Loading...
12-17-07 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, December 17, 2007 7:30 pm 1. Approval of Minutes November 26, 2007 Joint Planning/Environmental/Open Space and Recreation Commission Meeting November 26,2007 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Discussion Regarding In-fill Housing Issues 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. . Joint Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission, Environmental Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission November 26, 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, November 26, 2007 Planning Intern Joe Hogeboom called the meeting rat 6 pm. Those present were, Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Schmidgall Environmental Commissioners, Anderson, Chandlee, Hill, Pawlu d Space and Recreation Commissioners Bergman, Johnson, M Sandler and Vaughan. Also present was Director of Parks Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, Directo Clancy, City Engineer Jeff Oliver, Environmental Coor . ator Specialist Eric Eckman, SEH Consultants Kirby Van Planning Intern Joe Hogeboom and Administrativ 1. . Presentation/Discussion of the Com Element n Update - Wastewater . Hogeboom introduced Kirby Van Not Van Note referred to the draft parts as follows: Community Plan with System Needs, Plan. eql~n and explained that the Plan has five ystemlnventory and Analysis, Comprehensive Maintenance Plan and Capital Improvement Van Note explaine pipe ranging in:~.ize Pipe (VCP) and s owned, re' nti owns a pproximately 113 miles of City owned sanitary sewer 'n diameter. The majority of that pipe is Vitrified Clay 1965. He added that 147 miles of sewer pipe is privately the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) iles of sewer pipe in the City. a PowerPoint presentation and stated that the average daily flow o the MCES system is approximately 3.22 million gallons per day don MCES projections, the City will convey an estimated average daily ion Gallons per Day (MGD) at full development in 2030. Van Note stated that SEH analyzed the condition of each lift station. He stated that the proposed improvements are divided into six categories as follows: hydraulic capacity, pumping capacity, physical condition, electrical issues, instrumentation/control and potential for sewer back-up. . Van Note discussed the sanitary sewer design criteria including: residential flow rates, non-residential flow rates, peak flow factors and design flows. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission/Environmental Commission/Open Space and Recreation Commission November 26,2007 Page 2 Van Note discussed Inflow and Infiltration (//1) and explained that 1/1 is clear water that enters the sanitary sewer system. Mattison asked how the clear water gets into the pipes. Van Note stated that 1/1 is due to a combination of wastewater flow from plumbing fixtures, cracks in pipes, manholes, soil infiltration and rain water. He referred to a chart and explained that MCES will allow Golden Valley to peak at 8.38 MGD without an exceedance or financial surcharge. Vaughan referred to the proposed development in St. Louis Park and asked about the 1/1 impact with that project. Van Note said that Golden Valley staff, SEH an ' S has been working with St. Louis Park regarding that development. Van Note stated that the Metropolitan Council is very interested. address the 1/1 issue. Some of the things the City is working 0 include: performing private property inspections, building in property sources, determine financing options for the City an the sump drainage collection system program, workin .th of the MCES meter locations and its maintenance h. t results, continue to maintain records and docum oing to sues private ntinue with ss the status g flo monitoring Mattison referred to the Pavement Manage the 1/1 issues with that program. Oliver st or defects and then they are repaired 0 sump drainage systems are being i programs are successful and the October 4,2005 exceedance. asked what is done about ains are televised for roots e being rehabilitated, and '~!!Jhat the numbers indicate that the eded its maximum daily flow since the Schmidgall asked why th Program. Oliver said pip disruptions and se. is standards as instalh the streets are con feet deep. placed as a part of the Pavement Management some cases but there are scheduling stated that lining the pipes meet all the same Clancy added that they dig to a depth of four feet when e sanitary sewer pipes are typically in excess of ten <Jsed 10-year plan includes all the pipes in the system. Van Note efers to the public pipes. he plan to develop and implement a program to flood proof the tation to protect it against a 100 year flood occurrence. Anderson asked about the III program for non-residential properties. Van Note stated that all commercial properties are inspected at the point-of-sale process, or through the Pavement Management Program as a voluntary inspection. St. Clair asked if there is any documentation or data that shows how much 1/1 is coming from resident's homes and how much is from the public sewer pipes. Van Note said there have been studies done that show how much 1/1 is coming from sump pumps. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission/Environmental Commission/Open Space and Recreation Commission November 26,2007 Page 3 Clancy noted that the failure rate for III inspections is 40-50% for residential properties and 15% for commercial properties (November 2007 data). Waldhauser asked what the average cost to a homeowner would be if they fail the 1/1 inspection. Clancy said the average cost is $3,600. She explained that when the work is done to bring the property into conformance it is inspected. If it passes a certificate of compliance is issued. Vaughan asked what types of issues make a property fail an 1/1 inspecti roots, sagging pipes, incorrectly installed sump pumps and foundatio the issues. Hogeboom asked the commissioners to review the sewer pia questions or comments to him within two weeks. any 2. Presentation/Discussion of the Comprehens' Element Hogeboom introduced Mike Kotila and Ross Ha Kotila handed out a draft copy of the pro PowerPoint presentation. He explaine Council guidelines which include: tr roads and planned improvement capacity on the existing system, system and future plans an Metropolitan Council req . assessments, local stree potential new devel men Plan and referred to a lans must meet Metropolitan ps and descriptions of existing ffic volumes, address safety and strian plans, transit plans for the existing Ian. He said they have gone beyond what the s of traffic forecasting, concept designs, safety d crossings and traffic impact management on Hill asked if th said adding m more det make tting more detail in the Plan than is necessary. Kotila an doesn't add liability to the City. The benefits of putting eigh the risks especially when applying for federal money to ;'i~ Transportation Plan is a guide for the City to diagnose the current tem, assess existing and emerging issues and leverage funding from e added that the Plan builds on the 1999 Comprehensive Plan and ortation themes extracted from the Envision Golden Valley report. Kotila discussed the goals listed in the Transportation Plan which include: preserving and enhancing the existing system, improving functionality and safety, bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements, enhancing transit usage and visually integrating the transportation system. Kotila referred to a map that showed regional, local and development related issues. He stated that one of the biggest regional issues is capacity on Highway 169. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission/Environmental Commission/Open Space and Recreation Commission November 26,2007 Page 4 Another regional issue is the east and west routes in and out of Golden Valley along Highway 55 and 1-394. He noted that MnDOT has long-range plans to address the capacity issues on Highway 55. Kotila referred to map regarding local systems issues and pointed out that the Transportation Plan is calling for a trail system along Douglas Drive. He referred to a map that illustrated safety issues at certain intersections and discussed the safety analysis that was done. Chandlee asked about the dashed yellow line shown on the map. Kotila said the dashed yellow line represents streets that are carrying high volume ave the connections of a collector street. Mattison asked if changing a street ent Avenue to a collector street changes the function or status of the r explained that changing Regent Avenue to a collector street ch emergency status, but the road itself will not change. Kotila referred to the Safety As 2006 was reviewed and us the pedestrian accidents 00 'aily vehicle e trips are d e hat 63% of the nal routes will ns ar assuming no change transit. Clancy stated that over the last four years. alternative ways to use transit . Kotila referred to the 2030 traffic forecast. He stated that the trips that originate/terminate in Golden Valley. He said t th expected to increase by 8% or 20,000 trips per day trips occurring in Golden Valley are pass-throug experience the largest growth. Baker asked if th in mass transit. Kotila said the projections a Golden Valley has had its transit service Grimes added that the Metropolitan Co on the MnPass lanes. ed that crash data from 2002 through tify sa ety improvement projects. He noted that p because it affects trail and crosswalk planning. Harris referred to a corridors are some riders. sit System map and stated that the north/south nd there has been a 20% drop in the number of transit e and pedestrian system map that showed existing and future stated that there are currently 129 miles of local and regional . Hill e rails were going to be addressed in the Park Plan or in the Trans Ian. Harris said he realizes recreational trails might also have a commut and that he would work with the consultants at SEH who are writing the Park Plan to make sure recreational trails are addressed. Jacobson clarified that the Transportation Plan will address with how people get from place to place and the Park Plan will address the trails within the park. Harris referred to the future transit plans. He stated that Metro Transit is expanding the Duluth Street Park and Ride facility and will adding new express routes using Winnetka and Boone Avenues. Metro Transit is also doing a study which includes land use, operational strategies, technology, and station improvements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission/Environmental Commission/Open Space and Recreation Commission November 26, 2007 Page 5 . Kotila referred to a map showing short, medium and long range Transportation