Loading...
02-11-19 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2019 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, February 11, 2019. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Brookins, Johnson, Pockl, and Segelb�um. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes January 28, 2019, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Pockl, seconded by Brookins and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 28, 2019, minutes as submitted. 2. Discussion Item —Architectural and Material Standards Zimmerman stated that the Planning Commission has been asked to consider new zoning regulations related to architectural and material standards for buildings. He reminded the Commissioners that they discussed this issue at their July 9, 2018, meeting and explained that this discussion will focus on material standards and that a future discussion will focus on architectural standards. Zimmerman noted that the consensus of the Commission at their previous discussion was to utilize a material class system, require minimums and maximums of various classes, and to address most zoning districts but not single family homes or duplexes. He stated that staff reviewed zoning codes from 15 cities for ideas regarding material standards. Zimmerman showed the Commission examples of elevation plans that noted all the various materials used on a building. He explained that if material standards are required, plans would be notated to show the percentage of the various classes of materials proposed and they would also have a list of all the materials proposed so it would be easy for staff to review and determine if the plans meet the City's requirements. Zimmerman stated that he would like the Commission's feedback on the following: how many material classes should be used, which materials should be included in each class, the minimum and maximum percentages required for each class, if the percentages should vary depending on the type of fa�ade (front, rear, side, visible from public right-of- way), if the percentages should vary depending on zoning district, and how additions to existing (non-conforming) buildings should be handled. Zimmerman stated that after their research staff feels a three class system seems to work best. He discussed examples of materials in each proposed class and some of the proposed prohibited materials. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2019 Page 2 Zimmerman explained that for the R-3, R-4, Commercial, Office, Institutional, and Mixed Use Zoning Districts staff is proposing the following percentages be used for facades visible from the public right-of-way: at least 60% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials. For facades not visible from the public right-of-way at least 50% Class I and no more than 10% Class III materials. In the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts staff is proposing at least 50% Class I materials and no more than 20% Class I I I materials for facades that are visible from the public right-of-way and at least 40% Class I materials and no more than 20% Class III materials for facades that are not visible from the public right-of-way. Zimmerman stated that staff is also proposing that every fa�ade must use a minimum of finro types of Class I materials and that for additions/expansions any new elevation must consist of at least 90% Class I materials until the minimum Class I percentage requirement has been met. He questioned if the City should set a threshold for work/renovation at which the building must come into complete compliance. He added that the materials proposed are very similar with what other west metro cities are requiring. Blum said it would be helpful to know what each of the materials referenced on the class lists looks like. Zimmerman said he would bring photos showing the various materials to their next discussion. Segelbaum asked if any recent new construction projects in the City would not have met the proposed material percentage standards. Zimmerman said it is hard to tell from the plans submitted because the materials and the percentages aren't listed. Johnson asked Zimmerman if he thinks recent new construction projects may be close to the mark or if they are way off. Zimmerman reiterated that it is really difficult to calculate without knowing the percentages of the various materials used. He said he would guess that mostly Class II materials have been used in recent projects. Pockl asked if there has been any discussion about cities trying to apply these standards retroactively. Zimmerman said no and that it would be hard to enforce unless a significant amount of work is being done to a building. Baker asked about the age of the buildings in the I-394 district and if they are holding up well. Zimmerman stated that the buildings on the west side of that area are from the 1950s-1960s and that how they are holding up depends on how well they've been maintained. He noted that many of them are industrial buildings so the standards and quality of materials aren't quite as high, but other buildings in that area have a good mix of materials. Segelbaum questioned if other cities have allowed deviation from the material requirements through the PUD process or a variance process. Zimmerman said he doesn't know if other cities have allowed deviation from the standards but that the material standards would be part of the Zoning Code so someone could potentially ask for a variance. He said he thinks most people would argue against material standards on the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2019 Page 3 basis of cost which is not one of the factors considered when granting variances. He added that material standards should also be considered carefully because if they are overly restrictive it could discourage investment. Baker asked about carbon-neutral buildings as mentioned in the minutes from their last discussion. Zimmerman stated that the Environmental Commission is going to be working on a green building guide. Baker asked if the timing of the Environmental Commissions' work is such that it could be included in this materials standards discussion. Zimmerman said the Environmental Commission isn't working on a green building guide yet but it is in their work plan. Pockl referred to the proposed prohibited materials and asked if those materials are currently prohibited. Zimmerman said some of the prohibited materials are mentioned in the International Property Maintenance Code that the City uses. Pockl asked if other cities codes list prohibited materials. Zimmerman said a few of the ones he researched did. Johnson asked what "public right-of-way" means and said he questions why money should be spent on a farade for something that faces an alley or a forest for example. Zimmerman said it means what can be viewed from the street. He stated that most cities' codes focus on having a high quality, nicer view from the street and aren't as concerned about facades that face things like a loading dock, parking lot, or back side of another building, etc. Baker said he questions the life span of a typical building and at what rate the visibility of it changes so he wants to be cautious about not including all four sides of building when considering materials because land use changes and what might be a forest today might in 30 years be a park. Baker suggested the Commission go through the discussion questions suggested by staff. He stated that the first question is how many material classes should be used. He noted that staff is suggesting three classes of materials and that he thinks that is reasonable. Blum said if the Class I materials list is smaller it gives the City the option to really "up the bar" aesthetically in certain areas or districts it wants to highlight rather than putting so many materials in one class. He said that if there are more classes there are more options to designate certain areas as "only the highest of high quality aesthetic materials." Baker referred to the proposed list of Class I materials and asked Commissioner Blum if there are any examples listed that he thinks should be in Class II instead. Blum said stucco jumped out at him. Segelbaum said he thinks if the materials listed in the proposed Class I list aren't all equal then they should be separated out. Baker suggested creating an additional class between the proposed Class I and Class II materials list. Zimmerman said he thinks looking at more examples will help. Pockl agreed that it would be helpful to be more educated on what these materials are. She asked if there is ever a concern about the cost of materials and said that if they create a Class I list of significantly more expensive materials they might be setting some people Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2019 Page 4 up for failure by never being able to present something to the City that is cost effective for them but is something the City might consider aesthetically pleasing. Zimmerman said staff can do more research regarding the cost of some of the proposed materials, but he suggested not deviating too much from what surrounding cities have done so there isn't a clear advantage for developers choosing another city over Golden Valley. Baker referred to the next question asked in the staff report regarding the minimum and maximum percentages required for each class. He reviewed what staff is recommending and noted that the percentages would change if they add another class of materials. Segelbaum said he thinks they would want to require Class I materials (in the 60 percent required) ta be used in the City's highest visibility areas, but he thinks a mix of Class I and II materials could be used in areas they still want to look nice. He said he doesn't know if he wants to group Class II and III together except for maybe in Light Industrial and Industrial areas. Blum agreed and said that he doesn't think the R-Z Zoning District should be left out of the requirements. Zimmerman suggested specifying by type of structure such as duplex or townhome instead of saying R-2 because there could be a PUD project for example that has townhomes or duplexes in it. Baker stated that the next question to be addressed is if the percentages should vary . depending on the type of fa�ade (front, rear, side, visible from public right-of-way). He said he thinks the requirements should apply to all four sides because you never know how things will change. Pockl said she agrees to an extent but that might make construction cost prohibitive. Zimmerman noted that in his recommendations he was thinking of loading dock areas, etc., where you wouldn't want to use Class I materials. Segelbaum said he agrees that the percentage of the Class I and II materials required should be dropped a little bit on those facades. Baker agreed. Johnson said that seems onerous and he doesn't see why the Class I and II materials requirement can't be dropped to 50 percent on areas no one will see. Segelbaum added that he doesn't want these requirements to price Golden Valley out of other nearby cities. Pockl suggested adding a clause that says in the event a large part of the building becomes visible, the building would have to be brought into conformance by a certain period of time. Baker said that might be a disincentive to people. Segelbaum said that might also be something that is out of a property owner's control. Baker stated that the next question from the staff report is if the percentages should vary depending on zoning district. Segelbaum said requiring 50 percent of Class I materials in the Industrial Zoning District seems high. Brookins suggested including Class I and II materials in the Industrial districts and also address the proposed new Class II better with additional, less costly materials. Blum asked if there is any value in making a distinction on whether an industrial property borders a residential district. Zimmerman said yes and noted that some cities' codes address adjacent zoning districts. He added that some cities also allow enhanced landscaping bonuses in exchange for different classes of materials. Segelbaum said he fears they will be pushing away development. Baker suggested allowing one type/class of materials to be used in the Industrial Zoning District. Blum said he would like to keep fin►o types because it is more appealing to have different materials but he agrees that they don't need to be as restrictive in the industrial zoning districts. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 11, 2019 Page 5 Baker referred to the next question in the staff report regarding how additions to existing (non-conforming) buildings should be handled. He stated that he like's staff recommendation that states any building additions or expansions must consist of at least 90 percent Class I materials until the minimum Class I percentage requirement has been met. Segelbaum suggested that the requirements apply if the exterior of an existing building is modified. Johnson suggested that if the City requires someone to upgrade their whole building they could then use a lower class material. Johnson said he would like to change the word "or" to "and" in the sentence in the materials lists that says "Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager "or" as recommended by the Planning Commission." Zimmerman said he is hoping to avoid having every project reviewed by the Planning Commission. Zimmerman said that he is considering bringing new materials or projects that propose something other than what is on the materials lists to the Planning Commission for review. --Short Recess-- � 3. Other Business • Council Liaison Report Schmidgall referred to the recent strategic planning meeting and joint board and commission meeting and said he appreciates the Planning Commissions help. Schmidgall said he is happy that material standards are being discussed because currently only the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District has standards so he is looking forward to the results. 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were discussed. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm. a� rr�� � r��� t �� �✓ .� '�°� � � �._, , _ �'�o B�um;� Secretary Lisa man, Administrative Assistant