Loading...
05-13-19 PC Agenda REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes April 22, 2019, Regular Planning Commission Meeting 4. Discussion – Mixed Use Zoning District --Short Recess-- 5. Annual Commission Orientation 6. Election of Officers 7. Council Liaison Report 8. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other meetings 9. Other Business 10. Adjournment May 13, 2019 – 7 pm Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road 7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley,MN 55427 0 Q Of 763-593-3992(TTY 763-593-3968 1763-593-8109(fax)I www.goldenvalleymn.gov so Iden 1� Salle Planning Commission y Apr 22,2019—7 pm REGULAR MEETING MINUTES GCouncil Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 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 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 1-394. 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 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 11 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 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, 2019—7 pm Discussion— Mixed Use Zoning District Zimmerman reminded the Commission that they have had previous discussions about the existing 1-394 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 facade 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 of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 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. 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 side and rear setbacks because it is more economical and will help obtain the goals of this district. Baker City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Apr 22, 2019— 7 pm 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 motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 pm. Ron Blum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant city 0� goldenlV,Vvw#� MEMORANDUM Vaey Physical Development Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: May 13, 2019 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Emily Goellner, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Subject: Mixed Use Zoning District Discussion Summary Since the previous discussion with the Planning Commission on April 22, 2019, staff has updated the new version of the Mixed Use Zoning District, which blends elements from the transit- oriented development (TOD) zoning consultant work with the existing 1-394 Mixed Use District language. The document is attached and it will be reviewed and discussed at the meeting. Sections of text in blue are topics that need additional discussion with the Planning Commission. Changes from Previous Discussion Numerous revisions were made to the draft code language following the discussion in April. Staff will briefly describe these in more detail at the meeting: • Addition of descriptions of each of the three subdistricts • Removal of the Minimum Fagade Buildout concept • Removal of Fagade Types and replacement with general Fagade requirements • Modification of Live-work Units to Home Occupations • Revision of setbacks in front, side, and rear yards, and for parking and storage Staff would like to have an additional conversation with the Planning Commission about the descriptions of the three subdistricts in order to be better able to draft the new regulations. Impervious Surface, Building/Lot Coverage, and Open Space Zoning codes typically limit the amount of impervious surface and building coverage on a lot in order to reduce environmental impacts and improve the aesthetic quality of the area. Urban areas have much more impervious surface than rural areas. Suburban areas fall somewhere in between. The impervious surface and building/lot coverage limits in the Golden Valley Zoning Code range from 25%to 90%. Developing a comprehensive scheme for impervious surface limits across all districts will be completed by staff at a future date. In the meantime, staff suggests 1 finding a limit that is appropriate for the Mixed Use District. Currently, the limit is 65%, but if the mixed use development occurs within a PUD, the limit is 90%. The TOD consultants have recommended a 90% limit for subdistricts A and B and an 80% limit for subdistrict C. Staff sees 80% as a reasonable compromise, but would like to discuss this at the meeting. The Mixed Use Zoning District should have higher impervious surface limits than residential districts, which range from 50%to 60%. This is because the front yard will be reduced or eliminated in the Mixed Use District in order to promote walkability and focus human activity on the street, right of way, sidewalks, trails, and "the public realm" in general (rather than privately owned front yard space typical of other zoning districts). However, the goal is also to blend urban and suburban characteristics and designs together to find the right balance for properties in Golden Valley, which is slowly transitioning to an urban character along transit lines and bikeways. While the Mixed Use District aims to limit surface parking, setting the impervious surface limit too low could make projects unfeasible if height limits are too low. We want to avoid writing regulations that make it difficult or impossible to see the kinds of projects that promote walkability and human activity. Impervious surface is not necessarily an impediment to good design. Therefore, staff is recommending that this District also include a minimum outdoor space requirement. This outdoor space wouldn't necessary have to be completely pervious, but it would have to be designed for outdoor recreation and gathering. A plaza is a good example of outdoor public space that enhances the pedestrian environment. The City of St. Louis Park requires a minimum of 12% Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA). It is "intended for passive or active recreation accessible and suited to the needs of residents and/or employees. The area shall be functional and aesthetic, designed with clear edges, relate to the principal building or buildings, include sidewalk connections, seating, landscaping, and other amenities. The area should be compatible with or enlarge existing pedestrian links and public parks or open space and may include swimming pools, tot lots, courtyards, plazas, picnic areas, and trails within natural areas. Outdoor recreational areas shall not include driveways, parking areas, steep slopes, or ponds designed solely for stormwater retention." The TOD consultants recommend allowing three types of open space (see attached), but staff is interested in discussing this with the Planning Commission. At the meeting, staff would like to discuss the pros and cons of a DORA-like requirement vs. requiring that an owner build 1 of the 3 types of open spaces in each project. Existing Regulations Zoning District Impervious Lot Coverage Max. Open Space Minimum Surface Max. R-3 60% 40% R-4 60% 45% 2 Commercial None Listed 50% Light Industrial 50% Industrial 50% Institutional 25% Office 40% + extra 20%for parking structure Mixed Use 65% On lots over 1 acre, minimum 15% Uses in a Planned Unit Development Impervious Surface Max. Townhomes 40% Apartments/Condos 42% Institutional 45% Industrial 70% Office 80% Commercial 90% Mixed Use 90% Uses Uses in the new Mixed Use subdistricts fall into one of the following categories: P Permitted R Permitted subject to restrictions C Allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit N Not permitted Staff attempted to align the new code with the uses allowed under the current code, but also worked to simplify the associated requirements. Subdistrict A—This Neighborhood scale subdistrict allows residential uses and home occupations (with some restrictions). Institutional uses, such as places of worship, schools, etc., are limited by the amount of associated surface parking. The size of offices is restricted. Many commercial uses are permitted but some have restrictions. Gasoline sales, automotive repair, self-storage, and outdoor storage are all not permitted in this subdistrict. Subdistrict B—This Community scale subdistrict is similar to Subdistrict A but gasoline sales and automotive repair are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. Larger retail and office uses are allowed here, as are hotels. Subdistrict C—This version of a Community scale subdistrict is focused on employment and therefore does not include residential uses. However, many light industrial uses are allowed as well as warehouses with a Conditional Use Permit. 3 Staff Request Staff is looking for feedback around the following questions: 1. Can the descriptions/definitions of the three subdistricts be refined to better represent the vision of the Commissioners and to allow for more targeted regulations? 2. What adjustments should be made to the proposed impervious surface, lot coverage, and open space requirements? 3. What adjustments should be made to the proposed district uses? Next Steps Staff will continue to revise the draft zoning text based on discussion and feedback and will raise additional questions regarding Mixed Use requirements at the May 29 Planning Commission meeting. Staff is bringing the current draft text to the City Council at the Council/Manager meeting on May 14 in order to receive feedback prior to holding public hearings on the zoning text amendment in June or July. Attachments DRAFT Mixed Use Zoning District (12 pages) Planning Commission Minutes, April 8, 2019 (2 pages) 4 DRAFT 5-13-19 Sec. 113-97. - Mixed Use Zoning District. 1. Purpose The purpose of the Mixed Use Zoning District is to implement the following principles: A. Implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. B. Enable appropriate locations within the City to evolve towards a diverse mix of compatible uses. C. Maximize integration rather than separation of uses. D. Improve connectivity for all modes of transportation. E. Provide a context suitable for high-frequency transit. F. Foster neighborhood-serving retail and service uses. The district includes specific standards for building form, height, bulk, and placement in order to encourage development that enhances walkability,frames the public realm, and seamlessly transitions to adjacent development. 2. District Established Properties must be developed in the manner provided for in Section 113-29.The district and/or any subsequent changes to it shall be reflected in the Official Zoning Map of the City as provided in Section 113-56. 3. Subdistricts Subdistricts of the Mixed Use Zoning District reflect the character of the surrounding areas and support the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Subdistrict A—This subdistrict includes a mix of uses including medium-density residential and neighborhood-serving commercial, office, and institutional uses at a scale compatible with the surrounding neighborhood they are intended to serve, which is typically a small, moderate, or medium scale.These areas allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use and do not require a mix of uses within every building. Subdistrict B—This subdistrict includes a mix of uses including high-density residential, commercial, office, and institutional uses that serve the local market area and support the community.These areas include freestanding businesses, shopping areas, employment centers, and housing that promotes community orientation and scale. Envisioned as compact urban development areas that serve as a gateway to the city and as an activity center for the community, these areas allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use and do not require a mix of uses within every building. Subdistrict C—This subdistrict is similar to Subdistrict B, but the focus is on employment in a variety of settings, including light industrial uses. No residential uses are allowed in these areas. 4. Building and Site Standards A. Front Yards. i. Building fagades must be located within the minimum and maximum front yard setbacks. ii. If there is more than one front yard, staff will determine the assignment of the primary and secondary front yards. B. Building Height. L Building height in each of the Subdistricts reflects the policies of the Comprehensive Plan as follows: 1 DRAFT 5-13-19 Subdistrict Type Max Stories Max Height Subdistrict A Neighborhood 4 62 Subdistrict B Community 6 90 Subdistrict C Community 6 90 ii. Buildings occupying 5,000 square feet or more must be at least two stories in height.A one- story wing or section of a taller building may be permitted if it comprises no more than 25 percent of the length of the fagade. iii. Building stepback requirements for upper stories shall be 15 feet from the facade of the story below. iv. Stories are measured as follows: a. Stories are measured from finished floor to finished ceiling. b. Stories above the ground floor are limited to 14 feet in height. c. Ground floor height is subject to the following requirements: 1) Ground floor height must be no less than 12 feet. 2) Ground floor height is limited to 20 feet, above which it counts as an additional story. d. The following projections are exempt from building height restrictions: 1) Chimneys 2) Spires 3) Domes 4) Elevator shafts and stair housings 5) Antennae 6) Vents 7) Flag poles C. Facades. i. Building entries must be provided along street frontages as follows: a. The primary building entrance must be located along a street frontage. b. One entry must be provided for every 80 feet of building fagade. Where a building fronts onto two or more streets, the facade of a secondary front yard under 50 feet in length is exempt from the entry requirement. c. Building entries may be recessed from the fagade up to six feet in depth ii. Encroachments are permitted as follows: a. Underground parking within the front yard setback provided the structure is not visible from the sidewalk. b. Roof overhangs, cornices,window and door surrounds, and other fagade decorations may encroach up to two feet into the front yard setback. c. Canopies and awnings may encroach into the public right-of-way to within two feet of the curb. A minimum clearance of 10 feet above the sidewalk is required. d. Storefront display windows may project into the front yard setback no more than five feet and not beyond the property line e. Balconies, bay windows, and bow windows may encroach into the front yard setback up to three feet. S. Uses A. Multiple uses within a single parcel or building are encouraged. 2 DRAFT 5-13-19 B. Home Occupations.The use of a dwelling for an occupation or profession shall be allowed for units that have direct access to the public right-of-way, subject to the following requirements: i. The business of the home occupation must be conducted by a person who resides in the dwelling unit. The business shall not employ more than two workers on-site at any one time who live outside of the unit. ii. A home occupation shall not result in noise, fumes, traffic, lights, odor, excessive sewage or water use or garbage service, electrical, radio, or TV interference in a manner detrimental to the health, safety, enjoyment, and general welfare of the surrounding area. iii. The business component may include offices, small service establishments, home crafts which are typically considered accessory to a dwelling unit, or limited retailing associated with fine arts, crafts,or personal services. It may not include a commercial food service requiring a license, a limousine business or auto service, repair for any vehicles other than those registered to residents of the property, or the sale or repair of firearms. iv. Clients, deliveries, and other business activity shall be limited to the hours of 8 am to 9 pm. V. All buildings that permit home occupations shall adopt rules to regulate their operations in order to ensure that these units function harmoniously with other tenants within the building. C. Uses in the Mixed Use Zoning District are subject to the requirements listed in Tables 1-3 where the use notations have the following meanings: P Permitted R Permitted subject to restrictions C Allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit N Not permitted 3 DRAFT 5-13-19 6. Building and Site Standards Table 1: Subdistrict A-Building and Site Standards R �• Buildable Area ' / (shaded) b miii / a mi / bny�x//. ax. BUILDING SETBACKS PARKING AND STORAGE SETBACKS a - Primary front yard 3 ft. min.-12 ft. max. Primary front yard 30 ft. min. b-Secondary front yard 6 ft. min.-15 ft. max. Secondary front yard- 115 ft. min. c-Side property line 50 ft. min. abutting R-1 or Side property line -T-6ft. min. R-2 districts; 10 ft. min. in all other districts d-Rear property line 50 ft. min.abutting R-1 or Rear property line 6 ft. min. R-2 districts; loft. min. n aother districts _ iin I i LOT COVERAGE MINIMUM GLAZING (move to Arch Standards) Lot coverage by 90%max. Primary front yard 20%min.for ground floor buildings residential 50% min. for all other uses Secondary front yard 20% min. for ground floor residential 30% min. for all other uses ,Second floor 20%min. Upper floors 15%min. 4 DRAFT 5-13-19 Table 1: Subdistrict A–Building and Site Standards LJ BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING STEPBACK Buildings 4 stories max. 15 ft.stepback is required above 3 stories for frontages on rights-of-way less than 70 ft. in width Parking structures Building height minus one Buildings must match height of adjacent single-family within story 50 ft.of residential parcel boundary USES RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL P Residential units in a mixed use building P Medical clinics P Multiple-family dwellings (three or more units) P Restaurants, brewpubs P Senior and disability housing R Retail/service–20,000 sq.ft. max.gross floor area R (Home occupations R Breweries/taprooms, micro-distilleries/cocktail rooms INSTITUTIONAL R Parking–a_ccessoryto principal use On-site parking may not exceed 50 surface lot spaces C Child care R Civic C Drive-thru facilities — R Medical N Gasoline sales and automotive repair R Assembly(schools, places of worship, etc.) N Self-storage OFFICE N Outdoor storage --- - R Financial institutions R Offices–5,000 sq. ft. per floor max.gross floor area 5 DRAFT 5-13-19 Table 2: Subdistrict B—Building and Site Standards d C Buildable Area / (shaded) b rein. a / bmdx / a.. / BUILDING SETBACKS PARKING AND STORAGE SETBACKS a - Primary front yard 5 ft. min.—15 ft. max. Primary front yard 30 ft. min. b-Secondary front yard 10 ft. min.—20 ft. max. Secondary front yard 15 ft. min. c-Side property line 50 ft. min. abutting R-1 or Side property line 6 ft. min. R-2 districts; 10 ft. min. in all other districts d-Rear property line 50 ft. min. abutting R-1 or Rear property line 6 ft. min. R-2 districts; 10 ft. min. in all other districts LOT COVERAGE MINIMUM GLAZING (move to Arch Standards) Lot coverage by 90% max. Primary front yard 20% min. for ground floor buildings residential 50%min.for all other uses Secondary front yard 20%min.for ground floor residential 30% min. for all other uses Second floor 30% min. Upper floors 15% min. 6 DRAFT 5-13-19 Table 2: Subdistrict B—Building and Site Standards I BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING STEPBACK Buildings 6 stories max. 15 ft. stepback is required above 4 stories for frontages on rights-of-way less than 70 ft. in width Parking structures Building height minus one Buildings must match height of adjacent single-family within story 50 ft.of residential parcel boundary. USES RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL P11e-ntial units in a mixed use building P Medical clinics P Multiple-family dwelling (three or more units) P Hotels P 1 Senior and disability housing P Restaurants, brewpubs R I Home occupations R Retail/service–30,000 sq.ft. max. gross floor area —._ _. — — INSTITUTIONAL R Breweries/taprooms, micro-distilleries/cocktail rooms On-site parking may not exceed 50 surface lot spaces R Parking–accessory to principal use R Civic C Child care R Medical C Drive-thru facilities _ R Assembly(schools, places of worship, etc.) C Gasoline sales and automotive repair OFFICE N Self-storage R Financial institutions N Outdoor storage R Offices—7,000 sq. ft. per floor max.gross floor area 7 DRAFT 5-13-19 Table 3: Subdistrict C—Building and Site Standards / \. d Buildable Area (shaded) b nAfi. / b BUILDING SETBACKS PARKING AND STORAGE SETBACKS a- Primary front yard 5 ft. min.—16 ft. max. Primary front yard 30 ft. min. b-Secondary front yard 10 ft. min.—20 ft. max. Secondary front yard 10 ft. min. c-Side property line 10 ft. min. Side property line 6 ft. min. d- Rear property line 10 ft. min. Rear property line 6 ft. min. LOT COVERAGE MINIMUM GLAZING (move to Arch Standards) Lot coverage by 80% max. Primary front yard 50%min. buildings Secondary front yard 30%min. LL Second floor 30%min. Upper floors 15%min. 8 DRAFT 5-13-19 Table 3: Subdistrict C—Building and Site Standards Li BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING STEPBACK ----_---- Buildings 6 stories max. 15 ft. stepback is required above 4 stories for frontages on rights-of-way less than 70 ft. in width Parking structures Building height minus one Buildings must match height of adjacent single-family within story 50 ft. of residential parcel boundary. USES INSTITUTIONAL COMMERCIAL On-site parking may not exceed 50 surface lot spaces P Medical clinics R Civic P Hotels R Medical P Restaurants, brewpubs R Assembly(schools, places of worship,etc.) R Retail/service—30,000 sq.ft. max.gross floor area OFFICE R Breweries/taprooms, micro-distilleries/cocktail rooms R Financial institutions R Parking—accessory to principal use R Offices—10,000 sq. ft. per floor max.gross floor C Drive-through facilities area LIGHT INDUSTRIAL C Gasoline sales and automotive repair P Light manufacturing that does not constitute a N Self-storage nuisance or health hazard to adjacent districts P "Makerspace" N Outdoor storage C Warehouses 9 DRAFT 5-13-19 7. Development Standards A. Parking. i. Required parking. Minimum required parking may be fulfilled in the following locations: a. Off-street parking shall be located to the side and rear of buildings. b. Spaces may be provided on-site or between multiple connected sites with a recorded shared use parking agreement. c. Spaces may be leased from a private or public parking facility with a shared parking agreement with the parking facility owner. ii. Access. a. Driveways are limited to 20 feet in width. b. Sites with alley access must use the alley for ingress and egress. c. Pedestrian access to off-street parking must be provided from front yards. iii. Screening. Parking areas shall be screened from public streets, sidewalks, and paths with a masonry wall or evergreen hedge not less than 50 percent opaque on a year-round basis.The height of the screening shall be between 36 and 48 inches. iv. Structured parking.The ground floor of any parking structure abutting a public street must have habitable space for a depth of 30 feet facing the street. a. Upper floors must be designed and detailed in a manner consistent with adjacent buildings. b. Entrances shall be located to minimize conflicts with pedestrian movement. c. Ramped floors are prohibited. B. Pedestrian Circulation. i. Sidewalks shall be required along all street frontages, and sidewalk and trail design shall be consistent with the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. ii. Walkways of at least six feet in width are required along all building facades that abut parking areas. iii. A well-defined pedestrian path shall be provided from the sidewalk to each primary entrance of a building. C. Drive-thru Facilities. i. Facilities and lanes shall be located behind the principal building. ii. Queuing lanes shall not interfere with pedestrian circulation. iii. Drive-through canopies and other structures shall be constructed from the same materials as the primary building and with a similar level of architectural quality and details. D. Outdoor Dining Areas. Outdoor seating is permitted within rights-of-way, provided that sidewalks remain clear to a width of five feet. E. Open Spaces. Developments over one acre in size shall reserve at least 15 percent of the site as a designed and landscaped plaza, green, park, play area,trail or parkway, or combination thereof. 10 DRAFT 5-13-19 Open Space Types Size in acres 0.25—2.5 max. Proportion 1:5 max. /jj Edge condition Thoroughfares on a minimum of two non-adjacent sides f Surface 50% maximum paved; pervious paving preferred Landscape 1 tree with mature canopy over 25 ■ % '� /! ft. per 800 sq. ft. of area min., rounded down Size in square feet 5,000—20,000 Proportion 1:5 max. Edge condition Thoroughfares on a minim of two sides Surface 50% minimum paved; pervious � " paving preferred Landscape 1 tree with mature canopy over 25 ■ ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. of area min., rounded up C' POCKET PARK Size in square feet 1,000—5,000 Proportion 1:4 max. Edge condition 1 side min. along a thoroughfare or pedestrian passage Surface May be paved or landscaped (' Landscape 1 tree with mature canopy over 20 ft. per 600 sq. ft. of area min., rounded up LI 11 DRAFT 5-13-19 Open Space Types Width 12 ft. min. Edge condition Active frontages required in high intensity blocks Walkway width 6 ft. min. Landscape 3 ft. min. landscape edge in medium and low intensity blocks 12 7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley,MN 55427 CI tJ 0J 763-593-3992 1 TTY 763-593-3968 1763-593-8109(fax)I www.goldenvalleymn.gov go Iden 0 val l e Planning Commission Y Apr 8,2019—7 pm REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Council Conference Room Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm b Chair Baker. Ro all Comm . ners present: Rich Baker, Ron lum, Adam Brookins, Laure�Poc , Chuck Segelbaum Commissio absent: Andy Johnson Staff present: Planning Manag r Jason Zimmerman or Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, Admin trative Assista-20 Wittman Council Liaison present: eve Schmidgal Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Brookins, seconded I to approve the agenda of April 8, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried. Approval of Minutesf. March 25, 2019, Regu lanning Commissio Meeting Baker referre other business section of th minutes and stated that h uld like to add that Mayor Harris also ended the neighborhood meeti discussed. MO N made by Segelbaum, seconded by B kins to approve the March 25, 2019, minutes with the ve noted change and the motion carried. Discussion— Mixed Use Zoning District Zimmerman explained that the current Mixed Use Zoning District is targeted for the 1-394 corridor and that staff wants to write some new code language that could apply to other mixed use areas. He stated that the current code language hasn't been very effective in getting mixed use development so the goal is to simplify the language for applicants and staff in order to get more interest in utilizing the Mixed Use District. Baker said he wants to be mindful when reviewing the existing code language rather than rushing into disassembling the entire code. He asked about the history of the existing Mixed Use Zoning District. Zimmerman stated during the last Comprehensive Plan update in 2008-2009 the City hired a planning consultant and did a big 1-394 Corridor study. He stated that the code language that resulted tried to not force out existing Industrial properties but allow them to continue which is why it has been hard to administer. He stated that after 10 years of working with the current code it has proven difficult and that 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 Apr 8, 2019—7 pm staff is not trying to start over, they are trying to simplify it now that they have more experience with what works and what doesn't. He gave the Commissioners two scenarios of hypothetical development proposals located in the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District and asked them to try to analyze and evaluate each scenario using the current code language to determine how the scenarios meet height, parking, site layout, setback regulations, etc. The Commissioners discussed the two scenarios including: buffer areas adjacent to R-1 Residential properties, what uses are allowed, conditional, or not permitted, setbacks, height, mix of uses, etc. Baker referred to mixed use developments that consist of retail on the first floor with residential above and asked if that is possible. Zimmerman said he has heard from developers that developments like that are really hard to finance and it is challenging to fill vacant first floor retail space. He stated that consultants have said it would be better to create code language that allows for that type of development but doesn't require it. Zimmerman discussed the current language regarding setbacks, impervious surface, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and development standards. Goellner suggested that the language list uses by use and not by size requirements and added that the entire Zoning Code will eventually have use tables. Schmidgall said he wants more flexibility in the Code to allow for creative uses. He stated that the City is also trying to protect the green space on the north side of Laurel Avenue. He said he wouldn't advocate building in that area, but he feels like it could be more useful to people with paths, benches, etc. Blum said he thinks parking in front of buildings should be fully restricted to encourage walkability. Goellner referred to the existing height requirements and said that the language about transitional height is confusing and that she would like there to be maximum height language instead. Blum suggested considering more than a two-story minimum and said he would like to distinguish between floors and stories such as a three floor office building versus a three story warehouse to help reach walkability goals. Blum asked if any thought has been given to how an internal street looks compared to an external street. Zimmerman said he agrees that street character and different street widths have an effect on walkability. Zimmerman stated that the goal is to look at what the TOD study suggested and to hopefully merge the existing code language with some new code language and get a hybrid that will work in other mixed use areas.