Loading...
09-24-18 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 24, 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, September 24, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Angell, Baker, Blum, Johnson, Pockl, and Segelbaum (left at 7:55). Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Brookins was absent 1. Approval of Minutes September 11, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 11, 2018, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment—Zoning Code Recodification —ZO00-116 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider replacing Chapter 11 (Zoning Code) in its entirety as part of the 2018 recodification of the City Code. Zimmerman stated that staff has been working with the City Clerk since 2017 to update the City Code, including changes to the Zoning Chapter. He explained that the proposed changes were broken into three categories. Category A consists of"housekeeping" items which include updating titles and references, modernizing language, and reordering and simplifying the Code. Category B items deal with policy changes that have been vetted with the Planning Commission, City Council and/or wider departmental discussions. Category C items include policy changes that have not been vetted and need additional discussion and analysis before consideration. Baker asked if category B items could be moved to category C. Zimmerman said they potentially could be, but the recodification is set to go to the City Council in October. He added that there is still some time to make modifications and there will be opportunities to change things at a later date through the regular Zoning Code Text Amendment process. Zimmerman referred to the category B items and discussed them each specifically. The first proposed amendment would update the Code language to handle Tax Parcel Divisions or Combinations. He explained that the new Code language will ensure structural nonconformities are not created; it will require approval by the City before action by the County to do a Tax Parcel Division; it will require the submittal of a survey in order Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 24, 2018 Page 2 to demonstrate conformance with zoning regulations; and it will require notification by mail to properties within 250 feet. Johnson asked if it is possible for a property owner to go directly to the County to do a Tax Parcel Division. Zimmerman said no because the County requires that the City sign off on the paperwork. Zimmerman stated that the next proposed amendment deals with Conditional Use Permits. The proposed new language states that a Conditional Use Permit shall expire if the use ceases for a period of more than 12 consecutive months, and it requires that changes other than minor changes shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Baker asked if the Conditional Use Permit amendment process is different from applying for an initial Conditional Use Permit. Zimmerman stated that the amendment process would be the same and would have the same public hearing and notification requirements. Segelbaum asked if the current Conditional Use Permit amendment process requires the applicant to relinquish their existing Conditional Use Permit and re-apply for a new one. Zimmerman said that potentially is how it would currently be handled. Zimmerman stated that the next proposed amendment deals with the height of homes. He stated that the proposed new language would make homes with flat roofs subject to the same "tent-shaped" or tapered building envelope as pitched roofs so a difference in height limits (25 feet for flat roofs, 28 feet for pitched roofs) is no longer needed, and that the proposed new language provides clarification on the height allowed for shed roofs on accessory structures. Zimmerman stated that the next proposed amendment deals with residential density in the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. The proposed language revises the R-3 Zoning District from 12 units per acre for senior use to 20 units per acre for senior use with a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed language also revises the R-4 Zoning District and establishes a maximum density of 50 units per acre or 70 units per acre for senior use and a density of up to 100 units per acre with a Conditional Use Permit. He added that this proposed language captures what the City is currently doing. Segelbaum stated that the trend is for fairly dense, small apartment units and he worries that those types of units aren't sustainable over the long term. He asked about the density of some of the recently constructed apartment buildings. Zimmerman noted that the Arcata project is the most dense and that all of the others were less dense than that project. Baker asked if any thought was given to offering incentives for affordable housing. Zimmerman stated that the City recently adopted the Mixed-Income Housing Policy. Goellner added that a reduction in the number of parking spaces is allowed in the Policy as an incentive as well. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 24, 2018 Page 3 Segelbaum said he is concerned about allowing 100 units per acre and he worries about having too many buildings with small units and if that is really sustainable. Zimmerman stated that Golden Valley is a fully developed city so developers need a certain amount of density to make redevelopment feasible. Baker asked if smaller units are a trend. Zimmerman said yes, the trend is smaller units with more amenities and shared spaces. Segelbaum agreed that currently there are no maximum density levels so the proposed language might be helpful. Zimmerman added that there are many other factors besides density that developers have to consider such as parking, traffic, etc. Baker said he doesn't want the City to end up with a lot of vacant, tiny units. Johnson said it is even more dangerous if the City pays for it with TIF. Segelbaum said he would like more context of what types of existing projects have 50 units per acre. Baker said he would like staff to look more deeply into offering incentives for affordable housing. Zimmerman stated that the next proposed amendment deals with Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). He explained that the Intent and Purpose section has been revised to reflect public benefit in the form of amenities; amenity points are allowed for additional affordable units provided; minor modifications have made to the other amenity categories; and one criteria for a Minor Amendment has been adjusted to state that an increase in gross floor area, rather than a change in gross floor area is a trigger for the amendment. Johnson asked about the definition of public art. Zimmerman said it is art that is in the public realm or viewable from the public realm. Johnson asked if it could be on private property. Zimmerman said yes. Blum referred to the removal of underground parking as a PUD amenity and suggested that a percentage of underground parking be assigned to incentivize it. He added there is value in having underground parking in regard to the amount of pavement as well as the visual impact of parked cars. He said there has also been discussion about putting parking lots alongside the roadway in gateway areas so he thinks the underground parking amenity points should remain in some way. Segelbaum agreed that underground parking should be encouraged. Baker said it has always struck him that the amenity options aren't scaled in any way. He said he wishes there was more guidance on why the points are given the way they are. Zimmerman said there is some suggested weighting in the Zoning Code and that a lot of the weight of the points comes through the Planning Commission and City Council public hearing process where there is a review and relative ranking of importance of the amenity items. Baker questioned why there isn't incentive to make developers do a lot of good things and get more amenity points than just requiring them to get five points and do nothing else. Zimmerman noted that there haven't been any PUD proposals since the adoption of the amenity point language. He stated that before the amenity point language was added to the Code there was no guidance at all so this language gives the City a way to reflect to a developer what the City's preferences are. Segelbaum stated that the size of the PUD should be reflected in the size of the points given and that there isn't any Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 24, 2018 Page 4 quantification. He gave the example of a developer receiving amenity points for providing just a small solar power project. Goellner clarified that the Code states that 50% of the energy has to be from renewable energy in order to get the amenity points. Blum stated that a catch all statement could be adding that says all of the factors should be appropriate or reasonable for the scale of the development. It could then be at the City's discretion to determine what is appropriate and reasonable. Baker agreed it would be good to reinforce some type of scaling with the number of amenity points given. Johnson said it would be good to see some feedback from the market to help figure out how to gauge if the customer is happy with the PUD language and amenity points. Baker agreed and said it would be good to know if the City is providing a disincentive for PUDs. Segelbaum asked if there is way to track development proposals that staff see but then for whatever reason go away. Zimmerman said yes and added that there have only been a couple over the past few years. Zimmerman stated that the last proposed amendment deals with outdoor storage. He explained that the proposed new language clarifies where and how outdoor storage can take place in the front, side, and rear yards of residential properties; it establishes a limit of 30 days for landscaping materials to be kept in front yards; it establishes screening standards for storage in side and rear yards; it allows auto dealership inventory storage in the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts with a Conditional Use Permit and in parking ramps with the permission of the owner; and it strengthens language around the screening of inechanical equipment in all zoning districts. Baker said he realizes that the Planning Commission has had several discussions about outdoor storage and asked to what degree the proposed language adheres to the Planning Commission consensus and what was taken into consideration and what was not. Zimmerman explained that staff brought a summary of the Planning Commission discussions to a CounciUManager meeting. He stated that a lot of the proposed changes were about how to provide screening in side yards and looking from the street into people's properties because it is difficult to screen items 100% while still being able to access them. He added that the proposed language requires items in a side yard to be stored five feet from the property rather than the current requirement of three feet. He noted that some of the Planning Commissioners had suggested that items stored in a side yard be required to follow the same setback requirements as the house, but the City Council felt that was too much to require. He stated that the City Council did agree with the Planning Commission in regard to auto dealership inventory storage. Blum said he is interested in exploring any conflicts the proposed Zoning Code language might have with the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) and how people are supposed to know what is appropriate and what to follow. Zimmerman stated that Planning staff worked closely with Fire staff in this process and tried to make the language and definitions consistent. He explained that the IPMC deals more with unhealthy and unsafe conditions and that the Zoning Code deals more with aesthetic issues. Pockl asked if a definition for storage has been considered. Zimmerman said it has not because it is helpful to leave the definition a little open to interpretation so that staff can Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 24, 2018 Page 5 work with people when necessary. He said he agreed that it might be helpful to provide residents some more guidance as to what is allowed and what is not. Blum referred to the proposed language about screening and stated that it seems inconsistent to state that screening is required in side and rear yards but to not ask for screening for items in front yards. Zimmerman clarified that items are not allowed to be stored in front yards except for on a driveway. Blum asked if an RV can be stored on a driveway indefinitely. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked if there are rules regarding the number of cars a person can have on their driveway. Zimmerman said there is not a limit in the number of cars, but everything else has to be stored in a garage, or in a side yard or rear yard and screened. Blum referred to the language regarding the screening of inechanical equipment and said that it seems to restrict ather items that the City might not want screened such as solar panels, satellites, etc. Baker suggested using more specific language rather than saying "mechanical equipment." Zimmerman said staff can work on the language to be more specific about what is allowed and what is not. Zimmerman stated that the next step in recodification process is the first consideration for all chapters except the Zoning chapter at the City Council on October 2 and a second consideration for the entire Code on October 16. Blum said he would like to submit neighborhood signage at entrances or common roadways and sunset clauses for a number of items as Category C items for future consideration. Baker opened the public hearing. Zimmerman referred to an email he received that had similar concerns about the definition of storage and concerns about placing too much burden on homeowners to provide screening. Angell said he would like to note that he thinks having some room for interpretation in the Zoning Code can be helpful when dealing with outdoor storage issues and that he is supportive of the proposed Code changes and not supportive of some of the changes that were suggested in the resident's email Zimmerman referred to. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. MOVED by Angell, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the replacing Chapter 11 (Zoning Code) in its entirety as part of the 2018 recodification of the City Code. --Short Recess-- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 24, 2018 Page 6 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 4. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. Zimmerman stated that the 2040 Comp Plan Update will come back to the Planning Commission for review in November. Zimmerman stated that the ULI Downtown Study will be discussed at the October 9 Council/Manager meeting. Goellner stated that Andy Snope has been appointed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Johnson stated that the Planning Commission has spent a lot of time on the Comp Plan Update and he would like to know the next level of work and how the Planning Commission can provide a better service and what additional things#hey can do. Baker suggested adding that to the list of future discussion items that Zimmerman recently provided. Johnson said he would like to look at an overlay of the City, the housing goals, and redevelopment goals and he questioned what the Planning Commission could do differently or how they can get more involved in an active planning role. Zimmerman stated that the first discussion item they will be discussing is pedestrian overlay districts. Johnson suggested that rather than cancelling Planning Commission meetings when there are no agenda items they could use that time for education instead. Blum suggested discussing overlay districts outside of the specific Douglas Drive one. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:14 pm. �� . ! 1 � e R n BI m, Secretary Lis ittman, Administrative Assistant