Plan implementation. He stated that some of the short range goals are: the Pavement Management Program, functional class changes that include upgrading Regent Avenue to a collector street and railroad improvements such as signals and gates. St. Clair asked about how the railroad improvements are funded. Oliver said the majority of the railroad funding comes from MnDOT. Kotila stated that some of the medium range goals include the Pavement Management Program, safety on county routes such as Douglas Drive and Duluth Str e stated that some of the long range goals include the Highway 169 interchan ector street improvements. Hogeboom asked the commissioners to review the transporta . get any questions or comments to him within two weeks and 3. Adjournment " The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm. . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 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, November 26,2007. Vice-Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 8:05 pm. II. Presentation of he likes that the lot will be like to see something at type of grass alive in this mental perennials, shrubbery, Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Schmidgall a Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grime Intern Joe Hogeboom. Commissioners Keysser, Kluchka and McC I. Approval of Minutes November 5, 2007 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser suggested to amend page 4, paragra . "Waldhauser said she has no objection to th~ pr paved and have curb and gutter installed. other than blue grass used because it w' location. Instead, Waldhauser suggest and other forms of low maintenanc MOVED by Eck, seconded by the November 5, 2007 Re abovementioned chang r andg,otion carried unanimously to approve Commission Meeting minutes with the Presented by 2012 Capital Improvement Program (CIP.) Virnig stated that ust review the 2008-2012 CIP because of its relationship to verall summary of the 2008-2012 CIP, and stated that it is available on e for additional review. Cera asked if there is a way to make comments on the 2008-2012 CIP online. Virnig stated that there was not a way to comment online at this time. Virnig reviewed the Wold Study and stated it has been incorporated into the 2008-2012 CIP. . Eck referenced page 9, and asked Virnig to define 'working capitaL' Virnig defined 'working capital' as total current assets minus total current liabilities. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26,2007 Page 2 . Eck asked for elaboration of the figures listed on page 9. He asked why there is a difference in figures between 2008 and 2009. Virnig stated that the sale of golf carts contributes to the rise in revenue for Brookview Golf Course in 2009. Virnig explained that the revenue from the sale of golf carts remains within Brookview Golf Course. Eck then asked why the working capital for Brookview Golf Course continues to go down through 2012. Virnig stated that she will make Brookview Golf Course's total operating budget available to the Commissioner Eck for review. . Clancy explained that even with state aid construct. Clancy pointed to Zane Aven aid street e City, to discuss the Grimes asked Virnig to give an overall summary of the financial cond' Golf Course. Virnig stated that, overall; Brookview Golf Course is fi Waldhauser asked if the municipal state aid street funds, men to the City. Virnig responded that municipal state aid street Virnig said that road planning is based on the allocati funds, She invited Jeannine Clancy, Director of matter further. l still expensive to Grimes asked how often state aid generally modest increases in s lancy stated that there are Schmidgall asked certain~~'ds . rm,~re difficult to replace than others. Clancy replied that underneath certain r(1)~ds ar peatsV"amp deposits, and varying degrees of water. Eck asked how cert . specified in the 200 for the collecti replied that, in vehicle, a nce and service vehicles are assigned the life spans ecifically, Eck asked why the police SUV responsible animals can only be used for five (5) years. Virnig case, the police SUV can also be used as an emergency ne to heavy use. consider keeping city vehicles in use at the end of their life span if till be useful through evaluation. Clancy stated that we do evaluate nd of their expected usage timeframe. Virnig added that police squad reused as City maintenance vehicles. Waldhauser referenced page 5, and asked what work is expected to be completed at the Brookview facility besides a patio replacement. Clancy stated that work needed to be done on the roof of the building. . Waldhauser asked at what point it would be more financially beneficial to invest in a new community center facility rather than continue to spend money on repairs for the . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2007 Page 3 existing structure. Virnig stated that the Council must initiate a referendum for a new community center facility prior to the allocation of funds. Clancy stated that maintenance work must be continued on the current Brookview community center regardless of whether or a not a new building will be built in the future. Clancy stated that continued maintenance work will ensure the structural integrity of the existing building. Grimes asked if a new community center would be expensive. Virnig di page 11 for more information on a new community center. Clancy sta hat t ,e is a desire to maintain the existing Brookview building for golf-related P4rpO$~~1 regar~Uess of whether or not a new community center is built. Grimes mentioned the "historic" significance of the current operations. Virnig pointed to the continued need for a senior Cera asked for elaboration of information relate page 15, which itemized the Storm Sewer Waldhauser asked how assessments cire.cal purposes. Virnig stated that asses commercial properties and per I ~~g!or pavement management enf)er front foot in the case of residential properties. Clancy stated that the City' assessments in other citi anagement percentage assessed is lower than Eck asked if the Cit ." stated that the City i if an umbrella I . . y reiterating that st case of lawsuits or other unforeseen events. Virnig $1 million per occurrence in such events. Eck asked pse cases. Virnig stated that no umbrella liability exists; e limits such insurance to $1 million per occurrence. nei~~~nning Commission that a motion was needed to review and 2012 CIP. seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend 008-2012 Capital Improvement Program as it is consistent with the ve Plan. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2007 Page 4 . III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Cera referred to the November 13, 2007 Council Manager meeting. He discussed the recommendations made by Council Member Shaffer related to the zoning and infill issues. Cera referenced Shaffer's presentation of models to the Council, and mentioned Shaffer's desire to meet with the Planning Commission about the issue. Grimes stated complete a Pia Grimes, the November 13, 2007 Council cil's desire to move forward with Opus Grimes stated that he and Hogeboom will meet with Shaffer on Novem discuss infill and zoning issues. Grimes also stated his desire to include maps, pictures, and di Code to make this issue more understandable to residents. Cera explained that Shaffer did not consider cost burden to infill and height-oriented development. Schmidgall referred to the City of Edina's Zor'lin addresses various infill issues pertinent to Gold . Grimes stated his desire to move forwa Cera reported details of the Opus Manager meeting. Cera convey development plan. Schmidgall pointed out t Trunk Highway 100 is m on the site have air be k elopment, southwest of Interstate 394 and ard at . fast speed, pointing out that several buildings molished. earance of a speedy process, Duke still needed to velopment (PUD) process to move forward. According to eement still has not been reached either. the Council has granted Conditional Use Permits to Westwood Lake Properties (adult day care) and Artistic Urges. at although there was controversy surrounding the Artistic Urges permitting ocess, the Council went forward with a final approval. He stated that additional conditions where given to FTK Properties, the building owner, that require additional screening to neighboring residences through the construction of a fence on the northwest side of the property and the re-implementation of a vegetation plan. . Schmigdall expressed concern over the ambiguity of the covenant, and questioned their future effectiveness in the City. Grimes stated that covenants should not be used for zoning purposes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2007 Page 5 . IV. Other Business Grimes reminded the Planning Commission of the upcoming Holiday party. Hogeboom stated that the party will be held on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 6:30 at the Brookview facility. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 pm. . . . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: December 12, 2007 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Reconsideration of R-1 Zoning Code Changes Related to Infill Development At the August 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held an informal public hearing to consider various changes to the Single Family (R-1) Chapter and one change to the definition chapter of the Zoning Code. After the nearing, the Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the changes to the City Council. This recommendation was originally scheduled to go to the City Council at a public hearing on September 4, 2007. At the September 4, 2007 meeting, the Council voted to continue the public hearing in order to allow the Council to go over the recommendation from the Planning Commission at a Council/ Manager study meeting. Due to some staff absence and other delays, the infill recommendations did not get to a City Council/City Manager meeting until November 13, 2007. At the November 13 meeting, Council Member Shaffer outlined his concerns about the changes proposed by the Planning Commission related to height and volume of houses. He provided drawings and models to demonstrate his concern. The direction from the Council was for Council Member Shaffer to meet with the Planning Commission to consider altering the Planning Commission's recommendation related to height and setback. Also, the Council asked the staff to better define the method for determining the grade of a lot. Council Member Shaffer believes that new height suggested by the Planning Commission of 28 ft. for a pitched roof house and 25 ft. for a flat roof house is fine. However, he is concerned about from what point the measurement is taken. He is suggesting that Golden Valley consider that the grade of a lot be maintained at the grade when the subdivision was approved or the same grade as the house was when it was demolished to make way for a new home. With this requirement, new houses or additions could be built to the full height allowed by code but the height would start from a historical point. Council Member Shaffer would also like to consider a change that would increase the side setback when a house if over a certain height. For instance, the code could state that a home that is 17 ft. high may be placed right on the side setback line. For each foot of height over 17 ft. to the maximum allowed height, the setback would have to be increased by % ft. for each foot of height over 17 ft. As an example, for a house on an 80 ft. wide lot, if the maximum height house of 28 ft. was to be constructed, the side setback would be 12.5 ft. plus 5.5 ft. (1/2 ft. for each foot of height over 17 ft.) for a total side setback of 18 ft. There may have to be some adjustment made for lots less than 65-75 ft. side. . . . Council Member Shaffer also believes that it is important to require that walls over a certain length are articulated. He may have a suggestion on the one proposed by the Planning Commission. The proposal suggested by the Planning Commission states that for walls over 32 ft. in length, there must be a shift of at least 2 ft. in depth, for at least 8 ft in length for every 32 ft. of wall. After meeting with Council Member Shaffer, the Planning Commission may want to amend the infill changes approved back in August 2007. Staff would suggest that a new informal public hearing be held to get public input. Attachments Minutes from the November 13, 2007 Council/Manager meeting (1 page) Underline/Overstrike version of the Code pages reflecting original Planning Commission recommendations (5 pages) Minutes from the August 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting (4 pages) Golden Valley Survey Requirements (1 page) . . . Council/Manager Meeting Minutes November 132007 - Page 2 1-394 Corridor Area: . Addition of Corridor Study as Comprehensive Plan General land Use Plan Amendment . Comprehensive Plan General land Use Map Amendment Allen Barnard reviewed his memo of November 7, 2007, on Nonconforming Uses and Structures in the Mixed-Use Zoning District, which reviews changes in state statutes that the City followed in amending its own City Code related to non-conforming uses in the past few years. He noted that the current law strengthens the ability of existing property owners to remain and continue operations, as a non-conforming use, which can be repaired, replaced, restored, maintained and improved (but not expanded) unless the use is discontinued for more than one year or has greater than 50 percent of its market value destroyed and does not apply for a building permit to restore the damage within 180 days. Council discussion focused on the type of improvements which could be made without being considered an expansion. Joe Hogeboom distributed a map and list of parcels with underlying uses that would or would not comply with the new mixed-use designation. Staff explained that almost all parcels in the district do not comply with some element of current zoning standards (eg. setbacks and parking) and under the new Mixed-Use zone most parcels would also be out of compliance. After discussion the Council expressed a willingness to approve the study and further consider the proposed amendment to the Comp Plan land-use designation for the area. The Council expressed a concern with meeting requirements to rezone property within six months of changing the land use designation, considering concerns of the Planning Commission regarding the proposed new Mixed-Use Zoning District. Mark Grimes suggested that the Planning Commission would most likely complete its work in December and send it to the Council for consideration early next year. , Structure Maximum Size and Roof Design Mark Grimes reported that the Planning Commission had studied and recommended a series of ordinance amendments to address Council concerns about infill and remodeled housing. However the Council requested further discussion at a Council/Manager Meeting to consider outstanding concerns. Council Member Shaffer outlined his concerns to the Council and distributed a worksheet demonstrating the impact of various styles and heights of housing given different setback provisions. He also presented three- dimensional models to demonstrate his concern for the volume differences of various heights and styles of homes, and the impact of these issues on the volume between homes, which he believes is more significant than setbacks. The Council asked him to propose language for the ordinance that would implement standards that would address his concerns. They suggested that this language be presented to the Planning Commission for further consideration before coming back to the Council. The Council also discussed proposed provisions on setting the grade for a structure and asked staff to better define in the proposed ordinance the method to be used to establish the grade for any parcel. . . . 9 11.03 12. "Building, Height of' The vertical distance above "grade" as defined herein to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitct:led 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 'I.'all of the building, when such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than ten (10) feet above grade. 