Loading...
06-11-18 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Comp Pian Conversation Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room Monday, June 11, 2018 7 pm 1. Approval of Minutes May 30, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Review Chapter 11 (Zoning Code) Recodification Draft 3. Report� on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 4. Qther Business • Council Liaison Report 5. Adjournment TI7is document is availal�le i�� �it:�ri�ate forn7ats upcn a 72-hour requ�st.Alease c�i! ;'��� 763-5�3-80Q6(TTY: 76�-593-;���i8) to �7iake a req��est. Ex�n�ples of al��r�7afie farn��ts '`��` � �'��'� n�ay includ�large print,electro��ic, 6raille,aud€c��;�a�satte,etc. �`�� Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 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 Wednesday, May 30, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Angell, Baker, Black, Blum, Brookins, Johnson, Pockl, and Segelbaum. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Planning Intern Amy Morgan. 1. Approval of Minutes May 14, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Johnson and motion carried 6 to 0 to unanimously to approve the May 14, 2018, minutes as submitted. (Commissioner Blum arrived after this item.) 2. Informal Public Hearing — Major PUD Amendment— PU-91, The Luther Company, Amendment#4 Applicant: The Luther Company Address: 8905 Wayzata Blvd. Purpose: To allow for an expansion of the existing building and reconfigure the display and parking areas at the front entrance of the Jaguar/Land Rover dealership. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and noted that the PUD was created in 2001 and has been amended several times. He explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a Major PUD Amendment to allow for an expansion of the existing Jaguar/Land Rover showroom which would expand the building and in turn push the parking within the front yard setback area along the south. In exchange, the applicant would remove over 2,000 square feet of impervious surface area from the western portion of the property. Zimmerman stated that existing sidewalk connection into the site would be maintained. He explained that two trees would need to be removed and four trees would be planted and that a Tree and Landscape Permit will be needed to verify plantings and protect existing trees. He added that the showroom would have new aluminum cladding to enhance the building's appearance. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed PUD Amendment with a condition stating that all vehicle deliveries shall take place on-site and shall not take place on the street. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 2 Blum referred to the staff report regarding the removal of trees and asked for clarification about how many trees will be removed and how many new ones would be planted. Zimmerman stated that two trees will be removed and four will be planted. Segelbaum noted that there isn't much landscaping on this site and asked if the City has discussed enhancing that with the applicant. Zimmerman referred to an aerial photo and discussed the landscaped areas. He added that the screening requirements don't apply to properties in this zoning district. Segelbaum asked about additional landscaping along the west side of the property. Zimmerman said staff has not asked for any additional landscaping other than what is required in the City Code. Johnson referred to the area where the parking expansion is proposed and asked about the difference between parking areas and display areas. Zimmerman pointed out the parking areas used for customer parking and the existing display area that will be removed and used for parking and will encroach into the setback area. Steve Sabraski, Landform Professional Services, representing the applicant, clarified that the proposed encroachment into the front setback will not be any greater than what is currently there though it would be wider. He said he does see opportunities for enhanced landscaping as well. Baker asked if there are landscaping opportunities elsewhere on the site. Sabraski said they are hoping to only impact and further enhance the areas proposed for change, not in other locations on the property as it may cause further issues. Baker asked how the area along the west side will be restored to permeable surface. Sabraski said it will mostly be turF along with two trees and additional shrubs. He added that it isn't really a visible area so they don't want to add too much landscaping there. Johnson asked about the parking calculations and requirements. Sabraski stated that they are adding a total of six parking spaces to the site and they feel they are able to accommodate the needs of their customers and employees on the site. Zimmerman stated that the parking numbers all fall within what is allowed in the PUD. Baker asked if the applicant has taken the City's lighting requirements into account. Sabraski stated that they are not proposing any enhancements to the existing lighting as a part of this application. Blum asked if the previous lighting requirements are grandfathered in and if past or present lighting rules are being followed with this proposal. Zimmerman explained that if lighting fixtures aren't being removed or replaced they can stay as they are. Blum clarified that the City is not requiring the applicant to upgrade their lighting to conform to the current rules. Zimmerman stated that the City is not requiring the applicant to change their existing lighting fixtures, but if they add new lighting that will have to conform to the current rules. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak Baker closed the public hearing. Blum said he appreciates when a stakeholder invests and improves what they have and he finds there is low value in parking lots so he likes the fact that the applicant is swapping improved land for parking lot. He said he knows there has been discussion about the value Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 3 dealerships bring to the community and said he is interested in knowing how the Planning Commission feels about being more assertive regarding requiring more landscaping and conforming lighting. Segelbaum said he hopes the applicant would be willing to enhance their landscaping. Baker said the increase in pervious surface is the applicant's gesture to enhance the landscaping but he doesn't want to see grass planted there. He added that a PUD should benefit the City and one could argue the City is getting an increase in pervious surface. He stated that he doesn't think there should be a requirement regarding enhanced landscaping but he would like to recommend enhanced landscaping at least in the area that is proposed to be converted to pervious surface. Blum suggested adding a condition that says the landscaping has to meet the satisfaction of staff and Council. Johnson said he wants to be careful about unintended consequences and added that increased sales and in turn increased taxes are a "give back" to the City. He suggested partnering with the applicant and other dealerships about their needs and objectives. Baker said that in regard to lighting he is concerned about changing the grandfathered precedent that is already in place because there is a lot of existing lighting in the City that is out of compliance. Blum asked the Commissioners how they feel about setting a deadline requiring the applicant to bring the lighting into compliance. Johnson said he thinks deadlines are good. Baker asked if that would be an ordinance change. Blum said no, it would just be a deadline for bringing the lighting into compliance that is tied to the approval of the PUD Amendment. Baker said he likes the idea, but not necessarily with this proposal. Angell agreed that the idea of deadlines should be talked about further at a later date. He added that it is rare that a dealership is willing to give up impervious surFace plus with the additional landscaping a benefit is being provided. Segelbaum agreed that the idea of setting deadlines should be further discussed in the future, but not for this proposal. MOVED by Blum, seconded by Angell and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Major PUD Amendment plan for The Luther Company PUD No. 91, subject to following findings and conditions: Findinqs: 1. The modifications do not negatively impact the overall quality of the site. 2. The proposal does not significantly impact desirable portions of the site's characteristics. It does remove an impervious area and provides a better opportunity to positively impact infiltration and stormwater quality. 3. The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by allowing for the improvement of an established business in an existing building. 4. The use being proposed remains consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan which calls for the preservation and expansion of facilities housing major employers. 5. The PUD amendment would not impact the general health, safety, or welfare of the people of the City. 6. The proposed modification does not conflict with the standards applied to the existing PUD and does not invalidate the Intent and Purpose provision of the City Code. Conditions: 1. All vehicle deliveries shall take place on-site and shall nat take place on the street. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 4 2. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan that meets the approval of staff and City Council. 3. Informal Public Hearing — General Land Use Map amendment— 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North — CPAM-68 Applicant: Watermark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley, LLC Address: 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential 4. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North — Z011-17 Applicant: Watermark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley, LLC Address: 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North Purpose: To rezone the property from Commercial and Single Family (R-1) Residential to Medium Density (R-3) Residential Items 3 and 4 were presented and discussed together. Zimmerman referred to a location map and stated that the Comprehensive Plan guides all three properties for Low Density Residential uses and that two of the properties are zoned Single Family Residential and one is zoned Commercial. Zimmerman explained the applicant's proposal to amend the General Land Use map to guide the properties from Low Density Residential use to Medium-High Density Residential use and to amend the Zoning Map to rezone the properties from Commercial and Single Family (R-1) Residential uses to Medium Density (R-3) Residential use. He stated that all three properties were purchased by Watermark Senior Living Community of Golden Valley with the intent to construct a senior care facility. Zimmerman stated that the Planning Commission should be examining the appropriateness of the land use and zoning changes and not the detail of any specific project which could be submitted in the future. He added that some concepts have been shared with staff and the neighborhood, but the important thing to focus on is what this land use and zoning could accommodate which could be senior living or it could be something else. Zimmerman explained that the Medium-High Density land use could accommodate residential uses (townhomes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) at densities of up to 20 units per acre. He stated that the Medium Density (R-3) zoning category would allow: housing at densities of up to 10 units per acre and up to 4 stories in height, senior or Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 5 disability housing of up to 12 units per acre and up to 5 stories in height with a Conditional Use Permit, residential facilities (licensed by the State) serving more than 25 persons with a Conditional Use Permit, and accessory retail, restaurant, or office uses on the ground floor within a multi-family building with 20 or more units with a Conditional Use Permit. Zimmerman discussed the history of the properties and stated that 5530 Golden Valley Road was occupied by Peaceful Valley Montessori but has been vacant since they relocated late in 2015. 5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue are single- family properties and are also currently vacant. Zimmerman stated that a neighborhood meeting was held on May 17 with approximately 12 attendees. Many of the neighbor's questions and concerns were regarding traffic, parking, noise, and the height/massing of the potential building. He added that staff also received 13 emails expressing similar concerns. Zimmerman referred to an aerial photo of the properties and discussed the current and potential building envelopes, massing/height, and parking allowed. He noted that a new commercial property could not be built on the corner lot without variances because it is currently non-conforming. He referred to the traffic on the site and noted that staff has directed all access to be off of Lilac Drive to avoid Welcome Avenue and Golden Valley Road. In regard to noise, Zimmerman noted that any use must follow the City Code requirements regarding excessive noise. Johnson asked how traffic enforcement would work and how using Golden Valley Road or Welcome Avenue would be prevented. Zimmerman stated that a new development would have to get a right-of-way permit to put in a new driveway access on Lilac Drive. Zimmerman discussed the evaluation of the site and stated that when this area was evaluated during Comprehensive Plan discussions, the Planning Commission was undecided on how to guide this area so it was left as Low Density Residential. He reiterated that as a Commercial property 5530 Golden Valley Road is not buildable. He stated that the site is at the junction of a single-family neighborhood, office uses, and a major highway so a Medium Density use could act as a barrier between Highway 100 and the single-family neighborhood and could be a transition to the office building to the south. He added that Golden Valley has a growing need for senior facilities, as demonstrated by the demographic and market study conducted in 2017. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending approval of the General Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments and that approving these amendments is a completely discretionary decision by the City Council and there are no findings or standards that have to be met. Segelbaum asked if there is a request to consolidate these three properties into one lot. Zimmerman said that request is not on this agenda, but a consolidation/re-platting would be required to build a senior building or a different project. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 6 Baker asked how long Peaceful Valley Montessori was located at 5530 Golden Valley Road. Zimmerman said he didn't know exactly how many years Peaceful Valley was located there, but prior to that it was a gas station followed by several other uses. Baker asked how long the office park to the south has been there. Zimmerman said he wasn't sure but thinks it has been there for at least 20 years. Baker asked about the size of the office park. Zimmerman said there is a smaller building on the corner and a larger building just to the south. Johnson asked when the City becomes concerned about blight. Zimmerman said there is some desire to have these properties improved. He said there have been a few inquiries regarding commercial uses, but he thinks it is a difficult corner for a commercial use and that when Golden Valley Road used to go through it was probably a better location for commercial uses. Brookins asked about the setback requirements for this site. Zimmerman stated that for an R-3 property the front setbacks from all three front property lines would be 25 feet and the setback from the north property line would be 35 feet. He stated that for a Commercial property the setbacks would be 50 feet from R-1 properties and 35 from the front property lines which would not leave a buildable area. Black asked if there is anything stopping the Planning Commission from recommending the properties be rezoned to R-2 instead of R-3. Zimmerman said that is not what is being requested, but the Commission could ask the applicant if he is interested in doing that. Angell referred to the office buildings to the south and asked what the City Code allows for height on those properties. Zimmerman stated three stories is the maximum height in that zoning district. Blum stated that one of the residents' concerns was noise and asked if there are noise ordinances specific to this kind of property. Zimmerman said there is a broad noise ordinance for the entire City. He added that the City doesn't really have a lot of control regarding noise outside of a Conditional Use Permit where specific conditions can be placed on a particular use. Segelbaum asked if there will be any sort of review of the traffic. Zirr�merman stated that if the properties were rezoned to R-3 and a specific proposal was submitted one of the items reviewed would be the capacity of the site and the amount of traffic generated. Segelbaum asked whose decision it is to require a traffic study. Zimmerman stated that it is typically the City Engineer's decision depending on what is being proposed. Blum asked about on-street parking in the area. Zimmerman said he believes currently there is no parking allowed on Lilac Drive and Golden Valley Road, but there is parking allowed on Welcome Avenue. Blum asked if a neighborhood can apply to allow for parking by permit. Zimmerman said there are a few places in the City where residents have applied for resident-only parking. Blum asked if this proposed change would restrict people from asking for resident-only parking. Zimmerman said no, they could ask the Council. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 7 Todd Ofsthun, TCO Design, representing the applicant, stated that Watermark Senior Living is only interested in using this site for an assisted living facility. Baker noted that the applications are for General Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments and asked about the intent of providing so much detail that is not relevant to the applications. Ofstun said they started this process with the Conditional Use Permit application, but there is a Met Council deadline of July 1 for Land Use Map amendments, so they shifted their focus on doing the Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments first. Segelbaum said he thinks it is important that the applicant be given the opportunity to speak to some of the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors about their proposal. Baker said he would discourage the neighbors from speaking about the specific proposal because everyone needs to be mindful that this meeting is only about the Land Use and Zoning Map amendments at this point. Segelbaum said the Land Use and Zoning Map amendments in theory give the applicant the opportunity to do their proposal so he thinks it is relevant to talk about the proposal and types of uses that may be put in at this site. Baker agreed that the broad types of uses should be discussed but not this one specific proposal because a number of uses could go here if the land use and zoning are changed. Segelbaum asked Ofstun if he thinks their proposed use fits in with this neighborhood. Ofstun said absolutely and in particular, noise and traffic are less of an issue with a senior living facility than other types of commercial uses. Segelbaum asked Ofstun if he thinks the potential four or five story senior building would fit in with this neighborhood. Ofstun said they are not proposing that. They are proposing to fit a building into the hill and a building that fits on the site. Baker opened the public hearing. Mike Nelson, 1310 Welcome Avenue North, said he is opposed to these proposals because allowing a potential four or five story building will bring more traffic and more noise than what could be proposed by the applicant which brings a graver, deeper concern. He said he moved here for a single family neighborhood and this is a great neighborhood and he worries deeply about the incoming construction of a potential five story apartment building in their little neighborhood. He said there is truly no need for it because this area is so wonderful and truly a single family neighborhood. He said he worries about bringing more people into the neighborhood that don't live there because they are going to park on the street right in front of his house all the time and a giant facility just doesn't fit. He added that he is speaking on behalf of Carolyn and Don Hanson at 5700 Golden Valley Road, Amy Strange at 5725 Golden Valley Road, and Ann Hoffman at 1102 Welcome Avenue North who also oppose the proposal. Steve Miller, 1316 Welcome Avenue North, said it is a small neighborhood and they all know each other quite well. He said at the neighborhood meeting they were shown a specific building plan so he doesn't want to pretend that isn't what people are talking about. He said it is a large building and they were told there would be 43 residents plus 24 hour per day staff so there will be parking on his street. He said the applicant has Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 8 bought the three properties and questioned why they are talking about zoning now when the City doesn't know what is being built. He referred to the staff report and stated that staff is recommending approval before this meeting which tells him the City isn't really interested in the neighbors' thoughts about their own neighborhood which bothers him. Brittany Remme, 1614 Welcome Avenue North, said that expanding these properties to a higher density is going to be a disaster on this street. She said there is no parking allowed on Lilac Drive or on Golden Valley Road so people will park on her street. She said there is no sidewalk and if cars are allowed to park on both sides of Welcome Avenue only one car will be able to drive down the street. She said her street will be affected the most and she has a child and dog and this is a single family residential area and there are plenty of other places for higher density buildings around the neighborhood. She encouraged the Planning Commission to look at the area and they will see that it is not a fit at all for medium density living. She said she knows that the 1530 Welcome Avenue property has only been vacant since April and before that a family lived there that had a baby her son would have been friends with and she wants this area to stay single family homes. Pam Witucki, 1136 Welcome Circle, said she is also speaking for John and Jenny Dennis, 1133 Welcome Circle. She said she loves this neighborhood and the people in it. She said she grew up on a tree lined street and the neighborhood changed so they had to move and they found this neighborhood. She said her kids can play in the street, they can see everyone that comes in and out, and they know everyone. She said they drive slowly in their neighborhood but people who get lost come down the street and drive very fast and her dog has been hit by a car. She said having parking on the street will have people going in and out of their cars and driving too fast and this is going to be a disaster waiting to happen and is not a good fit for their neighborhood. She said the building won't look right and will look like a mountain right in the middle of the neighborhood. Pam Wandzel, 1220 Welcome Avenue North, said she has seen some changes in the neighborhood since she has lived here because of the encroachment of commercial properties. She said she agrees with what her neighbors have been saying and agreed that it is a very tight, friendly neighborhood. She said she is frightened about changes and said that since PRISM has gone in there has been increased traffic. She said strangers are already parking on their streets during their lunch hours because there aren't a lot of restaurants in the area. She said people also cut through their neighborhood from Highway 100 and she is really concerned about additional commercial properties encroaching on the neighborhood. Francine Kuplic, 1107 Welcome Avenue North, said the Commission is naive to think that the very company requesting this land use change would do anything except a senior living facility. She said the applicant has said that is what they are going to do at the neighborhood meeting and at this meeting. Regardless, the arguments are the same whether this is an apartment, condominium, or senior living facility. She said she is concerned about traffic, noise, and parking. She said she and her husband used to live at the Lake Calhoun apartments and there was no parking ever available and that she moved to Golden Valley so she would not have to deal with parking in front of her residence. She said she doesn't want people wandering around the neighborhood looking Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 9 for parking. She said she is concerned about the safety of the children who play in the street if there is additional traffic in the neighborhood. She added that she questions if she would want to raise children here if there is a large residential facility in the neighborhood. Grace Reilly, 1325 Welcome Avenue North, said she would like the properties to be zoned residential. She said her biggest concern is the safety of the children in the neighborhood and that "neighbor" would be taken out of the neighborhood if this building is built. She said they all know each other, look out for each other, and appreciate each other in this neighborhood. Georgeann Wobschall, 1503 Welcome Avenue North, said her view will be impacted by anything constructed here and that the size of the building impacts the entire neighborhood. She said she grew up in St. Paul where there are many trees and trees are important to her. She said there have been health studies done on the importance of trees on the air we breathe and that any construction would end up cutting down several trees and that planting new trees is not the same as mature trees that help cut down on noise as well. She said parking is a major concern too and that there have been construction vehicles in front of her house all winter because of a new home being built on Golden Valley Road. Marilyn Miller, 1316 Welcome Avenue North, requested that the Planning Commission recommend keeping the zoning as R-1 and not R-3 for the sheer volume of traffic that could occur with what is allowed in R-3. She said she thinks with the structure of the surrounding streets people have to find parking on Welcome Avenue and Xenia Avenue. She said there are no sidewalks so they also have to walk in the streets. She said the suppliers that serve these types of buildings also cause problems with noise and that a structure that is two to five stories in height towering over their backyards is an invasion of privacy. Christine Nelson, 1310 Welcome Avenue North, said she is also speaking on behalf of Angela Julin at 1305 Welcome Avenue North. She said her concerns are around safety particularly the increase in traffic. She said she is also concerned about the extra noise from an apartment building or a senior building in this location because they moved from downtown Minneapolis to get away from noise. Another concern is the impact to the whole community in regard to the people coming in, the people that are leaving, and the taxes the City gets. She said her property backs up to the existing office building and they have had significant issues. One issue was finding glass shards in her dog's mouth because the office building doesn't shut their trash cans. She said they have found rubber gloves, half eaten ingredients, and trash that she plans to bring to a future City Council meeting. She said the office building also blows trash into her yard with their leaf blowers so there are a lot of unintended consequences that happen with properties other than single family homes and she want the Commission to know that a three story building is not going to fit. Dan Supalla, 5505 Phoenix Street, said he and his husband are asking that the Commission recommend that the parcels not be re-guided and rezoned to allow higher density. He said he heard early in this meeting that during the Comprehensive Plan Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 10 update process the Planning Commission really didn't know what to do with these properties other than to keep them as low density, single family homes and that is how he thinks they should stay. He said he thinks the Maxfield Study done in March of 2015 regarding the types of housing the City needs and how to balance the different uses was important and the Commission doesn't have enough information to make an informed recommendation to the City Council. He said he doesn't see a four or five story building fitting into this neighborhood. He noted that the staff report stated that a building in this location may provide a buffer from the highway but if that is the case there are a lot homes along highways in the City where allowing these types of buildings would completely change the character of the neighborhoods and change the way the City puts together the Comprehensive Plan. He said the City Council needs to balance the need for single family homes with other types of housing and that no one is arguing about the need for senior housing but these properties are designated for single family homes and that would be taken away if these properties are re-guided and rezoned. He asked that this request be denied. Ryan Thompson, 1200 Welcome Avenue North, said he and his wife plan to raise their family in this neighborhood. He referred to the welcome statement in the CityNews and noted that it says in part "...being a supportive and united community." He said he thinks this "spot" rezoning will designate a wedge separating the two aspects of their community, driving them apart and creating a significant influx of traffic, potentially higher crime, and the potential for incidents and accidents on residential streets. He said the CityNews also talks about floodplain management and stormwater resources and he thinks changing the zoning and the use of the properties will significantly contribute to the problems the City is already experiencing. He implored the Commission to think about what it would be like to separate this neighborhood into two sizeable chunks that would also separate the connections people have with each other. Gary Grenzer, 1525 Welcome Avenue North, said having a building that will tower 20 to 40 feet higher than the surrounding homes is not going to be pleasant site. It will obliterate the view and remove many mature trees. He said he is wondering why other locations aren't being considered such as the site six blocks away on Douglas Drive that is already zoned R-4. He said it is inappropriate to rezone these properties to R-3. Cheri Anderson, 5625 Phoenix Street, said she considers this area one big neighborhood. She said she thinks every house in the area has a child or a dog or both and she recommends doing a traffic study in the future because this is a busier street than the City might imagine. She stated that the property that is currently zoned Commercial really hasn't had businesses that are that busy and it doesn't face the neighborhood so it hasn't been an issue, but she is against this proposal that will divide the neighborhood in half. Jon Kennelly, 1620 Welcome Avenue North, said he shares all of his neighbors' concerns. He said he hasn't heard the alternative to what will happen if these properties are not rezoned and questioned if the known concerns are worse than the unknown concerns. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 11 Matt Bartholomew, 1240 Welcome Avenue North, said he agrees with everything his neighbors have said. He added that residential housing is at historically low levels especially in Golden Valley so that is what should remain. Kari Nelson, 1324 Welcome Avenue North, said she agrees with her neighbors and is opposed to this proposal. She said in the previous public hearing discussion there was talk about taking out two shrubs at the dealership and that this proposal would destroy so much wildlife and nature. She said it is cool to see deer, fox, and bald eagles and she thinks this is a horrible idea. Julie Grenzer, 1525 Welcome Avenue North, said she's had deer, fox, mallards, and a lot of wildlife in her yard. She said if these properties are zoned to R-3 the wildlife will be demolished. She added that if these properties are zoned R-3, all of the property values will go down which will mean a decrease in income to the City from property taxes. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Johnson asked if they could review the City's recommendations again. Zimmerman explained that there is nothing in the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan that states findings that must be determined in order to re-guide or rezone a property, it is at the discretion of the City Council to determine if the use is appropriate. Baker noted that other applications have very pointed sets of criteria that have to be considered. He stated that the one that has always struck him as compelling is maintaining the character of the neighborhood and said even though that isn't required in this case it is something that can be considered. Zimmerman agreed. Black said he found six core areas that the resident's concerns followed and suggested the Commission talk about each one. Traffic and safety was a clear theme and they need to analyze how much traffic is going to occur in the neighborhood as a result of this proposal. He said another area of concern was parking and that any large development is going to have problems providing a significant number of parking spaces. Noise was also a concern that is natural for a large development. Height was another concern and as the building gets to be three to five stories it starts to stand out. Another concern was the general idea of fitting in, or the character of the neighborhood. And the last group of concerns was what to do with this area if the City does, or does not, want higher density or this particular proposal. Baker said one of the questions was why does the City talk about rezoning the property first. He explained that is what the law requires. Land has to be classified properly to allow support for what an applicant wants to do. Zimmerman added that a zoning classification gives the City options. Baker said another question was what happens if the Council denies the applicant's request. He stated that the landowner could chose to sell the properties or redevelop them residentially. Zimmerman stated that the same uses for the two R-1 properties could continue and that the commercial property on Lilac could be used commercially unless it is rezoned and re-guided as part of the Comp Plan update process. He added that no Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 12 other types of uses could occur unless the properties were zoned differently. Blum clarified that the property located at 1530 Welcome Avenue North and the property located at 5540 Golden Valley Road are currently zoned Residential (R-1) and the property located at 5530 Golden Valley Road is currently zoned Commercial. Zimmerman said that is correct and clarified that the property at 5530 Golden Valley Road is guided for Low Density Residential use in the Comp Plan and that the zoning will eventually have to match the land use designation. Johnson referred to the question regarding the City having enough information to make a decision. Segelbaum said it is a legal issue and that the Code dictates what information is required. Zimmerman stated that the City has everything that is needed legally. Blum referred to the question regarding what happens if the properties aren't rezoned. He said that question relates to what is important to the neighborhood and he thinks the City has considered R-2 zoning in similar areas. He added that if the R-3 zoning isn't approved the applicant could come back with a proposal for something else or a different zoning district. Baker agreed and added that the two properties that are already zoned R-1 could stay R-1 and the Commercial property could be zoned differently. Johnson referred to the question about the applicant considering other locations. Baker said the City can't recommend other locations to the applicant, they are free to explore their options as they wish. He said he assumes the applicant has explored all of their options and they are compelled to choose this location. Blum referred to the comments regarding trees and wildlife. He asked about the rights of the property owner to do whatever they wish with the trees on these properties. Zimmerman said if a property owner has a single family property and wants to remove all of their trees they have the right to do that. However, if a development is occurring the City has minimum standards regarding of how many trees and shrubs are required and a tree and landscaping plan required. Baker referred to the comments and concerns about parking. He said he understands parking is currently not allowed on Golden Valley Road or on Lilac Drive and any available parking would be on Welcome Avenue and Phoenix Street. He asked what the rules are regarding permit parking. Zimmerman said there are a few instances where resident-only parking has been granted. He explained that the parking standards in the City Code require that parking be accommodated on-site and that street parking spaces don't count toward the required number of parking spaces. Baker asked the Commissioners if they think there is a compelling need for a traffic study. Segelbaum said if small townhouses were built there would be no need for a traffic study. Blum said if the landowner is allowed to go up to the limits of R-3 then it would be appropriate to study the impact of those limits, especially since this is a totally different kind of use in the neighborhood. Segelbaum said the City will consider traffic when a specific plan is submitted. Baker said he doesn't think it would be fair to table or deny this proposal because of the lack of a traffic study. Brookins said he doesn't think a traffic study is necessary at this time, but if the City is considering a proposal in the future, then Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 13 maybe requiring a traffic study would be appropriate. Black stated that the majority of traffic would be on Lilac Drive and although there may be concerns about the number of cars, that number would not exceed the physical capacity of the street so he doesn't know what a traffic study would give them. Blum asked if the roads bounded by these neighborhoods operate at capacity or less than capacity. Zimmerman said typically they operate below capacity. Baker referred to the comments about noise and said the City has a noise ordinance that can be applied to any proposal on this site. Blum asked about the effect of the height of a structure that comes in between a noise and other uses. Zimmerman said typically trees, sound walls, and tall buildings help dampen noise. Johnson stated that people have a right to build and that there will be construction noise. Baker said he thinks the concerns are more about institutional noise that accompanies a large development. He said while he is sympathetic with concerns about noise there are businesses that have bordered this neighborhood for a long time. Baker referred to the comments regarding this proposal dividing the neighborhood and said he doesn't understand what those comments meant. Blum said he thinks having an apartment building in a residential neighborhood is the question they should be considering and if that is appropriate, if it is the feel they want for Golden Valley, and what they want Golden Valley to look like. He added that there are neighborhoods that have apartment buildings in them in other parts of the City. Baker referred to the comments regarding height and massing. Johnson referred to other proposals they've discussed where the height and massing's effect on a neighborhood were considered. Baker added that a result of the subdivision moratorium was to reduce massing in residential areas so he is trying to apply that same thinking to this situation. Brookins asked about the height allowed by right in the R-3 zoning district. Zimmerman said it would be four stories by right and five stories with a Conditional Use Permit. Blum said there was comment regarding income to the City from property taxes and asked if the Planning Commission considers that issue. Zimmerman said the Planning Commission doesn't typically try to anticipate what would happen to property taxes due to the proposal being considered. He said he could talk to the Finance Department and get additional information if needed. Baker said the character issue is really the main concern in his opinion. He said they have an obligation to listen to the residents and to be compelled by their statements and they have heard a lot of statements about this proposal not fitting in with the neighborhood. Blum said it looks like this proposal does not fit in with the character of this neighborhood. He added that he doesn't think a carte blanche rezoning would prohibit the applicant to come back with a more managed application and ask for other things. Johnson said if you don't have commerce you don't have a city but it is ok to leave these properties zoned R-1 and go back to what it is designated in the Comp Plan which is Low Density Residential. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 14 Segelbaum said they have to consider what they believe is best for Golden Valley and thinks it has been determined that locations that are appropriate for single family homes should be left as is and areas that should support other types of businesses should be guided that way. He said he thinks R-3 is too large for this location when he considers the impact to the neighborhood. Pockl said she thinks leaving the properties as they are makes the most sense in order to keep the character of the neighborhood as it is currently. Baker said the concerns they've discussed lead him to conclude that he also opposes the proposals. MOVED by Blum, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of changing the designation of 5535-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North on the General Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential. MOVED by Blum, seconded by Angell and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of rezoning the properties at 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue North from Commercial and Single Family (R-1) Residential to Medium Density (R-3) Residential. 5. Informal Public Hearing — General Land Use Map Amendment— 2429 Douglas Drive North — CPAM-69 Applicant: Retro Companies, Inc. Address: 2429 Douglas Drive North Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium-Low Density Residential 6. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 2429 Douglas Drive North — Z014-08 Applicant: Retro Companies, Inc. Address: 2429 Douglas Drive North Purpose: To rezone the property from Single Family (R-1) Residential to Moderate Density (R-2) Residential Items 5 and 6 were presented and discussed together. Morgan referred to a location map of the property and explained that this property had a single family home on it, however it was struck by lightning and damaged by fire in 2017 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 15 and was recently purchased and demolished by the applicant. She stated that staff anticipates a proposal for a small transitional care facility at this location in the near future and at this time the applicant is proposing to amend the General Land Use map to guide the property from Low Density Residential to Medium-Low Density Residential and to amend the Zoning Map to rezone the property from Single Family (R-1) Residential to Moderate Density (R-2) Residential. Morgan explained that re-guiding and rezoning this property will allow for increased residential density along the Douglas Drive corridor. The permitted uses would allow for small lot single family homes and a residential facility would be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. She stated that this proposal is consistent with the recommendations in the Douglas Drive Corridor Study conducted in 2009 and is also consistent with the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Morgan stated that a neighborhood meeting was held on May 16 and that two residents attended the meeting and discussed the proposal for a small transitional care facility at this location. She noted that the questions raised at the neighborhood meeting were in regard to traffic, parking, and disruption from construction. Morgan stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments. Todd Ofsthun, TCO Design, representing the applicant, stated that guiding this property to medium-low density and rezoning it to R-2 will fit their purposes for a small transitional care facility. Segelbaum asked what transitional care means. Ofsthun stated that it is assisted living before a memory care facility for example. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Baker noted that the proposed new Comp Plan guides this property Medium-Low Density. Angell asked if doing this proposal now allows them to do construction sooner. Zimmerman said that is correct. He added that if the applicant waited until the updated Comp Plan is approved it would add another year to the construction schedule. Johnson said he is supportive of both these applications. He questioned what the City will do with the vacant lot it owns to south. Zimmerman said there have been discussions regarding that property and that it is guided in the Comp Plan for Medium-Low Density as well. Blum referred to the history of the area and said this proposal goes to the understanding that this is an appropriate guiding for this property. Baker and Segelbaum agreed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 16 MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Pockl and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of changing the designation of 2429 Douglas Drive North on the General Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium-Low Density Residential. MOVED by Brookins, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning the property at 2429 Douglas Drive North from Single Family (R-1) Residential to Moderate Density (R-2) Residential. 7. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 7040 Glenwood Avenue — Marie Estates — SU17-16 Applicant: Peter Knaeble Address: 7040 Glenwood Avenue Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. Morgan reminded the Commission that a proposal regarding dividing this property into three lots was heard at the March 26 Planning Commission meeting. She stated that the original proposal has been withdrawn and that a new application has been submitted to demolish the existing single family home and subdivide the property into two new single family residential lots. She stated that the driveway access would be moved from Glenwood Avenue to the Highway 55 Frontage Road and that land would be dedicated for a potential future cul-de-sac along the Highway 55 Frontage Road. Morgan referred to the subdivision requirements and stated that the minimum lot size in this case is 10,000 square feet. For the interior lot a lot width of 80 feet must be maintained at the front setback line to a depth of 70 feet, and the corner lot must maintain 100 feet of width at the front setback line to a depth of 70 feet as well. Morgan showed the Commissioners an illustration of the existing conditions and of the lots after the proposed subdivision and stated that the proposed new lots meet the square footage and lot width requirements. She noted that a notification letter was sent to property owners within 500 feet and that no responses were received and that a tree survey has been completed. Morgan discussed the eight conditions for approval or denial of a Minor Subdivision listed in City Code and said that staff is recommending approval of this proposed subdivision as the proposal does meet all the Code requirements. Black said he noticed that there are R-2 properties in the area and asked if this property borders those. Morgan stated that there are R-2 properties across Glenwood Avenue. Segelbaum noted that one of the conditions for approval or denial of a subdivision is that easements are granted for necessary public purposes. He questioned if the potential future cul-de-sac will be an easement or if the property owner will be ceding the land to the City. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 17 Morgan stated that the land for the cul-de-sac would be dedicated or given to the City. Segelbaum said he doesn't understand how the City has the authority to require that. Zimmerman stated that some of the land will be dedicated to the County and some will be maintained by easement. He added that in most instances the City asks for land dedication and not easements. Segelbaum questioned why the word easement is used in the Code if that is the case because it seems like the City is asking more of the property owner than it has a right to. Zimmerman said it is a common requirement when the City or County needs right-of-way for a public purpose. Segelbaum asked if the property isn't used if it is given back to the applicant. Zimmerman said that has been the practice. Segelbaum said it seems that the City is restricting the building envelopes without having the authority in place to build the cul-de-sac and in the meantime the applicant isn't getting the benefit of the property. Zimmerman stated that this is listed in the Comp Plan as a desired traffic improvement area. He explained that as an alternative, the City could purchase the land after the fact but then there could be nonconformities created. Segelbaum said the City should purchase the land if it wants to build the cul-de-sac. Peter Knaeble, Applicant, said he has had numerous meetings with city staff and he agrees with staff's recommendation regarding the cul-de-sac and he also agrees it is probably a taking but he's come to the conclusion that he supports staff's recommendation. He stated that shifting the cul-de-sac further to the west as staff recommends would be detrimental to the buildable area of Lot 1 but he is willing to work with staff regarding the final location of the cul-de-sac. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Segelbaum said it seems to him that the City is asking for something beyond what is required but the applicant is fine with it so he supports this proposal. MOVED by Brookins, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the proposed minor subdivision of 7040 Glenwood Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. Right-of-way sufficient to accommodate the roadway, on-street bike lanes, and a sidewalk along the east side of Glenwood Avenue shall be dedicated on the Final Plat. 2. The exact location of the potential future cul-de-sac shall be determined by City staff prior to approval of the Final Plat. 3. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 4. A deferred special assessment of $4,900 shall be paid before release of the Final Plat. 5. A park dedication fee of $3,750 shall be paid before release of the Final Plat. 8. Council Liaison Report No report was given. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 18 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 pm. Ron Blum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant city of .;.,� oZden � Enna � A �vt� t� � � �C�, t,'� Physical Development Department 763-593-8095!763-593-8109(fax} Date: June 11, 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 has 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. Public hearings on all text amendments are anticipated to take place later in the summer of 2018. Summary While a number of modified items are considered "code clean-up," there are six areas where slightly more significant changes are being proposed. These include: 1. Updated language to handle Tax Parcel Divisions 2. Changes to language regarding the height of flat roofs and accessory structures 3. The addition of density caps in R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts 4. Modifications to public amenity provisions for PUDs 5. Revisions to how Outdoor Storage is regulated across many Zoning Districts 6. Minor changes to how Conditional Use Permits are managed Staff is requesting general feedback on the proposed changes prior to discussion with the City Council at a Council/Manager meeting on June 12. Tax Parcel Divisions � As the City processes with more frequency requests to "uncombine" lots of record that were assigned a common property ID number at some point in the past, it has become necessary to update existing language in the Zoning Code. Staff discussed this topic with the City Council in November of 2017 and has used that conversation to guide the proposed changes. Proposed Langua�e Tax parcel division or combination A. City review of the division or combination of tax parcels by Hennepin County shall be enforced in order to ensure that structural nonconformities are not created as a result of the division or combination. B. A request to divide or combine tax parcels must be approved by the City prior to the addition or removal of a property ID by Hennepin County. C. A request for approval of a tax parcel division or combination shall be accompanied by the submission of a property survey in order to demonstrate conformance with this Chapter. Upon finding that all City requirements have been met,the City Manager or his/her designee shall grant approval for the tax parcel division or combination, as established and defined by Hennepin County. D. Once approved, the City shall notify by mail all property owners within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the subject site. Height Previously, the maximum height of pitched and flat roofs in residential Zoning Districts differed by type of roof. With the addition of the "tent-shaped" building envelope as a regulatory concept in 2015,the difference in height limits is no longer needed. The tapered building envelope, by definition, forces flat roofed buildings to step back as they increase in height. This proposed change in code would help address a situation that has been the subject of a handful of variances over the past three years. In addition, language around the height of accessory structures has been adjusted to clarify how shed roofs are measured. It should be noted that the revised code leaves in place, for now, the one foot limit on an increase in the average grade for a new structure. Staff will return to this limitation in the near future, as this regulation can create issues with trying to establish proper drainage on a lot as required by building code. Proposed Lan�ua�e Building Height (definition): The vertical distance or height of a structure shall be measured from the average grade at the front building line (street side) to the average height of the highest pitched roof or the highest point of a flat roof structure. In the case of a corner lot,the average grade is measured from all sides of the structure facing a street. The grade or average grade of a lot is established at the time of subdivision approval by the City. If the grade or average grade 2 was not established at the time of subdivision approval by the City, the City Manager or his designee shall establish the average grade prior to construction of the structure. Height restrictions. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-1 zoning district with a building height exceeding twenty-eight (28) feet�� ^�+,.�,�a r „�h,,,,�„� -,.,a +,.,,,.,+„_�;,,,, ���� �,,,,+ as measured from the avera�e grade at the front buildin� line. The avera�e �rade for a new structure shall be no more than one (1)foot hi�her than the avera�e �rade that previously existed on the lot. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-1 zoning district with a height in excess of one (1) story, which is ten (10) feet from the floor to the top horizontal component of a frame building to which the rafters are fastened (known as the "top plate"). For th_e purposes of this regulation,the hei�ht of a shed roof shall be measured to the top qlate. Density No density limits currently exist for senior and disability housing in the R-3 Zoning District or for any uses in the R-4 Zoning District. New language would establish the maximum densities allowed and would be consistent with the residential densities proposed in the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Proposed Lan�ua�e The purpose of the R-3 zoning district is to provide for medium density housing (up to 10 units per acre with potential for 12 units per acre with density bonuses) along with directly related and complementary uses. Senior and disability housing is permitted �^ ^��^« ^{�' ��^�+� ^^� ���^to a densitv of 20 units per acre or up to five stories or 60 feet in height with a conditional use permit. The purpose of the R-4 zoning district is to provide for high density housing �^••^- '� „^;+� ^^� ac�e� (up to 50 units per acre for multifamilv dwellin�s and up to 70 units per acre for senior and disabilitv housing) along with directly related and complementary uses. Multifamily dwellin�s are permitted to a densitv in excess of 50 units per acre with a conditional use permit. Senior and disabilitv housin� is permitted to a density in excess of 70 units per acre with a conditional use permit. The maximum densitv allowed in the R-4 zonin�district is 100 units per acre. Planned Unit Developments Language for PUDs would be updated to reflect changes to amenity options, as well as adjusting one of the triggers for a Minor PUD Amendment. Proposed Lan�ua�e It is the intent of this section to provide an optional method of regulating land use which permits flexibility from the other provisions of the City Code, including flexibility in uses allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements, number of buildings on a lot, and similar regulations in exchan�e for public benefit in the form of amenities. PUD Amenity Options 3 Green Roof Affordable Housing Units Public Open Space Utilization of a Renewable Energy Source Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum Certification Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold Certification Community Garden Public Recreation Area Public Plaza Public Art Creation or Preservation of Significant/Historic Architecture Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Enhanced Stormwater Management Water Feature Usable to Public Shared Bicycle and Vehicle Facilities C.�,I,-..�,.,r,rl C..+.,.:.,.- 1�r.h+�.,.. Enhanced Landscaping Electric Car Charging Station: An electric vehicle charging station accessible to residents, employees, and/or the public providin�connections at the rate of five percent of the required parking. A minor amendment shall be approved by a simple majority vote of the City Council with or without referral to the Planning Commission. To qualify for this review, the proposed amendment may only include changes to a PUD that: �I-ia+�ge Increase gross floor area in any individual building by less than 10 percent; Outdoor Storage The subject of outdoor storage has been discussed numerous times with the Planning Commission and the City Council over the past two years. The proposed code below attempts to address the majority of the concerns often cited by residents while also protecting the rights of property owners. In summary, the new language does the following things: 1. Moves regulations about outdoor storage from each zoning district into one section of the Zoning Code, along with fencing and screening requirements. 2. Helps to clarify language around where and how outdoor storage can take place in the front, side, and rear yards of residential properties. 3. Establishes a limit of 30 days for landscaping or construction materials in the front yards of residential properties. 4. Establishes screening standards for storage in side and rear yards. 4 5. Allows the storage of automobile dealership inventory in Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts with a Conditional Use Permit, and in parking ramps with the permission of the property owner. 6. Strengthens language around the screening of inechanical equipment (rooftop or otherwise) in all Zoning Districts. Proposed Lan�ua�e (a) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Berm:An earthen mound designed to provide visual interest on a site, screen undesirable views, reduce noise, or fulfill other similar purposes. Fence:A structural enclosure or barrier used as a boundary, means of protection, or concealment. Front Yard:The portion of a Lot between the street right-of-way and the front plane of the principal structure. This area may be deeper than the yard required by the front yard setback. Screening:A method of visually shielding or obscuring one abutting or nearby structure or use from another by fencing, walls, berms, or densely planted vegetation. Trailer:An unpowered vehicle used for multiple purposes, including, but not limited to, hauling a boat, personal motorized recreational vehicle, or fish house. (b) General regulations. All zoning districts are subject to the following requirements: (1)The side of a fence without primary structural supports shall be considered the finished side and must face outward from the property on which it is constructed towards the adjacent property and/or street. If a fence has two similarly finished sides, either side may face the adjacent property and/or street. (2) All berms, screening, and fences, including fence footings, must be located entirely on the property for which they are being constructed. A property owner installing a new fence must accurately determine lot lines prior to installing a fence. (3) All berms, screening, and fences shall be maintained and kept in good repair by property owners. Any hazardous fence or fence in a state of disrepair shall be repaired or removed by the property owner within 30 days of notice by the City. If a property owner fails to comply with such notice, in addition to all other applicable penalties under City Code,the City may remove the fence and assess the property owner the cost of such removal. (4) All berms, screening, and fences shall comply with the right-of-way management regulations of the City Code. (5) Electrified fences are prohibited. Barbed wire fences are prohibited except in the light industrial or industrial zoning districts as described below. (6) For all other standards related to visual nuisances and threats to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the City's adopted International Property Maintenance Code shall apply. (c) Regulations by zoning district. Fences and the screening of outdoor storage shall be governed by the following provisions: 5 (1)All residential zoning districts. a. Fences in all front yards shall not exceed four feet in height. Fences in side and rear yards shall not exceed six feet in height. b. Storage in all front yards may occur solely upon a driveway and in no other location. Any storage shall be behind the lot line. c. Only one of the following may be stored in all front yards of any lot: 1. Recreational camping vehicle. 2. Trailer. d. No personal motorized recreational vehicle or boat may be stored in a front yard, except upon a trailer. e. The storage in any front yard of landscaping or construction materials may not exceed 30 days. f. Items stored in the side and rear yard may not be stored within five feet of the lot line. g. All outdoor storage, including any storage of a motorized vehicle, recreational camping vehicle, fish house, trailer, boat, or personal motorized recreational vehicle, in the side or rear yard must be screened from view of adjacent properties by a wall or fence not more than six feet in height and not less than 75 percent opacity, or by vegetation of not less than six feet in height and not less than 75 percent opacity year round. h. Views of storage in any side or rear yard from the street right-of-way must be at least 50 percent obscured by a wall, fence, or vegetation. i. All mechanical equipment, including rooftop units, shall be screened from view from the street right-of-way. (2)All other zoning districts. a. Fences shall not exceed eight feet in height except as noted below. b. Barbed wire fences are permitted in light industrial and industrial zoning districts. No barbed wire shall be erected upon any fence at a height lower than seven feet. c. No materials or equipment shall be stored outside, unless screened in such a manner as not to be visible from adjacent properties or street right-of-way. All outdoor storage shall be screened by a wall, fence, or vegetation not less than six feet in height and not less than 90 percent opacity year round. No storage shall be permitted within required landscaped areas. d. Storage of automobile sales inventory on surface lots is allowed by conditional use permit in the light industrial and industrial zoning districts. With the permission of the property owner, automobile sales inventory may be stored in parking ramps in the business and professional offices zoning district. The City reserves the right to disallow this storage if parking for the principal uses is negatively impacted. e. A solid screen, consisting of either a solid fence or wall not less than six feet in height, or a planted landscape screen providing at least 90 percent opacity year round and at least six feet in height at the time of planting, shall be installed and maintained along all lot lines separating an industrial zoning district from any residential or institutional zoning district. f. All waste material, debris, refuse,junk or damaged vehicles, or vehicles under repair or being stored in connection with repair services, shall be either kept entirely within an 6 enclosed building or completely screened from adjacent properties and street rights-of- way. g. All mechanical equipment, including rooftop units, shall be screened from view from the street right-of-way. (d) Exceptions. Any deviation from this section shall require a variance in accordance with this chapter except for the following: (1) Tennis and basketball courts in all zoning districts may have a single perimeter fence no higher than 10 feet. Such fences shall be located to the rear of the principal structure and shall require a minimum three foot strip of landscaping around the entire perimeter. (2) A wall or fence not exceeding six feet in height is permitted in the front yard of all properties directly adjoining a minor arterial street, as designated by the City. (3) A wall or fence not exceeding 12 feet in height is permitted in industrial and light industrial zoning districts solely for the purpose of screening outdoor storage areas. (4)The screening requirement for mechanical equipment located in the side yards of properties in light industrial and industrial zoning districts may be waived by the City Manager or his designee. Conditional Use Permits The current Zoning Code lacks any regulation to trigger an expiration of a CUP if it goes unused for an extended length of time. New language would cause an unused CUP to expire after 12 consecutive months. In addition, the proposed changes write into code the ability for a CUP to be amended if changes are requested. Previously,the code only contemplated the revocation of the old CUP and the issuance of a new CUP. Proposed Lan�ua�e Unless extended by the City Council in its sole discretion for an additional period of up to 12 months, construction and all other pertinent implementation relating to an approved conditional use permit must begin within 12 months of the date that the conditional use permit is approved or the conditional use permit shall be deemed null and void. If the approved conditional use should cease for a period of more than 12 consecutive months,the conditional use permit shall be deemed to have expired. Chan�es to an approved conditional use permit affectin� uses, parkin�and loading, or components other than minor chan�es shall require amendment to the conditional use permit bv the Citv. The requirements for application and approval of a conditional use permit amendment shall be the same as the requirements for original application and approval. Attachments Proposed Changes to Zoning Code (2 pages) 7 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 Retai) 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�overning 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 chan�es in Avera�e Grade of greater 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 in R-4(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 Amenitv Options: Underground Parking, Enhanced Exterior Li�htin�, Informational/Interpretive DisplaVs 22. Revised langua�e re�ardin� Electric Car Chargin�Station under PUD Amenitv Options to reflect specific quantities (5%of required parkin�) 23. Modified Minor PUD Amendment lan�ua�e (B)(9)from "chan�e�ross floor area"to "increase�ross floor area" Outdoor Stora�e 24. Chan�ed length 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 Proposed Future Changes to Zoning Code 1. Revisit tables of permitted and conditional uses for all zoning districts 2. Add impervious limits to non-residential zoning districts; revisit PUD "targets" 3. Revise and generalize I-394 Mixed Use district 4. Revise categories (and requirements?) for minimum parking counts 5. Add language regarding material requirements for certain districts 6. Add Manufactured Home Parks as Conditional Uses in R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts and develop site standards (this is required under State Statute) 7. Sunset the gravel driveway allowances to require paved surfaces. 8. Revisit how the height of single-family homes is calculated in tear down situations Proposed Future Changes to Sign Code 1. Remove all references to content-based regulation