Loading...
08-12-19 PC Minutes 7800 Golden Vailey Road�Golden Valley,MN 55427 ` ���J ��l 763-593-3992�TTY 763-593-3968(763-593-8109(fax)�www.goldenvalleymn.gov ����en �._ v� � � �� Planning Cammission ��� August 12,2019—7 pm Council Chambers REG U LAR M E ETI NG M I N UTES Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Blum Roll Call Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Ari Prohofsky, Ryan Sadeghi, and Chuck Segelbaum Commissioners absent: Adam Brookins Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Planning Intern Emily Anderson, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman Council Liaison present: Steve Schmidgall Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Pockl, seconded by Baker to approve the agenda of August 12, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes MOTION made by Pockl, seconded by Johnson to approve the July 22, 2019, minutes as submitted and the motion carried. Commissioner Baker abstained. Public Hearing—Mixed Use Zoning District Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider amending the existing I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District language Zimmerman gave some background information about the current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. He stated that the changes to this district which the Commission has been discussing over the past four months were suggested in the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan as a way to take some of the same development principles in the current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District and apply them elsewhere in the City. Zimmerman referred to the proposed new Zoning Code language and said he would like to review the purpose statement, the descriptions of the proposed three subdistricts, the building setbacks and height regulations, uses, and other development standards. Zimmerman reviewed the proposed purpose statement and each of the proposed subdistricts which include the Neighborhood Subdistrict, the Community Subdistrict, and the Employment Subdistrict. 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. Crty of Goit�en V�Iley �lanning Corr�rnissinn �egular {��ieetir�g Z August 12, 2019— 7 pm Zimmerman next reviewed the principles used when considering building setbacks and height regulations. He stated that the main focus was to require buildings to be located close to the front lot line and to push surface parking to the rear of a lot,to avoid canyon-like streetscapes by stepping back the fronts of buildings along streets, to establish a minimum and a maximum height of buildings to help provide a pedestrian-friendly environment, and to reduce the potential impact of building height on adjacent single family homes by limiting the number of stories within a certain distance of abutting properties. Zimmerman stated that the next area their discussions focused on was impervious surface coverage and open space. He stated that the proposed code language allows additional impervious coverage as a way to support increased density in the mixed use areas, but it prioritizes building coverage over surface parking. He said the Code also requires useable outdoor spaces to be included in mixed use developments, and it encourages larger, coordinated open space amenities within mixed use areas. Zimmerman stated that the last area their discussions focused on was uses and other development standards. He explained that in the proposed code language multiple uses within a single parcel or building are encouraged, home occupations are allowed, and some uses are restricted by having limits placed on gross square footage and the number of surface parking spaces allowed. He added that the Employment Subdistrict includes Light Industrial uses which could be manufacturing uses, R&D, makerspaces, and warehouses. Zimmerman said the outstanding questions/items for discussion include: whether there should be a minimum,height exemption for small buildings, whether drive-thrus should be conditional or restricted uses, if gasoline sales and auto repair should be allowed in the Employment Subdistrict, if Child Care as an accessory use should be allowed in the Employment Subdistrict, a definition of"makerspaces," and right-of-way obstruction permits for awning/canopies over sidewalks. Segelbaum asked Zimmerman if he is looking for feedback regarding "height" or "number of stories." Zimmerman said the consensus in past discussions was not to consider stories but to require all buildings to be a minimum of 26 feet in height. He said there is currently an exemption in the Code that allows buildings 5,000 square feet or less in size in the Neighborhood Subdistrict to be less than 26 feet in height. Baker questioned if the exemption should apply to the square footage of the lot and not the square footage of the building. Zimmerman said the current language in the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District says that buildings 5,000 square feet or less in size are exempt. He said the concern is creating a sufficient pedestrian supportive environment if there are one-story buildings. Segelbaum asked if the 5,000 square feet refers to the building itself, gross floor space, or finished floor space. Zimmerman said the language is just 5,000 square feet but he assumes that means gross floor space. Johnson said any of the Mixed Use properties could have buildings that were four stories and it would seem way out of proportion to have a smaller building. He added that taking the exemption out might encourage a group of properties to be developed together as opposed to one at a time with a single building that might be out of proportion. City r�� C�csid�r� il��l�� F'f�rin�ng Cc�mrr�is�iar7 ��gu�ar {Vf�etin� 3 August 12, 2Q19—7 pm Pockl questioned how the minimum height exemption issue was raised and if other cities allow for similar minimum height exemption for small buildings. Zimmerman said he believed it came about with the creation of the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District because there are a lot of existing buildings that the City wanted to accommodate and not make nonconforming. Baker asked if the exemption would encourage the retention small buildings. Zimmerman said potentially it could and that without allowing the exemption they may be more encouraged to have something above the first story of a smaller building. Segelbaum said in most cases buildings match the lot size and developers don't typically build a small building on a large lot so it seems likely that they don't need to change the exemption based on lot size. Sadeghi said he thinks having the exemption would make sense if there are opportunities for smaller single story businesses, restaurants, etc. if they are able to make it work. Blum questioned if that is a trade-off with the goals of walkability and the style of the district and if allowing a smaller building surrounded by cars and pavement would be the opposite of what they've been trying to design. He added that changes can be made in the future if the City isn't seeing the appropriate development. Segelbaum asked if the height of a building is measured at the front. Zimmerman said yes, height is measured at the front facade. Segelbaum proposed that buildings less than 5,000 square feet have to be 20 feet in height rather than 26 feet. Johnson asked what the height requirement would be if it didn't have to be 26 feet. Zimmerman said it varies between 12 and 20 feet. Johnson said he wants to avoid having a small building surrounded by tall buildings. Zimmerman reiterated that the existing I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District and the current proposed Mixed Use Zoning District language has the height exemption in it. Johnson proposed that the exemption language be taken out of the Code so that all buildings are required to be 26 feet in height and to handle exceptions as they come. The consensus of the Commission was to remove the exemption language. Zimmerman said the next question staff would like feedback on is drive-thrus. He stated that currently a Conditional Use Permit is required for drive-thrus in all zoning districts. He referred to the proposed language regarding drive-thrus in the Mixed Use Zoning District which states that drive-thru facilities and lanes shall be located behind the principal structure, queuing lanes shall not interfere with pedestrian circulation, and canopies and other structures shall be constructed from the same materials as the principal structure. He explained that the options are to have these be the guiding rules or to require drive-thrus to go through the review and approval process for a Conditional Use Permit. Baker asked about the pros and cons of the two options. Zimmerman said that he has had feedback that drive-thrus seem so straightforward that it is burdensome to have to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval. Zimmerman said he would recommend that drive-thrus are a restricted use which would still require site plan review. Segelbaum said people have very strong opinions about drive-thrus and he thinks it would be helpful to the City Council to have the review process so he suggests they be left as a conditional use. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4 August 12, 2019— 7 pm Johnson questioned how parking and drive-thru lanes could both be located behind a building without interfering with pedestrian circulation. Zimmerman agreed that the site design will have to make sure queuing lanes are set up so that they don't cross main walkways. Zimmerman asked the Commissioners for their feedback regarding gasoline sales and auto repair in the Employment Subdistrict. Pockl asked if those uses would be subject to the 26-foot height requirement. Zimmerman said as the Code is currently written they would have to be 26 feet in height. Pockl referred to setbacks for gasoline stations and asked if they are measured from the pumps or from the building. Zimmerman said they are measured from the building and that it seems to imply that it may be challenging to have this use in this district. Baker said it doesn't seem like this district is suitable for gasoline sales or auto repair uses. Blum agreed. Zimmerman next asked the Commissioners about allowing child care as an accessory use to a larger office building, or as a stand-alone child care business in the Employment Subdistrict. He explained that the proposed new Mixed Use District language would allow child care as an accessory use along with a business, but not as a stand-alone child care business. The Commissioners agreed that stand-alone child care businesses should also be allowed in the Mixed Use District. Zimmerman next referred to "makerspaces" and explained that the TOD consultants have discussed allowing them in the Employment Subdistrict. He explained that "makerspaces" are collaborative spaces where people can share tools, equipment, ideas, etc. that tend to be in light industrial areas. He said if the Commission likes the idea of allowing "makerspaces" staff can work on developing a clear definition and requirements. Blum asked if"makerspaces" are really so different that they need to be separate and called out in the Code. Zimmerman said that they are unusual and new and doesn't fit nicely with any of the existing use categories so it felt like it was worth calling out and defining. Baker asked where in the Zoning Code "makerspaces" would be located. Zimmerman said there would be a definition and they would be allowed in the Light Industrial Zoning District as well as the Employment Subdistrict in the Mixed Use District. Segelbaum said it is fine to encourage "makerspaces" but he doesn't think it needs to be specially carved out in the Zoning Code. The Commissioners agreed. Zimmerman said the last question he wanted feedback about is allowing canopies and awnings in the front of buildings over sidewalks, and if they would require a right-of-way obstruction permit. Baker said he doesn't think canopies and awnings on a public sidewalk are very inviting. Segelbaum asked if there are requirements such as height, etc. Zimmerman said yes, and noted that currently the Zoning Code requires 10 feet of height. He added that ultimately the City would have the ability to not grant a permit. Sadeghi said awnings feel urban and allowing those types of features would improve walkability. City af Galden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 5 August 12, 2019— 7 pm Zimmerman said that the next step will be to bring this proposed Zoning Code language to the City Council with an effective date set in the future to allow time for property rezonings to take place. He explained that there will also be other necessary code changes such as amending the architectural and materials standards section and the sign regulations to include this new Zoning District. Blum opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment Blum closed the public hearing. Johnson asked to see the Future Land Use map and asked Zimmerman to point out all of the locations that would be Mixed Use. Zimmerman referred to the map and discussed each location. Johnson asked if language encouraging public art could be added. Zimmerman said yes and noted that there is language regarding public art in the existing I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District that could remain in the proposed new language. MOTION made by Baker, seconded by Johnson to recommend approval of replacing the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District with a new Mixed Use Zoning District and the motion carried unanimously. Discussion—Zoning Study Anderson reviewed the goals of the Zoning Study which include updating uses, making the Zoning Code easier to understand, aligning with other peer cities, making sure all of the uses are reflected in the minimum parking requirements, and consider having restricted uses in the Code. Anderson referred to manufactured homes and stated that they would be considered a single family dwelling according to the Zoning Code. She explained that the City is required by law to allow manufactured homes as long as they conform to local zoning and building codes and that state law allows requires manufactured home parks to be a conditional use in any zoning district that allows the construction or placement of a building used or intended to be used by two or more families. She added that as a result of this study, manufactured home parks will be added as a conditional use in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 Zoning Districts. Anderson stated that there are some required changes to the Zoning Code including adding community centers as a use in the Institutional Zoning District, and amending the R-3 Zoning District to allow 20 units per acre for multifamily dwellings and 30 units per acre for senior housing as required by the Met Council in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update. Anderson stated that there are a number of uses to consider adding to the Zoning Code and that staff would like the Commissioners feedback on some them. The first use to consider is adding bed and breakfasts as a conditional use in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. Segelbaum said he would have been against allowing bed and breakfasts but considering that so many other cites allow them, maybe they should consider it. Blum said he is against it because it invites a business presence into a single family neighborhood and it doesn't feel like it fits. C�ty c?f Ca�c��r� '�afle� �larrr�ing "�������issic�� �����G r ��I��ting � August 12, 2019—7 pm Johnson asked about the definition of a bed and breakfast and how it compares to an Airbnb. Baker said people aren't given breakfast and don't have a host in an Airbnb whereas there are multiple rooms and a host serving breakfast in a bed and breakfast. Johnson asked if the issues are traffic and unknown people coming in and out. Baker said they might want to consider eliminating both uses. Johnson asked if there are current rules for Airbnbs. Zimmerman said they are currently allowed and that the City Council has discussed Airbnbs in the past. He explained that the challenge with outlawing them is that it is hard to catch people doing it, it is hard to enforce, and cities can end up spending more money and time with enforcement than with the problem they are trying to solve. Segelbaum proposed that bed and breakfasts be left out of the Code. The Commissioners agreed. Anderson said the next topic for consideration is adding row homes and/or townhomes as a permitted or conditional use in the R-2 Zoning District. Segelbaum asked Anderson what is permitted because he thought townhomes were allowed in R-2. Zimmerman stated that the current R-2 Zoning District language allows single family homes or twin homes, but it doesn't allow more than two units to be connected. He explained that there would need to be discussion about how many units would be allowed, setbacks, height, lot coverage, etc. Baker said he knows they are trying to reduce the number of Conditional Use Permits, but this seems like the perfect use for a Conditional Use Permit rather than a restricted use by right. Segelbaum said they've worked hard at zoning the R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts, and to him this is real expansion of the R-2 Zoning District, especially since they are directly abutting R-1 in many cases. Anderson said staff could provide a map showing where the R-2 districts are located and what they are abutting. Pockl asked if the only difference with R-1 and R-2 is that R-2 allows two family dwellings. Zimmerman said that is correct. She asked if there has ever been any consideration of taking