Loading...
04-08-19 PC Agenda REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes March 25, 2019, Regular Planning Commission Meeting 4. Discussion – Mixed Use Zoning District --Short Recess-- 5. Council Liaison Report 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other meetings 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment Apr 8, 2019 – 7 pm Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Baker. Roll Call Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Chuck Segelbaum Commissioners absent: None Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman Council Liaison present: None Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Segelbaum, seconded by Blum to approve the agenda of March 25, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried. Approval of Minutes March 11, 2019, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOTION made by Brookins, seconded by Blum to approve the March 11, 2019, minutes as submitted and the motion carried. Discussion – Architectural and Material Standards Zimmerman reminded the Commission that they have reviewed architectural and material standards at several recent meetings. He stated that he would now like to discuss possible Zoning Code language that addresses both areas. Zimmerman explained that the proposed new section of Code will have a purpose statement that includes the following guidelines: development and redevelopment within the City will be held to a high standard with respect to visual quality, structural and ornamental elements are utilized to maximize variety and architectural interest, building facades facing the public realm are active and engaging, and the built environment is maintained in good condition. Blum questioned if one of the Planning Commission’s goals was to facilitate the transition between different zoning districts. Segelbaum said he thinks it was part of their past discussions. Mar 25, 2019 – 7 pm Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Mar 25, 2019 – 7 pm 2 Zimmerman stated that following the purpose statement, general architectural standards would be listed that would apply to all structures regardless of zoning district. The proposed architectural standards would include: varied massing to incorporate staggered building components, recessed doorways, and other elements that provide visual interest; interesting roof lines that include pitched roofs, dormers, gable or hip roof accents, parapets, cornices, and other interesting profiles; consistent architectural treatment on all facades; and focal features that add interest or distinction to a building. Johnson asked if vertical and horizontal articulation is what “staggered building components” is referring to. Zimmerman said it refers to blocks of massing and breaking up the overall massing of a building to create visual interest. Zimmerman stated that the general standards will also include exterior materials that are divided into Class I, Class II, and Class III categories with the Class I materials being the highest quality. He stated that past conversations have included changing this to allow four classes of materials but upon further research staff has concerns that breaking the material standards into four classes gets overly complicated. Baker asked what led the Planning Commission toward having four classes. Segelbaum said they thought that some of the Class I materials were very high end and could be separated out from the list, and that there was a distinction among the Class I materials such as masonry/textured cement stucco compared to glass, copper, or natural stone. Zimmerman said it was also a way to try and fine tune different zoning districts and that the more categories there are, the more they can require certain percentages of the different classes of materials. Zimmerman showed the Commission several pictures of various types and classes of materials. Segelbaum asked what class of materials Brookview used and if it would be within the scope of what is being proposed. Zimmerman said he didn’t do the calculations, but a large portion of the building is pre- finished metal and concrete block (Class II materials) so it may not meet the proposed percentage standards. Zimmerman discussed several recent construction projects in the City including the Arcata and Hello apartments and noted that much of the materials used in those projects are Class II materials with the exception of glass and brick which are Class I materials. Segelbaum asked if the majority of the recent projects used mostly Class II materials. Zimmerman said yes, he believes most of them would be a mix of Class I and Class II materials. Baker stated that those projects are zoned R-4 and the proposed Code language would require them to be composed of at least 60% Class I materials. Zimmerman agreed and added that the proposed language is upping the standard and is also what St. Louis Park and other nearby cities use. Zimmerman referred to the proposed Zoning Code language and stated that after the purpose and standards sections it addresses the individual zoning districts. He referred to the R-2 Zoning District and stated that duplexes are currently the only attached units allowed and that they function very much like a single family home, so staff is suggesting that they wait to write the architectural and materials City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Mar 25, 2019 – 7 pm 3 standards for this district until townhomes or row houses are included as permitted uses because they would be a better target for limited architectural and/or material standards. Zimmerman asked the Commissioners about having some architectural and material standards in the R-2 Zoning District that would encourage row homes, or attached homes, etc. He showed several photos as examples of traditional duplexes and of some town home and row homes. Baker asked how the City could