Loading...
02-25-19 PC Minutes 7800 Golden Valley Road�Golden Valley,MN 55427 ' �� � `;� 763-593-3992�TTY 763-593-3968�763-593-8109(fax)�www.goldenvalleymn.gov ��O��Q�//� ���/ /� Planning Commission �` ��-`� !��j. Feb 25,2019—7 pm REGULAR MEETING MINUTES CouncilChambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Baker. 2. Roll Call Present: Planning Commissioners Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, and Chuck Segelbaum Absent: None Staff Present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman Council Liaison: Steve Schmidgall 3. Approval of Minutes February 11, 2019, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Johnson referred to the last sentence in the second paragraph on page five and stated that the word "he" should be changed to the word "Zimmerman." MOVED by Blum, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 11, 2019, minutes with the above noted correction. 4. Discussion—Architectural and Material Standards Zimmerman reminded the Commissioners that they have been asked to consider new zoning regulations related to architectural and material standards for buildings. He stated that material standards were discussed at the last Planning Commission and that architectural standards will be the focus of this discussion. He noted that during previous discussions the consensus was to utilize some architectural standards and to address most zoning districts, but not single family homes or duplexes (R-1 and R-2). Zimmerman stated that staff reviewed zoning codes from 15 cities for ideas regarding architectural standards and that only a few of them have robust regulations. He stated that the types of features that are regulated typically include: building massing, facade design (both horizontal and vertical variation), roof lines, amount of openings/percentage of transparency on each elevation, location of entrances, focal elements, color, sun/shading, and loading docks/screening of utilities. Zimmerman said that he would like the Commission's feedback on the following: which elements should be regulated through the Zoning Code, which zoning districts should be subjected to the City of Golden Valley Rlanning Cammission Regular Meeting 2 Feb 25, 2019—7 pm architectural regulations, how standards can be written to avoid subjective measures that could be difficult to enforce, who should be responsible for verifying compliance with the standards, and how additions to existing (non-conforming) buildings should be handled. Zimmerman showed the Commission several pictures of buildings and discussed the various architectural elements and features on each of the buildings. Baker asked Zimmerman if any bad examples come to mind. Zimmerman said that most of the buildings he showed pictures of are newer buildings and that the push has been to create interesting facades with different sections, balconies, and windows. He added that many of the buildings that are plainer are the older office buildings or more industrial types of buildings. He said this gets to the question of where to apply architectural standards. Segelbaum said many of the examples shown were of recent construction projects so he is trying to get a sense how important having standards is if all modern architects are trying to employ these architectural elements into their buildings anyway without regulations. Zimmerman said for the most part architects try to design interesting buildings and incorporate many of the features they've been discussing, especially in big, highly visible buildings. He noted that some of the examples he's shown were located in the Mixed Use Zoning District where there already are some standards required, or they are in a PUD where the City has some leverage to push for more architectural elements. Baker referred to the Lock Up storage facility and said that is an example of where the City may have been able to impose some more interesting architectural elements. Zimmerman stated that the Lock Up facility didn't require any planning approvals and there were no design standards so that is an example of where having standards could have been helpful. Segelbaum asked if there are certain standards that are common in most cities. Zimmerman said that most of the common standards were facade variation, articulation,the amount of glass/transparency, and screening of inechanicals and utilities. Baker said he noticed two different approaches cities seem to take. Some cities state what they would prefer or what is desirable and some cities were quite prescribed. He stated that the I-394 corridor has pretty prescriptive design standards and wasn't a success. He questioned if the prescriptive approach in the architectural standards requirements created any disincentive to people engaging in that area. Zimmerman said he doesn't think the issues in the I-394 Corridor are due to problems with the code requirements, it is more with people trying to reuse the existing buildings that are there and the difficulty trying to incorporate new architectural elements into an existing building. He added that the new buildings in the corridor didn't have issues with meeting the design requirements. Baker suggested the Commission go through each of the discussion questions asked by staff. The first question is which elements should be regulated through the Zoning Code. Blum said his most important issue is vertical and horizontal articulation. He said he thinks variation can be achieved by addressing horizontal articulation, vertical articulation, and color and that developments are already City of Golden Valley Planning Cammission Regular Meeting 3 Feb 25, 2019—7 pm using these three elements so he doesn't think it will a huge imposition to add those standards to the Zoning Code. Baker agreed. Pockl asked if the Zoning Code already addresses articulation. Zimmerman stated that only the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts require side wall articulation. Segelbaum said it seems that at a minimum articulation is important. Baker asked the Commission if they have comments about regulating roof lines. Zimmerman stated that many of the recent construction projects are large buildings with flat roofs where it is more difficult to create interest. Baker said that it is subjective to put language in the Code that just says "provide a variety of roof shapes." Blum suggested making the language about roof types an encouraging statement, not a requirement. Baker asked the Commission for comments about openings and percentage of transparency. Zimmerman noted that most commercial uses want transparency but that some institutional or industrial uses may not need it. Segelbaum stated that he remembers hearing in Transit Oriented Design (TOD) discussions that if a certain design is required then the uses will follow it. He added that he agrees that transparency depends on the use. Johnson asked if glass would be treated like any other material in regard to articulation. Zimmerman said yes. Johnson noted that the wording in some of the cities codes state that glass should be clear, but putting up curtains or blinds would be a way around that so he questions what is trying to be accomplished. Zimmerman said the intent is to create interaction with people inside and outside. Blum stated that they have discussed trying to encourage parking at the rear of buildings in order to create more walkable areas. He said harder materials like brick and stone can create a claustrophobic type feel and that glass creates a more open, friendly, functional feeling. Brookins said he likes the idea of regulating the amount of glass/transparency because buildings can have a very different feel with more glass, but his only concern is that it doesn't get saturated at one end of a building. Baker asked the Commission their thoughts about the location of entrances. Blum said his opinion is entrances in the front, parking in the rear. Zimmerman stated that architectural features such as a canopy or an arch draw your attention to a door. Segelbaum said he thinks all of these things add to the uniqueness of buildings, but they need to be careful they don't legislate themselves out of development opportunities. Blum said he thinks the standards currently used in the Mixed Use Zoning District are good. Baker asked the Commission to comment on focal elements. Zimmerman noted that focal elements are more common on institutional buildings such as a church spire. Baker said this element doesn't strike him as being enormously important. The Commission agreed. City of Golden Valley Planning Commissinn Regular Meeting 4 Feb 25, 2019—7 pm Baker asked the Commissioners to comment on the element of color. Blum reiterated that he thinks visual interest or lack of sameness can be established by having different amounts of each of the massing elements being discussed. He added that he thinks color should be an independent requirement in order to keep visual appeal. Zimmerman agreed that the color element pairs nicely with the discussion they've had about materials standards. Baker said he likes there to be a lot of color and he doesn't understand why bright colors are discouraged because they are fun and unique. Johnson questioned if certain developers would be discouraged if the rules were too strict in regard to color. He added that he also doesn't want to put undue costs or constraints on builders. Baker referred to the next discussion item which is in regard to sun/shading. Zimmerman noted that requirements regarding sun/shading were not in very many of the codes he researched. Segelbaum asked if reflectivity is a part of this element. Zimmerman said he thought that would be more a part of the materials standards. Zimmerman stated that height and setback requirements help address sun/shading issues. Brookins agreed that setbacks would address the sun/shading issues. Blum said he thinks sun/shading is fundamental and an important factor in a lot of the decisions they are asked to make. He added that some original zoning laws were created because of this topic so they should feel comfortable that it is addressed somewhere in the Zoning Code if not in the architectural standards. Baker stated that the last element is the screening of loading docks and utilities. He said he thinks this is very important. Zimmerman agreed and said some of the other codes he researched had some good language about screening. Segelbaum said the question is screening from what view. Zimmerman said the current code requires screening from the public right of way. Johnson questioned why the City would want to force somebody to put nice looking materials on their loading dock and then require that it be screened. Zimmerman reiterated that is why it is important to decide which zoning districts the architectural and materials standards should apply to. Baker said he assumes these standards wouldn't apply to R-1 and R-2 properties. Segelbaum said he thinks they should apply to townhomes. Blum said he thinks the R-2 Zoning District should have higher standards in order to help make that type of development more palatable to the community and to help reduce people's anxiety. Baker suggested looking at some examples of R-2 developments. Zimmerman said that it might be appropriate to have some standards for anything beyond a single unit. Brookins said he would support higher standards in R-2 and suggested requiring variation through the materials used instead of the architectural standards.Johnson said he agrees with requiring