Loading...
11-13-06 PC Minutes . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 13, 2006 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, November 13, 2006. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Eck was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes October 23, 2006 Special Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the above minutes as submitted. October 23,2006 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the first paragraph on page 5 and said the last sentence should end at the word "hotel" and the rest of that sentence should be struck. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the above minutes with the noted correction. 2. Discussion Regarding Infill Housing Issues Keysser explained that the City Council wants the Planning Commission to study the issues regarding infill development. He referred to the infill study that St. Louis Park did and said he would like to discuss the data needs for the Golden Valley study. Grimes referred to a map prepared by staff that illustrates the number of homes that could potentially be subdivided in Golden Valley. He said there are approximately 225 lots that could possibly be subdivided, but that number was obtained by making some assumptions and not taking into consideration some important information such as the value of the an existing home on a lot, the location of an existing home on a lot and if an existing home would be torn down. He added that the number of possible lots that could be subdivided also included dividing corner lots diagonally, creating two triangular shaped lots. He referred to the St. Louis Park study and explained that they have three or four different residential zoning districts and they looked at only the large lot zoning district. Their study concluded that there are approximately 20 lots that could be subdivided in that zoning district. Grimes referred again the map of Golden Valley that shows lots that could potentially be subdivided and said he didn't think a lot of them would ever be subdivided. He said his conclusion is that the issue isn't really about lot size it's more about height, bulk and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 2 . massing of homes. He referred to a study that the City of Edina did and said the key in that study was looking more at the zoning code to reduce the size or bulk of a home on a lot. Waldhauser referred to an article she read regarding development issues for fully developed communities because the issues are different for fully developed communities than that of a developing community. Keysser asked if that meant talking about design standards. Waldhauser said that is one thing to think about. Keysser said he would not be comfortable putting architectural guidelines on homes. The Commission agreed. Cera suggested limiting the total floor area of homes. Grimes added that Golden Valley currently has a lot coverage percentage. He referred again to the Edina study and said they have decided not to change their zoning code. They are going to have mandatory notification of neighbors, neighborhood design education and look at the issue as a part of their Comprehensive Plan update. Keysser said he didn't think it would be a good idea to have a public hearing for every building permit issued. Waldhauser suggested having smaller conservation districts that could have specific zoning requirements. Keysser said that would be hard without having defined neighborhoods. Waldhauser said she is not convinced that Golden Valley doesn't have defined neighborhoods. Kluchka said he thinks it's up to the neighbors themselves, not the City to define their own neighborhoods. . Cera suggested that they do some brainstorming to try to come up with some options to the issues and concerns that get brought up at public hearings. Keysser said one issue they hear about is the style of a new home being built. He also said some of the other concerns they hear about are drainage and run-off, height, width, lot coverage, vertical surfaces and building volume. He said when neighbors say things are "out of character with the neighborhood" they really mean that the house is too big or not in scale with other homes in the area. Waldhauser added that there is also a concern about open space versus lot coverage and the setbacks or the proximity of a new house to an existing neighbor's house. She suggested there be a correlation between setback distance and the height of a house. Keysser asked about tying a coverage ratio to the size of a lot. Cera suggested redefining how height is calculated. Keysser said they have to be careful about how height is measured because there could be some really tall flat roofed houses and then the house appears to be really massive. Kluchka suggested having neighborhood covenants and conservation districts tied to the individual neighborhood. Grimes said neighbors need to be informed that they have the ability to do restrictive covenants. . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 13, 2006 Page 3 Grimes said another option would be to look at setbacks related to height. He added that some cities use a "face" approach where a picture is taken before a remodel and only a certain percentage can be added to the "face" of a home after the remodel. Grimes suggested looking at having a minimum lot depth and looking at the rear yard setback requirements and perhaps having a specific rear yard setback instead of the current 20% of the lot depth for the rear yard setback. Cera said he would .like to put impervious surface limits on the list as well. Grimes said he would take the list the Commissioners created and come up with some ideas that other cities have done. He also suggested that the City could require people doing subdivisions to hold a neighborhood meeting. Waldhauser said she would also like to discuss accessory structures. Grimes agreed and said that accessory structures do need some height restrictions. Keysser said he would still like the Commission to have their report done by the end of this year or in January of next year. Grimes said he would talk to the City Manager about having their report on the January 9 Council/Manager meeting. He said he would bring some information back to the Commission within a couple of weeks. 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. 4. Other Business No other business was discussed. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm.