Loading...
10-10-16 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 10, 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, October 10, 2016. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blenker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, Planning Intern Chloe McGuire Brigl, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes September 12, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the fourth paragraph on page two and asked that the size of federally mapped floodplain areas be added to Mr. Eckman's response. Waldhauser referred to the last paragraph on page four and asked Commissioner Blum to clarify what he meant in regard to small area plans, overlay districts, or other types of tools. Blum stated that his thought was that neighborhoods could have a decision making process or a neighborhood association and if a neighborhood wants special treatment, they should pay for it. Waldhauser referred to the first paragraph on page five and stated that the word "associates" should be changed to the word "associations." Baker referred to the fifth paragraph on page four and stated that the third sentence should be amended to state that he (not Zimmerman) suggested asking people at the open house what they would like Golden Valley to look like in 10 years... MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 12, 2016, minutes with the above noted corrections/changes. 2. Discussion — Outdoor Storage in Non-Residential Zoning Districts McGuire Brigl noted that this is a continuation of the discussion from the August 22, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. She explained that the focus of this discussion is on non- residential properties to help clarify the existing regulations and the potential negative impacts on surrounding properties. McGuire Brigl stated that staff is proposing a new definition for outdoor storage since the current Zoning Code doesn't define it. Staff is also proposing that there be one comprehensive section of the Zoning Code that regulates storage and screening. She explained that the International Property Maintenance Code regulates outdoor storage of rubbish, waste, garbage, yard trimmings, woodpiles, etc. and that those types of complaints are managed by the City's Fire Department. Items regulated by the Planning Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 10, 2016 Page 2 Division are not garbage or waste and include commercial items, vehicles, materials, supplies, merchandise, etc. Waldhauser referred to the items managed by the Fire Department and asked if they also regulate screening of those items or just the safety issues. McGuire Brigl said just the safety issues. Zimmerman added that staff is trying to be as clear as possible about who would handle each issue. Kluchka asked if there is a definition for the amount of time allowed for storage. Baker asked what principal use means. Kluchka asked if that means principal land use or principal business use. Zimmerman said that is not currently clearly defined but the Code could tie it to permitted uses. Segelbaum added that it could also be hard to separate principal uses and accessory uses. McGuire Brigl reviewed the staff recommendations for the Light Industrial and Industrial zoning districts which include: no storage of items unrelated to the principal use, all properties must be screened if adjacent to a residential or institutional property, materials/equipment associated with principal use must be screened from ground level of adjacent properties and adjacent right-of-way with 90% opacity, and allowing a maximum fence height of 8 feet, 12 feet if used for screening outdoor storage. Baker referred to the requirements from other cities and noted that Golden Valley is the only one to require 90% opacity for screening. McGuire Brigl clarified that other cities also have opacity requirements. Kluchka questioned if the 90% opacity requirement means year-round opacity. Zimmerman stated that it refers to vegetative screening and fencing. Segelbaum asked about the difference between a maximum height of 8 feet, but allowing 12 feet if it is screening storage. McGuire Brigl stated that an 8-foot tall fence or screening would be allowed regardless, but a 12-foot tall fence or screening would be allowed in order to screen storage. McGuire Brigl reviewed the staff recommendations for the Commercial, Business and Professional Offices, and I-394 Mixed Use zoning districts which include: outdoor storage must be related to the principal use and screened from ground level of adjacent properties with 90% opacity, a maximum fence height of 6 feet, 8 feet if used for screening outdoor storage, no storage of items unrelated the principal use, and only in- use vehicles relating to the principal use may be on-site and unscreened. Waldhauser stated that she would like to require screening for businesses that are located next to residential properties. Zimmerman added that if a use requires a Conditional Use Permit the City could require screening as a condition of approval. Blum questioned if it would be easier to say that all parking lots have to be screened. Zimmerman stated that people would probably prefer to look at open space if items aren't being stored. Johnson noted that property owners could store anything outdoors if they install a fence and the City wouldn't be able to see what is being stored. He said he Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 10, 2016 Page 3 doesn't want to see fences everywhere and that they are bad for security. He added that he thinks there may be more opportunities for landscaping and berms which would respect people's property rights and what citizens want. He suggested that maybe the City could budget to give some allowance for landscaping. Johnson suggested requiring "living fences" and if that is not possible the property owner could ask for a variance. Baker stated that not all sites lend themselves to vegetative fences. Kluchka noted that "fence" isn't used in the definition, "screening" is. He suggested a requirement that screening has to be 100% opaque if it is a structure and 50% opaque if it is vegetation. Waldhauser agreed that some greenery with open-type fencing is better than nothing, but she would not want solid fences installed. Segelbaum agreed that the code should encourage different types of fences. Kluchka questioned if storage, in terms of time, should be defined. Zimmerman noted that typically this issue comes to the City as a complaint when the storage issue has been occurring for quite some time. Segelbaum suggested that staff research what other cities have done in regard to defining a length of time allowed for storage. Segelbaum said he noticed that other cities codes don't allow front yard storage and others state that storage is not allowed within setback areas. Baker said he doesn't think the City would want to restrict storage in the front yard areas of commercial properties. Zimmerman noted that the current Zoning Code does not allow parking or storage in the front setback area. Waldhauser added that new developments are required to have green space all around the property. Zimmerman agreed. Blenker asked if the City can require existing properties to conform to new requirements. Zimmerman said he would talk to the City Attorney, but he believes that existing properties would be grandfathered in and would not be required to conform to any new requirements. Blenker asked if there is a complaint if the property owner could be held to the new regulations. Zimmerman said if the property is consistent with the old regulations the City can't force them upgrade their property. Segelbaum questioned the requirements about screening from Institutional properties. McGuire Brigl stated that requirement is currently in the Industrial zoning district, but not in �ight Industrial. Baker said he thinks the premise is that commercially zoned properties don't store as much outside as Light Industrial and Industrial properties might. Zimmerman stated that the City receives many fewer complaints about Commercial and Business and Professional Offices properties than Industrial. Segelbaum noted that Golden Valley is currently in the middle regarding strictness. He questioned if the City should be stricter, less strict, or stay in the middle. Waldhauser said she doesn't want to be overly strict. Kluchka asked what category auto repair falls under. Zimmerman stated that auto uses in any zoning district require a Conditional Use Permit. Kluchka asked if there are requirements regarding parking lot striping and bringing lighting up to code. Zimmerman stated that parking lots have to be re-striped if a lot is being resurFaced and lighting has to be brought into conformance if new poles are installed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 10, 2016 Page 4 Segelbaum asked if a minimum height requirement for fences is needed. McGuire Brigl stated that the current code requires at least 6 feet of fence height. Zimmerman stated that the current requirement for fences in non-residential zoning districts states that all exterior storage shall be screened by a wall, fence, or vegetation not less than six feet in height and of 90% opacity. Segelbaum referred to the existing language in the Zoning Code that allows fences to be 12 feet tall. Zimmerman explained that a fence not exceeding 12 feet in height is permitted in Commercial, Industrial, and Light Industrial zoning districts solely for the purpose of screening exterior storage areas. Kluchka questioned if visual articulation, or additional trees and shrubs should be required for fences over 8 feet tall. Blum suggested allowing a 12 foot tall fence if it is a year-round vegetative fence. Zimmerman said staff will take the feedback from the Commissioners and prepare code language for their review. 3. Discussion — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Zimmerman discussed the Comprehensive Plan Open House that was held on September 19. He stated that approximately 60 people attended and gave their feedback on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals. He added that the City will continue to receive additional comments through the on-line survey and that the final work scope and Comprehensive Plan theme will be considered by the City Council in December. Segelbaum asked how the on-line survey is being advertised. Zimmerman said it is on the City's Facebook page, the City's website, the newsletter, and on cable news. Blum asked Zimmerman to send the Commissioners a link to the on-line survey. Zimmerman explained that some common land use themes have emerged from the surveys and open house and include: minimizing conflicts between residential and non- residential areas, continuing to strengthen the downtown area, supporting and enhancing the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, protecting the environment/green space, preserving single family neighborhoods, and integrating transit options. Zimmerman showed the Commissioners a proposed existing land use map that will be updated every couple of years and a future land use map that will help the City focus on the goals in the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that four focus areas or districts have surfaced and he showed a map of the four districts that are most likely to change and will be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan update. These areas include: The Greater Downtown area, The Douglas Drive Corridor, The I-394 Mixed Use Corridor, and the Light Rail Station area. Waldhauser asked if the Greater powntown area goes all the way west to Highway 169. Zimmerman said yes. Waldhauser asked if the Douglas Drive Corridor district encompasses Duluth Street. Zimmerman explained that it did in the Douglas Drive Corridor study. Johnson asked about the genesis of focusing on the Douglas Drive Corridor. Zimmerman stated that the study was done as part of the last Comprehensive Plan update because the City knew Douglas Drive was being re-constructed. Zimmerman said he would send the Commissioners a link to the Douglas Drive study. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 10, 2016 Page 5 Waldhauser said she would like to see a similar study done for Winnetka Avenue. Johnson questioned the risks of striving for too much. Zimmerman stated that the City will look at other areas, but the four areas that are likely to change will be the major areas of focus. Baker agreed that focusing on these four areas doesn't preclude them from focusing on other places. Segelbaum questioned if the comments from the survey and open house can be incorporated in these four focus areas. Goellner referred to a map of the Golden Valley Road light rail station area and discussed transit supportive density and the Metropolitan requirements for density in that area. Johnson asked how those requirements are enforced. Zimmerman stated that the City can have tools in place, plan for density, and build in triggers to start upzoning once certain thresholds of redevelopment have already occurred. Kluchka asked how the parkland fits in with the density requirements. Goellner said the parkland will probably be taken out of the requirement calculations. She explained that there will be grant money and funding available to encourage density and she discussed the density of some of the recently approved proposals in the City. Segelbaum asked what type of feedback staff wants. Goellner said they would like to know if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the focus areas that have been highlighted. Baker said he would like a better definition of the Douglas Drive Corridor area. Kluchka suggested looking at the entrances to the City like at 13t"/Plymouth. 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Baker reported on the last light rail meeting he attended. Zimmerman stated that there will be a Metro Blue Extension open house on November 10. 5. Other Business • Council Liaison Report Council Member Schmidgall reviewed the October 5 City Council meeting and reported on the groundbreaking event for the new Brookview Community Center. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 pm. � n�1 ►V� John Kluc , Secretary L Wittman, Administrative Assistant