Loading...
05-11-15 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 11, 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, May 11, 2015. Chair Cera called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Blum, Cera, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Baker was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes April 27, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 27, 2015, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Single Family Residential (R-1) Side Setbacks —ZO00-98 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider amending language in the Zoning Code regarding side yard setbacks. Zimmerman explained that the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to review the current Zoning Code language regarding side yard setback requirements. He noted that the Planning Commission also discussed this issue at their April 27 meeting and that staff now has proposed Code language for the Planning Commission to consider. Zimmerman stated that the proposed new language is based on the "tent-shaped" building envelope method as previously discussed. He explained that for lots 100 feet or greater in width, the side setback is 15 feet and the side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than 15 feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point 15 feet directly above the side setback line. For lots greater than 65 feet and less than 100 feet in width, the side setback is 12.5 with the same 2:1 ratio, and for lots having a width of 65 feet or less, the side setbacks along the north or west shall be 10% of the lot width, and the south or east shall be 20% with a ratio of 4:1 beginning at point 15 feet directly above the side setback line. He added that language is also being proposed to clarify the side wall a�ticulation requirements and to define the building envelope as the front, side, and rear setbacks, and the height taken together. Kluchka referred to the drawings shown in the presentation and asked if the height is defined as the maximum height or the mid-point of a pitched roof. Zimmerman stated that Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 11, 2015 Page 2 the height is measured at the average height (mid-point) of the highest pitched roof. He added that the Communications staff is working on illustrations to be used in the Zoning Code to help visually explain the building envelope. Zimmerman referred to the City Council's concerns including: protecting neighboring homes from the blockage of light and air by taller structures, simplifying the Zoning Code and adding illustrations for better comprehension and administration, discouraging garage-dominated front facades, and preserving back yard areas. Zimmerman explained that the proposed language will address the blockage of light and air because the three dimensional building envelope allows only 15 feet of height at the minimum side setback, and as the height of a house increases, portions of the structure must be set back further from the side lot line. He added that there are no changes in angles or distances to second stories than what is currently allowed. Zimmerman stated that in order to address the concerns about simplifying the Zoning Code, language is being proposed that will replace height and setback calculations with language describing a building envelope instead. He reiterated that the proposed new language will include diagrams for visual reference, and for ease in understanding and applying the requirements. Zimmerman referred to the concern about garage-dominated front facades, and the preservation of back yard areas. He expfained that the proposed new language allowing one story structures to extend to the setback line will offer greater flexibility in design related to the width of a home, create opportunities to allow for more living space in the front facade as compared to garage space, both of which will provide for less depth and help preserve back yard space. Zimmerman stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting, there was discussion regarding ways to limit a garage-dominated front facade. He stated that staff researched ways that other communities handle this issue. Some communities limited the linear feet of garage across the front of a lot, some limited the percentage of garage related to the non-garage portion, some required garages to be set back further from the front door. He said all of these methods are potential solutions, but staff doesn't feel comfortable knowing how they work with the lots in Golden Valley without further exploration. He added that he thinks the proposed new language will help address the garage-dominated front facade concern. Zimmerman showed the Commissioners a map of the City illustrating various lot sizes. He stated that approximately 63% are 100 feet or greater in width and approximately 36% are less than 100 feet in width. Johnson asked if the illustrations of the houses shown inside the tent-shaped building envelope are to scale and if they are realistic with the math. Zimmerman said yes. The illustrations he showed were roughly to scale and fit within the tent-shaped building envelope method proposed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 11, 2015 Page 3 Blum asked if there is a standard way to figure where the "floor" of the tent-shaped building envelope begins. Zimmerman said there are existing definitions in the Zoning Code regarding the average grade of a lot. Kluchka asked if there have been discussions regarding allowing garages to be located in a setback area in order to avoid variances. Zimmerman said he did not find that in any of his research. He said many of the zoning codes he looked at limited the length of a garage in the front, or allowed only a percentage of a front facade to be garage. Kluchka asked about the communication process regarding these proposed changes. Zimmerman said there wasn't a special mailing or postcard sent out, but the typical notification process was followed and there have been several public discussions about these issues before the City Council. He added that there will also be information posted on the City's website. Kluchka referred to the idea that modern families are looking for three-stall garages. He said when he reads "modern," he sees "wealthy." He said he doesn't want to send the wrong message that the City is encouraging more wealthy families to build in Golden Valley. Zimmerman stated that nothing in the City's narrative promotes three-stall garages. He said that standards have evolved over time and the City doesn't want to limit setbacks to a point where it can't provide what the market wants. Waldhauser asked if the average height is determined at the foundation of a house, or at the front setback line. Zimmerman said the average grade and height are measured at the front building line. Segelbaum asked how this proposed language is different, or the same, compared to how the Zoning Code has been interpreted for the last 7 to 8 years. He said his understanding is that this proposed new language is a different way to measure the setbacks, but it is not dramatically changing how things have been done for the last several years. Zimmerman agreed that the proposed new language isn't dramatically changing how setbacks have been determined since 2008. He showed several examples of the more strict Code interpretation that requires both side yards to have larger setbacks as the height of a home increases, and how it makes it more difficult to fit homes within those setbacks. Segelbaum asked about the articulation requirements and questioned how many articulations would be required if a wall was 34 feet in length. Zimmerman explained that once a wall is over 32 feet in length an articulation is required, then another 32 feet of wall can be built before another articulation would be required. He stated that if an existing wall is 32 feet or longer, then an articulation would be required if any length was added to that wall. Segelbaum asked if the issues regarding garage-dominated front facades will be addressed at a later date. Zimmerman said yes, he would like to do some further research on that issue. Waldhauser stated that some flexibility will be taken away with the proposed new language because the side setbacks have been determined separately on each side for Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 11, 2015 Page 4 the past several years. Zimmerman stated that measuring on each side got more complicated and was harder to interpret. He added that the creation of the tent-shaped building envelope will simplify things. Johnson asked if a homeowner brings in plans for review if staff will be able to implement the proposed new language. Zimmerman said yes, plans will have a front elevation shown on them and staff will be able to create a template showing how the proposed house would fit within the building envelope. Blum asked if using the new building envelope method will be difficult on pie-shaped lots, or odd�y shaped lots. Zimmerman said he didn't think so because the building envelope would just be more of a diamond shape. Cera added that language recently added to the Subdivision Code will help eliminate odd-shaped lots. Cera opened the public hearing. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, said he is in favor of the proposed language. He said it matches what has been done over the past 8 years and he thinks it supports the intent of the studies that have been done in the past. He suggested that the last sentence in the proposed language be changed to read that the side setbacks for any portion of a structure greater than 15 feet in height shall be measured to an inwardly sloping plane at a ratio of 2:1 beginning at a point 15 feet directly above the 15-foot (or 12.5-foot as applicable) side setback line. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Cera closed the public hearing. Waldhauser noted that Knaeble's suggested language wouldn't work for lots having a width of 65 feet or less because those side setbacks are a variable percentage. She stated that the illustrations proposed as part of the new language will help make the setback requirements clear. Goellner noted that the building height requirement might also be added as an illustration. Kluchka said he would like the illustrations to show the superimposed image of how a house would fit inside the tent-shaped building envelope. Segelbaum said he has concerns about trying to diagram everything in the Zoning Code. Kluchka asked if staff is going to ask the City Council about further studying the garage- dominated front facade concerns. Zimmerman said he can ask the City Council if they want the Planning Commission to do further research. Segelbaum suggested that more research occur. Kluchka agreed. Waldhauser said she is not in favor of trying to specify how much of a front facade contains garage or not. Segelbaum said he thinks the proposed new language clarifies the Zoning Code tremendously. He said it is slightly more restricting, but it seems like an appropriate way to handle the issue. Waldhauser added that this new building envelope method seems easier to use as well. Kluchka said this proposed new language is less restrictive than the Planning Commission's original intent. He said he doesn't see any deference to the original intent, and doesn't think this proposed new language is enough because the setbacks are the same and don't increase on larger lots. He said this language is too permissive and says Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 11, 2015 Page 5 the opposite of what the recent subdivision study said. He said he thinks this will be worse for overall housing affordability, but it will increase tax revenue from new development. Cera said he sees Kluchka's point but he thinks it clarifies things and looks at the reality of the way things have been in the last 8 years. Blum said he thinks the proposed changes stay true to what he understands the intent to be which is to make things clearer to builders and people who want to move to Golden Valley. Johnson said he is in favor of the proposed changes. He added that if the Zoning Code is amended to have more restrictive side setbacks the City will end up with more garage dominated houses no matter what. He said for the majority of the properties in the City the proposed language will work and won't lead to having a garage in the front of the house. Waldhauser agreed and added that most of the lots in the City are 100 feet or greater in width. Kluchka said maybe restrictions could be added for lots that a�e greater than 100 feet in width so homes don't encroach on neighboring properties. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Johnson and motion carried 5 to 1 to recommend approval of the proposed language as presented by staff with no changes. Commissioner Kluchka voted no. --Short Recess-- 3. Other Business Cera said he would work on drafting comments to the City Council regarding further research of garage-dominated houses. Segelbaum said he thinks it would be worthwhile to study ordinances related to garage-dominated front facades. He said we would like to avoid houses that have a garage completely in front of the house. Waldhauser said she sympathizes with that concern, but some lots have no other place to put a garage. Blum said he is intrigued with the idea of incentivizing homeowners rather than restricting them. Segelbaum said it will be difficult to account for every situation and noted that variances are always an option. Kluchka said the primary ask is that a study happens showing methods, measurements, etc. Kluchka updated the Commissioners on the Council's recent discussion on the community center proposal. He said the Council consensus is to move forward on a new study for a community center with an approximate 12 million dollar budget and to not use the task force study. Zimmerman added that the Council wanted to start with a more modest community center proposal and add the rest in phases to get to more of what the task force recommended. Goellner stated that the final open house for the Bottineau Station area plans will occur on June 4 at the Harrison Community Center. Kluchka asked if the costs of flood mitigation for DeCola ponds has been determined. Zimmerman said that the Engineers are still working on it. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 11, 2015 Page 6 Segelbaum asked for an update on the Xenia apartment project. Zimmerman said it is still moving forward. Segelbaum asked for an update on the former bowling alley property. Zimmerman said he expects to see plans for the Final PUD proposal within the next week or two. Goellner reported that the Central Park West office building will be developed soon. Kluchka asked if that will have an impact on the design review opportunity. Goellner said yes, the proposal will have to go through the PUD amendment process. Kluchka asked if there are results from the traffic study available. Goellner said not yet and added that staff, along with St. Louis Park and Minneapolis, has applied for a grant for bike lanes along Wayzata Blvd. Zimmerman reported that the Laurel Ponds proposal is moving forward. Cera asked about the Weavewood property that was on the most recent Council/Manager agenda. Zimmerman said they are going to be discussing various Code issues regarding that property. Goellner reported that staff is working on ordinances regarding distilleries and food trucks which will be coming the Planning Commission for review. 4. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 pm. . �VI � John Kluc a, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant