Loading...
05-13-13 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, May 13, 2013 7 pm 1. Approval of Minutes March 11, 2013 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment—Adding Section 11.75 "Solar Energy Systems" —ZO00-91 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider the addition of Section 11.75 "Solar Energy Systems" to the Zoning Chapter of the City Code --Short Recess-- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 4. Other Business • Discussion - Proposed new "Performance Zoning District" • Election of Officers 5. Adjournment ` This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request.Please call : 763-593-8006(1TY:763-593-3968)ta make a request, Exampfes of aiternate formats ' may include iarge print,electranic,Braille,audiocassett�,etc. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 11, 2013 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, March 11, 2013. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Kluchka, McCarty, ��gelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning and Developmer�t Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.i 1. Approval of Minutes February 11, 2013 Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 11, 2013 minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Genera.I Land Use Plan Map Amendment— 930Q and 9310 Golden Valley Road — CPAM-53 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 9300 & 9310 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To ch�nge the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Commercial-Office to High Density Residential 3. Informal Publ�c H�:aring - Property Rezoning — 9300 and 9310 Golden Valley Road —�022-OZ ; � Appl�cant; � ��HAP, Inc. AddressES: 93Qd & 9310 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To rezone the properties from Business and Professional Offices to R-4 High Density Residential Items 2 and 3 were discussed together. Hogeboom explained that Jewish Housing and Programming (J-HAP) is proposing ta develop a facility that provides housing and services to developmentally disabled adults. He referred to a site plan of the properties located at 930Q and 9310 Golden Valley and stated that they are currently designated Commercial-Office on the General Land Use Plan map and zoned Business and Professional Offices on the Zoning Map. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 11, 2013 Page 2 He noted that site plans have not yet been created and that various requirements of funding partners are necessitating the land use and zoning changes at this time. Hogeboom referred to the recently approved Renewal and Renavation District in this area and explained that part of that plan includes the addition of sidewalks and street lighting. Segelbaum asked if the applicant has a purchase agreement with the current owner of the properties. Hogeboom said yes and added that the current owner also signed the rezoning application. Cera expressed concern about the parcel to the west of this proposal being le`� an island. He asked if there are any plans for redeveloping that parcel. Hogeboom:said it is his understanding that the property owner is unwilling to sell the property at this time. 'He noted that it is guided and zoned for office use. Waldhauser referred to the language in the R-4 zoning district and questio�ed why "residential facilities" are allowed as a conditional use b�u# muitiple family and senior housing are permitted uses. Hogeboom stated that residet�ti�l fa�ilities are more of an institutional use and have a different level of care. Grir�es added that residential facilities also require a license by the State. Marvin Liszt, Attorney representing J-HAP, noted that the property owner was in attendance and reiterated that she has signed the rezoning application. He stated that J- HAP has a purchase agreement with the property owner and ane of the contingencies of the purchase is the rezoning of the property. Grimes added that that J-HAP is also going through the process of applying for Community Development Block Grant funds as well. Segelbaum asked the applicant how fiar along they are in their fund raising process. Jennifer Lewin, Executive Director, J-HAP, stated that they have applied for several government funding sources �nd they will be launching a capital campaign once the site is secured. McCarty asked about th� timeframe of the project. Lewin stated that the funding cycle is 2013 and they hope ta break ground in 2014 with occupancy in 2015. Waldhau�e.r op�,ned tfie'public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Waldhauser��los��l the public hearing. ,,� ` MOV�t�:by Cera, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of amending the General Land Use Plan Map from Commercial-Office to High Density Residential for the properties at 9300 & 9310 Golden Valley Road. MOVED by Cera, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning the properties at 9300 & 9310 Golden Valley Road from Business and Professional Offices to R-4 High Density Residential. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Cammission March 11, 2013 Page 3 4. Informal Public Hearing — Final Plan Review— Planned Unit Development (PUD) — Saturn Addition PUD #63, Amendment#2 Applicant: Penske Automotive Group/UAG Minneapolis B1, LLC Address: 701 Louisiana Avenue South Purpose: To allow for the construction of a Motorwerks MINI Cooper auto dealership. Hogeboom stated that the Preliminary PUD plan for this proposal was approved by the City Council in February and now the applicant is starting the Final PUD approval process. He referred to a site plan and some photos and gave a history of the current PUD. He explained that this property is currently divided into four lots and that this proposal will consolidate the property into three lots. The proposed new MINI Cooper building will be approximately 29,500 square feet in siz� and will replaee the current Oldsmobile building. He discussed the changes made to the proposal since it received preliminary approval including the addition of a bike'rack on the northeast corner of the site, increased landscaping and the inclusion of a snow removal plan. He added that the applicant has not increased the amount of pervious surface since their last plan submittal however there will be no additional impervious surface on the site as a result of this proposal. He referred to the Planning Commiss�on's discussion about pedestrian access on the site and stated that because of safety con�erns, staff does not support having a sidewalk through the center of the,property. Kluchka referred to the City �aunciPs discussion about snow removal and asked Hogeboom if it is his understanding that snow can only be stored in certain locations or if it has to be removed from the site. Hogeboom stated that the applicant had been storing snow in a right-of-way area so the Council asked that they submit a snow removal showing that snow could be stored on their property. If not, then snow would need to be removed. Segelbaurn,referred to the proposed visual and landscape enhancements and asked if there are elevati�r�s that show the north facade. Hogeboom stated that the building is a corporat� design so the applicants have limited ability to change it. Kluchka said he would like to see vertical enhancements and some articulation. Hogeboom noted that the requirements �egarding articulation only apply to residential properties. McCarty questianed the guidelines for articulation in the Mixed Use zoning district. Hogeboom stated that:articulation is a general goal in the Mixed Use zoning district, but is not a requirement. Nolan Redding, Penske Automotive, introduced John Corley, Architect for the project. Corley showed the Commission proposed elevations of the building. He stated that most of the building is black however they've added some visual interest to the walls with large graphics/pictures showing the latest car models. He referred to the north facade and stated that they've added lighter-colored columns, wainscoting and windows to help break up the expanse of the wall. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 11, 2013 Page 4 Waldhauser asked about the roof material. Corley said it wifl be a biack, flat roof. Waldhauser asked if a lighter colored roof or a green roof had been considered since there is so little pervious surface on the site. Redding said they did consider a green roof but there are poor soils and the roof would not support the weight without significant additional expense. He said they would consider having a lighter colored roof. Segelbaum asked the applicant if they have successfully used the graphics idea in other locations. Corley said yes, they have been used successfully. He showed the Commission some photos ot other dealerships where they have been used and explained that they area made out of a fabric material that are easy to change and replav�e. Grimes said the graphics proposal would have to be reviewed by the sign code,administrator because he doesn't think the City has seen this type of proposal in �he p����. Redding noted that other cities have limited the graphics to photos only,'with no words alfowed. He reiterated that the intent of the graphics is to break up the facade of.the wall. Corley added that the proposed trees would also help break up the north facade. McCarty noted that the wainscoting and columns look like they are a lighter gray color in the renderin�s than in the samples shawn. The Gommission agreed that they liked the lighter gray color for the columns and wainscoting. Waldhauser questioned why permeable pavers are only being proposed in the medians. Redding stated that snow and ice is harder to clean off of'pervious pavers and they would not work in the driving areas. They also require more maintenance. Waldhauser said she understands the opposite; that pervious pavers drain better and dry quicker so it is easier to keep snow and ice off of them. . Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Tom Londo, 6901 Laurel Avenu�, said he has been seeing a lot of problems in the area in the past year with the�t, d�ug dealers and trucks with drivers sleeping in them. He said this proposal would be gr�at far]�r� bu'siness and for the aesthetics in the area and would be an asset to the community. Segelbaum asked Londo if he has concerns regarding parking for his bus�r�ess. Lor�do s�id they've been compromising with him and added that it is not his land that he would be losing. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Kluchka said he thinks the elevations have changed significantly, which was his primary concern. McCarty said his only concern is the color of the wainscoting and columns. He wants them to be a lighter gray color. Cera said he would like to see more pervious surface. Segelbaum said he is pleased with how the applicant has addressed the Commission's concerns. He said he also agrees with Londo that this would be a good thing for the property. Cera suggested adding a condition of approval which states that the applicant should use as light a gray as possible for the columns and wainscoting to allow for significant Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 11, 2013 Page 5 contrast. Waldhauser said she would also like language added about consideration of a lighter roof color. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of PUD #63, Amendment #2 subject to the following findings and conditions: Findinqs: 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site ar�d achieues a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected uRder conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of fhe site's characteristics, apen space and sensitive environmental f�ature� including �teep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatibl� with adjac�nt uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving arrd improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the C'ity, 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Conditions 1. The plans prepared by BKBM Engineers dated February 5, 2013, submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations ar�d r�;quirements outlined in the memo from Fire Chief Mark Kuhnly to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated March 4, 2013, shall become part of this approvaL 3. The recommendation� and requirements outlined in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver to Mark �rimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated March 4, 2013, shall becom� �a part of this approval. 4. Exterior bicycle p�rking shall be added to the northeast corner of the MINI Cooper building. 5. The applicant s�all store snow in accordance with the snow storage areas indicated on the Site:Plan. 6. The developer shall consider enhancing color contrasts in the building facade. This could include light or medium grey wall material finishes, as well as a lighter colored material for the roof of the proposed building. 7. All signs on the property shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 11, 2013 Page 6 5. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 228 Meander Road — Meander Woods — SU12-13 Applicant: Matt Pavek Addresses: 228 Meander Road Purpose: The proposed subdivision would reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. Grimes referred to a location map of the property and explained that it'is 1.32 acres in size. The applicant is proposing to divide the property into two lots, both of which exceed the minimum standards required in the City Code. Lot 1 would be 20,771 square feet in size and Lot 2 would be 37,375 square feet in size. He explained that this property and the property to the northwest were once part of the Perpich Center PUD. However in 2008, the State of Minnesota sold the properties and removed them from the PUD. Waldhauser asked why Lot 1 narrows toward the rear yard. Grimes stated that the lot narrows slightly in the rear yard however it is still approxirnately 70 feet in width at the rear of the lot. He reiterated that both lots exceed;all of the requirements. Segelbaum asked if the location of the homes shown on the drawing is where they will be constructed or if it is just an example of where they might be located. Grimes explained that the drawing is an example sho�ring,th�t the homes will meet the setback requirements. Segelbaum asked ifi this proposal will come back to the Planning Commission for further review;�Grirnes said no and added that the Preliminary Plat and the Final Plat will go to thE City Council for review. Peter Knaeble, representing the'applicant, stated that the proposal is fairly straightforward and noted that the lots are twice as big as City Code requires. He referred to Waldhauser's question about Lot 1 tapering in the back and explained that tapering Lot 1 gave Lot 2 more space v+�hich is needed because of an easement for the power lines. Waldhauser apened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. MO�ED by Cera, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approva! of a Minor Subdivision to divide the property at 228 Meander Road into finro single family;r�sidential lots subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. A park dedication fee determined by the City Council shall be paid before final plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated March 4, 2013 shall become part of this approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 11, 2013 Page 7 4. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that will include issues found in the City Engineer's memorandum. 5. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 6. Informal Public Hearing — Final Plan Review— Planned Unit Development (PUD) — The 3.9.4 Apartments — PUD #112 Applicant: Global One Golden Valley, LLC Address: Northwest Corner of I-394 and Highway 100 Purpose: To allow for the construction of a 6-story, 314 unit, market rate apartment building and a 6-story, 120 unit, senior living building. Hogeboom stated that the Preliminary PUD plan for this proposal was approved by the City Council in December and the applicants are now starting the Final PUD approval process. He referred to a locatian map of the praperties and explained the applicant's proposal to construct two buildings on the 7.47 acre site. One of the buildings will be a six-story, 314-unit, market rate apartment building and the ather will be a six-story, 120- unit senior assisted living building. Hogeboom referred to a site plan of the prQpas�d project and discussed the changes made to the plans since the Preliminary plan review. The driveway entrance on Circle Down has been shifted to the west in order to line up with garages, rather than the homes to the north and to be further away frorn the home to east, the access drive on the northern portion of the site Mas been eliminated to move internal traffic further away from the northern property line, the garage enfiry has been reconfigured to add an additional entrance and to help distribute �he site traffic and the proposed east building has been redesigned with articulated corners to move the building further away from the north/northeast�roperky lin�, Waldhaus�r asked if,any portion of the proposed buildings will be six stories in height within the area that allows only three stories in height according to the Mixed Use zoning district requirements. Hogeboom stated that a small portion of the buildings would overlap into the thre�-story area. Grimes added that the underlying Mixed Use zoning district is used as a guide, however that is irrelevant in this case because it is a PUD and can be approved as is. Waldhauser asked about the alley access referred to the staff reports. Hogeboom stated that there is an existing publicly deeded alley to be used as a second access to the site. Segelbaum asked who is responsible for maintaining the alley access. Hogeboom explained that the developer will enter into a development agreement with the City which will address maintenance issues. Kluchka referred to the walkway shown on the far eastern end of the property and asked if it would be owned by the City or by the developer. Hogeboom explained that that Minutes of the Golden Valley Pianning Commission March 11, 2013 Page 8 property is owned by MnDOT. Grimes added that MnDOT would also have to approve that proposed walkway. Segelbaum asked about the scope of the Planning Commission's review since the Preliminary Plans have already been approved. Hogeboom stated that the scope of the Planning Commission's review is to decide if the Final PUD praposal is consistent with the approved Preliminary PUD proposal. Grimes added that the Planning Commission and the City Council have asked for significant changes to the plans which the applicant has made. � �1 Kluchka said he thinks it is important to note the differences in what the Mixed Use zoning District would allow without a PUD. He said it is significant that a portion ofi,the prc�posed buildings that are six stories tall are crossing into a space that has historically allowed three stories. Segelbaum noted that the plans as shown are what the`City Cou'ncil have already adopted. Waldhauser noted that the entire building has been mo�ed further to the south as requested of the applicant. McCarty referred to the articulation of the northeast'corne,r of the building and asked if that caused a reduction in the number of units. Gary Tusfiie, Architect for the project, stated that they originally had 318 units and now they have 314 units. Mark Globus, Global One Commercial, Applicant, reiterated that they have made a number of changes since their Preliminary Plan approval. He stated that they have submitted a snow storage plan and asked staff if they are comfortable with the plan. Hogeboom explained that the applicant has demonstrated where snow wi�l be stared and the City Council will decide during their'review if it is acceptable. Waldhauser asked for further explanatian of the retaining walls, landscaping and fencing along the north property line. Tushie showed the Commission a rendering of what the landscaping, fencing and retainir�g walls will look like in various places along the north property line. Waldhau�er �sked if'water will collect in the depressed areas along the north property line. Cera asked if snow would melt and drain onto the properties to the north. Tushi�explained how the drainage system will work by carrying the water from the north to the east�and tE�e,south. John Bender, MFRA, Engineer for the project explained that the buik of the water on the site will be drain to an underground storage facility and some will be treated in the ponds and will connect to the City's storm sewer system. Cera questioned w{��t would prevent too much water from going to the west. Bender explained how ha�f of th� site will go the storm sewer system to the west and half will go to the south to the MnDOT'system. He added that they were required to show in their plans that their discharge is equal to or less than current conditions. Grimes noted that the City Engineer has reviewed the plans and that the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission will also review the plans. Kluchka asked the applicant if they brought samples of the e�cterior building materials. Tushie said no and explained that the renderings shown in the plans are fairly close to how the materials will look. Kluchka suggested the applicant bring material samples when they go to the City Counci! for review. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 11, 2013 Page 9 Cera asked to hear more about the changes made to the plans since the last time the Commission reviewed them. Tushie stated that all of the changes the Planning Commission recommended last time have been made and that the plans before the Commission this time are almost identical to what the City Council approved. Cera asked the applicant if he has had any further discussions with the neighbors. Globus said he hasn't had any further discussions with the neighbors but he would be happy to. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. David Webb, 5410 Wayzata Blvd, said he has a number of objections and concerns about the proposal. He said he doesn't believe the proposal is a complete application and thus cannot be considered for approval as a PUD. He referred to the PUD section of the City Code and stated that the applicant hasn't provided an analysis of the number of cars that will use the alley. He stated that this property is non-conforming and there is confusion between the requirements in the Mixed Use zoning dist�ict versus the requirements in the PUD section of the City Code. He referred to a letter that developers received from the City in 2008 indicating that a mixed-use development would have to be developed on the site. He said he has concerns about the increase in traffic and said that labeling the alley a secondary access is arbitrary because it will become a primary access which won't meet any of the City's right-of-way requirements. He said there is significant pedestrian access and delivery truck traffic currently in the alley and he is concerned about safety. He referred to the language in the PU.D sectidn of tt��; City Code and said this project has numerous violations of that chapt��and he rejects staff saying that this proposed use is compatible because since this project's r�r�ceptior� it has been an attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole. He said he wants to keep the integrity of the Circle Down neighborhood and asked that the'Planning Commission not allow this proposal to proceed. Segelbaum asked Mr. Webb if his main concern was the alley becoming a primary access route. Webb said his concern is beyond traffic on his property because there is a lot of pedestrian traffic'rn the alley area and someone could get hurt. He also stated that delivery vehic�es to his property use the ally when unloading. He added that when the City reconstructed the str��ts in the area the traffic was a mess. W�Idhauser questioned if a speed bump at the start of the alley access would help. Kluchka stated that traffic engineers have said speed bumps don't work but it sounds like there is a pedestrian safety issue that needs to be considered. Waldhauser asked Mr. Webb if he has offered any alternative proposals. Webb said he can't because Mr. Globus is the designated developer. He stated that the letter fram the City to developers in 2008 said any development would have to conform to the Mixed Use zoning district which probably hindered many developers from coming forward. Grimes disagreed and said he has told many developers that the site would more than likely need to be developed using the PUD process. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 11, 2013 Page 10 Doug Wageman, 5400 Circle Down, said he is not opposed to the development per se but he thinks it is pretty big. He said he doesn't think the access should be on Circle Down and asked if the City has looked into using eminent domain to provide access to the west of the site instead of the proposed access on Circle Down. He said there is an obvious "Hatfield and McCoy thing99 between the applicant and Mr. Webb but the City has to be neutral and make it work. Laura Itman, 5300 Cirlce Down, said at the last Planning Commission meeting the proposed traffic was compared to the traffic that currently exists on Regern� however Regent connects to Duluth which is a major street unlike Circle Down, � projectof this size coming out on to Circle Down is a whole different issue and 3,000 cars should not come out on a street that isn't a major street. John Sonsalla, 5301 Circle Down, said Circle Down cannot handle th'is amount of traffic. He said there are times now when it is hard for two cars to pass each other because it is too narrow and with more traffic there will be more problems. He said it is `going to be noisy and he will see light from the road and the parking lot and people will be walking across his yard. He asked what types of trees the applicant wiU be planting and if they will give the homeowners on Circle Down additional insulation or new windows. He said a six- story building is ridiculous and he will have no sun in his house until 11 am or noon in the winter time. He referred to the power lines on the property and asked if they will be relocated or buried and who would have to pay to bury the power lines. He said he is also concerned about damage to houses from addi#i�na1 truck traffic and the use of pilings and he hopes there is a bond issued or the homEOwners in the area are covered as additional insureds on the contractors insurance. Seeing and hearing no or1� else vvishing to speak, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked if the;otraffic stitdy included the alley. Grimes said that a large majority of the traffic will use C'ircf� Qown as the primary access however the City cannot stop people from usin.g the alley.�He agreed that consideration needs to be given to improved pedestrian safety in the alley. Waldhauser asked if the right-of-way or alley could be shifted to the north. Grimes said it is his und�rstanding that the developer attempted to negotiate with Mr. Webb but it was unsuccessful. Kluchka questioned if the Planning Commission should add a condition of approval regarding pedestrian safety in the alley. Grimes said that the Public Works staff will deaide what precautions are necessary and the City will work with Mr. Webb on his safety concetns because the City also wants it to work well. Segelbaum asked why the traffic study didn't include the alley. Grimes stated that it is assumed that some of the traffic will use the alley. He said he can't address the traffic engineering. However this is one of the most studied areas and staff is convinced that the traffic will work to a satisfactory level. McCarty added that the total traffic count of 2,229 cars is the total number of trips when the reality is that would likely not happen all at once given the average vacancy rates, the timing of the trips, etc. He said he thinks it might not be as big of an impact as people think. Grimes agreed and stated that the 2,229 trips will Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 11, 2013 Page 11 be over the course of a 16 hour day. There will likely be more traffic during peak hours but everyone isn't coming or leaving at the same time. He said he agrees that there will be a lot more traffic on Circle Qown, but the street has the capacity to handle it. He reiterated that staff feels