Loading...
12-11-06 PC Minutes . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 11, 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, December 11,2006. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka (by speakerphone), McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was City Council Member DeDe Scanlon, Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, Planning Intern Bryan Gadow, Planning Intern Teresa Murphy and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes November 27, 2006 Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 27,2006 minutes as submitted. 2. Discussion Regarding Infill Housing Issues Grimes referred to a report that the Planning Interns put together listing various techniques to address the issue of teardown developments. Grimes said he would like the Planning Commission to narrow down the list to their main concerns and how they would like to address infill issues. He added that he would like to keep the techniques easy to administer. Keysser added that at some point in this process he would like to have public input. Grimes agreed and said that the open house forum works well. Keysser stated that he would also like to talk about whether or not anything should be changed regarding the Subdivision ordinance. Gadow stated that he would like to hear the Commission's feedback on. what they feel the most important issues are so he and Murphy can do some more in depth research on those specific issues. He referred to the list of techniques that he and Murphy wrote and noted that the first technique is developing neighborhood conservation districts. He explained that conservation districts can be established for areas that have specific shared housing characteristics. He stated that this option would have the most administrative work and is usually done in larger cities. He added that the issue in Golden Valley is that there aren't strict boundaries of individual neighborhoods and that staff would probably have to divide the city into zones. Keysser asked if conservation districts are usually defined by the neighborhoods themselves or if cities define the neighborhoods. Gadow said it is done both ways. Schmidgall noted that the City of Bloomington has established small conservation districts that were set up by the residents. Waldhauser stated that the neighbors themselves came up with their own restrictions and are responsible for administering them. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 2 Schmidgall said he can't think of any areas in Golden Valley where conservation districts would apply. Cera suggested they go through each idea on the list and decide if they do or do not want to consider them. Waldhauser noted that there are many different reasons why cities are looking at these infill/redevelopment issues. One example she read about was that a city was concerned about smaller homes disappearing and becoming upscale mansions which would price people out of the market. She said the Commission needs to figure out what they are trying to accomplish by doing this study. Murphy stated that the next technique on their list is impervious surface regulations. She said that Golden Valley has some regulations regarding the amount of driveway space per property but that there are a lot more techniques regarding limiting impervious surfaces. Keysser asked about Golden Valley's current impervious surface regulations. Grimes stated that there are currently regulations regarding building lot coverage and driveway coverage in the front yard. Cera said he thought having impervious surface regulations would be good for the environment. Murphy stated that the next technique on their list is an average front yard setback which would require a new home to be at the same or the average front yard setback of adjacent properties. Schmidgall said he is concerned that if there is a house nearby set close to the front yard setback and another house set back from the front yard setback than a new house would have a third setback and not fit in with, or match anything nearby it. Waldhauser said she thinks Golden Valley is pretty standard with its front yard setbacks. Grimes added that the 35 foot front yard setback has been in place for many years. Cera said he's not excited about changing the front yard setback requirements. Gadow stated that the next technique on their list is Floor-Area-Ratios (FAR) and lot coverage requirements. Waldhauser said she likes this technique. Keysser asked if this technique would be used just for new homes. Cera said no. If the FAR applied to new additions residents could only add so much square footage to their existing house based on the size of their lot. Keysser asked what is more objectionable, a house that rambles over the whole lot or a tall house. Waldhauser said she thinks it's both issues. Keysser said that the character of communities change over time. Grimes agreed and said that the size of homes has increased dramatically over that last 30 years. Gadow stated that the next technique on their list is building volume ratio which deals with height more that than the floor area ratio. Keysser stated that if the City has height requirements and FAR requirements than a building volume ratio would not be needed. Eck noted that the list of techniques says that building volume ratio measures the volume of a building above finished grade then it goes on to say that the basement is also Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 3 . accounted for when using building volume ratio. He asked how basements can be accounted for if it only calculates "above grade" space. Gadow said he didn't know, but he could research it further. Gadow stated that the next technique on their list is side wall articulation which breaks up the plane of a wall after a certain number of feet in depth or height. Waldhauser said she thought the current zoning ordinance had something in it about that. Grimes explained that for buildings over 40 feet in depth the entire side yard setback is increased but the house is not required to articulate. Cera added that it is a visual issue; it doesn't get at the massing of a house but would be useful for additions. Gadow stated that the next technique on their list is setback and open space standards which require that a certain percentage of a lot is required to be left as open space or landscaped space. Keysser said he thinks the vast majority of homes in Golden Valley are fairly well landscaped. Waldhauser asked how the setback techniques listed are different from what the City currently has. Schmidgall said he liked the examples that establish a three dimensional zone that people can build in. Murphy said that technique has some calculations involved and it is a little more complicated to administer. . Waldhausersaid she liked the examples that used setback planes and angles for roof lines because it would help neighboring properties have much more daylight. Keysser said that method would be hard to use with home additions. Murphy referred to some research she did regarding building height limitations. She explained that defining height is the first thing that needs to be done. She gave some examples of how other cities limit height such as requiring that a new home can not be more that 20% taller than the home that was torn down or a new home can only be 20% taller than the homes surrounding it. She added that some of those examples however make it almost impossible to build a two story home. Keysser said another issue regarding height limitations is where people measure from and how the grade is figured. Grimes stated that some cities require that grade is measured at the street level but there are issues with that method when there is a slope. He explained how height is currently measured in Golden Valley. Waldhauser stated that people can back-fill their lots in order to get the grade they want. She said the new norm is a two story house on top of a walk out basement which means it has three levels. Keysser added that height is the one thing he thinks the City can have some control over. . Eck stated that the City presently has setback requirements and overall height requirements. He asked what the zoning code currently allows that the Commission doesn't want to see or would like to change. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 4 . Schmidgall said a viable option is to do nothing. He said the Commission has heard a few people complain about "monstrous" houses but he is also in favor of property owner's rights. Scanlon asked how "monstrous" is being defined. Cera stated that on a 10,000 square foot lot someone could potentially build a 6,000 square foot home. Eck asked again what part of what the City allows now would they want to change. Keysser said his biggest concern is losing affordable homes. He doesn't want to see homes become too expensive. Kluchka said he came up with five ideas from their conversation thus far that he would like to see happen. The five ideas are: proposal for height limitations and setback bonuses, establish neighborhood conservation standards, storm water management education campaign, clarify or simplify subdivision regulations, encourage "affordable" development and align with Envision goals. Cera stated that the techniques he would like to study would be Floor Area Ratio, impervious surface requirements, (which are related to stormwater) and the height with different setback requirements depending on the height of the house. . Eck said he is concerned that if the City concedes to the concerns of the neighbors and changes the regulations then the City is saying that people can't build two story houses. Kluchka said he thinks people are opposed to the idea of "McMansions" but he thinks the City has the tools they need, however, they just need more thought and clarification. Scanlon said the City has to be careful about putting restrictions on property owners that do not allow for growth. Grimes agreed and said that education is also part of the issue. Keysser asked what it is that they are trying to address. Is there a big enough problem at the current time to require ordinance changes? He said there will always be someone complaining about some type of house or addition in a neighborhood. He questioned if the current regulations are onerous enough or if the regulations need to be tightened up. Cera said he thinks the issue is the maximum building envelope and the issue of massing. McCarty said a maximum height limitation makes more sense to him. Grimes stated that accessory structures also need to be considered because there is an issue with the size and height of sheds. Cera stated that there seem to be two schools of thought. One thought is to leave the zoning regulations alone and one thought is to tweak what the City currently has. He suggested maybe having two or three proposals. Keysser thought having two or three proposals would be confusing. He said he'd rather have one report and have people respond. . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 11, 2006 Page 5 Eck noted that he thinks they are all in agreement that impervious surface regulations are important. Keysser stated that accessory structure issues are also important. Eckadded that he would also like clarification on how height is measured. Waldhauser said she would like staff to suggest what percentage of impervious surface would be a reasonable amount. Eck asked if they want to keep researching the Floor Area Ratio option. Keyser said he would like to keep talking about Floor Area Ratio. Waldhauser said she's not sure that Floor Area Ratios accomplish anything. Cera asked about neighborhood conservation districts. Grimes suggested putting something in the City News about neighborhood covenants. Cera asked if the Commission still wanted to discuss changing the Subdivision Ordinance. Grimes stated that the City's philosophy on subdivisions is that Golden Valley has always been a desirable place to live and if we can encourage new lots it's probably good. There does not appear to be an objection to the current 10,000 square foot lot size. Waldhauser asked if the Commission still wanted to discuss the daylight plane regulations. Keysser thought that might be too hard to figure out. Waldhauser asked about the setbacks based on the height of a home. Keysser said that would probably work for new homes, but it wouldn't work for remodels. Keysser suggested that they start working on a draft and have everyone comment on it. Grimes stated that their report probably will be on a Council/Manager meeting in February. 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 9 pm.