Loading...
10-26-15 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Cornmission October 26, 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, October 26, 2015. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Blum, Cera, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Finance Director Sue Virnig, Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Baker was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes S�ptember 28, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Kluchka referred to the last paragraph on page three and asked that the language be clarified to state that "He is proposing the clients be told that they shouldn't be turning right to Highway 55 on Country Club Drive..." He also said that the words "in approximately one year" should be added to sentence regarding when the intersection is closin�. MOVE� by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the September 28, 2015, minutes as corrected. 2. Presentation of Capital Improvement Program 2016-2020 — Sue Virnig, City Finance Director Virnig s#ated that because of its relationship with the CAmprehensive Plan the Planning Commission reviews the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) every year to ensure it meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. She explained that the CIP covers housing, sanitary and storm sewer, public facilities, transportation, and parks and open space. She noted ;hat there is a new section in this CIP called the cable casting improvement fund that used to be included in the building fund, but due to the revenue source of the franchise fees they are being accounted for in a separate section. She added that there are mor�ies allocated in 2016 and 2017 for the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. Waldh�user asked about the differences between Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Tax Abatement, and a Pay As You Go Note. Virnig explain�d they are all financing tools the City uSes. She explained that Tax Abatement was used for General Mill's portion of the improvements to their building and the tax dollars were allocated to irnprovements in that area. She stated that a Pay As You Go Note is the fufiur� increment from the increased value. The taxes may ga.to paying back the developer for improvements put into the area, versus issuing bonds. Segelhaum noted that there was a comment in the CIP related to TIF and bonds that states trze City currently has no tax increment districts �vith following bonded indebtedness as of D�cember 31, 2015, but the City does have four tax increment districts. He asked if Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 2 the three tax increment districts that were approved in 2015 will have tax increment bonds after a certain period of time. Virnig stated that there are four TIF districts and that the hello. apartment project will have a bond issued in order to make the public improvements. Kluchka asked how the CIP would be impacted if street reconstruction or bonds were halted or delayed because of the financial crisis mentioned in a past City newsletter. Virnig stated that Council and Staff look at the impact on the taxpayers. She explained that in 2008, during the recession, the Pavement Management Program was delayed due to the impact it would have an the taxpayers. She added that the City bonds for the improvements done that year. Kluchka asked if this CIF has been affected by the financial crises. Virnig stated that the CIP looks at the ne� five years. She added that the Community Center is not in the CIP yet because there hasn't been a final plan. Kluchka said he noticed that the only new thing being built was a gazebo and asked if there is anything else new in the CIP. Virnig stated that a lot of this CIP is for the replacement of things although there are some new improvements and equipment and a new retaining wall program. Waldhauser asked why the expenditures on str�et replacement step up in 2018. Virnig stated that the City used to do four miles of street in a year and then will go to two miles per year so there are about four more years to finish the remainder of the roads. Segelbaum asked about the expenditures included in the CIP for the Comprehensive Plan update. Virnig explained that in 2016 the CIP includes $107,000. $40,000 �f which is for a study along Harold Avenue. All projects will be approved by the Council at a later date. After discussion, the consensus of the Planning Commission was that the 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the Gomprehensive Plan. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 7200 Harold Avenue — Calderjax Addition — SU17-12 Applicant: Fred and Vicki Gross Addresses: 7200 Harold Avenue Furpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. 4. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 7218 Harold Avenue — Alber Addition — SU17-13 Applicant: Robert and Claire Alber Addresses: 7218 Harold Avenue Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 3 Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. The Informal Public Hearings and discussion for Items 3 and 4 were combined. Zimmerman stated that the applicants are proposing subdivisions which would convert two existing single family lots into four single family lots. One existing home would be demolished and three new homes would be built. He explained that the minimum lot size requirement in the R-2 Zoning District is 11,000 square feet in size with 100 feet of width. All of the proposed new lots would exceed those amounts. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the proposed subdivisions and noted that the proposal provides three driveways for four homes with one shared driveway. There would be no access t� Highway 55, so there would need to be driveway easements across the southern lots to provide access to the northern lots from Harold Avenue. Zimmerman noted that this is the fou�th proposal for these properties. The first proposal was for two detached townhome units on narrow lots which required variances from the lot width requirement and the side yard setback requirement, the second was for six single family homes as part of a PUD and there were issues with the lot shapes and shared driveways, and the third was for five single family homes as part of a PUD that had issues with the number af curb cuts and the setbacks from neighboring houses. Zimmerman stated that in addition to area and width requirements, City Code states that when subdividing "The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an improved public stree#," He added that the Subdivision Code defines a public street as "a public right-of-way for vehicular traffic, whether designated as a street, highway, thoroughfare, parkway, thruway, road, avenue, boulevard, lane, place or however otherwise designated." Therefore, the requirement that the front of each lot "abut entirely on an improved public street" becomes a requirement that the front of each lot "abut entirely on an improved public right-of-way for vehicula�traffic" so the front of each lot must abut on a public right-of-way and the abutment must be where the right-of-way is improved for vehicular traffic. He explained that typically a newly subdivided lot does not abut on the improved right-of-way, but on a boulevard adjacent to the improved portion of the right-of-way. In order to bridge this gap, the City evaluat�s if a right-of-way permit can be issued to connect the property to the improved portion of the right-of-way via a driveway and in most_ cases this can be done. In this case, staff finds that this requirement cannot be met for the northern lots. He added that Minnesota law has established that properties abutting public right-of-way also have right of access and all access was taken from these properties by the State when land for Highway 55 was �cquired. Also, the City is not able to grant a right-of-way permit for driveway connections to Highway 55, as they would for access to a City-owned street. Without access to Highway 55, the proposed northern lots do not technically "abut" the right-of-way and therefore do not meet this requirement. Zimmerman discussed the City's policies prohibiting "flag lots" and to require direct access when subdividing. He referred to a Planning report from 1990 where it discusses several reasons to prohibit "flag lots" such as the inability by police patrols to view the back lots, the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 4 difficulty of access for emergency vehicles, the potential for poor spacing of driveways, and the privacy concerns from neighboring properties. He stated that the requirements outlined in the City Code have not been met and staff is recommending denial of the minor Subdivisions proposals. Kluchka asked how the word "abut" is defined. Zimmerman stated that the City Code doesn't define the word "abut." The dictionary says it means to be up against. He added that abutment without access doesn't qualify as abutment. Kluchka asked if that is an interpretation or if that language is in an actual ordinance. Zimmerman said it is the City AttorneY's interpretation of Minnesota case law. Blum asked Zimmerman to describe "flag lots." Zimmerman explained that a "flag IoY' is a lot that is behind another lot with limited frontage along the street right- of-way giving it a flag shape. Blum asked why the City doesn't allow or encourage "flag lots." Zimmerman said it is to prevent one home behind another essentially in someone's back yard. He stated that there are also fire concerns about the distance of the house from the street and the ability to turn around, and police don't have good sight to the house in back. He added that lots were previously assessed per their street frontage sa it wasn't fair compared to "flag lots" that have narrower fronts. Kluchka referred to the recently approved Sweeney Lake Woods PUD and asked about the differences between long driveways, shared driveways and flag lots. Zimmerman stated tf�at the main difference is that the Sweeney Lakes Wood development is a PUD and the shared driveway was already located within an existing lot. Segelbaum stated that there is a statement in the Subdivision Code requiring the front of properties to abut right-of-way. He asked if the Code defines the front of a lot. Zimmerman stated that the front of a lot is the area closest to the street. In this proposal the north properties would be closest to Highway 55 and the south properties would be closest to Harold Avenue. Segelbaum asksd about the distance of the gap between the north property lines and Highway 55. Zimmerman said there is approximately 50 to 90 feet between the property lines and the edge of the right-of-way. Segelbaum referred to the Police and Fire concerns and asked if those concerns fall under ths requirements of approval for a subdivision. Zimmerman said no. The Police and Fire concerns could be an issue during the building permit process, but not as part of the subdivision of the land. He reiteratsd that those concerns did help form the policy against "flag lots." Segelbaum asked if MnDOT would have conditions for approval that could not be met. Zimmerman stated that MnDOT didn't have concerns because the plans show access on Harold Avenue, not on Highway 55. Johns�n stated that if Public Safety has issues it seems like the Planning Commission should as well. He asked about the Planning Commission's protocol for making a decisican when there are two different attorney views. Zimmerman explained that Public Safety�is looking at potential future homes, not really the subdivision of the property, but Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 5 staff feels it is better to address the issues up front during the subdivision process. He added the City Attorney's role is to protect the best interest of the City. Kluchka said he is not finding language on how the policy around "flag lots" made into the Zoning Code. Zimmerman stated that the language regarding "flag lots" came from the Planning study done in 1990. Segelbaum asked if"flag lots" were allowed, if there would be many other proposals like this. Zimmerman stated that this is a fairly unique situation. Peter Knaeble, Civil Engineer representing the Applicants, stated that environmental concerns and fire suppression technology has changed since the Planning Study done 25 years ago on the issue of"flag lots." He said the Gity Code could be changed to state that single family homes have to abut a residential street. He stated that seven families attended the neighborhood meeting he held and they were generally supportive of the proposal. He said that applicants Fred and Vicki Gross have had the property in their family for 67 years and currently rent it out. The other applicants, the Alber's, have a two year old daughter and want to live in this house for years to come. They have done an extensive remodel on the house at 7218 Harold Avenue in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood which he feels is important and makes it not a good candidate for a teardown. Knaeble said the City Code clearly states that the front of a lot only has to have frontage on public right-of way. He said he understands what staff is saying, but he respectfully disagrees. Improved right-of-way just means there is a street within the right-of-way and doesn't mean there are driveways coming to them. He said he thinks that is an inappropriate interpretation and that the typical interpretation is that an improved right- of-way is a street within a right-of-way which is common sense because there is a street within Highway 55 and these properties abut up to and touch Highway 55's right-of-way. Knaeble stated that the City Code allows up to eight units per acre in this zoning district so they could build up to 13 units on these properties. They could also build two twin homes �vith four driveways onto Harold Avenue without planning approval. He handed out ren�erings of the previous proposals for these properties and said he thinks these current proposals meet all of the requirements of the City Code. He said he thinks it is a difficult leap to recommend denial now when the staff recommended approval of six lots in the past. The neighbors did not want that many units and the two homeowners have no inte�est in creating a higher density development. He said there is overwhelming support for the properties to be split with just three driveways and saving one of the existing homes. He reiterated that these proposals protect the character of the neighborhood and noted that these proposed lots are greater in size than the required minimum lot size and other lots in the area. Knaeble stated that the new homes would be custom designed with the topography and shape of the lots and would either be one or two story homes with finro or three garage stalls in the $450,000 to $500,000 price range. He stated that there are two families Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 6 already interested in building homes here and the City needs to understand there is a demand for these types of properties. Knaeble,referred to the issue of having long driveways and stated that the Code does not require access through the frontage and the driveways could be shorter if the houses were built in different locations. He stated that the neighboring homes have varying setbacks and some do not have a view from Harold Avenue. He said that in regard to fire safety, it is an important concern that he takes seriously and that is why he has said that he would mandate that the rear homes would include fire suppression systems as a condition of approval which would take away the Fire Chief's concerns. He referred to the Police concerns and said he thinks this is the first time he has ever seen a staff report or comments from a Police Chief regarding a subdivision. He stated that there is no policy or code that states homes should be visible from the street and there are many homes in Golden Valley that are screened from the street. He said he understands the concern, but he doesn't think they are appropriate for this proposal. He said there needs to be consistency in staff recommendations and added that the two rear lots will be visible from Highway 55. Scott Lucas, Attorney representing both applicants, stated that City staff has called out language in the ordinances that he respectfully disagrees with the interpretation of. He said the City implies that the word "abut" includes the requirement of access and that is not true. Abut means to border on, and these lots border on Highway 55. He said staff also says that right-of-way constitutes just the paved area for vehicular traffic. That is not so, it includes the entire area up to the property line. He stated these proposals comply with the strict language of the ordinance and that intent is only used to interpret when an ordinance is ambiguous, which this ordinance is not. He added that there is a long history in the City of lots having frontage, not access on a public street. Blum referred to the handout regarding the Lawn Terrace subdivision and asked if that subdivision was approved. Knaeble said yes, and stated that one of the lots in that subdivision had restricted access on Glenwood and that he was allowed to use Glenwood as frontage without access. He reiterated that the Code says that there has to be full frontage, not access, on a street. He added that staff and the Planning Commission supported the Lawn Terrace subdivision. Segelbaum stated that the City often looks at how an ordinance has been applied and interpreted in the past and he is not sure what to make of the Lawn Terrace subdivision handout. Lucas said they are referring to the Lawn Terrace subdivision in terms of stating that abutment requires access or right-of-way only means pavement. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Larry Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, said he approves 100% with these proposals and they are better than they were before. Perry �'hom, 320 Louisiana Avenue North, said he is in favor of this development and of not stripping the community of its homeownership and its uniqueness of having wonderful homes and people who are very proud of their homes. He said he would like Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 7 to see just two new homes, but he realizes this development keeps out the very large, dense, transient population that the City seems to have a plan for. He said he would appreciate if the City would not keeping pushing density on the community because Golden Valley residents want to have a nice, quiet community for families. He said he would appreciate it if the Planning Commission would approve this four-unit project and let it go forward as the City Council has suggested during past proposals for more units on these properties. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Cera asked staff if they have any comments on the Lawn Terrace Estates exhibit that was handed out. Zimmerman said this proposal is different from the Lawn Terrace proposal because the Lawn Terrace lots are not typical flag lots with homes placed in someone's back yard. He said there was a possibility in the Lawn Terrace proposal to access� Glenwood, but the City supported a shared driveway in that case to help reduce traffic on Glenwood. He added that in this case there is no opportunity for access onto Highway 55. Cera asked if Glenwood is a County road and if so, what the requirements are. Zimmerman said Glenwood is a County road and that they have driveway spacing requirements among others. Segelbaum stated that there are some times where there is ambiguity in the way in which the Code is applied. He asked if in the case of the Subdivision Code, the City has in the past followed the practice that the frontage of a lot also permits the right of access. Zimmerman said staff does look back at past interpretations. He said he doesn't know of other similar situations, but this proposal is more challenging because it is on Highway 55 and not on a more typical City street. Waldhauser said her common sense understanding regarding abutment on a vehicular roadway would be that you could take a car and drive it onto that roadway. Admittedly, the ordinance doesn't say that, but she doesn't know if common sense or the literal words of the ordinance should take precedence. She said there are many things about this proposal that are attractive and desirable and even though there may not be precedent for this precise layout and access, it seems like a reasonable use of the property and a practical solution. Segelbaum said the Planning Commission's role is to find facts based on the conditions of approval listed the Subdivision Code. Kluchka said in some cases he appreciates subjectivity being incorporated into the ordinances so issues can be evaluated far the time or situation. He said over the last couple of years they've heard a lot about subdivisions and neighborhood character, so subjectivity has to play a role. Cera said he thinks if access is restricted legally versus the preferred access, there might be a difference. He added that there is probably precedence regarding highways. Johnson asked staff how the language went from what is in the Code to the interpretation about frontage and access. Zimmerman referred to the conditions of approval in the Subdivision Code and stated that one of the conditions talks about lots Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 8 having to abut a public street. The definition in the same chapter defines a public street as the public right-of-way for vehicular traffic. Waldhauser questioned if allowing a driveway easement, or shared driveway is opening up the discussion about flag lots. Cera stated that the City has said it won't approve permits if this proposed subdivision is approved. Zimmerman said staff stated that if the subdivision is approved, the concerns would have to be addressed during the building permit process. Johnson said he doesn't understand the Fire Department's policy and asked if a fire truck goes to a house that has a fire suppression system, or what they do if a