The URL can be used to link to this page

08-13-07 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday,August13,2007 7pm 1. Approval of Minutes July 23, 2007 Joint Planning/Environmental/Open Space and Recreation Commission Meeting July 23, 2007 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing - PU67 -A2 - Westwood Lake Office Park - Preliminary PUD Plan Applicant: Bigos Management, Inc. Address: 8401,8421 and 8441 Wayzata Blvd. Purpose: To construct a new two-story office building with parking garage below. 3. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Amending the R-1 Single Family Zoning District Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the R-1 Single Family Zoning District as per the Report of the Planning Commission on Subdivisions and Housing Development 4. Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Comprehensive Plan Amendment - adopting the 1-394 Corridor Study Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To recommend the adoption of the 1-394 Corridor study as a part of the General Land Use Element in the Comprehensive Plan 5. Informal Public Hearing - General land Use Plan Map Amendment - 1-394 Corridor Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To redesignate the General Land Use Plan Map for all properties in the 1-394 Corridor study area from their current designation to Mixed Use 6. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Adding a Mixed Use Zoning District to the Zoning Code Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To adopt a Mixed Use Zoning district in regard to the properties in the 1-394 Corridor study area. 7. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning - Rezoning the Properties in the 1-394 Corridor to Mixed Use Zoning District Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To rezone the properties in the 1-394 Corridor study area from their current zoning district to the Mixed Use zoning district. 8. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 9. Other Business 10. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (lTY: 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 July 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, July 23, 2007 Planning Intern Joe Hogeboom called the meeting to order at 6 pm. Those present were, Planning Commissioners Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, Waldhauser, Environmental Commissioners Anderson, Baker, Chan St. Clair, Open Space and Recreation Commissioners Bergman, J h Mattison, McConico, Saffert, Sandler and Vaughan Also presen s and Development Mark Grimes, Director of Parks & Recreatio Engineer Jeff Oliver, Environmental Coordinator AI Lundstr Eric Eckman, SEH Consultants Chris Behringer and Veronic Joe Hogeboom, Planning Intern Teresa Murphy and 'nist Wittman . Hogeboom introduced Chris Behringer hired to develop the Parks and Op rson, the consultants from SEH the Comprehensive Plan. 1. Presentation/Discussion of the Compr Open Space Element Anderson discussed some of th of the Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan. S objectives and policies a issues. rmation and the current Parks Element e looking at during the process of updating the they are currently looking at the existing goals, the Commissioners input regarding these presentation and stated that some of the things egin drafting the update are community and staff input, tory, the City's watershed plan and the 1999 Comprehensive currently there is approximately 1 ,035 acres of park land as eighborhood parks, community parks, special use areas, nature wned facilities. d to a slide regarding demographics and stated that the population forecast year 2000 was 20,281. She said there was a 3% drop in population between 1990 and 2000 and that there is a projected 4% per year increase up to the year 2030. . Anderson discussed a chart that showed age distribution and stated that when the two largest groups are combined it represents about 55% of the population in 2000. She also discussed diversity and explained how these demographics cause them to look at issues differently and how to meet different needs. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission/Environmental Commission/Open Space and Recreation Commission July 23, 2007 Page 2 . Sandler referred to the age distribution chart and asked if the numbers are typical for a first ring suburb. Anderson said she didn't know. Behringer added that she thinks the age demographic is cyclical in communities. Grimes stated that they do know that the household size has dropped consistently in the last several years. Anderson stated that in 2006 there were four open houses regarding parks and recreation. She discussed some of the comments from those open houses. She also discussed some of the things that residents said they would like to see in olden Valley such as aquatic recreation, a community recreation center and creativ play equipment. Behringer stated that the f Theodore Wirth. Anders pleasure walking, bicyclin ey olden ere very Behringer referred to the 2006 Park Planning Survey and stat questions was about the importance of recreation and faciliti Valley. The answers showed that all of the survey participan important because parks help maintain physical and m~ntal . Anderson referred to the 2006 Park Planning Su participants rated Golden Valley parks good to 89% thought the existing parks and facilities me and 73% of the participants leave Golden swimming pools. ated that 93% of the oS hey are very safe, somewhat well, to V(~ry well ing communities mainly for Kuebelbeck stated that the 61 % fi when the two categories of "saf. is incorrect. She said that the were combined the figure is 96%. .. arks are Brookview, Lions, Wesley, Scheid and t~~\top five activities that people like to do are' ound equipment, ice skating and fitness trails. ,.nce of maintenance, development and land acquisition. e" surveyed thought that the maintenance of the parks It that green space was very important and the smallest as new athletic fields. ut the likelihood of facility use. She stated that the survey showed are the most likely to be used and the least likely to be used is open St. Clair ased how open space was defined in the survey. Jacobson stated that open space would be passive areas such as Briarwood Nature Area or Laurel Avenue Greenbelt. . Anderson referred to a graph and stated that 69% of people surveyed stated that would support a tax increase for new facilities. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission/Environmental Commission/Open Space and Recreation Commission July 23, 2007 Page 3 Behringer stated that they had a meeting with park staff and discussed re-evaluating park use and park needs. They also discussed formulating a maintenance plan that is. constant for all the parks. She referred to the priority list from the 1999 Comprehensive Plan and asked the Commissioners to think about if those priorities are ones they want to keep or if they need to be revised. Anderson referred to the policies listed in the current Park Plan Element including Land Acquisition, Facility Development and Maintenance, Recreation, Trail Syst m and Natural Resources. KI ing, ked if the arks and an. Sandler said hought it would be a Behringer reviewed the current Mission Statement and asked for Hill referred to the last sentence in the Mission Statement w procuring, developing and maintaining parks and recreation underlying assumption is that the City wouldn't ever want to recreation resources and if that is the case, if it shoul he doesn't envision getting rid of any parks. Jaco good idea to state it in the Plan. . Schmidgall said he thinks as people start t is going to be a desire for more open s management and water quality. Waldh should be made in the mission st vironmentally sensitive there for storm water inks an environmental statement St. Clair questioned if the wor connotation. Anderson su physical well being. Hill transportation. ou used because it can have a negative he words wellness, relaxation, or mental and inks it's also important to look at non-motorized Waldhauser sugges families with chi: planning for an "resident" in the Park Plan instead of family or @gesting using language that says Golden Valley is unity. policies section of the Park Plan and discussed the goals listed. rds "continue to" are not necessary. would be a good place to say something about the City not wanting to get r s. Behringer said yes. . Mattison said he would like to look at creating access to the Western Avenue Marsh and connecting it to Brookview. He said he would also like it stated that one of the objectives of the City would be to cooperate with sports organization. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission/Environmental Commission/Open Space and Recreation Commission July 23, 2007 Page 4 . St. Clair said he would like to have statement in the Plan about the number of acres per resident as a minimum goal or objective. He also suggested that the City require mitigation of open space when development occurs on open space. Mattison referred to the demographic information regarding the number of people that will be moving into Golden Valley over the next several years and asked where they would be located. Grimes explained that that there needs to be more density and diversity in the housing choices in Golden Valley. He added that the Metropolitan Council has said that they want to use existing systems and roads in the metropolitan area r build new systems elsewhere because it is more efficient and environ men Anderson noted that ther and questioned if t . said he doesn't see does in the tra t resources Ian 2008 bu d if Anderson noted that there is a Trail System section in the Par that should be re-Iocated to the transportation section of the because the trails are city-wide and not just in parks. Behrin system within each park could be addressed in the Park Plan departments would still work together on developing t r" used both for recreation and transportation and w working together. . Sandler asked if it would be possible to k Transportation Plan. Behringer thought almost always go from park to park so the beginning. Jacobson said he t system be in the Transportation policies in the Park Plan that that the trail system would oth the Park Plan and the ant.. St. Clair said trails ion staff need to be involved from litan Council directs that the trail id he thought maybe there could be rail s em and work with the trail system but in the Transportation Plan. a poli in the Park Plan regarding natural resources be located in a different section of the Plan. St. Clair overlapping in the natural resources section as he undstrom reminded the Commissioners that the natural in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan budget but it may be in the the Recreation section of the Park Plan. Eck asked about ation programs. Behringer explained that entrepreneurial programs s people pay to participate in, such as the golf course. Anderson sated that the next steps in the process is to write a draft of the Park Plan and bring it back to this group to review. . 2. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 pm~ ~ . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 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, July 23,2007. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, Me Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning a Mark Grimes, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissio absent. Keysser r of "building height determination" from Grimes' staff report as follows. ce from the average grade plane at the building facing the street to height of the highest pitched roof or the highest point of the coping o at roo. that have more than one side facing the street, the distance for heig .. fro average grade plane of all sides that face the street. The "grade plane" is defin eference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining uilding at exterior walls. He added that the height limit for buildings in the R-1 zoning district would be changed to 28 feet for pitched roof housed and 25 feet for flat roof houses. osed three-story ...>existing restaurant 1. Approval of Minutes July 9, 2007 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Eck referred to paragraph 10 on page three and building would be located on the existing. bank site as written. MOVED by Eck, seconded by McCarty July 9, 2007 minutes with the above n animously to approve the . 2. Discussion regarding I Keysser stated that the PI City .council in April. Aft Planning Commission to t the height of a hou rim ordinance changes agenda. sion submitted their Infill Study Report to the iewed the report they sent it back to the her 10 at the definition of height and how to measure cJded that he would like to have the public hearings for the m.the Infill Study on the August 13 Planning Commission . Kluchka asked for clarification of "highest pitch" in the above definition. Grimes explained that some homes have many different gables with different pitches so the height ofa home would be measured to the average height of the highest pitched roof. Grimes added that there are many currently existing homes that would not meet these proposed new requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 2 . Waldhauser said she thinks that 28 feetin height is reasonable for a pitched roof house, but 25 feet in height is too tall for a flat roof house. Grimes stated that the Building Official will be the person determining the "grade plane". Staff took the definition for "grade plane" from the International Building Code and feel it's understandable and easy to administer. Eck referred to the Commissioners previous discussions regarding height and asked why this new definition doesn't just use an absolute height measurement lik 'scussed. Kluchka said he was also under the impression that the Commission gOIn recommend an absolute height measurement. Keysser said he thi s bsol for a home would impose too many design limitations and that t the highest pitched roof would offer more flexibility. Grimes a measures from (average grade plane) is important and will height of houses. Kluchka asked if home builders wouldibe able to" requirements to build a taller home. Schmidgall requirements regarding the grading and drainin filling in a lot just to build a taller home. height ig ht of rson the e proposed new other city would prevent a person from . Schmidgall said it is his understanding situations. Keysser said he is think' indicators that there will be mor ave y been a few "tear-down" .l\Ichka said he is seeing more n in order to build new ones. Eck asked if the city were t are some lots that woul he thinks the new metho Keysser said theci r lute height measurement for new homes if there e a two-story home built on them, McCarty said l/i minln eight would still allow for two-story homes. 'tlCes can not account for every single property. n agreed in previous discussions that the city would from the lowest floor level and they agreed to do an absolute t. Keysser stated that the grading wasn't taken into account in . Grimes stated that by measuring the height in this proposed e height of these new homes down a couple of feet. He offered to veral houses to the Commissioners and illustrate how the proposed uld apply. McCarty r ed to the proposed new definition and said that measuring the height for flat roofed houses to the "highest point of a roof structure" would be better than measuring it to the "coping" as currently written. Grimes said he would change the definition. Keysser opened the discussion to the public. . Bobbie Conner, 244 Janalyn Circle, said she is not comfortable with measuring the height at the average grade because there have been situations where the home builder . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 23, 2007 Page 3 changed the grade. She suggested putting in language stating that the height of a home has to measured from the original grade. Keysser explained that it is the final grade of the lot that is of concern. He reiterated that home builders have to submit a grading and erosion control plan also. Grimes added that a new home can not have a negative effect on the neighboring properties drainage and that the grading and erosion control permit process ensures that. McCarty stated that he doesn't think a developer would bring in fill just to make a home higher because it is a big added expense to bring in fill. Kluchka asked if there are policies that state how much .a lot's grade c said he would get further clarification from the Engineering Departm adding language to the ordinance that states that the grade of a I beyond what is necessary for proper drainage. e. Grimes sted d Kathy Mucha, 236 Janalyn Circle, stated that one reason p grade on their property is to construct a walk-out basement. Dale Gerdin, 300 Burntside Drive, questioned the corner of Glenwood and Meadow Lane. Grimes home. being built on the k on the height of that Keysser closed the public discussion. The Planning Commission agreed changes with Grimes' language to them a draft copy of the prop e proposed R-1 ordinance . g added. They asked Grimes to forward ces that came from their infill study. 3. e Hoing and Redevelopment Authority, City Appeals and other Meetings 4. draft copy of the items that will be on the August 13, 2007 Planning ting. 5. The meeting was ~djourned at 8:20 pm. : , \. . . . lIey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-81.09 (fax) Date: August6,2007 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, Planning Intern Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on PUD No. 67- Amendment No.2 - Westwood Lake Office Park Preliminary PUD Plan - Bigos Management, Inc., Applicant BACKGROUND Bigos Management, Inc. is proposing to construct a new two-story office building with a parking garage below, to be located within the Westwood Lake Office Park. The addresses for the Park are 8401, 8421, and 8441 Wayzata Boulevard. The proposed construction would require an amendment (Amendment No.2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 67. The existing PUD permit allows three office buildings (built in the mid-1970's) with a total of 136,500 sq. ft. along with a gazebo and 547 parking spaces. About 250 of the parking spaces are located in a deck along the east end of the existing PUD. The property is currently zoned Business and Professional Offices. The property is guided on the General Land Use Plan map for office use. The proposed office building is consistent with both the zoning code and General Land Use Plan map. The property to the south is the Westwood Nature Center operated by the City of St. Louis Park. This nature center is zoned for park uses and designated on the General Land Use Plan map for park uses. The single- family residential property that is south and east of the site is zoned R-1 (Single-Family) and designated on the General Land Use Plan map for Low Density Residential uses. This small neighborhood of houses to the south and east dates back to the 1950's or earlier. The original PUD for Westwood Lake Office Park was issued in 1994 almost 20 years after the three office buildings were constructed. The reason a PUD was issued after construction was that the office complex was being sold and the new owner wanted to "clean up" all the nonconforming issues related to the office complex. With the issuance of the PUD, nonconformities related to building setback, lack of loading docks, and multiple buildings on a lot was eliminated. In 2005, a minor PUD amendment was approved by the City Council that allowed the construction of the gazebo. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposed office building will be located at the east end of the site on a separate lot (Lot 4). It will have about 26,000 sq. ft. of office space on three levels. The l.ower level will contain a below-ground garage with approximately 30 parking stalls. In addition to the proposed underground garage, this project will include 71 above ground parking stalls that will be added . to the parking field for the entire Westwood Lake development. Overall, there will be 625 parking spaces after the construction of the proposed building. The proposed project will deviate from a portion of the Business and Professional Offices zoning district requirements (City Code, Section 11.45, B, 1), which states that in the case of a premises abutting a Residential or R-2 Zoning District, side and rear yards of such premises shall be not less than 50 feet in depth or width of which at least 25 ft. has to be maintained as a landscaped buffer zone. In this Case, the parking lot adjacent to the house to the south is 17 ft. from the property line rather than the required 25 ft. Bigos Management cites the irregular shape of the lot as a hardship. The proposed landscape plan (Sheet L-1.0) indicates that there will be plantings placed along this property line and that 8 trees will remain and new ones planted in this general location and protected during construction.) The proposed office building meets the 35 ft. front yard setback requirement from both Wayzata Blvd. and Wisconsin Ave. However, the parking lot along Wisconsin Ave. should be setback at least 35 ft. The parking lot is shown at 25 ft. from Wisconsin Ave. rather than the required, 35 ft. (Although the requirements of a specific zoning district do not apply to a PUD, those requirements are used as a guide and met, if possible.) PUD No. 67 was approved by City Council December 20, 1994. A Minor Amendment to PUD No. 67 was approved September 6, 2005. The amendment involved the addition of a gazebo as shown on the site plan. . The existing PUD has 547 parking spaces. With the addition of the proposed building, the number of spaces will increase to 625 parking spaces. The City's parking requirement for offices is one space for each 250 sq. ft. of office space. Based on 162,000 sq. ft. of office space in the PUD (136,500 sq. ft. in the existing three buildings and 26,000 sq. ft. in the proposed building), the required number ~f parking spaces is 650 spaces. Therefore, the site is 25 spaces short or 96.1 % of the requirement. Based on the existing parking demand for the three buildings, staff believes that the 625 spaces are adequate. Staff would like.to suggest that the parking lot along Wisconsin Ave. be reduced to meet the side and front yard setback requirement of 25 ft. next to the house on Wisconsin Ave. and 35 ft. from the Wisconsin Ave. right-of-way line. This would mean the reduction of about four spaces in the proposed parking lot expansion. This is an insignificant change that would bring this new building into "conformance" with setback requirements. If the Planning Commission and City Council recommends, the construction of a second parking deck level could be required if parking becomes an issue in the PUD. Prior to the final review of the General Plan for the PUD, a revision to the "Amended and Restated Declaration of Parking, Driveway, Utility and Courtyards Easements" will have to be completed. This revision will become a part of the PUD permit and legally recorded with the final plat. A review of this revised declaration by the City Attorney may be necessary. Any cost for this review shall be paid for by the applicant. . A copy of the existing PUD permit is attached. Staff sees this permit remaining in the same format with additions to include the new site plans, a revised "Declaration" for parking and access, and the filing of a new final plat to include a fourth lot for the new building. Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson has commented on the plans for the new office building. His memo to me dated July 24, 2007 is attached. This memo will become a part of my recommendation. . City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, has also written a memo to me regarding the concerns of the Public Works Department with this development. The issue relating to the location of a part of the existing buildings within the 1 % floodplain will have to be addressed prior to final approval of the PUD. Mr. Oliver's recommendations will be made a part of my recommendations. RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Amendment NO.2 to the Westwood Lake Office Park PUD No. 67. The proposal is to construct an attractive, two-story office building at the east end of the site. Staff believes that this new building will fit with both the existing PUD and the small residential neighborhood to the south and east. However, staff is recommending that the site plan be modified in order that the parking lot at the southeast corner of the property meets the setback requirements for buildings and parking lots in the Business and Professional Offices zoning district. The staff recommends the following conditions to approval: 1. The attached plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services become a part of this approval. (Plan Sheets C-1.0, C-2.0, C;.3.0, C-4.0, C-5.0, A-0.1, A-0.2, L-1.0, and A-2.0) 2. The recommendations in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes dated August 6, 2007 shall become a part of this approval. . 3. The recommendations in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes and dated July 24, 2007 shall become a part of this approval. 4. A revised "Amended and Restated Declaration of Parking, Driveway, Utility and Courtyard Easements" shall be submitted to the City with the Final Plan application for the PUD. This revision shall include language about how the new 26,000 sq. ft. office building operates within the entire Westwood Lake Office Park. 5. The parking lot at the southeast corner of the property on Lot 4 (south of the new 26,000 sq. ft. office building) shall meet the setback requirements for the Business and Professional Offices zoning district. (The site plans shall be revised to indicate this change.) If additional parking is needed after construction of the building, an additional parking deck could be required to be constructed. 6. A new final plat of PUD No. 67 showing four rather than three lots shall be filed by the applicant with Hennepin County within 60 days of City Council final plan approval. Proof of filing shall be provided to the City. . Attachments Location Map (1 page) Memo from Jeff Oliver dated August 6, 2007 (4 pages) Memo from Ed Anderson dated July 24, 2007 (2 pages) Existing PUD Permit (2 pages) Site Plans dated July 19, 2007 (9 oversized pages) NB 14WY169 'f0 ED 1394 I III g .. (i) M~er.-.wi"^'cl\tS" ~iC.WGlSGtS~ o 1>:1:5ii. . . . . emorandum Public Works 763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax) I, I alley Date: August 6, 2007 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Subject: Preliminary Design Plan Review Westwood Lake Office Park Planned Unit Development Amendment Public Works staff has reviewed the plans for the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for the Westwood Lake Office Park. This proposed PUD amendment is located on the south side of Interstate 394, east of General Mills Boulevard and east of Wisconsin Avenue. The proposed PUD amendment consists of subdividing a new lot on the eastern end of the site for the construction of a new office building. The plan also includes the modification and expansion of the existing parking lot to accommodate the new building. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan: The property included in this PUD has been platted as the Westwood Lake Office Park Addition in 1977; and as the Second Addition, P.U.D. No. 67 in 1994. These two proceeding plats do not include drainage and utility easements that are consistent with the City's subdivision ordinance. The subdivision ordinance requirements include 10 foot wide drainage and utility easements on all plat boundaries, and 12 foot wide easements centered on internal lot lines. Due to the nature of the land uses in the PUD, there is no need for internal lot line easements. Therefore, the final plan for the PUD Amendment must include 10 foot wide drainage and utility easements on all boundary lot lines for the entire PUD. The site plan includes the installation of a new driveway onto Wayzata Boulevard. The installation of this driveway will require right-of-way permits from the City of Golden Valley and the Minnesota Department ,of Transportation (MNDOT). Because this proposed development is adjacent to Interstate 394 it must be submitted to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for review and comment. C:\Users\lwittman'AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\OLKE8B9\PreDesignReview 080607.doc . . . Utility Plan: The proposed sanitary sewer and water service to the new office building is to be provided by extending new services into the building from existing City mains within Wayzata Boulevard (south frontage road). There is adequate capacity within the existing City sanitary sewer and water systems to accommodate this proposed development. The developer will be required to obtain Right-of-Way Permits for the installation of the sanitary sewer and water services from the City of Golden Valley and MNDOT. The installation.of sewer and water services will also require Sewer and Water Permits from the City of Golden Valley. Construction of these services must be in accordance with City standards. Gradina. Drainaae and Erosion Control: This proposed development is within the Main Stem sub-district of the Bassett Creek Watershed. Therefore, the development must comply with the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) water quality requirements, contained in the BCWMC Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals. Approval from the BCWMC must be received prior to the start of any work on site. The proposed development must also comply with the City of Golden Valley's Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Ordinance. This ordinance requires that the developer obtain a Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Permit from the City. The proposed grading plan incorporates infiltration basins within the parking lot medians for storm water quality treatment and rate control. The infiltration basin design includes an underdrainage system that connects the basins and discharges to the south into the Westwood Lake Nature Area. The developer will need to provide documentation that the soil mix proposed for the infiltration has sufficient permeability to accommodate the runoff from a 2.5 inch rainfall and that the water quality benefits provide are equal to or exceed a water quality pond that meets the BCWMC standards. This information must be provided at the time of application for the final PUD amendment. The grading drainage and erosion control plan must be completed according to city standard. Please include the following on the grading plan for the final plan: Identify total area of subject property. with subtotals of disturbed and undisturbed areas denoted on the plan. - Show the grades, length and size of the storm water facilities on the plan. Place a "sweeping note" and the grading plan per city standard. - Show graphically the storm sewer inlet filter locations on the plan. c:\U sers\lwittman\AppData\Local\Microsoft\ Windows\ Temporary Internet Files\OLKE8B9\PreDesignReview 080607.doc . . . The developer will be required to enter into a Storm Water Treatment Facility Maintenance Agreement for the proposed infiltration basins. This agreement will be drafted by the City and must be signed prior to approval of the final PUD Amendment. The developer must contact the City of St. Louis Park regarding the need for permits to extend the infiltration basin drainage system into Westwood Lake. Documentation that the appropriate permits have been obtained is required prior the issuance of a Grading permit from the City of Golden Valley. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Westwood Lake identify the 1 % Flood Plain on Westwood Lake at an elevation of 890 feet above sea level. Based upon the elevations provided by the developer and this flood elevation, it appears that the existing office buildings near the south property line are within the flood plain of Westwood .Lake. Staff has contacted the BCWMC to discuss this issue and the ramifications. This issue must be discussed and resolved prior to forwarding the final PUD amendment to the City Council. The flood plain issues do not impact the location of the proposed office building. Tree Preservation: The developer will be required to comply with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance as part of this development. Therefore, a Tree Preservation Plan will be required with the final PUD submittal. and a Tree Preservation Permit will be required prior to starting work on site. Recommendations: Public Works staff recommends approval of the preliminary design plan of the Westwood Lake Office Park Planned Unit Development Amendment subject to the comments contained in this review, which are summarized as follows: 1. The final plat must include 10 foot wide drainage and utility easements on all boundaries of the entire PUD. 2. Subject to the review and comment of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 3. The developer must provide documentation regarding the efficiency of the proposed infiltration basin system in meeting the BCWMC water quality standards. 4. The grading drainage and erosion control plan must be completed according to city standard (see items identified above). 5. The developer will be required to enter into a Storm Water Treatment Facility Maintenance Agreement for the proposed infiltration basins. C:\Users\lwittman\AppData\Local\Microsoft\ Windows\ Temporary Internet Files\OLKE8B9\PreDesignReview 080607.doc . . . 6. Subject to the review and comments of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. 7. The issues relating to the apparent location of the existing office buildings in the 1 % Flood Plain of Westwood Lake must be resolved prior to submittal of the final PUD plans. 8. Subject to the review and comment of the Building Official, Fire Department and other City staff. C: Tom Burt, City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Gary Johnson, Building Official Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal C:\Users\lwittman\AppData\Local\Microsoft\ Windows\Temporary Internet Files\OLKE8B9\PreDesignReview 080607.doc . . public ~H~y Memorandum Fire Department 763-593-8055 I 763-512-2497 (fax) To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning & Zoning From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Subject: PUD Amendment - Westwood Lake Office Park Date: July 24, 2007 The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the application for the PUD Amendment for the Westwood Lake Office Park. This review will focus on the following major issues for the Golden Valley Fire Department: Fire Department Access 1. The fire department access road shall be maintained during the construction of the site work and also the construction of the building. The access road shall extend to within 150' of all portions of the facilities and of the exterior walls of the first floor of the building. The access road that cannot meet this requirement may be required to have additional safeguards installed in the building including, but not limited to, automatic fire suppression systems, standpipe systems, fire detections systems and other means as required by the Golden Valley Fire Department. 2. The fire department access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of the fire apparatus and shall be surfaced as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. 3. The fire department access road shall have a 45' inside turning radius and shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles and construction vehicles. 4. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be installed in the fire department access road in accordance with the City of Golden Valley city ordinance. 5. The fire department access road shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26' in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of the building more than 30' in height. Water Supply 1. The installation of fire hydrants will be required for the site. Locations will be determined by the fire department and the installation of the hydrants will be in accordance with the City of . Golden Valley Public Works Department policies and procedures. 2. The fire suppression water line system shall meet the requirement set forth by the Golden Valley Fire Department and the City of Golden Valley Public Works Department . . . 3. A post-indicator valve (PIV) will be required for the fire suppression water line for the building. Construction Concerns 1. The staging of construction trailers and equipment shall not obstruct the fire department access road. 2. The use of any temporary heat or liquid petroleum (LP) gas during construction will require a permit from the Golden Valley Fire Department and shall be in accordance with the MN State Fire Code. 3. The construction of the proposed building will be in accordance with the 2006 MN State Fire Code and state amendments. 4. Landscaping materials or objects shall not be placed or kept near fire hydrants and fire department connections. A 3' clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of the fire hydrants. 5. Guard posts will be required for fire hydrants that are subject to impact by motor vehicles. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 763-593-8065. . . . P.U.D. No. 67 City Council Approval December 20,1994 City Council Approval - Amendment #1 September 6. 2005 Project Name: City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Use Permit For Planned Unit Development Westwood Lake Office Park 2nd Addition P.U.D. No. 67 Address: 8401.8421 and 8441 Wavzata Boulevard. Golden Valley. MN legal Description: Lots 1. 2. and 3. Block 1. Westwood Lake Office Park Addition. Hennepin County. Minnesota Applicant: Westwood Lake Limited Partnership Address: 11455 VikinQ Drive. Suite 300. Eden Prairie. Minnesota Zoning District: Industrial Permitted Uses: Three 3-storv office buildinas with a total sauare footaQe of 136.500 sa.ft. (Lot 1 buildina at 8441 Wavzata Blvd.. 63.500 sa. ft. Lot 2 buildinQ at 8401 Wayzata Blvd.. 36~500 sa. ft. Lot 3 buildinQ at 8421 Wayzata Blvd. 36.500 sa. ft.) A parkina deck and outdoor parkina. is included on the site. The buildinQs may be used as offices. Components A. land Use Components: 1. Land useswithin P.U.D. No. 67 shall be as indicated on the approved site plan prepared by Egan Field and Nowak, Inc. and dated September 14,1994 and signed by Jack Boike. 2. The buildings may be used for offices and related accessory uses, such as an employee cafeteria or employee store. 3. An at-grade covered walkway may be constructed between buildings without an amendment to the P.U.D. The construction and location shall meet all City and State requirements. 4. A second tier of parking may be constructed above the existing parking deck without an amendment to the P.U.D. The construction shall meet all City and State requirements. 5. The attached "Amended and Restated Declaration of Parking, Driveway, Utility, and Courtyard Easements" shall be a part of this Permit and legally recorded along with the Final Plat. Changes in allocation of maintenance charges between parcels shall not require an amendment to the P.U.D. . P.U.D. No. 67 Page 2 6. Amendment No.1 (approved September 6, 2005) allows a gazebo to be located as shown on the site plan dated July 27, 2005 after all proper permits have been issued by the Inspections Department and signs posted on the gazebo indicating smoking is not permitted in the gazebo or within 25 ft. of the gazebo. B. Circulation Component: 1. Access drives, parking and sidewalks shall be maintained as indicated on the site plan dated September 14, 1994. C. Subdivision Component: 1. The final plat of P.U.D. No. 67 shall be filed by the applicant with Hennepin County within 60 days of Council approval and provide proofof such filing. It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City Council approval granted on December 20, 1994 and September 6, 2005 relative to Planned Unit Development No. 67. rIP ~tA5fl-t/J:) A~S'('IIt-r6'> tJr P6",,1"I1) Ft, IJ./D S'f~&GG>Dfl- JD INIIJ~Jt.$rll(: Westwood lake Limited Partnership B~ Its: tll Date: f/lt'-/o5 , . WITNESS: . (' ~'lt- i ' ; r '-., f ,l j \, WITNESS:/:::t; <F, N k " ; .~ L- v/ City of Golden Valley BY~fl1/ilL) 'X:. :t~ Linda R. Loomis, Mayor Date: q - }Z~' OS 'i ~\ \ If) " . /. . l'\J'~ WITNESS:" --'4- · \ ,i .... 1..::/ By: Date: Warning: This permit does not exempt you from all other City Code provisions, regulations and ordinances. . . . Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: July 24, 2007 To: Golden Valley. Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Amendments to R-1 (Single-Family) Zoning District Resulting from "Report of the Planning Commission on Subdivisions and Development" (Infill Report) As a result of the "Report of the Planning Commission on Subdivisions and Development" or the Infill Report, the Planning Commission is recommending several changes to the R-1 (Single-Family) zoning district and definition change related to the height of buildings. These changes have been previously discussed by the Planning Commission and were discussed at a City Council/City Manager meeting this past spring. These changes are attached in City Code format. The following changes are recommended: 1. Elimination of Section 11.03 Definitions, 12. "Building, Height of' - The vertical distance above "grade" as defined herein to the highest point 6f 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. This definition is replaced with the following definition to determine the height of a house: Section 11.03 Definitions 12. "Building Height Determination "_ The vertical distance from the average grade plane at the building facing the street to the average height of the highest pitched roof or the highest point of a flat roof structure. On lots that have more than one side facing the street, the distance for height is from the average grade plane of all sides that face the street. 2. Although it will not be made a part of zoning code, the standards that must be met to obtain a Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Permit from the Public Works Department will be changed to include the following language for the construction of single-family homes: The grade plane at the building shall not exceed three (3) feet above the street side property line unless there is prior approval of the Public Works Department as part of this permit process. By adding this requirement, a builder would not be able to bring in fill material to create a significant building pad which could give the appearance of a taller house. Staff believes that three feet is reasonable in order to allow proper drainage of lots to the street. Overall, the Planning, Public Works, and . . . Inspection staffs have not seen a significant problem with the filling of lots to create artificially higher lots. 3. Section 11.21, Subd. 9 Building Lot Coverage is to be eliminated. This section states the amount of space on a lot that may be covered with building depending on lot size. The Planning Commission agreed to expand this by adding a maximum impervious surface limit. This section will be replaced by the following: Section 11.21, Subd. 9 Maximum Coverage by Building and Impervious Surfaces. No lot or parcel in the R- 1 Zoning District shall have lot coverage by building of more than 30 % for a lot or parcel over 10,000 sq. ft. in area, 35% for a lot or parcel between 5,000 and 9,999 sq. ft. and 40% for a lot or parcel less than 5,000 sq. ft. in area. The requirement excludes swimming pools. Total impervious surface on any lot or parcel shall not exceed 50% of the lot or parcel area. The impervious surface limitation is identical to the new R-2 zoning district. Swimming pools do not count when doing the building lot coverage calculations but they do count as part of the overall impervious surface count. 4. Section 11.21, Subd. 10. Principal Structures, A(3)(d) is to be eliminated. This section states that if a house is greater than 40 ft. in depth along a side yard adjacent to another property, the side yard setback shall be increased by one (1) foot for each additional ten feet of structure depth of portion thereof. This section has been difficult to interpret and has not eliminated the problem of long, uninterrupted walls. The Planning Commission is recommending the following language to replace the existing section: For any new construction, whether a new house, addition or replacement through a tear-down, if any sidewall is longer than 32 ft. along a side yard adjacent to another property, that sidewall must be articulated, with a shift of at least two (2) feet in depth, for at least eight (8) ft. in length, for every 32 feet of sidewall. 5. Section 11.21, Subd. 10. Principal Structure B. Height Limitations is to be eliminated. This section states thathouses are limited to 2 % stories or 30 ft. in height. This will be replaced with the following language: No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoning District to exceed a height of 28 ft. for pitched roof houses and 25 ft. for flat roof houses. (Refer to Definition of "Building Height Determination" for details on measurement.) 6. Section 11.21, Subd. 11. Accessory Structures E is to be eliminated. This section states that each single family property is limited to a total of 1,000 sq. ft. of accessory structure space. This will be replaced with the following language: Each property is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the following accessory structures including detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses and gazebos. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. However, no one detached accessory structure may be larger than 800 sq. ft. in area and any accessory structure over 120 sq. ft. in area requires a building permit. This eliminates the construction of very large oversized garages and outbuildings. The current code limits the height of accessory buildings to 10ft. at the top plate. 7. Section 11.21, Subd. 11, Accessory Structures J. Design is proposed to be eliminated. This section states that accessory structures that are added after the house is built must be designed and constructed in a manner consistent with the design and general appearance of the house. 'The language is very subjective. The primary problem that the City has had with accessory buildings is related to their height and . bulk. In particular, large, barn-like accessory buildings have seemed to be particularly offensive to some. Rather than have this existing subjective language in the code about design, staff is suggesting that with accessory buildings over 120 sq. ft. that require a building permit, no gambrel roofs are permitted. Gambrel roofs are the barn-type roofs that make the accessory building taller and with more bulk. Accessory buildings less than 120 sq. ft. can be of any design. The new language would be: Roof. Gambrel roofs are not permitted on any accessory building with a footprint of more than 120 sq. ft. 8. Section 11.21, Subd.17. Driveway Requirements, C, Coverage is to be eliminated. This section states that up to 50% of the front yard may be covered with concrete, bituminous pavements, or pavers. The Planning Commission believes that this is too great a percentage. The recommended language is as follows: Coverage. No more than forty percent (40%) of the front yard may be covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers. Attachments Proposed Zoning Code Changes (5 pages) Report of the Planning Commission on Subdivisions and Housing Development (9 pages) . . . . . S 11.03 12. "Building, Height of' The vertical distance above "grade" as defined herein to the highest point of the copiRg 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 measuroment may betaken from the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface '....ithin a fivo (5) foot horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building, when such side'Nalk or ground surface is not more than ten (10) feet above grade. 12. "Building Height Determination" - The vertical distance from the average grade plane at the building facing the street to the average height of the highest pitched roof or the highest r:>oint of a flat roof structure. On lots that have more than one' side facin~ the street. the distance for height is from the average grade plane of all sides that face the street. , 13. "Business" - Any occupation, employment or enterprise wherein merchandise is exhibited or sold, or which occupies time, attention, labor and materials, or where services are offered for compensation. 14. "Car Wash" - A building and/or premises used principally for washing and cleaning automobiles, using either manual or automatic production line methods. 15. "Cemetery" - Land used or intended to be used for the burial of human dead and dedicated as a "cemetery" for such purposes. Source: Ordinance No. 585 Effective Date: 1-14-83 16. "Child Care Facilities" - A service provided to the public in which children of school orpre-school age are cared for during established business hours. Source: Ordinance No. 712 Effective Date: 6-23-88 17. "Church or Synagogue" - The term includes the following: church, synagogue, rectory, parish house or similar building incidental to the principal use which is maintained and operated by an organized group for religious purposes. 18. "Clinic" - A place used for the care, diagnosis and treatment of sick, ailing, infirm and injured persons and those who are in need of medical or surgical attention, but who are not provided with board or room, nor kept overnight on the premises. 19. "Club" - A non-profit association of persons who are bona fide members, paying regular dues, and are organized for some common purpose, but not including a group organized solely or primarily to render a service customarily carried on as a commercial enterprise. 20. "Congregate Housing" - Housing for the elderly and/or handicapped, providing at least one prepared meal per day in a common dining room, and may also provide certain medical and social services over and above what might be in a standard elderly apartment complex. GOLDEN VALLEY CC 246 (6-30-04) . . . S 11.21 C. Home day care facilities licensed by the State of Minnesota serving 12 or fewer persons. Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses. A. Residential facilities serving from seven to 25 persons. B. Group foster family homes. Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots. No dwelling or accessory structure shall be erected for use or occupancy as a residential dwelling on any tract of unplatted land which does not conform with the requirements of this Section, except on those lots located within an approved plat. In the R-1 zoning district a platted lot of a minimum area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum width of 80 feet shall be required for one single family dwelling. Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility. All structures in the R-1 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-1 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. Building Lot Coverage. No lot or parcel in the R-1 Zoning District shall have a lot coverage of more than 30 percent for a lot or parcel over 10,000 square feet in area, 35% for a lot or parcel between 5,000 square feet and 9,999 square feet in area and 40% for a lot or parcel less than 5,000 square feet in area. This requirement excludes swimming pools. Total impervious surface on any lot or parcel shall not exceed 50% of the lot or parcel area. Subdivision 10. Principal Structures. Subject to the modifications in Subdivision 12, below, principal structures in the R-1 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-1 zoning district. Garages or other accessory structures 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 frontporches, with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front property line along a street right- of-way line. GOLDEN VALLEY CC 264 (6-30-04) . . . S 11.21 (a.) In the case of a corner lot, the side with the narrower street frontage shall be considered the front of the lot. 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be 20 percent of the lot depth. 3. Side Setback. Side yard setbacks are determined by the lot width at the minimum required front setback line. The distance between any part of a structure and the side lot lines shall be governed by the following requirements: (a.) In the case of lots having a width of 100 feet or greater, the side setback shall be 15 feet; (b.) In the case of lots having a width greater than 65 feet and less than 100 feet, the side yard setback shall be 12.5 feet; (c.) In the case of lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the North or West side yard setback shall be 10 percent of the lot width, and the South or East side yard setback shall be 20 percent of the lot width (up to 12.5 feet). (d.) If a prinoipal structure is greater than 40 feet in depth along a sido yard adjacent to another property that side yard setback shall increase by one foot for each additional ten feet of structure depth or portion thereof. (d.) For any new construction. whether a new house. addition or replacement throuqh a tear-down. if any sidewall is lom~er than 32 feet alonq a side' yard adiacent to another property. that sidewall must be articulated. with a shift of a least 2 feet in depth. for at least 8 feet in lenqth. for every 32 feet of sidewall. 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 1 Zoning District to exceed a height of t\*:o and a half stories or 30 feet as defined in the City's building codo, 'Nhiche'Jeris less. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zoninq District to exceed a heiqht of 28 feet for pitched roof houses and 25 feet for flat roof houses. (Refer to Section 11.03. Definition 12 "Buildinq Heiqht Determination" for details on measurement.) C. Structure Width Requirements. No principal structure shall be less than 22 feet in width as measured from the exterior of the exterior walls. D. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback. E. Decks. Decks over eight inches from ground level shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure. GOLDEN VALLEY CC 265 (6-30-04) . . . S 11.21 F. Fences. For the purpose of setbacks, fences are not considered structures. E. Each property is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the follmving accessory structures: detached and attached garages, dotached sheds, greenhouses, ~:md gazebos. S'Nimming pools are not included in this requirement. E. Each property is limited to a total of 1.000 square feet of the following accessory structures: detached and attached QaraQes. detached sheds. Qreenhouses and Qazebos. SwimminQ pools are not included in this requirement. However. No one detached accessory structure may be larQer than 800 square feet in area and any accessory structure over 120 square feet in area requires a buildinQ permit. F. Size of Accessory Structures. No accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. (See Subdivision 4.A(1)). G. Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location requirements for accessory structures. Setbacks shall be measured from the property line to the pool's edge. Decks surrounding above ground pools shall meet setback requirements. H. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory buildings shall meet the same setback requirements for accessory buildings. (See Subdivision 14.) I. Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall not be allowed in the front yard of a single family home. J. Design. All accessory structures constructed after the construction of the principal structure must be designed and constructed in a manner consistent '.'lith the design and general appearance of the principal structure. J. Roof. Gambrel roofs are not permitted on any accessory building with a footprint of more than 120 square feet. Subdivision 12. Pre-1982 Structures. For all existing structures constructed in the R-1 zoning district prior to January 1, 1982, the following structure setbacks shall be in effect. A. Front Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no closer than 25 feet to the front yard property line. B. Side Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no closer than three feet to the side yard property line. C. Rear Yard. The structure setback for principal structures shall be no closer than ten feet to the rear yard property line. D. Accessory Structure. The structure setback for accessory structures shall be no closer than three feet to the side or rear yard property lines. At the discretion of the Director of Planning and Development, a property owner may be required to move an accessory structure if it is located in a public easement area. GOLDEN VALLEY CC 267 (6-30-04 ) . . . S 11.21 B. Setbacks. Driveways built on or after January 1, 2005 shall be setback three (3) feet from a side yard property line, except for shared driveways used by multiple property owners pursuant to a private easement. C. Coverage. No more than fifty fortvpercent (W-% 40%) of the front yard may be covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers. Source: Ordinance No. 311, 2nd Series Effective Date: 10-29-04 GOLDEN VALLEY CC 269 (12-31-04) . . . 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. o The Metropolitan Council has projected a population increase for the Twin Cities of as much as one million people over the next 25 years. o 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. o 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. o 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 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 numerOl.Js 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 S. 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 (above a certain size); 2. Lengthier building review and permitting processes demolitions of residential properties); 3. More expensive permitting fees; building permits ~I (especially fori 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(6)), 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, whichever is lower, and the highest point of a flat roof structure or average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped 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 . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: August 6, 2007 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, Planning Intern Subject: Informal Public Hearing on the Recommendation for Adoption of the 1-394 Corridor Study - Comprehensive Plan Amendment - City of Golden Valley, Applicant The City of Golden Valley is proposing to amend Golden Valley's Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the 1-394 Corridor Study Report. The Study Report, initiated through the Envision Golden Valley process, provides alternatives to land use in both bulk and density along Interstate 394 in Golden Valley. The Study Report recommends the addition of a Mixed Use . zoning designation and the subsequent rezoning of parcels within the 1-394 Corridor as such. Currently, most of the parcels within the 1-394 Corridor Study Area are zoned Industrial. However, there are a wide range of land uses in the area. This interspersed collection of office buildings, industrial sites, automobile dealerships, and restaurants has resulted in disassociated network of roads and signage, and is inconsistent with the City's vision. Adoption of the Study' Report, and its recommendations, into the Comprehensive Plan would allow the City to guide future growth of the area, and establish an aesthetically pleasing gateway to the community. Feedback from surveys and other public venues indicate a strong citizen support for the adoption of the 1-394 Corridor Study into the Comprehensive Plan. A copy of the Study Report, in its entirety, is attached to this memorandum. You may also view the report, and. a history of the 1-394 area, at http://www.cLQolden-valley.mn.us/zoninQ/394corridor/studv-index.html. Attachments 1-394 Corridor Study report . . . . Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: July 30, 2007 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, Planning Intern Subject: Informal Public Hearing on General Land Use Plan Map Amendment - 1-394 Corridor, to amend the General Land Use Plan Map designation for all properties in the 1-394 Corridor area to Mixed Use - City of Golden Valley, Applicant The City of Golden Valley is proposing to amend the Zoning Code to establish a Mixed Use zoning classification. In doing so, the City subsequently proposes to amend the General Land Use Plan Map designation for all properties in the 1-394 Corridor Area to Mixed Use. (The 1-394 Corridor Area is identified on the attached map.) On July 5, 2006 the City Council adopted a Mixed Use land use category to be a part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Mixed Use definition is as follows: Mixed Use (MU): This category includes tracts of land, buildings, or structures that support two or more land uses which are complementary to one another, support the ability to live, work, shop and/or play within a defined land use area, and are in a compaqt urban form. This category includes the following principal uses: residential, office, retail, public and entertainment. This amendment would ensure consistency between the written Zoning Code and the visual General Land Use Plan Map. The General Land Use Plan Map currently indicates that this area is primarily designated Industrial. Approval of this amendment will enable the General Land Use Plan Map to reflect more accurately the future plans of the 1-394 Corridor. Attachments: Map of proposed Mixed-Use Zoning District (also General Land Use Plan Map amendment area) Current Comprehensive Plan Map . S'WmIlOl'LJ Figul'c I'rOfJ(lsed Mixed~l Tsl.-' ZOlliniJ District t::? 0" PorId B tD~ ,.~ 8< Chur. ili ~ff Brookview i ~ Parle Q/) 'fJ' WastamAve M nua arsh ~ .. I!! i .#' " 'i\ \ \. .. e"" o '0 i ~R ",0 ~ ~ ; R\OGi'~ " I RD GReGoRy RD o 0 ~ i i I ~i~ '" n ,. !> ~ fROlll''''GE aO IQNB$TON "'R: .. > HAlio : tD..,~ ; AtoNT,I\GE aD HAROLD AVE \ "0" 1',..~ ~ ~ IJ " '- 9p I i . ~ I..V"'f.....-\$ ffI " 5 rt>" ~d' <i>" z ~ ! o l!i WESTERN AVE ~!P l' t. z z .. ~,: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i Ii z 9 "', 00 ..~ t? i~ i '.__u u_ i z ~ ~ b'.o1)'0Z4r-<4SLIfb ~~~ . i : -~-~---'-'----'-----'----"-~---- II) WfSSTERNAVE "'''';;O'5I\n ..", _ 9 o 0 ~ ~Good 9[; J ~ ~ IIJ:: ~ i KCORTf..4boNc. ~ 8 g i ~ ~ ; School ~g ~ II) w!IE 0( ~ C IrU !! t ~ I ~ ~ = ~.. 8SCOR'rLAWNCIR i ~ ~ ~ " II" e9->'~ ~ ~J . LAURELAVE 1-394 Corridor Study - Golden Valley, Minnesota N A 801) .coo a 8ODFeel; CY42J . Centerfor ~._~. n Perpich Cent4 .. ",r-.J For Ads Educa o & . Ball Fields [J ,~<:::J Yc Pi .... "'0 ~ ,. WOODSTOCK ~ ~ I ~ _Blazer ~ Pari< . , 1-4' " 3 ',.p \ /!"f'(~AP DR ~C:~:::;i z ~ 8 I 'll, ... l~ #<><<1'" ~ ~~ i u .'" iZ LORING LA Als'4N.o.eItIt.() oo~ '!>o'ls- -i'o t 0.. I~ Q i i Natchazl Parle c) Q. G/anWO?~o n PondL..J >?" OJ z ~ ~ ~ .. .. ~ 8 E ~ o .. i I o ~ ~ 11 ~ TURNPIKE RD i ~ ~ OJtawa ~ Po<5 ~ o ~ ~ ~ rIlfl Proposed Mixed-Use Zoning District ...~ ~o~ 0:: COLONlAl. DR i TURNPIKE -\>0 ~ .... '<- ()~ ~ TURNPIKE +() @ NE o ,0 ~ley City of Colden Valley 1"394 C(mldor Study ~ '. . . . Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: July 30, 2007 To: Planning Commission Joe Hogeboom, Planning Intern From: Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Zoning Code Amendment - adding a Mixed Use Zoning District to the Zoning Code - City of Golden Valley, Applicant The City of Golden Valley is proposing to amend the Zoning Code to establish a Mixed Use Zoning classification. The purpose of this amendment is to enable the establishment of a Mixed Use Zoning district in the 1-394 Corridor Area. The 1-394 Corridor Area includes the properties along the frontage of 1-394, and is shown on the attached map. The desire to establish a Mixed Use Zoning classification arose from citizen participation through Envision Golden Valley. A Mixed Use Zoning district would foster and encourage the integration of land uses (where appropriate), environmental sustainability, and walkability, among other things. The 1-394 Corridor was identified for a land use study because of its high visibility and location. With the adoption of this amendment, the Zoning Code will contain the following: · A new Section 11.47 entitled 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. · Revisions to Section 11.03. · Revisions to Section 11.12. The Zoning Code amendment includes provisions regarding the placement of buildings, design principals, signage, transportation corridors, and other details as they relate to the overall cohesiveness of the Corridor. Please see the attached from Mark Grimes regarding impervious surface coverage. This is an item that should be discussed by the Planning Commission at the public hearing on August 13, 2007. The City of Golden Valley feels establishing a Mixed Use Zoning classification and applying it to the 1-394 Corridor will benefit the City by providing the opportunity for increased housing and employment options, as well as providing a visually attractive window to the community. Attachments Draft copy of the proposed Mixed Use Zoning District Ordinance Memo from Mark Grimes dated Al.,Igust 2, 2007 regarding impervious surface coverage . Proposed Future Ordinance Related to Mixed-Use Zoning District The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Section 11.03 is amended by adding the following as new paragraphs in alphabetical order and renumbering the remaining paragraphs: "Display Window" - A window at street level, typically part f a storefront facade, used to display merchandise. with Develop after the eff lot and in no c public and used for passive Ically provided with amenities e trees, grass and other "Live-Work Unit" - A dwelling unit in combination w' other work space within the same building, where the r works. "Park" - An open space with natural veg include recreational facilities, designed to se} the community. "Play Area" - A small park de contains play equipment, seating, an tennis courts. . is hereby amended by changing it to RUCTURE ON ONE LOT. Except for properties trict or regulated under the Planned Unit this apter, every principal structure erected in the City section (October 3, 1991) shall be located on a separate be more than one principal structure on a lot. Section 3. A Section 11.47 entitled 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District, is hereby adopted to r d as follows: SECTION 11.47. 