12. "Buildina Height Determination" - The vertical distance from the averaae arade plane at the building facing the street to the averaae heiRht of the hiahest pitched roof or the highest point of a flat roof structure. On lots that have more than one side facina the street. the distance for heiaht is from the averaae 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 or pre-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) . . . ~ 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 of10,000 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 principal structure is greater than 10 feet in depth along a side yard adjacent to .motheJ: property that side Y3rd 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 throuah a tear-down, any wall lonaer than 32 feet in len~th must be articulated, with a shift of a least 2 feet in depth, for at least 8 feet in lenath, for every 32 feet of w~lI. 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 tv:o and a half stories or 30 feet as defined in the City's building code, \A.'hiche'ler is less. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 Zonina District to exceed a heiaht of 28 feet for pitched roof houses and 25 feet for flat roof houses except for those structures constructed prior to October 1,2007. In the case of structures construed prior to October 1, 2007, the buildina heiaht shall be 30 feet. The buildina height is defined as follows: The vertical distance above arade to the highest roof structure of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the averaqe heiaht of the hiahest aable of a pitched or hipped roof. The measurement of qrade shall be taken from the highest adioining sidewalk or ground surface with a 5 foot horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building where such sidewalk or around surface is not more than 10 feet above arade. (Refer to Section 11.03,' Definition 12 "Buildina Height 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. GOLDEN VALLEY CC 265 (6-30-04) . . . S 11.21 D. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback. E. Each property is limited to a total of 1,000 square feet of the following accessory structures: detached and attaohed garagos, detached sheds, greenhouses, and gazebos. SVJimming pools are not included in this requirement. E. Each property is limited to a total of 1.000 square feet of the followino accessory structures: detached and attached oaraoes. detached sheds. greenhouses and oazebos. Swimmino pools are not included in this requirement. No one detached accessory structure may be laroer than 800 square feet in area and any accessory structure over 120 square feet in area requires a buildino 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 str:ucture must be designed and constructed in a manner consistent 'Nith the design and general appearance of the principal structure. J. Roof. Gambrel and Mansard roofs are not permitted on any accessory buildino 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. GOLDEN VALLEY CC 267 (6-30-04) . . . 9 11.21 Subdivision 17. Driveway Requirements. Driveways in the R-1 Zoning District are governed by the following provisions: A. Materials. Driveways built or reconstructed on or after January 1, 2005 shall be constructed of concrete, bituminous pavement, or pavers. 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 fortv percent (w.% 40%) of the front yard may be covered with concrete, bituminous pavement, stone or pavers. GOLDEN VALLEY CC (12-31-04) 269 . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 7 7. The appl' nt shall re-examine the no deter . e if it can be made more invitl '. ft. "for the PUD. This revision shall inlude language about how the new 26, '~ ice building operates within the ' ntire Westwood Lake Office Par, ' 5. 6. A new final plat of PUD . 67 sho the applicant with , epin County'thin 60 days approval. Proof Iling shall be provl. "an three lots shall be filed by " Council final plan fagade of the proposed'" building to and welcoming. , 8. e applicant shall enhance the lands';~ pe screening along Wisconsin Avenue, , he frontage road. . 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 Grimes reminded the Planning Commission that at their last meeting (July 23) he said he would bring the R-1 ordinance changes regarding the infill study to this meeting for the Commission to hold a public hearing. Grimes referred to his memo and stated he is proposing a change to #5 in his memo regarding height limitations. He explained that the change he's proposing adds language regarding houses that are constructed prior to October 1, 2007. This will ensure that existing homes do not become non-conforming. . Grimes referred to #2 in his memo regarding grade plane and said he is concerned about the grade plane language as it relates to corner lots because it would be difficult to build a 2-story home using this method on some lots. Kluchka said he would rather keep the "grade plane" language as proposed in Grimes' memo and have applicant apply for a variance if need be. Keysser agreed and stated that no one ordinance is going to fit in every situation. Grimes stated that there has been some concern from residents regarding #2 (grade plane language) becoming a city policy rather than an ordinance. He stated that staff would rather have it be a policy because it allows for flexibility in unique . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 8 situations where fill has to be brought onto a site to make the drainage plan work properly. He explained that the lowest floor elevation of a house is required to be at least two feet above the flood elevation and the garage floor is required to be a minimum of 18 inches above the street to allow for proper drainage. Grimes referred to #3 in his memo regarding impervious surfaces and stated that the proposed new ordinance will limit the amount of impervious surface allowed on any lot to 50%. This is consistent with the new R-2 zoning district requirements. Cera asked if that number could be lowered. Keysser said he would like to keep the R-1 requirements consistent with the R-2 requirements. Cera asked if there would be bonuses given to people who use pervious pavers or something similar. Grimes said that a bonus is not offered at this point but it could be revisited in the future. Grimes referred to #4 in his memo regarding side wall articulation along side yard property lines. McCarty suggested that articulation be required for any wall over 32 feet in length on any property line. Cera expressed concern about additions causing a wall to be longer than 32 feet in length because then the existing house would be out of conformance. Grimes noted that the ordinanoe will say that any additions to existing structures longer than 32 feet must be articulated. . Grimes referred to #5 in his memo regarding height limitations and stated that the proposed new ordinance allows pitched roofed houses to be 28 feet in height and flat roofed houses to be 25 feet in height. Eck asked Grimes to clarify the definition for homes constructed prior to the adoption of this ordinance. Grimes said he would clarify the language before the ordinance goes to the City Council. Cera asked if an older home that conformed to the 30-foot height requirement was torn down to the foundation if the owner would be allowed to re-build a new home to 30 feet in height. Grimes explained that the state statute allows homes to be rebuilt as they were unless they sustain damage greater than 50% of their value. He added that any new construction would have to meet current ordinance requirements. Grimes referred to #6 in his memo regarding accessory structures and stated that the proposed new ordinance would still allow a total of 1,000 square feet of accessory structure space per lot, but no one accessory structure can be larger than 800 square feet in size. Grimes referred to #7 in his memo regarding the design of accessory structures and stated that the existing language regarding the design of accessory structures has been difficult to administer. He said he is proposing language that says any type of roof style is alright for accessory structures under 120 square feet but for accessory structures that are 120 square feet or larger no gambrel roofs will be allowed. Waldhauser suggested mansard roofs be included also. Grimes said he would add mansard roofs to this . requirement. Grimes referred to #8 in his memo regarding driveway requirements and stated that this proposed new ordinance would reduce the amount of the front yard that may be covered . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 9 with concrete, bituminous pavement or pavers to 40% instead of the current 50%. Waldhauser suggested adding "stone" to the driveway requirements. Keysser opened the public hearing. Rich Baker, 224 Janalyn Circle, said he appreciates all the work the Planning Commission has done regarding the infill study. He said he doesn't understand the issue Grimes spoke about regarding corner lots not being able to build a two-story house because there are plenty of homes that look like they are one or two stories in the front and then they are two or three stories in the back. He said he doesn't understand why a variance would be needed to build a two-story house. He said he is also concerned about the grading provision because it provides a back door way for someone to build a bigger house. He said he understands that staff wants flexibility and discretion but he thinks the grading issues should be made into an ordinance and not a policy even if it's less convenient for staff. Grimes said he would like to have the Public Works Department explain the proposed grading provisions from their point of view and why they would like them be a policy rather than an ordinance. Waldhauser noted that bringing in fill on a lot does not necessarily raise the height of the house it just brings the grade level up. Pete Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, stated that it would be rare for a lot not to exceed the proposed 3 feet grade plane level. He said the problems occur when there is a steep hill and sloped street. Keysser asked Knaeble what he thought about the grading provisions being a policy versus an ordinance. Knaeble said he would not make the grading provisions be an ordinance because there are too many unique circumstances. He said he thinks it should also be made very clear where the grade is measured from. Kluchka said he is concerned about staff writing public policy. He noted that this proposed new language says a lot more than the Planning Commission has discussed in the past. He said he thought the Commission agreed that the language regarding grading would be that the grade can be no higher than needed for adequate drainage. Grimes said he would talk to the City Engineer about writing something regarding drainage. Eck said he thinks that if the grading language is put in the code there are going to be too many exceptions. Knaeble suggested going through some previous building permits to see if the grading and height would meet these proposed new standards. He said he thinks a lot of people will be pushed into a variance situation. Cera suggested the language be changed from "the grade plan at the building shall not exceed three feet above the street side property line" to "no more than 3 feet of fill will be allowed". . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 10 Baker said a property owner could tear down a house, leave one tree and the ground around it so they could argue the grade is higher then they could build a higher house. He said the core issue with height is how it affects neighboring houses and the ambiance of the neighborhood. Keysser suggested that they leave the grading language as it is with the caveat that the Public Works Department will write a memo addressing the issue with the City Council. Kluchka said he also wants Public Works to address why a specific number regarding grade makes sense instead of saying that lots can be graded no more than necessary for adequate drainage. Keysser closed the public hearing. McCarty said he is glad that the grading language is being re-addressed because he doesn't like the idea of limiting the grade to a set number. Keysser clarified that the following items from Grimes' memo should be addressed in the proposed ordinance before it goes forward to,the City Council. . . Number 2, the grade plane not exceeding three feet should be clarified. It should also be decided if the grade plane language should be a policy or an ordinance. . Number 4, the reference to sidewalls should be taken out so that any wall longer than 32 feet must articulate. . Number 5, the language regarding the height of homes constructed before this proposed new ordinance is in effect. . Number 7, mansard roofs should be added to the language regarding the types of roofs that will not be allowed on accessory structures larger than 120 square feet in size. . Number 8, "stone" should be added to the types of driveways allowed. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried 6 to 1 to recommend approval to amend the R-1 Single Family Zoning District as per the Report of the Planning Commission on Subdivisions and Housing Development with the above noted changes/corrections. Cera voted no. . 4~1 PU. blic Hearin~ - Ge eral Land Use com. prehe~j.Y".rBta~ndment- adopt~. -3.94 Corridor udy ~.,:~.~ , .~~ Applicant: City of "~I a ey.~tiP..pJrJt:* , To rec~~d th ~~eral Land / /" Purpose: adO ,~.e. 11.<-...3.. 94 Corridor study as a part of se Elemenl"~ omprehensive Plan '" 'k..'- "0' . . . CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY SURVEY REQUIREMENTS When surveys are required, the following information shall be included on the certified survey. Proposed Survey for Residential and Commercial Proiects *1. North arrow. . *2. Convenient scale that is clearly indicated and shall be a minimum size of 8112 xII. *3 lllustration key showing symbols for all information pertaining to lot and building design, including grades, easements, lot and block, setbacks, etc. *4. Subject property's boundary lines, lot lines and right-of-way lines. *5. Lot and block numbers for any proposed subdivision of subject property. *6. Street names. *7. Locations of all existing natural features mustbe clearly shown. Natural features are considered to include, but not limited to, the following - wetlands, ponds, lakes, streams, drainage'channels, etc. (tree lines include~in commercial only). *8. If the property is within or adjacent to a 100-year floodplain, flood elevations and locations must be clearly shown on the plan. Flood control policy requires that all damageable property and all floor elevations be located a minimum of one (1) foot above floodplain elevation. *9. Location of all existing and proposed buildings, structures, paved areas and other man made features. Include dimensions from building to property lines. *10. Indicate all proposed building setbacks including shore land setback if applicable. 11. Direction arrows indicating proposed site swale and lot drainage patterns. Spot elevations must be provided at drainage break points. 12. Include proposed lowest level elevation, first floor elevation, proposed exterior elevations at building corners and lot corners and center of street/top of street curb. For residential include proposed elevations at garage floor. Attached garage floor minimum two (2) feet above street centerline elevation. *13. Include all reCorded easements and registered surveyors signature. 14. Grading permit surveys when required must meet the requirements of the City Public Works Department. As-Built Survey A certified As-Built Survey verifying the information indicated on the proposed survey shall be submitted before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. Utility as-builts if required must meet the requirements of the City Public Works Department. *Required for variance survey. BuildlSurveyRequirements 03/26/02