Loading...
07-22-19 PC Minutes 7800 Golden Valley Road�Golden Valley,MN 55427 � !t,t {,/ 763-593-3992�TTY 763-593-3968�763-593-8109(fax)�www.goldernalleymn.gov ^ ��"�1��� � !1 � �� � � �� Planning Commission July 22,2019—7 pm Council Chambers REGULAR MEETING MINUTES GoldenValleyCityHall 7800 Golden Vailey Road Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Chair Blum Roll Call Commissioners present: Ron Blum, Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, and Ryan Sadeghi Commissioners absent: Rich Baker and Chuck Segelbaum Staff present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Planning Intern Emily Anderson Council Liaison present: Steve Schmidgall Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Pockl to approve the agenda of July 22, 2019, as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes MOTION made by Brookins, seconded by Johnson to approve the June 24, 2019, minutes as submitted and the motion carried unanimously. Discussion—Mixed Use Zoning District Zimmerman stated that this discussion is a continuation of previous discussions the Commission has had regarding revisions to the Mixed Use Zoning District. He said this discussion will focus on the revised descriptions of the three proposed subdistricts, a review of local site examples, building setbacks and height, impervious coverage and open space, and the next steps. Zimmerman referred to the three proposed subdistricts and explained that Subdistrict A is Neighborhood Mixed Use which is typically adjacent to County Roads or other arterials or collectors and includes medium-density residential, medium-scale commercial, office, and institutional uses. The target market is surrounding neighborhoods and it allows for vertical and horizontal mixed use but does not require a mix of uses in the buildings. Zimmerman stated that Subdistrict B is Community Mixed Use which is typically adjacent to State Highways or Interstates and includes high-density residential and commercial, office, and institutional uses. The target market is surrounding neighborhoods, the broader community, and the wider region. These areas are envisioned as gateways in certain parts of the City and allow for vertical and horizontal mixed use but does not require a mix of uses in the buildings. Zimmerman stated that Subdistrict C is Employment Mixed Use and is similar to Subdistrict B but the focus is on employment and there are no residential uses allowed in these areas. 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 inclutle large print,electronic, Braille,audiocassette,etc. City of Goiden Valley Planning Cnmmission Regular Meeting 2 July 22, 2019—7 pm Brookins said he thinks the amended definitions make more sense and thinks the City will be able to move forward more effectively. Zimmerman referred to the local site examples that were sent to the Commissioners prior to the meeting in order to provide examples of newer developments that were mixed use and closer to residential neighborhoods. He discussed the Talo Apartment development and asked the Commissioners for feedback. Johnson said what struck him was the contour and terrain. He said it's unfortunate that technically there are setback and height requirements but when you are standing in the backyard of the houses you see headlights of cars coming in. He said it got him thinking about height separation and the difference in elevation between properties and how that can make a six story building look abnormally high. Pockl agreed and said when she saw buildings that were two or three stories tall they seemed to fit in better with residential neighborhoods. She said she also focused on parking that is adjacent to single family homes and she thinks underground parking fits in better with the neighborhoods. Zimmerman asked the Commissioners how they felt about the distance between the apartment building and the homes in the Talo example shown. Pockl said she thinks there is a good amount of space between the buildings but there is a lot of impervious surface and it would be better if it were green space. Blum agreed and said what's in between two uses makes a big difference. He said it doesn't feel like the apartment connects very well with what surrounds it. Sadeghi asked if there is subterranean parking in the apartment building. Zimmerman said yes and that the parking ratio is approximately 1.5 spaces per unit. Zimmerman referred to another site example, the Ellipse Apartments in St. Louis Park and asked for feedback. Blum said what struck him about this example is the mix of uses in the same building and that the street seemed narrow in the residential area which seemed more friendly to him. Sadeghi agreed that the street felt like an alley built-in to the neighborhood and that the landscaping, mix of uses, and height were nice. Blum said the residential height is slightly higher than the parking lot and there is a lot of articulation in the building as well. He said some of the negative things about this example are the gas station across the street and the four-lane road that isn't very pedestrian or bicycle friendly. Zimmerman referred to the next site example, the Shoreham Apartments in St. Louis Park and asked for feedback. Pockl said she likes the way this property looks and she likes that the parking is more hidden which is less impactful to the single famity homes and looks more neighborly. Johnson said he likes the drive-thru area because it makes the building less massive and easier to get around. He said he also liked the distance and scale between the uses/properties. Zimmerman