The URL can be used to link to this page

08-21-14 CM Agenda Packet (entire) AGENDA Council/Manager Meeting Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room Thursday, August 21, 2014 6:30 pm Pages 1. Proposed City Code Amendment - Section 3 - Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) 2-7 (30 minutes) 2. Council Code of Ethics (20 minutes) 8-16 3. Moratorium on Recycling Centers (30 minutes) 17-22 4. Lot Depth and Lot Shape (1 hour) 23-28 5. Biennial 2015-2016 Proposed General Fund Budget (1.5 hours) 29 6. Board/Commission Vacancies (10 minutes) 30 Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council. L763 s document is availableinalternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call -593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request.: Examples of alternate formats y include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. city 0 golden Ar MEMORANDUM valley Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting August 21, 2014 Agenda Item 1. Fats, Oils, and Grease Ordinance Revisions/Additions Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Bert Tracy, Maintenance Manager Mitchell Hoeft, PE, Utility Engineer Summary Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) is defined as the buildup of greasy material in the sanitary sewer system; usually from animal or vegetable food sources that are discharged into a sink or floor drain. Over time, these discharges begin to build up on the interior walls of the sanitary sewer pipes, resulting in a decrease in capacity. These restrictions often result in sewer blockages and backups. In an attempt to minimize these issues, staff currently spends hundreds of hours cleaning and jetting the sewer lines in the City each year. In some extreme cases, specific lines are cleaned as often as once per week. In an ideal situation with the proper grease separation devices in place, these lines would only need to be cleaned every three years. This additional maintenance effort consumes City resources which could be better utilized on other utility maintenance issues. • Because the Golden Valley City Code does not currently require the removal of FOG, the City does not meet the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Rules 406.04 and 406.05 or the EPA National Pretreatment Program (40 CFR 403.5(b)(3)) which specifically prohibits the discharge of"solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause obstruction" into the wastewater collection system. To properly address this issue, staff has drafted an ordinance to achieve proper removal and disposal of FOG from the public sanitary sewer system. Of the 109 licensed food service providers in the City, only about half are restaurants that produce this type of FOG. Some of these facilities already have grease traps or interceptors installed, however, many do not. In addition to requiring these facilities to have the necessary equipment in place, this ordinance would also require each facility to be accountable for proper cleaning and maintenance of their equipment to ensure that they continue to work effectively. To ensure this accountability, each food service provider would be required to submit annual maintenance logs to the City for review. One of the program details that staff would like City Council guidance on is the implementation schedule for this ordinance, including installation of grease separation devices at food preparation facilities. Attachments • Proposed Ordinance Amending City Code Chapters 3.32, Discharge of Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) and Section 3.01 Definitions. (4 pages) CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE ADOPTING NEW SECTION 3.32: DISCHARGE OF FATS, OILS, AND GREASE (FOG) The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. Chapter 3 of the Golden Valley City Code is hereby amended include a new Section 3.32 to read in its entirety as follows: Section 3.32: Discharge of Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Subdivision 1. Installation Any existing, new, renovated, or expanded Food Service Facility must install a Grease Interceptor/Trap upon notice by the City that it has been determined that the Fat, Oil and Grease discharge from such Food Service Facility significantly impacts the City sewer system requiring undue additional maintenance. Upon notification, the Food Service Facility shall have a period of time stated in the notice, not exceeding one (1) calendar year, to install the Grease Interceptor/Trap. Subdivision 2. Design All Grease Interceptors/Traps must be designed and installed in accordance with the State of Minnesota Plumbing Code (MN Rule 4715) and the Hennepin County Environmental Health Department. Subdivision 3. Location All Grease Interceptors/Traps shall be located as to be readily and easily accessible for cleaning and inspection. Subdivision 4. Annual Maintenance Record By April 1 of each year, Food Service Facilities with Grease Interceptors/Traps must submit annual maintenance records to the City on a form that is provided by the City. The City may also perform periodic inspections of Food Service Facilities to ensure that Grease Interceptors/Traps are being properly maintained by each Food Service Facility. Subdivision S. Installation and Maintenance Policy and Procedures The City shall maintain an Installation and Maintenance Policy and Procedures which will document specific requirements of this Section. This policy will be available to each Food Service Facility at the City. Subdivision 6. Additional Control Measures The City reserves the right to require additional control measures if existing Grease Interceptors/Traps are determined to be insufficient to protect the wastewater collection system from interference due to the discharge of FOG from the Food Service Facility. Section 3. City Code Section 3.01 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows (struck text deleted, underlined text added): Section 3.ol: De 1nitionS As used in this Chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings stated: 1. Clear Water: is any surface flow, run off, and drainage that does not contain any hazardous substance or sewage. This includes but is not limited to NPDES permitted discharges, storm water and water from foundation and footing drains and basement or other sump pumps. 2. Consumer and Customer: mean any user of a utility. 3. Draintile: means a subsurface drainage and conveyance system of clear water and groundwater into the storm sewer system. 4. Food Service Facility: means any facility containing an operation that prepares, packages, serves, vends or otherwise provides food or which disposes of food related wastes. Food service facility does not include single or multi-family residential facilities, but does include institutional facilities and other facilities designated by the City Manager or his/her designee, as a facility that discharges enough FOG to have a significant impact on the City's Sanitary Sewer System. 5. Fats, Oils and Grease or FOG: means material composed primarily of fats, oils and grease from animal or vegetable sources. 6. Grease Interceptor/Trap: means a City-approved device for separating and retaining waterborne FOG prior to wastewater exiting the interceptor and entering the sanitary sewer collection and treatment system. 7. Infiltration: is an indirect connection of clear water into the sanitary sewer system. 8-5. Inflow: is any direct connection of clear water into the sanitary sewer system. 96. Interceptor Sewer: means that portion of the sanitary sewer system that extends outside of the City of Golden Valley and is owned, operated and maintained by the Metropolitan Council. 10-7. Inspector: means any peFSen duly autheFized by the City Manager or his/her designee, 118. Joint Water Commission (JWC): means the commission established through a joint powers agreement between the cities of Golden Valley, Crystal and New Hope to provide potable water to customers in the three cities. 129. Minneapolis Water Works (MWW): means a municipal water system owned and operated by the City of Minneapolis. 1319. Municipal Utility: means any city-owned utility system, including, but not limited to water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer service. 1434. Owner: means the person or entity that owns or holds the title of a property served by a municipal utility. 153-2. Sanitary Sewer System: includes all street lateral, main and intersecting sewers and structures by which sewage or industrial wastes are collected, transported, treated and disposed of; provided that this shall not include plumbing inside or a part of a building or premises served, or service sewers from a building to the sanitary sewer main. 163-3. Service: means providing a particular utility to a customer or consumer. 1744. Sewage: means water-carried waste products from residences, public buildings, institutions or other buildings or premises, including the excrement or other discharge from the bodies of human beings or animals. 1835. Sewer Service Lateral or Service Lateral: means that portion of the sanitary sewer system that generally is perpendicular to the sewer main and extends from the sewer main to the structure being served. 1936. Sewer Main: means that portion of the sanitary sewer system that is owned, operated and maintained by the City. The City portion of the sanitary sewer system is typically within street rights-of-way or easements. 203 . Storm Sewer: means a subsurface drainage facility that conveys storm water runoff and snow melt runoff into surface water bodies. 211.8. Sump Pump Inspection: means a visual examination of a sump pit and the pump and discharge piping designed to remove liquids therefrom. 223 . Trunk Water Main: means water mains larger than twelve (12) inches in diameter that distribute water throughout the distribution system and are owned by the Joint Water Commission and maintained by the City. 232-9. Utility: means all utility services, whether public, city-owned facilities, or furnished by public utility companies. 2421. Water Main: means that portion of the potable water distribution system that is twelve (12) inches in diameter and smaller, and is owned, operated and maintained by the City. 252 . Water Service: means that portion of the potable water system that is generally perpendicular to the water main that extends from the water main to the structure or group of structures being served. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 3.99 of City Code entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this day of , 2014. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk city 0.9 v lot f gotaen MEMORANDUM valley City Administration/Council 763-593-8003/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary for Action Golden Valley City Council/Manager Meeting August 21, 2014 Agenda Item 2. Council Code of Ethics Prepared By Thomas Burt, City Manager Summary At the Council goal setting earlier this year, Council requested that Council consider a code of ethics. Attached is information from the Minnesota Mayors Association "Minnesota Mayors Handbook" on meeting decorum, mayor-council relationship, open meeting law and a template code of conduct policy from the League of Minnesota Cities. If the Council would like to move forward with a policy, the Council should identify what they would like to be included in a policy. Attachments • Meeting Decorum (2 pages) • Mayor-Council Relationship (2 pages) • Open Meeting Laws (2 pages) • Template Code of Conduct (2 pages) MINNESOTA •• III. Meeting decorum Meeting decorum may be an aspect of the city council's bylaws or it may be a separate set of expectations and rules that may or may not be formally adopted in written form. Decorum is more easily enforced,however,when expectations are written. A. Typical decorum requirements See Minnesota Mayors Typical rules of decorum require councilmembers to: Association Sample City Council Bylaws. • Refrain from private conversation while in the council chamber that interrupts the proceedings of the council. • Refrain from the use of offensive words,threats of violence,or other objectionable language in or against the council or against any member. • Limit speech to subject of current debate. • Abide by time limits for speaking. More modern policies on decorum may also emphasize: • Refraining from the use of cell phones or other personal electronic devices during meetings. In addition to being a decorum problem,this may also create problems under the Open Meeting Law. • Allowing the use of cameras,video,and other recording devices,but requiring them to be used in an unobtrusive manner that does not disrupt or delay the meeting. Rules of decorum are often also established to govern the conduct of the public when participating in meetings. B. Enforcing decorum among councilmembers Council meetings on important community issues may become contentious very quickly.Establishing rules of decorum before a controversy arises can prevent meetings from becoming unproductive due to conflict.On occasion,however, members of the council may not follow the rules.On these occasions,the mayor's role as the meeting's presiding officer is particularly important. See Minnesota Mayors Bylaws may vary from city to city.Generally,however,when councilmembers Association Sample City Council Bylaws. violate rules of order and decorum,the presidingofficer is authorized to: • Not recognize a breaching councilmember's request to speak,limiting their role in debate until decorum is observed. • Declare the councilmember's actions out of order. • Order removal from the council chambers by law enforcement until the Mim aom councilmember agrees to abide by council rules of decorum. Maym Assoo6tion MINNESOTA • HANDBOOK In addition, if provided in the council's policy,generally any councilmember (including the mayor),may make a motion to censure a councilmember for conduct that breaches decorum.A censure often takes the form of a resolution adopted by council vote noting the councilmember's conduct and expressing disapproval of such conduct. Minn.scat.§609.72. State law also prohibits persons, including councilmembers,from disturbing public meetings,through fighting or threatening words and conduct. Councilmembers who engage in this unlawful conduct may be charged with a misdemeanor. Minnesota Mayors Association MINNESOTA De IV. Mayor-council relationship Because the mayors of statutory cities lack significant individual authority,the key to a successful mayor-council relationship often lies in recognizing the mayor's role(and its limits)and working from there to build productive partnerships with fellow councilmembers. A. Meetings and the mayor-council relationship Because of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law,most interaction between mayor and council will occur in public during an open meeting where the mayor is the See chapter 3. presiding officer.As a result,meeting management and meeting decorum are key to developing a successful mayor-council relationship. Some keys to success in this area include: • Presiding officers should not dominate discussion. In most cities,the mayor participates equally in council meetings.Generally the mayor has the same right as any other councilmember to discuss issues,make and second motions,and vote. Since the mayor is also a presiding officer at meetings,this can create a difficult situation on issues where the mayor may have strong views.In recognition of their dual role as See Minnesota Mayors participant and meeting facilitator,mayors may choose to limit their Association Sample City comments or save their comments until all other members have had a Council Bylaws. chance to voice their views.However,this is not a legal requirement, just common practice. If the mayor has particularly strong views on an issue,some city policies on meeting management allow the mayor to step aside as presiding officer and for the appointment of a temporary presiding officer. • Presiding officers should allow all participants to speak and present their views. The role of the presiding officer is to facilitate the discussion.Most city policies on meeting management prohibit speaking out of turn,and require the presiding officer to recognize a councilmember prior to speaking. The reason for this requirement is to prevent the inevitable disorder and confusion of many voices speaking at once. It also greatly simplifies the work of the minute taker and allows an accurate record to be created.Mayors should not use this authority to silence political opponents or suppress views with which the mayor does not agree. • Presiding officers should know and enforce applicable city policies on meeting management and/or rules of procedure. Successful meetings require leadership to keep participants on task. Most city policies on meeting management specify expected conduct for meetings that is essential to an organized meeting. For example,time limits on comments by participants,procedures for being recognized by the presiding officer before speaking, limits on public participation,formal language for making and amending motions, and procedures for voting. If the presiding officer is not familiar with or does not enforce the city policies or rules,often there is little recourse for other meeting ® Minnesota Mparticipants to enforce the rules themselves.This may create frustration, Mayo delay or unduly extend meetings, lead to confusion over actions taken, and potentially create embarrassment for the council as a whole. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK • Presiding officers should model and enforce decorum. The mayor is in a unique position,as the presiding officer at city council meetings,to model meeting decorum,civility, and respect.The mayor should conduct meetings in a manner that encourages open discussion of issues and honest differences of opinion,without the use of personal attacks, name calling or scapegoating.Civility and decorum,perhaps more than any other factor—both inside meetings and outside–is the key to building successful relationships with council. B. Keys to team building success Many observers of government have linked city success with the ability of the mayor and council to work together as a team.Both inside meetings and during one-to-one interactions,mayors can promote a team model of government by: • Sharing information freely. Mayors sometimes play a unique role for the city in meeting with citizens,business representatives,and other governmental officials and dignitaries. In addition,mayors may have unique duties as meeting leaders, agenda setters,emergency managers, and public spokespersons,depending on each city's policies.As a result,mayors often obtain vital information related to the city's operations before other councilmembers and even city staff.Timely sharing of information equally with all stakeholders and in an inclusive manner is a key to successful team building.It is important to stress, however,that information should only be shared in a manner that complies with all legal requirements such as the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. • Communicating honestly. On occasion,bad news is both the hardest news to convey and the most vital.Not everything in your city will be a total success.While there may be a temptation to resolve a short-term dilemma by providing only partial information to fellow councilmembers,this approach can have long-term and long-lasting negative effects.Failing to communicate honestly erodes trust and may damage the city council's ability to make collaborative decisions. • Working collaboratively to establish visions,goals,and priorities. When priorities and policies are set collaboratively they often have greater stakeholder buy-in.Knowing that their position was at least considered often goes a long way in satisfying councilmembers whose positions ultimately do not prevail. ®Minnesota da Assodarion MINNESOTA MAYORS • A. Open Meeting Law Minn.Stat.§ 13D.01,suba.1. With only a few exceptions, all city council meetings or gatherings must be open to the public.This rule applies not only to meetings of council,but meetings of any committee or subcommittee of council,as well as any board, department,or commission formed under the city's authority. Moberg v.Indep.Soh.Dist No. The law does not define the term"meeting."The Minnesota Supreme Court, 281, N. (Minn. 1983).St.Cloud Newspapers, however,has ruled that under the Open Meeting Law,meetings are gatherings Inc.v.Dist.742 Community where a quorum or more of the council or other governing body,or of a 1983). Schools,332 N.w.2d 1(Minn. committee, board,department, or commission of the city council or other governing body are present,and at which the members intentionally discuss, decide,or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that body. The Open Meeting Law does not generally apply in situations where less than a quorum of the council is involved.However, serial meetings in groups of less than a quorum that are held in order to avoid the requirements of the Open Meeting Law may be found to violate the law,depending on the specific facts. Minn.Stat.§412.191,suba.2. As a result,while a mayor can call special meetings,in order to avoid the appearance of a serial meeting,the mayor shouldn't call a special meeting by directly contacting other councilmembers. In most cities,the mayor has the authority to lead meetings.Therefore,it's critical that the mayor be familiar with the Open Meeting Law and its exceptions.Again,meetings of council must generally be open.In the following cases,however,the council must close a meeting: Minn.Stat.§ 13D.05,suba. a Meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an 2(b).Minn.Stat.§13.43,suba. 2(4). individual subject to the public body's authority(unless the individual wants the meeting held open). Minn.Stat.§13D.05,suba.2. . portions of meetings at which any of the following data is discussed: o Data that would identify alleged victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct,domestic abuse,or maltreatment of minors or vulnerable adults. o Internal affairs data relating to allegations of law enforcement personnel misconduct or active law enforcement investigative data. o Educational data,health data,medical data,welfare data,or mental health data that are non-public data. o An individual's medical records governed by the Minnesota Health Records Act. And in the following cases,the council may close the meeting: Minn.Stat.§13D.03.Minn. • Meetings to consider strategies for labor negotiations. Stat.§13D.01,subd.3. Minn.Stat.§ 13D.05,suba.3. 0 Meetings to evaluate the performance of an individual subject to the public Minn.Stat.§ 13D.01,suba.3. body's authority(unless the individual wants the meeting held open). ®Minnesota a. Mayors Association MINNESOTA MAYORs HANDBOOK Minn.Stat.§13D.05,subd.3. • Meetings between council and its attorney to discuss active,threatened,or Prior Lake American v.Mader, pending litigation when the balancing of the purposes served by the 642 x.w.2d 729(Minn.2002). attorney-client privilege against those served by the Open Meeting Law dictates the need for absolute confidentiality. Minn.Stat.§13D.05,subd.3. • Meetings to determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold,review confidential or protected nonpublic appraisal data,or develop/consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of property. Minn.Stat.§13D.05,subd.3. • Meetings to receive security briefing and reports,to discuss issues related to security systems,to discuss emergency response procedures,and to discuss security deficiencies in or recommendations regarding public services, infrastructure,and facilities. Minn.Stat.§ 13D.05,subd. i Except for meetings closed under the attorney-client privilege,all closed (d). meetings must be electronically recorded. Ma Asso�bation Template Code of Conduct .01. Purpose. The city council of the City of determines that a code of conduct for its members, as well as the members of the various boards and commissions of the City of , is essential for the public affairs of the city. By eliminating conflicts of interest and providing standards for conduct in city matters, the city council hopes to promote the faith and confidence of the citizens of in their government and to encourage its citizens to serve on its council and commissions. .02. Standards of Conduct. Subd. 1. No member of the city council or a city board or commission may knowingly: a. Violate the open meeting law. b. Participate in a matter that affects the person's financial interests or those of a business with which the person is associated, unless the effect on the person or business is no greater than on other members of the same business classification, profession, or occupation. c. Use the person's public position to secure special privileges or exemptions for the person or for others. d. Use the person's public position to solicit personal gifts or favors. e. Use the person's public position for personal gain. f. Except as specifically permitted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 471.895, accept or receive any gift of substance, whether in the form of money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, promise, or any other form, under circumstances in which it could be reasonably expected to influence the person, the person's performance of official action, or be intended as a reward for the person's official action. g. Disclose to the public, or use for the person's or another person's personal gain, information that was gained by reason of the person's public position if the information was not public data or was discussed at a closed session of the city council. h. Disclose information that was received, discussed, or decided in conference with the city's legal counsel that is protected by the attorney-client privilege unless a majority of the city council has authorized the disclosure. i. Represent private interests before the city council or any city committee, board, commission or agency. (optional) Subd. 2. Except as prohibited by the provisions of Minn. Stat Sec. 471.87, there is no violation of subdivision 1 b. of this section for a matter that comes before the council, board, or commission if the member of the council, board, or commission publicly discloses the circumstances that would violate these standards and refrains from participating in the discussion and vote on the matter. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit a contract with a member of the city council under the circumstances described under Minn. Stat. Sec. 471.88, if proper statutory procedures are followed. Created by the League of Minnesota Cities Ethics Advisory Panel October 2009 r r .03. Complaint, Hearing. Any person may file a written complaint with the city clerk alleging a violation of the standards of conduct in section .02. The complaint must contain supporting facts for the allegation. The city council may hold a hearing after receiving the written complaint or upon the council's own volition. A hearing must be held only if the city council determines (1) upon advice of the city attorney, designee, or other attorney appointed by the council, that the factual allegations state a sufficient claim of a violation of these standards or rise to the level of a legally-recognized conflict of interest, and (2) that the complaint has been lodged in good faith and not for impermissible purposes such as delay. The city council's determination must be made within 30 days of the filing of the allegation with the city clerk. If the council determines that there is an adequate justification for holding a hearing, the hearing must be held within 30 days of the city council's determination. At the hearing, the person accused must have the opportunity to be heard. If after the hearing,the council finds that a violation of a standard has occurred or does exist, the council may censure the person, refer the matter for criminal prosecution, request an official not to participate in a decision, or remove an appointed member of an advisory board or commission from office. Created by the League of Minnesota Cities Ethics Advisory Panel October 2009 city 0 golden MEMORANDUM va-Rey Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting August 21, 2014 Agenda Item 3. Moratorium on Recycling Centers Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary At the July 1 City Council meeting a six month moratorium was approved that prohibited the establishment of any recycling centers in the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts. The Planning Commission discussed possible revisions to the zoning code at its meeting on July 28 and suggested the following considerations: 1. Revise the way in which recycling centers are defined so that there are at least two categories: "low intensity" and "high intensity" uses, for example - and allow the less intense use to locate in the Light Industrial Zoning District and restrict the more intense use to the Industrial Zoning District. One potential distinction may be facilities that collect typical household recyclable items and facilities that accept materials collected from commercial or industrial uses. 2. Potentially define a minimum distance that any facilities must keep from single family uses. 3. Limit not only the types of recycling uses, but also clearly describe how operations may take place on site. One example would be to prohibit outdoor storage of materials and require all operations to take place indoors. Attachments • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated July 28, 2014 (2 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated July 28, 2014 (2 pages) • Zoning Map (1 page) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 9 roposals' Baker said it would be ha to make a decision if there aren't any quirements. Kluchka said he want good math to use as a guideline, but h§Aants the a 'lity to have discretion. Zimmerma said he doesn't think state statutes. w for dis etion, but additional requireme s could be put in the Zoning Cod ;'' aldhauser adde hat the more flexibility in the equirements, the more uncert� ty property owners have a t what they own, and if th y are able to subdivide their...roperty. She said she would pre r to use a set number, r her than the lot depth, to., termine the rear yard setback. Ba said he also likes th idea of a fixed numbe..x- or the rear yard setback requirement. ' Baker said he woul a to see mor analysis of pr , erties that required the minimum lot width to be maintain for a dist a ce of 300/6 the lot. He said he also likes the requirement that remove t area fr m the tot 'square footage that doesn't have the minimum required width. KI ka q stione ",f that would limit the buildable area. He said he would like an opinion t Cit .'Attorney about allowing the Planning Commission to have more discre wly n reviewing subdivision applications, or possibly not having a public hearini he Planning Commission doesn't have a choice about recommending approval or d i Grimesstatedthat state statute requires cities to have the public hearing proce The consensus of the Planning Co ission w to recommend that new lots not only meet the minimum width (8. feet) a he front set k line (35 feet in the R-1 zoning district), but maintain that, idth con uously to a po 70 feet into the lot. Also, to modify the way in whic ear yard s backs are calcul d in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts so that they e a set distan a of 25 feet instea a percentage of the total lot depth. f hort Recess-- . � 6. Rep, on Meetings of the ousing and Redevelopment Au rity, City Co ncil, Board of Zoning A peals and other Meetings Wald user gave an update on a B ineau meeting she attended. J chka gave an update on the rece t Community Center Task Force meeting that he ttended. 7. Other Business • Discussion Regarding Recycling Centers Zimmerman stated that the SIFCO site on Winnetka Avenue was being considered as a possible location for a recycling center use. Staff realized that the Zoning Code definition of a recycling center includes crushing, shredding, baling or compacting Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 10 materials such as auto bodies and scrap metal. The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to discuss the need to update both the definition of recycling centers, and the appropriateness of recycling centers as a permitted use in the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts. Kluchka asked if the Council is considering redeveloping that area. Zimmerman said redeveloping that area is a discussion the Council wants to have. They also want to determine what types of recycling centers to allow. Grimes added that he is concerned about industrial properties that are located close to Single Family Residential properties. Baker said he is convinced that there should be more than one category for recycling. He said he also wants to be clear about what the City wants, and doesn't want. He asked if the Council's mostly concerned about noise. Zimmerman said the concern is noise, storage and the increased number of large trucks. Waldhauser agreed it would be helpful to have defined categories. Grimes suggested requiring there to be a minimum distance from Single Family residential properties. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to create at least two categories for recycling centers, one for low intensity typical household recyclable items, and one for high intensity for more commercial or industrial items. The less intense uses could potentially be allowed in the Light Industrial zoning district and the more intense uses could be allowed in the Industrial zoning district. The Commission also recommended defining a minimum distance that a recycling center must be from Single Family residential properties, and to consider the possibility of allowing recycling centers with a Conditional Use Permit. • Council Liaiso Report o report was given. 8. djournment The meetin as adjour ed at 10:10 Chart D. Segelbau Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant city o go1dcnO4,t ^ artment valley Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: July 28, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Subject: Discussion of Zoning Code Text Amendments– Recycling Centers Background The City Council has directed Staff to bring to the attention of the Planning Commission the possible need to update both the definition of Recycling Centers in the Zoning Code and the reconsideration of the appropriateness of Recycling Centers as permitted uses within the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts. Recycling Centers are defined in Section 11.03, Subd. 79 as "Any area or structure, whether privately or publicly owned and operated, that engages in recycling or reclamation of metals, paper, or other materials including crushing, shredding, baling or compacting materials such as auto bodies, scrap metal, etc." In Section 11.35, Subd. 3(G) Recycling Centers are listed as permitted uses, "including the recycling of metals and other materials" without any additional quantitative or qualitative requirements or restrictions. The Council expressed concern that some types of high intensity recycling centers might be allowed to locate in areas of close proximity to residential uses and/or could conduct some of their recycling operations outdoors. Research Staff investigated the definitions and requirements of Recycling Centers in many other communities and was able to generalize the findings in a way that may offer suggestions as to how Golden Valley could rewrite their zoning ordinance if they so choose. First, many cities separate out the broader category of Recycling Centers into at least two sub- categories—often defined as "low" vs. "high" intensity or "minor" vs. "major" facilities. Typical use of the low intensity or minor recycling facility is for household goods such as bottles, cans, plastics, newspapers, etc. High, or major, recycling facilities are often targeted for materials from commercial or industrial uses. Some zoning codes also separately distinguish the recycling of"green" materials such as yard waste and compost. Second, there are occasionally limits placed on the location of the Recycling Center with respect to any other Recycling Center in the City and/or in relation to residential properties–especially single family homes. Finally, most descriptions include details about how operations are to be conducted, including requirements that dumping and sorting take place indoors,the prohibition on outdoor storage of materials, and limits as to the types/intensities of operations that may be conducted on-site (prohibiting the crushing of cars, for example). Current Issues This discussion was generated by the interest expressed in the former SIFCO site (2430 Winnetka Avenue North) by a scrap metal recycler. Even though the potential owner would conduct their site operations indoors and would not recycle automobiles, the realization that more intense uses— including the crushing of cars or the shredding of metals—are currently allowed on this site prompted the City Council to pass a six month moratorium on any recycling centers until the zoning issues around them could be examined. Recommendation Staff has been asked to report back to the City Council at the August Council/Manager meeting. Staff recommends the Planning Commission look at the following three items and offer guidance: 1. Should Golden Valley continue to define one type of Recycling Center or are two or more categories more appropriate? In which zoning districts should they be allowed? Should they be permitted uses or conditional uses? 2. What limits should be considered for the location of any type of Recycling Center, if any? Distance from residential areas? Distance from other Recycling Centers? 3. What operational requirements or prohibitions should be considered? Outdoor vs. indoor storage of materials? Metal shredding? Car crushing? Etc. Attachments Zoning Map (1 page) C_ . �'_�m.a�ir-' a,r,s»x_-'i : � �,n � � . � �� i,�� , o o�..a...� ��....j y i ° ' ��n � � a �o �� wz � � ��.� ��T� �-ryr, � ;�� Zonin Districts � : �o. ,09 � � g � � �� ¢ � � � ,o� � v,i e a .,, E, ; . . . °��'�- _ = a ` � = i � Single Family(R-1) Off�c�al Zon�ng Map d a� n � ��..ad � �� U� � I . � 0 Moderate Density(R-2)Residential :; -" ;; 0 Medium Density(R-3)Residential �� CIT1 O�N1.4V HOPE � I e�»�� . o�•" � � ,-�L+_��va�a�-.�.,�- - - ,,,,�-- �.,�,,.�--�--�,�— ------ NEAv xo -- IT��-R_'_—L �� ---- -- ; ... ; High Density(R-4)Residendal CITY OF PE j C Y51'A ,�� 7T- 76� '" � n,��p �'� 1 ( � w' ' "•^�'""• _ ` J i CITY OF RORft[NSDALF � s i � ....� p, ,, V� 8 - �o�¢•� � `i a d .��aa -----�--�--- ��,..F ----------�----� I-394 Mixed Use Me�aer .,ai.r .o�..oi� . Nenne ,.,.�i...o . I,.n � � ao$ _ , . Subdistrict A �ew R se �P=0 3 n�� O �'� � P� wrmv a ... cawnuneEau�.nmceno .mxlhi•'� axe - � " � �, _ . , ; �"rH�� A''�»°.'.; e,�, . .,.o acaux� , =i o - Subdistrict B M�e R se-�v�o s nor��: , � = s e . a � - „ � ❑� _ � S= � }"`eaa - � = n �,, wawra�eres ,w,e ��. a �� y . ranns � .�I i� . � =a..r •: mams �I , a a i f.7` � 55 - i y � L] _,,,...� C. �. _•.��•^ Saa 4� - ' � 5 + . �.�',k - Hi hRise-u tol0stones Nx(um . w i 9 1� ..., , �. RQ o"� . .a' „�z Subdistrict C • � 9 P � : . .. . � . ! � : ,wm„4�F � � i - . - ., a ,vny p w..�„.w.. � m oo.xa ,.o ��Z 1 e�r^° . , � e . � . � �.. � � . ' ` 5 0. � � . ... __ '"' - � � u. a. O L min IC� �. �� . o w, ,'" Ea,,.,� �a � �.s.,.o. � ;36 w,,.,..�,�,.a, ,� r�� p � �,�� 0p��o - Co erc' 1 U�8' � _ •Lri ; ,,.,a �.jfi:.. �a4,n sew xw vaa . , . ; . . ` _ � � _ � vF..,... x �' z . � ; a a � e, @uselt •T n �1 � , eq . �.. �. . , : ,m „ ..w xa . . ... _ � I F , , „ :y , � , c , Light I dus . . � ��;, � .- �., $ , �, �,a,o ;� _ � _ �.t . : _ ;i Med�ane, E.,� „��,.� o �= a �,�� _ a'�i ^ �, I'1 , , e , . R , . .. a a ; _ x � . � : > iake � � ° ' � p =°,.... �� Y ' � ness&Profes , , . . .,: n � �' - �� sa s�� : .�.,,� _ � � � a � P� � � i Busi sionalOffices o� ; � �. ��> a ..:.a - ' S°3 � �a +?� , .� , . e�nr�. _ : r n -.� . � �M� i x : a �.', ^ n x � p. u a 1 ..wra.a y , _ > . a� n �. e� .i .....�... _r a - s , � . _ � ,.�a - ' � , . . � -- u��.,. _ ; . s fi \ . . ,.-, ., ��u.��..<, e ;� ; _ :'R�r.o d � 7-A µ . , n ,�omqaa�d�n«�:nea�e�-aeom,ihvm�ew�l� a �;_ .P..�. .. � �� , � r : . - .,4 �` = Institutio al F �Q N.Rrm�ra» � i.� ..rv J _ .� ....av e ' � . � �� ry � e.i / a.n.. _ � u ..' _ : sea GM1ad�11 d Me C' Cotle,IYbE lanE Use RegupM1m ) � •� _ SN,IB^Itl �= a � � ,�.,.,...� ��„� , s��, e....� �sa ' � \, � � � �-1)Sub-District��,��,e�.�,a��,ea, ��_. °�,.a�:; 83 ' w�." o�m��.� or�.,� � _ � = o�.mo,. � . pa ,..,...� ,��' ` .«„a...e _ P� _ Pm-� � rnrar�o:.r�.,:r,��a�dioves,em� um�» a a �� ,� �� I-2�SUb-DISft1Ct(� �� „�n m,,.,.�.�� w�,m�.s� z� j � ��"' w�,a.H n � � � (I-3)Sub-Dish'ict d��em ��a�n:a�a � . . � � . . � (nursin9 homes Pnv � . .n,., Pa" _ �p1191 _ e1 . _ ,,,o s` ` . 74 Theodore Wirth � �j 0 (I-4)Sub-District�9�"°°�rs°��GS,War<xo�nas and i � a � - � T ��^^r � . , , � � . s � : p,� . � � FtegionalPark � v��emmen ea � ' � >,.o��...� _ 6 , .oa�a, > �, �MPis aa.�s ae�aoard} e - (I-5)Sub-District«em�tM«,��, � � .o.�,...A � n .�� 5�e v ,m.°�„o � _ �. ..� . . a ' ' ° " �� - ' � 59 Planned Unit Devel p en (PUD) � � �. ,'� £ � °� _, _ _ ; � .. , � o�. , _ "� .,,ro<w< , z� _S ` �.��a=p o m t � � n�e. - p = s �� °�^ � �� a �� `�', ��.�, � � i� � � � '�"�_ I-394 Overlay Zoning District(Zones A,B,C) � .�. ; y zz ��,.,.,, � ' me,,.ea< ` '% ' t ,;N x eE '! •°� �"•.,,�� '��:. ` Flood Plain Management Zoning Overlay District ..i � ,o��.... . . .. . N„� ..:. . �o�», . ._. � '__._._... 99 -j � T . . - s'� S M "OA-al Fboe Zone Profik aM Map on fle wM IM1e C' The cokmon of botl profiks i . � 96 �M ''..; `�#• -. � � ,�, i � : Y ,� ....� �� 0^e �w. ; .:. � c ' ., i ' .00 ... � �� W tl' ihe Fbod Insurzntt SNtly VaWmes 1 ot2 arM 2 ot 2.Mennepin Gau MnnewU � �� a q`� � . � II I -�a ns,dateE September 2.2004�nduJing the FboE Imvnrice Rah Maps k�tlie Cily j „ ... U�`��.-- � (�':, � �'�� ` � u �., .. .- j ol Goltlen VaReY PaneR 2]053C0194 E.27053CO213 E.2705]CO21I E.2�9553CO3]2 E. I � :'... a � � �'�. ��^ u�� , z i � 27053C0351 E 2]053G0352 E anE 2]053C0350 E.Aaled SeplemEer 2 2004. i- � # ,: 51 � ��3 - . .. }} . :�. ,. - 56 _. . �. c/�.m: ky,h.;�y � w.n. �' " q2 By � ( �. i 25 °� - 9 .� � � Sv�ysr fi1 � � i.. / : M'u. . � i o ;a� , , i ` Shoaeland Oa M�lay District .i 77 = A � . 79 7� . 59 �33 � /• .. � for setback tlislaiwerhom prole Tetl walers. � �� : � � .. ,.. . , us. � � .�' I . ; , .. �o�c.. a. � i ' �55 ES . '.�., 72 "` . a..... ., ,..,,, .. _ ,, . < = . _.�v;^ . H_ �.w \ I a�� .. ¢�+�,....,.. �0 47 � �... , _ ' s;r � � s .a� n,.� . 55" '"" s'.. P'fDafe:f1/2J2013 � , 39 _ �e � ` � _ _ � � � � ; �. . � „ � °^^ . ��- , � »°;S ` � � ` Ha��e�� co�� s��.-o om�ro.a�o u�.:zm3 C �,,,,�r s�,o�s.a; x .Re .� ,a, _ y comenv r auan. y, � I 1 � a ' o .,,.,n , m _. ... . ,�„�., � � . ��i' ,. �\ �28 = y ca oip ene ro:� ria . .,: � - d' . �.�„ �� .�,. . . .. ,�- . > � , . 34 . _ , � �� 8 � . , , � . . , ...� - .. .� { � w I'th � n . � .�o� � �° :1 ..� ... .• ��.,.. .< �e �.�y, t .o�.,. ' .., � y,.a F � _ ,� - . . ; _ �< = > > , . � a : �! � : .,.,n�� _ . a a rs _ , �' a veM• .oa.,�...... . > -`_ - g � , - w . ,; �._; �; . ��,��oq , a ,�Ai x .n I � , ' - ��i O o aoo ^soo i.soo �z.aoo a.zoo . � o ° �-� � ' � ° � � Lake � �� ,,.. . „�•r a �_.�o.. : �' e,9�� ,.x=.�<, n ' .�, � i a �.« m, [-� . c..... ' � � .,.,., m e � o �o � Z � 5 0 0 'i rw•� "°°"° , e�R.� � _ ` P� S8 �9�� o�.,, i ;� � _ f . ,,,� • �,; ,�4 s�`"`" �°''� %e P�"'"`: _ � �° „ 3 .�, £; � d Amendments: O�cial Zoning Map . ., 4 ,,, � Approve ,,- � . �, • NRsh+rnAvenue � � . �s .; � . / ,� h»rsn = , � < � "" Ciry Council - r „ a , ., -� �. -� . _. �`, �..__mw__d,. � � � � � �� _ °` - � „ � ; .Po� � : , � w , ;= { ;. c° ;a c � :e. .., .; <.d .A�p�ib ._' �. k ...� . . . -.1 ... w.,e�.... od � � , co.xrxaaa ,mn , in a,oxec� c Ci . . ... .&�&s�... ., . '" ` s o � " a cG �'.�! �, , ` � .. . » e a�cn.,m - "�`f,y ' _ _ , . � Ordinance Number Comments . ; . � p . Q „ , � �_,.... • a �a a Q .. . _ - <.o �.,va.. ° aa � . . � , �,. ,3�,P�a �,.�, . � . . n.� , . � .• - .o�w� LL� ^ 'I Date 0 . �, � e � ,,.,` S . ;3 < '< aa snA�.. a� g o ..;-'' �� . . . n, .e � a .. � � e � , e s . smea o = u y , . - y o.��r .a � ,.� '"'_"_'_"_' '_'__ ______"____"_" Ado tion �169� 94 :? "e . . � � � ,� � •P�J � ' . _ _ .. _ . . o . � � s , • �. >i.� � � . , � Fx.�w ""^nn ..,r�. � � _ z 3 - - ' cen...c.s W , � .. � � �I � g ` "' �,.e°'o� e �J � �m C � _` �� @ �a� ; . � ' dw.�... w�,00.,.ae f `%% . ...� � . , � I . , \ � " � �' � . - o��..n�..�.. p., '�� ,� ' oew.�o. . u� ' i� �� i ' I� i S,�n e�`� 7s-A 4�� , .��..,,aa ,� �� ORDINANCE NO.271,2ND SERIES , I,� . F��: �,�„ = .. : _ �. , , -� ; _ r r��„,,,� �. ... ,,.„ � �too . ^�.t �z � This is to certify ihat this is the OHaal Zoning Ma referred to in Secfion 11.71 j ��:' „ _ -.�-- --�--'—� . a =,,,,,,� �� , �" _ .. .. - p„'" of the Zoning Chapter ot the Ciry Code ot the Ciry of Golden Valky. _- ., /� �� — .. • // .,� , : � , � I .z �� ,,,, �_� ;�'�B ; ,��^� ��, _��////�� - � ` ,� Adopted lhis 22nd day of November 2002. -�c�� :.-67� � �� ' � �//� /aj/ �//'/I/ �// � ii l� .. . � :yc^J�--�✓L,n,9`W // � v .. ... • - , I . , � %' r, � 4�`,,, � {/ �i!� ef/�j /��/ /////! � � s s��', �=Y , ' i / N E t , .o,.y.. , � �� .ii j;/�,, : o � ,��"� x�,ar�a� ..._ .. . s ,,,.: ��.., �ilr� . .,,,,�A� �/i j�� ' �//%�/// � <a.- - ' � -.N � �„ ,.. � �_ l �/ � j,�, . , . ., '�' � ' / � / //� �� w\� /� � �.�- ��/✓K� j �.'� . : . E�.aa�w�m � ,. ,�:�� /��. //j//j//// �� U LNDAR.LOOMIS MAYOR �-� �"��`� �� , I � _ ��_.,,.�..__�.,.,a ��, J . .._. �' /i � -•- �..�..... �---�-----. �.-'-'-- -- � / �. �._ �� _: �:� „>, GL7QO/011M.cd- CITY OF ".. ._'"_ '_'__"'-_"'__'___'_'_'_' '__' . . + . � , _ �.i ` {� .a.a. I I 3J j r „ � � sr.Lovis rwxx Vv8SfW00('/ e; � ....... ,..,,:i _� . .. . i:F--� � .f--""" -.,, .< -� � �� .�.m_:+ � Lake CITY OF ST.LOUIS P.1RK �� , i � ' �°` � �� ' i -�4 %` ,.,a � �,«- E Attest: � � ciry of Goiaen Valley , � _ ! / , � � � DONAL�D'G AYLOR, CITY CLERK ��g� Plan ing Department I�d 3 r••, � �t�. 7800 Goltlen Valley Road y� .,�° a ; � , j B r o w n i e � Lake Golden Valley.MN SSd27A588 � �:-. ,.,<„ ;� Suum`^ � . 763-593-8095 � jf' o . 0>,.9 ^ ryrol� i www.golCenvalleymn.gov � ..� - �°�` 1-.VAaps�ZoningMap.pOf city 0 golden MEMORANDUM valley Planning Department artment 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting August 21, 2014 Agenda Item 4. Lot Depth and Lot Shape Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Summary At the July 28 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission continued the discussion surrounding lot subdivision and addressing lot irregularity. Staff presented four potential additional requirements that would impact both the "bulk" of new lots as well as the shape. After reviewing a number of past subdivisions and how they would have (or would not have) been impacted by these requirements had they been in place, the Planning Commission made two suggestions for the City Council to consider: 1. Require that new lots not only meet the minimum width (80 feet) at the front setback line (35 feet in the R-1 Zoning District), but maintain that width continuously to a point 70 feet into the lot. 2. Modify the way in which rear setbacks are calculated in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts so that they are a set distance (25 feet was recommended) instead of a percentage of the total lot depth. Attachments • Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes dated July 28, 2014 (2 pages) • Memo to the Planning Commission dated July 28, 2014 (3 pages) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 8 Findings: 1. oth lots of the proposed subdi sion meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Zoning 2. The City Engine ds that the R is are builda 3. The addition of the ne will of place ai a strain on City utility systems. Conditions: 1. The City Attorney willfete"imine f a title 'ew is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. '. ' 3. The City En ' eer's memorand Im, dated July 7, 2 shall become part of this appro 4. A pplicable City permits shal Abe obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 5. Continued Discussion Regarding Lot Depth and Shape Zimmerman noted that this is part of the on-going discussion about lot width, depth and shape. He explained that the Zoning Code defines lot depth as the mean horizontal distance between the front (street) line and the rear lot line. He stated that lots are not required to be a certain depth; however, the rear yard setback requirement in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts is determined using the lot depth (20% of lot depth). He stated that Golden Valley's Subdivision Code uses the shortest distance between the front and rear lot lines when calculating lot depth. He added that, similar to lot width, lot depth is difficult to calculate for unusually shaped lots. He discussed other communities' lot depth requirements, and noted that approximately half of the surrounding communities he researched use the average depth, and the other half use the shortest distance between the front and rear lot lines. He stated that for cities using the average depth calculation, they define the rear yard setback as a set distance, typically 25 feet, rather than a percentage. Using this method removes the complication of calculating the average depth. Zimmerman next discussed lot shape. He showed the Commissioners several examples of past subdivision proposals, and explained four different tests he did on each of the examples. The first the test requires the minimum lot width to be maintained for a distance of 30% of the lot, the second test removes lot area from the total square footage that doesn't have the minimum required width, the third test requires a minimum width at the midpoint of the lot, and the fourth test is to use an "irregularity test" of p2/A = X with a cutoff of 22 being too irregular. Segelbaum asked if the current Subdivision Code permits variances. Grimes said the Subdivision Code states that the requirements of the Zoning Code need to be met when subdividing property. Kluchka asked if a recommendation can be made stating that the Planning Commission would like to have discretion, and not just rely on math, when reviewing subdivision Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 9 proposals. Baker said it would be hard to make a decision if there aren't any requirements. Kluchka said he wants good math to use as a guideline, but he wants the ability to have discretion. Zimmerman said he doesn't think state statutes allow for discretion, but additional requirements could be put in the Zoning Code. Waldhauser added that the more flexibility in the requirements, the more uncertainty property owners have about what they own, and if they are able to subdivide their property. She said she would prefer to use a set number, rather than the lot depth, to determine the rear yard setback. Baker said he also likes the idea of a fixed number for the rear yard setback requirement. Baker said he would like to see more analysis of properties that required the minimum lot width to be maintained for a distance of 30% of the lot. He said he also likes the requirement that removes lot area from the total square footage.that doesn't have the minimum required width. Kluchka questioned if that would limit the buildable area. He said he would like an opinion from the City Attorney about allowing the Planning Commission to have more discretion when reviewing subdivision applications, or possibly not having a public hearing if the Planning Commission doesn't have a choice about recommending approval or denial. Grimes stated that state statute requires cities to have the public hearing process. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to recommend that new lots not only meet the minimum width (80 feet) at the front setback line (35 feet in the R-1 zoning district), but maintain that width continuously to a point 70 feet into the lot. Also, to modify the way in which rear yard setbacks are calculated in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts so that they are a set distance of 25 feet instead of a percentage of the total lot depth. --Short Recess-- 6. Reports on Meetins of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City ouncil, Board of ning Appeals and other Meetings Waldhauser ve an updat on a Bottineau meetin ,sWe attended. Kluchka gave an u ate on the recent 9-0unityCenter Task Force meeting that he attended. 7. Other Business,,e • Discus`sion Reg rding Rec g Centers Zimmerman stated that th SIFCO site on etka Avenue was being considered as a possible location for a rec cling center use. Sta ealized that the Zoning Code dei iition of a recycling c ' ter includes crushing, s ding, baling or compacting city 0 n. golden MEMORANDUM ��. 1l Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: July 28, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, City Planner Subject: Potential Modifications to Lot Requirements–Lot Depth and Lot Shape Background At the June 23 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended approval of a revised definition of lot width within the Zoning Code. A brief discussion of various additional methods of regulating lot shape were also discussed. Staff was asked to evaluate a number of recent subdivisions through the lenses of these various methods to determine if they would have met the standards and therefore have been recommended for approval. Diagrams and evaluations will be a part of the Staff presentation. In addition, Staff is suggesting the calculation of lot depth be revisited since the current definition— which relies upon an average measurement—is subject to many of the same issues raised by the calculation of lot width under the old definition. Staff has been asked to summarize the Planning Commission's discussion at the August 21 Council/Manager meeting and look for direction from the City Council as to possible zoning text amendments. Summary of Lot Depth Issue Lot depth is currently defined within the Zoning Code as "the mean horizontal distance between the front (street) line and the rear lot line." As with lot width, unusually shaped lots provide challenges for determining average lengths. Although lot depth is not used to determine if a subdivision meets the minimum requirements, it is used to determine the rear yard setback in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts (20%of the lot depth). In all other zoning districts, the rear yard setback is a set distance and is not dependent on the calculated lot depth. To address this issue, Staff recommends one of two options: (a) revise the definition of lot depth so that is does not use a calculation of the mean, or (b) revise the rear yard setbacks in the R-1 and R- 2 zoning districts so that they do not rely on the calculated lot depth but are a set distance, similar to other zoning districts in Golden Valley. A brief survey shows that roughly half of the of surrounding communities use a mean distance to determine lot depth while the other half use the shortest distance between the front and rear lot lines. Using the shortest distance to determine lot depth while still utilizing the 20% rule for determining rear yard setbacks would potentially require slightly smaller setbacks for some lots compared to the existing mean lot depth method of calculation. Of those communities that utilize the mean distance for determining lot depth, most still use a set distance for their rear yard setbacks (option (b) above). Summary of Lot Shape Issue The City Council and the Planning Commission have both expressed some concern regarding the creation of lots that fail to provide sufficient width in the portion of a lot where a home is most likely to be constructed. In addition,there is concern over lots that deviate to far from what might be considered a "regular" shaped lot. Staff has found three potential methods of measurement that could be added to the current lot width requirements in an attempt to ensure sufficient width in a new subdivision, as well as one test that could be applied to screen out lots deemed to be "too irregular." The first option is to require that the lot width measured at the front yard setback be maintained continuously for a certain percentage of the lot depth. This would allow for some variation in the shape of the lot but would ensure that a targeted area would have enough width to comfortably construct a home. St. Louis Park uses this approaches and requires the minimum lot width be maintained continuously for 30% of the lot depth. Note that this requires that lot depth be clearly defined and easy to calculate as it would be a critical figure in determining if a subdivision meets all lot requirements. A second potential option allows lots to have portions that are narrower than the required lot width, but these portions are not counted towards the required minimum lot area when evaluating a potential subdivision. As pointed out in the option above, this would allow for some portions of a lot to narrow while still requiring a majority of the lot to meet the minimum width requirement. Because the narrower portions would not count towards the minimum lot area, in these cases this option would, in effect, create slightly larger lots when subdivision occurred. Finally, a third option utilizes the lot "midpoint" and requires that the minimum lot width be met at this point as well as at the front setback line.This ensures enough width at two places in the lot, though it allows for narrowing at other points. Any of these three potential variations would be generally consistent with how minimum lot width has been interpreted in the past 24 years, but would also ensure some additional width would be required in order to receive subdivision approval. Addressing the stated concern over "irregular" lots, Staff found a formula that mathematically evaluates a proposed lot for its level of irregularity prior to examining the other minimum lot width and lot area requirements. Under this evaluation, the following formula is used: Pz/A =X where P is the proposed lot perimeter and A is the proposed lot area. If the result is 22.0 or greater for any proposed lot, the proposed subdivision is not allowed. If the result is less than 22.0, the proposed lots are then evaluated further to see if they meet the other subdivision requirements. Using this formula, a perfectly square lot would have a result of 16. A rectangular lot with a 2:1 ratio in length to width would have a result of 18. The more irregular the shape of a lot becomes, the higher the associated output number. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission evaluate the following and offer feedback for the August 21 Council/Manager discussion: 1. A method for determining lot depth and how it should relate to rear yard setbacks. 2. A preference (if any) for additional lot width/lot shape requirements that could be utilized as part of the subdivision approval process. Ci 0 44: go I e nil MEMORANDUM IT T11% V iallicy Finance Deartment r 763-593-8013/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting August 21, 2014 Agenda Item 5. Biennial 2015-2016 Proposed General Fund Budget Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary At the August 21 Council/Manager meeting, the Council will be reviewing the following divisions: -Physical Development Administration (035) -Engineering (036) -Street Maintenance (037) -Park Maintenance (067) -Building Maintenance (011) -Community Centers (065) -Park and Recreation (066) -Recreation Programs (068) -CIP (2015; 2016) Equipment Buildings Parks -General Fund Revenue/Expenditures -General Fund - Fund Balance -Estimated Tax Impact Wrap-up for Presentation Appropriate staff will be in attendance to discuss the proposed budgets for these divisions and answer questions from the Council. Attachments 0 Bring your Biennial 2015-2016 Proposed General Fund Budget (previously distributed) city 0 140 1**1 goldcn MEMORANDUM valley City Administration/Council 763-593-8003/763-593-8109(fax) Executive Summary Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting August 21, 2014 Agenda Item 6. Board/Commission Vacancies Prepared By Thomas Burt, City Manager Summary Mayor Harris requested this item be placed on the agenda for discussion. Staff will provide an updated list of board/commission vacancies and a list of applicants available to fill them. The list will be distributed at the Council/Manager meeting.