driveway can't support a fire trucl�. Blum asked staff to describe the terrain between Highway 55 and the north edge of the lots. Zimmerman said there is a wooded area and a large berm between the two. Blum said he has heard a lot of positive points about this proposal. He referred to the lot size and said it is important that they are not seeing something that is the absolute smallest it is allowed to be because that helps maintain a variety of housing stock. He said he thinks this proposal also helps preserve the character of the neighborhood and refresh the housing stock. He said the proposed fire safety improvements seem reasonable, and in regard to the public safety concerns he doesn't agree with the applicant that 40,000 cars speeding by on Highway 55 will be a good crime deterrent for these homes. He said the apparent flag lots pointed out on the Sweeney Lake Woods and Lawn Terrace proposals have several distinct differences from this proposal. The lots in the Sweeney Lake Woods proposal are part of a PUD and are on Noble Drive which is a local street. Also, the State did not specifically carve out a space directly in between Noble Drive and the Sweeney Lake Woods development or in between Glenv�rood Avenue and the Lawn Terrace development. He stated that the applicants' attorney defined abut as meaning to join at the border or boundary, or to be adjacent. So the ability to be adjacent to Highway 55 is important in the interpretation of the statute. He said through eminent domain the State specifically removed access between Highway 55 and these properties and that clearly distinguishes the prior developments that have been put before the Planning Commission to draw precedent to the cu�rent proposal and perhaps it could be treated differently if this were a Pl1D rather than a subdivision. He said there were also comments about using common sense. He said common sense tells him that this proposal on Highway 55 is very different than being adjacent to Glenwood Avenue or Noble Avenue. Kluchka said his own findings are that these properties are zoned R-2, but nobody wants this neighborhood to be R-2 so he thinks this proposal is a happy medium for what the neighborhood has said they want. He said the properties have visibility from Highway 55 and police could stop at the side of the road and see into the back lots of this development. He added that that safety standard hasn't been applied anywhere else in the City and that is a concern to him. He said this proposal is for 4 lots which is what he has asked for in past proposals for these properties and he thinks this is a unique opportunity to develop these R-2 properties using tactics the City and staff wanted. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 8 Segelbaum said he sees the City Attorney's interpretation as very much the legal interpretation. He said if there are reasons why the Planning Commission doesn't think it's the appropriate interpretation he'd be interested in hearing them. He said if the City is held to the exact language in the Subdivision Code it will see a lot more situations like this one. He said he thinks they should follow what the City Attorney has interpreted the Code to be. Johnson said the question is whether the properties abut on a public street or not if the state owns what is in between the property line and the road. He said the properties seem to abut land that is adjacent to a street. Kluchka said the same thing could be said about their own properties. They all own property that is adjacent to a street and easements the City owns. Segelbaum said the distinction there is that they are able to build a driveway over that land. Johnson said there are a lot of contradictions with this proposal and it seems reasonable, because it does abut on a street, but the rules say a public street is a right-of-way. Kluchlca asked if the question about abutment would apply at all if this were a PUD. He said it is unfortunate here that they are using legal semantics when if this was a PUD the City would have approved a proposal for three flag lots. Zimmerman stated that ultimately the Planning Commission and City Council didn't approve the past PUD proposal on these lots. He said through those conversations it was realized there are some better options to move away from flag lots. Also, it was decided by the City Council to set aside some money to do a study of this area and not develop it in a piece meal way. Waldhauser suggested looking at the zoning of these properties because at one point the City thought it would be a good area for R-2 zoning, but maybe it is not because that is not what is happening. She said approving this development preserves this area as R-1. She agreed that redeveloping this area piece meal, lot by lot, is not a good way to do it. Cera noted that if these properties were zoned R-1 it would go forward with the same arguments so this is really not an R-1 versus R-2 issue. Waldhauser said the issue is that this area was directed for R-2 development and that is not happening. Knaeble added that the Lawn Terrace development had a restricted access by MnDOT and that Glenwood Avenue could not be used for access similar to this Highway 55 proposal. Blum noted that the line shown on the Lawn Terrace exhibit is parallel to Glenwood and not to Highway 100 which is another distinction between those proposals and this proposal. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion tied 3 to 3 to recommend approval of the subdivision proposal for the property at 7200 Harold Avenue. Commissioners Blum, Johnson and Segelbaum voted no. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion tied 3 to 3 to recommend approval of the subdivision proposal for the property at 7218 Harold Avenue. Commissioners Blum, Johnson and Segelbaum voted no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 10 5. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Amending PUD Requirements —ZO00-102 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider modifications to PUD requirements when considering major, minor, or administrative amendments Goellner reminded the Commission that this item was discussed at their previous meetings on August 24 and September 28. She discussed the differences between the proposed new language regarding administrative PUD amendments and minor PUD amendments. Administrative amendments will be administrative in nature and will generally have no underlying zoning requirements to refer to, they will have no significant impact to surrAunding land uses, and they will be consistent with the vision and guidance set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the PUD as it was originally approved. Minor amendments will also have to meet the underlying zoning requirements, have no significant impact to the surrounding land uses, and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and original PUD, but will be required when there is a significant change to architectural plans or landscape plans in a way that alters the originat intended function of the plans. Major PUD amendments would be required when the plans do not meet the underlying zoning requirements, have a significant impact to surrounding land uses, or are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the original PUD. Waldhauser referred to the proposed new Code language regarding Minor PUD amendments and stated that requirement number 12 is subjective and it tells her that the original intent of a PUD when it is first created really needs to be spelled out so staff isn't guessing at what the original intent was. Goellner agreed that is a good idea. Johnson stated that the proposed new language has a section for Planning Commission approval during the Preliminary and Final review processes, but the proposed PUD amendment process states that there is only one Planning Commission review. Zimmerman stated that the creation of new PUDs will go before the Planning Commission twice, but a PUD amendment application would only go to the Planning Commission one time. Goellner stated that she would clarify the language in the section Johnson referred to make sure it refers to amendments. Kluchka referred to the section in the staff report regarding major PUD amendments regarding site planning and building materials and questioned if the intent of what design is should be better clarified. Goellner stated that she doesn't have the background to know what other words to use to be more specific about design besides using the word significant. Kluchka said he has some ideas. Blum suggested Subdivision 10(A) and (B) not start with negatives because negatives are hard to substantiate and interpret. He suggested that Subdivision 10(A)(7) and 10(B)(12) be reworded as follows: "Any othe� change determined by the City Manager or his/her designee �#s 1 to not have a significant impact to surrounding land uses, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 11 2) ;c �'�+��^��^��' to be consistent with the vision and guidance set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the PUD as it was originally approved, and 3) �c ��+ormir�cr) tO be administrative in nature." Goellner referred to the proposed amenity points system and stated that it would be used only for new PUDs. Applicants would need five points from the designated list of amenities. Applicants may be awarded a portion of points for each amenity and may propose an amenity not on the list, but only for a maximum of two points. She showed a list of recent developments and how many points they would have earned if the amenity points system was in place when they were approved. Kluchka referred to giving points in the future for PUD amendments and asked if points would be given for previously constructed items, or if the points would only apply to the amendment occurring at the time. Zimmerman said he thinks that as long as the PUD has enough points as a whole that would be consistent with the intent. Johnson referred to the amenity regarding utilization of a renewable energy source and said the language uses both energy costs and the quantity of energy. He asked about the differences befinreen the two and what it is trying to measure. Goellner stated that staff would look at the quantity of energy that is generated quantify and cost it out. Kluchka asked if the annual energy expenditure would be measured through the cost. Goellner said yes because the cost of energy is known. Cera questioned why therms or megahertz wouldn't be used. Waldhauser agreed that using the cost would be variable. Goellner said she would change the word "cost" to "consumption" and talk to the City of Minneapolis to find out how they do their measurement. Johnson referred to the amenity regarding community gardens and said he doesn't think it is practical to require a shed because there will be issues about who maintains it, who unlocks it, etc. He also questioned the language stating that the food produced shall be provided to those living or working in Golden Valley and wondered who would take responsibility and liability for that. Waldhauser said she thinks community gardens means a place where people can go to do some gardening, not so much as a food source. Segelbaum asked if the Commission could vote separately on different sections of the proposed language. Goellner said no, it is one text amendment. Johnson said he would like to vote separately on the amenity section. Goellner said the Commission could vote to recommend approval of the entire ordinance, but strike Section J regarding amenity points. Blum referred to the affordable housing units amenity and asked if Area Median Income is defined. Goellner said yes, it is defined state wide and the income varies by area. Goellner noted that other changes have been made to the proposed ordinance including listing administrative amendments before minor and major amendments, requiring that wetland and pond riparian buffers comply with City, Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission and State regulations, requiring a solid waste management Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 12 and recycling plan instead of a garbage and refuse plan, and including a communication plan as part of the development agreement when applicable. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Kluchka said he would like to see consistency between public art and creation and preservation of significant or historical architecture and would like them both to have 3 points on the amenity point table. The Commissioners agreed. Kluchka suggested striking the last sentence in the community garden amenity which reads that the food produced shall be provided to those living or working in Golden Valley. The Commissioners agreed. Kluchka said he would like Subdivision 10(C)(2) to be amended as follows: Eliminate, diminish or compromise the original intent of and/or high quality of: site planning, architectural design, Iandscape+Ag des�n, landscape materials, or building materials. The Commissioners agreed. Waldhauser questioned why points would be given for decorative fencing. She said if there is fencing needed it should be required to be high quality. Segelbaum said he thinks there is a difference between high quality and decorative. Waldhauser said she would like the language regarding fencing removed. Cera and Kluchka agreed. Segelbaum said he doesn't mind giving one point for an attractive fence. Waldhauser referred to the amenity points regarding enhanced lighting and said she also wants the language to include energy efficient lighting and dark sky compliant lighting. Goellner said there are other parts of the Zoning Code that require all lighting to be dark sky compliant. Waldhauser referred to the amenity regarding enhanced landscaping and asked if the City requires plans to be signed by a landscape architect. Goellner said landscape plans for single family homes don't need to be signed by a landscape architect, but other types of properties do. Blum referred to the amenity regarding LEED certification and said he doesn't want applicants to get all of their points just by being LEED certified. He would like to encourage things that benefit more people. Goellner noted that sometimes other amenities just won't work. For example there might not be room for a plaza. Kluchka said the Planning Commission needs to be clear about its intent. Johnson said he doesn't think the point system makes sense. He said he is concerned about cause and effect and that the City is going to get the least amount of amenities as possible and some developers might walk away. Blum referred to the amenity regarding electric car charging stations and questioned if more points should be given for stations that are just for Golden Valley residents, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 13 employees or customers or less points if they are for use by the general public. Goellner said adding the word "customers" and "general public" to the electric car charging category makes sense. Segelbaum asked the Commissioners if they were in favor of the amenity point system. Blum, Cera, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser said yes. Johnson said no. Kluchka questioned what would happen if the Planning Commission really liked a PUD proposal that didn't have enough points. Goetlner said that a PUD proposal would have to have five points to be approved. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Code text amendment amending PUD requirements. --Short Recess-- 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman updated the Commission on the Bottineau LRT project and stated that the CMC will review the scope and cost estimate in the upcoming weeks. 7. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. • Tree & Landscape Requirements Zimmerman stated that he included in the agenda packet the proposed new tree and landscape requirements for the Commissioners to review. Goellner stated that if the Commissioners had comments on the proposed language they should get them to her soon. • Comprehensive Plan Process Overview Zimmerman referred to the staff report in the agenda packet and asked the Commissioners to look at the websites listed in the staff report. He stated that at the next Planning Commission meeting they will set priorities and begin to discuss the components of the Comprehensive Plan and the timetable for the Comprehensive Plan Update. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 26, 2015 Page 14 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 pm. . ,�.(`' • � � � �. W John Klu hka, Secretary Lisa ittman, Administrative Assistant