Loading...
07-26-04 Joint PC-CC Minutes Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission A joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Tuesday, July 26,2004. The meeting was called to order by Planning Commission Chair Pentel at 7 pm. Those present were Mayor Loomis, Council Members Freiberg, Shaffer, Grayson, and Planning Commissioners Eck, Rasmussen, Pentel, Hackett, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present were Tom Burt, City Manager, Allen Barnard, City Attorney, Bill Thibault, Planning Consultant, Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Adam Fulton, Planning Intern and Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant. Planning Commissioner Keysser was absent. e I. Discuss Draft of Planned Unit Development (PUD) section of the Zoning Code Pentel stated that the Planning Commission started working on revising the PUD ordinance in 2000 and that Bill Thibault was brought on as a consultant in 2002. She said that the Planning Commission has seen one draft version of this PUD ordinance and that this version of the ordinance was updated from their comments and concerns. She asked Thibault to give a brief history of the rewriting of this PUD ordinance and to go through it page by page. e Bill Thibault, Thibault Associates, 11712 Wayzata Blvd., Minnetonka, MN, gave a brief history of the changes that were made to the PUD ordinance. He explained how he evaluated the current ordinance, visited approximately 60 locations and took pictures of each PUD site. He said that he compared Golden Valley's PUD ordinance to four other cities. He explained some of the major changes to the ordinance such as a pre- application process and requiring neighborhood meetings with developers. He added that the Planning Commission's role has been expanded in this PUD ordinance. Pentel asked if zoning changes require a 4/5 vote from the City Councilor a simple majority. Barnard said that it is a simple majority in most cases unless the zoning is being changed from Commercial or Industrial to Residential. Grimes added that Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments require a 4/5 vote. Pentel asked if the existing PUDs are going to be brought into conformance with the Zoning Code. Grimes stated that when the Zoning Map was updated all of the PUDs were brought into conformance with the Zoning Code, but there are still some PUDs that need to be brought into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Map. Thibault stated that the City has been approving PUDs by ordinance and that he thinks it is a fair and useable approach. Barnard explained that PUDs historically were considered an overlay district and that it wasn't until recently that the underlying zoning was made to match. Minutes of a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council July 26, 2004 Page 2 Hackett asked if the way PUDs are currently done is more analogous to spot zoning because the City is reacting rather than directing. Thibault said all PUDs should be compared with the Comprehensive Land Map. A general discussion was held between the City Council and Planning Commission and several grammatical errors were identified and will be corrected in the next version of the PUD Ordinance that will be going to Planning Commission. A more specific discussion followed. Freiberg referred to page 1, line 10 and asked what "contemporary land planning principals" means and if contemporary is meant to be a fluid term and he is concerned about land planning fads. Thibault said that "contemporary land planning" came from mixing the language from different drafts of the PUD ordinance. He suggested maybe not using the term "contemporary land planning" at all. e Grayson asked that the Planning Commission look at the language regarding design and building materials and how that is relative to the role of the Building Board of Review. Hackett said that is where design guidelines would be helpful to the Commissions. Loomis referred to the words "high quality" and said the word "quality" seems subjective and implies a judgment. She suggested changing the wording to "degree". Pentel said that the term "best practices" came up a lot during the Envision process. Barnard said that the language referring to "high quality" is in the purpose and intent clause, which is not really enforceable by law. Shaffer said he thinks most developers could read this PUD ordinance and understand what the City is looking for. e Pentel said she thought there was going to be something in the PUD ordinance that stated how much window space could be covered with signs and how much had to be left open. Waldhauser asked if the City could enforce window sign issues. Barnard stated that it depends how the ordinance is written. Pentel said that she wants to be sure that any special conditions in a PUD permit are adhered to, and written in the PUD Permit. Grayson asked if the City's current sign ordinance would override what is written in a PUD Permit or if signs are addressed in the PUD permit. Grimes said the City does require a sign plan as part of the General Plan Application that has to be consistent with the Sign Code. He added that the Sign Code is not a part of the Zoning Code, so the PUD ordinance cannot vary from the Sign Code. Pentel referred to the proposed language about fountains and asked who would be responsible for the maintenance. Loomis suggested adding something to the ordinance about what the City receives out of a PUD. Eck said he thinks Subdivision 3 (E)(3) would cover that because it states that proposed developments need to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other City plans. Loomis said that a developer wouldn't necessarily need a PUD to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Minutes of a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council July 26, 2004 Page 3 Waldhauser referred to the list regarding the provisions that need to be met for a PUD and asked why it if repeated over and over throughout the ordinance. She said if there is a concise list she would like to see it listed just once. Pentel explained why the list of provisions is listed in multiple places. Grimes suggested language be added stating that applicants must show through the PUD Plans and applications that the requested PUD meets and is consistent with the intent and purpose provisions of this and other sections instead of listing the provisions over and over. Grayson said there have been instances where a potential applicant has held neighborhood meetings prior to submitting applications. Grimes stated that the pre- application process will help and that staff highly recommends that applicants have neighborhood meetings before neighbors hear about a project from the City. e Grayson said maybe property owners more than 500 feet around a project need to receive notification of a neighborhood meeting. Grimes said he generally works with developers on what would be considered a reasonable area and often times it goes beyond a 500 feet area. Shaffer suggested the following language be added: all property owners within 500 feet of the PUD, or a zone appropriate for a specific project to be determined by city staff at the time of application shall be given a hearing notice. Rasmussen asked about net and gross densities. Grimes explained that gross density is the overall area and that net density is the area minus lakes, streets, public areas, etc. Loomis suggested adding language regarding lot coverage to the list of PUD provisions. Grimes said that lot coverage could be added to the list. Grayson asked if there is a need to have proof of parking language in the ordinance. Grimes said the flexibility of a PUD allows for proof of parking. e Pentel said she would like the word "findings" used more often. Thibault said that the Council makes the ultimate findings so he purposely left it out. Loomis said findings from the Planning Commission helps the City Council know what they are thinking. Loomis stated that she didn't notice in this ordinance if the City asks developers for a lighting plan. Grimes said the City doesn't have a lighting standard now and that the Building Official and City Engineer revieV{the lighting plans. Pentel said that lighting plans are mentioned on line 287 and suggested that it be moved to the section regarding the applicant's narrative. Shaffer asked if a PUD's tree preservation plan has to follow the City's tree preservation ordinance. Grimes said that developers have to meet or exceed the City's ordinance. Loomis referred to the section regarding private streets and asked why the City would allow any street for any of the first four reasons. Thibault explained that there are some equipment requirements and that some city streets may need to be a certain width or grade. Loomis said that width isn't listed as one of the factors. Thibault gave an example of allowing a private street in a case where there were oak trees that a developer was trying to save. Grimes said allowing private streets also depends on if the buildings have a sprinkler system. Minutes of a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council July 26, 2004 Page 4 Freiberg referred to line 382 which states that private streets shall utilize a minimum grade and asked if "minimum grade" should be defined. Grimes said that "minimum grade" is a commonly understood term among engineers. Loomis asked why the City wouldn't require private streets to meet the same standards as public streets. Burt suggested referencing safety standards in the ordinance. Freiberg referred to the hard cover percentages and asked what "reasonable" means. Loomis asked if there are hard cover percentages in other zoning districts. Grimes said that there are lot coverage percentages in the R-1 zoning district. Pentel said she is not happy with 90% maximum hard cover for Commercial-Retail use. Thibault said that when a development is done in the downtown area it would have almost 90% of hard cover area. Pentel suggested that the City complete an impervious service inventory. Fulton said he could do a study on impervious surface percentages. e Loomis asked if this ordinance covers the City's requirements regarding water and utilities. Grimes explained that water and utilities are covered in another section of the City Code and that the City does not allow wells. Grayson referred to line 414 regarding the hours in which garbage can be removed from a site. Barnard said that this ordinance would not supercede the existing ordinance and that this proposed PUD ordinance is more onerous. Grimes referred to line 420 and stated that the language referring to garages can be deleted because the City doesn't allow garages in the Commercial zoning district. Pentel asked if in the developer's narrative the City can ask them to explain how they might maintain the affordability of the houses. e Loomis asked if the grounds for revocation of a PUD Permit should be spelled out. Thibault stated that in most cases the City would not want to revoke PUD permits. Grayson asked why letters of credit are being used instead of bonds. Thibault stated that letters of credit are easier to work with and that bonds are a mess. Shaffer said the there can't be a letter of credit for performance. Eck said that in his view the PUD ordinance is not intended to facilitate the construction of single family homes like on property such as the Hidden Lakes peninsula where without a PUD they could not be built. He asked if there is someway something could be added to the ordinance to protect against that. Grayson said that it is ultimately up to the City Council at the time. Pentel asked if Hidden Lakes could be done the way it was if this ordinance was used. Eck said that the reason the streets in Hidden Lakes are a mess is because the developer wanted higher density. Grimes said he would work with Thibault to make all of the suggested changes and grammatical errors and then bring the ordinance back to the Planning Commission. e e Minutes of a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council July 26, 2004 Page 5 II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:40 pm.