Loading...
05-09-16 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 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 9, 2016. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Cera was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes April 25, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Johnson referred to the fourth paragraph on page two and clarified that his question about electromagnetic spectrum standards was about standards for assessments or certifications. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 25, 2016, minutes with the above noted correction. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Major PUD Amendment— North Wirth Associates, LLP — 700 Meadow Lane North — PU-33, Amendment#3 Applicant: North Wirth Associates, LLP Address: 700 Meadow Lane North Purpose: To replace the existing two-level parking structure with a four-level parking structure and to plan for a future office building. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and stated that this proposal is being driven by the anticipated growth of Mortenson Company. He explained that the applicant is proposing to replace the existing two-level parking structure with a four-level parking structure in essentially the same location and to add a fourth office building in the northeast corner of the site in the future. He noted that the current PUD was established in 1982 and it allows for a three level parking ramp and an additional two stories on the southeast office building. He also noted that the PUD was amended in 2008 and 2010. Segelbaum asked if the future office building would be a Major PUD Amendment. Zimmerman said it most likely will be a Major PUD Amendment and would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Zimmerman discussed the entrance and exit locations for the site and for the parking ramp and explained that one of the site entrances along the west side of the property will be removed. The City's traffic engineer is recommending that the entrance located to the north of the frontage road be an entrance only. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 2 Zimmerman referred to the parking requirements for this use and explained that currently, there are 494 ramp parking spaces and 288 surface parking spaces and they are proposing to have 1,096 parking spaces in the ramp and 210 surface parking spaces. There are also 44 basement parking spaces. He noted that the proposed parking stalls will be 9' x 18' in size rather than the required 9' x 18.5' and there will be four electric car charging stations on the first floor of the ramp. He referred to bicycle parking for the site and stated that there are 28 existing bicycle spaces and the applicant is proposing 60 bicycle spaces. The Code requires 77 bicycle spaces so staff is recommending that the plans show 17 additional "proof of parking" spaces for bicycles. He discussed the applicant's temporary parking plan during construction which includes bus service for employees between 6-9 am and 3-6 pm to an off-site location in Brooklyn Center. Zimmerman referred to the proposed landscaping plans and stated that there will be native plant landscaping along the west side of the property, new trees along the north side of the property, and "living green walls" on three sides of the parking ramp. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed PUD amendment with the additional conditions that there will be enhanced pedestrian connections in the parking lot from the northeast and southwest ramp stair towers and there will be limited openings along the "living green wall." Kluchka asked how "proof of parking" is done with bicycle parking. Zimmerman stated that they will have to show on their plans that they have space reserved for an additional 17 bicycle spaces. Johnson referred to the parking ratios and asked about the significance of 3.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space. Zimmerman explained that the parking ratio will change because the applicant is changing the amount of office space, therefore the required amount of parking changes as well. Baker questioned why the proposal for the fourth office building is being discussed as part of this PUD amendment for the parking ramp when the applicant will have to come back for another PUD amendment when they want to build the fourth office building. Zimmerman explained that the proposal for the parking ramp is ultimately based on the construction of the fourth office building so they are planning the parking based on the complete built-out of the site. Baker said he is concerned about the Planning Commission's vote implying that they will approve the future PUD amendment proposal. Zimmerman said it is common for the Planning Commission and the City Council to approve a concept plan for the location of future buildings and then have the applicant come back with more detailed plans. Waldhauser noted that there have been similar issues in the past related to internal traffic issues and question why it is the City's concern. Zimmerman stated that staff's main concern is the traffic on Meadow Lane. Waldhauser asked if Meadow Lane serves other businesses. Zimmerman said yes. Johnson referred to the finding regarding quality site planning. He asked what is meant by saying that the proposed fourth office building would take the place of surface parking lot, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 3 limiting its impact on the site. Zimmerman stated that the proposed fourth building would be built on an existing surface parking area so it would not be taking away any more green space. Blum asked if the stormwater on site would be an overall improvement over what is there now. Zimmerman stated that there will be a minor change in the overall amount of impervious surFace on the site. Baker asked about the current parking demand. Zimmerman said he wasn't sure, be he knows that not all of the existing parking spaces are currently being utilized. He added that there may also be transit options which would help with parking demand if needed. Waldhauser asked if the City should be concerned about employees bypassing the shuttle service being offered during construction and parking on local streets or parking lots instead. Zimmerman stated that the City will need to see a more detailed temporary parking plan. Segelbaum referred to the staff report regarding future landscaping, grading, drainage, replatting, etc. and asked if those items will be reviewed as part of the future PUD amendment for the fourth office building. Zimmerman said yes and noted that the landscaping plans for this proposal will be finalized before building permits are issued. Segelbaum asked if there is any precedent for allowing parking stalls to be 18 feet deep instead of the required 18.5 feet. Zimmerman said he is not familiar with any precedent but the applicant would like to reduce the depth of the parking stalls to allow for better circulation and aisle width. Segelbaum referred to the recommendation that the entrance on the southwest corner of the site be an entrance only and asked if there is an existing traffic queuing issue on Meadow Lane. Zimmerman said there are occasional issues currently, but there is some concern that with additional traffic there will be more issues and that there will not be enough room for cars to stack between Olson Memorial Highway and that southwest entrance. Kluchka referred to the traffic study memo regarding the frontage road and asked who owns it. Zimmerman said the frontage road is located in the City's right-of-way and there have been discussions about moving the frontage road out of the right-of-way and potentially re-routing it if possible with future plans. Kluchka stated that there isn't much boulevard area or sidewalks or trails so the City may want to re-evaluate if there is a need for these items because this is a gateway location. Zimmerman noted that there is a sidewalk on the north side of the frontage road. He said staff's preference would be to re- route the frontage road internally, but the question is if it is feasible with the access to the loading docks. Johnson asked if it is important to address the frontage road issue why it is not being addressed now with this current proposal. Zimmerman stated that the property will have to be re-platted when the fourth building is proposed so it would make sense to address the frontage road at that time and not re-plat the property twice. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 4 Blum asked if the electric car charging stations would be accessible to the public. Zimmerman said the stations would be internal to the site for the employees' use. Baker asked about the past PUD amendments for this property. Zimmerman stated that one amendment was to consolidate two of the parcels and the other was to do several improvements to the site. Baker asked if the proposed parking stall size will be the same throughout the site. Zimmerman stated that the shorter parking stalls will only be in the ramp. The size of the parking stalls in the surface lot won't change. Dan Johnson, President of Mortenson Construction, said Mortenson is growing and building the proposed parking structure is really in anticipation of building the fourth office building in the future. He said they wouldn't need to change the existing ramp at all if they weren't planning for the fourth office building. He explained that they don't own the building on the southwest corner of the site so reconfiguring the frontage road would not be within their control and it serves as access to both properties. Derek McCallum, Principal, RSP Architects, referred to the size of the proposed parking stalls and stated that 18 feet in depth is a typical dimension for structured parking and 18.5 feet is more typical for surface parking stalls. Blum asked if the building not owned by Mortenson is a part of the PUD. Mr. Johnson said yes. Blum asked if Mortenson is growing locally or in the aggregate. Mr. Johnson said both. Blum asked how many jobs will come to Golden Valley as a result of the proposed expansion. Mr. Johnson said approximately 50-100 jobs annually over time. Baker asked how the temporary parking plan will work. Mr. Johnson said it is their goal to find closer parking for their employees once they know the timing of their construction. He added that they commonly do this during their construction projects. Kluchka said he is supportive of the proposed expansion. He said the existing use of Cor- Ten steel is nice and asked if that style will be used in the new construction to help make the site cohesive. McCallum said yes, there will be a similar treatment. Waldhauser noted that the south building has solar panels on the roof and asked if the new building will as well. Mr. Johnson said their existing building also has solar panels and the new parking ramp and building will too. Waldhauser asked if they would consider a green roof. Mr. Johnson said possibly, but their business includes installing solar panels so that may be their preference. Segelbaum asked Mr. Johnson if he has any concerns with staff's recommendations. Mr. Johnson said he is concerned about staff's recommendation regarding the entrance only on Meadow Lane. They agree it is an area that requires careful study, but they don't want to push the traffic where pedestrians walk. He said they would like more time to review this recommendation before this proposal goes before the City Council. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 5 Baker asked if the purpose of the "living green wall" is only aesthetic. McCallum said no. The green wall is aesthetic and will provide screening and an oxygenating renewable surface. He added that Mortenson has a strong sustainability stance and the green wall helps show how important the message is to them. Also, by removing trees and replacing them with natural grasses and green surfaces they are being environmentally sensitive. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Baker reiterated his concern about the Planning Commission discussing the future PUD amendment now because it may imply future approval. Segelbaum said the Planning Commission's decisions are recommendations only so he feels it is worthwhile to acknowledge the future proposal during this discussion. Baker agreed and said that acknowledging the future proposal won't necessarily mean they are endorsing it. Segelbaum said it seems like the staff reports have mixed recommendations and conditions. For example the City Engineer's memo states that the pedestrian connections "should be improved." He proposed that the wording be changed to state that the pedestrian connections "must be improved." Baker said he assumes the Planning staff memo pulled recommendations from the other staff memos when considering the conditions. Zimmerman explained that the recommendations in the Engineering and Fire staff reports are attached as conditions of approval in the Planning staff report. Segelbaum referred to recommendation number eight in the Engineering staff report regarding the entrance only on Meadow Lane and questioned if they want it to be that strongly worded since the applicant has said they would like an opportunity to study it further. Zimmerman stated that staff is willing to have a conversation with the applicant to try to resolve the traffic concerns before the proposal goes to the City Council. Segelbaum said he is interested in softening the recommendation. Kluchka suggested the recommendation be rewritten to say "the southwest entrance to the site must be modified to the City's satisfaction to encourage vehicles to exit at the north entrances." Waldhauser suggested that every time the memos say "should" it should really say "will" or "must" instead. The Commissioners agreed. Segelbaum referred to recommendation number seven in the City Engineer's staff report regarding a discussion about removing the frontage road in the future. Kluchka asked how that will work if the applicant doesn't own the building in the southwest corner of the PUD. He asked if the Planning Commission could recommend that the frontage road be removed in order to get more green space and less impervious coverage. Zimmerman said he is not sure what type of easements or impediments exist. Baker said this issue can be re-visited when the replatting is proposed, but he agrees that the frontage road should be removed and replaced with a bike path. Kluchka agreed that he would like the frontage road removed. Johnson noted that all the applicant is proposing at this point is a bigger parking ramp and not the addition of more people. Baker agreed that they are discussing issues that won't happen until the next proposed PUD amendment. Waldhauser said she is sympathetic with the approvals getting too far ahead, but the parking ramp has to precede the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 6 construction of the proposed fourth building and she doesn't want to say "got you" to the applicant later. Kluchka agrees that since the Planning Commission will only see this proposal once he thinks it would be best to state the Planning Commission's intent. He said he want the applicant to work with the City to get the best option. Johnson asked if the PUD amenity point system applies to this proposal. Zimmerman said no, the point system does not apply to PUD amendments. Waldhauser said she is concerned that the "living green wall" is being proposed as a replacement for trees when the wall doesn't serve the same function as trees. She said she would like the applicant to look for opportunities to provide some more filtration and shade. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed PUD Amendment with the following findings and conditions including the recommended modifications to the City Engineer's staff report. Findinqs: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD amendment is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site in that the new ramp would be built in the footprint of the existing ramp and new landscaping would be used to "green" three of its faces. The proposed fourth office building would take the place of a surface parking lot, limiting its impact on the site. 2. Preservation. The PUD amendment would not impact any desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space, and sensitive environmental features. 3. Efficient— Effective. The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by concentrating new construction on an already developed site and building "up" rather than "out" with both the rebuilt ramp and the new office building. 4. Compatibility. The uses being proposed are consistent with the current uses on the site and have shown over the past 30 years to be compatible with the surrounding properties. There is consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 5. General Health. The PUD amendment is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The flexibility provided by the PUD allows for a better site layout and coordination between the buildings on the site and meets the Intent and Purpose provision of the City Code. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by RSP Architects, submitted March 11, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department, dated May 2, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division, dated May 5, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 4. Public bicycle racks or similar facilities for the parking/storage of a minimum of 60 bicycles shall be provided with proof of parking for an additional 17 bicycles, based on a calculation of 5% of the 1,350 parking spaces required for the site. The applicant shall work with staff to appropriately locate the bicycle facilities. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 7 5. A finalized Temporary Parking Plan shall be submitted to and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the parking ramp. 6. A snow storage/removal plan shall be submitted to and approved by staff. 7. An additional PUD amendment shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the construction of the fourth office building. 8. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 9. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 1000 Boone Avenue North — Ashley Ballet Arts Academy, LLC — CU-148 Applicant: Ashley Ballet Arts Academy, LLC Address: 1000 Boone Avenue North Purpose: To allow for a dance studio in the Industrial zoning district. Zimmerman referred to the site plan and discussed the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a health, fitness and/or exercise facility (dance studio) in an Industrial zoning district at 1000 Boone Avenue North. He stated that the property is a 124,000 square foot multi-tenant building with a mix of office and warehouse uses. The building has eight existing tenants and 60,000+ square feet of vacant space with 456 on- site parking spaces. He explained that the applicant is proposing to lease 7,555 square feet of space to provide dance lessons. From September to May there will be classes offered between 4 pm and 9 pm on weekdays and 8:30 am to 12:30 pm on Saturdays. In the summer there would be intermittent classes offered. He added that there would be up to 40 students and 1 to 2 employees in the space at any one time. Zimmerman discussed the parking requirements and stated that the proposed use calls for 19 parking spaces. He noted that the proposed dance studio's lease includes 17 parking spaces and with the off-peak and weekend use, along with the abundance of parking spaces on site, any potential parking impacts would be limited. Baker questioned if the City has put parking restrictions on properties in the past. Zimmerman said yes and stated that one of the conditions of approval is that the City reserves the right to require modifications to the number of spaces leased or to the days and hours of operation in order to adequately address parking concerns. Ashley Burkland, Applicant, said she is excited to come to Golden Valley because the larger space will provide an opportunity for her students to dance bigger and take more classes and it will also allow for Golden Valley residents to take dance classes. Kyle Gikling, representing the landowner, Industrial Equities, said the 10t" Street side of the building has been largely vacant for the last two years so they are excited to get new tenants. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 8 Blum asked the applicant how many jobs they will be bringing to Golden Valley. Burkland said she currently has six, part time employees. Segelbaum asked the applicant if they had considered following the City's requirements for parking. Gikling stated that they typically base their parking on 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office and 1 space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse. He said the proposed dance studio is largely off business hours so they don't foresee a problem. He added that the property owner is conscious of parking and will not usually allow parking problems to occur. Baker asked if the interior parking spaces are for a particular use. Gikling said no. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said the proposal looks like a great addition and a nice amenity. She said she doesn't see any conflicts with other uses or negative impacts. Blum agreed. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit subject to the following findings and conditions: Findinqs: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Ashley Ballet Arts Academy is an existing business that has shown a demand exists for the services they provide. Based on their past experiences, they are able to accurately predict the expected amount of demand there will be for their operations. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: A dance studio is consistent with the Industrial designation of this property on the General Land Use Plan Map. 3. Effect on Property Values: Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on the surrounding property values. Nearby single family residential uses are located on the far side of the property and across a railroad corridor, making any impact on the neighborhood extremely unlikely. 4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips associated with the proposed use is minimal and largely concentrated in the evenings. Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas. Based on the amount of parking available on-site, no shortage of parking is anticipated. 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed use would generate a minor increase in the number of employees at the location which is currently underutilized. 6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in noise levels. 7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause an increase in dust, odor, or vibrations. 8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. 9. Visual Impact: Because the proposed use would involve only interior modifications, staff does not anticipate a change in the visual quality of the property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 9 10.Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed use. The location is a multi-tenant industrial property with adequate parking to serve the individual uses. Conditions: 1. The plans by submitted by the applicant on April 12, 2016, shall become a part of this approval. 2. In the event complaints to the City regarding parking are deemed by the City Manager or his/her designee to be significant, the City reserves the right to require modifications to the number of spaces leased or to the days and hours of operation in order to adequately address parking concerns. 3. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 4. Informal Public Hearing — Zoning Code Text Amendment—Amending Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District—ZO00-104 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To modify the language regarding setbacks, lot size, and lot width and adding other missing regulations to the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District. Goellner reminded the Commission of their discussion on this proposed amendment held on April 11. The consensus at that time was to add the following R-1 Single Family Residential regulations to the R-2 Moderate Density Residential section of the City Code: side wall articulation requirements, minimum structure width, paved area coverage, setbacks, garage provisions, outdoor storage regulations, deck and platform language, and home occupation requirements. The Commission also requested further discussion on the function and location of future R-2 zoned properties. Goellner discussed the densities allowed in the residential zoning districts and explained that the goal is to position R-2 more appropriately with the regulations of all the residential zoning districts. She noted that the stated purpose of the R-1 zoning district allows up to 5 units per acre and currently allows 2-4 units per acres due to minimum lot sizes. The stated purpose of the R-2 zoning district allows up to 8 units per acre and currently allows 6 units per acre if all two-family dwellings, 3 units per acre if single-family dwellings. The stated purpose of the R-3 zoning district allows up to 10-12 units per acre and the stated purpose of the R-4 zoning district allows over 12 units per acre. Goellner referred to various photos of residential properties and noted that small-lot single-family residential development is a common tool for encouraging a variety of housing options. It also provides an opportunity to build single family homes at the same density as two-family dwellings. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 10 Goellner discussed staff's recommendations including: a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet for single-family homes, a minimum lot width of 50 feet for single-family homes, the same side yard setbacks and height regulations as the R-1 Single Family zoning district, and a maximum garage width of 65% of the home's width. She added that the maximum garage width regulation is being proposed because currently there are no garage width regulations in any residential zoning district, and there are anticipated issues with wide garages on narrower lots. Goellner stated that there are currently 27 properties that would be affected by the proposed amendments. Fifteen of those are single-family homes, 10 of those are two- family homes, and two are vacant. All of the 27 existing properties would meet the proposed lot width and lot size recommendations. Goellner noted that traditional single family homes on large lots will still dominate Golden Valley as it is the community's vision to keep most residential lots larger in size. She referred to a map of the City and discussed various areas where the R-2 zoning district might be appropriate. Waldhauser said it seems logical to split 100-foot wide lots into two 50-foot wide lots if the City wants to allow smaller single-family properties. She questioned if something narrower than 100 feet would be logical for a twin home. Segelbaum referred to the garage requirements and questioned if the proposed language would require each unit to have two garage stalls. Goellner stated that each unit would be required to have one garage stall. Segelbaum questioned if the side yard setback requirements would be different if an R- 2 zoned property borders an R-1 zoned property. Zimmerman stated that the side yard setbacks are based on the width of the lot and would be the same for R-1 and R-2 zoned properties. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Fred Gross, 7200 Harold Avenue, said he wholeheartedly supports the proposed amendments, knowing that the variance process is available if a need is thought to exist. Peter Knaeble, 6100 Glenwood, said he agrees with Mr. Gross that the proposed amendments are a good idea. He stated that there may be issues in regard to side wall articulation requirements and increased side yard setbacks with the height of a house. He would not recommend those two regulations be included in the R-2 zoning district because they won't be as big of an issue on narrower lots like they are on R-1 zoned properties. Goellner noted that the homes recently built on Rhode Island Avenue have 20.5 ft. wide garages and would meet the proposed garage width regulation. Hearing and seeing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 11 Blum said he is concerned that the purpose of these proposed changes is to maximize density which is contrary to the desire of the community. Segelbaum questioned if the minimum lot size should be larger than 6,000 square feet. Blum questioned if the changes made to the Zoning Code as a result of the recent subdivision moratorium study would be applied to the R-2 zoning district. Goellner said no. Blum reiterated that during the moratorium, residents said they didn't want density maximized. Waldhauser stated that another goal of the City is to offer different types of housing options. These proposed changes give the City an opportunity for more variety which is broader than just maximizing density. She stated that smaller homes on smaller lots work and that the City did add protections to the areas with large homes on larger lots. Segelbaum questioned if the proposed changes would create a desire for homeowners to rezone their properties to R-2. Baker said he shares the same concern, but when he looks at the Zoning Map the properties zoned R-2 are not in the areas where concern has been expressed in the past so he is at ease with the proposed amendments keeping in mind that if there were a push to rezone properties to R-2 they would hear about it. Segelbaum said he is concerned about going from the required 11,000 square foot minimum lot size for R-2 properties to 10,000 square feet because he doesn't want to get inundated with rezoning requests. Blum questioned the desire for these proposed changes if there have been legal problems and no demand for twin homes in the past. Zimmerman stated that the City is trying to shift the focus from twin homes to small-lot single-family homes that would not increase the density. Waldhauser referred to the aesthetics of a twin home and said she thinks twin homes are great and she would rather see twin homes and townhomes than individual homes with alleys between them. Blum asked if twin homes could be removed from the recommendation entirely. Zimmerman stated that removing twin homes from the recommendation would cause existing twin homes to be non-conforming. Segelbaum referred to the language requiring only one garage stall per unit and stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals sees a lot of requests to add second garage stalls. He questioned if only requiring one garage stall is setting the City up for more variance requests. He said he would like to require two garage stalls for each dwelling. Baker said he would not support requiring two garage stalls because he would like to encourage fewer cars. Segelbaum asked the Commissioners how they felt about the setback requirements and the requirement regarding increased setbacks as the height of the house increases. Blum said he was okay with the recommended language. Waldhauser agreed although it makes homes more expensive to build, larger setbacks will protect neighboring properties. She stated that she doesn't think the City will see smaller or more affordable homes as a result of these proposed changes. There will just be big homes on smaller lots. Blum suggested that the proposed lot width be 60 feet to match the ratio in the Single Family zoning district. Zimmerman stated that they tried a number of different lot sizes Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 12 and the 6,000 square foot lot size and 50 foot width requirements fit. Waldhauser noted that if the minimum lot width were 60 feet then an existing 100-foot wide lot couldn't be split into two lots. Kluchka said he does not want to require 60-foot wide lots in the R-2 zoning district. Baker agreed that if the City is trying to create an additional option than requiring 60 feet of lot width wouldn't work. Blum said he hesitates to think that they are meeting the City's goal of keeping single-family large lot residential neighborhoods with this proposed change. He said he is concerned about Golden Valley losing a real competitive advantage and questioned what future generations are going to want. He said he supports higher density development in certain areas like around transportation hubs and light rail stations, but he is against these proposed R-2 zoning amendments in single family areas. Segelbaum agreed but said this seems to be a reasonable compromise for existing R-2 properties. Baker agreed and said he also doesn't think the City will see a lot more R-2 zoned properties as a result of the proposed changes. Kluchka agreed and said the proposed changes make the existing R-2 zoning district more usable. Waldhauser agreed with Blum that there are more dramatic ways to meet the City's density goals with R-3 and R-4 zoned properties and she thinks that would be a good discussion for the community to have. Blum said he is okay with the majority of the proposed changes, but he is concerned about the purpose and the proposed lot width. Zimmerman stated that the purpose statement could be better defined in each district to address increasing housing options, diversity in housing, etc. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed R-2 Zoning Code text amendments. 5. Informal Public Hearing –Zoning Code Text Amendment– Amending Temporary Uses and Events –ZO00-105 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider removing redundant language in the Zoning Code regarding Temporary Events. Zimmerman stated that at the last City Council meeting the Council adopted a separate special events section of City Code so the existing language in the Zoning Code regarding temporary events is now redundant and should be removed. Segelbaum asked if the new Code section was similar to the existing language in the Zoning Code. Zimmerman said yes and added that all of the Planning related issues with special events have been addressed in the new Special Events language. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Zoning Code text amendment removing language regarding temporary events. --Short Recess— Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 9, 2016 Page 13 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman stated that the Liberty Crossing project is moving forward. Baker asked about the City standards regarding a trench that was dug for a home on Glenwood. He said it has fail�d and has had to be redone a couple of times and questioned whose responsibility it is and if there are penalties involved. Zimmerman said he would talk to the Engineering staff about the issue. 7. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. • Election of Officers Baker nominated Segelbaum to continue as Chair. Segelbaum accepted. Baker said he would like to be Vice Chair. Kluchka said he would be happy to continue being Secretary. The Commissioners agreed unanimously to Segelbaum being Chair, Baker being Vice Chair and Kluchka being Secretary. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 pm. .� John Klu a, Secretary Lis Wittman, Administrative Assistant