higher standards in R-2. Segelbaum said he thinks the Commercial and Office Zoning Districts should have higher architectural standards but he is not sure about Light Industrial and Industrial. He reiterated that he wants to make sure the City is encouraging development. Baker agreed and said he thinks the Institutional Zoning District should also have higher architectural standards. Pockl stated that they are currently considering minimum requirements but questioned if when they are reviewing proposals in the future they will be able to require that additional standards be met or if they would just be a suggestion. Zimmerman explained that the City doesn't have a formal site plan City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Reguiar Meeting 5 Feb 25, 2019— 7 pm review process and that staff works with potential applicants about their proposals and makes suggestions, but the City has to be careful when asking for things that aren't required in the Zoning Code. He added that is why the really important things should be clear and required. Baker stated that the next question staff wanted feedback on is who is responsible for verifying compliance with the standards. Zimmerman stated that if the minimum requirements are clear then staff can be responsible for compliance. Johnson asked about the exception process. Zimmerman said these standards would be in the Zoning Code so someone could potentially ask for a variance. Blum referred to St. Louis Parks' general guidelines language and said it ties things together in a way that shows the things that are "musts" and "shalls" and the other things that are encouraged. Baker said he would rather state what is required and what is optional. Blum said he is concerned that optional requirements become nothing. Brookins asked if there is a way to highlight the vision or the intent and then list the architectural standards that help achieve it. Baker asked about architectural standards in regard to additions on existing buildings. Zimmerman stated that during the discussion about materials standards they talked about requiring at least 90% of the facade having to conform to the new requirements. Baker said he would encourage staff to take the same approach with architectural standards. The Commission agreed. Johnson asked if there are prohibitions about a building being used as a sign itself. Zimmerman said the current sign code does have language prohibiting that. 5. Discussion— Mixed Use and Pedestrian Overlay Districts Zimmerman referred to the 2040 Comp Plan Land Use Plan and reminded the Commission that this plan calls for some new mixed use land use categories. These include both the Neighborhood and Community Mixed Use Sub-Districts. He noted that currently the only land in the City zoned Mixed Use is in the I-394 Corridor and that the 2040 Comp Plan talks about expanding the mixed use category and using it in other areas of the City. He referred to a map which shows the planning districts that are designated for mixed use and stated that these areas include certain nodes along Douglas Drive, the Light Rail Station Area, and the Downtown area, among others. He added that since the Planning Commission last reviewed the 2040 Comp Plan the Council decided that they want the former Optum site to be guided for mixed use so once the Met Council approves the 2040 Comp Plan the City will be amending the Land Use Map. Baker asked why that site was called out. Zimmerman stated that some proposals came forward that offered a mix of uses and not just an office use and the Council wants to have the opportunity to potentially allow residential uses on that site as well. Zimmerman referred to a map of the future mixed use sites and discussed the differences between the Neighborhood Mixed Use category which is smaller and more restrictive and the Community City of Golden Va{ley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6 Feb 25, 2019—7 pm Mixed Use category which is bigger and allows for more uses. He stated that the current Mixed Use Zoning District has three sub-districts that allow for different heights and intensity of uses along I-394. He referred to the TOD work that has been done and stated that those studies refer to simplified sub- districts that can be applied elsewhere in the City. He showed an example of a handout that could be created to address most of the requirements in these sub-districts. He stated that staff is going to continue working on the elements in the proposed new Mixed Use Zoning District and will come back to the Planning Commission with more specific details on what this district will look like. Zimmerman stated that in order to go along with the proposed new Mixed Use Zoning District and to encourage walking and activity, staff has been reviewing Pedestrian Overlay Districts. Goellner stated that many of the regulations of the Mixed Use Zoning District and a potential Pedestrian Overlay District would overlap. She explained that an overlay district is laid on top of a primary zoning district and that generally, the rules in an overlay district are what govern. She stated that an overlay district is a good tool to use for parcels that could experience redevelopment pressure, but are not zoned Mixed Use such as properties along the Golden Valley Road or pouglas Drive corridors. She stated that a Pedestrian Overlay District may also be helpful because they can require extra development standards and can help promote high-quality design, visual cohesiveness and attractiveness in a high-profile corridor. They can also help improve connectivity. She said she thinks the reason a Pedestrian Overlay District would be used, especially along bike/pedestrian/transit corridors, is to transition from a very suburban environment to a more urban character, but an urban character that the City is comfortable with. She referred to a map showing a potential Pedestrian Overlay District and said staff thinks it might work well in the area along Golden Valley Road between Hello Apartments and City Hall and then potentially over to Douglas Drive, over to Highway 100 (on Duluth Street) and then maybe in the future to the Light Rail Station. Goellner discussed reasons not to have a Pedestrian Overlay District. She stated that if the Overlay District includes entire corridors, it will include parcels that are single family homes or not under redevelopment pressure. An Overlay District would create non-conformities and if not adjacent to existing sidewalks, bike lanes, or high-frequency transit may be premature. She stated that they should also think about whether the City is ready to make a suburban to urban transition in such large corridors of if they should consider looking at nodes instead of entire corridors. Baker questioned if having a Pedestrian Overlay District would create more of an urban feel eventually. Goellner said she thinks it would and if they choose to reduce the front yard setbacks in entire corridors eventually it will feel more urban. Baker asked if that is the main thing an Overlay District would do. Zimmerman stated that height, entrance locations, sidewalk connections, drive- thrus, and parking lots are often regulated in Overlay Districts in order to keep the corridor pedestrian friendly. He said this why staff is questioning if it is appropriate to have an Overlay District for the entire length of the corridor or if it may be more appropriate just in certain areas. Blum asked about the effect on properties and how far into the properties the Overlay District would go on either side of the roadway. Zimmerman said an Overlay District could go any depth into a City of Golden Valley Planning Commissic�n Regular Meeting 7 Feb 25, 2019— 7 pm property. He said some Pedestrian Overlay Districts include the first 40 feet of the properties along it, and some Districts call for any property that is adjacent to it so it depends how much of the property a city wants to impact. Blum asked if differently zoned properties can be treated differently within an Overlay District. Zimmerman explained that the unique thing about an Overlay District is that the regulations apply to all of the underlying zoning districts equally which is why it may not be the best tool to use along a corridor where there are many different uses occurring. He said it may make more sense to put the relevant regulations in the Mixed Use Zoning District language rather than in an Overlay District. Baker said what appeals to him about a Pedestrian Overlay District is having a corridor that is really dedicated to bicyclists and is something that is dedicated, wide, and has a lot of people using it. Zimmerman said they need to think about what is within the public right-of-way and how much of it is buildings and other things outside of the right-of-way, and how those buildings interact with the corridor. Johnson asked if these plans could somehow include a north/south connection over Highway 55 at Winnetka Ave. or Rhode Island Ave. to the I-394 redevelopment area. Zimmerman stated that is identified as one of the areas of focus in the Downtown Study that will occur later this year. Baker suggested showing a connection along Golden Valley Road across Highway 100 to the Light Rail Station. Blum agreed. Brookins said his priorities would be first getting the nodes and having the right zoning there, second would be the way to get there,the transportation connections, and third making those corridors where they are connecting the transit better. Baker asked if a Pedestrian Overlay District could include within the existing right-of-way a divided path that has dedicated bike lanes and walking lanes. Zimmerman referred to the plans for the Bassett Creek Regional Trail on a section of Golden Valley Road which shows on street bike lanes and a separate off street bike trail/sidewalk on the south side which would connect the Light Rail Station to Douglas Drive. Baker said he doesn't think that is urbanization, he thinks that could increase the value of homes for people who want to have a bike path right out their front door. Goellner referred to the City's bike/pedestrian plan which is different from a Pedestrian Overlay District. She stated that the bike/pedestrian plan shows the facilities on the roadway. However, a Pedestrian Overlay District could potentially change front yard setbacks, or not allow parking in a front yard which would be more impactful so without the trail done yet on Golden Valley Road it may be too soon for the Overlay District. Baker suggested mapping out an incremental approach. Blum said they may then risk getting one consistent vision across a corridor. Zimmerman referred to several different maps that were used in determining the planning districts and discussed the various parcels/areas that may change sooner than later. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 8 Feb 25, 2019—7 pm Pockl asked to see some pictures of what some other Pedestrian Overlay Districts look like. Goellner said she would provide examples during future discussions. --Short Recess-- 6. Council Liaison Report Schmidgall gave an update on the last City Council meeting which included approval of the ordinance for firearm sales regulations. 7. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other meetings No reports were given. 8. Other Business No other business was discussed. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 pm. >� . �� ��--- �� � Ron Blum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant