Loading...
02-12-18 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2018 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, February 12, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Black, Blum, Brookins, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Blenker and Johnson were absent. 1. Approval of Minutes November 13, 2017, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the ninth paragraph on page three and asked that words "increase in tax value" be added to the second sentence. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 13, 2017, minutes with the above noted correction. November 27, 2017, Special Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 27, 2017, minutes as submitted. December 11, 2017, Special Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Brookins and motion carried unanimously to approve the December 11, 2017, minutes as submitted. January 8, 2018, Special Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 8, 2018, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 1017 Ravine Trail — SU09-14 Applicant: Tom Hunt & Linda McCracken-Hunt Address: 1017 Ravine Trail Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2018 Page 2 Zimmerman referred to a map of the property and explained the applicants request to subdivide the lot at 1017 Ravine Trail into two new lots. The existing single family home would remain and a second lot would be created to accommodate one new single famity home. He explained that a subdivision for this lot was approved in 2008, but the plat was not recorded with the County at that time so they are starting the process again. Zimmerman referred to a survey of the property and noted that there are some topography concerns on the east side of the lot with a steep hill that could potentially cause some water issues with the proposed new lot. Zimmerman noted that the existing lot is 29,635 square feet in size. The lot to the north is proposed to be 17,884 square feet in size and the lot to the south is proposed to be 11,770 square feet in size. He added that each proposed new lot will meet all of the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Codes and staff is recommending approval of the proposed subdivision request. Segelbaum referred to the conditions for approval or denial listed in the staff report and asked if the only way a subdivision can be denied is if these conditions aren't met. Zimmerman said yes and added that if the conditions are met, there is no basis for denial. Baker referred to the survey of the property and asked for further explanation of the concerns about water issues. Zimmerman said there aren't any concerns about the subdivision proposal, staff just wants to make sure that in the future the builder of the new house will understand the conditions they will be working with in order to help direct water from the high slope on the east around the new house. Waldhauser asked if the City routinely asks for surveys to be expanded. Zimmerman said it depends on the property and that in this case staff would like to see the topographical information expanded to take the entire slope into consideration and understand how water runs off it. Blum referred to a past subdivision that also abuts the I-394 sound wall where the City asked for additional right-of-way for maintenance. He asked if this proposal is similar to the one they reviewed in the past. Zimmerman stated that there is enough right-of-way in this case to provide for MnDOT access and maintenance. Segelbaum asked if it would be appropriate to add a condition of approval which states that the subdivision is subject to the comments and requirements in the City Engineer's memo. Zimmerman said yes and agreed that should be added as a condition of approval. Baker referred to a second driveway shown on the survey and asked if there used to be another house on this property. Linda McCracken-Hunt, Applicant, stated that her family has owned the property since 1965. She explained that the original house was a 1947 house and the second driveway used to be the only driveway until they remodeled the property in 1990 and built a new garage and driveway on the north side of the property. She stated the neighbor to the east used to have an in-ground pool which is now a rain Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2018 Page 3 garden and that both they and the neighbors have done some grading work so water run off isn't a problem now, but she understands that the owner of the proposed new house will have to take care of the water on their lot. Baker opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said this is a straightforward request that meets all of the requirements. Segelbaum agreed. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed minor subdivision at 1017 Ravine Trail subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 2. A park dedication fee of $11,010 shall be paid before release of the Final Plat. 3. A deferred special assessment of$4,800 shall be paid before release of the Final Plat. 4. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated January 11, 2018, shall become part of this approval. 3. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Mixed Income Housing — ZO00-114 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider the addition of Mixed Income Housing language to various sections of the Zoning Code Goellner stated that the City Council adopted the Mixed Income Housing Policy on September 19, 2017. She stated that staff intended to make the necessary changes to the Zoning Code as a part of the recodification process but that process has been delayed so staff has been directed to make the proposed Zoning Code amendments now. Goellner gave an overview of the policy and stated that it is meant to create more affordable housing in the City and is focused on new projects, not on existing affordable housing. She stated that certain housing projeets of 10 or more units are subject to the requirements in the policy including for-sale condos, townhomes, large single family subdivisions, and rental projects with 10 or more units that receive certain zoning approvals. She noted that there is a distinction made between for-sale projects and rental projects because if the City required that all rental projects be subject to this policy it would be considered rent control which is not allowed by state statute. Baker asked what certain zoning approvals means in regard to rental properties. Goellner stated that a comp plan amendment, a zoning map amendment, a Conditional Use Permit, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2018 Page 4 or a PUD are examples of zoning approvals. Baker asked if a rental project with 10 or more units were proposed if the City could impose a zoning change to force the policy to be applied. Goellner said no, only a proposal that requires a zoning approval would be subject to the policy. Segelbaum asked what would happen if a condo building were switched to rental housing. Goellner said that would be a very rare occurrence and reiterated that this policy is focused on new housing developments. Zimmerman added that most housing projects will need planning approvals which will trigger the policy to be applied. Blum asked about the history of these proposed zoning code text amendments. He asked if there has been guidance from the City Council and if there has been Council consensus that has directed the Planning Commission to consider these text amendments. He said these changes seem to be the most extensive changes since the subdivision moratorium and that they seem to be happening exceptionally quickly. He said he thinks that the comprehensive and extensive nature of these text amendments merits a lot more examination. Baker asked Blum if he is asking about the genesis of the policy or the changes being made to reflect the policy. Segelbaum noted that the policy is already in place. Baker added that the Planning Commission is just considering the zoning code text amendments and not the policy itself. Blum said he has been to some of the meetings where the policy was discussed and he is challenged to find a substantial consensus that would make him feel clearly directed on ordinance changes so he would like some more information to clearly guide the Planning Commission. Goellner said it was the Council's original intention that rezonings would be a reason for needing to follow this policy. She said the key reason is that when a developer wants to change the City's vision the City wants to see some benefit for changing its vision. She added that the policy is a best practice that is used in several other cities to make sure there is affordable housing. Zimmerman added that there have been discussions about affordable housing going on for approximately two years and that the City had a study done on how to keep naturally occurring affordable housing and how to create new affordable housing and that the City Council wants to capture new units that are being constructed and making those affordable. Waldhauser said she believes the intent to include this policy has been there for many years there were just no numbers attached to it. Zimmerman agreed that affordable housing is one of the Council's goals and that this policy will put some weight behind it and make it a requirement. Goellner stated that developers can opt into this policy if they choose and they can receive incentives if they opt in such as parking reductions, density bonuses, and fee waivers on a project by project basis. Goellner referred to the affordability requirements and explained that in for-sale projects (condos and townhomes) 10% of the units must be affordable to households earning 80% AMI. For rental projects (apartments) 15% of the units must be affordable to households earning 60% AMI or 10% of the units must be affordable to households earning 50% AMI. She added that the affordability term is at least 20 years from the time the building opens. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2018 Page 5 Goellner explained that AMI is the Area Median Income determined by HUD with Census data and that a family of four in the metro area at 100% AMI earns $85,800. A family of four in the metro area at 60% AMI earns $51,480 so a three-bedroom apartment in this policy would cost a family between $1,158-$1,493 per month rather than $1,930-$2,488 or more. Goellner stated that other features of the policy include: each phase in a multi-phased development must meet the requirements, affordable and market rate units must be built at same time, the size and design of affordable units must be consistent, comparable, look the same from the exterior, and distributed throughout building (not separated), If a tenant's income increases, they may stay in unit as long as income doesn't exceed 120% AMI, the developer may dedicate existing NOAH units instead of building new units, and a landlord cannot turn away a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher holder from renting solely based on that income source. Goellner stated that the necessary Zoning Code changes include adding the words "compliance with the Mixed-Income Housing Policy" to each permitted and conditional use listed in the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districts. The CUP section of Code will require compliance with the policy as a factor of evaluation and approval, the PUD section of Code will require compliance with the policy and would remove affordable housing from the amenity points table, and the Administrative section of Code will require compliance with the policy for Zoning Map amendments and Comprehensive Plan amendments. Segelbaum said it makes sense that PUDs shouldn't get credit twice for providing affordable units but if a developer goes above and beyond that they should get the extra points from the amenity points table. Goellner agreed the affordable housing amenity points could stay in the PUD section of Code if the developer goes above and beyond the minimum requirements of the policy. Segelbaum asked how the City is working on preserving existing affordable housing units. Goellner stated that there are ten multi-family properties in the City that are charging affordable rents ranging from $800 to $1,200 per month. These ten properties are at risk of being sold to a new owner and the rents could rise given the current market conditions. She said the focus has been on these ten properties and creating policies to help preserve these units and keep the rents affordable. Segelbaum asked if these new policies will be added to the Zoning Code. Goellner stated that they will likely be policies and not Zoning Code changes because the City has to use incentives, not requirements because of the rent control laws. Brookins asked if restrictive covenants will be used to enforce the requirement regarding the 20 year affordability term. Goellner said yes. Blum asked if the conversation in its entirety is closed and complete and the Planning Commission has been directed to approve the zoning text amendments, or if it is an on- going conversation and the City is just testing whether or not this is a good time to look at what has already been discussed. Goellner reiterated that the policy has been approved Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2018 Page 6 by the City Council and they are supportive of adding language to the Zoning Code supporting the policy. Baker opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Blum said he wants to be cautious and consider the entire picture because he is concerned about creating concentrations of poverty or ghettos when cities try to create low income housing. Baker stated that the subject of this public hearing is to make a recommendation on the zoning text amendments which implies that the Council has made the decision to do this and the Planning Commission is doing administrative work. Waldhauser referred to the incentives for developers listed in the policy where it states that if they are willing to reduce the required parking by 33% or a 10% increase in density. Black asked if a larger increase in density could be offered. Waldhauser questioned if the City needs to offer that big of a parking reduction. Goellner stated that the reduction is so large in order to offset the high cost to build parking and that there are probably limited places where that incentive would work. Baker asked if the same incentives are used in other cities. Goellner said yes. Baker referred to Segelbaum's comment about the PUD amenity points regarding affordable housing and said he would like the existing language to remain in the Code. Black asked if an applicant receives 120% of AMI would they lose their apartment. Goellner said they would have to switch units in order to keep the affordable unit available to income qualified individuals. Segelbaum stated that there is a lot of City oversite with this policy and asked if it will be overbearing. Goellner said it is necessary in order to be effective. She noted that the City will hire someone to do the reporting and charge the developer for that work. Segelbaum said he supports these proposed text amendments and that he is anxious to see what the City comes up with for preserving existing affordable housing. Baker and Waldhauser agreed. Blum said he thinks the proposed text amendments are appropriate and reasonable. MOVED by Blum, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Code text amendments and to keep the PUD amenity points regarding affordable housing in the Zoning Code. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2018 Page 7 ' 5. Other Business • Comp Plan Discussion — Land Use and Transportation Zimmerman introduced the Land Use plan and summarized the comments he had received to date, including asking for stronger language in some areas and better addressing opportunities for green infrastructure. He discussed the tables showing the anticipated redevelopment areas in 10 year periods and explained that this was a Metropolitan Council requirement that helped them ensure their regional systems were ready to handle new development. Baker commented that this background helped him better understand why these tables were included and asked that some text be added to provide this for the casual reader. He also asked staff to address different units of measurement between the existing and future scenarios. Segelbaum stated that he was looking for more distinction between the neighborhood and community scale mixed-use nodes that were indicated in the plan. Zimmerman pointed to the descriptions of the land uses for some clarification. Baker suggested adding language to help distinguish between the two types. Baker requested a new chart be added to show the amount of change between the land � uses on the existing and future land use maps. Waldhauser questioned why the descriptions of the mixed use sites didn't call for more vertically mixed uses, since these projects seemed to be happening elsewhere in the region. She specifically pointed to the northwest quadrant of Hwy 55 and Douglas Drive, where there could be an opportunity to build housing over retail or office. Zimmerman pointed out that financing of vertical mixed use projects is difficult and that while the City wants to encourage them, requiring them may result it little redevelopment occurring. Blum asked if some of the objectives could be modified to better capture topics that he felt had been discussed over the past few years. He was thinking of the desire to use site design standards to encourage pedestrian friendly redevelopment in places like the Hwy 55 West area. Zimmerman agreed and said that many of those standards would be included in the new mixed use zoning that would be put in place after the new land uses were adopted, but that he would add language to the objectives to reflect that. Discussing the section on subdivisions, Blum wondered if the language talking about the increase in new housing through subdivisions was accurate given how much of Golden Valley was developed. Zimmerman pointed out that while most of the city's residential growth would happen in multi-family buildings, that would need to be discussed elsewhere as the Metropolitan Council requires a discussion of subdivision controls in the Comp Plan. He said he would modify the text to reflect this. Blum also asked about the possibility of expanding the types of fees collected through development in order to create a "green infrastructure fund" that would allow the City to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2018 Page 8 do more in this area. Baker stated that this would increase costs, but in order to achieve what seems to be priority for residents, there would have to be some sacrifices. • Comp Plan Work Session —Transportation Goellner introduced the Transportation plan and noted that positive feedback was received about the sections on Bus Rapid Transit on Hwy 55, green infrastructure, improvements that support the crossing of Hwy 55, investigation of a local circulator, preparing for autonomous vehicles, and traffic calming. She noted that about half of the comments received so far were in the form of questions, which demonstrates the technical nature of this Chapter and the need for the Communications staff to add explanations, reduce jargon, and simplify language. Baker asked about Figure 4.3, which shows future levels of congestion, and wondered why there was no impact on Golden Valley Road from the construction of the light rail station. Goellner replied that the anticipated levels of traffic generated by light rail were not expected to negatively impact congestion levels. Baker also commented that Figure 4.4, safety analysis, had a lot of great information on it but was a little hard to read. Referring to the section on new technologies, Baker asked why there were no recommended actions around autonomous vehicles or drones. Goellner replied that there were still too many unknowns, but that staff would continue to monitor any developments and that MnDOT had many people working on these topics. Baker also mentioned that it felt odd to have a section on telecommunication in the transportation chapter. Goellner replied that this was due to the fact that a lot telecommunication equipment is or might be located in rights-of-way. Blum suggested looking at a recently adopted ordinance from Chicago to see what was being done around drone regulation. Segelbaum noted that the policy plan should encourage further research and that the City's long-term goal should be to avoid nuisances associated with this technology. Waldhauser recommended than an emphasis of the plan should be to support transit outside of Golden Valley in order to reduce the impact of traffic that passes through the city on a daily basis. Goellner added that new information about the Infrastructure Renewal Program would be available later this year as the transition from pavement management begins, and that additional explanation could be included in the document. • Council Liaison Report Council Member Schmidgall stated that Byerlys is having a customer appreciation day to celebrate 50 years in Golden Valley. He also reported that the City Council approved an ordinance to amend the peddler and solicitor rules to state that people campaigning for office are not considered to be peddlers or solicitors. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2018 Page 9 • Planning Articles No discussion took place. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 pm. � �n� ,�._ � Vv Ro Blum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant