Loading...
03-09-15 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 2015 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, March 9, 2015. 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, Physical Development Director Marc Nevinski, City Engineer Jeff Oliver, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes February 23, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the sixth paragraph on page five regarding the notification process for the Subdivision Study and asked if it was accurate to state that each homeowner received a post card. Zimmerman stated that every homeowner was sent a post card in October notifying them of the Subdivision Study. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimausly to recommend approval of the February 23, 2015, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Final PUD Plan — Central Park West— Southwest Quadrant of I-394 and Highway 100 — PU-121 Applicant: DLC Residential, LLC Address: Southwest Quadrant of I-394 and Highway 100 Purpose: To allow two six-story multiple family residential buildings, a six-story hotel, two 11-story office buildings, a parking ramp and a linear park in both St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. Goellner referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's plan to construct two 6- story residential buildings, two 11-story office buildings, one 6-story hotel, one 7-story parking ramp, and a privately owned and maintained public park. She stated that the development will begin this year with the residential phase 1 building, the park and the reconstruction of Utica Ave. as shown on the plans. She added that the placement of the buildings hasn't changed from what was proposed during the Preliminary Plan review, however there is slightly more parking proposed. Goellner stated that as part of the Preliminary Plan approval the Planning Commission and City Council required an updated traffic study, an additional neighborhood meeting and an expanded area for mailing hearing notices. All of which have been addressed. Goellner discussed some of the concerns that have been expressed from residents east Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 2015 Page 2 of Highway 100 including difficulties getting onto Wayzata Blvd., traffic speed, blind corners, icy streets, and dangerous conditions for pedestrians. She added that residents would like to see improvements such as a stoplight or additional stop signs, dedicated turn lanes, and clearly marked crosswalks at the intersection of Quentin Ave. and Wayzata Blvd. Goellner stated that an updated traffic study was completed on January 19, 2015. The findings in that study showed that 15% of the traffic generated from Central Park West is projected to utilize Wayzata Boulevard east of Highway 100. Due to this increased traffic, the intersection of Quentin & Wayzata will fall to Level of Service E (not acceptable); therefore, the developer will be responsible for improvements that bring it back to Level of Service C. She stated that the developer will be required to make turn lane improvements, an all-way stop, and pedestrian/bike path improvements at this intersection. She added that traffic calming along Wayzata Boulevard could be incorporated into the City's Capital Improvement Program and that the City will work with Hennepin County on implementation. Zimmerman discussed the proposed parking for the site. He stated that the proposal is lacking 323 parking spaces, 3,598 parking spaces are required and 3,275 spaces are proposed. He referred to the bicycle parking requirements and explained that Golden Valley requires 5% of the parking required for vehicles and St. Louis Park requires 10% of the parking required for vehicles. The applicant is proposing 35% of the required car parking for the residential phase 1 building and 42% of the required car parking for the residential phase 2 building. Zimmerman stated that staff initially thought that a Joint Powers Agreement would be necessary to address some of the issues between Golden Valley and St. Louis Park. However, it has been determined that the Joint Powers Agreement isn't the appropriate mechanism, and that a service contract for inspections, etc. would be more appropriate. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and discussed access, circulation, and pedestrian connections within the site. Johnson asked how the items in the Fire Chief's staff report will be addressed. Zimmerman stated that the Fire Chief's memo will become a condition of approval. Baker noted that the supplemental parking for the hotel is located in the proposed parking ramp. He asked how long of walk that would be for hotel guests and if that is a practical place for them access the parking. Zimmerman said there have been discussions about the hotel offering valet parking or potentially using the office parking ramp. He added that as the hotel is closer to being built the details will be worked out. Baker stated that the parking is 10% short of the City's requirement and asked if that is common. Zimmerman said allowances are made especially when there are different uses and hours of operation within the businesses in a PUD. He added that there are a lot of the pedestrian options with this site as well which allows for some flexibility. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 2015 Page 3 Blum asked about a snow removal plan. Goellner stated that the plan is for on-site snow storage until the site is completely built out, at that time snow will be removed from the site as needed. Baker asked if the recommended changes were made to the appearance of the parking ramp for the residents to the east. Goellner said yes, and referred to the renderings in the plans. Kluchka asked if the applicant is held to designs shown on their plans. Goellner said that is her understanding. Segelbaum referred to the City Engineer Jeff Oliver's staff report and read the part where it states that the traffic study concludes that the increase in traffic resulting from the current PUD proposal does not create any new, or unduly add to, the existing traffic on Wayzata Blvd. Therefore, staff is not recommending that this developer be responsible for additional improvements on Wayzata Blvd. Segelbaum asked staff to show on the site plans which part of Wayzata Blvd. the City Engineer is referring to. Zimmerman pointed out the area along Wayzata Blvd. where there is potential in the future to do some traffic calming and improvements. Oliver stated that there are existing issues on Wayzata Blvd. that the City is already aware of. He explained that the increase in traffic from this development does not result in the significant degradation of the capacity of the roadway, and the improvements needed on Wayzata Blvd. can't be linked to this development. However, the proposed development will directly affect the intersection of Quentin and Wayzata and the developer will be required to fund those improvements. Baker said he understands that the capacity doesn't suggest mitigation, but questioned when the issues the neighbors have raised such as safety, speed, and visibility will need mitigation. Oliver said these issues have been present since I-394 was built. He added that Staff will begin looking for other potential funding sources to finance the construction of traffic calming, sight line, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements along Wayzata Blvd. and that the issues need to be addressed as opportunities present themselves. Baker asked how the disproportionate benefit of taxes will be addressed since a Joint Powers Agreement is no longer being considered. Physical Development Director Marc Nevinski stated that the Joint Powers Agreement was considering issues such as inspections, police, fire, etc., but not taxes. The Cities will tax separately based on the rates and values. Everything located Golden Valley will be taxed in Golden Valley. Kluchka asked how people would vote with the building straddling the municipal boundary. Nevinski said that people who live on the east side of the boundary will have the obligation to vote in Golden Valley. Baker asked about the other benefits such as traffic improvements and TIF money. Nevinski said Golden Valley doesn't have a TIF district in this location. Baker asked if there is a way for Golden Valley to benefit from St. Louis Park's TIF. Nevinski said no. Blum questioned how the responsibility would be split with the hotel when the hotel building is in St. Louis Park, but the hotel parking lot is in Golden Valley. Nevinski said the two Cities will enter into a service contract for these types of issues. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 2015 Page 4 Kluchka asked if the Planning Commission will review the Wayzata/Quentin intersection plans. Zimmerman said the plans won't come to the Planning Commission for review, but the City Council will review them. Waldhauser asked about improvements to the intersections and ramps on I-394. Zimmerman stated that most of those improvements were done during the first phase of the West End development. Johnson noted that the overflow parking for the hotel is planned to be in the office parking ramp. He questianed how that would work if the hotel is built before the office parking ramp. Zimmerman suggested surface parking could be used until the office ramp is built. Blum referred to the proposed trails in the park area and said he is concerned about accidents occurring because the trails crisscross multiple times. David Graham, ESG Architects, reviewed the overall design vision for the project. He said they've worked hard to reduce the amount of office space from 1.1 million square feet to approximately 700,000, and to reduce the amount of trips and the size of the parking ramp. He said he thinks a key part of this project are the public realm amenities including the central park, public art, streetscape amenities, and a water feature. He stated that Utica Avenue will be completely rebuilt with a class A landscaping and urban design plan, and that this project is a model for sustainable growth in a first ring suburb. He showed a rendering of the site and explained the pedestrian and bike connections. He referred to the life cycle housing in this proposal and stated that 3% of the units will be affordable. He showed a rendering of the park area and discussed the landscaping, seating, climbing walls, and the water feature. He added that the park includes high quality pavement intended more for pedestrians and passive biking, it is not intended to be a bike trail. He showed a rendering of the proposed woonerf and explained that it will be a connection to Utica Avenue for automobiles and pedestrians and will include high quality pavement and raised tree planters. He showed renderings of the proposed parking ramp and residential buildings and discussed