going
forward so they can discuss the progress of the Plan update.
Keysser said he attended a GTS class on site planning and reminded the
Commissioners that these classes are available. Cera asked if web site links from
various planning training sites could be sent to the Planning Commissi imes
said yes and reminded the Commission that the MnAPA conference. ek in
September.
5. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8 pm.
.
.
,
.
.
.
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
May 22, 2007
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Workshop to Review "Hot Spots" for Updated Comprehensive Plan
Last month, staff provided each of the Planning Commission members with a General Land
Use Plan map for the City of Golden Valley. Your assignment was to review the map and mark
areas on the map related to the following:
. Likely to change due to market conditions
. Better suited for an alternative land uses
. Inappropr"iate land uses
. Concerns related to a specific area of parcel
. Traffic or circulation issues
The purpose of this exercise is to begin the process to amend the existing General Land Use
Map as part of the updated Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan map is a portion of the
Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use chapter is a key chapter to the
plan because it will be used to determine the need for other systems such as transportation,
sanitary sewer, or storm water management.
I have received several of the "hot spot" maps from the Commission. If you have not submitted
it to me, bring it to the meeting on May 29 and we will look at the maps together and make a
master "hot spots" map.
Attachments
Memo from Mark Grimes dated April 3, 2007 (1 page)
.
.
.
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095/ 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 like to 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 in the 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. Th~~e 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)
.
.
.
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
May 24, 2007
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Follow-up on Planning Commission Report to the City Council on
Subdivision and Housing Development (Infill Report)
At the April 11, 2007 City Council/City Manager meeting, the Planning Commission presented
its report on Subdivision and Housing Development (Infill Report). I am enclosing a copy of the
minutes of that meeting that summarizes the discussion. After the discussion was over, the
Council decided that it was appropriate to amend city ordinances as noted in the Infill Report.
Before taking the ordinance changes to public hearing, the Council asked the Commission to
again review the issues related to the height of houses. Council member Shaffer had a concern
about the mass of a flat roof house if it was allowed to be 30 ft. tall. Also, there was a
suggestion about increasing the setback for houses that are over, for instance, 25 ft. in height
but no greater than the maximum 30 ft. One suggestion was that for every foot of height over
25 ft., the side setback would have to be increased by a certain distance. How would this work
for second story additions built on houses that are already at the setback line and for narrow
lots that are buildable? (The City has a number of 40ft., 50 ft. and 60 ft. lots that are
considered to be buildable because they are in a recorded plat. It may be difficult to increase
the setback more than the already required side yard setback with these narrow lots.)
I am enclosing a copy of the Infill Report for your review.
Attachments
Minutes from the April 11, 2007 Council/Manager meeting (1 page)
Report of the Planning Commission on Subdivisions and Housing Development (9 pages)
Council/Manager Meeting Minutes
April 11, 2007 - Page 2
oore explained that the Metropolita Council isn't asking for alll!1 to be removed just
t excessive amounts. He added thai, the Metropolitan Council is also taking steps and
spe ing large amounts of money to .., ake improvements to its own system in Go
Valle. e gave a history of the III issu s and the approaches they have take ce
1985 to hem.
The Council a d Moore if there is an money available to hel e some of the
pressure off of the sidents. Moore sai, they would approa he Legislature for support
and continue to look elp the reside
Scanlon asked how olden Valley's pe ion compared WI other cities. Rosenblum
explained that it s been difficult to find nother city fire reli
the same way.
y-Law Amendment Regarding
Approval of Fire Departm
Pension
Sue Virnig stated that Greg Pres, teve
Association are present at the meetl
. st and Mark Rosenblum from the Fire Relief
h a request to increase their pension.
The Coun asked about recruitment e
some of e more recent recruitment eff s and said that the fire depart
of 50 aces and right now they have 51 individuals and are fully staffed.
Council agreed to put the Fire Depa ment's request on the April 17, 2007 Ci
uncil agenda.
Planning Commission Report on Subdivisions and Housing Development
Planning Commissioners Don Keysser, David Cera, Steve Schmidgall and Cathy
Waldhauser were in attendance to present their report on Subdivisions and Infi" housing
issues.
Keysser referred to the report and noted some of the issues the Planning Commission
discussed, but did not end up including in their recommendation, such as neighborhood
conservation districts. He stated that some of the concerns residents have expressed to
the Planning Commission are home massing and height, of homes and drainage issues.
Grimes added that the recommended height definition came from the DNR. He also
distributed the existing height definition found in Section 11.03 of the City Code.
Shaffer said he has concern about the mass of a flat roof house if it is allowed to be 30
feet tall. Keysser said they could consider having lower height requirements for flat roof
houses. There was also discussion requiring larger setback requirements for taller
houses. Grimes said the Planning Commission will review the height requirements again.
Council/Manager Meeting Minutes
April 11, 2007 - Page 3
Keysser discussed the rest of the Planning Commission's recommendations including
sidewall articulation for houses that are 32 feet or greater in depth, the size of accessory
structures and impervious surface requirements.
After the discussion it was decided that the Planning Commission will review the height
definition and hold a hearing on ordinances to adopt their recommendations and a
revised definition for building height.
Lighting of Flag at Golden Valley Cemetery Veterans Memorial
or Loomis gave a short history f the Golden Valley Cemetery and
there been a request to install ghting for the Veterans Mem .
allow a fla be flown continuous
ined that
the cemetery to
The Council discus
perpetual care fund.
that would involve the com
some more information regarding the financing
Iso like to see some information regarding the
After the discus. n it was decide that this item w
City Council enda for consider Ion.
be placed on the April 17, 2007
Li Wittman
~(jministrative Assistant
.
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 Jive closer to the downtown and avoid long commutes.
To a large extent, these trends are inevitable.
.
lJ The Metropolitan Council has projected a population increase for the Twin
Cities of as much as one million people over the next 25 years.
lJ 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.
Ij 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.
lJ 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
2V2 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 th'e 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 properties.
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 Rl 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/F means the vertical distance between the highest
adjoining ground lev..?.f at the building or ten feet above the lowest....~
ground level, whictt"lS lower, and the highest point of a flat roof.~1--
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 Manaaement
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 Rl 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 abov~ 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
.
.
.
Planning
763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
May 25, 2007
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject
Recommendation on the Size of the New Mixed Use Land Use Designation
On the General Land Used Plan Map for the 1-394 Corridor
With the completion of the 1-394 Corridor Study, the City Council has now authorized the
process to adopt the Study as a portion of the Comprehensive Plan. This process will include
an informal public hearing before the Planning Commission and public hearing before the City
Council. It is anticipated that the adoption process will take several months. Along with the
adoption of the Corridor Study as a part of the Comprehensive Plan, a new 1-394 mixed use
zoning district and zoning map category will also be considered for adoption.
One of the issues that has to be finalized prior to the beginning of the adoption process is the
physical size of the area on the General Land Use Plan map that will be covered by the 1-394
Corridor Study. After the Corridor Study is adopted, a new zoning code and zoning district will
have to be adopted.
Staff is recommending that the 1-394 Corridor area on the General Land Use Plan map be that
area bounded by Rhode Island Ave. on the west, Laurel Ave. on the north and Turners
Crossroad on the east (with the exception that the property where the Metropolitan is located
would be included). A map is attached indicating the recommended area.
Attachments
General Land Use Plan map indicating proposed 1-394 Corridor area (1 page)
.
.
.
~""'.\'.:....'"
CJii
) ;'j
:J~\II<
~'
~"o
I
~
f-1\
~~
1)
~~;
~~"
,
CITY
Proposed Mixed Use Area
INTERSTATE'
i94';;'~--;
3ffiI AVE<llE
'1.':-
\.-
IQ?1j)...
~
A'
C::
;:::
~
~~
CITY OF
((ij([)) fLl/J) IE~\f TY AllLJLIE lr .
GENERAL LAND USE PLAN
RESIDENTIAL
[:=J Low Density (Less than 5 units per acre)
,;,,,,:n Medium Density (5 to 11.9 units per acre)
III High Density (12 or more units per acre)
COMMERCIAL
l;~\:~] Office
_ Commercial
(also includes Office)
..-
7..
;
INDUSTRIAL
k'~!;',,::'1 Light Industrial (also includes Office)
t:=';"!lndustrial (also includes Office)
o Open Space - Public and Private ownership.
o Schools and Religious Facilities
[:=J Public Facilities - Miscellaneous
III Semi-Public Facilities - Miscellaneous
o Open Water
O Wetlands National Wetland Inventory - not field verified
(Minor adjustments made to some wetlands)
~ Railroad
Existing Local Trail
Proposed Local Trail
Regional Trail
Proposed Regional Trail
Pedestrian Bridge
Road Rights-ot-Way
..........
_PED
Municipal Line
1 inch = 1,833 feet
<1)
.
1J~w!
M.to'~"1
11.......1
.............
.....
Golden Valley
May 1999
Comprehensive Plan 1999 - 2020