1-394 MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT. . Subdivision 1. Purpose. The City of Golden Valley has undertaken a study of the 1-394 Corridor with the intent of improving the area's cohesiveness, attractiveness, and sustainability. The purpose of the 1-394 Mixed Use ("MU") Zoning District is to implement the principles and recommendations of the 1-394 Corridor Study. The principles are as follows: July 10, 2007 1 . A. Enable the corridor to evolve toward a diverse mix of land uses, including residential as well as commercial and industrial. B. Maximize integration rather than separation of land uses, where appropriate. C. Maintain the corridor as an employment center. interchanges. D. Improve the visual coherence and attracti eness of the corridor. E. Improve connectivity for all modes. F. Foster neighborhood-serving ret G. Maintain or improve the f H. Foster sustainable devel between urban and natural systems. . The District includes specific standar order to encourage development that I motorized transportation and pedestria standards of the 1-394 Overlay District. ht, bulk and placement in , accessible to non- to complement the d Uses. The following uses are permitted in the 1- 394t'; Ie Dwelling (3 or more units) rly and Handicapped Housing . All permitted uses in the Commercial Zoning District, provided that such uses are combined with other permitted or conditional uses within a mixed- use building, and that the gross floor area occupied by any such single use shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. . D. Class III Restaurants E. Business and professional offices, provided that the gross floor area occupied by the use(s) on any lot shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. July 10, 2007 2 . F. Medical clinics G. Live-work units H. All uses permitted in the Institutional Zoning Districts, 1-1 through 1-3 building I. Child Care Facilities J. Adult Day Care Centers K. Structured parking accessory to Subdivision 4. Conditional Uses. A. Class II Restaurants B. Any permitted commercial . gross floor area ;;ccupying more than 10,000 il may e blish a maximum amount of y zoning lot, based upon traffic studies as . appropriate minimum Levels of ores, including the sale of gasoline. in or drive-through facilities accessory to any permitted or . B\.:iil8ings exceeding the height limits specified in Subdivision 6.D Subdivisi 5. Standards for Live-Work Units. The purpose of a live-work unit is to provide a transitional use type between a home occupation and a larger commercial enterprise, and to provide neighborhood-oriented commercial services, while maintaining a generally residential character in which the work space is subordinate to the residential use. . A. The work space may be located on any floor of the building, but businesses serving the public shall generally be located on the first floor for July 10, 2007 3 . accessibility. Office or studio spaces or other low-traffic activities may be located on upper floors or basements. B. The dwelling unit component shall maintain a separate entrance located on the front or side facade and accessible from the primary abutting public street. C. The work space component of the unit shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the total gross floor area of the unit. F. The business person who resides in the dwelling unit. workers on-site at anyone time who live elude offices, accessory to a rts crafts, D. A total of two off-street parking spac live-work unit, located to the rear of the unit, or in an und E. The business component of small service establishments, home crafts which dwelling unit, or limited retailing (by appointme or personal services. It may not include a wh~ business, a commercial food service requiring a service or repair for any vehicles other than those r property. . .. conducted by a employ more than 2 "ork unit. tial uses facing an R-1 zoning district across a . Buildings with residential uses at ground level: 10 feet 4. Buildings with nonresidential uses at ground level: no minimum setback 5. All setbacks shall be landscaped according to the standards of Subdivision 8 hereof. . B. Front, side and rear yard setbacks, surface parking: at least 15 feet, landscaped according to the standards of Subdivision 8 hereof. C. Side and rear yard setbacks, buildings: July 10, 2007 4 . . . 1. Adjoining an R-1 or R-2 zoning district: 50 feet 2. Adjoining any other district: 10 feet D. Maximum height: three height subdistricts, designated as "A" through "C" are established, as shown on Figure 1. Maximum height shall not exceed the following except by Conditional Use Permit: 1. Subdistrict A (Low): 3 stories 3. Subdistrict C (High): 1 E. Transitional height: Suil within 75 feet of a residential district bounda: permitted within that residential district. F. Minimum hei, building may be permitted if it compri fac;ade. ry wing or section of a taller cent of the length of the coverage is 65%. ix of uses. Development sites over 2 acres in size in st two use types from the following categories: 3. Office 4. Other, including studios and other live-work uses S. Required open space. Development sites over 2 acres in size shall reserve at least 15 % of the site as designed and landscaped open space, consisting of a plaza, green, park, play area, trail or parkway or combination thereof. C. Minimum density, residential development July 10, 2007 5 . 1. If housing is part of a mixed use development, no minimum density is required. 2. Freestanding residential buildings shall be developed at a minimum density of 15 units per net residential acre, with the exception of buildings or portions of buildings located within 75 feet of a residential district boundary (no minimum density applies in this transitional area). Subdivision 8. Development Standards. objective development standards for all uses within the to encourage creative approaches to development, flexibility in that some are mandatory and others tion establishes dards are intended some degree of D. Maximum floor area ratio. Non-residential except by Conditional Use. . e placed c10s 'l1e lude: Laurel enue and isiana, Pennsylvania and ed in the future.) Parking in order to create a vibrant est and attractiveness g facad ver 30 feet in length shall be itectura elements such as recesses, ing tops shall be defined with the use of ntrasting materials or varied window base, middle and top, and employ appeal to the pedestrian, such as awnings, ;~f: Views into and out of nonresidential buildings tscape and enhance security. window and do percent of the are located between 3 balcony openings s facades. . Where nonresidential uses occupy the ground floor level, hall comprise at least 60 percent of the length and 30 ground floor fa<(ade facing the primary street and shall be feet above the adjacent grade level. Window and door or all comprise at least 15 percent of upper stories and side and rear 2. Where residential uses occupy the ground floor level, window and door openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the primary fa<(ade and . 15 percent of each side and rear fa<(ade. 3. Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and out of buildings. Views shall not be blocked July 10, 2007 6 . between 3 and 8 feet above grade by storage, shelving mechanical equipment or other visual barriers. Display windows, if designed to provide equivalent visual interest, may be considered asan alternative approach as provided in Subdivision 8. The display area behind the window shall be at least four feet deep and shall be used to display merchandise. D. Building entrances: Building entrances shall be provided on the primary street on which the building fronts, in addition to any entrances from rear or side parking areas. Street entrances shall be lighted and defined by ans of a canopy, portico, recess, or other architectural details. 1. Exterior wall finish. E . excluding those portions of foundation walls exte faced with glass, exterior cement plaster (stuc concrete, non-corrugated metal, or an equivg' . durable materials is preferred. Except for glass, wall finish material. E. Building materials: . 2. At leas be faced with Kasota stone or other in the primary street shall ria. exterior wall surface of finish system (EIFS) Planning. ,im, up to 15 percent of the ,. metal, exterior insulation proved by the Director of . All building facades shall be s of quality to those used on the front t visible to the public. percent 0 awning. . Bright or primary colors shall be limited to 15 and roofs, except when used in public art or on an . ...fa ing location. Parking shall be located to the side and rear of buildings to the ma extent feasible. Parking within front yard setbacks between buildings and the pri ary street shall be limited to a maximum depth of forty (40) feet. . H. Parking screening. Parking areas shall be screened from public streets, sidewalks and paths by a landscaped frontage strip at least five (5) feet wide. If a parking area contains over one hundred (100) spaces, the frontage strip shall be increased to eight (8) feet in width. 1. Within the frontage strip, screening shall consist of either a masonry wall, berm or hedge or combination that forms a screen a minimum of three July 10, 2007 7 . and one-half (3.5) and a maximum of four (4) feet in height, and not less than fifty percent (50%) opaque on a year-round basis. 2. Trees shall be planted at a minimum of one deciduous tree per fifty (50) feet within the frontage strip. I. Structured parking. The ground floor facade of any parking structure abutting any public street or walkway shall be designed and architecturally detailed in a manner consistent with adjacent commercial or offic buildings. 1. Upper floors shall be designe of parking structures do not dominate the appearance of @rking entra shall be of a building. Possible of the structure over the nce of the entry; using the arking entrance nce, location and design 2. Entrance drives to str underground parking) shall be located and desig pedestrian movement. Pedestrian walks shoul . quired along all street frontages, and the City of Golden Valley Public sid located s be at least the surroundin their length with 2. A W~!!k,g~fined pedestrian path shall be provided from the stom~b1tesident entrance of a building. Walkways shall be etws'en street and entrance is minimized. Walkways shall shall be distinguished through pavement material from king 10 alkways shall be landscaped for at least 50 percent of bs, flower beds and10r planter pots. 3. Sidewalks of at least 6 feet in width shall be provided along all building facades that abut public parking areas. 4. Sidewalks shall be maintained by the adjacent property owner. . K. Drive-through facilities. July 10, 2007 8 . 1. Drive-through elements shall not be located between the front fagade of the principal building and the street. No service shall be rendered, deliveries made or sales conducted within the required front yard, although tables may be provided for customer use. 2. Site design shall accommodate a logical and safe vehicle and pedestrian circulation pattern. Adequate queuing lane space shall be provided, without interfering with on-site parking/circulation. 3. Drive-through canopies and other s uctures, where present, shall be constructed from the same materials as the R . building, and with a similar level of architectural quality and detailing. 4. Sound from any speaker be audible above a level of normal conversation at t residential district or on any residential property. premises shall not surrounding L. Outdoor seating and & receptacles are encouraged within front, side or seating may be permitted within rights-of-way, prov width of five (5) feet. Service windo for serving foo as part of any building fagade. Garba eptacles sha owner. Cl garbage ~reas, and t~i porary t sidewalks remain clear to a beverages may be permitted aintained by the property . M, Public art. Public development within the hes to Development Standards. is Section are manda'tory, there may ctive. The City may permit alternative n, m e intent of the development standards . al conditions of the site or building would make Subdi, ion 1. Purpose. Site plan review standards are established to promote development that is compatible with nearby properties, neighborhood character and natural features, and consistent with the comprehensive plan and/or area plans adopted by the City Council. The regulations in this Section are intended to minimize pedestrian and vehicular conflict, to promote public safety, and to encourage a high quality of development. The regulations recognize the unique character of land and development throughout the City and the need for flexibility in site plan review, . July 10, 2007 9 . Subdivision 2. When Required. Within the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District, site plan approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit for any proposed construction or issuance of a zoning certificate for any proposed use, with the following exceptions: A. Construction or alteration of a single-family dwelling or accessory building; upon it, including landscaping, signa ceived site plan ,,~ite plan for the B. A use within an existing building that has approval, if the establishment of the use does not alter the app property. C. Proposed modifications that are the building. D. Modifications, additions not increase the gross floor area by more th~ is less, and which do not require a variance from E. Alteration or change of no greater than 10 percen . F. Grading or site the existing site, as approved by the City minor modifications to Subdiv' scale and shall co waived in writing y t , developer, and designer of the project. M\trlership or an interest in the property. ensions and boundaries. xisting and intended use of the property and all structures , number of dwelling units proposed, parking, circulation, d stormwater management and snow storage facilities. . E. Any other information deemed necessary by the Director of Planning and Development. Subdivision 4. Site Plan Application. Applications for site plan approval shall be made on forms provided by the City. A. Site and building plans which do not involve a variance or conditional use, and do not involve other matters requiring consideration by the July 10, 2007 10 . Planning Commission or City Council may be approved by the Director of Planning and Development. An administrative review shall be completed within 30 days of receipt of complete plans, and the applicant will be notified by mail. Administrative decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission. B. Site or building plans involving a conditional use, or other matters requiring consideration by the Planning Commission shall be reviewed by that body. The Planning Commission shall make findings and recommendations to the Council. Subdivision 5. Site Plan Review Stand reviewed with reference to: ij,1I be reviewed by C. Site or building plans involving a varian the Board of Zoning Appeals. A. Conformance to the ap other city requirements the development standards District or specific areas or d by the City. . al Pr ns and Definitions ,,8 ion" and Section 11.99 eir entirety, by reference, as j;i~fter its publication as required by law. ,2007. Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Virnig, City Clerk . July 10, 2007 11 . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: August 2, 2007 To: Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Discussion Points Regarding Section 11.47. 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District Subd. 6, G. Maximum impervious coverage At the August 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission will hold an informal public hearing to discuss the proposed 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District that is proposed to become a part of the zoning code. The principals for the development of the district include the encouragement of more diverse land uses and the fostering of sustainable development and a balance between urban and natural systems. The zoning district encourages more intense development by allowing buildings in the district to range from 3-10 stories. . In order to help bridge the balance between urban and natural systems, the ordinance is proposing that there be a maximum impervious surface coverage of 65%. We also have the option of adding a provision that if a green roof system is used, the impervious surface coverage could increase to .75%. The City has established a specific percentage for impervious surfaces in the new R-2, R-3 "and R-4 zoning districts. For R-2 zoned property, the maximum is 50% and for R-3 and R-4 property, it is 60%. There is no "bonus" to increase the impervious surface amount in those districts. With the required 35% open space, there will be a generous amount of green space for this high value corridor. Through discussion that occurred during the 1-394 Corridor Study staff anticipates that the Planning Commission and City Council support encouraging buildings to be taller, with a smaller footprint and more green/public space. However the development community may prefer the option of lower rise buildings with more impervious coverage, as this is a lower cost approach. By adopting what staff perceives as a more costly approach for developers, it may take longer to attract developers who see the long-term value this vision. Another option would be for the City to be proactive in providing more regional storm water storage and perhaps trails or linear parks. However this approach would be more costly to the public realm and would potentially require assessments or redevelopment assistance that was not anticipated as part of the corridor study. . The City has been used to many developments going forward as PUDs. With the PUD process, the City had flexibility in working with developers to design an acceptable plan that included adequate green space on a case-by-case basis. With the elimination of the PUD process for many buildings in this zoning district, striCt design standards are necessary in order to guide the design of sites. The use of a specific impervious surface requirement may be appropriate, and the only way that the City assures green space. '. . . . Whatever provisions are provided in the ordinance, all stormwater management plans would also have to be reviewed by the watershed organization. The City's provisions could be more, but not less stringent than those of the watershed management organization. In reviewing the proposed new ordinance staff would like the Planning Commission to consider carefully if the 65% maximum impervious coverage should be included in the ordinance, and whether an additional provision allowing 75% impervious coverage should be added if a green roof is installed, and the relation of these provisions to the requirements of the watershed management organization. . . . <# lIey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: July 30, 2007 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, Planning Intern Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Rezoning - Rezoning the Properties in the 1-394 Corridor to Mixed Use Zoning District- City of Golden Valley, Applicant In coordination with the proposed Zoning Code amendment, which would add a Mixed Use Zoning District to the Zoning Code, the City of Golden Valley is proposing to rezone the properties in the 1-394 Corridor area to Mixed Use. Currently, most properties located in this area are zoned Industrial. The City of Golden Valley feels that Mixed Use is a more appropriate designation for this area. In order for plans outlined in the 1-394 Corridor Study to be realized, zoning must become consistent in the corridor. On June 13, 2007, Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, notified property owners in the affected area in writing of the City's wish to incorporate the 1-394 district as a Mixed Use Zone. Letters were sent asking for community participation in this process. It is critical to the City that effective communication be maintained with all affected property owners. Attachments: Map of Proposed Mixed Use Zoning District Current Zoning Map showing the 1-394 Corridor Study area ,-- .../ i ,'111111111" '-'19 HI'lopnSet 1\1 Ixed ' (5t- I, 1m) /(/ I lIst riel . . 9 ~i~ '" ~ ~ ""-0 o " ~ fRoNT#t.Ge !tD If !t''' ,.~.. CenIer lor I:::.:_~ F PerpIch Cent, i.,./~--" __.J or Ads Educe, D - (9 BaH Flalda !) ~",' i 11 IBlazer ~ Park ~ a " filQNT~Ge fl,D .....toN "'"'" ~ HAo\'o 0 '" '" "'~ ~ ~ I.,C}lof.'6.,,\$ ~ ; r:::> 6) t ~9 PondS l) m S100kvIsw ~p~ I! ~; HAROLD AVE [J \ 'l>~~ ....-'\{'--' c::..----' -Lr"""~ z . ~ '" ~ U9ps z of;.; 'OD~. R P5'ffl- !!I !i ~ ~ . ! ~ :r: z C> I ~ i ~ ~b 9 z ~ I ::c S Ii WESTBRN AVE II II) WESTERN AVE WesTERN AVE ! <0( " !!I S \ ~ ~ ~ lIGood !3t m ~ : ~ i f/J:: rcf& :z HCORtl.4Jt, a. W, ~ 11;J ~ !Ii il m aUoy ~ "0.. :: ~ ~ ~ i ~ i i I ~ SCbooI 55 ~ l' ~ ocr z ~ ;! c:; ~.-tFi, u S COR'IUWN elR Ii ii"." ~~!ij"-~ N ~~~ ~ Q .. j ..M' e;..~ ~.:l1S G42J ~ ~I or" \ o....."l, ~o. ~ .. ~ 8 Q ~ / I ~ i .. 51 Parle ~ ~ n () U' Western Avenue ~ Marsh iN AVE ~ .. << g w .. n .~ ~ .. I! i ,#' m ., !Ii ~ j .. ~ g ~ "RD """"""".. ~ ~ I ~ ~ N N "'~t. BL", "'~"'8L _Iff:;: '" WOOD$'rOCK ,"'Ie. LORING LA ~De".D ~ 'If,,~ ....~ Q i ~ A fi!~ ~< Ii m ~ ~ I ill i! ;j '" ~ TURNPiKe RD 1-3N Corridor. Study - Golden Valley, Minnesota A" 8DO 4DO 0 IOD Fool .. Proposed Mixed-Use Zoning District ... "~ .. -.. : 1-~ j a ~ _)<IlAfl.DR (:) Q. G~"~ f1 z ~ ~ 15 c! I 11 Ottawa ~ ~ ~ m ~ i! e o fa COLONIAL DR i TURNPIKE' "l'o ~ \ '0. ~ _1KE,% @ HE o