Loading...
02-14-05 PC Minutes . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 14, 2005 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, February 14, 2005. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Commissioners Eck, Hackett, Keysser, McAleese, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, Planning Intern, Adam Fulton and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Rasmussen was absent. I. Approval of Minutes January 24, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting McAleese referred to paragraph four on page four and asked that the word "precise" be added to his question regarding how PRISM came up with the "precise" number of 1,251 as the number of vehicles they could repair in one year. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Hackett and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 24, 2005 minutes with the above noted correction. II. Discussion of Proposed Off-Street Parking Ordinance Grimes explained that this version of the off-street parking ordinance incorporates the Planning Commission's comments from the last time they discussed it. He stated that he is planning to have the Public Works Department review it and make some of the decisions regarding the internal landscaping in parking lots and some other items. Waldhauser stated that she attended a seminar recently and the current thinking is to not plant trees in the islands in parking lots because they don't survive and that shrubs do better. Grimes explained that the city's Environmental Coordinator reviews all landscape plans and the types of plant materials being proposed. Hackett asked if a maximum light level had been considered as a part of the code so that lots aren't being over lit beyond what is necessary for safety. Fulton stated that staff has been working on a lighting ordinance and that maximum light levels will be considered. Keysser referred to the proposed size of 9 feet x 18 % feet for parking spaces and asked if that is going to be a problem. Grimes stated that most cities have gone to an 18 foot deep parking space requirement. Hackett agreed and added that it is also an environmental issue and a way to reduce the amount of paving. Hackett referred to the section regarding curb and gutter and said that more and more rain gardens are being used on "curbless" parking lots. He said insisting on curbs everywhere isn't necessarily the current thinking in dealing with run-off from parking lots. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 2 . Grimes suggested adding language regarding an exception for rain gardens. Waldhauser added that rain gardens are also a good alternative for island plantings as well. Waldhauser referred to the section regarding adjacent properties sharing parking spaces when there are different parking demands at different times during the day and asked why the City would pick a 20, 25 or 30% reduction in parking amounts for this kind of situation and not a higher percentage in order to encourage a shared use. Grimes said there could be issues if a building's use were to change. McAleese agreed and said that this ordinance encourages shared parking agreements and that the City has always been good at allowing proof of parking. Hackett asked about the origin of the 35-foot front yard setbacks throughout the City. Grimes said Golden Valley has just traditionally had a larger front setback and has liked to have more open space between buildings and in front of buildings Hackett stated concerns that fire lane requirements in Golden Valley are too excessive and it forces more paved surfaces. Fulton said staff is reviewing the fire lane requirements and the designation of the fire lanes. Grimes added that it is a fire code issue and not a zoning code issue and explained that if buildings are sprinklered they can have narrower streets. . Hackett stated that the City falls down in insisting that pedestrian access be provided and that Golden Valley in general needs to be more pedestrian friendly and that this section of the code can be developed more fully. Grimes said he would talk to the Public Works Department to make the language stronger. McAleese said he thinks it is a good idea to require developers to propose a plan showing pedestrian access that the City can react to. He said that developers are usually receptive to providing pedestrian access; it just isn't always a top priority. McAleese referred to the section regarding the re-use of an existing building and asked what that meant. Grimes explained it is referring to any changes in the amount of parking or any changes to the parking plan. McAleese referred to the section regarding use and asked if the term "goods" also includes cars. Grimes explained that cars for sale in parking lots don't count as part of the required amount of parking spaces. McAleese suggested defining the word "goods" to include vehicles. McAleese referred to page four, items G and H regarding grading and drainage and asked why those two items couldn't be combined into one because they both refer to grading. Waldhauser suggested taking the reference to grading out of item H. . McAleese said there are a number of places where the ordinance says "may have". He said he prefers a more direct approach and is uncomfortable saying the City can require something without stating the standards as to why the City can do it. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 3 . Hackett referred to page four regarding parking surface materials and said there is no mention of some of the newer materials such as reinforced turf and checker blocks for light use. Fulton said those materials were included in the residential section of the code and he would add them into the section as well. Hackett said he thought it would be beneficial to the City to encourage these types of materials. Grimes said staff would go through the ordinance and clean up the sentences and make the suggested changes and then bring it back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. McAleese suggested that there be an alternate variance procedure for some of the areas in this ordinance in case there may be an instance where the Planning Commission or Council may want to look at changing the code. Grimes said that would be a good idea because it has larger implications and may need to be looked at on a case by case basis. III. Discussion about repealing sections of the Zoning Code regarding parking requirements after the adoption of a new Parking Ordinance. Fulton explained that this is a housekeeping item and that each parking section listed in the individual zoning districts is going to have to be repealed when all of the parking requirements are put into one section of the code. . IV. Discussion of Revisions to the Multiple Dwelling and R-2 Zoning Districts Eck asked if this would clean up the issues with the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Zoning Map not matching. Grimes said yes. Fulton reminded the Commission that they saw this proposed ordinance back in March of 2004 and that he added the R-2 zoning district into this ordinance. Eck referred to subdivision 11 regarding accessory structures and the ten foot height limitation. He said if a person were to build a garage, the peak of that garage would be higher than 10 feet. Fulton said he would he would take a look at it, talk to the Building Official and make changes. He said he would also add the word detached. Grimes said the issue is when someone tries to build two story accessory structures in their back yard. He explained that the 10 foot requirement is the height of a story, or halfway up the gable, not the height of the whole structure. Hackett suggested saying 10 feet to the eave to clarify the requirement. Waldhauser asked why the City objects to having two-story garages with living space above whether attached or detached. Fulton stated that it has been viewed as an accessory apartment and is not seen as desirable. Grimes added that historically there have been complaints when there are tall buildings in people's back yards. It is seen as almost having another house in the back yard. . Fulton referred to subdivision three and stated that this proposed ordinance would allow single family dwellings in the R-2 zoning district which has traditionally been a non- conforming use in the R-2 district. He said permitting them would make it easier for the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 4 . Planning Commission to study "up zoning" in certain areas and would allow them to remain a conforming use. He added that "town home" will be defined differently than a "two-family" dwelling. Fulton referred to subdivision six regarding buildable lots and stated that the lot size requirement has been reduced in size from 12,500 square feet to 10,000 square feet in order to encourage additional density. Eck asked about the definition of a "kitchenette". Fulton explained that a kitchenette is like a wet bar and could possibly have a sink, refrigerator and maybe a microwave, but no range or cooking supplies. Eck asked if the term kitchenette is universally understood. Fulton said he will be adding a definition for a kitchenette. Fulton referred to the portion of the code regarding impervious surface coverage and stated that going to an impervious surface coverage requirement, rather than using lot coverage will require extensive study to figure out what is appropriate and is not something that should be done zoning district by zoning district. Keysser referred to the buildable lot size and stated that earlier in the code it refers to allowing a maximum of 8 units per acre and that 10,000 square feet would allow only one house to be built so a duplex couldn't be built. Fulton said he would take a look at those numbers to make sure they are consistent. . Grimes referred to the front yard setback requirements and stated that it's been reduced from 35 feet to 30 feet. Hackett said he really supports that and it makes for a safer, friendlier environment. Fulton added that the side and rear yard setbacks were reduced to 10 feet. Waldhauser stated that if an R-3 or R-4 district borders an R-1 district she would prefer that the R-1 setbacks be maintained between the properties. Fulton explained that another change is the height limitations have increased from 2 }'2 stories to 3 stories or 36 feet. He said that accessory structures can be no closer than 35 feet to the front yard setback in order to push accessory structures a little further back from the principle structure. Grimes suggested that language be added allowing each side of duplex no more than 650 square feet of accessory structure space, meaning each side would be allowed to have a 24 foot x 24 foot garage. McAleese suggested calling this section something other than two-family zoning district since single family dwellings and town homes are also permitted. . Waldhauser said she's not sure she wants to encourage town home developments to be required to provide two-stall garages because a small unit may only want one stall to keep the affordability. Fulton said the City doesn't typically see development proposals with single car garages. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 5 . Keysser asked what the definition is for Essential Services Class I. Grimes said that includes standard residential utilities like telephone poles and utility lines. Fulton referred to the proposed R-3 section of the ordinance and stated that it is more in line with the medium density section of the Comprehensive Plan. He said the R-3 district would allow town homes, two-family dwellings and multiple family dwellings of 12 units or less per acre. He referred to subdivision four and said that restricted retail sales and professional offices within principal structures containing 20 or more dwelling units would also be allowed. Hackett asked why it would need to be restricted retail sales and said he would like to see the City encourage mixed uses so people don't always have to get in their cars to go places. Grimes said people wouldn't necessarily want a business to be located in a small neighborhood and suggested that language be added that says this type of use should be located on collector streets, or minor arterial streets. Waldhauser said this is really a way to try to bring residential units into commercial districts, not the other way around. Fulton referred to subdivision seven regarding the density bonus for apartments that use underground parking, public transit, recreation and sidewalks. . Keysser stated that the numbering of the subdivisions is out of sync. Fulton said he would review it and make corrections before it comes back for the public hearing. McAleese referred to subdivision five regarding conditional uses and suggested they be defined better perhaps in the beginning of the Zoning Code. Fulton referred to the proposed R-4 zoning district and explained that the intent is to allow for high density housing without necessarily requiring a PUD. Hackett asked why the City wouldn't want to allow class 3 restaurants in the R-4 district. . Keysser said there may be a noise issue with mixing the residential and retail together. Grimes said a restaurant serving just wine and beer would be allowed. Keysser referred to the density bonus in the R-4 zoning district and asked why it wasn't the same as the R-3 zoning district. Fulton said that the R-4 district doesn't have a maximum density except limited by height so the density bonus is more difficult to do. Grimes added that for senior and physical disability housing there is a low parking requirement because the demand is lower with that type of use. V. Discussion of Increasing Permitted Square Footage for Accessory Structures, R-1 Zoning District. . Grimes explained that this proposed change to the R-1 zoning district would allow more garage space on the larger lots throughout the City. He added that the largest accessory structure allowed would be 1,500 square feet. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 14, 2005 Page 6 . Fulton stated that there is some staff concern that this change in the code would only benefit higher income people who own the larger lots. Keysser asked how existing non-conforming accessory structures would be handled. Grimes said they would exist as a non-conforming structure and explained that no building additions or additional storage space would be allowed. VI. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Keysser stated that he and Waldhauser met with Jeanne Andre to discuss Envision and the role of the Planning Commission in the process. He suggested talking about Envision at the next Planning Commission meeting. VII. Other Business Grimes stated that, he has set up a tour of the Allianz facility for the Planning Commission and City Council. The tour will take place before the next Planning Commission meeting on February 28 at 6 pm. He asked the Commissioners to meet at Allianz in the front lobby at 6 pm. . Grimes told the Planning Commission that the City has hired URS to do the 1-394 Corridor planning study. He stated that the Planning Commission is going to very involved in the community education process and asked the Commissioners to hold some dates open for meetings with the consultants and tours of the areas included in the study. VIII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 .