Loading...
02-23-09 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, February 23,2009 7pm 1. Approval of Minutes a. January 26, 2009 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing - 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Approval 3. Continued Item - Consideration of Resolution No. 09-01 Finding that the Redevelopment Plan for the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Project Area Conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan 4. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment -Regarding Definition of "Building Height" a. Applicant: City of Golden Valley b. Purpose: To amend the definition of Building Height in the City Code 5. Short Recess 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2009 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, January 26, 2009. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those presentwere Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assist Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Kluchka was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes January 12, 2009 Regular Planning Commission Waldhauser referred to the second paragraph on p Commission discussed pavers "of any kind" not" when she was talking about screening she w hat the e a 0 clarified that that ening with plants. Eck noted a few typographical errors. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Wald approve the January 12, 2009 . on carried unanimously to e noted corrections/clarifications. 2. Informal Public He . - Southwest Qu n it Development and Preliminary Plat and Highway 100 - The Towers at West End Applicant: adrant of 1-394 and Highway 100 for the construction of a 4,400 space (approximate) structure in Golden Valley. This will support up to 1.1 I n square feet of proposed office space to be built adjacent to he ramp in St. Louis Park. Grime hat this proposal consists of two different items, the Planned Unit Developm and the Preliminary Plat. He referred to a location map and noted that this proposal is located in the far southeast corner of the City. He stated that the property is designated for commercial/office on both the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Zoning Map. He showed the Planning Commissioners a map indicating where hearing notices for this meeting were sent. He explained that typically hearing notices are sent to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property but in this case that area was greatly expanded in order to get input from the public. Grimes referred to a map of the entire project and explained that the retail and service portion of the project is on the west side of the site and the office portion is on the east side of the site. He stated that the applicant is going through a similar approval Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2009 Page 2 process with the City of St. Louis Park because most of the project is in St. Louis Park. (The Preliminary PUD was recommended for approval by the St. Louis Park Planning Commission last week.) Only the proposed parking ramp and a portion of the connections from the ramp to the office building are in Golden Valley. He explained that the proposed total area of office space is 1.1 million square feet and will be a phased development in three or four buildings. At this point in time the applicant is asking for preliminary approval and they intend on waiting for a market for the office buildings before they will go ahead with the final plan approvals. He explained that when looking at a preliminary plan it is a broad r it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and general develo accepted by the City. He noted that there will be two building St. Louis Park for the office buildings and one from Golden ramp. He added that building inspections will be done by their City. Each city will handle public safety to the buildi be cooperation in fire and police calls. make sure pts ne from ng ildings in nd there will Grimes referred to a drawing of the proposed be approximately 9 stories in height. The par ground and one level below ground and will b stair/elevator tower being 75 feet in he' 4,400 parking spaces when all of th space per 250 square feet of floor that the proposal also calls for which is more than required b parking is proof of parkin added that the applica required 9 feet by 18.5 reasonable for a p g be located close to between the i be made f c d stated that they will III h six levels above tely 55 feet in height with the mp will have approximately built which is a ratio of 1 y the Zoning Code. He stated at a rate of 10% of the parking stalls n e. He explained that half of the bicycle the bicycle spaces will be built right away. He reduce the size of the parking stalls from the 18 feet. He said staff believes that is cility. He added that the proposed parking ramp will Blvd. frontage road with a sidewalk and landscaping e Wayzata Blvd. frontage road. The parking deck will Is that will match the office buildings. Grime oncern staff has about this proposed development is the eff:ect it n traffic along the Wayzata Blvd. frontage road to the east. He said sta; . wor Duke regarding traffic calming techniques, increasing pedestrian acce iI' d improving access in and out of the Tyrol neighborhood. He added that the s will have to be agreed upon prior to final PUD approval. He referred to an AUAR study that was done by St. Louis Park which showed traffic from this development will work with the existing street system and with the improvements that were proposed in the AUAR study. Grimes stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed parking ramp with the following conditions: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2009 Page 3 1. The parking deck shown in the plans for The Towers at West End prepared by Duke and Walsh Bishop Architects and dated 12/12/08 shall become a part of this approval. 2. The parking deck will be phased with the first phase consisting of about 1200 parking spaces on seven levels. 3. The memo and recommendations found in a memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, and dated January 21,2009 shall become a part of this recommendation. 4. The memo and recommendations found in a memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Develop nd dated January 9, 2009 shall become a part of this recommendation. 5. The Preliminary Plat of The Towers at West End is accept e s recommended by the City Engineer. egress e asked eads to the g building. Keysser d-e ithin the complex. explained that at one time s on the east side of the uld be reduced to two 'mes referred to the City ed about the tee intersection noted on d to be addressed by the applicant. Keysser referred to a map of the site and noted that ther points onto what is being called a private road sout of W where the private road leads to heading south. Gri HealthPartners building and goes all the way asked if the road will lead to another street or Grimes said the road will dead-end within the during the planning of this project ther parking ramp. It was the City Counci openings so that is what the appli Engineer's memo and noted th the plans so that is something Eck referred to the City 0 and noted that the concern is considerable from the neighborhood s t the amount of traffic that will be going along the Wayzata Blvd. . He asked Grimes to discuss what the traffic calming techniques will con referred to a map showing some of the ideas from the AUAR. H I map shows the intersections of the streets that come out onto the fr and the idea is to increase the sight distance at these interse ti t will do nothing regarding the amount of traffic on the streets, eople get in and out of their neighborhood. Grimes stated that th AUA analysis done by the city's traffic engineer shows that the streets ha he ca or the increased traffic, the idea is to improve the intersections. Eck said I erstanding from the neighbors that the problem is going to be the sheer n of cars, not if they are going to be able to see better at the intersections. Grimes said no one is denying that there isn't going to be more traffic but with some improvements people will be able to get in and out of the neighborhood safely. Cera asked if the AUAR considered the traffic when the previous small buildings were located on this property or if it only considered today's traffic figures. Grimes stated that there used to be 175,000 square feet of office space on this site and that the AUAR considered 1.1 million square feet of office space. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2009 Page 4 Keysser asked if the hotel currently being constructed is a part of this project. Grimes said no. He referred to a site plan and noted the applicant's proposed hotel location. Waldhauser asked if there are any specific proposals for traffic calming on the frontage road. Grimes stated that part of the AUAR looked at ways to help people get on and off the street at each of the intersections within the South Tyrol and Kennedy neighborhoods which may include improvements that will slow traffic down as well. He reiterated that no permits will be issued by the City until the applicant submits plans for traffic calming that are acceptable to the City. Waldhauser asked if anyone has considered having fewer, but better controlled connections or acce . from the Tyrol neighborhood to Wayzata Blvd. Grimes stated that the city' 'neer believes improving the sight distance at the intersections will b nt for everyone in the area. Waldhauser said she is concerned th 't work it will then be at Golden Valley's expense to come up wit e Planning ork was started. site. He referred to gs d stated that based on with the same amount of David Bade, Development Manager, Duke Realty, ~pplic Commission aerial photos of the site from summer ~' He then showed an aerial photo of the current perspective drawings showing three and four market conditions there may only be three 0 square footage. Waldhauser referred to the shade based on having three or four having four buildings. He stat and the shade study wou ne and asked if that study was sai the shade study was based on e three buildings they would be taller Bade showed perspec parking ramp and pedestrian connect site. He said through area safe pe gs 0 he proposed buildings connected to the estrian walk-through area that would provide a access to the large green space in the center of the e City has some concerns about the pedestrian walk- willing to change their plans if needed in order to provide a n. the applicant if they have considered splitting the parking ramp into 'nstead of having one gigantic ramp. Bade said that they are design of the ramp but it will depend on the types of users in the office Keysser asked if the office buildings themselves will have any parking areas or if all of the parking will be in the proposed ramp. Bade stated that all of the parking for the office buildings will be in the ramp. McCarty asked the applicant if they end up with two buildings if they would still have one large parking ramp. Bade said they wouldn't necessarily have one large parking ramp. He reiterated that it is a phased development so it really depends on the type of users in the office buildings. McCarty asked the applicant if they have any potential Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2009 Page 5 tenants. Bade said they are hoping the excitement from the retail portion of the project will draw in office tenants. He stated that construction of the first office tower could potentially begin late this fall and the buildings typically take 18 months to build. Keysser asked about parking for the potential hotel use. Bade said the potential hotel would have some parking under the building, some on-grade surface parking and maybe a small ramp. Bade referred to the AUAR and explained that there were certain improvements brought forward as a result of the AUAR. He discussed the improve that have been made to Park Place Blvd. such as lane widening, extra Ian xtra turn lanes, traffic timing and park and ride adjustments. He stated t ear SEH did a traffic calming study pertaining more to the east of ...... I O. He referred to photos of many of the intersections in GOlden.{tlg ta Blvd. and discussed some of the proposed improvements suc ou striping, shrub clearing and sidewalk extensions. He explain~d tha and there are resident concerns and potential traffic issues. He sa!j' to help the issue by reducing the number of exit points from the Iso trying to promote traffic flow onto Utica which would then use 1 and the improvements that are now in place. Bade discussed the stormwater ma that they have been working with years. He talked about the bel and reduce run-off by 87% c they are reducing phosph Creek Watershed Distr" gardens, green walls an gray water for irrig this project and explained ,~~eek Watershed District for two tion"pipes they are using to direct water r nstruction conditions. He stated that and they have partnered with the Minnehaha II green roof areas and options for rain ture run-off from the parking ramp to use as s Avenue, stated that he has attended many meetings proposals. He stated that January 29,2008 was the last on this topic where traffic calming options were discussed. He , Duke and the City of Golden Valley ceased discussions regarding ey portion of this proposal. He said he is pleased that Duke has reduce mber of entrances and exits on the ramp from four to two. He said the design and quality of the proposed development have never been a concern to him but his paramount concern is traffic and how it will impact his neighborhood. He said he has the following requests to make of the Planning Commission and City Council as they consider this proposal: 1) reconvene a neighborhood meeting in Golden Valley to review the traffic calming measures, 2) continue traffic counts in the neighborhood both pre and post construction of the retail portion of the Duke development, 3) continue to confirm and produce formal documentation showing that there is no intention of ever extending 16th Street through the entire project allowing traffic to exit through the development into the Golden Valley neighborhoods, 4) continue to work Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2009 Page 6 with MnDOT on improving the existing frontage road. He said he has no doubt Duke will have a high quality project he just his trying to find ways to alleviate traffic problems that he knows are going to get worse. Joseph Lee, 400 Tyrol Crest, said his concern is traffic. He said right now on June Avenue visibility is one issue because of the winding roads, but the quantity of traffic is a problem as well. He said he would like to see a yellow blinking light or a stop sign installed. He referred to Mr. Bade's discussion of "bump-outs" as a traffic calming technique and asked how the bump-outs will help solve the traffic problems. Robert Lazear, 1519 Natchez Avenue South, said he wrote a lett year regarding this proposal and passed out copies of his lett appreciates that Duke and the two cities have listened to th have done some improvements. He said what it comes d locked neighborhood and there are only two ways to get neighborhood, making it very difficult. He questione onc what can be done to make sure they can safely tur he is concerned about traffic from the develop Blvd. rather than onto 16th Street and Park PI he doesn't recall anyone from MnDOT ever a this development and asked if staff co he believes there is going to be a ne of Natchez Avenue. He referred t parking ramp will also be deve going to be built if the buildin commitment on paper co . points from the ramp. maximizing safety and two from now afte last o rns and re a land ent is done orhood. He said d out onto Wayzata ave ore capacity. He said of the meetings regarding are in attendance. He said n Wayzata Blvd. slightly west :11~li?construction and asked if the or if a giant 4,000 space mega ramp is ,ises. He added that he would like a ere Will only be two, not four entrance/exit t his major concern is minimizing traffic and a t affic counts should be revisited is a year or ce is open. Todd Shipma ay, said it is important to understand that this is a special pi ce t warrants serious consideration because the topography and ch He said the City also needs to understand that this area gets a daylight so there is a lot of additional ice and snow that d sn't g . He reiterated that they are a land locked neighborhood so there ar othe tives regarding exiting the neighborhood. He said he takes the bus to wo re is a huge risk of getting hit on the frontage road so he thinks installin light is going to be imperative. He said he notices that there is a lot of commuter traffic that currently parks in the vacant ramps and he doesn't know where those cars are going to go. He said no matter what the AUAR says the City has to go a step further and understand the dynamics of the neighborhood. Betsy Zakrajsheck, 1425 Natchez Avenue South, said traffic and safety are her major concerns. She said Natchez is currently a major cut through street off of Wayzata Blvd. and there are no sidewalks on Natchez. She said walking along the frontage road is dangerous because of the speeding traffic. She is worried about her kids and the kids in the neighborhood with all of the speeding traffic on Natchez. She said she Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2009 Page 7 fears that with the back-up of traffic along the frontage road more and more people will cut through on Natchez to get to Cedar Lake to make their way to Highway 100. James Murray, 1520 Natchez Avenue South, said he is concerned about the AUAR traffic study because since it was done MnDOT has added lanes along 1-394 down to the Dunwoody area so now people can cut through and go across to Penn Avenue to avoid the traffic on 1-394. He said MnDOT has got to have some participation in this because they've affected the outcome. He said he thinks the traffic study is no longer relevant to the traffic they are going to have after this proposed development. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser cI hearing. ., stated been a very e sure the ave n the two raffic situation better by ate erent traffic patterns. was done on this site in 1989 feet of office space. He said development. Pat Mascia, Senior Vice President, Twin Cities Operatio they've been working on this project for almost 5 years. civil discussion and process and realizes it is in their best traffic works in this development. He said parking a!tf~: biggest challenges of this project. They are try. having retail and office uses together becaus He said the original environmental impact sta assumed that there would be an additi there is no intention of extending 16t Mascia explained that there w meetings and today's meetin having a Joint Powers A engineered to change t changed. He referred t calming techniqu e measures will work parking in the employee cur that heal e between the original neighborhood cities had originally talked about hat di not come about, the ramp had to be re- its from four to two and the market conditions tio arding the use of "bump-outs" as a traffic that they are still in the process of figuring out what rred to the concern about commuter traffic currently noted that those cars belong to the construction ing on site and are not commuters as suggested. He added od idea to work with MnDOT. K sser the site plans and asked if any thought has been given to having all exits e