encourage the R-2 Zoning District to move is that direction. Zimmerman said staff will be considering language later this year for the R-2 District that could allow town homes and row homes, and not just single family homes and duplexes. The Commissioners discussed various areas in the City that have higher densities and where this type of housing might work. Baker suggested that staff bring the Commission some suggested changes for the R-2 Zoning District. Zimmerman discussed the proposed standards in the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. He stated that a lot of the proposed standards in these districts come from the existing language in the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. Zimmerman next discussed the proposed standards in the Commercial, Office, Institutional, Light Industrial, and Industrial Zoning Districts. He stated that staff is proposing to wait on architectural and material standards language in the new Mixed Use Zoning District until the rest of the code language is written for that district. Zimmerman discussed the proposed language regarding additions and expansions to buildings and stated that it is fairly universal to require that additions comply with new architectural standards. In regard to materials the proposed language stated that all facades of an addition or expansion shall be composed of at least 90% Class I materials until the appropriate minimum Class I percentage standards for the building are met. Baker said he is satisfied having three classes of materials rather than four. Zimmerman noted that the standards can always be evaluated and added to, or changed over time. Segelbaum said he thinks having architectural standards makes good sense and is appropriate and that the materials and percentage of materials required is worth a full discussion. He stated that developers have said that in order to make a development economically viable there has to be ways to make cuts so if that is true the upping of the materials standards would up the expense and he wonders if the City would have the recent development it’s had and if it will continue with these new standards. He said he doesn’t want the City to price itself out of development and is glad to know that the same standards are used in other cities. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Mar 25, 2019 – 7 pm 4 Baker said there has been a flood of new housing so maybe now is the time to take action that causes that to subside a little, but the City will be attractive again. Pockl asked Zimmerman if other cities said that once they implemented these types of standards they found that it was too cost prohibitive for developers. Zimmerman said some cities stated that they received some push back, but most of the staff he talked to said their standards are reasonable and developers have been able to meet them. Baker asked if it is possible that Golden Valley got all of its recent development because there aren’t these standards in place. Zimmerman said he doesn’t know if it was that or if it was just the demand for housing in the Twin Cities. Blum said the City got a lot of architecturally interesting and nice looking buildings regardless of the standards. He said they shouldn’t be chasing development for development sake. He said he wants development that is right for Golden Valley which is a higher standard and that is reflected in the proposed new architectural and material standards. Segelbaum asked the Commission what they thought about requiring 50% Class I materials in the Light Industrial district. Blum said he was surprised to see such a high standard in the industrial districts. Baker said he wants the industrial districts to be attractive too. Zimmerman noted that Brooklyn Park requires 65% Class I in industrial areas and many other cities require 50%. Brookins said he thinks the proposed new standards are a big jump in comparison to what the City currently has. He said he doesn’t find a ton of value in it and that a lot of the industrial areas that the City has serve a good purpose and he doesn’t think the City will get a better purpose in those areas by putting more brick on the front or back of a building. He said the industrial areas can be treated as such and can use industrial materials. Blum asked the Commission if they feel differently about industrial areas that border on zoning districts that have higher standards. He added that the City has been granting more CUPs in industrial areas so some of those might start to look more like commercial or office properties. Zimmerman noted that there are codes that require different standards for facades that face residential or institutional properties. Baker suggested that the standards be dropped a little bit if an industrial property isn’t facing residential properties, but he questioned what the standards should be if the property is highly visible. Zimmerman said the City doesn’t have very many light industrial or industrial properties that directly abut a different zoning district, most of them are across a public street from another property zoned differently. He suggested keeping the standards high when a light industrial or industrial property is across the street from a different zoning district. Johnson said the City hasn’t had architectural or material standards up until now so he is struggling with the character of Golden Valley because he doesn’t really know how what is being proposed fits in with what’s already been built and how to apply the proposed code in the real world. Baker asked if it would City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Mar 25, 2019 – 7 pm 5 help to have some analysis of what’s been built. Segelbaum said that would give them a quantifiable look at what’s been done. Baker stated that they’ve looked at what neighboring communities have done and he thinks Golden Valley would want to be similar. Zimmerman stated that there isn’t really a good way to determine the materials standards with buildings already built, but that he would try to provide an estimate. Johnson said they would look silly if none of the recently constructed buildings come close to what is being proposed. Baker said he is interested in what Golden Valley aspires to be in the future. Segelbaum said he agrees with Johnson and said he worries that maybe the proposed new language goes too far. He questioned if maybe it should be less strict in order to attract development. Blum questioned if maybe the percentages should be lowered or if the type of materials should be changed. Segelbaum said he is very much in favor of setting architectural and material standards he just thinks the proposed standards should be relaxed by either reducing the percentages or by having four classes of materials and requiring a smaller percentage of Class I materials and allowing a larger percentage of Class II materials. Brookins referred to the proposed language requiring 60% of Class I materials be used for R-3 properties and questioned if that will work with the City’s affordability expectation. Zimmerman said the proposed language is modeled on other cities who have the same affordability standards, but he agrees that in some ways there may be competing goals. Baker said code language is adaptive and suggested trying the proposed new standards which set a pretty high bar and then change it if needed in the future. He said he’s heard compelling arguments from the Commission about lowering the percentages in the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts but he likes the percentages as they have been presented in all the other districts. Blum noted that PUDs allow for flexibility and asked about the minimum acreage required for a PUD. Zimmerman said two acres is the minimum requirement and agreed that they allow more flexibility for things like the materials used. He added that hopefully the City will also get more redevelopment on the newer mixed use sites. Blum stated that if stucco and EIFs each drop down a class level he would feel more flexible about lowering the percentages required. Baker suggested moving masonry/textured cement stucco to Class II and changing the 60% to 50% as well. Pockl said what she likes about having three classes of materials is that it offers more opportunity for Class I materials which could lessen the load on cost prohibitive issues if there is more to choose from. Baker said he would feel comfortable dropping the requirement of 60% Class I materials down to 50% Class I materials in the R-3, R-4, and Office Zoning Districts if masonry/textured cement stucco is moved City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Mar 25, 2019 – 7 pm 6 to the Class II category. Zimmerman asked for clarification regarding moving EFIS down to the Class III category. Baker said he thinks EFIS should be left in the Class II category. Johnson stated that they should either address this issue by finding out what is already in the City or make a statement that it doesn’t matter. He reiterated that he would like to have an idea on how some of the more recent buildings in the City would or wouldn’t meet these proposed new requirements. He reminded the Commission that they can also request special studies as well. Baker said he wouldn’t mind seeing a limited analysis that would include just the most recently constructed buildings such as: Talo, Arcata, The Xenia, Hello, and Liberty Crossing. Zimmerman said he won’t be able to provide exact percentages but staff can provide some analysis of how those projects would fit with the proposed new language. Blum said he thinks it is ok for them to be forward thinking and to at least match our neighboring communities’ standards. He stated that a lot of the recent projects mentioned would have had options through the PUD process to have some flexibility. Zimmerman noted that there is also the clause in the materials list that states “other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or his/her designee or as recommended by the Planning Commission” which also provides some flexibility. --Short Recess-- Discussion – Planning Commission 2018 Annual Report Zimmerman gave highlights from the Annual Report and stated that Chair Baker will be presenting it to the City Council at their Council/Manager meeting in April. Segelbaum referred to the 2019 proposed work plan section of the report and said he thinks the community would like to see small retail in the City. Blum stated that the Commission has previously discussed gateway improvements and said that would be a great way to distinguish Golden Valley and neighborhoods within Golden Valley. Baker asked that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan information be moved up on the staff led discussions/presentations list because the Commission spent a lot of time on that. He suggested that strengthening large tree retention and small lot development be added to the 2019 work plan section. Discussion – Board of Zoning Appeals 2018 Annual Report Zimmerman referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals annual report and stated that there were 11 variances considered, nine of them were in the R-1 Zoning District. He stated that staff has continued to work with applicants up front to help decrease the amount of variance requests. Baker asked why there are so many variances in South Tyrol. Zimmerman said there were some new homes built in that area on corner lots with two front yards. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Mar 25, 2019 – 7 pm 7 Segelbaum asked if there is a way to compare how strict or lax Golden Valley is compared to other cities. Blum said his impression is that the BZA is very likely to grant variances and he is concerned about the exception to the rule becoming the standard. Zimmerman said he thinks the BZA tries to help homeowners and that they sometimes modify variance requests in order to not approve such large variances. He stated that some clarity from the City Council may be needed on whether it is the BZA’s role to try and help homeowner’s solve their problems, or if they should uphold the standards that are in place and only grant variances for things that rise to a certain level. Johnson added that many of the side yard variances are granted in order to allow people a second garage stall which really is the norm. Council Liaison Report No report was given. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other meetings No reports were given. Other Business Baker reported on a neighborhood meeting he attended regarding a new house that was built on a 40- foot wide lot. He stated that the Council may be reviewing the regulations for these narrow lots. Zimmerman stated that the Commission may be reviewing massing and height for these types of lots. Adjourn MOTION by Segelbaum, seconded by Blum and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:41 pm. ________________________________ Ron Blum, Secretary _________________________________ Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant 1 Date: April 8, 2019 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Emily Goellner, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Mixed Use Zoning District Discussion Summary At the previous discussion with the Planning Commission on February 25, 2019, staff summarized the results of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which calls for a Mixed Use Zoning District to be implemented on various parcels throughout the city. The Commission agreed that the next step is to expand and update the current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District so that the regulations can be applied to these parcels (see attached map). Since then, staff has conducted an assessment of the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District to gain a general understanding of what changes will need to be made. This memo summarizes that assessment. ANTICIPATED CHANGES TO I-394 MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT: Section Notes Purpose • Keep most of the language, but remove I-394 and make other small adjustments List of permitted, conditional, and accessory uses • Keep most of the uses listed, but remove the size requirements • Create a table of allowed uses rather than a list, which will be replicated in all other Zoning Districts in the future • List all uses specifically rather than referring to the lists found in the Commercial and Institutional Districts • The list of allowed uses will be evaluated again when all uses in all Districts are analyzed as part of a different project expected to occur later in 2019 Live-Work Units • Unsure whether to continue allowing live-work units • If included, may be beneficial to simplify the requirements and make them less restrictive 2 Front Yard Setback • Currently lists 4 scenarios ranging from 0 to 75 feet • Look for ways to simplify the list of requirements • The 75-foot requirement is for properties abutting R-1 or R-2; it makes sense to have a larger setback in this case, but 75 may be too large • The goal is to ensure that building placement is closer to the street to encourage pedestrian-oriented environment • Figure out how to handle lots with more than 1 front yard • Partially or fully restrict surface parking in the front yard Side and Rear Yard Setbacks • Currently ranges from 10 to 50 feet • Smaller side and rear yard setbacks may be more appropriate for this District Height • Currently allows up to 3, 6, and 10 stories • Comp Plan calls for up to 4 stories in Neighborhood Mixed Use District and up to 6 stories in Community Mixed Use District • A CUP is not the best tool for allowing an increase in height; the only way to mitigate a tall building is to make it shorter • A density or height bonus is a better tool than a CUP – it would include a pre-determined list of amenities that the City would accept in exchange for more height • Even with a height bonus, there should be an absolute maximum height stated in the Code • There is no absolute maximum height in current Code. Transitional Height • It makes sense that this type of regulation exists • Need to test it on some properties to understand if it is set at the appropriate level • Adds complexity to the Code; if adding complexity, we want to ensure that the extra work to administer it is worth it 2-story Minimum • This regulation seems unnecessary for any mixed-use development or any housing development • Is this regulation necessary in order to ensure that the environment is pedestrian-friendly? • New buildings with commercial uses are often 1 story, so this could create the need for variances • This regulation is overly complex as written Minimum Density • With most project proposals in Golden Valley, we have been more concerned with limiting the density rather than trying to increase the density • The high cost of land in Golden Valley basically creates a minimum density necessary for a project to work in this market, so this regulation seems unnecessary • Staff recommends removing this regulation to simplify the Code 3 Required Mix of Uses • This requirement has not been effective in the I-394 corridor • Consultants and developers have recommended that the market should dictate the exact mix of uses rather than zoning regulations • Staff recommends removing this regulation to simplify the Code Max Floor Area Ratio (FAR) • Not clear how this regulation is helping to meet the goals of the District • FAR is not used anywhere else in City Code • A CUP is not the best tool for allowing a larger FAR; a FAR bonus would be more appropriate. • Staff recommends removing the FAR regulations to simplify the Code Impervious Surface and Open Space • Currently a maximum impervious surface limit of 65% • Currently on lots over 1 acre, minimum open space requirement of 15% • Needs to analyze these numbers further to see if they are adequate • Impervious Surface limit seems too low based on past projects and insights from developers and consultants • Should balance this with stormwater requirements Development Standards (in general) • Many of the standards listed here were used to guide the Architectural and Material Standards that are in the process of being established in 2019 Drive-Through Facilities • Continue allowing, but regulate so that they do not impact the pedestrian experience • Prefer less subjective, more quantifiable standards Structured Parking • Allow structured parking, but must be architecturally interesting in order to maintain a pedestrian-oriented environment Alternative Approaches • This was created in order to allow flexibility • It is problematic because it basically allows exceptions to all of the rules • If keeping this clause, it needs to be more specific and set boundaries so it is not a catch-all exception clause Goals Staff has identified the following goals for this work: • Simplify administration of this Zoning District – the existing district includes many “if this, then that” clauses that make it difficult for users to understand and for staff to administer. • Create zoning regulations that clarify the difference between the different sub-districts listed in the 2040 Comp Plan (Neighborhood Mixed Use vs. Community Mixed Use). • Allow the district regulations to be applicable and appropriate in locations outside of the I- 394 corridor. • Consider ways to improve the regulations so that property owners will not be inclined to use Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) or request variances to get around the regulations – we saw this happen in the I-394 corridor. • Blend current regulations with recommendations from the Transit-Oriented Development consultants that worked on zoning regulations that can be used along the Blue Line light rail extension. 4 Pedestrian Overlay District At the last discussion, the Commission agreed that there is interest in a Pedestrian Overlay District for corridors that connect various redevelopment areas in the City, but that conceptually it was hard to visualize how the Overlay District might be crafted or implemented. Until there is a better understanding of the new Mixed Use Zoning District requirements and the proposed Architectural and Material Standards, staff is recommending additional work on the Overlay Districts be set aside. Additional discussion around this topic will occur later in the year. Next Steps In the summer of 2019, the City will rezone these parcels from their existing Zoning Districts to the Mixed Use Zoning District. The regulations for the new Mixed Use Zoning District must be completed prior to any rezoning so that property owners understand what their new regulations will be. Staff is beginning this process with discussions and aims to hold a public hearing on this subject in late May of 2019. At the next discussion, staff will provide more details on the proposed differences between the sub-districts. Staff will also attempt to blend elements from the existing I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District with advice from the TOD zoning consultants and share that work with the Commission. Recommendation Staff requests that the Planning Commission read the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District in its entirety in order to understand its strengths and its shortcomings. Staff would like feedback on its assessment of the anticipated changes to the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District summarized in this memo. Attachments I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District (6 pages) Map of Anticipated Mixed Use Zoning – Draft (1 page) Sec. 113-97. - I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. (a) Purpose. (1) The purpose of the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District is to improve the cohesiveness, attractiveness, and sustainability of the I-394 Corridor and to implement the following principles and recommendations of the I-394 Corridor Study: a. Enable the corridor to evolve toward a diverse mix of land uses, including residential as well as commercial and industrial. b. Maximize integration rather than separation of land uses, where appropriate. c. Maintain the corridor as an employment center. d. Improve the visual coherence and attractiveness of the corridor. e. Improve connectivity for all modes of transportation. f. Foster neighborhood-serving retail and services. g. Maintain or improve the functioning of intersections and highway interchanges. h. Foster sustainable development and a balance between urban and natural systems. (2) The district includes specific standards for building form, height, bulk and placement in order to encourage development that is varied, visually appealing, accessible to non-motorized transportation and pedestrian oriented. It is designed to complement the standards of the I-394 Overlay Zoning District. (b) District Established. Lots shall be established within the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 113-29. The district established and/or any subsequent changes to such district shall be reflected in the Official Zoning Map of the City as provided in Section 113-56. (c) Principal Uses. The following principal uses shall be permitted in the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District: (1) Multifamily dwellings (2) Senior and disability housing (3) All principal uses in the Commercial Zoning District, provided that such uses are combined with other principal or conditional uses within a mixed-use building, and that the gross floor area occupied by any such single use shall not exceed 10,000 square feet (4) Class I and III restaurants (5) Business and professional offices, provided that the gross floor area occupied by the use shall not exceed 10,000 square feet (6) Medical clinics (7) Live-work units (8) All principal uses in the I-1, I-2, and I-3 Institutional Zoning Sub-Districts (9) Child care centers (10) Adult day care centers; and (11) Brewpubs. (d) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District: (1) Structured parking accessory to any permitted use. (e) Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in this chapter: (1) Class II restaurants (2) Any principal use in the Commercial Zoning District in a freestanding building (3) Any principal or conditional use allowed in the Commercial Zoning District occupying more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area (4) Business and professional offices occupying more than 10,000 square feet. The City Council may establish a maximum amount of office development that will be permitted on any lot, based upon traffic studies as required by the I-394 Overlay Zoning District, using appropriate minimum levels of service (5) Research and development laboratories (6) Convenience stores, including the sale of gasoline (7) Drive-through facilities accessory to any principal or conditional use (8) Permitted or conditional uses in buildings exceeding the height limits specified in this section (9) Nonresidential and mixed uses exceeding a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.6 (10) Breweries (limited and associated retail use such as merchandise related to the brewery may be sold) (11) Taprooms (limited and associated retail use such as merchandise related to the brewery may be sold in the taproom) (12) Micro-distilleries (limited and associated retail use such as merchandise related to the microdistillery may be sold); and (13) Cocktail rooms (limited and associated retail use such as merchandise related to the microdistillery may be sold in the cocktail room). (f) Standards for Live-Work Units. The purpose of a live-work unit is to provide a transitional use type that combines elements of a home occupation and a commercial enterprise. (1) The work space may be located on any floor of the building, but businesses serving the public shall generally be located on the first floor for accessibility. Office or studio spaces or other low- traffic activities may be located on upper floors or basements. (2) The dwelling unit component shall maintain a separate entrance located on the front or side facade and accessible from the primary abutting public street. (3) A total of two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for a live-work unit, located to the rear of the unit, or in an underground or enclosed space. (4) The business component of the building may include offices, small service establishments, home crafts which are typically considered accessory to a dwelling unit, or limited retailing associated with fine arts, crafts, or personal services. It may not include a commercial food service requiring a license, a limousine business or auto service, or repair for any vehicles other than those registered to residents of the property. (5) The business of the live-work unit must be conducted by a person who resides in the dwelling unit. The business shall not employ more than two workers on site at any one time who live outside of the live-work unit. (6) All buildings that permit live-work units shall adopt rules to regulate their operations in order to ensure that live-work units function harmoniously with other dwelling units within the building. (g) Dimensional Standards. Principal structures in the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: (1) Setback Requirements. The following setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. a. Front Setback. 1. For nonresidential or mixed uses facing an R-1 or R-2 Zoning District across a public street, the yard abutting that street shall not be less than 75 feet from the right-of-way line of the street to the structure. 2. For residential uses facing an R-1 or R-2 Zoning District across a public street, the yard abutting that street shall not be less than 30 feet from the right-of-way line of the street to the structure. 3. For buildings with a residential use at ground level, the yard abutting the street shall be not less than 10 feet from the right-of-way line of the street to the structure. 4. For buildings with nonresidential uses at ground level, there shall be no minimum front yard setback. 5. For surface parking areas, the front yard abutting the street shall be not less than 15 feet. 6. All front yard setbacks shall be landscaped according to the standards of this section. b. Side and Rear Setbacks. 1. For lots adjoining an R-1 or R-2 Zoning District, the required side yards shall be no less than 50 feet in width and the required rear yards shall be no less than 50 feet in depth. 2. For lots adjoining any other zoning district or railroad right-of-way, the required side yards shall be no less than 10 feet in width and the required rear yards shall be no less than 10 feet in depth. 3. No surface parking shall be allowed within 15 feet of a lot line. 4. All side and rear yard setbacks shall be landscaped according to the standards of this section. (2) Height Restrictions. No building or structure shall exceed the maximum height listed in the corresponding sub-district except by conditional use permit: a. Sub-District A (Low): three stories b. Sub-District B (Medium): six stories; and c. Sub-District C (High): 10 stories. (3) Transitional Height. Buildings or portions of buildings located within 75 feet of a residential district boundary shall not exceed the maximum height permitted within that residential district. (4) Minimum Height of New Buildings. Buildings occupying 5,000 square feet or more must be two stories in height. A one-story wing or section of a taller building may be permitted if it comprises no more than 25 percent of the length of the facade. (h) Density and Mix of Uses. Mix of uses, minimum densities, and floor area ratios are established to ensure that new development or redevelopment achieves the goals of the I-394 Corridor Study and contributes to a lively, pedestrian-oriented environment. (1) Minimum Density. a. If housing is part of a mixed use development, no minimum residential density is required. b. Freestanding residential buildings shall be developed at a minimum density of 15 units per net residential acre, with the exception of buildings or portions of buildings located within 75 feet of a residential district boundary. (2) Required Mix of Uses. Development sites over one acre in size shall include at least two use types from the following categories: a. Residential b. Commercial c. Office; and d. Other, including studios and other live-work uses. (3) Maximum Floor Area Ratio. Nonresidential and mixed uses shall not exceed a FAR of 0.6 except by conditional use. (i) Impervious Surfaces. The total amount of impervious surfaces on any lot or parcel shall not exceed 65 percent of the area. (j) Required Open Space. Development sites over one acre in size shall reserve at least 15 percent of the site as a designed and landscaped plaza, green, park, play area, trail or parkway, or combination thereof. (k) Development Standards. This section establishes objective development standards for all uses within the district. Standards are intended to encourage creative and sustainable approaches to development, and to allow some degree of flexibility in that some are mandatory and others are suggested: (1) Building Placement. Buildings shall be placed close to the adjacent primary street where practicable. Primary streets include: Laurel Avenue and the north-south streets of Xenia, Colorado, Hampshire, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. (Additional primary streets may be established in the future.) Parking and services uses should be located in the interior of the site in order to create a vibrant pedestrian environment, slow traffic, and increase the visual interest and attractiveness of the area. (2) Building Design. Building facades over 30 feet in length shall be visually divided into smaller increments by architectural elements such as recesses, openings, variation in materials or details. Building tops shall be defined with the use of architectural details such as cornices, parapets, contrasting materials or varied window or roof shapes. Buildings should have a defined base, middle and top, and employ elements that relate to the human scale and appeal to the pedestrian, such as awnings, windows or arcades. (3) Transparency. Views into and out of buildings shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and enhance security. a. Where nonresidential uses occupy the ground floor level, window and door openings shall comprise at least 60 percent of the length and 30 percent of the area of the ground floor facade facing the primary street and shall be located between three and eight feet above the adjacent grade level. Minimum window sill height shall be three feet above the ground, while the maximum height of the door shall be eight feet above the ground. Window and door or balcony openings shall comprise at least 15 percent of upper stories and side and rear facades. b. Where residential uses occupy the ground floor level, window and door openings shall comprise at least 20 percent of the primary facade and 15 percent of each side and rear facade. c. Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and out of buildings. Views shall not be blocked between three and eight feet above grade by storage, shelving mechanical equipment or other visual barriers. Display windows, if designed to provide equivalent visual interest, may be considered as an alternative approach as provided in Subsection (l) of this section. The display area behind the window shall be at least four feet deep and shall be used to display merchandise. (4) Building Entrances. Building entrances shall be provided on the primary street on which the building fronts, in addition to any entrances from rear or side parking areas. Street entrances shall be lighted and defined by means of a canopy, portico, recess, or other architectural details. (5) Building Materials. a. Exterior wall finish. Exterior wall surfaces of all buildings, excluding those portions of foundation walls extending above finished grade, shall be faced with glass, exterior cement plaster (stucco), natural stone, brick, architectural concrete, non-corrugated metal, or an equivalent or better. Use of masonry and other durable materials is preferred. b. At least 20 percent of the facade facing the primary street shall be faced with Kasota stone or other indigenous dolomitic limestone. c. When used as architectural trim, up to 15 percent of the exterior wall surface of a building elevation may be wood, metal, exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) or other equivalent materials as approved by the City Manager or his/her designee. d. Facade treatment. All building facades shall be constructed with materials of equivalent levels of quality to those used on the front facade, except where a facade is not visible to the public. (6) Building Colors. Bright or primary colors shall be limited to 15 percent of all street-facing facades and roofs, except when used in public art or on an awning. (7) Parking Location. Off-street parking shall be located to the side and rear of buildings to the maximum extent feasible. Off-street parking within front yard setbacks between buildings and the primary street shall be limited to a maximum depth of 40 feet. On-street parking will be encouraged where appropriate and feasible. (8) Parking Screening. Parking areas shall be screened from public streets, sidewalks and paths by a landscaped frontage strip at least five feet wide. If a parking area contains over 100 spaces, the frontage strip shall be increased to eight feet in width. a. Within the frontage strip, screening shall consist of either a masonry wall, berm or hedge or combination that forms a screen a minimum of 3.5 and a maximum of four feet in height, and not less than 50 percent opaque on a year-round basis. b. Trees shall be planted at a minimum of one deciduous tree per 50 feet within the frontage strip. (9) Structured Parking. The ground floor facade of any parking structure abutting any public street or walkway shall be designed and architecturally detailed in a manner consistent with adjacent commercial or office buildings. a. Upper floors shall be designed so that sloped floors typical of parking structures do not dominate the appearance of the facade. b. Entrance drives to structured parking (including underground parking) shall be located and designed to minimize interference with pedestrian movement. Pedestrian walks should be continued across driveways. c. The appearance of structured parking entrances shall be minimized so that they do not dominate the street frontage of a building. Possible techniques include recessing the entry, extending portions of the structure over the entry, using screening and landscaping to soften the appearance of the entry, using the smallest curb cut and driveway possible, and subordinating the parking entrance (compared to the pedestrian entrance) in terms of size, prominence, location and design emphasis. (10) Pedestrian Circulation. a. Sidewalks shall be required along all street frontages, and sidewalk and trail design shall be consistent with the City's Public Sidewalk and Trail Policy. b. A well-defined pedestrian path shall be provided from the sidewalk to each principal customer/resident entrance of a building. Walkways shall be located so that the distance between street and entrance is minimized. Walkways shall be at least six feet in width, and shall be distinguished through pavement material from the surrounding parking lot. Walkways shall be landscaped for at least 50 percent of their length with trees, shrubs, flower beds and/or planter pots. c. Sidewalks of at least six feet in width shall be provided along all building facades that abut public parking areas. d. Sidewalks shall be maintained by the adjacent property owner. (11) Drive-Through Facilities. a. Drive-through elements shall not be located between the front facade of the principal building and the street. No service shall be rendered, deliveries made or sales conducted within the required front yard, although tables may be provided for customer use. b. Site design shall accommodate a logical and safe vehicle and pedestrian circulation pattern. Adequate queuing lane space shall be provided, without interfering with on-site parking/circulation. c. Drive-through canopies and other structures, where present, shall be constructed from the same materials as the primary building, and with a similar level of architectural quality and detailing. d. Sound from any speakers used on the premises shall not be audible above a level of normal conversation at the boundary of any surrounding residential district or on any residential property. (12) Outdoor Seating and Service Areas. Outdoor seating and garbage receptacles are encouraged within front, side or rear setback areas, and temporary seating may be permitted within rights-of-way, provided that sidewalks remain clear to a width of five feet. Service windows for serving food and beverages may be permitted as part of any building facade. Garbage receptacles shall be maintained by the property owner. (13) Public Art. Public art is encouraged as a component of new development. (l) Alternative Approaches to Development Standards. Although many of the development standards in this section are mandatory, there may be other ways to achieve the same design objective. The City may permit alternative approaches that, in its determination, meet the intent of the development standards equally well or when specific physical conditions of the site or building would make compliance infeasible or inappropriate. (Code 1988, § 11.47; Ord. No. 397, 2nd Series, 6-6-2008; Ord. No. 540, 2nd Series, 1-30-2015; Ord. No. 567, 2nd Series, 7-30-2015) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 456766 456770 456766 456740 456740 4567156 4567102 §¨¦394 §¨¦394 Æÿ55Æÿ55 Æÿ100 Æÿ100 £¤169 £¤169 W i n n e t k a A v e S W i n n e t k a A v e N W i n n e t k a A v e N D o u g l a s D r N D o u g l a s D r N Medicine Lake Rd Glenwood Ave M e n d e l s s o h n A v e N P l y m o u t h Av e N 10th Ave N 7thAve B o o n e A v e N W i s c o n s i n A v e N N e v a d a A v e N G e n e r a l M i l l s B l v d G o l d e n V a l l e y R d R h o d e I s l a n d Sandburg Rd B e t t y CrockerDr WayzataBlvd Country Club Dr Olympia St Harold Ave Laurel Ave L o u i s i a n a A v e S J e r s e y A v e F l o r i d a A v e S Golden Hills Dr Z a n e A v e N S Frontage Rd T u r n e r s C r o s s r o a d N M e a d o w L n N N o b l e A v e N H a m p s h i r e A v e S W a y z a ta Blvd Z e n i t h A v e N T h e o d o r e W i r t h P k w y D e c a t u r A v e N Duluth S t G o l d e n Va l l e y Rd A v e N G o l d e n Va l l ey Rd P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e S WayzataBlvd X e n i a A v e S Olson Memorial HwyN Frontage Rd Li ndsay St L i l a c D r N City of G old en Va lley7800 Go lden Valley R oadGolden Valle y, MN 554 27-458 8763-593 -8030www.golde nvalle ymn .go v Anticipa ted Mixed Use Zoning 0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200400 Feet IPrint Date: 2/21/2019 Sources: -Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2019) -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. Anticipated Zoning, 2019 Proposed Mixed Use Zoning Neighborhood (41 parcels) Community (34 parcels) DRAFT