away two family dwellings, and if the duplex language could be replaced with townhomes. Segelbaum said a townhome by definition would include a duplex. Pockl said she feels the look and aesthetic is different between townhomes and duplexes. Baker said the use of the word townhome or row home does not limit it to two units. Zimmerman said allowing townhomes and/or row homes would be a way of having something that is less dense than an apartment building. He referred to the north half of Douglas Drive where it is guided for R-2 and where the Planning Commission has said they may like to allow this type of use. Johnson asked if allowing townhomes or row homes would help with the City's affordable housing goals. Zimmerman said the cost varies but it would provide more housing options for the missing middle between single family homes and apartments. Segelbaum said he is willing to consider allowing more townhomes and/or row homes, but he is concerned about permitting more duplexes by doing that. Sadeghi said he thinks there are just a handful of properties where this sort of development would make sense and if they are allowed as a Conditional Use he would be in favor of including them. City of Golden Valley Planning Camrr7ission Regular Meeting 7 August 12, 2019—7 pm Anderson said the next item for consideration is adding bowling alley as a permitted use in the Commercial Zoning District. She explained that there are parking requirements for bowling allies but they are not listed in the tand uses so it should either be added as a use or removed from the parking requirements. She added that a larger topic in the Zoning Study is the listing of every use allowed in the Commercial Zoning District and whether more general statements should be used instead that allows different retail uses. Zimmerman added that many cities use more general categories and only call out the uses that require a Conditional Use Permit or some other special consideration. Baker asked about only listing what is prohibited. Zimmerman said it gets difficult to list every single use that is allowed or prohibited. Baker suggested staff bring the Commission some examples. Anderson said the next item to consider is adding hotels/motels as a permitted use in the Light Industrial and Office Zoning Districts. She stated that currently they are allowed in the Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts. She added that staff would also like feedback on whether hotel/motel should be kept as a permitted use in the Industrial Zoning District. She referred to a chart showing what other cities allow in regard to hotels and motels. Segelbaum said it makes sense to study it further. The Commissioners agreed. Johnson asked if hotels/motels would be allowed in the Mixed Use District. Zimmerman said they would be allowed in the Community and Employment Subdistricts. Anderson referred to several uses listed in the Zoning Code and asked for feedback about whether or not they should be removed. These uses included removing hotel/motel and vending machines from the Industrial Zoning District, and removing comfort stations, vending machines, marine engine repair, pool hall, and messenger/telegraph services from the Commercial Zoning District Pockl asked if pool halls could be included in the indoor commercial recreation use. Zimmerman said it is a question of whether they need to be specifically called out. Segelbaum said he thinks there will be more and more use of vending services such as laundry services or red box, etc. Pockl asked if vending machines are defined. Anderson said vending machines are not defined in the Code. Zimmerman said there is a better way to define vending machines to include services and to also find a way to simplify things and remove redundancies. Anderson said staff would like feedback about using the term indoor recreational facilities as a way of covering a wide variety of uses. Pockl asked if a game room is considered Industrial. Zimmerman referred to a few existing uses in the City and said indoor recreational facilities could include uses such as escape rooms, lasertag, trampoline parks, etc. Baker said given the trend of these types of recreational uses, leaving the definition wide open makes him nervous. Zimmerman said the challenge is finding a way to allow these types of uses but still having some discretion and a way to control the impacts. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 8 August 12, 2d19— 7 pm Blum asked if these uses would fit into another category like a gym. Zimmerman said these uses are more of an entertainment activity and don't really fit it with a gym or health club use which is more of a physical activity. Baker said he is inclined to leave these uses as conditional uses so that there is a review process. Zimmerman said staff can bring back a list of types of these kinds of uses. Anderson said the next steps are to update the Code based on the feedback from the Planning Commission, bring new changes to the Planning Commission for consideration, revise the Code and compile a list of changes, and hold public hearings. --Short Recess-- Council Liaison Report Council Member Schmidgall updated the Commission on a recent open house held at Brookview to discuss changes to the Tobacco ordinance. He stated that at the next Council/Manager meeting they will be discussing the Council Chambers remodeling project, they will be looking at the goals they established at the beginning of the year to see where they are at, and they will be looking at the budget. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other meetings Zimmerman reported on a walking audit he and Commissioner Johnson recently attended. Other Business No other business was discussed. Adjournment MOTION made by Pockl, seconded by Johnson and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:51 pm. \n( ` am Brookins, Secre ary Vvl L Wittman, Administrative Assistant