parking ramp be on the west side and having no exits on the north es. Mascia explained that there has to be exits on the north side to allow th to function properly. He said that the site probably won't be fully developed for approximately 10 years and reducing the exits from four to two is the best they can do. Grimes added that the plans would be approved based on the plans submitted so there can't be any major changes from what has been submitted. Keysser asked what would happen if one large tenant came in and wanted a different parking ramp. Grimes explained that if the parking ramp design changes significantly from what is approved the applicant would have to come back to the City for approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2009 Page 8 Grimes reiterated that there will have to be traffic calming measures approved prior to final plan approval so that when the office buildings open the traffic improvements will be in place. Grimes referred to the proposed pedestrian walk-through in the parking ramp and stated that staff has some concerns about the safety of it. He said staff would like to see a pedestrian connection and would like to suggest that language be added saying the pedestrian walk-through will be revisited at a later date rather than just saying no to the proposed walk-through at this point. Keysser asked if it is a reasonable request to do traffic counts in retail portion of the project is open. Grimes said traffic counts easily. He explained that MnDOT has reviewed these plans concerns about the frontage road. He said he is more th representative from MnDOT to attend a meeting howeve want to hear a traffic proposal from the City first. Heexpl certain standards to warrant signs, traffic lights, et to discuss all of the traffic calming techniques .. ta are going to c has to meet pen and willing Waldhauser referred to the pedestrian walk-t there to be a condition of approval tha access route from the Tryol area thr the retail area. Grimes recommen that language as a condition 0 access through the ramp. Sc separating the ramp into pedestrians. and said she would like and attractive pedestrian buildings and parking ramp to ;t_~ping Commission specifically ad? rty agreed with the need for pedestnan I inks it could be safely done by drives where cars don't come near Grimes said he w another neighborh approval. o add a condition of approval regarding having discuss traffic calming issues prior to final plan sed bump outs on the frontage road intersections and said azardous. He said with the topography, curves and the ice in e bump outs would be dangerous. He agreed that MnDOT really d in this development. Eck sta t traffic is the number one concern and Golden Valley is being asked to come up with solutions to a problem that is not of our making. He said the Planning Commission is being asked to recommend approval of this proposal without having any valid idea of whether this traffic issue is going to be a serious problem or not or how it is going to be solved. He said he is in support of the proposal and hopes the traffic issues are taken seriously. McCarty said he is concerned about the size of the ramp. He asked if there is any accommodation in this ramp regarding the future of traffic such as electric cars, hybrid cars, smaller cars, etc. He asked if the ramp design is based on historical traffic data. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2009 Page 9 He also asked about the parking ratio requirements and asked if those numbers are outdated and suggested maybe the ratio be decreased if possible. Grimes stated that one advantage in building the parking ramp in phases is that these types of items can be addressed in the future. Mascia said the ramp hasn't been designed yet. He explained that it will be designed in accordance with the market at the time it is built. Grimes noted that requiring 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area is fairly standard and he wants to be flexible depending on the type of tenant using the ramp. Mascia said they would like to build as few parking spaces as possible because each space costs money in structured parking. Grimes stated that many of these issues are addressed in the Traffic Management Plan. e site is tions if s are not ed about McCarty referred to the idea of recounting the traffic after the r open and noted that retail and office use have different pea the retail counts would be valid for the office use. Keysse equal but it would give the City more data. Grimes said h the am and pm peak trips. Cera said he is having difficulty making a deci . would like to see the traffic calming informati MnDOT. oposal because he e to hear from MOVED by Eck, seconded by McCa Planned Unit Development and P . following conditions. Commissi d to recommend approval of itJJJ!mfQf The Towers at West End with the -";;iMi<4"" ained from voting. 1. The parking deck sho Duke and Walsh Bi this approval. 2. The parking d parking spaces 3. The mem Oliver, PE, Jan 4. Th .Ande uary s for T e Towers at West End prepared by and dated 12/12/08 shall become a part of sed with the first phase consisting of about 1200 Is. ions found in a memo from City Engineer Jeff Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, and dated I become a part of this recommendation. mmendations found in a memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed rk W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated shall become a part of this recommendation. ary Plat of The Towers at West End is acceptable with changes reco ed by the City Engineer. 6. There will be a safe and attractive pedestrian access route from the Tryol area through both the office buildings and parking ramp to the retail area. 7. Grimes said he would also like to add a condition of approval regarding having another neighborhood meeting to discuss traffic calming issues prior to final plan approval. 5. --Short Recess-- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2009 Page 10 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 5. Other Business Lester Eck, Secretary Hogeboom reminded the Commissioners that they are invited to February 10, 2008 Council/Manager meeting where they will d Douglas Drive Corridor study. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9: 1 0 pm. Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: February 17, 2009 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update - Informal Public Hearing As required by Minnesota State Statute 473.859 (the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act), the City of Golden Valley must submit an update of its Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council, as guided by State law, ensures that the City's Comprehensive Plan adheres to the regional framework of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Comprehensive plans are required to be updated every ten years. Most recently, the City's Comprehensive Plan was revised in 1999. After a thorough process of revision, the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update has been completed. The Comprehensive Plan is divided into ten chapters. Chapters are differentiated based on particular areas of planning. For instance, transportation planning is given its own chapter. In previous adaptations of the Comprehensive Plan, chapters were approved as stand alone documents. The former writing styles varied between the different chapters. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update, in its entirety, has been edited by the City's Communications Department. This enables the document to maintain a sense of unity and cohesiveness. For the first time in the City's history, the Comprehensive Plan is entirely accessible online. This will allow future updates and revisions to the Plan to be instantaneously accessed. The draft plan has been accessible online since May, 2008. Residents have been encouraged to share their input on the plan since that time. Several comments were received by staff, which primarily pertained to current public works projects. These comments have been addressed by the appropriate staff. The Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed by adjoining cities and governmental agencies. In addition, the City Council has recently reviewed the draft Plan at a workshop meeting. To be implemented, the Plan must be approved by the City Council, as well as the Metropolitan Council. The Plan is anticipated to be presented to the City Council for approval in March, and be submitted to the Metropolitan Council in early April. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update may be viewed, in its entirety, at http://www.cLgolden-vallev.mn.us/zoninQ/compplan.htm. If you have questions or concerns, or wish to have individual excerpts of the Plan produced for the Planning Commission meeting for further discussion, please contact me at jhoQeboom@cLgolden-vallev.mn.us or 763-593-8099. Staff feels confident that the Plan reflects the will and desire of the citizens of Golden Valley, and requests the Planning Commission to recommend the Plan for adoption by the City Council. alley Memo ndum Housing & Redevelopment Authority 763-593-8002 I 763-593-8109 (fax) 7800 Golden Valley Rd. Golden Valley, MN 55427 763-593-8014 Date: February 19, 2009 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jeanne Andre, Assistant Director, Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority SubJect: Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area On November 10 the Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) approved the attached Redevelopment Plan and recommended its adoption to the Golden Valley City Council. Under state law the Plan is to be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to its consideration by the City Council. The Planning Commission is charged with determining if the Plan is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. A resolution outlining this determination is attached. The plan identifies a geographic area and identifies principles for the redevelopment of this area. It establishes general goals and policies to be followed for public improvements and redevelopment of the corridor. It describes three subareas and redevelopment opportunities in these subareas. On December 8 the Planning Commission tabled considered of this item asking the HRA to reconsider the definition of the Redevelopment Area and amend the Project Area Defined, Section 6. At a January 13 Workshop the HRA determined that it wished to retain the Redevelopment Area as initially defined, revise text in Section 6 Redevelopment Area Defined, and add a new Section 7 Redevelopment Opportunities. Staff has proposed land uses in Section 7 Redevelopment Opportunities that are aligned with the guided land uses in the Comprehensive Plan prepared in 2008 and proposed for adoption in 2009. Under state statutes the Planning Commission is required to concur that the Redevelopment Plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-01 (1 page) Draft Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area (9 pages) Requested Action: Motion to adopt Resolution 09-01 Finding that the Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Redevelopment Project Area Conforms to the General Plans for the Development and Redevelopment of the City. PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 09-01 RESOLUTION OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR DOUGLAS DRIVE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the "City") and the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") establish Douglas Drive Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"), and adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area (the "Plan"), all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047; and WHEREAS, the City and the Authority have caused to be prepared and submitted the Plan to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") for review prior to the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plan to determine its conformity with the general plan for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plan conforms with the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. Adopted this day of ,2009. Chair Attest: Secretary Exhibit A Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area Con Considera Resoluti Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area Section 1. Introduction As part of a goal-setting session in 2006 the City Council identified Douglas Drive (CSAH 102) as a primary area of concern for the future of the City. As part of the 2008 update of the Comprehensive Plan, the City again identified the Douglas Drive Corridor from Medicine Lake Road (CSAH 70) to Minnesota Trunk Highway (TH) 55 as a priority for further study. There is significant through traffic from communities to the north and the mixture of land uses along the corridor in Golden Vall adds even more traffic. The volume of traffic combined with limited public right-of-w i1able for expansion will present challenges to improving this corridor and its frastructure. Traffic is heavy along the corridor due to its designation by County as a minor arterial corridor. Its mixture of land uses including sing . family, offices, retail, schools, churches and industrial uses, some d, could through redevelopment, become a more vibrant, i Section 2. State Authorization The Authority finds Area in order to provi base, an eth securi t meet to pay improper contribute to opment within the City and the Project g opportunities, to improve the local tax City and the State. The economic oper development of property that itions, I ing properties whose values are too low or rendered and properties whose lack of use or r unproductive land that could otherwise d welfare. The Authority fin cases such property cannot be developed without public participation ce in various forms including property acquisition and/or write-down, proper pia he financing of development costs associated with clearance, grading and so s correction, and the making of various other public and private improvements necessary for development. In cases where the development of property cannot be done by private enterprise alone, the Authority believes it to be in the public interest to consider the exercise of its powers, to advance and spend public money, and to provide the means and impetus for such development. The Authority finds that in certain cases property within the Project Area would or may not be available for development without the specific financial aid to be sought, that the Redevelopment Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Project Area by private enterprise, and that 1 this Redevelopment Plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. It is the intention of the Governing Body, notwithstanding the enumeration of specific goals and objectives in the Redevelopment Plan, that the Authority shall have and enjoy with respect to the Project Area the full range of powers and duties conferred upon the Authority pursuant to the HRA Act, the TIF Act, municipal housing and redevelopment authority laws, and such other legal authority as the Authority may have or enjoy from time to time. The HRA Act authorizes the Authority to exercise all the and redevelopment authority granted under Minnesota 469.047, or other law. ers relating to a housing es, Sections 469.001 to d uses were more ell, United Health r and the average 10,000 to Middle the Luce Line Trail through Iymouth Ith Wirth Park in Minneapolis. h connections to this trail for bikers and s Golden Valley received funding tudy this corridor and plan for future connections in this corridor. The Section 4. . ciples 1. Improve co tivity a unctionality for all transportation modes. Douglas Drive, which is sified county state-aid highway in the Hennepin County Transportation P or arterial road in the City's Comprehensive Plan, has historically focused torized vehicles. Traffic volume has increased significantly over the years as has e need for better, safer pedestrian and non-motorized transportation and transit options. Intersection improvements at Highway 55/ Douglas Drive and other key major and minor intersections within the corridor are critical to safer and improved movement for pedestrians, non-motorized and vehicular traffic in the corridor. 2. Enable the corridor to maintain a diverse mix of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial. A mix of activities, uses and densities will help to sustain the corridor through changing economic cycles, consumer 2 preferences and housing trends. Clustered and mixed uses can create synergies, increase transit use and enhance the level of pedestrian activity. 3. Maximize integration rather than separation of land uses, where appropriate. Many land uses can benefit from increased integration with one another, including neighborhood-serving retail, multi-family and senior housing, offices, and low-impact services. Non-residential corridor uses should be buffered from adjacent residential neig hborhoods. 4. Maintain the corridor as an employment center. Jobs within the corridor help maintain Golden Valley's jobs-housing balance while sustaining commercial enterprises. Retaining 'living wage' jobs should be a priority. 5. Improve the visual coherence and attractiveness of the corridor. Improvements in streetscapes, landscaped areas, open spaces, building aesthetics and parking/service areas all contribute to a more unified and visually appealing environment, with an increased sense of identity. Buildings and other private improvements should make positive contributions to the corridor and the broader public realm, while public improvements should set the standard for private investment. 6. Foster neighborhood-serving retail and services. Multimodallinks to commercial development should be enhanced. 7. Foster sustainable development and work to establish a balance between urban and natural systems. Encourage the application of green building and infrastructure techniques. Examples include low-impact development that maintains the natural functions of the land, encourages reduced stormwater runoff and fosters resource conservation and the use of renewable systems in new construction. Section 4. Goals and Objectives The current hodge-podge of land uses, minimal right-of-way (63 to 100 feet), sometimes minimal building setbacks from a high-traffic road, and the desirability of buffering residential uses from the high volume of traffic make the corridor an ideal candidate for broader redevelopment. Some goals of the redevelopment would be to provide for additional right-of-way, consolidate corridor land uses and the number of access points onto Douglas Drive. There are existing impediments in the right-of-way (electrical poles, fire hydrants, utility boxes, railroad crossings, etc.) that complicate the infrastructure needs for the area and impede pedestrian and bike access which could also be addressed through redevelopment. To achieve its mission of structured redevelopment, this Plan has identified six goals with related objectives to encourage cohesive planning and structured redevelopment within the corridor. It then outlines policies that will help to achieve the goals and objectives. Goal 1 - Improve vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian transportation. Objectives · Improved roadway with added pedestrian and non-motorized transportation facilities 3 · Complete streets that meet vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian needs · Reduced impediments in the sidewalks · Undergrounded utilities · Consolidated access points onto Douglas Drive Goal 2 - Redevelop obsolete properties. Objectives · Blighted, functionally obsolete, and/or economically unsustainable buildings removed · New uses compatible with existing uses Goal 3 - Create jobs and life-cycle housing. Objectives · Increased high-paying jobs · Housing stock that is maintained or improved · Higher density housing · Housing for seniors and young families · Affordable housing · Commercial uses that serve the community Goal 4 - Require design that is sustainable and aesthetically pleasing. Objectives · Enhanced community identity through features which reflect Golden Valley. · Visually attractive development that complements its surroundings. · Buildings constructed with environmentally sustainable 'green building' practices (Development that meets environmental criteria set forth by Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and the United States Department of Energy). · Active living criteria included in design Goal 5 - Protect the environment. Objectives · Wetlands that are protected and enhanced · Land free of soil and wetland contamination · Arborous environments · Natural features retained and native vegetation (re)established · Co-located uses that reduce the amount of auto travel and corresponding air pollution · Best shoreline management practices implemented along Bassett Creek Goal 6 - Maintain a regional framework. Objectives · Growth compatible with the Metropolitan Council development framework · Public infrastructure designed in cooperation with Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park District, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation · Participation in grant programs available through Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council and other agencies · A positive relationship with surrounding communities and governmental agencies · Continued participation in cooperative traffic management strategies · Improved transit options 4 Section 5. Policies land Use The City will study planned land uses to determine the need or desirability of individual parcel or area-wide comprehensive plan or zoning amendments to accommodate desired land uses. The City and HRA will assure that its review processes, zoning, and building regulations will promote desired development projects. The City will assure that new uses in the redevelopment area are compatible with existing development and the City's land use plan. sed density where wth strategy. The City and HRA will review existing corridor prop~ viability and/or options for alternative uses. Land use plans will promote mixed use dev appropriate, in keeping with the Metropoli Financing The City and HRA will identify crit increment financing, tax abatem Block Grants and other funding governmental units. s tax The City and HRA w' that serve a subst nce development projects itigate contamination. downs to subsidize redevelopment Rede based utility surcharges to underwrite the cost of Design and Enviro The City will promote ndards ctices to meet the highest environmental standards. The City and HRA will identify approaches and/or incentives to promote a corridor beautification program. This program will include both public and private components. The City will monitor ongoing research on sustainable development initiatives to guide redevelopment and future updates of this plan. Transportation The City will work with Metropolitan Transit to monitor transportation needs of area residents and workers and identify ways to improve transportation services including 5 improving transit routes, and working with area businesses to develop transportation management plans. The City will work with Hennepin County, the State of Minnesota and other agencies to design and seek funding for an improved roadway with added pedestrian and non- motorized transportation facilities that meet city, county and state needs. Section 6. Redevelopment Area Defined In 2008-09 the City is studying the full length of Douglas Drive from Medicine Lake Road on the north to Trunk Highway 55 on the south. Until that study is completed the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area will include the Douglas Drive street right-of-way and parcels on the east side of the street from Duluth S he Union Pacific railroad right-of-way to the south. This area has limited sidew the west right-of-way and no sidewalk or trail on the east side, which has a . t number of multifamily housing units. Area A-1 Area A-1 extends from Duluth S guided Commercial and Office. I gas stations and a multi-tenant offl The full Douglas Drive Redevelopment Ar into three subsections, based on land us . The area is divided t Golden Valley Road. It is ght-of- . Existing land uses range ee- to five- story rental apartment and e Metropolitan Council has identified . s 2030 Regional Parks System Map. Area Area A- Line Trail. peaking plan oad south to the Union Pacific Railroad/Luce I whl guided Industrial. A CenterPoint Energy center currently occupies this site. Common features reas include inadequate or no sidewalk and electrical poles and overhead ould impede the development of sidewalks. There is pedestrian access on in cting east-west roads including sidewalks on Duluth St. and Golden Valley Road and the new Luce Line Trail along the Union Pacific right-of- way. Section 7. Redevelopment Opportunities Infrastructure A main objective of redevelopment is the provision of public infrastructure, including: road improvements that accommodate existing and future development along the corridor while limiting direct access to the road; sidewalk, trail and bicycle facilities in conjunction with the roadway or in the CP Rail corridor that bisects and runs adjacent to 6 the Redevelopment Area; ponding and storm sewer facilities that meet current environmental standards; and water and sanitary sewer upgrades to meet current and future needs. Area A-1 Proposed land uses for Area A-1 include commercial and office development consistent with its location near the key intersection of Douglas Drive and Duluth St. The goal of redevelopment would be to provide high-quality uses and reduce the number of access points on both Douglas Drive and Duluth St. Area A-2 The focus of Area A-2 would remain residential, but in keeping with the 2009 Comprehensive Plan, higher density housing could replace existing single-family, duplex and triplex housing. The goal of replacement