Loading...
07-17-06 Joint PC-CC Minutes . Joint Meeting of the Golden Valley City Council and Planning Commission Discussion on Subdivision Ordinance and Infill Housing July 17, 2006 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 Monday, July 17,2006. Mayor Loomis called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Those present were Mayor Loomis, Council Members, Freiberg, Pentel and Shaffer, Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was City Manager, Tom Burt, Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, City Attorney, Allen Barnard and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. 1. Subdivision Ordinance - Lot Splits . Shaffer stated that five or six years ago the Planning Commission started working on zoning code changes to take it from a two dimensional code to a three dimensional code dealing with the volume of structures. He stated that the Subdivision Ordinance was never changed because it doesn't affect how big a house can be or the size of a house. He said he sees the Zoning Code as the direction to look to make any changes because the Subdivision Ordinance is subjective and the Zoning Ordinance is more specific. He added that as changes are made they need to keep in mind that it will affect existing properties as well as new properties and they need to be fair. Freiberg said he agrees that the Subdivision Ordinance by itself isn't responsible for "McMansions" and that the issues would be better addressed by design limitations or setback changes, but he thinks both the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Code can affect the character of the neighborhood. He said there are a lot of different neighborhoods in Golden Valley and to not have city-wide limits might be good because it could make things relevant in some neighborhoods and not others. Kluchka asked about the goal of this meeting. He said he would like to talk about the Council and Planning Commission goals and what they are trying to accomplish. Loomis said she doesn't think the Council knows yet if they are to the point of knowing what they want to accomplish or what the goals are. She said that this meeting is to look at several of the issues. She said that the goal at this point is to give staff some direction. Pentel stated that she was on the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals for many years and that she has also worked on changing the Zoning Code. She said she is not sure that the City can have different subdivision codes for different parts of the City. She said that people in Golden Valley who own double and triple lots are not ignorant to that fact and she feels very strongly about maintaining people's rights to subdivide their property. She added that tweaking the Zoning Code may address some of the issues and have some effect. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2006 Page 2 . Barnard stated that he thinks it is possible that Golden Valley could have different Subdivision Ordinances for different neighborhood but it is already a fully developed City so that would be difficult. Pentel asked Barnard if there would be taking issues involved if people aren't allowed to subdivide their private property. Barnard said probably not, but he didn't know for sure. Loomis stated that there are some existing vacant, buildable lots. Pentel added that with today's engineering any lot is buildable. Cera agreed that tweaking the Zoning Code is the key. He referred to some of the subdivision requests the Planning Commission has seen over the past few months and stated that there are definitely some points in the Subdivision Ordinance that would allow them to be denied such as the language regarding adverse effects to surrounding property. He added that it is difficult to have public hearings and then tell residents that their hands are tied. He asked if they could look at what types of things the Planning Commission can address. . Loomis asked Barnard to address why subdivision requests have to have a public hearing when they seem administrative. Barnard explained that it is a State law to hold public hearings for subdivision requests so that everyone is treated fairly. He stated that he's concerned about changing the subdivision rules in the middle of the game. Loomis added that the public hearing process gives the City a chance to hear neighbors concerns and it can be helpful when placing conditions on approvals. Shaffer added that sometimes issues are brought forward at public hearings that no one was aware of. Eck stated that the City is facing two issues. The first is the neighbors objecting to subdivisions because it changes the character of their neighborhood and the second is the "McMansion" issue. He said he was intrigued by Edina's zoning code where is says that lots shall not be less than the median lot area in the neighborhood and neighborhood means properties within 500 feet. He stated that if Golden Valley had that provision several subdivisions that have already happened wouldn't have been allowed. He added that apparently what Edina does is legal and it does preserve the character of the neighborhood. Waldhauser asked when Edina adopted their zoning code and stated that they seem to be a little more ahead of the trend than Golden Valley is. Shaffer explained that Edina's code started in their Country Club district area and that they have been using it for a long time and it is very strictly upheld. He stated that another part of Edina's code is median front yard size. He stated that Golden Valley tends to get soft on existing home requirements and hard on new construction and that it needs to be fair. . Loomis stated that she is getting a sense from the Council that they don't have strong feelings on changing the Subdivision Ordinance. Freiberg said he wouldn't mind looking at doing something like Edina has done. Shaffer clarified that Edina's requirements are through their Zoning Code, not their Subdivision Code. Grimes stated that he believed that Edina's Subdivision Code does state that lots must be 9,000 square feet in size or the median size of the lots in the neighborhood. Loomis stated that Golden Valley's Subdivision Ordinance doesn't state that lots have to be 10,000 square feet. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2006 Page 3 Grimes stated that Golden Valley's Subdivision Ordinance states that lots must meet the requirements of the Zoning Code which specifies 10,000 square feet in area. Pentel referred to page 385, Subdivision A of the Golden Valley Subdivision Ordinance and stated that it will need to be re-written to reflect the proper front yard setbacks for properties in the Multiple- Family Dwelling sections of the Zoning Code. Keysser stated that as the Subdivision Ordinance reads now there are grounds for denial. He said that the Planning Commission has accepted what staff says in their reports. For instance, if the staff said there are drainage issues but they can be addressed as part of the approval process, the Planning Commission has agreed. He asked how the City follows up on the drainage issues and how we know that the drainage plans being proposed for these subdivisions will work 4 or 5 years from now. Freiberg added that he has also noticed that there have been drainage issues on a few of the more recent subdivision requests and because of that he has voted against the proposals. Pentel stated that one of the most recent subdivision proposals involved two existing platted lots of record and that the applicant was just changing a lot line between them. Denying that subdivision in no way would change any of the potential adverse effects of this buildable, legal lot of record, but by having these lots go through the subdivision process, the City was able to attach conditions so that once the lot is built upon there are definite things that have to be considered. She stated that the owner of that particular lot could have come to the City and received a building permit without having any conditions attached to it whatsoever, which could potentially cause adverse affects. She stated that she feels that it is very important to be able to put conditions on subdivisions and to call out issues that could have an adverse affect. She added that it may feel to the Planning Commission that their hands are tied regarding subdivisions, but public hearings give the neighbors a way to hear what is going on in their neighborhood. Shaffer referred to.the five qualifications regarding the approval of subdividing lots. He said that if it is the opinion of the City Engineer that a specific drainage plan will work then it is unfair for the Council to say that people can't build on their lot. He stated that the Council has argued whether or not they like a drainage plan, but not over whether the drainage plan would work. He said for the City to jump to conclusions and say that we don't want "McMansions" so therefore, we are going to restrict how somebody can subdivide their land is a mixed message. It is also an unfair message especially to residents with small lots and people with small homes who want to expand their homes and can't if the zoning code won't allow it for them, but it would allow it for someone with a different shaped lot. He said he is not sure that the subdivisions that have been approved have made the City less attractive and added that the City has to be sure it's not following trends, but is being fair. Freiberg said he disagreed that his vote to deny the most recent subdivision was subjective. He said the City knows that there is a drainage problem in that area and that building a house and increasing the impervious surface area is only going to make it worse. Kluchka stated that he is keeping a list of goals that he is hearing at this meeting and that one of the goals he has written down would to be sure that conflicts between the Subdivision Code and Zoning Code are identified and mitigated. He said he thinks that it would be . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2006 Page 4 appropriate to direct staff to help the Planning Commission make sure they understand the risks with the various ordinances. Grimes clarified that the City requires a drainage and erosion control permit on every lot that gets developed in Golden Valley, not just on new lots that are created by subdividing. Pentel referred to the Zoning Code and stated that it has a section regarding the percentage of lot coverage allowed on various lot sizes. She said that if we were to change the Subdivision Code to say that a lot couldn't be smaller than the median lot in the neighborhood, in effect there would be a larger lots and it would mean that a larger house could be built. Shaffer referred to a subdivision that was done several years ago where the applicant at first wanted nine lots but was approved for five lots. He stated that