Loading...
02-11-19 PC Agenda ;. H,, 7800 Golden Valley Road�Golden Vailey,MN 55427 � ''�� `,J �� 763-593-3992�TTY 763-593-3968�763-593-8109(fax)�www.goldenvalleymn.gov �:�o l den Planning Commission ��� Y � �� �'�` Feb 11,2019—7 pm Council Chambers R EG U LAR M E ETI N G AG E N DA Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road 1. Approval of Minutes January 28, 2019, Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Discussion—Architectural and Material Standards --Short Recess-- 3. Council Liaison Report 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other meetings 5. Other Business 6. Adjournment 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 inclutle large print,electronic, Braille,audiocassette,etc. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 28, 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, January 28, 2019. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Brookins, Johnson, Pockl, and Segelbaum. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and' Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes January 14, 2019, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 14, 2019, minutes as submitted. 2. Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Firearm Sales — ZO00-117 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the Zoning Code to regulate the sale of firearms Zimmerman stated that the Planning Commission has been asked to consider new zoning regulations for the sale of firearms and reminded the Commission that this item has been discussed at the August 15 and November 13 Council/Manager and the December 10 and January 14 Ptanning Commission meetings. Zimmerman explained that State law limits the ability of local municipalities to regulate firearms beyond State statute but cities can legislate the location of firearm sales and some site specific items within reason. He added that the regulations must be reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonarbitrary and that staff is recommending developing regulations that address the separation of firearm sales from other uses, the security of firearm sales buildings, and site requirements. Zimmerman referred to the current City Code and noted that firearm sales are prohibited as a home occupation but they are allowed in the Commercial Zoning District and are treated like any other retail sales use. He noted that in past discussions the Commission discussed shifting firearm sales to the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts in an effort to move the point of sale further away from concentrations of vulnerable populations. Zimmerman discussed some of the separation requirements of other metro area cities including: separation of sales from residentially zoned properties, schools, religious institutions, libraries, parks, governmental buildings, and community centers. He reminded the Commission that their discussions included having two tiers of separation. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 28, 2019 Page 2 Tier 1 which would require a greater distance between sales and places where vulnerable populations would most likely gather and Tier 2 which would require a lesser distance between firearm sales and residentially zoned properties. He added that the proposed new Code language would also require 1,000 feet of distance between any two firearm sales locations. Zimmerman showed the Commission maps that illustrated different tier 1 and tier 2 distance scenarios and said staff feels that the scenario showing a tier 1 distance of 1,000 feet and a tier 2 distance of 500 feet seems almost unreasonable, so staff is recommending using the scenario showing a tier 1 distance of 750 and a tier 2 distance of 375 feet because it seems more reasonable. Baker asked why staff feels that 1,000 foot buffer seems unreasonable. Zimmerman said there would only be a total of four or five locations left in the City for selling firearms if the larger buffer area was selected so a smaller buffer seemed more reasonable. Zimmerman discussed some additional restrictions that have been considered such as security and site requirements including where and how in the building firearms can be stored, the storage of ammunition, the requirements around alarm systems, limits on window displays, and limiting sales to a permanent building as opposed to trailers or other in-vehicle sales. Zimmerman highlighted some the proposed Zoning Code`text changes which include adding firearm sales and firing ranges as prohibited uses in the Commercial Zoning District, and adding firearm sales with the recommended distances from other uses in the Light Industrial Zoning District and Industrial Zoning District as restricted uses. Zimmerman noted that the current Zoning Code doesn't list many prohibited or restricted uses and explained the Zoning Code structure which lists principal uses that are permitted by right, accessory uses which are secondary uses permitted by right, restricted uses which are permitted by right, but must follow specific restrictions listed in the Zoning Code, conditional uses which are permitted uses but the City reviews them and retains the ability to establish conditions that mitigate impacts to neighboring properties, and prohibited uses which are uses that are not allowed. Baker asked for some examples of restricted uses. Zimmerman explained that a restricted use may limit the size of a use or distances from other uses such as a bar or restaurant. Segelbaum referred to the maps of the buffer areas and asked if an applicant would be able to ask for a variance from the buffer requirements. Zimmerman said no because variances are not allowed in regard to use. Pockl questioned if the sale of firearms should be specifically listed as a prohibited use in the residential zoning districts or if that wasn't necessary because of the proposed residential buffer areas. Zimmerman said he doesn't think that is necessary and that it was only called out in the Commercial Zoning District language because other retail sales are allowed in that zoning district. Segelbaum asked if that would be the same for firing ranges because those would only be allowed as a recreational use in certain zoning districts. Zimmerman agreed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 28, 2019 Page 3 Baker questioned how to make it clear that firearm uses aren't allowed in the Institutional Zoning Districts and used a school that wanted to do trap shooting as an example. Zimmerman stated that there are other sections of the City Code that deal with the discharge of firearms. Johnson asked about firearm service in additional to sales. Zimmerman said the word "service" could be added anywhere the word "sales" is used. Baker opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Segelbaum questioned if more prohibited uses should be listed in the Light lndustrial and Industrial Zoning Districts unless staff thinks there is a loophole in t'he language. Baker suggested that issue be reviewed with the City Attorney. Baker asked the Commissioners how they felt about using scenario 6 which is a 750- foot tier 1 buffer and a 375-foot tier 2 buffer. Johnson referred to the map and said there would be approximately seven areas where firearms could be sold and in a couple of those areas it is highly unlikely so he thinks they should be sensitive to what properties and businesses are in those areas. Baker noted that there are approximately 11 properties. Baker referred to scenario 5 which shows a 1,000-foot tier 1 buffer and 500-foot tier 2 buffer and said there would be five or six properties available properties with this scenario. Zimmerman noted that two or three properties shown is this scenario might be owned by LubeTech and probably won't change for some time. Segelbaum referred to the State Statute and said he thinks thus far they've been nonarbitrary and nondiscriminatory, but he is not sure how "reasonable" is defined. Baker stated that an extreme view of reasonable would be that as long as there is one location for firearm sales it is reasonable and that allowing none would be unreasonable. Segelbaum noted that the City Council will also be examining what is reasonable. He asked Zimmerman about the City Attorney's opinion. Zimmerman stated that there isn't a lot of clarity around what is reasonable and that the City should be able to defend the rationale behind what is adopted and base its definition of reasonable on something rather than arbitrarily picking numbers. Blum said he thinks any of the scenarios they've been discussing allow for multiple properties where firearm sales could locate and that none of the maps are overly restrictive. He said he thinks they've given their basis for reasonableness which are on record from their prior two meetings and that the staff report also summarizes a lot of those reasons. Zimmerman asked the Commissioners if any of them feel that any of the scenarios shown aren't reasonable. Segelbaum said scenario 2 (500 feet/250 feet) is the least restrictive and is not reasonable when he considers the areas they are trying to protect. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 28, 2019 Page 4 He said scenario 5 (1,000 feet/500 feet) and scenario 6 (750 feet/375 feet) seem more reasonable. Blum agreed and said the more restrictive scenarios are more likely to accomplish their goals and still be reasonable. Johnson agreed. Pockl said she agrees more with the scenarios that are more restrictive. She said she thinks they've done a good job of being nondiscriminatory and nonarbitrary and have described how they've gotten to the point of making a decision as to the populations and areas they want to protect. She said there is a good amount of space shown on the maps in scenarios 5 and 6 that would allow for firearm sales which is another indication of reasonableness. Brookins said he agrees that scenario 6 (750 feet/375 feet) does a nice job of protecting , the populations they've discussed while still allowing the sale of firearms. Baker summarized that he feels that the Commission would like to state that they support all of the recommendations made by staff and that they have a'slight differing of opinion between scenarios 5 and 6. Johnson suggested that they take a vote regarding preference between all three proposed scenarios. Baker said he would like it noted that all of the Commissioners find scenario 6 acceptable. Segelbaum suggested voting on if the Commissioners find each scenario reasonable. Baker asked the Commissioners if scenario 2 (500 feet/250 feet) is reasonable. Commissioner Johnson said yes. Baker asked the Commissioners if scenario 6 (750 feet/375 feet) is reasonable. All of the Commissioners (Baker, Blum, Brookins, Johnson, Pockl, and Segelbaum) said yes. Baker asked the Commissioners if scenario 5 (1,000 feet/500 feet) is reasonable. Commissioners Baker, Blum, Pockl, and Segelbaum said yes. Commissioners Brookins and Johnson said no. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of staff's proposed Zoning Code language that regulates the sale of firearms and adopt staff's findings for reasons as to why the recommendations are nondiscriminatory, nonarbitrary, and reasonable including the vote above taken by the Commission. Brookins noted that the words "or service" should be added anywhere "sales" is mentioned. Blum questioned if the word "firearm" should be defined. Baker suggested that question be referred to the City Attorney. --Short Recess-- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman stated that architectural and materials standards will be discussed at the next two Planning Commission meetings. He stated that future discussions will include Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 28, 2019 Page 5 pedestrian overlay districts starting with Douglas Drive, creating tables of uses in each zoning district, and re-vamping the Mixed Use Zoning District. 4. Other Business • Council Liaison Report Councilmember Schmidgall gave an update on the last City Council meeting where the Fire Department recognized a resident for saving the life of a co-worker using an AED machine. Segelbaum questioned if the City requires businesses of a certain size to have AEDs. Schmidgall reported that there are three or four more years left in the Pavement Management Program and stated that the City Council approved an architectu`ral contract to improve the Council Chambers. He reminded the Commissioners about the Joint Board/Commission meeting on January 29 and U'nder Pressure Brewery's grand opening on February 1. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 pm. Ron Blum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant �.;���� ���` �; �r: ��� �� � ��� � . ��� ,, � � � �'h sic�l ��evel�a �.n.ent �+� ��trn.en�k Y � �` 7b3-5�93-8035/7+�3-593-8'1t�9{��x} Date: February 11, 2019 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Material Standards Discussion Summary Planning staff has been directed to research the guidelines of comparable cities that regulate exterior building materials and provide architectural standards in their zoning codes. These standards are usually adopted in order to establish minimum acceptable levels of design or to ensure a minimum level of quality in materials. Depending on feedback from the Planning Commission and the City Council, amendments to the City's Zoning Code may be recommended for targeted zoning districts. Background The Planning Commission was presented with a summary of this topic in July of 2018 and was generally supportive of moving forward with the development of architectural and material standards. Staff has prepared this memo on material standards; a memo on architectural standards is forthcoming. The type and amount of various exterior materials used in construction may be regulated through zoning. The current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District requires exterior walls to be faced with "glass, exterior cement plaster (stucco), natural stone, brick, architectural concrete, non- corrugated metal, or an equivalent or better." At least 20 percent of the fa�ade facing a primary street must be faced with Kasota stone or other indigenous dolomitic limestone, and up to 15 percent of the exterior wall surface may be wood, metal, EIFS, or other equivalent materials. (Sec. 113-97 (k)(5)) Generally, codes that utilize material class systems break down building materials into different categories—often categorized as Class I, Class II, Class III, etc., with Class I containing the highest quality materials. Regulations dictate what types of materials (by class) are required or prohibited on a fa�ade and may also include minimum (or maximum) percentages of specific classes. These percentages may be altered for different zoning districts to meet the desired aesthetic quality. 1 Through conversations with other cities regarding their standards, it is important to note that material standards should focus primarily on material aesthetics rather than the durability and the structural nature of materials as this moves from a zoning code concern to a building code issue. Research In 2018, staff gathered information from the codes of 15 neighboring cities. 13 of these cities utilize material standards with varying levels of detail. Previous discussion with the Planning Commission resulted in staff being asked to provide more information about the zoning codes that use material class systems so that similar regulations could be considered for Golden Valley. Below is a summary of five of the most detailed material class systems and two others that use material lists: Brooklyn Center All four sides of commercial buildings must have at least 50% Class I materials* Class I Brick or acceptable brick-type material Marble, granite, other natural stone or acceptable natural looking stone Textured cement stucco Copper Porcelain Glass Architectural textured concrete pre-cast panels Other materials including masonry units with enhanced detailing such as patterns, textures, color, dimension, banding, and brick inlay as approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council Class II Exposed aggregate concrete panels Burnished concrete block Integral colored split face (rock face) and exposed aggregate concrete block Cast-in-place concrete Artificial stucco (E.I.F.S., Drivit) Artificial stone Fiber-reinforced cement board siding with a minimum thickness of% inch Canvas or vinyl awnings Prefinished metal Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council Brooklyn Park Office, service, and retail buildings must have at least 65% Class I on all sides visible from public rights-of-way and must use two types of materials Industrial and warehouse buildings must have at least 65% Class on the front fa�ade and at least 50% Class I on the side and read facades visible from public rights-of-way 2 Class I Brick Natural or cementitious stone Glass, or other glazing materials Masonry stucco Architectural metal panels Specialty concrete block (including textured, burnished block or rock faced block) Architecturally textured concrete precast panels Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or as recommended by the Planning Commission Class II Industrial grade concrete precast panels Wood Tile (masonry, stone or clay), ceramic Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or as recommended by the Planning Commission EFIS in conformance with the ICC ES report Roseville No less than Brick 60% Natural or cultured stone Pre-colored, factory stained, or stained-on-site textured precast concrete panels Textured concrete block Stucco Glass Fiberglass Similar materials No more than Pre-finished metal 40% Cor-ten steel Copper Premium grade wood with mitered outside corners (e.g., cedar, redwood, and fir) Fiber cement board St. louis Park For each building face visible from off the site, need at least 60% Class I, no more than 10% Class III.* Class I* Brick Marble Granite or other natural stone Textured cement stucco Copper Porcelain Glass Class II Exposed aggregate concrete panels Burnished concrete block 3 Integral colored split face (rock face) and exposed aggregate concrete block Cast-in-place concrete Artificial stucco (E.I.F.S., Drivit) Artificial stone Fiber reinforced cement board siding with a minimum thickness of% inch Prefinished metal Class III Unpainted or surface painted concrete block (scored or unscored) Unpainted or surface painted plain or ribbed concrete panels Unfinished or surface painted metal Woodbury Class I Conventional brick, nominal four-inch width Natural or cultured stone Glass Copper Class II Specialty concrete block such as textured, burnished block or rock faced block Architecturally precast textured concrete or brick panels Masonry stucco Ceramic Class III Exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS) Opaque panels Ornamental metal Fiber-cement exterior siding Thin brick veneer Class IV Smooth concrete block Smooth scored concrete block Smooth concrete tip up panels Glass block Wood Coon Rapids No more than 35% of any one material on a fa�ade visible from the public right-of-way (commercial and institutional uses); no more than 65%for industrial uses Exterior Building Brick or similar custom masonry unit having brick like appearance Materials* Natural or cementitious stone Architectural glass (i.e., curtain wall) Architectural, single skin roll formed profiles metal panel, minimum 22 gauge Masonry stucco, or EFIS in conformance with ICC ES report Integrally colored split face (rock face), burnished or glazed concrete masonry units 4 Integrally colored architecturally precast concrete panels having an exposed aggregate, light sandblast, acid etch, form liner, natural stone veneer, brick face and/or cast stone type finish (excluding single-T or double-T panels, plain, uncolored, or raked finish) Plymouth Exterior Building Brick Finishes* Natural stone Integral colored split face (rock face) concrete block Cast in place concrete or pre-cast concrete panels Wood, provided the surfaces are finished for exterior use or wood of proven exterior durability is used, such as cedar, redwood, or cypress Curtain wall panels of steel, fiberglass and aluminum (nonstructural, non- load bearing), provided such panels are factory fabricated and finished with a durable non-fade surface and their fasteners are of a corrosion resistant design Glass curtain wall panels Stucco Vinyl Other materials determined as acceptable by the Zoning Administrator *Various exceptions and additional regulations exist for different zoning districts In order to help the Commission visualize how the Class percentages translate to facades, Staff has prepared exhibits of three building elevation plans in St. Louis Park along with the completed structures. These images will be displayed at the meeting. The Commission previously considered if material standards should address green or recycled materials. This topic is included as a goal in the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the Environmental Commission will be working to develop green infrastructure design standards which will include recommendations for sustainable construction practices. Discussion Questions The Planning Commission has already indicated it believes Golden Valley should use a material class system. There was consensus at the previous meeting that it should initially be applied to commercial, office, industrial, and multi-family uses, but not to single family homes or duplexes in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. Institutional zoning districts were not discussed specifically. A number of questions remain for discussion before zoning text language can be drafted: • How many classes should be used? • Which materials should be included in each class? • What are the minimum and maximum percentages required for each class? • Should these percentages vary depending on type of fa�ade (front/rear/side, visible from public right-of-way)? • Should these percentages vary depending on zoning district? 5 • How should additions to existing (non-conforming) buildings be handled? Staff Recommendations While area municipalities have adopted a wide variety of zoning regulations regarding all aspects of materials, staff has attempted to sift through the many options and is proposing the following requirements as a starting point for consideration: Golden Valley Class I Brick Natural stone Glass Copper Porcelain Masonry/textured cement stucco Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or as recommended by the Planning Commission Class II Specialty concrete block Architecturally textured concrete precast panels Artificial stone Artificial stucco (E.I.F.S., Drivit) Fiber reinforced cement board siding Prefinished metal Cast-in-place concrete Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or as recommended by the Planning Commission Class III Unpainted or surface painted concrete block Unpainted or surface painted plain or ribbed concrete panels Unfinished or surface painted metal Wood Glass block Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or as recommended by the Planning Commission Prohibited Sand lime brick Concrete brick Unfinished structural clay tile Unfinished sheet metal Exposed unfinished concrete Elevations shall consist of at least 60% Class I, no more than 10% Class III for: Medium Density Residential (R-3), High Density Residential (R-4), Commercial, Office, Institutional, Mixed Use • Fa�ades not visible from the public right-of-way: reduce Class I minimum to 50% 6 Elevations shall consist of at least 50% Class I, no more than 20% Class III for: Light Industrial, Industrial • Fa�ades not visible from the public right-of-way: reduce Class I minimum to 40% Every fa�ade must use a minimum of two types of Class I materials. Any building additions or expansions must consist of at least 90% Class I materials until the minimum Class I percentage requirement has been met. Action Requested Staff would like feedback on the proposed material standards so that draft language for a zoning text amendment can be prepared for a future public hearing. Attachments Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of July 9, 2018 (5 pages) 7 Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2018 gular meeting of the Planning Co mission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Co ' Chambers, 7800 Golden Vall Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, July 9, . Chair Baker called the eting to order at 7 pm. Those present w lanning Commi ioners Angell, Baker, , Blum, Brookins, Johnson, and Segelb . Also prese was Planning ger Jason Zimmerman, Planning Intern Amy Mor , and Ad inistrative ant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Pockl was absent. � 1. Approval of Minutes June 11, 2018, Regula annin Co ission Meeting Blum referred to the � sentence o age four� '`� asked that the word "electric" be removed. He als sked that collect , restored, an onstructed vehicles be added to the list of thi that are "not allowed to be stored in a f� ard rather than saying that they "ma " stored in a front yard. M D by Segelbaum, seconded b Brookins and motion carried 5 �` approve the ne 11, 2018, minutes with the abo noted corrections. Baker abstaine� voting. 2. Discussion — Material and Architectural Standards Zimmerman stated that the Physical Development Director, City Manager, and City Council are interested in exploring the possibility of adding material and architectural standards to the Zoning Code. � Baker questioned the issue trying to be fixed. Zimmerman stated that generally, there have been few problems and that developers typically want to build high quality buildings. The concern is builders who might not want to do that so the City is considering regulating and overseeing materials and architectural standards. Zimmerman explained that development is typically subject to up to three types of aesthetic controls. The first is site design, which regulates where site elements such as structures, access points, parking, and landscaping can be located on a property. The second type of aesthetic control is architectural standards which usually dictate building elements that must me included, or prohibited in the design of new buildings, such as variations in wall depth, the presence of windows, doors, massing, and screening. The third type of aesthetic control is regulating the type and amount of various exterior materials used in construction. Baker referred to the research regarding other cities' requirements and stated that no cities appear to have material or architectural standards in their single family residential zoning districts. Zimmerman said he does not know of any cities that have regulations in their single family zoning districts. He stated that staff is looking for feedback from the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2018 Page 2 Commission if this is something they'd like the City to regulate and a sense of what is practical. Blum stated that since he has been on the Planning Commission he has heard residents say that they want variety. He said he doesn't want to decide what is good or bad, but he does want variety, not sameness in the R-1 Zoning District. Morgan stated that the majority of surrounding cities have some sort of architectural standards and that some have massing standards which dictate architectural design elements such as height, building articulations, rhythm of openings, etc. She added that cities primarily look at the quality of materials and that they need to be something quantifiable and not subjective. She explained that cities typically break down building materials into different categories, often categorized as Class I, Class II, and Class III materials. Class I is the highest quality such as brick and stone and Class III is the lowest quality. Segelbaum asked if the classes are based on durability or aesthetics. Morgan stated that the classes are based on both. She noted that some cities state what they won't allow rather than listing everything they do allow and a lot of cities require different percentages by zoning district. She reiterated that the question is if the City wants to regulate by using materials or massing standards and if there should be a list of materials the City wants people to use, or if it should be regulated by zoning district. She suggested starting small and developing the sfandards over time. Segelbaum questioned if people have been able to get around the standards. Morgan noted that most cities have a discretionary phrase in their codes that grant exceptions or allow other suitable materials. Blum said he likes Brooklyn Park's language that states "Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or as recommended by the Planning Commission." Segelbaum questioned how grandfathering in existing buildings would work. Zimmerman stated that the City could have regulations that would apply to any new buildings or additions, but not to existing buildings. Morgan added that the language in the existing I- 394 Mixed Use Zoning District requires buildings to be brought up to code if they are making changes that affect more than 500 square feet or 10% of gross floor area of the building. Blum said he likes the idea of requiring buildings to be brought up to code in a fair and reasonable way by a certain date even if that date is far in the future, because then a building wouldn't be left as-is or non-compliant forever. Zimmerman stated that this would require a sunset provision be added to the code language. Angell stated that Brooklyn Center uses the materials class system in different areas as they redevelop and it works very well. He added that he would like to see the City require Class I materials and a variety of styles. Zimmerman showed the Commissioners some photos of different buildings that used a variety of materials and different architectural styles. The Commissioners discussed what the liked and didn't like about the photos. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2018 Page 3 Blum asked if there would be similar requirements for signage and if there would be requirements regarding the screening air conditioning vents. Baker said he doesn't want to eliminate the ability to provide affordable housing. Blum questioned if the same quality of building materials should be used on all sides of a building and not just on the front facade. Zimmerman stated that requiring the same quality of building materials on all sides of a building usually depends on the activities occurring such as a loading dock area on an industrial building. Blum questioned if landscaping requirements are a part of this discussion. Zimmerman stated that Golden Valley has a section of Code regarding landscaping and noted that some cities require more landscaping than others. Blum asked if burying utilities would be addressed because he would like to see that as a requirement in every zoning district. Segelbaum said he thinks requiring power lines to be buried in the Commercial zoning district makes sense, but he doesn't think the City should make the developer of one new house bury the power lines. Baker said he thinks any proposed requirements should use fewer, precise words and not get too prescriptive. Blum suggested having design rules that create diversity but don't restrict development from happening. Brookins questioned if the materials they received at the recent TOD meeting could be used. Zimmerman said that could be used along with the language that already exists in the Zoning Code for the Mixed Use Zoning District. Baker asked about addressing sustainable energy, energy efficiency, and the use of recycled materials. Zimmerman stated that many of those types of items are addressed in other sections of the City Code and in the Building Code, but any new Zoning Code language could help to incentivize the use of recycled materials and energy efficiency. Blum asked about the City of St. Paul's requirements regarding carbon-neutral buildings. Baker said he'd like Golden Valley to do that as well. Segelbaum said he would like to be in the middle of the most restrictive cities and the lease restrictive cities. He stated that the information they received at the TOD presentation seems to be the future and he would like to start by applying some of those regulations then get into recycled materials, etc. because he doesn't want the City to legislate itself out of development. Johnson questioned if they are looking at the right things and said Golden Valley is a fully developed city. He said the City should have a lowest common denominator and be on the same wave length as other cities but he feels it is hypocritical to tell companies what do and if energy efficiency is the route the City wants to take they should be looking at the whole city, including residential and not just commercial buildings. Blum agreed and said Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 9, 2018 Page 4 the requirements should be thoughtful and reasonable and look at diversity rather than more prescriptive methods. Baker said the consensus seems to be that the Planning Commission is willing to embrace some of the standards from all three of the types of aesthetic controls Zimmerman discussed. He said he would also like to include residential properties in the discussion. Zimmerman stated that discussion seemed more about energy efficiencies and less about aesthetics. Baker reiterated that he would like to see some sustainability language added. Blum said he would like to see a carbon-neutral deadline date even if it is way out in the future. Black questioned if it is economically efficient to make every house sustainable. Baker said that they could look at certain features in the residential zoning districts that move the City toward energy efficiency. Brookins said he thinks the Mixed Use area should be the first area addressed since there are already some regulations in that district. He added that he is less inclined to do anything in the residential zoning districts. Johnson suggested looking at what has built within the last five years and how they would fit in with the recommended standards. Brookins said he would recommend grandfathering in every property until it gets redeveloped. Black questioned if these standards are required for minor changes or remodels if the City would be de-incentivizing developers. Segelbaum said people want to do developments in Golden Valley and that there should be some requirements regarding materials and architecture. Reports on Meeti s of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of oning Appeals and other Meetings No re rts were given. 4. Oth usiness Zimmerman re ' ded e Co sioners about the Downtown Study kick-off on July 18. • Council Liais eport No report w iven. 5. journment e meeting was adjo ' ned at 8:25' .