Loading...
04-27-15 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room Monday, April 27, 2015 7 pm 1, Approvai of Minutes April 13, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Single Family Residential (R-1) Side Setbacks --Short Recess-- 3. Other Business • Election of Officers 4. Adjournment �x This docun7ent is�vailable in alternat�forn��ats upon a 72-hour rec���es#. Please call � 763-593-800fa (TTY: 763-593-396b}t� mak�� r�r�iaest. Ex�impl�s t�f alterr7��te f�3rtnats � rnay incfude IargE print, electranic, Br�ille, audiocassette,etc. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 13, 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, April 13, 2015. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Cera, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, A��ociate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, City Engineer Jeff Oliver, and Ad�inistrat��� Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Johnson was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes March 23, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the March 23, 2015, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan —l.iberty Crossing — Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue North — PU-123 Applicant: Intuitive Investrnents ' Addresses: 7751-7775 M�dicin�: Lake Road, 2430 and 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, arid'�2�85�`R�iode Island Avenue North Purpose: To allov�r � �8� unit apartment building and 63 townhome units. 3. Informal PubFic Hear�r�g —��Property Rezoning — Liberty Crossing — Medicine Lake Ro�d:,and Winnetka Avenue North — Z014-07 Appli��'n�: lnt�itive Investments Addresse�: 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2430 and 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North Pt�rpose: To rezone the properties from Commercial and Light Industrial to High Density Residential (R-4) The Informal Public Hearings and discussion for Items 2 and 3 were combined. Zimmerman explained the applicant's request to develop a 184 unit, five story apartment building and 63 townhome units across four existing parcels near the intersection of Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road. He referred to a site plan and noted that the development would replace the existing VFW, the Asian restaurant, the car wash and the vacant SIFCO building. The Midland Auto, Dairy Queen and Walgreens buildings would remain. He reminded the Commissioners that these Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 13, 2015 Page 2 properties were re-designated on the General Land Use Plan Map from Commercial and Light Industrial to High Density Residential in December of 2Q14, and so they must now be rezoned to High Density Residential in order to be consistent. Zimmerman discussed the parking for the development. He stated that the apartment building requires 276 spaces and the applicant is providing 288 spaces (232 underground, 56 surface), The townhomes require 126 spaces and the applicant is providing 138 spaces. He added that the applicant is also providing an additional 39 spaces along the internal driveways and will need to provide 14 spaces for bicycles. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and discussed the existing and proposed access points and the pedestrian circulation plan. He stated that there hav� beer� discussions with staff and the developer about vacating a portion of Rhode l�'land �ven°u� along the east side of the project in order to build a swale to help diver�wa�er, ���d to do���some innovative stormwater management. He explained that this is the fi�uu poin��nd historically there have been flooding issues along Medicine LakE Road and in the DeCola Ponds system. He stated that a significant amount of flood storage is needed and that creative stormwater management, including underground storage tanks on this site, could help the overall eonditions in the area and would reduce the pressure of flooding downstream. Kluchka questioned who would own the proposed swale and vacated area. Zimmerman said the details haven't b�en fully worked out, but the assumption is that the City would maint�in ownership of the existing right-of-way and possibly the swale depending on where it is built: Zimmerman discussed the proposed rezoning af,the properties. He noted that the High Density Residential zoning district allp�nrs for densities of over 12 units per acre. The proposed density for this praposal is 247 units on 10.88 acres which equals 22.7 units per acre. Blum asked about the amount'afi impervious surface currently on these parcels. Zimmerman stated there is approximately 64% impervious surface on these parcels now, this propos�?d development will drop that number down to 63%, and the percentage wGll drop furth�r once the changes on Rhode Island Avenue occur. Waldhau�r as`k�d if the�''water issues are surface water issues or ground water issues. Zirt�mermar►,�aid tt�e issues are with surface water and overflowing ponds. Segelbaum asked what other steps the City, along with the Cities of New Hope and Crystal, have been taken regarding flood mitigation. Zimmerman explained the different standards and definitions in the TP40 model versus the new Atlas 14 standards which changes the flood elevations and requires cities to plan differently for flood prone areas. He added that Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal have been studying the situation and how to deal with the issues as properties get redeveloped. Segelbaum asked if this project is an opportunity to deal with the situation more quickly than the City otherwise would have. Zimmerman said yes, and said it would be much more difficult if all four of these parcels weren't included in the proposal. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 13, 2015 Page 3 Baker asked if homes in this area have been acquired due to flooding issues. Oliver said homes throughout the City have been acquired and flood proofed, but not in this area. He stated that there are 37 properties in this water sub-shed that are at risk for flood damage. He explained how the new Atlas 14 model helps provide a more accurate determination of flood levels to help offer the highest degree of protection. Baker asked if the Atlas 14 takes climate change into account. Oliver said the Atlas 14 model looks at historical data and doesn't make projections. Kluchka asked how the proposed underground parking for this development is possible given the flooding issues. Oliver said it is possible. The high point will h'a�e to be set at 2 feet above the 1% flood elevation. Waldhauser asked if the underground storage tanks would displa�� water that would otherwise be stored there. Oliver said he is most concerned about swrface water, not groundwater and that the goal is to help resolve flooding issues: Baker asked about the capacity of the proposed ur�derground storage tanks. He also asked if similar tanks could be used in the vacated Rhode Island Avenue area. Zimmerman said the capacity of the tanks is approximately 7 to 8 acre feet. He added that tanks cannot be used in the vacated Rhode Island Avenue area because of the location of the utilities. Cera questioned who will pay for w�iat regarding the stormwater management. Zimmerman stated that the app�i��nt has'�some r.esponsibility to manage the stormwater on their property and that th� City h�s some responsibilities too. He added that the City and the County will be w�rking to�eth�r with the developer to obtain grants as well. Kluchka asked what could be built on these properties under their current zoning designation without a f'UD. Zimmerman stated that any commercial use could occur on the properties zoned Commerciaf and any light industrial use could occur on the former SIFCO property which is zoned 'Light Industrial. Todd Schachfman; Ap�licant, said as he studied the VFW parcel and the parcel to the south it b�came clear that this could be an opportunity to shape this gateway location. He stated th�t are big problems with the current water situation and this project is an opport�nity to help'fix the problems and he is excited to pave the way to the future in this corridor. He said there will be an area commemorating the VFW and the community room will be able to be used by the VFW. He said this area hasn't had any real development in 30 to 40 years and this project will allow options in housing. He said they are proposing market rate housing and there is potential for retail development in the future. Tom Dillon, Intuitive Invesments, Applicant, said that there hasn't been any new housing opportunities in this area for many years and that he likes the mix of housing being proposed. He stated that originally they had a much denser project but once they started to learn about the flooding issues, they changed their plans. He stated that they Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 13, 2015 Page 4 will reduce the flooding by approximately 20%, which is significant. He added that the south end of the site has less of a water issue, and that there will be no buildings located over the underground storage tanks. Baker asked where the entrance to the underground parking would be located. Schachtman referred to a site plan and stated that the entrance to the parking would be located on the southeast corner of the apartment building and accessed from Rhode Island Avenue. Cera asked about the size of the underground parking area. Dillon said the underground parking will be located underneath the entire apartment building as well-as the surface guest parking area, and the amenity area. Waldhauser asked why there are two access points on Winnetka Avenue. Elisa Richardson, Tanek Architects, explained that the south entrance would be for access to the underground parking and the north entrance would be for visitors a�d guests. Kluchka asked the applicant to consider signage for the twa entrances. Baker asked about the existing access road between Walgreen's prop�rty and Dairy Queen's property. Richardson stated that they don't have any inten�tto use that for access because it is not wide enough, it is just a part of the VFW's property. Cera asked if that access will remain open. Dillon said they may landscape thE area a bit more, but it won't change from how it is currently being used. Segelbaum asked how much storrnwater management is needed for this proposed development versus how much the City is asking,the applicant to provide. Schachtman stated that with or without th�.ir development the problem is still there. He stated that this is the area that collec#�'"water frorn all over and that this proposal is an opportunity to help improve the situafiQr�;, S�gelbaum asked if this site could be built without the underground storag�,tanks �a�Yiardson said the tanks will benefit their site, but they are � larger than what thexi�s�t� nee�s,:She added that the open area shown on the plans will be used as a water fiftl�tior��b��in�for the water on their site. Nate Shea, Tanek Architects, said tt1�y arert't using the underground tanks for their site, it is for dealing with the water issues outside af their site. Baker asked about the probability of using solar energy. Schachtman said the probability is;great,,and that solar will absolutely be used on the apartment building. He said h� is looking for ways to save energy and to be a net provider. He added that they are also looking at innovative ways to irrigate this development. Waldhauser asked about the size of the proposed units and the range of rents. Schachtman said the apartment building will have 30 studio units and 99 1-bedroom units ranging from 564 to 887 square feet, 45 2-bedroom units ranging in size from 1,073 to 1,136 square feet, and 10 3-bedroom units ranging in size from 1,334 to 1,412 square feet. He said he wants to provide a range of options and choice. He said the townhomes will have their own garages and a wide variety of floor plans and sizes. He said the rents will be typical market rate, but he doesn't know the exact amount at this time. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 13, 2015 Page 5 Baker asked if there will be any affordable units. Schachtman said they would consider that because they want to offer a broad spectrum of options for tenants to consider. Segelbaum asked if they will continue to own and manage the property. He said the Steven Scott Company will manage the property. Kluchka asked for a description of the exterior materials. Richardson said the materials aren't finalized yet, but there will be a blend of materials. She showed some renderings of the buildings and said they are looking at materials that will withstand tim� and look nice. She said there will be a wood-look product, Hardie products, and metal panel accents. She added that the townhomes and apartments would not match, but they would look like a family. Kluchka referred to the landscaping plans and asked about the applicant's approach to sidewalk connections and neighborhood connections. SchacMtman said he thinks good connections are what ultimately makes a good development. H� said he sees a benefit in how they connect to the rest of the area. Richardson added that the east side of the project will be more developed once they know the design of the swale. She said they want a connection with Walgreen's and that they will be working with a landscape architect to give the townhomes a front yard feel. 5he stated that the clubhouse area would have more screening and there will be rnore �anopy trees where guests come in to the property. Kluchka asked about th� 1lands�aping' afong Winnetka Avenue. Schachtman said they will plant some evergreen Yrees to create a buffer. Richardson stated that they are planning to move the sidewalks in further from the street as well, to make them safer. Schachtman added that there will also be some car charging stations. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Chris Gemlo, 1925 Kelly Driv�;,: �aid this looks like an exciting development, but he is not totally convinced �f the,fload mitigation issues yet. He said he wasn't notified of the DeCola Ponds meetinc� held prior to this meeting until last Saturday and that a large majority of the stakeholders were overlooked. He worries the swale will increase the flow and s��e� of vu��er#hrough the flood area into the Pennsylvania Pond. He said he hasn't ��en �ata���i����e s�rvale will be enough to alleviate the water flow, or of the sanitary`��p�d'i�qns of tlle water that will flow through. He said he is curious to know who will maintairtt�nd��t�wn the swale. He referred to the portion of Rhode Island Avenue that is prc��aosed to be vacated and said the neighbors to the south use the sidewalks along Rhode'Island Avenue. He questioned the amount and type of traffic that will be created by this develflpment and how it is being addressed. He added that there is no public playground anywhere near this development. Renee Plumart, 7500 Winnetka Heights Drive, said the SIFCO site definitely needs redevelopment and she is encouraged to see development happening. She referred to the VFW site, which is the lowest area, and questioned why the City wouldn't purchase that property and create a pond area for additional storage. She said she is also concerned about the swale expediting the flow of water and she questioned who will pay for and maintain the underground storage vaults, and if it will increase the cost of Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 13, 2015 Page 6 the townhomes. She said it seems that the developer is trying to cram a lot on this site and trying to do a little bit of everything and maybe not doing any of them well. She said she would like the City to consider this area for ponding instead. Carl Hoffstedt, 2450 Valders Avenue North, said the area was a swamp at one time and the low point on Medicine Lake in front of the VFW floods whenever there is intense rain. He said Walgreens had to replace a lot of their soils so this developer will probably have to do quite a bit of excavating and backfill. He said he is concerned about the underground parking with the water issues in this area and he hopes they wvn't have to raise the height of the proposed apartment building. He said when the Dover Hill apartment was first built it stuck out, but now that the trees have matured it helps with screening, so he would like to see more visual screening of this proposed apartm�nt building. He said this is a significant development and it will put rnore traffic �n Winnetka Avenue and there is also a site problem at 23�d and Winnetka Avenues so he would like to see a traffic impact study done to show the traffic conflicts. He said he expects to see a higher quality of design and hopes the number of police calls with this development will also be taken into consideration. ' Tim Cornelius, 8405 Patsy Lane, said he is concerned about traffic. He said he has changed his driving habits and no longer useS Duluth Street; He said he is concerned about Douglas Drive being changed to one lan� in each direction. He asked if there is a plan in the future for Winnetka to have a one directional lane. He said he uses Rhode Island Avenue a lot and he is concern�d 1Ninnetka will change and he won't be able to get across it. :T,:, Mar�i Micks, 90 Louisiana Ay���e ��at,�t�i, referred to the Laurel Avenue ponds and asked if similar ponds could'be r�c�uir�d on the northern part of this proposed PUD. Marjorie Ostrov, 1788 Maryland Avenue North, asked if any consideration has been given to requiring slightly larger units to keep this an upper to middle class area. She said tiny apartments wvuld bring in people who usually live downtown and a larger number of units will affc�ct#he traffic. She said she wants the development ta be appropriate for a suburb, rather than a downtown. Paula Langendyke, 674�" Medicine Lake Road, said with this many single and one- bedCoom uri°its ther+e will be young people who tend to drive faster so she is concerned about traffic patterns and safety. She said there is already a lot of high density in this area. ` George Maxwell, 1945 Kelly Drive, said he has similar concerns about the proposed swale and the volume of water running into the pond at a quicker rate than it does now. He said generally he is for development that will help address the flood storage and he thinks it is a good idea to capitalize on those opportunities. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 13, 2015 , Page 7 Cera there are two issues. One is the DeCola ponds issue and the other is the specific development proposal. Baker asked if there were not the surface flow from the north what sort of water storage this development would require in and of itself. Oliver said he can't separate what is coming from the north from the entire watershed. He clarified that if this were an area that was not prone to flooding the applicant could typically accommodate rate control and flood control on site with a pond or a small below ground vault. He said as shown, the development is a net neutral, but in working with this developer there is an opportunity to get expanded storage. Baker asked what the difference in the capacity would be if the p;roposed townhomes on the northeast corner were a pond instead. Oliver said a pond in that location'would have minimal impact and would be detrimental to the intersection. He said i'n his opinion the north end of the site would not be appropriate for ponding. Segelbaum asked Oliver to clarify what he meant by "net neutral." Oliver said the below ground storage in combination with the swale will mitiga#e the Io�t storage from this development. He reiterated that the solution will be a long process, but this is one opportunity to help the current issues. Waldhauser asked if the grade of the entire property will be raised before it is built on. Oliver said yes. Waldhauser asked if thatwill mak� #he apartment building taller. Oliver said the south end of the site is already higher. Waldhauser questioned wha;� t�ption� Golden Valley and the surrounding cities were considering to deal with tbe flooding prt�blem. Oliver said they've been studying the area for four or five years and ��l�ve id�r�tified the need for significant storage. He said at some point in time s�orage vv`�:�td have been developed similar to what is being proposed in this dev��i�p,�n�nt.���:� �,r } , Kluchka asked ht��r the�_�v�iale viiorks. Oliver said it is basically a dry stream channel. He said the int�nt is to serve as storage and get the water from point A to point B. Baker asked if the underground tanks require maintenance. Oliver said the maintenance issues will be addressed during the final design review. He said he anticipates that the City will own aC�d maintain these facilities due to their regional significance. Baker said it would be helpf.ul to see an elevation of the swale and the storage tanks. Blum referred ta the comment regarding sanitation issues. Oliver said to his knowledge, there won't be sanitation issues associated with the storage tanks. Waldhauser asked if the quality of water going into the pond will be affected. Oliver said the developer will be required to meet City and Bassett Creek Watershed Commission requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 13, 2015 Page 8 Kluchka asked for clarification on the funding for the water storage proposals. Oliver said staff along with the Cities of Crystal and New Hope have had discussians with Hennepin County and are exploring other avenues to help with funding. Baker said he doesn't want to vate on a recommendation without knowing how this will be funded. Kluchka asked about traffic volumes and future plans for Winnetka Avenue. Oliver said the City has not asked the developer to do a traffic study. He said there may be some issues during the peak hours, however this residential proposal will be less of a burden than an office use would be. He said there are no plans at this point in time for a major re-construct of Winnetka Avenue and that Hennepin County will be doing a mill and overlay on the north end of Winnetka this summer. Kluchka asked if Winnetka wiU ever be changed to a three-lane road. Oliver said there have been no discussiQns about turning Winnetka into a three-lane road. Baker asked about the pedestrian crossing at Medicine Lake Ftoad and Winnetka and what effect this development will have. Oliver said the City strongly encourages pedestrians to cross at the intersections. He said he doesn't know that there will be an adverse impact due to this development, but he doesn't think the peaks with this proposal and the schools in the area will coincide. Baker a5ked if fhere will be any consideration of a traffic control near the south erttrance. O[iver said there would mare likely be traffic control at 23�d and Winnetka if warrants are met, at the County's discretion. Segelbaum asked if the existing sidewalk on the east side of Rhode Island will remain or if it would be removed if Rhode lsland Avenue is vacated. Zimmerman said that is still to be determined. He added that the Gity wants good east-west and north-south connections. Baker asked if'the swale would preclude sidewalks. Zimmerman said no. Kluchka asked the applicant if:there will be a playground. Schachtman said there will be a playground area, a pool, and°�n area for dogs. Kluchka asked Schachtr�rt�n about what led to the decision regarding the size of the apartment units. Sc�i�chtman said the apartments are in-line, or slightly larger than what � is comrrt�nlyF�ee�-�r� #�te rnetro area. He added that they are proposing a lot of windows as well to���low�s muc���`�natural light as possible. Kluchka said he would like to see a co�pansori�:�f th�+�z�ize of these apartment units to other apartments in Golden Valley. Baker asked if the playground could be open to the public. Schachtman said yes, he'd be amenable to that. Waldhauser asked if there is play space at the Dover Hill apartments. Zimmerman said he didn't know. Waldhauser said she is not sure she, or future residents, want the play space at this development to be the play space for the entire area. Segelbaum asked the applicant if he is confident that they've got a handle on the soil conditions. Schachtman said yes, they've done extensive geotechnical studies on the parcels so they know what kind of soils are there. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 13, 2015 Page 9 Cera referred to the design of the proposed buildings and asked the applicant if they would consider adding some articulation. Schachtman said they are at the very beginning of the design process and that they will do a first class job on the design. Waldhauser asked if there is enough space on the west side af the property to plant some large trees. Schachtman said yes, there are plenty of species they could select and they've learned a lot about best practices from their past projects. Kluchka asked about police activity in the area. Zimmerman said he hasn't heard any complaints, but he would check with the Police Department. Kluchka said the Medicine Lake RoadNVinnetka Avenue interse�tion is nQ#,�i,n go�d= repair for bikers and pedestrians. Oliver said he would check with the County to see if they are planning any pedestrian improvements with their overlay plans. Baker asked if Winnetka is wide enough for a bike Iane; Oliver said he didn't think so without converting it to a three lane road. Kluchka asked the Commissioners if they want to recommend that a traffic study be done. Segelbaum said he thinks a study would show that th� roads can handle the capacity but his concern would be the turns in and out of th�'development, Baker suggested they ask for a study showing Mow the traffic wi�( function. Cera suggested they recommend a traffic and safety;�tudy. Kluchka said he would like to adt��desigrt 'reviev�and approval as a condition of approval. '`� �� Waldhauser asked if the deueloper would be installing the sidewalk on Rhode Island. Kluchka said that sidewalk is � priority and suggested that be reviewed during the Final PUD process. Waldhauser said this is probably the best thing the City can do to start addressing the water issue, She said this is a nice use of the property and will offer a true variety in the types of houses: Baker said he often thinks about the importance of a PUD being a benefit to �he Ci#y. He sa'id there is a benefit with the developer helping address water problems. F�� said he also likes the fact that there is interest in developing with a green comp�anent. Se�elbaum said he thinks this project is a positive enhancement to the area. ' Kluchka said he would like to challenge the developer around design and how this development will work with the neighborhood, how it connects to its context, and how it becomes an extension of an existing neighborhood. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for Liberty Crossing PUD No. 123, subject to the following findings and conditions: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 13, 2015 Page 10 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. The applicant worked closely with the City during a lengthy pre-application process—and has continued to refine the proposal—in order to accommodate the unique circumstances surrounding the site. The flexibility allowed under a PUD is necessary to achieve the outcome that will not only benefit the applicant, but the City as a whole. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions �f#he site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. Given the lack of open space or other sensitive environmental features on the sit�; today, there is little available for the applicant to preserve. However, the proposa) does take'advantage of the natural areas of Pennsylvania Woods and DeCola Pond B to the east and, in partnership with the City, will use a constructed swale to rnanage stormwater more effectively and result in the creation of additional green space within in the Rhode Island Avenue right of way. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use'(which includes preservation) of the land. The proposal not only provides for an increas� in residential density in an underutilized area well served by transit, but the creative inclusion of regional flood storage within the development provides a benafit to the greater area. 4. The PUD Plan results in developmen# compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and rede�elopment plans and goals. The use of this property for higher d`ensity residential use is compatible with the neighboring property to the e�st and the density being proposed is consistent with the City's revised Compr�hensive Plan. 5. The PUD plan is consi�tent with preserving and impraving the general health, safety and general welfare o�the people ofthe City. The potential for reduction in flooding along Medicine I��ke Ro��lfi�nd within the DeCola Ponds area provides great benefit ' to the City and its:�=e�i�ents:��� 6. The PUD pla� me�ts tJ���b�?��JD'1'ntent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions: The flexibility provided by the PUD allows for a better site layout and coordinatit�n between the two uses on the site. Condition�;; 1. The plans prepared by Tanek, submitted March 12, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Departrnent, dated April 8, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division, dated April 9, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 4. Public bicycle racks or similar facilities for the parking/storage of a minimum of 14 bicycles shall be provided, based on a calculation of 5% of the 276 parking spaces required for the apartment building. 5. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 6. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 123" in its title. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 13, 2015 Page 11 7. A park dedication fee of $60,100, or 2% of the land value, shall be paid before release of the Final Plat. 8. A traffic, pedestrian and safety study shall be done as a part of the Final PUD proposal. 9. The application will be subject to design review and approval that would include elevations, materials, and landscaping. 10.This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Waldhauser questioned if the recommended traffic and safety study should go'with this proposal or if the Commission should send a letter to the City Council saying this area seems to have some issues that should be addressed. Segelbaum said th� traffic and safety impact is tied to this development. Oliver said typically the'City will perForm the traffic study with the developer posting escrow to cover the costs. Segelbaum said he would like the study to be limited to the issues they've discuss�d. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motian carried unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning the properties at 77�1-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North from Commercial to High Density Residential (R-4) and the property at 243Q.Winnetka Avenue North from Light Industrial to High Density Residential (R-4). 4. Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Plan Map Amendment— 9000 and 9050 Golden Valley Road— CPAM-56 Applicant: City of G�Iden Valley Addresses: 9000 and 9Q50 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To chang�the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from �Qmrri��'�i�l tc� Residential High Density. Goellner st�ted thaf the City Council discussed a senior housing proposal at their March 10 Cou�r��il%}1��n���rrrne�tii�g and have directed staff to start the General Land Use Plan Map ame�dm�r�t:process to re-guide the vacant properties located at 9000 and 9050 Gc���ien Val1� Ro�,�l from Commercial to High Density Residential. She referred to a site map and statet� that these two properties are located in the Highway 55 Redevelopment Area. S�� expl�ined that the Metropolitan Council has said that the number of households in Golden Valley is expected to increase 17% by the year 2040 and that the population is expected to be 24,300 by 2040. To accommodate this growth, the City is considering increasing housing density in appropriate locations. Kluchka asked if the property to the west at 9110 Golden Valley Road is designated Medium Density. Goellner said yes. Kluchka asked if there is future development planned for that property. Zimmerman said the City has some interest in seeing that property redeveloped, but there is not an interested seller at this point. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 13, 2015 Page 12 Segelbaum stated that there has been discussion regarding the Highway 55 intersection as part of previous proposals. He asked if re-designating these properties to High Density Residential would help support some of the initiatives and if that could be used as funding for the TIF district in this area. Kluchka asked if the pedestrian overlay is coming back to a future agenda for discussion. Zimmerman stated that the Council has asked that a pedestrian overlay district be developed potentially for this area, but for use in other areas as well. He stated that there is a redevelopment area over all the parcels in this area. He said there are different types of TIF districts so it depends on what types of developments are located in this area. Segelbaum said he is concerned about the impact to the intersection as it relates to two high density developments. He said h� uvants to make sure that there is support for improving that intersection. Zimmerman said the Cify.has a concern about safety and that the slip ramp design and improvernents will be addressed as part of the Golden Villas project. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Jerad Ducklow 7002 6t" Street North, Oakdale, representing the property owner at 9000 Golden Valley Road, said he is a real estate broker and is currently listing this property. He said he has had suitors for this property. One of them happened to be a potential residential property, but there have been others in�erested �� well. He said when he received the hearing notice for this meeting he was rather:shocked and the timing of it seems ironic because he has been discussing with the �ity'other potential uses. He said he is not adamantly opposed to the ��-de�ic�nat�an, he,just wants to make sure it is being done for the right reasons. He said 1ie wants everything taken into consideration because when smaller parcels like this are zoned high density residential there are certain limitations. He said he thinks;�veryone wants this property to be redevelaped and used to its fullest potential, but he questions th�; timing of this proposal. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Segelbaum asked if th� normal requirements regarding notification were followed. Zimmerman said yes. He explained that the City Council asked the Planning Commission to look at fihis area about a month or two ago to give them some initial feedback about the land uses. He s�i�'the Gouncil wanted to pursue high density housing in this area. Baker asked whc� wants this area to be housing and who wants it to be open to potential commercia(uses. �immerman said the Council wants these properties to be high density housin,g. Baker asked what is motivating that desire. Zimmerman said there is some concern as this area transitions to a more pedestrian friendly area that auto oriented uses wouldn't be as`friendly to a pedestrian, mixed-use area. Waldhauser said it is hard to envision this area as a pedestrian friendly area. Baker asked if this is the right way to do this. He said he would like to see a mini West End type of project with real mixed-use. He said this feels piecemeal to him. Cera asked what would happen if the Planning Commission recommended denial. Zimmerman said the Council directed staff to bring this to the Commission for review. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 13, 2015 Page 13 Segelbaum asked if these properties are buildable as a high density project. Zimmerman stated that the High Density Residential Zoning District allows for 12 units per acre. Segelbaum asked for clarification of how the properties can be used right now. Zimmerman reiterated that if these properties are un-occupied for a period of one year they would be considered non-conforming, but if they are continually being marketed for a commercial use or used as a commercial use, they can continue to be used as commercial properties. Cera questioned if the Medium-High Residential designation would be better. Blum said the Planning Commission has discussed recently where higher density would be appropriate. He said it seems that the intersection of two major roadways is a good place to have growth and density and that is where this is. He said this is also a'gateway location where the City might not want underdeveloped, vacant properties. Segelbaum agreed and said he thinks this is a right place for this use. Bak�r also agreed. Waldhauser asked about the status of Bus Rapid Trans'rt on Highway 55. Zimmerman said there was a study done which indicated this could be a favorable corridor, but there is no funding available at this time. Waldhauser said it would be more exciting to have a mixed use proposal here. Zimmerman noted that fhe R-3 and R-4 zoning district also allow for first floor retail with a Conditional Use Permit. ' Baker said he is ok with recommending apprcaval of the proposed re-designation but he really feels it is not getting the City wher�'it wart#s to go. He said he would like the Council to take the initiative to be mor� bold>th�an this. Kluchka said historically the Planning Commission has commented on.spot'�pning without taking into consideration a larger area with a plan, not rezonin.g on�`or two properties with the hope of change. He added that he is a big propqnent ofr�'���!'ing places for higher density housing and this is probably a good place for it assurning if c�n be made pedestrian friendly. � Baker said he wC�ta�d like���the min'utes to reflect that the Commission is recommending the Council think bigger, and more dramatic in this area and to use some higher risk, more influential toc�ls they have at their disposal. Blum said he thinks starting small might be a good first s#ep in the right direction. MOV�p by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recomrnend approval of changing the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Comrn�rcial to High Density Residential for the properties at 9000 and 9050 Golden Valley Road. --Short Recess-- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Mousing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 13, 2015 Page 14 6. Other Business • Revisions to Planning Commission By-laws Zimmerman stated that the City Council has revised its Guidelines for Advisory Commissions, Committees, Boards and Councils to limit the terms of office for the Chair and Vice-Chair of each body to a maximum of two years. He stated that the Planning Commission By-laws need to be amended to reflect this change. Waldhauser noted that there are several places in the by-laws where it states that a Planning Commission representative makes presentations of its recornmendations at the City Council meetings, which they no longer do. Segelbaum asked about the intent of this amendment. Zimmerrrran S�ated tha�tl�e intent is to limit the amount of time any one commissioner can be a chair�r vice ���ir. The Commissioner's discussed the language in the propos�d arnendm�e�ht. The consensus of the Planning Cammission was to arnent! the praposed language to state that the chair and vice chair shall not serve more than twa consecutive, one year terms. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Segelbaurn and motion carried unanimously to amend Section 11 of the by-laws to by adding the following: Commissioners shall not serve as chair or vice chair for more than two consecutive, one year terms. • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 7. Adjournmen#�.: � The meeting w�s adjourned �fi 10:28 pm. �:� Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant G2�� 4� ���z��°; �,� �� ��� � � � � � � � � � � � �t�. �..'� Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109{fax) Date: April 27, 2015 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: lason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Single Family Residential (R-1) Side Setbacks On March 26, the Planning Commission reviewed the current zoning language related to the side setbacks of R-1 zoned properties and confirmed the original intent behind the amended language which was adopted in 2008. The Planning Commission recommended grandfathering any homes built under a different interpretation, including unbuilt homes with an approved building permit, or those that have submitted plans for review for a building permit prior to April 15, 2015. The City Council approved these recommendations (3-2) at their meeting on April 7. During the public hearing on April 7, and throughout the discussion afterwards, the Council expressed a number of concerns regarding the side setback requirements. On a second vote (4- 1), the Council directed the Planning Commission to revisit Chapter 11.21, Subdivision 11 (A)(3) and recommend any changes as soon as possible. Council Discussion and Concerns The current requirements of this section of the code can be summarized as follows: 1) The singular height of a home is determined by the measurement from the grade at the front building line to the average height of the highest pitched roof or the top of the highest point of a flat roof. 2) Based on a formula that is dependent on the width of the lot at the front setback line,the side setbacks are increased equally on both sides of the home for every foot in height above 15 feet. 3) The increased side setbacks apply to the entire structure for new construction and to any new portion of the structure for additions or remodels. The Council viewed examples of homes where the application of these requirements would have increased the side setbacks. In some cases this would have reduced the width of the home that was built and resulted in the loss of a garage stall or a redesign of the home to accommodate the garage stall at the expense of other elements of the front fa�ade (a front entry area, a porch, windows, etc.). This was felt to be a negative impact of the more restrictive setbacks. In addition, there was concern that if the width of a home were to be reduced, the modern demands for square footage in new homes would simply shift the building massing towards the rear of the lot and into the back yard. Concern was specifically raised regarding the design of homes on narrower lots. The origins of the variable side setback language stemmed from concerns about the height of new and remodeled homes and the impact they had in blocking light and air to neighboring properties. Tying the size of the side setback to the height of the structure was viewed as a way to preserve solar access while still allowing for reasonable two-story designs. The Council reiterated its support for this objective. Finally, the Council asked that whatever changes the Planning Commission might recommend, the resulting language be easy to understand and simple to administer. It was suggested that figures be added to the zoning code to demonstrate the relationship between height and side setbacks and to attempt to avoid future questions of interpretation. Potential Code Changes With these concerns in mind, staff has worked to draft revised side setback requirements that strive to remain true to the goals of protecting neighbors from the blockage of light from taller homes, of allowing for attractive and functional home designs, and of simplifying the code for better comprehension and administration. For the most part,the side yard setback requirements—as they have been interpreted—have functioned quite well for the past seven years. Under the previous interpretation, structures under 15 feet in height were allowed to be constructed up to the primary side setback line. Those portions of structures that were taller than 15 feet were required to be set back further from the lot line to allow light and air to reach the neighboring properties. Issues arose, however, when trying to determine exactly how to calculate the height of each portion of a structure with multiple rooflines and changes in grade. Unlike the more restrictive requirements, which increase side setbacks on both sides of a lot based on the overall height of the home,the previous interpretation allowed single story portions to remain at or near the primary setback line, allowing for more flexibility in home design. Staff has revisited the "McMansion" changes that were made to the City of Austin,TX, zoning code in 2006 and that were one source for the amendments which were adopted in Golden Valley in 2008. That zoning code defines a three dimensional building envelope in the shape of a tent. With some limitations and exceptions, anything that fits within the "tent" is allowed. This approach,tailored to accommodate the current step-back requirements in the Golden Valley zoning code, could provide a solution to the concerns outlined by the City Council (see Figure 1). Maximum height R� s�tb �k Se��a�� ,c,.o� y�de �s e�bd c,� Figure 1 Using this approach, the building envelope would be established at the front, rear, and side setback lines as usual, but would extend upwards only 15 feet in each side yard. After 15 feet, the envelope would slope inward at a 2:1 rate (2 feet in additional height means 1 foot of additional setback), as is currently allowed in the zoning code. The maximum height of a structure would be limited to 28 feet and would be measured by the average height of the highest pitched roof(or 25 feet for a flat roof), as is currently allowed in the zoning code. The biggest change from the current, more restrictive code, is that anything that fits within the building envelope could be built—i.e., the entire structure is not impacted by the increased setbacks associated with greater height, only the portions taller than 15 feet. The side setbacks for three types of lots—those having a width of 100 feet or greater, those greater than 65 feet and less than 100 feet, and those 65 feet or less—would remain as they are currently defined. The shape of the tent would be adjusted for lots under 65 feet in width, as is currently done in the zoning code, to set the slope at a 4:1 rate. This strategy meets the multiple goals of allowing light and air to reach neighboring properties (the stepping back required by the previous zoning changes remains in place), of providing opportunities for a greater variety of housing designs and front facades (it removes some of the limitations of narrower lots), and would be easy to understand and administer. If the Planning Commission is generally in agreement with pursuing an amendment of this type, staff will prepare specific language and images for consideration at an upcoming public hearing. Attachments Email from Matt Pavek dated April 22, 2015 (1 page) Wittman, Lisa Subject: FW: GV side setbacks From: mpavek@civilsitegro�.com [mailto:mpavek civilsitegrou�„comJ Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:08 PM To: Zimmerman,Jason; Wittman, Lisa Subject: RE: GV side setbacks Jason, City Council Members, Planning Commission Members, Per our discussions and after listening to the meetings on the side setback subject I would like to offer the foilowing opinions: As a Developer, Civil Engineer, Real Estate Agent and Resident of Golden Valley I am fully vested in the quality of our housing stoek and have an interest in keeping the trend of improvements to that housing stock moving forward. History: I understand the history of the side setback issue as first being raised during the trend in the early 2000's to start tearing down homes and replacing them with much larger structures. In some cases (not all) these new homes would seem to "tower"over the existing homes that were next door and caused concern amongst some of the residents of the neighborhoods. In order to help take the pressure off that new relationship between existing homes and new taller homes a variable side setback ordinance was introduced in 2008 that essentially increased the side setbacks as the homes got taller. This was done to try to respect the "light and air" feel of the neighboring properties to the extent practical while still maintaining a property owners rights to improve their property...i.e. add a second story to their rambler, tear down and rebuild a better home, etc. Interpretation: Since 2008 we have been involved in many new homes that were constructed under the new side setback ordinance. Since it was passed we have always understood that the increase in side setback has only applied to the portion of the house that was taller than 15', i.e., the "wedding cake" design. This approach while somewhat difficult to measure and apply has worked relatively well in allowing good looking homes to be built on 80' Golden Valley lots. This approach also does a great job in allowing "light and air" to the neighboring properties for those heights that actually affect the "light and air" concerns. Any portions of a home that is less than 15' in height should not and does not factor in to those concerns and thus should be allowed to be closer(to the normal setback) than the portion that is pushed back due to height. It is a logical approach which fully achieves the whole purpose of the side setback ordinance. Any other interpretation artificially increases side setbacks for the portions of the home under 15' and doesn't seem to make sense or accomplish any additional "light and air". Consequences: As I stated above, the "wedding cake" design concept has been successful in all the homes that have been built since 2008 and has achieved the goals of the variable side setback ordinance. If the ordinance interpretation is changed to apply to the entire side of the home there will be many less desirable consequences. 1. Effectively any rambler will have 12.5' side setbacks and any 2 story will have 19' side setbacks. If this were the goal, why not just make the rule as such? I don't think this was the goal... 2. 19' side setbacks on a 80` Iot will result in a 42' wide home. This is an extremely disproportionate side setback for a lot...half of the lot is side setback?These would be by far the largest side setbacks in the entire metro area and are not appropriate for our typical 80' Iot sizes in the City. 3. Any tear down of an existing two story home and rebuild of a two story home would go from 12.5' side setback to 19' side setbacks?...what sense does that make? Some may say if you leave the foundation then you can keep the setbacks...but why would the City encourage people to reuse 50 year old foundations as a matter of policy, just so they don't have to build a disproportionately narrow home on their lot? 4. Nar.row homes will force "garage front" architecture and push the home living space into the back yard areas. I don't think garage front architecture is desired by the neighborhoods or the people who want to build new homes in Golden Valley. Especially if it is forced by an enarmous side setback. Solutions: 1 . Generally I support and think you have come up with a brilliant solution to the side setback interpretation question. Creating the "building envelope"which increases the setback as the height gets taller(only for the portions of the home that are in fact taller) achieves all the goals of the variable side setback. it is easy to administer and interpret. The wedding cake style (shape of the building envelope) is the best case for this type of ordinance. It will result in the best looking homes that do not tower over neighbors (since the taller portions are stepped back). The lower portions can be spread out giving a much better aesthetic to the curb appeal vs. "all garage" and side walis that just go straight up two stories to the roof. The great news here is you don't need to do any further study since you've already done much better than a study...you've have real world practice. Over the last 7 years I'm not sure how may homes have been built... But clearly this ordinance as it has been interpreted has been working very well. It will only improve as you hopefully begin to administer the new building envelope mechanism. Thanks, and I hope your building envelope concept is adopted as it will lead to the best possible housing in our City moving forward. Please feel free to call me anytime if you have any questions about how we have seen side setbacks working in Golden Valley and others around the metro if you think it would help inform your decision making process. Thanksl #�t��; � ������'�; ; t�;�t�k �mr���r����` �����:.�:�. �:>�a :����m �,µc��.s� is�e� � rs�. ��3.��3�.3��� � . ; ��� ',� �$� ,��' �3. ������: �f�� � �t. L,�z���� ��r�, �� 5 i��� �s�=c ._ _:�:. rk� www.civilsiteqroup.com 2