Loading...
04-22-19 PC Minutes 7800 Golden Valley Road�Golden Valley,MN 55427 � .. _� 763-593-3992�TTY 763-593-3968�763-593-8109(fax)�www.goldenvalieymn.gov ,� t���� �l . . . �alle Planning Cammission � Apr 22,2019—7 pm Council Chambers REGULAR MEETING MINUTES GoldenValleyCityHall 7800 Golden Valley Road 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, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner Council Liaison present: Steve Schmidgall Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Brookins to approve the agenda of April 22, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried. Approval of Minutes April 8, 2019, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOTION made by Brookins, seconded by Segelbaum to approve the April 8, 2019, minutes as submitted and the motion carried. Public Hearing Applicant: Paul and Jessica Anderson Address: 1345 Natchez Avenue South Purpose: Lot Consolidation to join 1345 Natchez Ave S with a vacant parcel of land to the north Goellner referred to a location map of the subject properties and explained the applicant's proposal to consolidate 1345 Natchez Avenue South with vacant land to the north which is excess land from MnDOT highway construction. She noted that the excess land is not wide enough to be buildable on its own and that the existing single family home would remain. Goellner stated that the remnant land used to be a larger parcel with a house on it in the 1970s and that MnDOT purchased it along with others along Wayzata Blvd. in order to expand the freeway. Goellner explained that the lot, after consolidation, will meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. It will be more than 10,000 square feet in area and it will have more than 100 feet of width at the front yard setback line along both Wayzata Blvd. and Natchez Avenue. She stated that it is a goal of the City Council to return excess land to the tax roll so this is the best option for this property rather than to grant the necessary variances to make the remnant parcel buildable on its own. This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette,etc. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 2 Apr 22, 2019—7 pm She stated that because the proposal meets all of the conditions listed in the City Code for approval staff is recommending approval. Segelbaum said he remembers past discussions about this intersection and the ability to merge onto the service lane in this area on the south side of I-394. Goellner referred to a map of the area and discussed the addition of a stop sign and a turn lane at the Wayzata Blvd./TH 100 intersection as part of the Central Park West Development. Segelbaum asked if the City watches that area and if there are concerns about the owners of this property maintaining visibility. Goellner said the site lines and speeds on Wayzata Blvd. were discussed during the Central Park West development process in 2015. Since then, the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan has shown a multi-use off-street trail on the south side of the roadway and that part of this lot consolidation proposal includes enough right-of-way in order to build that trail. She added that corner visibility would come into play if the property owner ever wanted to build closer to the north corner of the lot. Segelbaum asked about the width of the right-of-way for the trail. Goellner said it is 20 ft. from the curb. Baker asked if driveways would be allowed on Wayzata Blvd. Goellner said that there aren't strict code requirements regarding driveway access on Wayzata Blvd. so it would have to be determined at the time of the design of a proposed driveway. Johnson asked if the lot could be subdivided in the future. Goellner said no because there would not be enough lot width along Natchez Ave. S. Baker asked if the City is conveying or selling the property to the applicant. Goellner said the City is transferring the property to the applicant for one dollar and that the applicant has paid for all of the costs for preparing it for sale. Baker referred to the staff report and noted that it said the applicant is not planning any additions. He asked what "additions" means. Goellner stated that the proposed lot consolidation will create a larger buildable area but that the applicants aren't planning to utilize it at this time. Paul Anderson, 1345 Natchez Avenue South, said he'd answer any questions. Segelbaum asked Anderson if he intends to keep the site line open looking east. Anderson said there is a slight curve to the east and that there is no restriction of the site lines. He said the hardest site line is to the west where there is also a lot of acceleration from the stop sign. He added that they plan to build a fence and plant some shrubs to help with freeway noise. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Segelbaum, seconded by Pockl to recommend approval of a Lot Consolidation to join 1345 Natchez Ave S with a vacant parcel of land to the north and the motion carried unanimously. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 3 Apr 22, 2019—7 pm Public Hearing Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: Zoning Code Text Amendment to consider adding architectural and material standards to the Zoning Code Zimmerman reminded the Commission that they have discussed this item several times over the past few months and now staff has prepared new Zoning Code text language for consideration. Zimmerman reviewed the proposed language which will be a new section of the Zoning Code and will include a purpose statement, general standards that apply to all zoning districts, specific regulations that apply to the R-3, R-4, Commercial, Office, Institutional, Light Industrial, and Industrial zoning districts, and a section that applies to building additions and expansions. Zimmerman referred to the proposed purpose statement which addresses the following goals: development and redevelopment is 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. Zimmerman reviewed the proposed language for the general standards section which include both architectural and materials standards. He stated per the Planning Commission's last discussion stucco was moved down from the Class I materials list to the Class II materials list. Zimmerman next reviewed the proposed language for architectural and material standards in the specific zoning districts. He showed the Commission several photos of different architectural techniques and materials. He stated per the Planning Commission's last discussion that the percentage of Class I materials required on front facades and side and rear facades visible from the public right-of-way was reduced from 60%to 50%. Zimmerman showed the Commission examples of how some of the more recently constructed buildings would have met these proposed new standards. Johnson referred to the percentages required on various facades and asked about the intent of the proposed new language, where the proposed percentages came from and what they are trying to accomplish. Zimmerman stated that discussions started with considering a higher class of materials only on front facades and that 60%was chosen initially because that is similar to what adjoining communities require. He explained that during the discussions it was determined that for facades that aren't as visible from the public realm it isn't as important so the percentages were reduced. He added that much of the proposed language came from the existing language in the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. Baker referred to the language about windows and transparency and asked how the code deals with windows that aren't completely transparent. Zimmerman stated that the proposed language says windows shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and out of buildings. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4 Apr 22, 2019—7 pm Blum said he thought they had discussed the value of any pedestrian walkway being substantially next to a transparent facade. Zimmerman said there was some more complicated language included in past discussions that focused on mixed use areas which also calculated the length of a wall as well as the area of required transparency. He stated that in order to simplify the language that was taken out. Blum said there could be a massing of glass (30%) along one part of a building on a street facade and the rest of building could be brick or a different material. He said he was imagining that the entire length of a ground floor would be transparent. Zimmerman agreed that the transparency could be concentrated in one area and said they could require transparency every so many feet. Baker said it would then be less likely to get an area of solid window. Brookins said he doesn't have concerns about the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts because developers will actively try to work to bring light into the units. He said he is comfortable with the currently proposed language. Blum agreed with that in regard to residential uses, but he would like to see more transparency required on a ground level of a commercial type of use. Zimmerman said language could be added to state that a minimum of 60% of the length of a front facade has to have windows in it, or there can be only so many feet of a facade before a window is required. Brookins noted that the proposed language doesn't yet include requirements for the Mixed Use Zoning District so he feels comfortable with the proposed language as it is but adding additional language about the amount of transparency required to the Mixed Use Zoning District when it is considered in the future. Pockl noted that the architectural standards have a pedestrian appeal requirement and asked if there is a way to make that same requirement in regard to materials. She asked if the proposals would come before the Planning Commission for review. Zimmerman said proposals that are by right would not have to seek any additional approvals. Blum said it would be worth noting that the language about the length of facades and window requirements was dropped from the final proposed language. Zimmerman agreed and said staff could offer some additional language to the City Council. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Segelbaum said he thinks the proposed code language reflects the Commission's intent. The Commissioners agreed. Johnson asked if there is a section of the code that grandfathers properties where this language doesn't apply. Zimmerman said there is a section of code dealing with non-conforming properties. Brookins asked how this language would apply to PUDs. Zimmerman said it wouldn't be treated any differently than any other regulation in the Zoning Code. MOTION made by Brookins, seconded by Blum to recommend approval of adding Section 113-157. - Architectural and Material standards to the Zoning Code and the motion carried unanimously. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 5 Apr 22, 2d19— 7 pm Discussion— Mixed Use Zoning District Zimmerman reminded the Commission that they have had previous discussions about the existing I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District language and how it's turned out to be complicated and hasn't been getting the product and results the City hoped it would. He referred to the work done by Transit Oriented Development (TOD) consultants in the summer of 2018 and stated that staff has now taken that work and combined it with discussions the Commission has had to begin to create new Mixed Use Zoning District language. Zimmerman said he would like to focus on setback and height issues at this meeting and discuss other areas of the proposed new language at future meetings. Zimmerman referred to the proposed new code language and reviewed the purpose and goals of the Mixed Use Zoning District. Blum referred to principle F in the purpose statement that reads "fostering neighborhood-serving retail and services" and suggested that adding the word "uses" might be broader and encompass more. He also suggested another principle be added that talks about transition between this district and other districts. Zimmerman said the issue of transition will be in the language regarding setbacks, etc. Blum said part of the purpose section is to highlight positive parts of why this exists and signals that it is important. Goellner added that the locations that will be zoned Mixed Use are highly visible areas of the City. Zimmerman referred to the proposed building and site standards section and explained the language regarding minimum fa�ade buildout. Segelbaum asked about the objective this language is trying to achieve. Zimmerman said it deals with having a continuous facade and not having too many breaks or large gaps. Baker asked about the role of the secondary front yard language. Zimmerman said it is a way to wrap the front facade around the building and extend it some depth into the lot and helps to force parking behind a building. Brookins asked if the practicality of the proposed language has been tested on any existing properties. Zimmerman said no. Baker said he would rather require more trees and say that parking has to be behind buildings and require larger setbacks rather than using percentages like in the proposed language. Goellner said she would like to review this language more and figure out how it would work in the City's Mixed Use areas. Goellner referred to the proposed building height section and stated that the consultants are recommending a maximum height of four stories for the neighborhood mixed use, six stories for the community mixed use and a stepback provision that requires upper stores to be set back 15 feet from the facade of the story below. Baker asked what the goal is in stepping a building back. Zimmerman said it is to allow for sunlight and to prevent the streets from becoming to canyon like. Goellner said most residential buildings are six stories height due to construction costs. Baker said he doesn't understand why there are different stepback requirements for the different subdistricts. Zimmerman said it has to do with the massing of the buildings and being compatible with the surroundings. Baker referred to the TOD draft code language and said he likes how it describes each of the different subdistricts. City af Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6 Apr 22, 2019—7 pm Blum said he dislikes adding excessive descriptive language because the code should be simplified and easy for people to read. He suggested using annotation or notes at the end that are more descriptive. Baker said that if the whole code is based around the three subdistricts they should be described. Goellner discussed more of the proposed height requirements and said she thinks that it is important to focus on the number of stories and to have a maximum height listed. Baker asked about having minimum height requirements. Zimmerman said he is not sure how important it is to require two stories and that the market might somewhat dictate that. Blum said he thinks they should say upfront that they want buildings in these area to be a certain height in order to provide flexibility and a variety of uses. Goellner said they don't want to preclude one story retail or restaurants. Baker asked if an area with taller buildings is considered to be more walkable. Zimmerman said there is some data about what feels comfortable in terms of the proportions of width of streets to heights of buildings alongside them. He said more height also means more density and more activity. Baker said if that is the case then he would support requiring a minimum of two stories. Segelbaum said he wants to encourage restaurants and walk up retail and if the code is too difficult and the costs are too high the City won't get them. Zimmerman referred the facade types section of the proposed code and explained that buildings fall into three types of facades: storefront, common entry, and stoop. He said he is not sure that this section needs to be included or if it is overly complicated. Goellner said she thinks the language about stoops should be considered. Baker said language about canopies and overhangs should be further studied. Zimmerman referred to the uses section of the proposed code and stated that some of the language about live-work units has been retained from the existing code. He said staff is working on simplifying the language and comparing this type of use to a home occupation. Pockl asked if there is data about how many live-work spaces there are in the City. Zimmerman said there are a fair amount of home occupations but they are not allowed in the R-3 or R-4 Zoning Districts. Blum said live-work units seem to minimize the walkability and human interactions. Zimmerman said he envisions using some of the home occupation restrictions in the live-work unit code language. Goellner referred to some preliminary ideas regarding setbacks and height. She stated that the TOD consultants suggest a front setback of 0 to 10 feet in all cases because this is the most important for sidewalks and the pedestrian environment. She said the recommendation for the side setbacks would be around 5 to 10 feet with a larger setback for properties abutting R-1 and R-2. The height recommendation is 4 to 6 stories with a stepback requirement. The Commissioners discussed various front setbacks and how they would look and work with cars, bikes, pedestrians, etc. Johnson questioned if a combination of no parking and wide sidewalks would encourage cars to speed, which would not create a pedestrian friendly environment. Zimmerman said staff would further study the front setback numbers. Goellner referred to the TOD consultants recommendations for side and rear setbacks and stated that they are recommending a 1 or 6 feet minimum side setback in subdistrict A and 0 or 6 feet minimum side setback for subdistricts B and C. A 3-foot minimum rear setback is recommended in all subdistricts. Zimmerman noted that parking setbacks would be different. Segelbaum said he would like to see small City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 7 Apr 22, 2019— 7 pm side and rear setbacks because it is more economical and will help obtain the goals of this district. Baker questioned if they should consider encouraging walkability around all sides of a building. Goellner said there has been discussion about having smaller setbacks in the downtown area specifically. Zimmerman referred to the rear yard setback requirement and stated that the recommended 3-foot setback might be too small depending on the purpose of the setback. If the setback is for plantings or buffering 3 feet might be too small. Goellner said dumpsters are also an important consideration and most of them are stored in side or rear yards. Blum said he would like to take all storage out of side yards. Zimmerman said they will discuss lot coverage, open space, uses, development standards, parking, pedestrian circulation, and drive-thrus at future Planning Commission meetings. --Short Recess-- Council Liaison Report Schmidgall updated the Commission on the most recent City Council meeting, including the approval on second consideration of a code addition to handle Micromobility Sharing Operations and an update on work being proposed for DeCola Ponds A, B, and C. He also reported on the discussions that took place regarding Waste Collection and the Downtown Study that occurred at the April Council/Manager meeting. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other meetings No reports were given. Other Business No other business was discussed. Adjournment MOTION made by Segelbaum, seconded by Brookins and the otion arried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 pm. j 6 :' , � 'c' < ;,YI�---�" R um, Secretary 1�a Li Wittman, Administrative Assistant