Loading...
12-22-14 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 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, December 22, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Cera, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes November 24, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting December 8, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 24, 2014, and December 8, 2014, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 5501 Glenwood Avenue — Golden Valley Lutheran Church dba Loving Shepherd Early Learning Center — CU-39, Amendment#1 Applicant: Golden Valley Lutheran Church dba Loving Shepherd Early Learning Center Address: 5501 Glenwood Avenue Purpose: To amend and update their existing Conditional Use Permit allowing the existing daycare to serve up ta 105 children. Zimmerman explained the Applicant's request to amend their existing Conditional Use Permit in order to increase the number of children they can serve. The original Conditional Use Permit, approved in 1989, limits the number of children served to 50. He stated that the Applicant constructed a significant building addition in 2014, which created more space for the daycare facility, and allows the site to serve up to 105 children. However, the applicant anticipates their enrollment to be approximately 75 children in 2015. Kluchka asked for clarification regarding the number of trips per day for this site. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and noted that there are two access points on the site. He stated that each child would generate two trips per day and that the Applicant could explain the timing of the trips. He added that there are approximately 8,000 trips per day on Glenwood and that this use would have a fairly small impact. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 2 Cera stated that the access paint on Turners Crossroad is usually gated. Ken Mestelle, representing Golden Valley Lutheran Church, stated that the gate on Turners Crossroad is open on Sundays, and that the majority of the daycare traffic enters on Glenwood Avenue. Waldhauser asked why the City cares about limiting the number of children as long as a daycare is licensed through the State. Segelbaum stated that the City considers traffic issues and how the surrounding area may be impacted. Zimmerman agreed that noise, traffic, etc. would be potential reasons to regulate a daycare use. Johnson stated that the Board of Zoning appeals granted a variance for the recent building addition and asked why the issue regarding the number of children in the daycare didn't get addressed at that time. Zimmerman stated that the variance request was in regard to the building and that the daycare is in regard to the use. He added that the two issues are reviewed by two different bodies and that the Applicant wasn't aware of the limits on their daycare at the time they applied for the variance. Brenda Lovhaug, Director of Loving Shepherd Early Learning Center, stated that she came to City Hall to pick up her final building permit paperwork regarding the addition and was told she needed to update their Conditional Use Permit. Segelbaum asked for an explanation of the drop-off and pick-up route through the parking lot. Mestelle stated that cars come in from Glenwood, park in a parking stall and unload their children. He added that parents don't line up to drop their kids off at the front door because the kids are infants and toddlers, not school-aged kids. Segelbaum asked Mestelle if he is concerned about the increase in traffic and conflicts it may cause in their driveway. Mestelle said there has never been an issue with traffic. He added that Glenwood Avenue is wider in front of their driveway for the left turn lane onto Xenia so that also helps with traffic flow. Segelbaum asked if the left turn lane is marked. Mestelle said no. Baker asked the Applicants if they are mindful of the timing with Meadowbrook School's hours. Lovhaug said their morning drop-offs occur between 7 and 8:30 am and that Meadowbrook starts one hour later. She added that Meadowbrook is done at 3 pm and that most of her daycare parents pick up their children at 5:30 pm, so there hasn't been a conflict. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Cera stated that this is a straightforward proposal, the Applicant is a good neighbor, and they have added plenty of space to accommodate their daycare use. He suggesting changing the City's ordinances to match the State ordinances regarding daycare uses. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 3 Segelbaum said he is a little concerned about not having the entrance/exit lines painted on the driveway. Kluchka asked Zimmerman if there have been any concerns expressed about access or traffic on Glenwood. Zimmerman said he hasn't heard any complaints but he would check with the Police Department and the Public Works Department. Baker said he is concerned about people going west on Glenwood. Mestelle reiterated that there have been no traffic problems in their parking lot or on Glenwood. Baker said he would like feedback before this proposal goes to the City Council because he doesn't know if traffic is an issue or not. Cera suggested requiring striping in the driveway. Kluchka stated that Staff has not recommend striping, he just wants to make sure it is not an issue. Waldhauser said she thinks a traffic issue would be much more obvious on Sundays. Segelbaum said that Glenwood is not as busy on Sundays as it is on weekdays. Baker suggested that the Applicant be mindful of striping if the need arises. Mestelle said he really doesn't think there will be any issues because their daycare numbers have increased since their original Conditional Use Permit was granted. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment at 5501 Glenwood Avenue to allow the existing daycare to serve up to 105 children subject to following findings and conditions: Findinqs: 1. The Golden Valley Lutheran Church has successfully operated the existing day- care in this location since the CUP was initially approved in 1989. 2. A child day-care use in association with a church is consistent with the Schools and Religious Facilities designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map. 3. Staff anticipates the continuation of this use would have no impact on the surrounding property values. 4. 2013 Hennepin County traffic counts on this section of Glenwood Avenue show approximately 8,500 trips per day. Staff does not anticipate any additional negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas based on the small number of additional trips generated by this amended use. 5. The amended use may generate a minor increase in the number of employees at the location. 6. The amended use may result in a slight increase in noise as a result of more children using the autdoor play area, but any increase is anticipated to have minimal impact. 7. The amended use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations. 8. The amended use is not anticipated to attract pests. 9. Because the amended use has already been relocated into the new building addition, Staff does not anticipate any negative impacts on in the visual quality of the property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 4 10. Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the amended use. Bringing the use into the church building will allow for consolidation and increased efficiencies on the property. Conditions: 1. The plans by submitted by the Applicant on November 21, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Fire Chief John Crelly to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated December 16, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 3. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Informal Public Hearing — Final PUD Plan Review — Laurel Ponds, PUD #117 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Address: 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To allow for a 24-unit, detached townhome development Zimmerman explained the Applicant's proposal to demolish the existing structures at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South and construct 24 detached townhomes on the site. He discussed the modifications from the Preliminary PUD plans including: the reduction in the number of units from 30 to 24, keeping the drainage, open space and walkway easement 55 feet wide instead of reducing it, and redesigning the internal street, Laurel Point, to align with Quebec Avenue South. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained the proposed layout which includes six rows of homes with four single family homes in each row, accessed via Pennsylvania Avenue. There will be one private street (Laurel Point) to the south that would dead end with emergency vehicle access over grass pavers via the WorkAbilities property. The two entry points to the north would be connected with a private loop street (Laurel Curve), and all but two homes would have access from the internal circulation system; the others would have access via Pennsylvania Avenue. He stated that the lot widths and depths will vary from 36 feet to 53 feet in width, and from 80 feet to 100 feet in depth. The typical distance between the homes would be 10 feet to the side and 25 feet to the rear, and the homes could potentially have 4,144 to 6,286 square feet of living area. He added that there will be a homeowner's association for maintenance and snow removal. Zimmerman showed the Commissioners a comparison chart that illustrates how this proposed PUD differs from the underlying R-3 Zoning District requirements. He explained that the areas in which they differ are lot width, and front, side and rear yard setback requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 5 Zimmerman discussed the on-site parking and stated that there will be two garage stalls for each unit, plus two parking spaces on each driveway. He added that some parking bays will be constructed along the internal streets, and that the parking will be limited to one side of the street except along the east loop connection. He said there will also be four to eight proof of parking spaces, and an area for guest parking through an easement, on the WorkAbilities site next door. Zimmerman discussed the landscaping on the site and stated that a stormwater infiltration basin would be constructed within the City's easement along Laurel Avenue. Also, the northernmost 10 feet of the easement would be available for back yard space without structures. He added that sidewalks will be added along Pennsylvania Avenue and on the east side of the site to connect the upper and lower portions. Zimmerman stated that the platting of the property will be done in phases. The first plat will allow for the demolition of the single family home and for the construction of a model home. The second plat will create eight lots to the south and allow far the demolition of the office building. The third plat will create the final 15 lots. He added that the City will hold money in escrow to ensure the existing building is demolished as required. Johnson asked about the difference between detached townhomes and single family homes. Zimmerman stated that detached townhomes have a homeowners association. Johnson asked if the space between the homes would have ta be larger if they were single family homes. Zimmerman said yes. Waldhauser questioned the condition to preclude fencing on the site. Zimmerman said there is language in the association covenants and in Staff's conditions of approval regarding fences. Baker noted that the R-3 Zoning District allows structures to be four stories or 48 feet in height and asked if the homes proposed in this project could be built that tall. Zimmerman stated that language applies when considering properties in the R-3 Zoning district, and doesn't necessarily apply to a PUD proposal. He stated that the Applicant is only proposing two and three story structures. Baker questioned how the City could prevent the Applicant from building four story structures. Zimmerman explained that a PUD approval approves the plans submitted with the application that are reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Baker said he is concerned about a really tall, dense development. Kluchka said he is more conscious of the building materials. Segelbaum asked if the applicant can go beyond the height shown in their plans. Waldhauser reiterated that the plans submitted by the Applicant are what is being approved. Zimmerman stated that a mare explicit condition regarding height can be added. Waldhauser asked if the homeowners will be able to have decks, and noted that the lack of fencing may not allow for fencing around patios. Zimmerman said there is not much room for decks, but some of the lots might have space for a patio. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 6 Blum stated that the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission has some concern about the stormwater infiltration basin and asked if the Applicant has done anything to address those concerns. Zimmerman said the Engineers have been working together regarding the infiltration basin and they feel comfortable recommending approval subject to the conditions in the Staff reports. Baker asked if the approval of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission could be made a condition of approval. Zimmerman said he is not sure of the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission's procedures, but he knows the Applicant won't be able to obtain building permits without their approval. Johnson asked if detached townhomes are a permitted use in the R-3 Zoning District. Zimmerman said no. He added that detached townhomes are a fairly new product and that they would only be allowed with a PUD. Cera asked how variances would be handled. Zimmerman suggested creating a building envelope as a condition of approval. Cera stated that the width of the streets vary and asked if they could be more standard. Zimmerman explained that the streets are wider when they are two-way and narrower when they are one-way. He added that the Fire Department is comfortable with the proposed width of the streets. Kluchka asked Zimmerman to summarize the private street requirements. Zimmerman stated that PUDs require public streets unless a waiver is granted. Baker asked about the minimum width for a one-way City street and noted that there is one point in this proposal where the street is 16 feet wide. He questioned if that is wide enough. Waldhauser said she thinks two vehicles could pass each other on a 16 foot wide street if needed. Waldhauser asked if the homeowners could plant trees on their lots. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked about a possible walkway around the starmwater infiltration basin and asked if the picture shown is just conceptual, or actually where trees will be planted. Zimmerman referred to the landscaping plan in the agenda packet showing where trees would be planted. Segelbaum asked if 7 foot wide sidewalks are standard. Zimmerman stated that the City typically asks for 8 foot wide sidewalks when possible, but realizes there are places where that won't work. Kluchka asked if the sidewalk committee has reviewed the plans. Zimmerman said they haven't yet reviewed the plans, and nated that the sidewalk dead ends on the north of the site. Kluchka asked if there have been additional neighborhood meetings held. Zimmerman said no, but the Applicant has shared the current renderings, narrative, and how the project has evolved with the neighbors. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 7 Kluchka referred to the requirement regarding hip roofs for the houses on the north side of the site. Zimmerman stated that a hip roof is lower than a house with a gable roof, and will be less impactful on the properties to the north. Don Jensen, Lake West Development, Applicant, showed the Commissioners a site plan of his original proposal for 30 townhomes and discussed how that original plan evolved into this current plan for 24 townhomes. He stated that the current parking requirements for the R-3 Zoning District are one parking stall inside and one parking stall outside. This design proposes two stall garages and two stall driveways for each unit and some on street parking which equals almost five stalls per dwelling unit. He stated that the homeowner's association would not allow fencing between units, but would not preclude privacy fencing for patios. He discussed the drainage patterns on the site and how the bio-retention infiltration basin will work. He discussed the architectural style of the proposed homes and showed the Commissioners photos and elevations of the potential houses. He