the neighbors were concerned because more lots would mean more houses and it would be out of character in the neighborhood, when in fact, they ended up with fewer lots that were larger in size with bigger houses on them, so there is always a balance between the lot size and the house size. Freiberg stated that is why they need to be looking at both the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Code. Pentel stated that the City gets a lot of its operating funds from residential building permits, more than from commercial properties. So people who want to keep their taxes a little lower, sharing their burden across more housing units is going to be more helpful than putting up an office building where the incremental increase in taxes that the City gets, ends up being shared with other jurisdictions. She said it's not what drives her decision making, but she realizes that it's our residential properties that carry the burden for operating the City of Golden Valley. 2. R-1 Development Issues Related to Size of Homes a. Review of the Recommendations of the Atlanta Infill Development Panel b. Golden Valley, Edina and St. Louis Park Ordinances c. Discussion on maximum height in R-1 d. Discussion on Lot Coverage (impervious surface) e. Housing notes from National Association of Home Builders web site Waldhauser referred to the St. Louis Park and Atlanta ordinances and stated that they include a broader statement of goals for single family residential districts. She said she thinks Golden Valley has interpreted its own ordinances pretty narrowly. Pentel stated that as Golden Valley is looking at updating the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan it would be interesting to look at the goals there compared to the Zoning Code. Shaffer said that in some ways the concern is really houses that are too big for lots and what that means. It's not necessarily the lot split but what goes on the lots once they are split. Minutes of the Golden Valley Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2006 Page 5 . He reviewed the ways addressing the size of homes such as, floor area ratios, height limits, volume ratios, different types of setbacks and lot coverage. He added that using these types of zoning tools will take care of a lot of the issues people are concerned about. Pentel stated that it is the height of some of these homes and how the height is measured that concerns her. Freiberg agreed and stated that the top of the house should also be looked at in considering height, not just where a house starts at the ground. Loomis referred to the Atlanta ordinance and said she likes that it doesn't allow height to be manipulated by changes to the grade. Shaffer stated that in some neighborhoods the tall homes fit in completely and Golden Valley is so diverse in it's housing stock, it changes from house to house, yard to yard and street to street because back in the 1950's and 1960's builders had their own criteria. He added that it would take a lot of time to try and figure out how to define the neighborhoods. . Loomis said that Golden Valley is an evolving community. When she moved to Golden Valley it was a farming community that had just started to develop. She said everyone had septic systems, private wells and propane gas tanks and that is the reason for many of the large lots. She added that these types of subdivisions are the next evolution and the challenge is how to manage the growth and manage the changes without destroying what people value about Golden Valley. Freiberg said he agrees that Golden Valley is an evolving community, but the monumental changes from an agricultural community to a fully developed inner ring suburb have passed. He said it's important to look at elements of what Golden Valley has now as an established community and which elements it wants to maintain without getting in the way of progress. Loomis said the question is how to manage the growth and write it into some kind of code but also stay aware that it's going to impact existing homes as well. Shaffer said his feeling is that if Golden Valley enacts more regulations than it needs to stand by them and hold people to them. Cera said he is intrigued by the median lot size in Edina and wondered if that could be extended to things like height requirements. McCarty said he is curious about the administration of requirements like the median size lots and median sized houses. Grimes stated that the City would have to require more information in the building permit process. He said from his perspective, simpler ordinances would be better for staff and for the community. Loomis stated that she doesn't want this process to become so administratively heavy that they have to look at adding more staff. . Barnard stated he is concerned about the median size concepts because the City might end. up with much larger lots in an area that already has small lots or much taller homes because in some cases the median would allow something we-really don't want. McCarty referred to changing the average height of the neighborhood. He said in his neighborhood several people have added on a second story so now his house is the only single story in the neighborhood. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2006 Page 6 Keysser said he is not sure how well Edina's Code works but he thinks it wouldn't be very workable in Golden Valley because there is a huge variety of houses and a variety of lot sizes and without measuring every one of them it would be hard to establish the median. He said Golden Valley doesn't have very defined or identified neighborhoods such as Atlanta so it would be very cumbersome and awkward for Golden Valley to have a similar ordinance. Freiberg said he thinks the 500 feet definition for a neighborhood is somewhat arbitrary but it does set a defined objective which would prevent a home from towering over others. Pentel said she thinks talking about building height and how to regulate building height is important but right now the current style of houses are enormously tall so figuring out a way to define height and make them less intrusive would be good. Freiberg referred to his handout from Marin County, California and stated that planners there can consider the median size of the surrounding homes which allows for flexibility. Shaffer asked if they really want flexibility, because if there is flexibility there is no fairness, or if it is too flexible we may as well not have a code. Grimes said he thinks it's the consensus at this meeting that people feel that residents have the right to build a two-story home but the question is how to measure the height. Shaffer cautioned that a height limit won't keep the mass of the houses down and it can create an unexpected response. Grimes noted that St. Louis Park allows 3D-foot high or three story houses on lot sizes less than Golden Valley's and they only have 9-foot side yard setbacks. Cera stated that St. Louis Park also has a floor area ratio and Golden Valley could also talk about limiting impervious surface. Freiberg referred to his handout and noted that one strategy some cities are using is making people pay their way energy wise, so the bigger the home, the more energy efficient it has to be. Keysser said that would also be very cumbersome and hard to administer. Waldhauser said the market is not going to fix environmental issues and that cities have to step up and start a trend. Shaffer reiterated that Golden Valley is a fully developed community and that if we had available land he would be in favor of requiring more energy efficient building. He stated that the State does have an energy code and that Golden Valley is very strict about making people follow it. Waldhauser stated that they also don't want to price people out of Golden Valley. Keysser stated that the two comments the Planning Commission hears the most regarding subdivisions is the change in the character of the neighborhood and the drainage. He said people have genuine concern about potential impacts to their property and in some respects it gives the City an opportunity to address the drainage in the entire neighborhood but he questions what happens after the fact, 3 or 4 years down the road. Loomis suggested that staff give them a step by step process to make sure requirements are followed and issues are addressed. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2006 Page 7 Grimes stated that the City does have development agreements and maintenance agreements and if things aren't done properly by the homeowners the City can fix them and assess the property. Burt stated that another issue is that the City has a lot of private ponds that it has no way to deal with. He said when we have the opportunity to correct issues we do, but that involves acquiring easements and there is a cost to that. He said that the City has to start looking at drainage issues on a large scale and it has nothing to do with subdivision requests. Freiberg said impervious surface limits would also be good to look at. Grimes added that Golden Valley does not currently have a permit process for patios or driveways. He said that Golden Valley setbacks are fairly large and we get a lot of green area through setbacks alone. Waldhauser stated that there are quite a few homes where the entire setback areas are paved. Shaffer stated that a lot of those issues are addressed in the pavement management program. He said that they should also give some thought to the priority of some of the issues that have been talked about at this meeting because some are really important and some are not. 3. Direct Staff on Approach to Infill Housing in Golden Valley Kluchka asked if they could summarize what everyone at the meeting is supposed to be doing. Loomis said she would like the Planning Commission to work with staff to come up with some ideas. Grimes stated he would do the research regarding height issues, better defining drainage issues, impervious surface coverage issues and setback issues. Burt added that staff will also research the pros and cons of those issues and how they impact the overall city, not just single neighborhoods. Waldhauser asked about the best way to get stories or feedback from other cities. Grimes stated that he knows several other communities are working on these same issues. Kluchka reiterated that staff will work on research and getting feedback from other cities and the Planning Commission will work on writing goals so everyone is on the same path. He said the next step is to get aligned on what the goals are. Keysser said they would discuss these issues at their next Planning Commission meeting. Shaffer reminded the Planning Commission that the codes have to be enforceable by the Board of Zoning Appeals and that they have to think beyond the here and now. 4. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm.