Loading...
06-11-18 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 11, 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 Monday, June 11, 2018. Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Angell, Blum, Brookins, Johnson, Pockl, and Segelbaum. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmermanand Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Baker and Black were absent. 1. Approval of Minutes May 30, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Pockl and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 30, 2018, minutes as submitted. 2. Review Chapter 11 (Zoning Code) Recodification Draft Zimmerman stated that the City is going through a recodification process in order to clean up outdated language and create consistency in references and between sections. He noted that this process will require public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and showed the Commission an example of a city that uses Municode for their city code information. Segelbaum asked if there will be public hearings for each section of the Code or for the entire City Code at once. Zimmerman explained that Chapter 11 (Zoning Code) of the City Code requires public hearings, but the other sections of the City Code require two readings by the City Council. Segelbaum asked how the public will be notified. Zimmerman said there will be information on the City’s website and in the City’s newsletter. Zimmerman explained that there are six areas of the Zoning Code where slightly more significant changes are being proposed. The first area he discussed was the proposed changes to how Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) are managed. He explained that the current Zoning Code lacks any regulation to trigger an expiration of a CUP if it goes unused for an extended length of time. The proposed new language would cause an unused CUP to expire after 12 consecutive months. In addition, the proposed changes allow for the ability for a CUP to be amended if changes are requested. Johnson asked how CUPs are enforced and how staff would know if a CUP is in use. Zimmerman said staff is generous in its interpretation, but can check advertising and usually knows when a building has been vacated. Johnson asked about grandfathering in existing CUPs. Zimmerman stated that the proposed new code language would only apply to uses going forward. Segelbaum gave an example of a CUP to allow for a drive-thru window and asked if the restaurant closed if the CUP for the drive-thru would still be in effect. Zimmerman said Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 11, 2018 Page 2 the CUP would be valid for 12 months. After that, the existing CUP would expire and the process would start over. The next proposed change Zimmerman discussed was Tax Parcel Divisions. He explained that there are several properties in the City where a house was built over the middle of two lots then the house gets torn down and the property owner wants to uncombine the two lots and build two new houses. He stated that the City doesn’t have the right to not let property owners use their lots however the proposed new code language requires that non-conforming setbacks or non-buildable lots aren’t created. He added that the proposed new code language also requires that property owners within 250 feet of the subject site are notified of a Tax Parcel Division. Blum asked how many of these types of properties are in the City. Zimmerman said he didn’t know the exact number but explained that some of the old original plats in a few areas have lots that were combined and could be pulled apart. He noted that there are some on Meadow Avenue North by Theodore Wirth Park, north of Highway 55, some by Sumter and Rhode Island near Brookview, and some near the area north of the Country Club. Segelbaum asked if some cities require residents to combine the lots into one if they want to build a house across both lots. Zimmerman said Golden Valley requires that now, but there are some properties that weren’t done that way in the past. Blum asked if the uncombined situation of these lots is factored in when people ask for variances. Zimmerman stated that these lots have been treated as if they are one lot until they are pulled apart. Segelbaum asked why the neighborhood notification isn’t given to neighbors within 500 feet as is typical with other planning applications. Zimmerman stated that the City Council thought that 250 feet was reasonable and added that the state statute requirement is 250 feet for all planning applications. Johnson referred to subdivision A. in the tax parcel division language and questioned why it states that lot divisions or combinations by Hennepin County “shall be” enforced when everything is already enforced. Zimmerman said he would review the language. Blum referred to subdivision A in the tax parcel division language and suggested the word “structural” be replaced with the word “any” in regard to nonconformities. Zimmerman asked the Commissioners to send any recommendations they have to him and he would review them. Zimmerman stated that the next change being proposed is the addition of density caps in the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. He explained that 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. He added that establishing maximum densities would be consistent with the residential densities proposed in the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Blum asked for an explanation of the numbers listed in the second paragraph of the density section of the staff report. Zimmerman explained that the different numbers have to do with densities allowed by right versus densities allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. He added that he would separate the two in order to make it clearer. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 11, 2018 Page 3 The next item Zimmerman discussed was modifications to the public amenity provisions for PUDs. He explained that staff is recommending taking out the amenity regarding underground parking because most big developments will already include underground parking. He stated that staff is also recommending removing enhanced exterior lighting and informational/interpretive displays from the amenity list. He added that language regarding quantifying the number of electric vehicle charging stations at a rate of five percent of the required parking is also being recommended. Segelbaum asked if any of the amenity point values are changing. Zimmerman said no, and stated that there hasn’t been a PUD application submitted yet using the public amenity provisions. Pockl asked about the significance of five percent in regard to charging stations. Zimmerman stated that staff talked to developers and other cities and that the demand for charging stations just isn’t there yet and they are very expensive so staff is trying to manage what the demand might be. Zimmerman stated that another proposed change in the PUD section of the Zoning Code is being proposed that states an “increase” rather than “any change” in gross floor area will be considered a minor PUD amendment because taking away density doesn’t need the same kind of review that adding density does. Zimmerman stated that the next proposed change is to the language regarding the height of flat roofs and accessory structures. He explained that currently, 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, the difference in height limits is no longer needed. He added that for now, the one foot limit on an increase in the average grade for a new structure has been left in place. Blum questioned how grade and height are determined on corner lots and lots that have low grades in the back yard. Zimmerman stated that height is not limited in a back yard and that it is only measured using the front of the house. Zimmerman stated that the last significant proposed change is regarding outdoor storage. He explained that the new language does the following things: moves regulations about outdoor storage from each zoning district into one section of the Zoning Code, along with fencing and screening requirements; helps to clarify language around where and how outdoor storage can take place in the front, side, and rear yards of residential properties; establishes a limit of 30 days for landscaping or construction materials in the front yards of residential properties; establishes screening standards for storage in side and rear yards; allows the storage of automobile dealership inventory in Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts with a Conditional Use Permit, and in parking ramps; and strengths language around screening of mechanical equipment in all Zoning Districts. Segelbaum asked if items stored on a driveway have to be located five feet from the side yard property line. Zimmerman stated that driveways are allowed to be three feet from the property line so if an item is on a driveway it can be located three feet from the property line as well. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 11, 2018 Page 4 Blum suggested that collector, restored, and reconstructed vehicles be added to the list of things that are restricted from being stored in a front yard. Segelbaum asked why those would need to be called out if the Code already says “vehicles.” Blum stated that they are a different class of vehicle per state statute. He said he would also like to add language about not allowing storage of an unregistered or inoperable vehicle. Zimmerman noted that unregistered and inoperable vehicles are addressed in a different section of the City Code. Brookins suggested referencing that section in this section of the Zoning Code. Blum said he envisions people storing their items in the street and moving them once in a while to get around the rule. Zimmerman said that hasn’t been an issue so he is not overly concerned about that. Segelbaum noted that the language allows trailers to be parked in front yards and questioned if that means empty trailers or a trailer with items on it such as snowmobiles, etc. Zimmerman stated that items stored in a front yard have to be on a trailer. Blum suggested adding language about debris being stored on a trailer. Zimmerman stated that the Property Maintenance Code addresses many of concerns about debris and garbage. Blum asked if the regulations about garden structures have been removed. Zimmerman said they are addressed in the accessory structure section of the Zoning Code. Pockl referred to the language regarding screening and noted that in subdivision g. it talks about vegetation of not less than six feet in height, but it doesn’t say anything about the height of vegetation in subdivision h. Brookins suggested using the word “screening” instead of saying “wall, fence, or vegetation.” Segelbaum asked if there are sign provisions in the residential zoning districts. Zimmerman said yes and stated that new sign regulations will address the size of signs and the time allowed, but not content. Blum referred to the proposed future changes to the Zoning Code regarding trailer parks and asked Zimmerman to explain. Zimmerman stated that there is legislation that requires cities to address them, so proposed changes to the Zoning Code will be coming in the future. 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 11, 2018 Page 5 4. Other Business • Council Liaison Report Schmidgall reported on the recent Pride Festival. He informed the Planning Commission that Watermark has withdrawn their applications regarding Zoning Map and Land Use Map amendments for the properties located at 5530-5540 Golden Valley Road and 1530 Welcome Avenue. Zimmerman stated that he has met with the developer to discuss other options and their hope is to come back with a smaller scale project. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 pm. �I on um, Secretary Lis ittman, Administrative Assistant