referred to a site plan and discussed the internal sidewalk system and the guest parking on the neighboring WorkAbilities site. He discussed his plan for the phasing of construction and stated that construction would start on the south end of the property. Cera asked about the price of the homes. Jensen said their target market is empty nesters and the cost of the homes will range from $300,000 to $400,000. Waldhauser asked if the storm sewer and drainage are located in the back yards between the houses that back up to each other. Jensen said yes, and discussed the storm sewer plans. Kluchka asked for clarification regarding the fencing requirements. Jensen stated that homeowners would not be allowed to fence in their entire yard, but a patio located within the building envelope would be allowed. Baker stated that hedges could create the same effect as a fence and asked if hedges would be allowed. Jensen stated that the homeowner's association documents would state what is allowed, or not allowed and added that they will also have to preserve the drainage areas. Blum asked Jensen how he can ensure there will be variability in the design of the homes. Jensen stated that there will be architectural controls in the homeowner's association covenants such as no two homes with the exact design or same color will be allowed next to each other. Baker said he is concerned about the potential height of the houses. Jensen reiterated that the approval will be consistent with the plans that were submitted. He said he sees no reason to build a four story house. Baker questioned if the cost of the homes would really be $300,000 to $400,000 if they are 4,000 to 6,000 square feet in size. Jensen stated that the 4,000 to 6,000 square feet is the envelope size. Baker said he thinks the values will be higher, and questioned if someone could build a millian dollar home. Jensen said that would be highly unlikely because the homes in the area average $200,000 to $400,000. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 8 Kluchka asked who would be controlling the design standards. Jensen said that the developer, along with the builders will control the designs. Cera asked if the homeowner's association will have any design control. Jensen stated that the homeowner's association will have an architectural review board. Baker referred to the width of the streets and asked Jensen how he can rationalize that a 16 foot wide road, with a 6% grade and snow storage is viable. Jensen said that he can't say that no one will ever get stuck, but they have designed a one way street in order to not have excess pavement, and that the association will control the snow removal. He added that the streets will function the vast majority of the time. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Adam Hiler, 305 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said he is frustrated with the process. He said the developer has done a lot of things and that the City has made it very difficult. He said he is obviously trying to sell his house and he feels like the developer is having to jump through a lot of hoops. He said he understands that the City is trying to make this project right for the neighborhood, but it is frustrating hearing multiple questions that have already been answered. Steve Devitt, 235 Pennsylvania Avenue South, asked if the project is restricted to just one builder. Seeing and hearing no else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka stated that this is the Final plan review and questioned if the Planning Commission feels that the significant benefits of this plan exceed what will be given up by going beyond the limits of the underlying zoning. Segelbaum said he thinks that question has been asked and answered by approving the Preliminary plan. Kluchka said he doesn't think the question has been answered. He said he thinks a lot of the issues have changed such as lowering the density, and not building in the easement area. He said enough has changed that he is re-evaluating whether it is enough anymore. Waldhauser said she thinks this plan is significantly better than the Preliminary plan. She said to get this level of density with quality construction is worthwhile, and that the developer has done a good job meeting their concerns. Baker said he agrees, but if a precedent is set, he thinks the City will likely see more of these very massive, densely constructed projects. Segelbaum reiterated that the approach has been decided because the City Council gave Preliminary plan approval. He said there however, are a number of issues that haven't been addressed yet, that he thought they would see at this Final plan stage. Kluchka said the first issue is determining the appropriate height of the structures. Segelbaum said he would like the height of the homes be less than 40 feet. Cera noted that the height limit in the Single Family Zoning District is 28 feet, so he wouldn't want to the structures in this proposal to be much taller than that. Zimmerman noted that building height is measured at the front of a structure. Baker said he would be in favor of restricting the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 9 height in this case. Kluchka questioned if there needs to be clarification regarding which elevation will be on which street. He said he doesn't want the homes to be out of scale with one another. Cera stated that the homes transition to a lower height when they get closer to the single family homes to the north. Johnson said he appreciates the Applicant's effort to transition the height of the homes, but questioned why these proposed homes wouldn't have the same requirements as other single family homes. Waldhauser said there are many home designs that would fit within the 28-foot height limit. Kluchka questioned if it would be reasonable to measure the height of the homes in the back yard. Baker said he would like to condition the front yard height. Segelbaum said he thinks it would be reasonable to apply R-1 standards and if the applicant wants to deviate from them, he'll have to ask. Kluchka suggested a condition stating that the height has to be the same as allowed in the R-1 Zoning District, but not the setbacks. Johnson suggested requiring proportionality, or the smaller the lot, the smaller the home allowed. Baker said he would be alright having 12 feet between the homes, but not having tall homes. Kluchka asked Jensen how he feels about adhering to the R-1 standards regarding height. Jensen said the plans submitted have been the same request from the beginning of the process. He said this isn't an R-1 area, it is meant to be a transition area that can be more dense. Baker said he doesn't know what the Planning Commission's response would be to an R-3 type of proposal and that doesn't affect how they are responding to this proposal. He added that he is concerned about how this fits into this very visible community, and he doesn't want it to be a "sore thumb." Kluchka said he thinks this is the right spot for a transitional space, but he wants to say something about the height. Cera noted that the applicant could build the structures together like a typical townhouse, and would not have to get planning approvals at all. Waldhauser stated that this is somewhat of a closed neighborhood and that the houses will all face each other except for the two homes on Pennsylvania Avenue, so she doesn't think it will stick out as being too tall. Baker disagreed and said the other houses in the area are mostly ramblers. He said he is nervous about the maximum height shown on the plans and he'd like to limit it. Cera said comparing this development to other houses in the area isn't fair because they were built at a different time. He suggested limiting the height of the houses on Laurel Curve to 28 feet and the ones on Laurel Point to 35 feet. Baker suggested limiting the entire PUD to 30 feet in height. Segelbaum suggested Lots 9- 24 be limited to 28 feet and the rest to 35 feet. Jensen said he would be comfortable saying that the home dimensions will be the same as shown in the plans submitted. Waldhauser stated that if the homes are truly aimed at empty-nesters they won't want large homes. Kluchka said he doesn't want a house to be 35 feet tall in the front and 45 feet tall in the back. He suggested that if the front of the house is on the downslope then the back of the house should be limited to 35 feet. Waldhauser suggested language stating that one side is limited to 28 feet, and one side is limited to 35 feet. Baker said he would rather specify the maximum height for each lot. He suggested the maximum height be limited to 28 feet for Lats 1-4, 9-12 and 17-20, and 35 feet for Lots 8-5, 13-16 and 21-24. The Commissioners agreed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 10 Kluchka said the next issue is the building envelope. Zimmerman stated that patios could be built beyond the building envelope, but decks could not. Segelbaum questioned if fences should be allowed around patios. Baker said he thinks that should be up to the homeowner's association. Gera suggested that a condition be added stating that no variances will be granted for structures outside of the building envelope. He questioned if a condition not allowing houses of the same design next to each other should also be added. Waldhauser suggested that the Applicant bring an example of the restrictions to the City Council meeting. Kluchka stated that the closest condition related to design standards is number six in the staff report which states that the building materials shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. Zimmerman explained that house designs can't be reviewed because there aren't house plans to review at this point in the process. He stated that the Commission could address materials, architectural guidelines and home styles. Segelbaum referred to the question regarding the restriction to one builder. Zimmerman stated that the Applicant is not restricted to one builder. Baker asked if a buyer could bring in their own builder. Jensen stated that projects like this typically have one or two builders who are able to work together. Kluchka referred to the proposed landscaping on the southwest corner and said he is not seeing a practical use when there is not a path proposed. He said he wants a more human connection, and it would be more useful to have a path to the area, and the benches closer to the sidewalk so people will use it. Waldhauser said it might be used more by the residents, not necessarily the public. Jensen said there is time to make changes, and that he agrees there should be a human connection. Kluchka summarized that a condition regarding the height of the homes and a condition regarding variances should be added. Also, condition number six in the staff report should be modified regarding design and building materials. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Final Plan for Laurel Ponds One PUD No. 117, subject to the following findings and conditians: Findinqs: 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep 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 compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 11 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by EVS, received December 17, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated December 16, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. All principal buildings shall conform to the rear and side property setbacks when adjacent to a single family zoning district as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd. 3(C)(1). 4. No buildings shall be located less than fifteen feet from the back of the curb line for roads that are part of the internal road system as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd. 3(C)(2) unless adequate separation is provided through additional landscaping, berming ar similar means. 5. The Applicant shall prohibit the installation of fences within the development. 6. Homeowners Association covenants regarding design and building materials shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. 7. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 8. Permits to construct parking bays on the property at 7400 Laurel Avenue shall be obtained by that property owner and shall not be located closer than fifteen feet to the side property line, as required in Section 11.47, Subd. 6(B), unless a variance is obtained. 9. Easement agreements related to parking and the retaining wall shall be reviewed by the City and shall be recorded with the Final Plat. 10. A park dedication fee of $17,400, or 2% of the land value, shall be paid before Final Plat approval. 11. Th� maximum building height, as defined by City Code, shall be 28 feet for the homes on Lots 1-4, 9-12 and 17-20, and 35 feet for the homes an Lots 5-8, 13-16 and 21-24. 12. There shall be no structures located outside of the building envelope area, and no variances granted for structures to be located outside of the building envelope area. 13. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 117" in its title. 14. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 4. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Adding Brewery and Taproom Language —ZO00-93 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider adding language to the Zoning Code regarding breweries and taprooms. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 12 Goellner reminded the Commissioners that they discussed options for permitting and regulating breweries, taprooms and brewpubs at their March 10, 2014 meeting. She discussed the definitions of a brewery, taproom, and brewpub. She stated that staff is recommending that breweries and taprooms limited to less than 25% of the brewery floor area, be a permitted use in the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts, and a conditional use in the Mixed Use Zoning District. The staff recommendation for brewpubs is that they be a conditional use in the Commercial Zoning District and a permitted use in the Mixed Use Zoning District. Goellner referred to the parking requirements and stated that a brewery has parking needs similar to those of a manufacturing facility, 1 space per 500 square feet of gross floor area, and a taproom would require parking similar to a Class III restaurant, 1 space per 60 square feet of floor area plus 1 space per 25 square feet of bar area. Goellner referred to the distance regulations in the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts and stated that staff is recommending 75 feet for uses facing R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts, 100 feet for uses adjoining R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts and 50 feet for uses adjoining R-3, R-4, Business and Professional Offices, and Institutional Zoning Districts. Goellner stated that issues such as hours of operation, outdoor patios, indoor/outdoor entertainment, special events, maximum brewing capacity, growler standards, conduct on the premises, violations, and fees will be addressed in the liquor licensing section of City Code. She added that food trucks, and their partnering with taprooms, will be considered in the future since food trucks are not currently permitted or licensed. Kluchka opened the public hearing. John Keenan, Under Pressure Brewing, said he is concerned about limiting the size of the taproom to 25% of the brewery floor area. He said it seems restrictive and that 40% to 50°/a would be better, but not overbearing, and would offer more community gathering space. Kluchka asked if this is a seasonal business with outdoor space. Lori Ertl, Under Pressure Brewing, said there aren't many buildings in Golden Valley that would allow outdoor space. She said limiting the size of the taproom space will limit their customer base, their business, and their profitability, and it will also limit the City's tax base. She said they need the taproom space to be larger in order to make the business viable. She added that they are not looking to make this into a bar scene, but they need to have a larger taproom space. Waldhauser asked Ertl to give examples of some local taprooms that operate how she would like to operate. Ertl gave several examples, and said they would like to do a 7 barrel system which will give them 14 kegs at a time. Keenan said they may provide keg sales to local restaurants as well. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 13 Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Blum said he is cancerned about establishments only serving alcoholic beverages without offering a food component to help people regulate their alcohol content. He said he feels more comfortable knowing that food could be brought in by the customers. Kluchka suggested that the liquor license could require a food option to be offered. Baker asked if the Zoning Code and liquor license changes could happen quickly enough to allow Under Pressure Brewing to open fairly soon. Zimmerman stated that consideration of the liquor licensing and Zoning Code changes will align at same City Council meeting. Baker questioned where the language came from regarding taprooms only being allowed in less than 25% of the floor space. Goellner stated that she came up with that number while researching other communities' requirements. She explained that the point is to keep the taproom accessory to the brewery. She suggested that if an applicant wants to have a larger taproom a conditional use permit could be required. Kluchka suggested that the ordinance language be changed to say taprooms larger than 30% require a conditional use permit. Segelbaum agreed that 25% or 30% is a good place to start. Baker suggested a 60%-40% split between the brewery and taproom spaces. Cera suggested the language be changed to "less than 50%" of the floor space could be used for taproom space. The Commissioners agreed that they would like the language to be changed to state that 30% of the floor space can be used for the taproom, and if an applicant wants more than that they can apply for a conditional use permit. Kluchka questioned what kind of provisions, such as size, location, noise and odor, the Commission should recommend. Blum suggested that these types of establishments be located near public transportation. Segelbaum noted that taprooms, and not breweries, are proposed to be a permitted use in the Light Industrial Zoning District. He questioned if breweries should be a conditional use. Baker questioned where bars are allowed. Goellner stated that Class III restaurants (bars, nightclubs, taverns, etc.) are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the Commercial Zoning District, and are a permitted use in the Mixed Use Zoning District. Waldhauser referred to the proposed parking requirements and said that taprooms seem to be more akin to fast food restaurants with very dense seating. She suggested that there be a higher parking ratio for taprooms. Goellner suggested a higher parking ratio for the bar and seating areas. The Commissioners agreed that they would like the parking requirement to be 1 space per 40 square feet of gross floor area. Segelbaum suggested the definition of taproam be changed to read as follows: A facility accessory to a brewery that is licensed by the City to sell the malt liquors made at the brewery for consumption on the premises. He said that changing the definition will keep it consistent with the definition of brewery and clarifies that the consumption takes place Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 14 on the premises. Kluchka asked if that means a taproom couldn't sell growlers. Segelbaum stated that the taproom is accessory to the brewery, and that they would have to be a brewery first in order to sell growlers. Goellner added that both on-sale and off-sale licenses would be required to have a taproom and sell growlers. Blum asked about the definition of malt liquor. Goellner said malt liquor is defined in the liquor licensing section on the City Code as follows: Any beer, ale, or other beverage made from malt by fermentation and containing not less than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume. Kluchka suggested taking the words "such as beer and ale" out of the definition of brewery in order to be consistent. Segelbaum questioned if retail sales should be limited to taprooms, or if breweries would also be allowed to sell accessory retail items. Goellner said she would speak with the City Attorney regarding retail sales in a brewery. Segelbaum asked if other communities have different hours for taprooms versus bars. Goellner stated that most communities' hours for taprooms are Wednesday through Sunday 4 pm to 11 pm. She added that hours of operation would be addressed in the liquor licensing section of the City Code. Kluchka stated that there are several bike trails in Industrial areas and maybe they will be a good fit with these proposed uses. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend the Zoning Code text amendment regarding breweries, taprooms and brewpubs subject to the following changes: 1. The parking requirement for a taproom shall be 1 space per 40 square feet of gross floor area. 2. The definition of taproom shall be changed to read as follows: A facility accessory to a brewery that is licensed by the City to sell the malt liquors made at the brewery for consumption on the premises. 3. The proposed language shall be changed to allow 30% of the floor area to be used for a taproom. If an applicant wants a taproom larger than 30% of the floor area a conditianal use permit must be obtained. 4. Language shall be added regarding allowing retail sales in a brewery. --Short Recess-- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Baker gave an update on the most recent Bottineau Station Area Planning Committee meeting and stated that there will be a community meeting regarding the Bottineau Light Rail project on January 7 at the Courage Kenny Rehabilitation Institute. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2014 Page 15 Kluchka gave a summary of the Community Center Task Force presentation given at the December Council/Manager meeting. 6. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given, 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 pm. , �^ �C`� �Vv Charles D. Segel aum, Secretary Lis Wittman, Administrative Assistant