housing would be to provide high- quality life-cycle housing that provides a greater range of housing options for Golden Valley residents and reduce the number of access points on Douglas Drive. There are currently 178 units of housing in Area A-2. Six parcels in the area south of Bassett Creek and north of Golden Valley Road are under option for development as senior housing. The optioned land is proposed to be developed with two four-story buildings, one with 74 units of senior cooperative housing and a second with 95 units of senior independent and assisted living units. If this project goes forward, the number of housing units in Area A-2 would increase to 318 and two new housing types would be available in the corridor. Area A-3 In Area A-3 the objective would be to maximize CenterPoint's use of the site while keeping access points on Douglas Drive to a minimum. Expanded CenterPoint facilities, such as a customer call center, would complement its existing peaking facilities at this site and would increase the intensity of land usage, enhance the tax base and bring additional employees to the corridor. 7 = ffi.ffi3 EIl'JB3~ .Mv1;:lct~ wi'iMht.<1MS" C~"%fIi {Ct.lOOlSG%S~ MapA Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area 8 Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: February 17, 2009 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Request to Amend "Average Grade" and "Building Height" Definitions in City Code At the January 12 meeting of the Planning Commission, staff recommended changing the definition of "building height" to allow the Director of Public Works to determine average grade of a property when a pre-existing structure has been removed. Staff explained that the City currently recommends the average grade of structures to be two feet above the grade of the centerline of the street. In cases were a pre-existing structure sits below street level, drainage and erosion issues could occur. The Planning Commission directed the Planning Department to work with the Public Works Department and the Inspections Department to create a concrete definition of "building height", which would allow staff to establish average grade only in situations where positive drainage is impacted. Based on recommendations from Building Official Gary Johnson and Public Works Director Jeannine Clancy, staff redrafted the definition of building height. The current draft eliminates language pertaining to average grade, instead moving it to be included in the "average grade" definition. The current draft language now emphasizes four considerations that must be evaluated when determining average grade. These considerations include the elevation of the pre-existing structure, the elevation of the street, the minimum driveway grade, and draining implications. Because the newly drafted language is different from that which was previously approved, staff asks the Planning Commission to re-evaluate the current draft definition of "building height", as well as the newly recommended definition for "average grade", and offer its recommendation of approval to the City Council. Attachment Revised Section 11.03, Definitions 8.5 and 12 (2 pages) 8. Automobile Wrecking: The dismantling or disassembling of used motor vehicles or trailers, or the storage, sale or dumping of dismantled, partially dismantled, obsolete or wrecked vehicles or their parts. Source: Ordinance No. 585 Effective Date: 1-14-83 8.5. Average Grade: The average ground elevation of a house or structure taken at three (3) points along a building line facing a street. If the house or structure faces more than one (1) street, the average grade shall be for all sides facing the street. The grade or average grade of a lot is established at the time of subdivision approval by the City. If the grade or average grade was not established at the time of subdivision approval by the City, the City Engineer. in coordination with the Building Official. shall establish the average grade prior to construction of the structure. In the case where a house or structure has been removed from a lot for the construction of a new house or structure. the average grade for the new house or structure shall be no more than one (1) foot higher than the grade or average grad that existed for the house or structure that was removed. When drainage issues exist. the City Engineer. in coordination with the Building Official shall determine average grade prior to the issuance of a building permit. based on the following criteria: .L. Existing elevations prior to demolition L Existing street elevations .J... Minimum driveway grade of three percent (3%) 4. Positive drainage occurs away from structures on all adjoining properties Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08 9. Basement: That portion of a building with at least three (3) walls having at least one-half (1/2) or more of their floor-to ceiling height underground. 10. Buildable Area: That area of a lot which is exclusive of all yards and within which the principal building must be constructed. Source: Ordinance No. 585 Effective Date: 1-14-83 11. Building: Any structure for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or property of any kind and when separated by dividing walls without openings, each portion of such buildings, so separated, shall be deemed a separate building. Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 12. Building, Height: The vertical distance or height of a structure shall be measured from the average grade at the front building line (street side) gll street sides of the structure to the average height of the highest pitched roof or the highest point of a flat roof structure. The gr;Jde or ;Jver;Jge gr;Jde of ;J lot is est;Jblished ;Jt the time of subdivision ;Jppro'..:;J/ by the City. If the gr;Jde or ;Jver;Jge gr;Jdo 'N;JS not est;Jblished ;Jt the time of subdivision ;Jpproval by the City, the Director of Public Works sh;J1I est;Jblish the ;Jver;Jge gr;Jde prior to construction of the structure. In the C;Jse 'Iv'here ;J house or structure h;JS been removed from ;J lot for the construction of a new house or structure, the ;Jver;Jge gr;Jde for the ne'.... house or structure sh;J1I be no more th;Jn one (1) foot higher th;Jn the gr;Jde or ;Jver;Jge gr;Jde th;Jt existed for the house or structure th;Jt W;JS removed. In the C;JSC of;J corner lot, tho ;JVeF;Jge gr;Jde is t;Jl<en from all sides of the house or structure f;Jcing the street. Source: Ordinance No. 382, 2nd Series Effective Date: 3-28-08