the materials that will be used in their construction. He added that there will be 80 residential units in Golden Valley. Kluchka asked if the park designs being shown are really what is being proposed. Graham said yes. Kluchka stated that the sidewalks don't seem to connect to where the crosswalks will be on Utica Avenue. Graham said that was done intentianally to cross Utica and then move along the sidewalk on Utica and create an entry monument at that point. Kluchka said that design won't work with bikes, and pedestrians will walk over the grass. He added that the sidewalks don't connect with the human use. Graham said he would continue to work with staff on the details. Waldhauser said she is pleased to see shade trees in the plans, but she didn't see any structured soil boxes to support the trees. Graham stated that there will be raised planters with sitting benches in the woonerf area. He said he would provide more details about the planting of the trees. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 2015 Page 5 Segelbaum asked for clarification of the traffic flow to the different structures. Luke Payne, Kimley Horn, said the entire development is designed to be served off Utica Avenue. The hotel will have an entrance on Wayzata Blvd. He referred to site plan and discussed the access drives and traffic patterns. Segelbaum asked if there will be other access points to the parking structure. Payne said there is a connection at the south end of the parking ramp and at the northeast end of the ramp, but the bulk of the trips are anticipated to come off of Utica. Kluchka asked if the intersection of Utica Avenue and 16th will be a controlled intersection. Payne said there is stop control on 16tn Waldhauser referred to the affordable units and asked if the 3% mentioned was for the phase 1 construction or all of the residential constructions. Graham said 3% is for all of the residential. Waldhauser said she thinks the numbers referenced in the staff report are incorrect because the monthly rent range seems wrong. Nevinski clarified that 3% of these units will be affordable to people making 60% of the area median income. Johnson referred to the trash hauling being limited to one vendor. He asked the applicant if they are contractually obligated to one hauler and how enforcement of that would work. Graham said the intent is to have one trash hauler and that is a fundamental management issue to see that trash hauling works properly. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Todd Shipman, 1510 Fairlawn Way, said his main concern is the traffic going east of Highway 100. He said in his view the previous PUD and this PUD are really irrelevant to the impact it will have on his life which is just getting access to his home and getting on and off Wayzata Blvd. He said the sight lines are difficult already and he hasn't heard any talk about the topography. He said on Wayzata Blvd. there is a curve, a hill, and a ramp across I-394 that connects to a bicycle path in North Tyrol. He said he commonly comes across bicyclists in the dark, and the sun doesn't shine down onto the pavement during the winter so the curve is icy. He said it is important to the people in his neighborhood who pay taxes not to be forgotten by Golden Valley because they value their unique neighborhood. He said they also have restricted access to their neighborhood and City services could be at risk. He said there were two snow events this winter that significantly impacted Wayzata Blvd. and backed traffic up all the way to Theodore Wirth Parkway because everyone avoids I-394. He said he can't imagine, as nice as Utica Ave. will be, that people won't go down Wayzata Blvd. to get onto I-394 at night. He said it is a false assumption to base the issues only on traffic counts and the City is really doing a disservice to the neighbors. He said they could secede to Minneapolis or St. Louis Park and take their tax revenue with them. He added that it is really a tough scenario especially impacted by weather and any additional traffic will significantly impact them. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 2015 Page 6 David Sussman, 1445 Fairlawn Way, said he understands the capacity of road, but questioned the capacity of the road at rush hour. He said today at 5:15 it took him almost two minutes before he could turn left onto Wayzata Blvd. because the traffic just kept coming. He said it's been growing since the West End development was built it is going to be really hard to cross that street unless something is done about the traffic. Otis Godfrey, 4630 Douglas Avenue, said he pays taxes in Golden Valley and he likes to live in Golden Valley. He referred to the proposed 3,500 parking spots and the site plan showing two exits from the parking ramp onto Wayzata Blvd. and questioned how the applicant can say all the cars will go out onto Utica Ave. He said traffic is like water and if it gets backed up in one place it will flow to other places. He said it is not reasonable to expect that everyone will go in and out on Utica Ave. He said the neighborhood east of Highway 100 is a beautiful, quiet neighborhood. It is important to have this balance and they don't need more traffic going into this area. He said when he thinks of traffic calming he is not just concerned about Wayzata Blvd. he is concerned about traffic flowing into the neighborhood as well. He said if people get frustrated enough they will find ways into their neighborhood. He said the City has known about the traffic problems for approximately 20 years, and now the traffic is being expanded by 25% and we're saying that it can compete in the next CIP against other projects. He questioned how this won't be an impact to the neighborhood and said people will be flowing into this neighborhood that shouldn't be. He urged the City to think about it and not just treat it as a problem to be handled later. Daon Karpan, 1400 Natchez Avenue South, said she is concerned about the traffic. She said in the last traffic study there was more of a promise to put an all-way stop and a turn lane in at the Quentin/Wayzata intersection. She said she is disappointed to not see that in these final plans. She said she doesn't trust the traffic study because from what she understands it is using the numbers regarding speed from 2007 and a lot has changed since then. She said the traffic volume was considered when there was a lot of snow and she believes traffic was down considerably so she is not trusting that the numbers in the study are an accurate reflection of what she experiences day to day. She referred to the expectation that people won't use Wayzata Blvd. as access, and that they will naturally tend to go to Utica. She said she wants to see more proof that will substantiate that and she wants a traffic study done reflecting today's conditions because the numbers don't add up. Segelbaum referred to Karpan's comment about improvements to the Quentin/Wayzata intersection and stated that while there aren't plans showing specific improvements, there is a large amount of money budgeted to do improvements to that intersection. Kluchka agreed and noted that there is a condition to execute a design for improvements at that intersection. Oliver explained that there will be a public improvement project funded by the developer. The intersection will be modified to have eastbound dual right turn lanes, a south bound right turn, and all-way stop for pedestrian crossings. Jason Johnson, 1550 Natchez Avenue South, said he is excited about this development but traffic must be addressed. He said he knows for a fact people won't follow Utica Ave. He asked if there are other ways to make sure people who don't live in the area won't Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 2015 Page 7 use Wayzata Blvd. such as signs that say residents only during certain times. He said traffic is going to be a problem whether studies say so or not, and that intuition rules in this case. He added that the traffic will choke off this neighborhood from the rest of Golden Valley. Robert Lazear, 1519 Natchez Avenue South, said there is a blind curve at Natchez and Wayzata with almost no margin of error to pull out onto Wayzata. He said this isn't theoretical and it is absolutely essential that this be addressed now. He said the traffic study was done and he appreciates that, but he also knows when one side hires the expert and pays them, that it's not a completely independent study. He said the methodology is interesting because the study only looked at the am traffic and the traffic in the afternoon is at least as bad. He said he knows that as part of this project they are adding approximately 3,200 to 3,600 parking spaces to the density in the West End. He said as the parking ramp is designed now, there will be two exits dumping on Wayzata Blvd. and 2,536 two-way peak trips. He said the issue isn't whether there is capacity spread over 24 hours, it is about two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. He noted that speed limit is 35 miles per hour but the traffic study showed that people travel 39 miles per hour which doesn't give them a lot of time to pull out onto Wayzata. He said it's shocking that back in 2007 neighbors said there needed to be traffic calming, an all-way stop, and curb extensions and none of those things have been done. The density has been added from the first round of development and more density is about to be added with this proposal. He questioned if the Quentin/Wayzata intersection improvements are a part of this PUD. The Commission said yes. He asked that a traffic study be done a year after the development is complete to see if the traffic control at that intersection is working. He said he also wants a condition added that there be no exits allowed onto Wayzata Blvd. He said the reality is people will leave the West End area and sneak through their neighborhood. Peter Zakrajsheck, 1425 Natchez Avenue South, said he likes the project, but the one concern is traffic. He said no one is listening to the neighbors or giving them the time of day and they are being told it will be considered in the next CIP. He said Natchez is the only street that goes through to Cedar Ave. and people will cut through. He suggested a do not enter sign be placed on the north end of the street similar to what is on the south end. He wants something done about the traffic to make the area safe. Ann Godfrey, no address given, said at her corner there are seven school buses that drop off and pick up children. She said the traffic comes really fast and the stop signs aren't observed so she's learned not to walk when schools in the area are getting out. She said she is concerned for the kids in the neighborhood especially with more traffic. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka said he is hearing that Wayzata Blvd. isn't a great design and hasn't been for a long time. He asked what the City can do to make improvements. Segelbaum asked if the City has control of Wayzata Blvd. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 2015 Page 8 Oliver explained that until recently Wayzata Blvd. was owned by MnDOT but it is now a City street. He stated that staff has been listening to the neighbors and will be putting together a plan. He said these issues aren't less important, there are just a lot of on- going issues that also need addressing so all projects need to be evaluated with the resources the City has. He stated that staff is working with Minneapolis and St. Louis Park on bicycle and pedestrian issues and added that education and enforcement are also parts of the on-going process that the City will continue to work on. Segelbaum asked if there are things that aren't a great cost that could be done to help the situation such as signage. Oliver said that in general, signage is not that effective. He said enforcement can be effective but again, it is a matter of resources and an officer can't be there all of the time. Cera asked if the City would consider a 3-way stop at the Quentin and Natchez intersection. Oliver said his opinion is that non-compliance and crashes will escalate if stop signs are put in where they are not warranted. He added that studies have shown that people speed up after the stop sign in order to make up for lost time. He reiterated that there is no single thing that will solve the issues, but that some improvements along with education and enforcement will help. Blum asked if there is anything preventing the City ta require a congestion tax or a one- way toll onto Quentin during rush hour. Oliver said that would not be statutorily permitted in the State of Minnesota. Waldhauser asked if there is any way to separate the neighborhood from Wayzata Blvd. and direct all traffic to a street on the south side. Oliver said that could be done, but there would be unintended consequences and emergency response would be an issue. Kluchka asked if the City would consider limiting the exits onto Wayzata Blvd. Oliver said that can be continued to be reviewed, but typically the City wants multiple access points for emergencies. He added that not allowing access to the east will create problems elsewhere, and the access to Wayzata Blvd. can't be cut entirely. Kluchka asked if the traffic can be revisited each year, or after each phase of development. Oliver said traffic counts can be added to this area and he would not be opposed to reviewing the area two years after it is built out. Kluchka suggested revisiting the traffic issues when the PUD is amended for the office phase. Baker said a PUD is supposed to benefit the City and he feels in many ways this project is benefitting the City, but one thing he thinks is lacking is the City's response to the traffic issues on Wayzata Blvd. He said he isn't convinced that stop signs on Wayzata Blvd. wouldn't be an inexpensive benefit to the neighborhood. He said maybe the stop signs would increase accidents but he is not concerned about that if those accidents are the fault of the people who are ignoring the signs. He is concerned about the neighborhood not being able to turn onto Wayzata Blvd. and he believes stop signs at Natchez and June might be a way to discourage people from using Wayzata Blvd. He said he agrees that it is a very fast, hard-to-access road and he is inclined to make a Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 2015 Page 9 motion requiring that the project be conditioned on the developer paying for traffic solutions on Wayzata Blvd. which may even include a traffic light at Quentin. He said he thinks the options are being dismissed too readily. Segelbaum said he thinks this is a wonderFul project, but the major issue is the traffic. He said the professional traffic study says a 3-way stop is warranted at the Quentin/Wayzata intersection so he tends to rely on that. He added that he would like ta see what else could be done without using CIP resources. Waldhauser said she believes there are issues that have been here a long time and she doesn't think it should be incumbent on the developer to fix 20 year old issues. She said she thinks it's incumbent on Golden Valley and St. Louis Park to figure aut what can be done about the traffic issues this neighborhood. She said she would like to make a recommendation that the City come up with a plan that will provide more certainty to the neighborhood. Kluchka asked if the City would consider exploring non-capital intensive traffic calming improvements. Zimmerman said the issues can be explored, but he questions who would make the decisions if they are not warranted by the traffic study. Segelbaum said he thinks the City Engineer could ultimately decide. Baker said he is not satisfied with the plan. He said a plan is nice, but it won't ensure that anything will happen. He said that the developer may not be directly responsible for the concerns they are hearing, but the cost of a couple of traffic signs in the context of multi- million dollar project is a rounding error. He said he is concerned that the City won't get around to it even if the Planning Commission insists that the City create a plan. He said this has been a problem for years and perhaps a change in ownership will be an opportunity to do something about the traffic problems that are only going to get worse. Cera said a PUD should focus on the development and the recommendations professional staff have made. He said he would entertain a second motion recommending that the City Council have a discussion about what they would like do about the traffic issues. Johnson said he doesn't think the City should penalize a developer for lack of action by the City. He added that this is the first significant change and opportunity for improvements in this area. Kluchka said he thinks the Planning Commission needs to make a strong statement about the traffic but he is not sure if the process allows them to make a separate motion. Baker said he thinks a motion could be made in the other business section on the agenda. Segelbaum said he would want motians made during the discussion of the item and not under other business. MOVED by Cera to recommend approval of the Final PUD plan proposal. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 2015 Page 10 Waldhauser questioned if they should add a condition that another traffic study be done after build out is complete. Cera said he thinks that is a broader traffic issue. Waldhauser questioned if they should add a condition about further restricting egress to the east. Cera said doing that would not stop anybody from going to the east and it is safer having three exits from the ramp. Cera clarified that his motion incorporates staff conditions, Segelbaum seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for Central Park West PUD No. 121, subject to the following findings and conditions: 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. 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 DLC Residential, LLC, submitted with the application on February 4, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to the Planning Manager, dated March 4, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to the Planning Manager, dated March 2, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. The applicant shall address the remaining unresolved issues outlined in the memo prior to Final PUD approval. 4. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 5. A park dedication fee of$70,568 (2% of the estimated land value) shall be paid prior to approval of the Final Plat. 6. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D." in its title. 7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 8. The City of St. Louis Park approves that portion of the preliminary Planned Unit Development within its jurisdiction Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 2015 Page 11 9. The property owners of any parcel in PUD No. 121 shall follow the Travel Demand Management Plan for the West End Redevelopment and Central Park West prepared by Kimley-Horn and submitted with the final PUD application in February 2015, which will serve to reduce traffic congestion. Prior to Final PUD approval, the applicant shall include specific target dates in this plan. The applicant shall pay the remaining 50% of the Traffic Management Administration Fees for Lot 1 when submitting a building permit application, The applicant or future property owner of Lot 3 and Outlot A shall pay the Traffic Management Administration Fees, as outlined in the City's I-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance (Section 11.56). 10.The Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Golden Valley for public use of the park outlot. 11.Prior to the City signing and releasing the final plat to the developer for filing with Hennepin County, the PUD permit and Development Agreement shall be finalized between the City and the Developer. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend that the City Council address the traffic issues on Wayzata Blvd. raised by residents including: access, speed, safety, congestion, etc. Segelbaum said he would like to be specific about the area to be studied. Baker said the area of study should be Wayzata Blvd. between France and Douglas. 3. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Size of Accessory Structures —ZO00-97 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider amending language in the Zoning Code in order to match the State Building Code regarding the size of accessory structures allowed before a building permit is required. Zimmerman stated that the State Building Code was recently revised to require building permits for accessory structures only if they exceed 200 square feet in size. He explained that the City's current Zoning Code states that a building permit must be abtained if an accessory structure exceeds 120 square feet in size. In order to keep the City's requirements consistent with those of the State, staff is recommending that the Zoning Code be amended to require building permits for accessory structures if they exceed 200 square feet. He stated that there is another section of the Zoning Code which limits the type of roofs allowed on accessory structures over 120 square feet that staff is recommending that also be changed to 200 square feet. Baker asked if the City has a choice in amending the language in the Zoning Code. Zimmerman said the language could be removed from the Zoning Code and replaced with language referring to the State's Building Code requirements instead. Cera said he would like to keep the language in the Zoning Code. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 2015 Page 12 Baker questioned if the City could consider being more restrictive. He said he wants to be sure they are getting the right advice and asked if this is the advice of the inspectors or of the City Attorney. Nevinski explained that the State Building Code is now defining accessory structures less than 200 square feet in size as not needing a building permit. He stated that the Zoning Code can add to that requirement, but the City has adopted the State Building Code and is obligated follow it and enforce it. Kluchka asked if the City is able to enact its own restrictions in the Building Code. Nevinski said no. Segelbaum said the City can enact Zoning Code provisions. Zimmerman reiterated that this proposal is to make the Zoning Code consistent with the State Building Code already adopted. Kluchka asked if the City can make zoning changes that are inconsistent with the building code to offer additional restrictions. Nevinski said he would not advise creating a contradictory situation. Baker questioned if the City should change just because the State has. He said he doesn't have a sense of how often this restriction has a bearing on what Golden Valley residents do, or the impact of the size of accessory structures on neighbors. Segelbaum asked about current limitations for accessory structures. Zimmerman said the Zoning Code address height and setbacks for accessory structures. He said staff will be enacting a Zoning Permit process for accessory structures in the future. He clarified that staff isn't recommending these changes just because the State made changes. It's because the City has adopted the State Building Code and doesn't want its own codes in conflict with each other. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to amend the Zoning Code to raise the minimum size of an accessory structure from 120 to 200 square feet for building permits. Blum noted that there are two sections of the Zoning Gode that need to be amended. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval for the Zoning Code Text Amendment in Subdivisions 12 (E) and (J) to increase the minimum square footage to 200 square feet for the size required for a building permit as recommended by staff. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to rescind the first motion. --Short Recess-- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 2015 Page 13 4. Discuss hotel parking requirements Goellner stated that staff would like to consider reducing the minimum parking requirement for hotels. She explained that the current requirement is 1.5 parking spaces per unit plus parking for other uses. She stated that the Super 8 Hotel is considering expanding and have provided vehicle counts pertormed in the summer of 2014 to demonstrate that with 97% occupancy the most vehicles registered was 84 for 140 rooms. She discussed the parking requirements of several surrounding cities. Segelbaum asked about the requirements for hotels that might host large events. Goellner said the Zoning Code requires more parking spaces for other uses such as restaurants and event space. Waldhauser said she thinks one parking space per unit seems reasonable as long as there are provisions for other uses. She questioned if there should be additional spaces for staff. Zimmerman said the number of employees is quite low. Johnson asked if parking for motels should be added to the Zoning Code. Cera said he thinks that would be added to the other uses language and that all uses would be considered. Goellner said she would work on the specific amendment language and bring the item back to a future Planning Commission meeting for a public hearing. 5. Discuss the current Zoning Code requirement regarding side yard setbacks increasing with the height of a house Zimmerman stated that in 2006 the Planning Commission and City Council studied infill development which considered height, impervious surface, setbacks, etc. He said that residents have recently been questioning if staff has been interpreting the Zoning Code requirements correctly. He explained that after researching what was considered in 2006 he thinks there may be some gray area in how the Zoning Code is being applied versus how it was intended. He said staff is looking for direction regarding what was intended and how to move forward. Zimmerman explained that the Zoning Code currently states that as homes get taller the side yard setback increases. One interpretation is that once a house is taller than 15 feet the entire structure shifts away from the side yard property line, Another interpretation is that only the part of the house that is taller than 15 feet needs to be further away from the property line, but the part of the house that is 15 feet tall can be located right at the side yard setback line. He showed the Commission several examples illustrating the different interpretations. Baker said there are two ways that height can increase. One is if an existing house is remodeled and the other is if a new house is built. He said he understands that an existing house being remodeled might need to take the "wedding cake" approach, but he doesn't understand why a new house should take the "wedding cake" approach. He Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Gommission March 9, 2015 Page 14 said he really thinks the intent was to differentiate between those two circumstances. He added that if the Zoning Code language changes he thinks there needs to be a lot of study and thought involved. Waldhauser said the point was not to have a big, tall wall next to a neighboring house. The other issue was to not take away sunlight from a neighboring property. She said there is no good reason to set the entire house further away from the property line to accomplish those goals. Baker said he doesn't think the Planning Commission is being asked to revisit the issue, they are being asked how the Zoning Code language should be interpreted. He said he wants what was originally intended to be applied. Zimmerman stated that the City Manager and the City Attorney are not only looking at the intent, but how to go forward. He stated that when the infill study changes were adopted, the City Council was intending to be open to changing the language if needed as it moved forward. Cera said the original intent was to increase the entire setback with new construction. He said he wants the Code to be interpreted how it was intended and not how it has been interpreted since its adoption. Kluchka asked if there are different code requirements regarding new construction and remodeling. Zimmerman stated that there is grandfathering language for construction prior to 2008, but the current language applies to all new construction. Blum said he likes the "wedding cake" approach because it has worked historically and it allows for more flexibility and a more diverse housing stock. Baker said he would strongly oppose changing the language to match how the Code has been interpreted rather than what was originally intended. He said if the Zoning Code has been interpreted incorrectly he wouldn't worry about those homes, or want to tear homes down, but he wants to reinforce the decisions made in the recent subdivisian study. Segelbaum said it seems to him that staff has been interpreting the language how it was put in place and it was the fault of what was enacted. He said he thinks the interpretation by staff can continue. Cera said he thinks the language is clear that the whole structure should be further away from the property line once it is taller than 15 feet. Johnson said the goal is to have property owners obeying the same rules and they need to consider the end product. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 2015 Page 15 Kluchka referred to other cities that require one wall to remain when doing a tear down and asked if the intent to maintain what's there. He said he thinks the appropriate implementation means setting back the whole structure. Segelbaum questioned if an existing house is at the 15-foot setback line and a second story was added if the second story would then have to step back further away from the property line. Zimmerman said yes. He added that the focus in 2006 was preservation, conservation and not adding massing in the wrong places. Johnson noted that a homeowner could go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and ask for a variance taking into consideration the other homes in the neighborhood. Zimmerman asked if the height should only be measured at the front of the house and then applied to both sides. Kluchka said that is how he remembers the original intent. Zimmerman explained that if the City Council wants to move forward with the original intent, the City Attorney has suggested setting a grandfathered date and then moving forward. Segelbaum referred to permits issued before the grandfathered date and asked if they would be considered conforming. Zimmerman said yes. Segelbaum said he doesn't want to make existing homes become nonconforming. Cera questioned how the subdivision study would have been different if the City had been interpreting the Zoning Code as intended. Waldhauser noted that if both sides of a house have to be set back further from the property line the City could get houses with the garages in front. She said the City will get a more attractive result if they allow the "wedding cake" design. Segelbaum said he thinks the Zoning Code should be interpreted as it was intended and only allow the "wedding cake" design for remodels. The Commissioners agreed. Zimmerman said another issue staff would like clarification on is the articulation requirement. He questioned if second floors have to be articulated and if bay windows, cantilevered spaces, or chimneys could count as articulation, or if the entire wall has to articulate. He also questioned if articulation should apply to any wall, or only to new walls. The consensus of the Commission was any wall over 32 feet in length should be articulated. Zimmerman said he would work on the Zoning Code amendment language and bring it back to the Commission for a public hearing. 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Baker reported on the METRO Blue Line workshop meeting held on February 26 at St. Margaret Mary Church. He stated that he and Gillian Rosenquist have been appointed to the new Community Advisory Committee. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 9, 2015 Page 16 Nevinski reported on the proposed CP-BNSF freight train connection in Crystal. Kluchka asked if the traffic issues on Wayzata Blvd. will be discussed at the upcoming City Council strategic planning retreat. Nevinski said they will be focusing on balancing existing projects with new projects. He said he would work with the City Engineer to figure out how to budget for a study and improvements. 7. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:23 pm. . , � / Charles D. Segelbaum, ecretary Li a Wittman, Administrative Assistant