confident with the traffic study that has been done. Waldhauser asked about the comment regarding Circle Down being too narrow. Grimes stated that narrower streets actually calm traffic. Kluchka referred to the concerns about the project not meeting the requiret���?ts of the Mixed Use zoning district and said it is his understanding that although the un`�erlying zoning district is a good guide it isn't necessarily taken into consideratian when reviewing a PUD. Waldhauser added that when the I-394 Corridor Study was`done t'hey were optimistic that the City would get mixed use developments but it hasn't and'the times and markets change. Grimes agreed and added that this particular si�e is'a difficuft site to develop. Kluchka asked the developer how fences, trees, noise and light will be addressed at the entrance. Globus said they have spent a great deal'of tim.e on the entrance. They've added a pond as a buffer to the residence next to the entrance, they've angled the driveway so headlights would shine on the garages and not`the houses and there will be a solid fence along the north property line that will help eliminate light and noise. He added that a high level of sound from 1-394 already exists in this area and it is not an extremely quiet area as it sits today. Grimes asked Globus if he would be willing to work with the neighboring property owners regarding their landscaping preferences. Globus said yes he would be willing to work with the neighbors. Kluchka referred to the neighbor's questions about burying the power lines and suggested a condition of approval that states the developer will show reasonable effort to work with Xcel on burying power lines and assume the cost of the burying of their power lines and the neighbors. S�gelbaurn`said he would be more comfortable saying that the landscapir�g plans have #o accommodate the power lines. Cera agreed that the goal is to provide maximum s�r,eenin`g whether that includes burying the power lines or not. Tushie said he is assuming that Xcel will bury the power lines when they bring in a tra��sformer for their project. Waldhauser said the cost of buying the homeowner's power lines'falls on the hameowner. Tushie said he believes that is an Xcel Energy issue. Segelbaum sa�d he thinks the applicant should discuss the issue with Xcel. Cera suggested'the applicant also talk to Xcel about the homeowner's power lines and who is respansible for paying to have them buried. Kluchka suggested another condition of approval that states that safety features in the alley will be incorporated into the plan. Cera said he wants a condition of approval added requiring increased discussions with the neighbors befare construction starts. Kluchka referred to the neighbor's questions about construction insurance in case of damage. Globus stated that they are putting a plan together for the City to review that will Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 11, 2013 Page 12 deal with any type of vibration issues. Cera noted that this area was impacted by the construction of I-394 so residents are sensitive to that issue. He added that since there are some issues with the neighboring property owners it would be a good idea for the applicant to have some sort of public campaign with the neighbors to educate them on the issues and to keep talking to the neighbors. Grimes stated that the contractor will have a communications plan for the neighbors during constructian. Cera said he would like there to be another public meeting with the neighbors. Segelbaum said he thinks this is a reasonable proposal. Cera said he thinks the applicant has made all of the changes he can. Kluchka agreed. Waldhaus�r said this is an important site in Golden Vatley and it is nice to see something positive. She said she also wants to preserve existing areas as well and additional residents in the area will help support the larger area. Waldhauser asked about a lighting plan. Grimes said they have submitted a lighting plan that follows the City's lighting ordinance. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recammend approval of the Final PUD Plan for the 3.9.4 Apartments, PUD #112 subject to the following findings and conditions: ; Findin s 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and d�sign th�n generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordir�ance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and'protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features ineluding steep slopes, trees, scenic views, ereeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. The PUD plan incJudes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) af the land. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is cor�sistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUQ plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by Tushie Montgomery Architects dated February 11, 2013 shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Fire Chief Mark Kuhnly to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated March 4, 2013, shall become part of this approval. Minutes of the Golden Valiey Planning Gommission March 11, 2013 Page 13 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated March 4, 2013, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The Applicant is assessed a Traffic Management Fee of $43,328.10 per City Code. Payment of half of the fee ($21,664.05) is required prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan. (The remaining half of the fee is required to be paid prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.) 5. Prior to consideration of the Final PUD Plan by the City Council a plan for foundations pilings, signed by a licensed structural engineer, shall be reviewed anat;approved by the City. '� 6. Landscape screening along the north property line shall be compati�le with utility line layouts. 7. If utility lines are buried, reasonable efforts shall be made by the developer to assume all costs assaciated with the burial. 8. The developer shall create a construction communication plan with the neighborhood that will attempt to consider neighborhood preferences for landscaping and screening mechanisms. 9. Snow shall be stored in the areas designated on the site pian. 10. The City Attorney will determine if Park Dedication is appficable prior to the City Council's approval of the Final Plat. 11. All signs on the property shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 12. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this develapment. --Short Recess-- 7. Reports on Meetir�gs of the Ftousing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of�oning'Appeals and other Meetings Waldhauser reported.on a Sens�ble Land Use Coalition seminar she attended. 8. Other Business Hogeboom stated that the Planning Commissioners will no longer represent Planning Commission proposals at the City Council meetings. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 pm. David A. Cera, Secretary t���� �� Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: May 13, 2013 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Brett Angell, Planning Intern Subject: Recommended Addition to the City Code; Section 11.75 "Solar Energy Systems" Background Staff has been directed to develop an ordinance for the installation and regulation of Solar Energy Systems. Staff worked in accordance with Minnesota Solar Challenge in order to understand how other Twin Cities metro regians have adopted solar energy into their City Code. The concern was that Gotden Valley currently does not regulate Solar Energy Systems in the City Code besides Pole Mounted Photovoltaic Systems. In order to update Golden Valley's code to best suit the community and remain an-par with the surrounding areas, research and comparisons have been performed. Based upon these comparisons, planning staff has developed an ordinance for Solar Energy. Process Staff focused on how Solar Energy Systems are regulated by Minneapolis and St. Paul. They were chosen due to the fact that they have the most detailed and most recent solar energy ordinances that have been passed and integrated into their respective City Codes. After analyzing these cities, staff created an ordinance ta fit Golden Valley. Recommendations Staff recommends that Solar Energy Systems be allowed within all zoning districts, subject to administrative review and approval by the Community Development Director. This addition is incorporated in the attached copy of proposed Section 11.75: "Solar Energy Systems" of the Golden Valley City Code. Conclusion Staff has come to the conclusion that it would be best to advise the Golden Valley Planning Commission on what action should be taken in the addition of Solar Energy Systems to the Golden Valley City Code. Attachments Proposed Golden Valley City Code, Section 11.75, Solar Energy Systems (2 pages) Section 11.75: Solar Energy Systems Subdivision 1. Purpose The purpose of this section is to allow for and regulate the location, placement, design, and maintenance of active and passive solar energy systems to ensure such equipment are appropriately located and are used in a safe and effective manner. Subdivision 2. Definitions A. Building Integrated Solar System: A solar energy system that is directly integrated into the building by replacing typical building materials. B. Flush Mounted Solar System: A solar energy system that is installed on the roof of a building which has no space between the solar panels and roof materials. C. Non-Flush Mounted Solar System: A solar energy system that is installed on the roof of a building which does not lie directly on the roof surface. D. Solar Energy System: A device, structure, or part thereof that transfers direct solar energy into thermal, chemical, or electrical energy that contributes significantly to a structure's energy supply. To be utilized in an effective manner the panels require direct access to sunlight for several hours a day for the entire year. Subdivision 3. Permitted Use Where Allowed A. Building mounted solar energy systems shall be allowed in all zoning districts, subject to administrative review and approval by the Community Development Director, so long as they meet the following requirements: 1. Building Mounted Solar Energy Systems shall not exceed the designated height requirement of the principal structure in all zoning districts. 2. Non-Flush Mounted Solar Systems shall extend no more than three (3) feet above the surface of a roof at its exterior perimeter. 3. The visual impact of rooftop equipment on nearby properties shall be reduced through such means as location, screening, or integration into the roof design. Screening shall be of durable, permanent materials that are compatible with the primary building materials. 4. The structure upon which the Solar Energy System is mounted shall have the structural integrity to carry the weight of the Solar Energy System. 1 5. A building permit must be obtained before a mounted Solar Energy System shall be placed on a structure. B. Ground Mounted Solar Energy Systems shall be treated as an accessory structure and must follow the requirements for maximum height, setbacks, location, and lot coverage for accessory structures in its respective zoning district. C. Building Integrated Solar Energy System shall be considered a part of the structure rather than a separate entity. Building integrated systems need to follow the regulations set by the building code. Subdivision 4. Design and Performance Standards Design and performance standards for Solar Energy Systems are hereby established to meet the objectives of the City outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose and other provisions of this section. A. Compatibility with nearby properties: Screening solar energy systems shall utilize building materials, colors, and textures that are similar and compatible with the existing principal structure. B. Compliance. All systems shall be designed, constructed, and operated in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, codes, standards, and ordinances, as well as adhere to the requirements of local utilities if connected to utility lines. C. Encroachments and setbacks: 1. Solar Energy Systems shall comply with the minimum yard requirements of the zoning district in which they are located. 2. Solar Energy Systems shall comply with applicable regulations as established by the Minnesota State Building Code, chapter 1325. D. Interference. The Solar Energy System shall be designed to not cause electrical, radio frequency, television, and other communication signal interference. E. Maximum capacity. Solar Energy Systems shall have a rated capacity of not mare than one hundred (100) kilowatts. F. Maintenance required. All solar energy systems shall be kept in good repair and free from damaged supports, mounts, framework, or other components. 2 Gl��' �� Planning Department 763-593-80951763-593-8109(fax} � � �� a.;, ., . Date: May 13, 2013 To: Planning Cammission From: Brett Angell, Planning Intern Subject: Performance Zoning District- Northeast Corner of Olson Memorial Highway and Douglas Drive (Former Moratorium Area) ��. Purpose The City Council has directed staff to consider a new Performance Zoning District for the northeast corner of Olson Memorial Hwy and Douglas Drive. The purpose of the Performance Zoning Districts is to allow for development flexibility and special design control within sensitive areas of the City due to environmental or physical limitations. A performance district has the ability to attract acceptable commercial, industrial, recreational, institutional, and residential uses when controlling performance standards. It can encourage diversity in the community tax base through appropriate flexibility in land use and land use development. Conditional Uses The following are uses within a Performance Zoning District, which would only be permitted by a Conditional Use Permit: a. Multi- Family Residential b. Research and Development Operations c. Manufacturing d. Warehousing e. Professional and business offices f. Retail, wholesale and rental trades, commercial service, and repair facilities g. Restaurants, fast-food restaurants, hotels, motels, and other hospitality services h. Medical/dental services and related facilities, including hospitals and nursing homes and assisted living facilities i. Personal service establishments j. Government facilities and services k. Places of worship and related religious facilities I. Public and private educational institutions m. Public and private commercial and noncommercial recreation areas and open space n. Excavation operations o. Water-dependent structures p. Business center developments q. Membership clubs The City may also prohibit certain uses within the Performance Zoning District that are not appropriate for the area. The following uses are suggested not to be allowed within the Performance Zoning District: a. Adult oriented businesses b. Gas stations All conditional uses are allowed within the Performance zoning district provided that the following conditions or performance standards are met: 1. Traffic Generation demands shall not exceed the capacity of the area street system or add unreasonable increased volumes on area streets as determined by the following criteria: a. Standards established by the adopted City Comprehensive Plan b. Engineering design, construction, and capacity standards. 2. Street improvements shall be provided at the expense of the developer, sufficient to meet the need which is generated, but which do not endanger the traffic carrying capacity or function of the local or regional system. 3. No creation of smoke, dust, noise, odors or refuse that will adversely impact the adjoining properties. 4. No creation of drainage or pollution problems. 5. Architectural compatibility and building code compliance. 6. Adequate provision for property control and maintenance. 7. The proposed use will not create fiscal problems for the City or adversely impact the health, safety or welfare of the community. Dimensional Standards 1. Minimum front yard setback, buildings: a. Buildings with residential uses at ground level: ten (10) feet from edge of right-of- way. b. Buildings with nonresidential uses at ground level: no minimum setback. 2. Side yard setbacks: ten (10) feet. 3. Maximum height: six (6) stories. 4. Maximum impervious coverage. The maximum impervious coverage is eighty-five percent (85%). Enhanced Landscape Performance Standards The Performance Zoning District could have a separate landscape performance standards, which could help accomplish the following objectives: 1. Diminish potentially adverse impacts of structures, lighting glare, noise, wind velocities, and odors which could result from permitting widely varying land uses on adjacent parcels. 2. Promote an aesthetically pleasing relationship of scale between buildings and their natural surroundings. 3. Encourage a pedestrian-friendly environment through the inclusion of sidewalks, barrier- free street crossings, public benches, and bicycle racks. 4. Incentive Bonuses for green technology and or space.