Loading...
05-14-18 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Comp Plan Conversation Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room Monday, May 14, 2018 7 pm 1. Approval of Minutes April 16, 2018, Special Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Comp Plan — Review Full Draft 3. 2017-18 Recodification of City Code 4. Annual Board/Commission Orientation 5. Election of Officers 6. Council Liaison Report 7. Adjournment This dor,u�T7er��is available ir���IEer���te�€orrnats��pon a�72-ho��r requ�sfi. Pl�ase call � � 763-593-�Q{l6(TTV: 7G3-a93-;3�JG�}t��n�ake a reque�t. Ex�mE�les of aiteri��te forn7a#s � y �� t7�ay ir7r,l��d�larc�e print,el�ctr��t�ic, �r�ille,audi�cassette,�tc, < � Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 16, 2018 A special 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, April 16, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Brookins, Johnson, and Segelbaum. Also present were Council Members Clausen, Rosenquist, and Schrnidgall; Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner; Elise Durbin with Hennepin County Bottineau Community Works; Jay Demma with Perkins+Will; Mike Lamb with LHB; and Susan Henderson and Hazel Barys with PlaceMakers. 1. TOD Zoning Workshop Zimmerman introduced the topic of updating the City's Mixed Use zoning code section to be able to be used in the area around the proposed Golden Valley Road light rail station. Clausen asked why the church was being talked about when they have stated they do not intend to leave. Zimmerman discussed:the importance of being prepared for any future changes and pointed out the ehurch would not be restricted by the new zoning but that it could provide additional opportunities for them. Baker asked for clarification between Neighborhood and Community sealed mixed use. Zimmerman explained that it was related to the different character or intensity of places in addition to the physical massing of buildings. Demma presented an overview of the study and introduced the consultant team. Lamb talked about mixed use zoning in'general and how Golden Valley has used it in the past along I-394. He pointed out the potential areas of change on the Golden Valley Road station area plan and the group`discussed protecting single-family neighborhoods. Henderson walked the group through concepts being considered for the new mixed use zoning code section`: She described the ideas of requiring minimum frontage build-outs and different fa�ade types: Johnson expressed his concern about what was being left out if the cade was being simplified. Henderson pointed out that the code would be more flexible and easier to administer. Clausen'asked if the concepts would hold over time. Henderson replied that while the practical application of the concepts was fairly timeless, any good zoning code would be revisited and updated from time to time. She presented an example of a two page handout that contained almost all of the information needed to understand the zoning district. Baker asked if the code would dictate strict percentages of types of uses. Henderson replied that while tight control used to be the standard, recent codes were more flexible and let the market help dictate the mix of uses. Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 16, 2018 Page 2 Clausen asked if the St. Margaret Mary site would support retail. Henderson replied that it was unlikely in the shorter term. Baker suggested any new spaces be "retail ready." Clausen and Rosenquist discussed providing commercial/retail services for the neighborhood and higher density housing close to the station platform. Clausen stated that she believed that over time attitudes around light rail would soften around the station. Baker asked if the single-family neighborhoods would ever turn over. Henderson said it would be very difficult for site assembly to work. Henderson talked about creating new use tables that were explicit about uses that were not wanted and letting the market select the uses that were appropriate.'Baker asked about vertical mixed use. Henderson said that while it wouldn't be required, it wauld be allowed and even encouraged. Zimmerman told the group that additional work would be done between staff and the consultants and that a draft version of new mixed use zoning code language'would be available for review later in the summer. The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 pm. Ron Blum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 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, April 23, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Angell, Baker, Black, Blum, Qrookins, Johnson, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager JasQn Zimmerman. 1. Approval of Minutes April 9, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and'motion carried unanimously to approve the April 9, 2018, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Major PUD Amendment— 5430 Glenwood Avenue — Meadowbrook PUD #90, Amendrnent#4 - PU90-A4 Applicant: Hopkins Public Schools Address: 5430 Glenwood Avenue Purpose: To allow for a 15,00� square foot addition Zimmerman referred to the Land Use Map and noted that the properties in the PUD are currently guided for schools and rel`igious facilities, public facilities, and semi-public facilities. He noted that on'the proposed new Land Use Map the properties will all be guided for assembly use which is consistent with what is there today. He added that the properties are`zoned Ir�stitutional (I-1) which is reserved for churches and schools. Zirnmerman gave a history of the PUD and explained the applicant's current proposal to consfiruct a nine-classroom addition at the north end of the building to accommodate the overcrowding that exists today. He explained that as a part of this proposal one existing classroom will be converted to restrooms and utility space so there would be a net of eight classrooms added. In addition there will be an internal courtyard created, an expanded cafeteria, and an improved loading dock area. He noted that the proposed work would be done in two phases starting with phase one in 2018 and phase two in 2019. He explained that staff's main concern is traffic primarily at drop off and pick up times and the traffic queuing on Glenwood Avenue. Zimmerman referred to the traffic study done to examine existing conditions and forecast conditions under this proposed amendment. He explained that the existing Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 2 enrollment is 836 and the proposed enrollment would be 890. He stated that the average number of observed vehicles dropping off in the morning was 377 and 261 during the afternoon pick-up. The number of vehicles queued on the street was 8 to 15 in the morning and 4 to 21 in the afternoon. Segelbaum asked for clarification about the average carpool statistics and asked about the timeframe of the drop-offs and if that includes staff arrivals. Zimmerman said the study looked at when parents started arriving and when they stopped because of school starting. The average over four days was 377. Zimmerman stated that 38 sp�ces is the number of queuing spaces that the traffic engineer felt was the minimum number of spaces necessary to keep the cars off the public streets and on the site. Zimmerrnan showed an aerial photo of the site and explained the four different access pc�ints used for buses, access to the Davis Community Center, and for cars dropping' off and picking up students. Zimmerman stated that when the traffic engineer's findings were preser�ted to Meadowbrook they came back with some proposals as to finding space for the additional 38 queuing spaces. One idea is to widen the entrance off of Turners Crossroad to create better flow and add approximately 5 additional queuing spaces. Another idea is to remove an existing playground and landscaped area near the corner of Glenwood and Turners Crossroad in order to create a larger one-way loop which would increase the queuing capacity on site and a larger area for students to be dropped off and picked up. Another idea is to add a loop on the east parking lot that would allow 16 more spaces. He added that by doing some other adjustments in the existing parking lots another 10 spaces f+ar queuing could be added. He said that staff reviewed the applicant's proposals and has some slightly different opinions. He said staff agrees with the proposal to wider� the entrance on Turners Crossroad along with the addition of a right Iine on Turners Crossroad to increase public safety. He stated that staff doesn't want to see the playground and landscaped corner area removed, but would support a smaller extended loop area on the west side of the site. He added that the County is interested in seeing a left turn lane added on Glenwood Avenue either by restriping or doing some curb work/construction to obtain enough width to allow people to bypass the queue on the right. Zimmerman referred to the landscaping plan and explained that the applicant is praposing to remoue 15 trees along Turners Crossroad and approximately 14 trees north of the east parking lot. He stated that a tree survey will be required to evaluate significant trees`on the site and that tree replacement will be required. Zimmerman discussed the lighting on the site and stated that a lighting plan for the proposed new fixtures on the north end of the building will be necessary. He noted that there are also outstanding inflow and infiltration corrections that need to be made and that staff is recommending that enrollment be capped at 890 students in hopes of avoiding future crowding issues. Staff is also recommending that if the applicant wants to expand in the future there will need to be a much more significant traffic study done. He added that the final plat from the applicant's third PUD amendment must be Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 3 recorded with Hennepin County prior to any permits being issued and that the applicant should explore options to provide bicycle and pedestrian access to the campus from the east without crossing the ingress and egress driveways on Glenwood Avenue. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed PUD amendment based on the conditions listed in the staff report. Baker asked for a comparison of the differences between what the applicant is proposing and what the City is proposing. Zimmerman referred to a map of fihe property and reviewed the three areas where the applicant is proposing changes on their site to help with traffic and queuing and a map showing the changes the City wou(d like to see including a smaller loop on the west side of the building and the addition of a left turn lane on Glenwood Avenue to help traffic flow better through the area. Blum referred to the landscaping plan and asked if a tree survey has been done yet. Zimmerman said no, a tree survey has not yet been done. Blum noted thaf the landscaping plan showing the trees to be removed didn't seem to encompass the widening of the driveway on Turners Crossroad. Zimmerman explained that some of the trees would need to be removed because of ADA �ntrance reguirements and other tree removal has to do with grading and utility wark that will take place. Johnson stated that the applicant is building nin�'new classrooms, but have said there is a net of eight new classrooms and questioned why they aren't just saying that they are building nine. Zimmerman explained that they are proposing nine classrooms, but one existing classroom is being taken away so there is a net of eight new classrooms being constructed. He added that this doesn't mean that there will be eight new classes of 24 students each, the new classroorns will accommodate the existing students and approximately 54 additional students. Brookins asked for clarification regarding the one-way loop referred to in the staff reports. Zimmerman explained that"staff has suggested a one-way loop system on the campus to allow cars to get off the public streets and to queue up on site instead. However, there are space constraints on this property that would make that difficult. Baker said h�finds that id'ea compelling and is disappointed to hear that idea wasn't more seriously considered. Segelbaum referred to the proposed extension of the existing loop on the west side of the property and asked why the City is recommending that be made smaller instead of the applicant's larger loop proposal. Zimmerman said it is a safety issue and the loss of pervious surface, landscaping, and playground area. Baker asked if the proposed widening of Glenwood Avenue would take place within existing right-of-way, or if additional property would have to be acquired. Zimmerman said he doesn't believe it would involve any taking of property from adjacent property owners because there appears to be enough right-of-way available. Segelbaum asked who would pay for the widening of Glenwood Avenue. Zimmerman said the district Minutes of the Golden Valiey Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 4 would because the improvements would be necessitated by the proposed expansion project. Johnson asked if there is sufficient parking on the property. Zimmerman said there haven't been any complaints or concerns about parking compared to the queuing at drop off and pick up times. Johnson asked if it will be difficult for cars to turn left out of the parking lot on Glenwood Avenue. Zimmerman said it could potentially be a problem. Waldhauser asked about the service area for Meadowbrook and where their students come from. Zimmerman suggested having the applicant address that. Brookins referred to the impervious surFace on the site and asked if staff is cQnfident that stormwater BMPs can be put in place with the addition. Zimmerman stated that staff is not confident yet because it depends on what traffic mifigatic�n plan is implemented. He added that the applicant will be required to have a stormwater permit as part of the process. Waldhauser asked if there is any stormwater treafinent currently in place. Zimmerman said he didn't think so. Segelbaum asked why the recommendation includes a cap on staff as well as students. Zimmerman said he is willing to work with the applicant regarding that recommendation. Blum referred to the proposed enrollment cap and asked if t�e authority to do that arises from the fact that this is a PUD proposal. Zimmerman said yes, and explained that capping the enrollment is a tangible way ta address the capacity of the site. Blum referred to the suggested changes on Glenwood Avenue and asked if the City could potentially lose specific lanes ft�r bikes or pedestrians in the future. Zimmerman said he believes there will always be trails, it is just a matter of whether they will be on- street or off-street trails. Baker asked the applicant to address each of staff's recommended conditions starting with the proposed loop area on the`west side of the property. Neil Tessier, SAF Engineering, stated that the City asked Meadowbrook to get 38 vehicles off of the road and that with the coneept they are proposing it gets 46 vehicles off the road so they feel they've met that cc�ndition: He added that it will be challenging to add a turn lane on Turners Crossrc�ad because of the grade and the expense and that the school district's position is that they would really prefer not to do any work on the roads. He explained that the school doesn't use the existing play area on the west side as much as they did in the past so that is why they are proposing the larger loop concept, instead of the smaller one recommended by the City. Segelbaum asked about the suggestion of a double lane access in the loop area. Tessier stated that the loop could be made wider to help address the issues with pick up and drop off. Baker asked why the School District is against making changes on Turners Crossroad and Glenwood Avenue. Tessier reiterated that there are grading issues on Turners Crossroad and that the numbers in the traffic study use the worst case scenario. He stated that 90% of the time there are no issues on the streets, especially on Turners Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 5 Crossroad so there really isn't the need for an additional turn lane on Turners Crossroad as recommended because the vehicles are being brought on site. He referred to Glenwood Avenue and said the County and the City really need to look at the width of that road because he doesn't think there is enough space, and it would be a major undertaking, to provide a safe turn lane with bike lanes, curbs, and sidewalks. He added that all of the development going on in the City is contributing to the congestion on Glenwood so they don't feel the School District should bear all of the responsibility. Baker stated that people wouldn't be turning there, but for the school. Tessier stated that a significant amount of cars use Glenwood as a by-pass to get to Highway 100. Blum said he would like to see a bigger picture of the volume of traffic and the'direction it is coming from in order to see the pressure on these points. Tessier noted that the traffic study said approximately 25-30% of the trips come in from Turners Crossroad' and that the rest come from Glenwood Avenue. Blum asked about the demographics of the people coming to this school. Tessier said he didn't know �xact[y, but he does know there is a major amount of open enrollment, and people come from many different places. Zimmerman noted that the traffic engineer's report doesn't show wh�ere the trips are coming from, but it does show that the trips entering the site are fairly evenly split between the Turners Crossroad entrance and the Glenwood Avenue entrance. Greta Evans-Becker, Principal of Meadowbrook School, said that#he west side of the site is the only place where students are dropped off, but the larger number of pick-ups occur on the Glenwood Avenue side of the property so fhat is why the numbers look evenly split. Baker asked why the suggested loop around the east parking lot was dismissed as not an option. Tessier said sep,arating bus traffic and parent traffic is something almost every school in the state does because there is significant liability and safety concerns so that is something the School District really does not want to do. Baker asked about the differences between the applicant and the City regarding landscaping. Tessier said'they are prepared to submit a tree survey and a new landscapinc� plan. ` Baker asked about the staff's recommendations regarding the lighting plan. Tessier said they will provide a photometric plan to make sure light doesn't spill into the neighborhood: Baker asked,about the staff's recommendations regarding utilities. Tessier said they are waiting for the infiltration report and discussed the sewer work done in the past. He added that they will fix any issues that need repair. Baker asked Tessier about stormwater BMPs. Tessier said they are proposing to run the storm sewer pipe from the roof area into an existing catch basin that goes into a stormscepter and Bassett Creek. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 6 Baker asked Tessier about the proposed enrollment requirement and the outstanding plat. Tessier said they have no issue with capping the enrollment and that they are working on getting the plat finished. Baker referred to the bike flow issue and asked Tessier to respond to staff's suggested concept. Tessier explained that there could be a challenge with the staging of bikes on the east part of the site when the entrance is completely around the building on the west side. He stated there is also a hill, a lot of trees, a storm sewer, and a drainage swale to be considered. He added that there are bike paths that cross driveways all c�uer the City and questioned what the City typically does in any other situation. He stated they are comfortable adding signage, but to reroute the bike path all the way around the school is a fairly large expense they would like to avoid. Segelbaum noted that the existin� bike racks are located where the loop is proposed to be expanded and questioned where they would be relocated to. Tessier said the plans at this point are schematics;and they don't have all the details yet, but they will put several bike racks in. Waldhauser asked if there are crossing guards at the entrances. Tessier stated that there are people within the site supervising drop offs and pick-ups. Evans-Becker stated that none of Meadowbrook's students are walkers so they don't have crossing guards on the streets. Baker asked Tessier if Meadowbrook has considered hiring a traffic control officer which could solve many of the problems. Tessier stated that a traffic control officer wouldn't be effective on Glenwood Avenue where people turn into the school because it wouldn't help with the issue of people trying ta go around that traffic. Segelbaum stated that one of the City's recommendations is to cap the number of staff as well as the number studenfs'and asked if Meadowbrook has issues with that. Baker clarified that the condition regarding staff doesn't cap the number of staff, it requires that changes to staffing levels`or programming'-activities shall be discussed with the City prior to implementation. Evans-�ecker said that requirement seems complex when it doesn't impact the number of families that are coming or going. Waldhauser stated that program changes do affect capacity. Evans-Becker said things should stay in balance with a cap on student enrollment: Waldhauser asked abc�ut the service area for Meadowbrook and how many of the students are from that area, and outside of that area. Evans-Becker said the attendance area is mainly south of Highway 55, west of Winnetka down to I-394 and to Theodore Wirth on the east. She stated that half of the students come from the attendance area and the ather half are open enrolled students, many of which come from the rest of Golden Vall€�y among many other cities. Baker opened the public hearing. Paula Pentel, 941 Angelo Drive, said she has been involved with Meadowbrook since 2000 and she is concerned that the maps aren't showing where the new addition is going to be constructed. She said she is glad a tree survey is going to be required and that she is concerned about the amount of impervious surFace on the site and the size Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 7 of the playground. She referred to the suggested parking lot addition on the east side and said she is concerned about the specimen trees in that area and the lack of a buffer. She questioned how the student population will actually be capped and said that the fact that the district decided that they want to put five levels of classes starting with kindergarten doesn't make an emergency for the City to allow a development that may be too large for the site. She questioned if the Boy Scout property to the east may be available to Meadowbrook in order to alleviate some of the issues and said she is not sure every option has been considered. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said she feels like Meadowbrook has outgrown their �pace. She said she understands the interest in having Meadowbrook in the community,but it'was built as a small neighborhood school that is now trying to serve students frorn all over the place. She questioned how much the City should do to help this one school serve as many students as possible when there are a lot of other options. She said she 'is not interested in seeing any expansion of Meadowbrook. Blum agreed'and said he would recommend that the City pause on this decision. Baker agreed with Blum and stated that this proposal could be tabled in order to try and resolve some of the issues. Black stated that the student expansion has already happened so fhe question is whether they want to keep them in this small space. Johnson stated that the school has an issue with traffic:°but they are trying to solve it by getting more of the traffic off the streets and onto their site. Segelbaum agreed and said he supports Meadowbrook and thinks they are trying to accommodate the traffic. He said he is not sure it is com�l�tely pla.usible to add a turn lane on Glenwood Avenue so he doesn't want to make it a mandatory requirement at this point. Baker asked if the queuing on Glenwood is a result of people waiting to turn into the parking lot or if it queues all the`way to the schooPs entrance. Zimmerman said it is a bit of both. Blum questioned why sa many people are choosing to use the Glenwood entrance. Zimmerman stated there are more parking spaces and more queuing space on the easfi side. Baker said he is impressed with the compromises that have been reached. Brookins said he is not in support of the proposal. He said he thinks there are other opportunities that haven't been considered in terms of the long term vision and that he would be in favor of tabling the proposal. Angell agreed and added that the larger loop proposal isn't ideal. He said he'd like to see more detail about potential plantings as well. Baker said the proposal seems hasty and it feels like more thought could have been put into it. Black said the main issue was traffic and that an entire traffic study was done. He said there are other issues that are important, but the applicant has addressed the main concerns the City has. Segelbaum said he thinks tabling the proposal would be the worst option for the district. He said if there is more information required it can be added before it goes to the City Council, but the Planning Commission's purview is to decide whether or not the proposal meets the standards, not if it they are moving too Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 8 quickly. Blum said he thinks the hesitation flows into the criteria they are supposed to consider and are within their purview. Segelbaum said he feels it would be a disservice to the school to not give them a vote. Segelbaum referred to the second recommended condition of approval and questioned if options B and/or D1 from the traffic engineer's memo should be excluded. He also questioned if a turn lane of Turners Crossroad would be necessary if the larger loop option were constructed on the west side of the property. He said he would like there to be further study before the proposal goes to the City Council regarding the traffic issues on Glenwood Avenue and whether re-striping or adding a through lane would be best. Baker reiterated that he thinks the proposal should be tabled. Johnson stated he would like the staff report to state that they are creating nine additional classrooms rather than a net of eight new classroorns. ' Segelbaum referred to the seventh condition of approval and said he would like to strike the language after the words "enrollment shall be capped at 890 students." Zimmerman stated that the City would still like to get annual information on enrollment from Meadowbrook. Brookins said he would like the enrollment capped at even fewer than 890 students. Johnson referred to the eighth condition af approUal and said he thinks options for a bicycle/pedestrian plan should be required the same as'any other bike trail. Baker recommended the language state that an east/west bike trail must be maintained and options for a trail connection the parking lot should be explored. Brookins asked if there should be timing requirements added to the conditions regarding traffic improvements. Zimmerman said it depends on the County requirements. Brookins asked if the internal site modi#ications could be addressed sooner. Baker suggested adding language that requires a'ptions B and C be done during the first phase. Johnson suggested that condition number three regarding tree mitigation be more specific and include a 1 to 1 replacement of all significant trees. MOVED by Segelbaum seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Major PUD Amendment plan for Meadowbrook PUD No. 90, Amendment #4 subject to the following findings and conditions: Findin s 1. If the listed conditions are required as a part of the approval, the proposed expansion and site improvements would not negatively impact the overall quality of the site. Enhancements to circulation and queueing areas should help traffic flow more smoothly in and around the site, relieving existing congestion. 2. While a number of trees are being removed as a part of the proposal, improved landscaping will be required and will help mitigate their removal. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 9 3. The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by allowing the construction of classrooms to support a complete fifth section of classes on-site. 4. The proposed amendment would allow the current school building to better manage the number of students currently on-site and would allow for a small number of new students to be enrolled over the next two years. This is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan which advocates a "complete community" and prioritizes the preservation of elementary schools. However, without close oversight of future enrollment and programming, problems around overcrowding could arise once more. 5. Important traffic improvements must be made in concert with the proposed expansion in order to address concerns regarding the general health, safety, and welfare of those who visit or travel through the Meadowbrook School area. 6. The proposed modification does not conflict with the standards''�pplied to the existing PUD and does not invalidate the Intent and Purpose �rovisit�n of the City Code. Conditions: 1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division, dated April 19, 2018, shall become a part of this appra�ral. 2. Improvements and modifications to traffic management, as explained in the Engineering memo, shall be constructed and/or funded by Meadowbrook School in 2018 and 2019. These include physical`improvements (A,'C and E in the traffic engineer's memo and the schooPs original option B) as well as operational optimization. B and C shall be constructed in 2018. ' 3. A revised tree and landscaping plan, including a tree survey with tabular inventory, which includes a 1 to 1 replacement �f`all significant trees shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Tree and Landscape Permit. 4. A photometric plan with Iight levels identified for all new fixtures shall be submitted for review and approval. 5. The school must provide a financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the City's I/I code. All new or rehabilitat�:d sewer services must be inspected by the City after repair or constructic�n, and must obtain compliance with the City's I/I Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the building or release of funds. 6. No permits shall'be issued until the Final Plat approved as part of Amendment#3 has been recorded with Hennepin County. 7. Enrollment shall be capped at 890 students. Information on enrollment shall be provided to the City annually. 8. An east/west bike trail must be maintained and options for a trail connection east of the parking fot that avoids vehicular conflicts shall be explored with City staff. --Short Recess-- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman stated that officer elections will occur at the next Planning Commission meeting. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 23, 2018 Page 10 The Commission acknowledged that it was Commissioner Waldhauser's last meeting. 4. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm. Ron Blum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant city of � �alden MEMO► RA � DUM � . ��, �,,'� Physical Development Department 763 593 8095/763 593 8109(fax) Date: May 14, 2018 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Emily Goellner, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Summary Beginning with the release of System Statements by the Metropolitan Council in the fall of 2015, staff, consultants, Commissioners, and City Council Members have been working with the public and other stakeholders to develop Golden Valley's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This effort involved a public Kick-off and Open House, several "Comp Plan Conversations" around each of the chapter topics, meetings and discussions with many of the City's Commissions, public testimony and feedback on proposed Goals and Objectives, participation by interested groups utilizing the Comp Plan in a Box tool, cable N stories, newsletter articles, City-wide mailings,tables at civic events, diligent work by City staff, and regular feedback from the City CounciL The City is now ready to release the draft plan for public review and comment.The document, along with supporting technical information, can be found on the City's web site: http://www.�oldenvalleVmn.gov/planning/comprehensiveplanupdate/index.php Once the draft plan is released by the City Council, a 60 day comment period will commence with opportunities for the public to provide written comments on the plan. In addition,the document will be shared with Golden Valley's adjacent communities as well as affected jurisdictions including MnDOT, Hennepin County, Hopkins and Robbinsdale School Districts, and the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission. The Metropolitan Council will also perform a preliminary review of the plan. Any necessary revisions or corrections will be conducted over the summer of 2018. The final plan is anticipated to be ready for approval by the City Council in the fall before being formally submitted to the Metropolitan Council. ����� ���$ �r�� �� Physical D+evel�aprn+en� I��epa�rtrn.en� ���-���-s�����s�-���-s�c������� Date: May 14, 2018 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: 2017-18 Recodification of City Code , Background As part of an effort to clean-up outdated language in the City Code and to create consistency in references and between sections, staff from a variety of departments has been working with the City Clerk to prepare for a recodification. This process was begun in 2017 and will conclude later in 2018 with approval by the City Council of the new code. Planning staff have been directed to take this opportunity to address a number of desired changes in the Zoning Code. In 2017, problem areas were identified and new language was drafted. These proposed changes will be shared with the City Council and Planning Commission in June. Public hearings on all text amendments will take place later in the summer. Attached is a summary of the changes for discussion purposes. Attachments Proposed Changes to Zoning Code (2 pages) Changes to Zoning Code as part of 2017-18 Recodification Code "clean up" 1. Updated language to be more contemporary and straightforward throughout the Code 2. Reorganized order of sections: moved Administration and Violations up front, added Site Plan Review to Administration section, combined some other elements (Seasonal Farm Produce,Temporary Retail Sales) into one Temporary Uses section 3. Merged separate Interpretation section into Administration 4. Added a "nuisance" clause to the Non-Conforming Use subdivision of Administration 5. Updated requirements for processing Variances in order to be consistent with State Statute 6. Updated language in Definitions section, removed some outdated terms 7. Reorganized content of zoning district sections—created consistency in what is addressed and the order in which it is listed 8. Moved limits in change of Average Grade for new Principal Structures from Definitions to Zoning District sections 9. Added language regarding when Zoning Permits are needed 10. Added Residential Facilities serving 6 or fewer persons to R-2 Permitted Uses 11. Updated language in Sexually Oriented Business section as per City Attorney 12. Updated language and regulations in the Telecommunications section, including adding regulations for the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District 13. Updated requirements for processing Conditional Use Permits in order to be consistent with State Statute Tax Parcel Divisions 14. Under General Requirements, updated re�ulations�overnin� Lot (Tax Parcel) Divisions Hei�ht 15. Raised maximum hei�ht of homes with flat roofs from 25 feet to 28 feet (must still stav within the tent-shaped buildin�envelope) 16.Clarified hei�ht requirements for shed roofs on Accessorv Structures 17. Removed limits to changes in Avera�e Grade of�reater than 1 foot outside of R-1 and R-2 properties Residential Densities/Mixed-Income Re�ulations 18.Set upper limit on Senior Housin�densitY in R-3 (20 units per acre with CUP) 19.Set upper limit on densities of uses without a CUP(50 units per acre for Multi-Family, 70 units per acres for Senior) PUDs 20.Added lan�ua�e related to public amenities to the Intent and Purpose statement for PUDs 21. Removed from PUD Amenity Options:Affordable Housin� Units, Under�round Parkin�, Enhanced Exterior Li�htin�, Informational/Interpretive Displavs 22. Revised lan�ua�e re�ardin� Eledric Car Charging Station under PUD AmenitY Options to reflect speci�c quantities(5i6 of required parking) 23. Modified Minor PUD Amendment lan�ua�e(Bl(9)from "chan�e�ross floor area"to "increase�ross floor area" Outdoor Storage 24. Chan�ed len�th of time allowed for Temporarv Stora�e Units from 7 davs to 14 davs 25. Consolidated all Screenin�and Outdoor Stora�e re�ulations into one section and updated standards based on 2016 discussion with Plannin�Commission and Citv Council Conditional Use Permits 26.Added an expiration clause for Conditional Uses that have ceased for more than one vear 27.Added reference to a Conditional Use Permit Amendment process to the code