referred to another site example, the Village in the Park Condominiums in St. Louis Park. Pockl said of the five site examples this was her favorite because of the trees, the height, and the distance from the street and other homes. Blum said he liked the bike trail that was nearby and said it would be nice to think about that with new developments. Zimmerman referred to the next site example, West River Commons in Minneapolis. Brookins said his takeaway is that when the adjoining uses are side yards the transition is easier than when they abut City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Reguiar Meeting 3 July 22, 2019—7 pm backyards. He said it makes him question somewhat the areas they've identified as Mixed Use. Blum questioned if that feeling comes from placing the parking in the rear yard. Brookins said he didn't know because every lot is unique and the Talo site was difficult, but the transitions he sees working well are the side yard transitions. Zimmerman noted that there are only two Mixed Use areas in the City that abut single family properties. Zimmerman referred to building setbacks and height. He said from previous discussions the priorities have been to locate buildings close to front lot lines, push surface parking to the rear of properties, reduce the impact of height on single-family homes by limiting stories near abutting properties, and establish minimum and maximum heights to enhance the pedestrian experience which includes stepping back the fronts of buildings along streets. He discussed the proposed Code language regarding building setback and height regulations in each Subdistrict. Brookins referred to the primary and secondary front yard requirements and asked about the reason for having a 3-foot difference between them. He questioned what would be gained by requiring 3-feet more on one side. Zimmerman explained that it helps allow the back portion of properties have access for parking and it allows one front to be continuous and emphasized. Johnson referred to the proposed maximum building allowed in Subdistrict A and said four stories might be too much because it would be significantly higher than anything else in the neighborhood. He said allowing three stories might be more sensible. Zimmerman said that is part of the challenge of pushing things to be more urban in the right locations. Sadeghi asked if there has been any neighborhood comments about the Liberty Crossing development. Zimmerman said there was concern about the height of the apartment building during the approval process, but he has not heard anything since it has been built. Blum questioned if some of the concerns about height could be alleviated by requiring buildings to be stepped back as well. Zimmerman referred to some of the examples showing buildings that are stepped back. Brookins said he feels comfortable allowing four stories for the maximum building height in Subdistrict A. He referred to the Mixed Use area on the corner of Douglas Drive and Duluth Street and suggested adding the single-family parcels to the east into the district so that it would then be across the street from an institutional property and could handle a four story building quite well. Sadeghi asked how many Mixed Use parcels directly abut single-family parcels. Zimmerman said there are only two Mixed Use areas that directly abut single-family residential properties, however in the future there could be proposals to rezone properties to Mixed Use which could abut single-family residential. Blum asked how the Commissioners feel about requiring the same height regulations in Subdistricts B and C as there are in Subdistrict A when abutting residential properties. Zimmerman noted that currently there are no residential properties abutting Subdistricts B and C. Blum said he thinks there is some merit City of Goiden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4 July 22, 2019—7 pm in making the step back requirements in Subdistrict B the same as Subdistrict A. The Commissioners agreed. Johnson said it is important to state that they don't want to see monumental structures but they are trying to set the City up for success and growth. He said his concern is if someone is allowed a four story limit the first thing the City will get is an apartment building so he questions how to manage the Mixed Use areas. Zimmerman said he thinks the proposed language builds in requirements that will help achieve what they want in this zoning district. Zimmerman referred to the impervious coverage and open space priorities and said they include allowing additional impervious coverage to support increased density, emphasizing building coverage over surface parking, requiring usable outdoor space in most developments, and encouraging larger, coordinated open space amenities. Zimmerman discussed the proposed impervious coverage requirements in each of the Subdistricts. He explained that the proposed language separates the impervious coverage into different categories including: impervious coverage, building coverage, non-building coverage, and useable outdoor space. Blum asked if there needs to be a maximum building coverage requirement and what if someone doesn't want a surface parking lot. Zimmerman said there could be a range or ratio of the building coverage amount and the non-building coverage amount that could add up to the maximum amount of impervious surface allowed. He agreed that the limit should be on the amount of surface parking. Pockl asked if there has been any consideration given to heat absorption or heat reflection impacts. Zimmerman said there is some language regarding that, and building materials, in the resiliency chapter of the Comp Plan, but not in the Zoning Code yet. Blum asked if that is another rationale for better buffering in and around parking lots. Zimmerman said yes and added that the Environmental Commission will probably be working these types of issues. Sadeghi asked if a building covering 80%of a lot with subterranean parking and 5%surface parking would be allowed with the proposed new Code language. Zimmerman said it would not be allowed, which is why the Code may not need to distinguish between building coverage and impervious coverage as long as the non-building coverage is limited. Blum asked if incentivizing exceptionally minimal surface parking has been considered. Zimmerman said not specifically because it's challenging to find a trade-off in this Zoning District. Zimmerman asked the Commissioners if they feel comfortable moving forward with a public hearing or if they would prefer to have more discussion. The Commissioners agreed that they would like to move forward with the public hearing at their next meeting. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 5 July 22, 2019—7 pm Discussion—Zoning Study Anderson explained that staff is conducting a review of permitted, conditional, accessory, and prohibited uses for each of the zoning districts in the Zoning Code. She stated that the goals of the study are to update the uses, make the Code easier to understand, align the Code with other peer cities in the area, update the parking requirements to match uses and reflect current needs and trends, and to consider adding restricted uses to the Code. Johnson asked if trends means local trends or if it means general trends across the nation or region. Anderson said both locally and more generally. Anderson explained that work on the study so far has included reviewing codes from 11 other cities in the Minneapolis/St. Paul region; reviewing old Golden Valley Zoning Codes to learn the history of the current code; researching restricted uses including how other cities use them; creating use tables to show what uses are allowed or not allowed in each zoning district; and updating and modernizing uses. Anderson showed the Commission several examples of use tables and explained how they are used. She then discussed several examples of updates staff is researching including modifying the five subdistricts in the Institutional Zoning District, changing densities to match the 2040 Comp Plan, updating the Code to remove unnecessary uses, and updating the language in the Code. She explained that the next steps include bringing drafts of proposed new Code language to the Planning Commission for review in regard to amended uses, use tables, minimum parking requirements, 2040 Comp Plan updates, and any related changes. Johnson asked about the differences in the R-3 Zoning district and the 2040 Comp Plan. Zimmerman stated that in order to get the densities the way the Met Council needed them,the upper limit on the R- 3 Zoning District had to go up from 15 to 20 units per acre in order to make the zoning match what is in the Comp Plan. Pockl asked if other cities zoning codes were similar to Golden Valley's. Anderson said a lot of them are similar but there have been differences in regard to the types of uses in commercial zoning districts. Blum asked how the group home classifications will changes. Anderson said that the Code will need to be updated to state that wherever single-family homes are allowed group homes serving 15 people are also allowed. Blum asked what the current Code states. Anderson said she believes the current Code states that homes serving 15 people is only listed in the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. Blum asked what mechanism is used to allow them in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. Anderson said a Conditional Use Permit would be required. Zimmerman said there have been changes over time and that the Zoning Code needs to match what is required by State statute. Blum said it would be helpful to see the full range of possibilities rather than just what might have been proposed internally. Pockl said it would be helpful to have links in the use tables that helps people find the specific language associated with the uses. --Short Recess-- City of Golden Valley Planning Commissian Regular Meeting 6 July 22, 2019— 7 pm Council Liaison Report Schmidgall updated the Commission on a community meeting that the City Council held at the Talo Apartment building recently. There were concerns expressed by some tenants that the owner had increased the fees for parking in the ramp under the building and therefore the surface parking lot was crowded or even full. He also reported on a recent Minor PUD Amendment for the Xenia Apartment building that was discussed at a Council meeting. The developer was asking for the addition of one unit but the Council had numerous questions about the pace of construction and the length of time it was taking to complete the building. Because of that, the item was tabled to the next Council agenda. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other meetings No report was given. Other Business No other business was discussed. Adjournment MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Pockl and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 pm. . t J� f, �� , - t � ' � � � :' �_ ���� �� �..�� < I� ]� _ Adam Brookins, Secretary q�----- Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant