The URL can be used to link to this page

07-22-19 PC Agenda 7800 Golden Valley Road�Golden Valley,MN 55427 ' ` ��,%' �� "° � 763-593-3992�TTY 763-593-3968�763-593-8109(fax)�www.goldenvalleymn.gov • r�� l! �� v�11 � Planning Commission � � July 22,2019—7 pm Council Chambers REG U LAR M E ETI NG AG E N DA Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes June 24, 2019, Regular Planning Commission Meeting 4. Discussion— Mixed Use Zoning District 5. Discussion—Zoning Study --Short Recess-- 6. Council Liaison Report 7. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other meetings 8. Other Business 9. Adjournment This tlocument 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. 7800 Golden Valley Road(Golden Valley,MN 55427 ° �',� ':/ '""""`'� 763-593-3992�TTY 763-593-3968�763-593-8109(fax)�www.goldenvalleymn.gov r"j�/'�Q� �l.! l�� . . . v� � � � Plann�ng Commission � � June 24,2019—7 pm Council Chambers REGULAR MEETING MINUTES GoldenValleyCityHall 7800 Golden Valley Road Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Blum. Roll Call Commissioners present: Rich Baker, Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Ryan Sadeghi, and Chuck Segelbaum Commissioners absent: None Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Planning Intern Emily Anderson Council Liaison present: None �y ,� Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Brookins, seconded by Johnson to approve the agenda of June 24, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. Approva) of Minutes MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Pockl to approve the June 10, 2019, minutes as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing—Conditional Use Permit#169 Applicant: LSHLC Golden Valley Adult Day Program Address: 2300 Nevada Ave N, Suite #300 Purpose: Adult Day Care in the Industria) Zoning District Zimmerman referred to a location map of the subject property and explained the applicant's request to operate an adult day care facility in an Industrial Zoning District. He stated that the existing building is an 18,991 sq. ft., multi-tenant building housing a construction office, computer support services, and storage, and that the suite in question is 4,505 sq. ft. He added that there are currently 55 striped parking spaces and a secure area for trucks and equipment Zimmerman discussed the proposed use of the property which includes adult day care for up to 50 clients, with an average of 25 to 35 clients on site daily. He noted that licensing from the MN Department of Human Services would be required and that there would be 7 full time employees, and 3 part-time consultants. The hours would be 8 am to 5 pm, Monday thru Friday, there would be two 15- passenger vans and 4 minivans for transporting clients, there would be no food preparation on site, and no external modifications would be made to the building. 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 af Gofden Va(ley Planning Commissian Regular Meeting 2 lune 24, 2019— 7 pm Zimmerman referred to the parking regulations and stated that 59 parking spaces are required. He said there are currently 55 parking spaces plus the area in the secured lot so the deficit of 4 spaces can be accommodated through proof of parking in the secure area along the east edge of the lot. Zimmerman stated that the proposed use meets all of the factors of evaluation outlined in the City Code so staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Baker asked who owns the building. Zimmerman stated that the construction company located in the building owns the property. Baker asked about the guarantee regarding the proof of parking area and if it is part of the applicant's lease. Zimmerman explained that staff is asking for the proof of parking spaces as a fallback in case there is a parking need in the future. Segelbaum asked if Conditional Use Permits typically list the hours of operation in the conditions of approval, or if it is ok to leave it out. Zimmerman said it is up to the Planning Commission, but it is more commonly a condition of approval if there are conflicts with neighboring properties or if there are residential properties nearby. Baker said because of past experience with an adult daycare being used evenings and weekends he thinks it might be smart to list the hours of operation in the conditions of approval. Zimmerman noted that if the applicant's hours were to change at all they would have to go through the amendment process. He added that if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the hours listed in the application they could use those hours as their criteria for a condition of approval. Segelbaum noted that the Building and Fire codes cap the occupancy at 50 people and asked if that includes staff. Zimmerman stated that those codes list how many people can be in the building which might be different than what the applicant's state license allows. Sadhegi asked if there would be any exterior amenities. Zimmerman said no. Johnson asked if ADA compliance is handled through the licensing process. Zimmerman said that would be reviewed during the building permit application process. Johnson asked how many Golden Valley residents would be served by this company. Zimmerman said that was not known at this time. Johnson asked about the common area shown on the floor plans. Zimmerman explained that area is the common hallway space used by three suites to exit the building. Pockl asked where the entrance to the building is and if vans dropping off and picking up would block any entrances. Zimmerman referred to an aerial photo of the site and noted that no entrances would be blocked. Saeng Kue, Applicant, said they have been located in north Minneapolis for the last 10 years and they've decided to move to a quieter area. He said he would like Golden Valley residents to participate and City of Galden Valley Planning Cammission Regular Meeting 3 June 24, 2019—7 pm explained that there is a ramp access in the front of the building and a garage access they can use in the winter. Baker asked if their north Minneapolis location will continue. Kue said no. Segelbaum asked Mr. Kue to explain how the passenger vans and minivans would be used. Kue explained that in the morning they use the passenger vans to pick clients up and during the daytime they use the minivans to bring clients to appointments and activities. He added that he has been observing the site for approximately a month and has not noticed much traffic activity. Segelbaum asked Mr. Kue how this location would differ from ones he has previously run. Kue said the State will determine the number of clients they can have. He said they will probably have 25-30 clients with 7 staff. He noted that in their Minneapolis location they had 5,500 square feet and had approximately 40 clients. Johnson asked Mr. Kue how many Golden Valley residents they would serve. Kue said he doesn't know yet, but he will be talking to community organizations and churches about their services. Blum asked Mr. Kue if Golden Valley is part of their target market. Kue said they have a combination of clients. Blum opened the public hearing. ��1, �'�� , Jon Halverson, 2401 Nevada Avenue, said he was recently at a City meeting regarding the creation of a bike path on Nevada Avenue which is going to make parking an issue because parking would only be allowed on one side of the street. He said he has had problems with people parking in front of his building causing problems with entering and exiting which is dangerous so he thinks there could be a real problem with visitors coming to this site because parking is already an issue. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Blum closed the public hearing. Blum asked staff to comment on the parking on Nevada Avenue. Goellner stated that the Council will consider a bike lane installation at their meeting in July. She said there is a proposal that would restrict parking on the west side of the Nevada Avenue and the South side of Sandburg Road and there is another proposal that would not remove any parking. She said when staff evaluates parking they only consider spaces that are on the property itself, so the use in question would probably not have any parking impacts on the street. She added that as far as the on-street parking issues discussed she is not sure where that is being generated from so it's hard to say. Baker said it might be worth adding a condition that requires a formal agreement with the applicant and property owner regarding the four needed parking spaces. Segelbaum asked if anything could be done regarding parking relative to the rest of the tenants in the building. Baker said he wants to be respectful to the fact that they are dealing with this specific Conditional Use Permit and he doesn't want to solve other parking problems as a part of this request. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4 lune 24, 2019—7 pm Brookins stated that he would leave the parking considerations as recommended. He said that if this space was used as by right office space the parking requirement would be 18 parking spaces. In this case, 10 are required which leaves eight extra spots compared to what could be there. Segelbaum asked if by right uses still have to show they have sufficient parking. Zimmerman said the Zoning Code does require a minimum number of parking spaces and when new buildings are built or some Planning action is required it is easy to determine parking, but it is difficult to track each specific use in each building, especially in multi-tenant buildings. Blum said the next concern was about visitors to this site adding to the parking conditions. Brookins said he thinks this building is better designed than others that have a similar use and he feels comfortable recommending approval. Baker referred to the hours of operation and said it would be good to have some idea of what the applicant's hours are going to be. Segelbaum suggested a condition that allows their hours to be 7:30 am to 6 pm. Blum said the normal operating hours he heard the applicant discuss were 8:30 am to 4 pm. Johnson said the applicant should abide the hours they listed in their application because they should know what's best for their business. Baker said when they described their hours they may not have known there could be restrictions placed on them. Blum referred to a map showing surrounding properties. He noted that there are some residential � properties to the southwest and asked how far away those properties are from the subject property. Zimmerman said he didn't know but there are trees, railroad tracks, and another building in between so he would guess the residential properties were approximately 400 feet away. Blum stated that past complaints have been of night time uses near residential areas so he thinks it is relevant and reasonable to ask for operating hours based on that. Pockl asked for clarification on what hours of operation are being recommended. Mr. Kue said that as a service organization they sometimes work late or early and have occasional celebrations, but based on their current facility their normal operating hours would be from 8 am to 5 pm. Blum asked about the earliest and latest times clients are at the facility. Kue said most of their clients are dropped off between 8:30 and 9 am and leave around 3 to 3:30 pm. Baker asked Mr. Kue if 7 am to 6 pm would accommodate all of their activities. Kue said yes. Segelbaum said he would be interested in limitations on the hours when they have clients, and not limitations on the hours in which they can operate their business or have an occasional evening activity. He noted that there are noise ordinances and other regulations that businesses are also subject to. Baker said he doesn't want to say they can only have clients between 8 am to 5 pm. Segelbaum said he would recommend 7 am to 6:30 pm with no other limitations.Johnson reiterated that he thinks the City should give the applicant the hours he asked for (8 am to 5 pm) and said it is not the Planning Commissions role to set the applicant's hours. Brookins said he doesn't think the Planning Commission is trying to set the applicant's hours they are trying to limit when they can't operate. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 5 lune 24, 2019—7 pm Blum asked Johnson if there is value in being more expansive as a way to minimize bureaucratic involvement and staff time by giving a larger, equally acceptable timeframe to the applicant upfront and saving a little bit on resources anticipating there may be a change even though there might not be. Johnson said that is the cost of doing business and they should make sure applicants are well versed in what they ask for. He said he is really leery to tell an applicant what their hours can be and that they should recommend approval based on what is asked. Pockl said when they discuss expanding hours they aren't basing it on the applicant's history and understanding. She said the Planning Commission has a history that they are basing recommendations on and are trying to prevent reoccurrences of things that have happened previously. She said that warrants some consideration in order to prevent the applicant having to come back to request additional hours, or having incidents of applicants working outside their permitted hours. Segelbaum referred to condition number two in the staff report where it states "...must serve no more than 50 clients" and said he assumes that means at any one time. Zimmerman clarified that the applicant can have not more clients than his state license allows. MOTION made by Segelbaum, seconded by Baker and motion carried 6 to 1 to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 169 allowing for an Adult Day Care Facility in the Industrial Zoning District at 2300 Nevada Avenue North, subject to the following findings and conditions. Commissioner Johnson voted no. ��;. "� Findin s: 1. Demonstrated Need for Proposed Use: Standard met. Adult day care continues to be in demand in the Twin Cities area as evidenced by numerous inquiries received by City staff in recent months. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Standard met. The proposed use is not inconsistent with the Industrial designation in the Comprehensive Plan, which allows for adult day care facilities. 3. Effect upon Property Values: Standard met. There are no anticipated modifications to the exterior of the building. 4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion: Standard met. Traffic to and from the site is expected to be minimal as the daily clientele will arrive and depart via two passenger vans and four minivans. The traffic volumes on Nevada Ave and Sandburg Rd are sufficiently low to handle these additional trips. 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: Standard met. The number of daytime persons being added to the site is not anticipated to have a negative effect on the area, which is Industrial in nature. 6. Compliance with the City's Mixed-Income Housing Policy: Not applicable. 7. Increase in Noise Levels: Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to generate excessive noise. 8. Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Vibration: Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to generate excessive odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibrations. 9. Any Increase in Pests or Vermin: Standard conditionally met. The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests. However, a secure garage enclosure will be required in order to ensure food scraps are not accessible to rodents or other pests. City af Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 6 June 24, 2019—7 pm 10. Visual Appearance: Standard met. There are no planned modifications to the exterior of the property, suggesting there will be no visual impact from the proposed use. 11. Other Effects upon the General Public Health, Safety, and Welfare: Standard conditionally met. If the limits on the number of persons to be served as determined by the Minnesota Department of Human Services are followed, the proposed use is not anticipated to have any other impacts on the surrounding area. Conditions: 1. Any outdoor trash enclosure shall be designed to prevent access by rodents or other pests or vermin, as approved by City staff. 2. Maximum occupancy for Suite #300 must be established by the State Building and Fire Codes as well as the Minnesota Department of Human Services. It must be adequately recorded in the Conditional Use Permit upon approval by the Building Official and must serve no more than 50 clients at any one time. If additional space is desired in the future, the Conditional Use Permit must be amended to reflect the increased size and capacity. 3. All necessary licenses must be obtained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the Minnesota Department of Health before adult day care operations may commence. Proof of such licensing must be presented to the Building Official and Planning Manager. 4. The permitted operating hours for day care services with clients on site shall be 7 am to 6 pm Monday thru Friday. 5. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Discussion— Mixed Use Zoning District Anderson reminded the Commission that they have had several discussions regarding the proposed new Mixed Use Zoning District and that this discussion will focus on impervious surface regulations, Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA), and usable open space. Anderson noted that some of the factors to consider include: current green space statics and trends in Golden Valley, avoiding PUDs and allowing more uses by right, walkability, stormwater/environmental concerns, and trade-offs between impervious surface, setbacks, and height regulations. Anderson stated that current impervious surface regulations range from 25%to 90% in the Zoning Code. The current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District allows a maximum of 65%, if in a PUD the maximum is 90%. She explained that for the proposed new Mixed Use Zoning District the TOD consultants have recommended that Subdistricts A and B have a 90% maximum, and Subdistrict C have an 80% maximum. Anderson referred to usable open space requirements and stated that the current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District requires lots over one acre in size to have 15% open space. She stated that staff would like feedback regarding the current City Code definition of usable open space and the possibility of requiring a minimum percentage of Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA). City af Golden Valley Planning Cammissian Regular Meeting 7 lune 24, 2019—7 pm Anderson showed the Commissioners a table of existing impervious surface conditions and stated that most of the Zoning Districts fall below the average percentage of impervious surface allowed except for the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District which has an average of 73.07% due to the number of car dealerships with large lots in that district. Anderson showed the Commissioners several photos of various PUDs and discussed the amount of impervious surface on each one. She said staff would like feedback about what the impervious surface regulations should be. Blum referred to the questions posed in the staff report. The first question is if the impervious surface limit should be raised from 65% and if it should differ by Subdistrict. Johnson said when he looks at what the consultants recommend versus what the City currently has he thinks they should find a comfortable number with what the City already has, limit it there and not go with the consultant's recommendation. Segelbaum said he would be in favor of allowing an increase in the amount of impervious surface allowed because he thinks the point of this this particular zoning district is to allow more density. Blum asked Segelbaum if he was saying that he is in favor of allowing more imperious surface as long as that means buildings and not more parking lot area. Segelbaum said he's not sure, but he would be more inclined to allow someone to have a bigger building. Baker said the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes resilience and resilience in the face of climate change means dealing with increased rainfall so he doesn't think the City should be decreasing its ability to deal with rainfall by allowing more impervious surface, they should be encouraging more green space. He said it's interesting that there are plenty of developments that managed to have a relatively low percentage of impervious surface. Zimmerman noted that there are different ways to measure such as using lot coverage by building. Goellner added that they could keep the lot coverage number just below the amount impervious surface allowed which would send a message that the amount of surface parking has to be kept low, or they could also consider allowing a maximum size for a parking lot. Blum said he thinks they are trying to accomplish the walkability goal and they do that with a certain amount of increase in building size on each lot. Brookins said he is struggling to understand how someone would be able to meet the minimum parking requirements and still get to a lot with X amount of impervious surface, the correct setbacks, the allowed height, etc. so it would be helpful to see how all the requirements would work on a site. Blum asked if parking regulations may change in this district. Zimmerman said they have the option to set the parking ratio however they want. Baker said there are innovative ways to deal with parking that don't create more impervious surface such as parking beneath buildings which is much better than water storage beneath buildings. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting S June 24, 2019— 7 pm Brookins said he is not in favor of reducing parking requirements. He said he thinks it would be poor planning not to expect people to come to these areas in cars and not having adequate parking would affect surrounding areas/neighborhoods as well. Baker said he thinks it was a failure in the past to allow a strip of green space along the edges of a property and he really thinks pressure should be put on developers to have public open space. Blum asked Baker if he thinks perimeter plantings enhance the walkability of a space. Baker said they do make boulevard areas more comfortable places to walk, but he thinks public green space is very desirable and if the City is zoning these areas Mixed Use one of the uses should be DORA space. Pockl asked if perimeter plantings are considered a buffer zone or if it is considered green space. Goellner said it would be both pervious space and a buffer. Pockl asked if there is any way to get more of a cohesive green space by stating that that buffer zones while pervious, don't count toward DORA. Baker stated that a lot of it is about design and there can be conditions in the Zoning Code that help make usable spaces. Segelbaum said he thought the vision for this district was for smaller lots, and smaller businesses. He said he doesn't know how there is going to be concentrated, usable open space unless the property is an acre or larger in size. He said he agrees with Commissioner Baker's thoughts about usable spaces but for other zoning districts, not the Mixed Use Zoning District. Brookins said he is comfortable with the existing definition of usable open space being applied to all properties. He said he thinks the definition leaves some room for interpretation and staff can help people meet the definition when dealing with a difficult property. He added that he is comfortable with a 12%or 15% DORA and he is also comfortable raising the percentage of impervious surface allowed. Baker stated that everybody who develops in Golden Valley has to pay a park dedication fee and suggested using that money to dedicate a property within the Mixed Use District to be usable open space by a shared effort of all the participants in the Mixed Use District. Blum said he doesn't think the City will be able to force private property owners to develop all of the properties in a district at once so he thinks they need to prioritize what is important. He added that there would be a lot of effort and expense on the City's part that would go into using park dedication fees to buy, develop, and maintain property. Segelbaum agreed. Baker said they are trying to create benefits for the City. Sadeghi said if the goal is to promote development on smaller lots in Mixed Use areas they are going to have to increase the impervious surface limits. He referred to the impervious surface calculations for PUDs that was part of the staff report and noted that for all of the examples that were under 60% impervious, only five of them are below 100,000 square feet in lot size. He said he thinks that would bring the impervious surface requirements closer to the TOD consultant's recommendation of 90%. Baker stated that small lot owners could be required to contribute to something off their site to help accomplish pervious surface goals. City of Golden Valley Planning Commissian Regular Meeting 9 lune 24, 2019—7 pm Johnson said the number that stands out to him is 75% and questioned if that can be modeled to see where it takes them. He said that way they can look at some numbers and adjust accordingly. Segelbaum said he would like to see that and he would also like to see the numbers within the context of what was envisioned for this district. Anderson asked the Commissioners what they value most about creating a Mixed Use Zoning District and what they are trying to accomplish. Segelbaum asked if they have defined what they wanted out of the Mixed Use Zoning District and if so could they be reminded of it. Baker said walkability is his highest priority. Sadeghi said to make it a desirable, walkable area there needs to be some retail, street presence, and smaller businesses to engage with. Blum asked Sadeghi if he is in favor of increasing the amount of impervious surface allowed only if it is for buildings. Sadeghi said he have to think about it more and how that would affect the parking regulations, but he knows that subterranean parking is extremely expensive and may make development less of a possibility. Brookins said it might help to separate the different Subdistricts because they are located in very different parts of the City. Segelbaum said modeling in the different Subdistricts might be helpful. Goellner asked the Commissioners how they felt about giving a height bonus for someone who keeps the impervious surface amount low. Pockl questioned how much that would over complicate the Zoning Code. Goellner said the City might get more green space, but might also be allowing buildings that are taller than wanted and residents typically have strong feelings about height. Brookins said he could see a height bonus applying to certain Subdistricts. Johnson said he would support considering a height bonus. Blum said he likes the idea of trade-offs. Blum noted that the last question staff wanted feedback on was if half of the side and rear yard setback area should be required to be maintained as a buffer zone. Pockl said yes, she thinks that makes sense. Blum said he likes the idea of buffering a surface parking lot. Pockl asked why the setback requirements range from 20 to 100 feet. Goellner said it depends on what type of property is next to it. --Short Recess-- Council Liaison Report No report was given. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other meetings Goellner stated that the Council will be discussing bike lanes and their next Council/Manager meeting. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 10 lune 24, 2019—7 pm Other Business No other business was discussed. Adjournment MOTION made by Segelbaum, seconded by Baker and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:03 pm. � ;� � Adam Brookins, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant ;;, � ..! �. � � Cl�y Of oZden � c� � � V�, +eV Physical Development Department �� 763-593 8095/763 393 8109(fax} Date: July 22, 2019 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Mixed Use Zoning District Discussion Summary At the Planning Commission meetings of June 10 and 24, staff discussed a number of potential regulations related to setbacks, height, impervious coverage, and open space within the new Mixed Use Zoning District. After taking feedback and examining a handful of other new developments in the west metro, staff is bringing forward some recommendations on these topics in advance of preparing draft code language. Mixed Use Subdistricts Commissioners asked staff to continue to work to refine the descriptions of the three subdistricts being proposed in order to help bring clarity to the discussion around how they should function and what their form should be. Staff would like to gauge reaction to the following descriptions: Neighborhood Mixed Use (Subdistrict A)—This subdistrict allows a mix of uses including medium- density residential and medium-scale commercial, office, and institutional uses. Properties zoned for Neighborhood Mixed Use typically sit adjacent to County Roads or other roads classified as arterials or collectors and are accessible via a variety of transportation modes. The target market is the surrounding neighborhood. The built environment could incorporate freestanding businesses, religious or civic institutions, and attached housing options including small apartment buildings. These areas allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use and do not require a mix of uses within every building. Community Mixed Use (Subdistrict B)—This subdistrict allows a mix of uses including high-density residential and commercial, office, and institutional uses. Properties zoned for Community Mixed Use typically sit adjacent to State Highways or Interstates and are accessible through frequent transit service. Target markets encompass the surrounding neighborhoods,the broader community, and even the wider region. The built environment could include freestanding businesses, shopping areas, employment centers, and apartment buildings. Envisioned as compact urban development areas that serve as gateways to the city and as 1 activity centers for the community, they allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use and do not require a mix of uses within every building. Emplovment Mixed Use (Subdistrict C)—This subdistrict is similar to Community Mixed Use, but the focus is on employment in a variety of settings, including light industrial uses. No residential uses are allowed in these areas. Mixed Use Examples After the last meeting, staff provided Commissioners with guides to five local sites in order to provide real world examples of newer developments for reference. These sites included: • Talo Apartments (Golden Valley) • Ellipse Apartments (St. Louis Park) • Shoreham Apartments (St. Louis Park) • Village in the Park Condominiums (St. Louis Park) • West River Commons (Minneapolis) Commissioners were asked to record their impressions of the setbacks between these buildings and the adjacent single-family homes (either abutting or across the street) as well as the height of the new buildings in relation to the homes nearby. As shown in the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan,there are only two areas currently designated for Mixed Use that directly abut single-family neighborhoods, as shown below. Other properties have the potential to be rezoned to Mixed Use over time. Area J (south of Duluth along Douglas) Area K (north of Duluth along Douglas) ��I� � i�I Ai1�� I II I I Kenneth Way � V a Z Sandburg Rd ' d � Westbrook Q � Rd � � "� `� Westmore Way a ' � a - � G� !. , �� Kenneth Way z ° z � > � a, c K a �- d "� � ;, �. �- � � �T N Duluth Ln a �= � � C a o � vm �� Dt�luth St .,, "•I ��y Wolfberry�n + z Z d �Shire A` � Q a' Y � V '� T ! � ; Duluth Ln � o 'S �, � S vi ¢ L G O �' i . � fC�i� i — . .. .. .... ........., e, o: m Building Setbacks and Height Through discussion with the Planning Commission, the following priorities were identified: 2 • Requiring buildings be located close to the front lot line and pushing surface parking to the rear of a lot • Reducing the potential impact of building height on adjacent single-family homes by limiting the numbers of stories within a certain distance of abutting properties • Avoiding "canyon-like" streetscapes by stepping back the fronts of buildings along streets • Establishing a minimum and a maximum height of buildings to help provide a pedestrian friendly environment Proposed regulations: Subdistrict A Minimum building height 26 ft. � Maximum building height 4 stories or 62 ft. Primary front yard 3 ft. min. to 12 ft. max.; 15 ft. stepback required above 3 stories on rights-of-way less than 70 ft. wide Secondary front yard 6 ft. min. to 15 ft. max.; 15 ft. stepback required above 3 stories on rights-of-way less than 70 ft. wide Front yard across a public street from R-1 or 10 ft. min. to 15 ft. max.; R-2 zoned property 15 ft. stepback required above 3 stories on rights-of-way less than 70 ft. wide Side yard abutting R-1 or R-2 zoned property 50 ft. min.; 50 ft. to 75 ft. only 2 stories allowed Side yard abutting other zoning districts 10 ft. min. Rear yard abutting R-1 or R-2 zoned property 75 ft. min. Rear yard abutting other zoning districts 15 ft. min. Subdistrict 8 Minimum building height 26 ft. Maximum building height 6 stories or 90 ft. Primary front yard 5 ft. min. to 15 ft. max.; 15 ft. stepback required above 4 stories on rights-of-way less than 70 ft. wide Secondary front yard 10 ft. min. to 20 ft. max.; 15 ft. stepback required above 4 stories on rights-of-way less than 70 ft. wide Front yard across a public street from R-1 or 10 ft. min. to 15 ft. max.; R-2 zoned property 15 ft. stepback required above 4 stories on rights-of-way less than 70 ft. wide Side yard abutting R-1 or R-2 zoned property 50 ft. min.; 50 ft. to 75 ft. only 3 stories allowed Side yard abutting other zoning districts 10 ft. min.; 10 ft. to 15 ft. only 3 stories allowed 3 Rear yard abutting R-1 or R-2 zoned property 75 ft. min. . _ Rear yard abutting other zoning districts 25 ft. min. i _____ _ _ _ _ ; ��s��«t ,.:s� tr~B ��a� — Subdistrict C � Minimum building height 26 ft. Maximum building height 6 stories or 90 ft. Primary front yard 5 ft. min. to 15 ft. max.; 15 ft. stepback required above 4 stories on rights-of-way less than 70 ft. wide Secondary front yard 10 ft. min. to 20 ft. max.; 15 ft. stepback required above 4 stories on rights-of-way less than 70 ft. wide Front yard across a public street from R-1 or 10 ft. min. to 15 ft. max.; R-2 zoned property 15 ft. stepback required above 4 stories on rights-of-way less than 70 ft. wide Side yard abutting R-1 or R-2 zoned property 50 ft. min.; 50 ft. to 75 ft. only 3 stories allowed Side yard abutting other zoning districts 10 ft. min.; 10 ft. to 15 ft. only 3 stories allowed Rear yard abutting R-1 or R-2 zoned property 75 ft. min. Rear yard abutting other zoning districts 25 ft. min. Impervious Coverage and Open Space Through discussion with the Planning Commission, the following priorities were identified: • Allowing additional impervious coverage as a way to support increased density in the Mixed Use areas, but prioritizing building coverage over surface parking • Requiring useable outdoor spaces be included in most, if not all, mixed use developments • Encouraging larger, coordinated open space amenities within mixed use areas Proposed regulations: Subdistrict A Impervious coverage 85% max. Building coverage 60% max. Non-building coverage 15% max. Useable outdoor space 10% min. Subdistrict 8 Impervious coverage 80% max. Building coverage 60% max. Non-building coverage 20% max. Useable outdoor space 15% min. 4 Subdistrict C -'T ,�.�" � "�` , � ; 4� � � Impervious coverage 80% max. __�_ _________�r _i __ --- � Building coverage 60% max. Non-building coverage 20% max. Useable outdoor space 15% min. Other Resources Commissioners are encouraged to browse the web page of an initiative taken by the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) that is working to help communities make incremental zoning code changes as a way to more achieve more vibrant areas while avoiding some of the high costs and large disruptions of undertaking a complete code rewrite. Visit www.cr�u.or T uur- pr�olect�proiec,t�co�e-reforrn for more information and skim the publication entitled "Enabling Better Places: Users' Guide to Zoning Reform" which was prepared in collaboration with organizations in Michigan (link to the PDF found on the CNU web page). Next Steps Staff will prepare a "complete" draft of the proposed Mixed Use zoning language for review at the next meeting, to be followed by a public hearing to consider the zoning text amendment and make a recommendation to the City Council. Attachments Planning Commission Minutes, June 10, 2019 (4 pages) Planning Commission Minutes, lune 24, 2019 (4 pages) 5 ��g ;�� wxr; "��f��sy ��r�t�i�� C°��irr�i�s��as� R��r ��r�� ,1t�r�� .�� 4�.� 7. Increase in Noise Levels: Standard m The proposed use is not anticipated to generate excessive noise. 8. eration of Odors, Dust, Smoke, G or Vibration: Standard met. roposed use is not antici to generate excessive odor dust, smoke, gas, or vi ons. 9. Any Increas ests or Vermin: Stan rd met. The prop use is not anticipated to attract pests. 10. Visual Appearance. ard met. No terior impr ents are associated with this proposal. Future improvements to t king lo ill ne o incorporate minimum standards in City Code. 11. Other Effects upon the General , Safety, and Welfare: Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated to have any oth s on the surrounding area. Conditions: 1. The Child Care Center sh e limited to 2 students, or the a t specified by the Minnesota Department of Hum ervices, whicheve less. 2. A proposal to in se the capacity of the C 'Id Care Center will require an ment to the CUP. 3. All neces licenses shall be obtained and ain active with the Minnesota Departmen f Hum ervices. 4. Th ours of normal operation for the Child C Center shall be Monday through Friday from 7 to 6 pm. Discussion— Mixed Use Zoning District Zimmerman reminded the Commission that they've had several discussions about the proposed new Mixed Use Zoning District. He said he would now like to discuss setback regulations for when a Mixed Use property is adjacent to or across the street from an R-1 or R-2 Zoning District, height regulations including minimum height requirements, and height limits when a Mixed Use property is within a certain distance of R-1 or R-2 properties. He added that he would also like to discuss transparency regulations. Zimmerman referred to previous discussions which included the pros and cons of having smaller setbacks which promote walkability and larger setbacks that provide more open space. He referred to some of the pros and cons of having a minimum height requirement and stated that requiring a second story may help spur more activity, density, and diverse uses, but may preclude one story retail or restaurants without a variance. Zimmerman referred to the 2040 Land Use Plan, pointed out all of the Mixed Use areas, and discussed the current and the proposed front, side and rear yard setbacks for each of the subdistricts. Zimmerman referred to the existing I-394 Mixed Use District height regulations and explained that it states that buildings located within 75 feet of a residential zoning district can't exceed the maximum height permitted in that residential district and that buildings occupying 5,000 square feet or more must be two stories in height. It also states that a one-story wing of a taller building may be permitted if it comprises no more than 25% of the length of the facade. He stated that these current regulations are complicated for developers and for staff to evaluate. He said staff is proposing language that says buildings must match the height of adjacent single family districts within 50 feet of a residential parcel ��r=� ��4��r� ��y F��rs�i�s� ��r��a��.t��r� ��I�r �i��t�� ,�� , 2t�� boundary. He added that the proposed new language also includes that a building stepback is required for upper stories that are 15 feet from the facade of the story below to help transition the two districts. He showed the Commissioners examples of different setbacks and building heights and how they relate to residential properties. Segelbaum asked if the examples shown of a 60-foot right-of-way were typical. Zimmerman referred to the areas targeted to be Mixed Use and stated that none of them abut typical single family streets and that most of them have 60 feet of right-of-way or more. Baker said he thinks it is important to have a pretty sizable setback between mixed use buildings and single family houses because it can really change the ambience of a neighborhood. Zimmerman said the areas targeted for Mixed Use don't really have an intimate neighborhood setting but in the future someone could ask to rezone their property to Mixed Use so the City needs to think about the appropriate setbacks and height regulations. Zimmerman said another issue the Commission has discussed is if a second story should be required on all mixed use buildings. He referred to pictures of several buildings in Minneapolis where the City asked for the buildings to be taller in order to keep with the neighborhood and surrounding buildings and to have a more pedestrian scale. He questioned if a second story use is important as well, or if it is just the additional height that is important. Baker said he isn't convinced that by requiring two stories the City would be chasing away restaurant or retail uses. Zimmerman noted that the current I-394 Mixed Use language requires a second story. Segelbaum asked how to avoid the idea that these areas might become strip malls. He said he is concerned about that effect in demanding a second story. Zimmerman said language could be added that says the second story has to be an active use and not just a facade that creates that height. Zimmerman referred to the current I-394 Mixed Use requirements related to transparency and the recently approved code language regarding transparency in other zoning districts. He asked for feedback on how much the Commission wants to build on the language already in the Zoning Code and if there should be even more transparency requirements in the Mixed Use District compared to other districts. Baker said the data shown lacks a pattern so he questions if they should add to the lack of pattern or if there is other data available that might inform a smarter approach. Zimmerman said one good way to consider this data is to visit places in neighboring communities that are zoned for mixed use to see how each one feels, but this is new enough that redevelopment hasn't occurred yet and these areas haven't been built out to the codes that have been adopted over the past 10 years so it is hard to see where any of these types of standards have been implemented. Brookins referred to the proposed language regarding height and asked about the 50-foot measurement as it relates to parcel boundaries and right-of-way boundaries. Zimmerman explained that the zoning district boundaries go to the edge of the street and that right-of-way includes the boulevard areas on �� c�f�� l�y P�� C�r�tr�i��i�� P�� r��, � ,�� , ��:�� both sides of a street and the street itself in the middle. Brookins said he likes the way the proposed language regarding height is written. Baker said 50 feet does not seem like a large enough area between buildings and adjacent single family properties. Brookins said he is comfortable with the 50-foot setback as proposed because to him the point of these districts is trying to make them walkable and places people want to go to and walk through that they are not getting other places in the City. Segelbaum noted that most residential properties have a 35-foot front setback which doesn't seem like a lot at times so to have a potential four story building within residential areas seems excessive in his mind. He suggested that maybe the stepback start at 50 feet but that four stories would require a 75- foot setback from abutting residential properties. Baker said they've been talking about walkability and people walk along streets not usually the sides or backs of buildings. Blum asked if there would be no rear setbacks abutting residential properties in most of the Mixed Use districts. Zimmerman said parking would likely be to the rear or side of the buildings. Johnson referred to St. Louis Park's code where it says the height can be the same as the minimum lot width or twice the height if the lot is double the minimum lot width. He said that seems easy to understand and the odds are that a residential building not an office tower would be built. Zimmerman agreed that is one way to determine height regulations. He added that a four story building is approximately 62 feet in height. Baker said he likes the stepback idea. Segelbaum asked if there is consensus on what sort of setback is needed for any type of building abutting residential properties. Brookings said Segelbaum's suggestion sounds reasonable and if the option is setbacks or a larger total distance he would prefer setbacks. He added that he would rather see a 50-foot setback requirement with a stepback at two stories than to require a 75-foot setback. Zimmerman said he can take these numbers and create some visuals or find some examples. Baker said he would like to know which Mixed Use Districts directly abut residential properties. Zimmerman referred to the 2040 Land Use Map and pointed out the districts that abut the back yards of residential properties, are across the street from residential properties, or are across railroad tracks from residential properties. Blum asked if they should focus more setbacks from properties across the street. Segelbaum said there are few instances where there would likely be a towering building across the street with a 60-foot right- of-way from an R-1 Zoning District. Zimmerman said staff could do an analysis of the properties and right-of-way widths. Baker said there would be almost 100 feet from a home and the front of a building across the street. Segelbaum said requiring a stepback seems like it would be less objectionable. Baker suggested having a tour or a list of some examples so they could see what these proposed setbacks look like. �i��eaf��I�� f�C1�� r�r�f��zrr��i�si��t �� z�� .0, 2�� Blum asked the Commissioners their thought on the proposed height requirements. Segelbaum said requiring two stories seems to be a nice requirement but maybe not for a small property or building. Baker questioned if the City really wants freestanding, small businesses in these areas. He said he wants to see small lots adjacent to each other reach some agreement to provide a continuous facade rather than have a small alley between buildings. Segelbaum said he hasn't seen too many instances where property owners decide to build at the same time. Zimmerman said properties could be bought and combined as they are redeveloped. Blum asked Zimmerman if he knows of any difficulties other cities have had that require two-story buildings. Zimmerman said he doesn't. Segelbaum asked about buildings that just have a facade or a certain height rather than having two stories. Zimmerman said that is one of things that should be considered. Segelbaum said it seems satisfactory to him and there may be less concern as long as buildings are close to the street, parking is behind the buildings, and they don't look like a typical strip mall. Blum asked if there is any desire to limit the height of a floor. Zimmerman said the draft code language includes a maximum height for the first floor and maximum heights for additional floors in order to create a taller first floor for retail or office space. Zimmerman asked if the consensus is to require a second story. Johnson said he agrees with Segelbaum and would prefer using height rather than a number of stories. Brookins agreed. Segelbaum asked what the concern is about the maximum number of stories. Blum said he thinks is would prevent a warehouse type of building. Zimmerman said the next topic is transparency and asked the Commissioners if they think the Mixed Use district requirements should go above and beyond what is required in the other zoning districts. Baker said he doesn't see any reason to. Blum said he thinks the proposed regulations are well written. Segelbaum and Johnson agreed. Johnson said it would be a shame to go through all this work just to have cars zipping by so he hopes they can do something creative with the car/pedestrian design to complete the picture of these areas. Zimmerman agreed that there might be an opportunity with the Downtown Study to make other areas more interesting and walkable as well. --Short Recess-- � Counci ' on Rep Schmidgall u ed t e Co on on the most recent City Council meeting, including the approval of Architectural and ' standards and hiring a consultant to conduct Phase II of the Downtown Study. He also informe issioners that an Open House would take place on June 12 to discuss the implement ' of ce in routes as part of the City's new Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. �;�� J�ll�y �C��a�� s��r��i��i�r� ��s�;�� ; £i �� ., �C��7 �r�t 10. Visual Appearance: Standard met. There e no planned modifications to the exterior of the property, suggesting there will be no visu impact from the proposed use. 11. ther Effects upon the General Public H Ith, Safety, and Welfare: Standard condition met. If t limits on the number of persons to b erved as determined by the Minneso artment of Hu Services are followed, the propos, d use is not anticipated to have ther impacts on the surrou ' g area. ,��'�.. �� Conditions: 1. Any outdoor tra closure shall be signed to vent access by rodents or other pests or vermin, as approved 'ty staff. 2. Maximum occupancy for #300 m� �`e established by the State Building and Fire Codes as well as the Minnesota Departme uman Services. It must be adequately recorded in the Conditional Use Permit upon a ova e Building Official and must serve no more than 50 clients at any one time. If tional sp ce i� 'red in the future, the Conditional Use Permit must be amended to r ct the increa d size�an��acity. 3. All necessary licen must be obtainec��;by the Minneso artment of Human Services and the Minnesota partment of Health b �ore adult day care op s may commence. Proof of such lic g must be presented to e Building Official and Planning Manager. 4. The per ted operating hours for day re services with clients on site shall be 7 am to 6 pm Mo y thru Friday. 5. approval is subject to all other state, ederal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Discussion— Mixed Use Zoning District Anderson reminded the Commission that they have had several discussions regarding the proposed new Mixed Use Zoning District and that this discussion will focus on impervious surface regulations, Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA), and usable open space. Anderson noted that some of the factors to consider include: current green space statics and trends in Golden Valley, avoiding PUDs and allowing more uses by right, walkability, stormwater/environmental concerns, and trade-offs between impervious surface, setbacks, and height regulations. Anderson stated that current impervious surface regulations range from 25%to 90% in the Zoning Code. The current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District allows a maximum of 65%, if in a PUD the maximum is 90%. She explained that for the proposed new Mixed Use Zoning District the TOD consultants have recommended that Subdistricts A and B have a 90% maximum, and Subdistrict C have an 80% maximum. Anderson referred to usable open space requirements and stated that the current I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District requires lots over one acre in size to have 15% open space. She stated that staff would like feedback regarding the current City Code definition of usable open space and the possibility of requiring a minimum percentage of Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA). �� 1�� `�� PI�� `c��r� ��C�r �6�� 7 .��r�� g �� Anderson showed the Commissioners a table of existing impervious surface conditions and stated that most of the Zoning Districts fall below the average percentage of impervious surface allowed except for the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District which has an average of 73.07% due to the number of car dealerships with large lots in that district. Anderson showed the Commissioners several photos of various PUDs and discussed the amount of impervious surface on each one. She said staff would like feedback about what the impervious surface regulations should be. Blum referred to the questions posed in the staff report. The first question is if the impervious surface limit should be raised from 65% and if it should differ by Subdistrict. Johnson said when he looks at what the consultants recommend versus what the City currently has he thinks they should find a comfortable number with what the City already has, limit it there and not go with the consultant's recommendation. Segelbaum said he would be in favor of allowing an increase in the amount of impervious surface allowed because he thinks the point of this this particular zoning district is to allow more density. Blum asked Segelbaum if he was saying that he is in favor of allowing more imperious surface as long as that means buildings and not more parking lot area. Segelbaum said he's not sure, but he would be more inclined to allow someone to have a bigger building. Baker said the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes resilience and resilience in the face of climate change means dealing with increased rainfall so he doesn't think the City should be decreasing its ability to deal with rainfall by allowing more impervious surface, they should be encouraging more green space. He said it's interesting that there are plenty of developments that managed to have a relatively low percentage of impervious surface. Zimmerman noted that there are different ways to measure such as using lot coverage by building. Goellner added that they could keep the lot coverage number just below the amount impervious surface allowed which would send a message that the amount of surface parking has to be kept low, or they could also consider allowing a maximum size for a parking lot. Blum said he thinks they are trying to accomplish the walkability goal and they do that with a certain amount of increase in building size on each lot. Brookins said he is struggling to understand how someone would be able to meet the minimum parking requirements and still get to a lot with X amount of impervious surface, the correct setbacks, the allowed height, etc. so it would be helpful to see how all the requirements would work on a site. Blum asked if parking regulations may change in this district. Zimmerman said they have the option to set the parking ratio however they want. Baker said there are innovative ways to deal with parking that don't create more impervious surface such as parking beneath buildings which is much better than water storage beneath buildings. ��y �f��s ��y ��r��i�� c��s�� C�� t�� ar�� , �� r� Brookins said he is not in favor of reducing parking requirements. He said he thinks it would be poor planning not to expect people to come to these areas in cars and not having adequate parking would affect surrounding areas/neighborhoods as well. Baker said he thinks it was a failure in the past to allow a strip of green space along the edges of a property and he really thinks pressure should be put on developers to have public open space. Blum asked Baker if he thinks perimeter plantings enhance the walkability of a space. Baker said they do make boulevard areas more comfortable places to walk, but he thinks public green space is very desirable and if the City is zoning these areas Mixed Use one of the uses should be DORA space. Pockl asked if perimeter plantings are considered a buffer zone or'i#it is considered green space. Goellner said it would be both pervious space and a buffer. Pockl asked if there is any way to get more of a cohesive green space by stating that that buffer zones while pervious, don't count toward DORA, Baker stated that a lot of it is about design and there can be conditions in the Zoning Code that help make usable spaces. Segelbaum said he thought the vision for this district was for smaller lots, and smaller businesses. He said he doesn't know how there is going to be concentrated, usable open space unless the property is an acre or larger in size. He said he agrees with Commissioner Baker_s thoughts about usable spaces but for other zoning districts, not the Mixed Use Zoning District. Brookins said he is comfortable with the existing definition of usable open space being applied to all properties. He said he thinks the definition leaves some room for interpretation and staff can help people meet the definition when dealing with a difficult property. He added that he is comfortable with a 12% or 15% DORA and he is also comfortable raising the percentage of impervious surface allowed. Baker stated that everybody who develops in Golden Valley has to pay a park dedication fee and suggested using that money to dedicate a property within the Mixed Use District to be usable open space by a shared effort of all the participants in the Mixed Use District. Blum said he doesn't think the City will be able to force private property owners to develop all of the properties in a district at once so he thinks they need to prioritize what is important. He added that there would be a lot of effort and expense on the City's part that would go into using park dedication fees to buy, develop, and maintain property. Segelbaum agreed. Baker said they are trying to create benefits for the City. Sadeghi said if the goal is to promote development on smaller lots in Mixed Use areas they are going to have to increase the impervious surface limits. He referred to the impervious surface calculations for PUDs that was part of the staff report and noted that for all of the examples that were under 60% impervious, only five of them are below 100,000 square feet in lot size. He said he thinks that would bring the impervious surface requirements closer to the TOD consultant's recommendation of 90%. Baker stated that small lot owners could be required to contribute to something off their site to help accomplish pervious surface goals. �� f��I��r� ��i�� I��r�i�t� ��r� ��;�� :;��+� � �t�� g ��—� �� Johnson said the number that stands out to him is 75% and questioned if that can be modeled to see where it takes them. He said that way they can look at some numbers and adjust accordingly. Segelbaum said he would like to see that and he would also like to see the numbers within the context of what was envisioned for this district. Anderson asked the Commissioners what they value most about creating a Mixed Use Zoning District and what they are trying to accomplish. Segelbaum asked if they have defined what they wanted out of the Mixed Use Zoning District and if so could they be reminded of it. Baker said walkability is his highest priority. Sadeghi said to make it a desirable, walkable area there needs to be some retail, street presence, and smaller businesses to engage with. Blum asked Sadeghi if he is in favor of increasing the amount of impervious surface allowed only if it is for buildings. Sadeghi said he have to think about it more and how that would affect the parking regulations, but he knows that subterranean parking is extremely expensive and may make development less of a possibility. Brookins said it might help to separate the different Subdistricts because they are located in very different parts of the City. Segelbaum said modeling in the different Subdistricts might be helpful. Goellner asked the Commissioners how they felt about giving a height bonus for someone who keeps the impervious surface amount low. Pockl questioned how much that would over complicate the Zoning Code. Goellner said the City might get more green space, but might also be allowing buildings that are taller than wanted and residents typically have strong feelings about height. Brookins said he could see a height bonus applying to certain Subdistricts. Johnson said he would support considering a height bonus. Blum said he likes the idea of trade-offs. Blum noted that the last question staff wanted feedback on was if half of the side and rear yard setback area should be required to be maintained as a buffer zone. Pockl said yes, she thinks that makes sense. Blum said he likes fhe idea of buffering a surface parking lot. Pockl asked why the setback requirements range from 20 to 100 feet. Goellner said it depends on what type of property is next to it. --Short Recess-- Cou 'I Liaison Rep t No rep was given Reports on M o Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and oth eetings Goellner state at ouncil will be discussing bike lanes and their next Council/Manager meeting. �� V �� N;a . � �hysical D�euelc��►rn.ent I��.�trnent �s�-ss��-�o��!��3-s��-s�c��{��x) Date: luly 22, 2019 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Emily Anderson, Planning Intern Subject: Zoning Study 2019 Summary Staff is conducting a review of permitted, conditional, accessory, and prohibited uses for the different zoning districts in the Golden Valley Zoning Code and in the code of peer cities in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region. This research is being conducted for the purpose of updating and organizing uses in different zoning districts to modernize and improve Golden Valley's zoning code after the completion of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, staff is considering adding restricted uses to the Zoning Code. Restricted uses are also called 'permitted with conditions' or 'development standards' in other codes. It would allow more uses by right as long as those uses meet a clear set of development standards. Along with updating the uses in the Zoning Code, staff is also working on updating minimum parking requirements. This process includes research into peer cities' minimum parking requirements for comparison. Project Goals - Modernize the uses in the Zoning Code - Make it easier to understand what uses are allowed and what is not when reading the Zoning Code - Align the uses in the Zoning Code with those of other peer cities in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region - Update parking requirements to match uses in code - Update parking requirements to better reflect current transportation needs - Consider implementing restricted uses to allow more uses by right while still allowing a certain degree of control over the quality and impact of the development 1 Concept of Use Tables Staff is considering implementing the concept of use tables in the Zoning Code. A table would be created for each zoning district with each use being categorized as permitted (P), conditional (C), accessory (A), or not permitted (-- or NP) in each of the subdistricts. Several peer cities researched by staff have use tables to organize the different uses in their zoning codes. Below is an example of a use table from the City of Roseville's commercial zoning district. NB is the neighborhood business subdistrict, CB is the community business subdistrict, and RB-1/2 are the regional business subdistricts. Staff will also present more examples of use tables at the July 22, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. °Ca�t�lc �t?(��_t j ��3 j c•E� � ��i�-t ��t3�� _��_��_� __ ��ii�ital �t�as-�iitt�, k�:t��t�:l�'`t�� r� �� [' �' �' T' �i�i�t�t�r� �� -�ri��i[ ��r�r�ir��;, �;��o�:l�'�i�v c:�r�: "��' - C � C i � _ � � ��aut�t��a.��`� E � �n��r�� h��zta�, ��t�rinar� �:(rni� �_._,..._,v..� P P �� ___ -�------ ��..� __ � �� ti��.r�� in�,t�t��ti�� € �' � ��____�� _... __... _____ . _�_, � �_. C`"iu� c�r Ic�c��;�.�. �arr+��t� E' �'" I� � 1a" .._.....�....m.m._ ...........__-•-y ......__._. ........ _____..._.................. ..___......... .....__........�.. f ......,....._.... �kL.� Y.�41. L.�.%�l�l.�l �m�� f� � ,��...�..5....�-�•�� 7T�1�'.t�i� :�1tlCf:"_�µ� � � � ��_.�...�. �___�_�__ �i�atlt�t �1�s�. fit��a�� c.��rt�� ' F' E I' __ �__.� --,---_-_-_._____� ____� �;�._w___.__._. I ��r��itt� ��.l�fi�� t�Y��rt��l 4trc�, � C' � t' F�' l:} �r�: `� � � t� _€�x�l �a��c�r�� a�t� ._._ .. �. __ _�.._ __ �_ . . ,- ___ .__ �..i��lt�� r��t�ti�°tt�Frt �t�tc� �vr��:e:��;:��- [ '��' ; �C� � �F�' � (� �a�i.i��:t��tl � � Comparison with Other Cities Staff is conducting research into the uses and parking requirements in the zoning codes of the following cities: - Crystal - Richfield - St Louis Park - Woodbury - New Hope - Roseville - Robbinsdale - Minnetonka - Plymouth - Edina - Brooklyn Center This research will be used to compare and evaluate Golden Valley's zoning code against other cities to learn where our code matches up and falls behind our peer cities. Researching uses in other cities' zoning code will help inform the update of our uses to learn how other cities 2 categorize different uses, how they present that information in their zoning code, and what categories they use in allowing and restricting uses. Comparison with Golden Valley To further understand the uses currently in the zoning code, staff is also reviewing past City zoning code to try and understand the rationale behind certain nuances in the current code. In order to understand how certain uses ended up in the category they did involves tracing back its origins in the zoning code. Combined with comparing uses in other cities' zoning code, staff will be able to fully evaluate and update the uses in the Zoning Code to create a more comprehensive and modern list of uses. Staff Request Staff is looking for feedback around the following topics: 1. Incorporating restricted uses into the Zoning Code. 2. Incorporating use tables in the Zoning Code. 3. Other updates related to use that might be needed. Next Steps Staff will draft updates to the uses in the Zoning Code and bring it to the Planning Commission for discussion. Other topics may be introduced for consideration as implementation of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan continues. 3