Loading...
02-23-09 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 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, February 23,2009. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom, Assistant City Manager Jeanne Andre and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner McCarty was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes January 26, 2009 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Eck noted a few typographical errors. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carried to approve the January 26, 2009 minutes with the above noted corrections. Commissioner Kluchka abstained from voting. 2. Informal Public Hearing - 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Approval Hogeboom explained that this item is the beginning of the public hearing process for the approval of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. He referred to a PowerPoint presentation and discussed the background issues first. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan guides the overall vision for the City and the reason cities do a comprehensive plan is that it is mandated by the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act. He stated that the first comprehensive plan in Golden Valley was created in 1959 and revisions are required every 10 years. He added that this 2008 version of the Plan is a complete overhaul of past versions and it was written to incorporate the goals from Envision Golden Valley and to provide electronic-based access. Hogeboom explained that the process began with Envision Golden Valley. From there the Planning Commission, Environmental Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission met once a month throughout 2007 to review the individual chapters. The next step in the process was the open house held in spring 2008 and it has been on the City's web site for review and featured in CityNews since June 2008. He stated that the next steps in the Comprehensive Plan update are review by City Council on March 17 and submittal to the Metropolitan Council on April 6. Hogeboom showed the Commissioners a picture of what the Comprehensive Plan will look like on the City's web site. Kluchka asked how many people are currently using the link to the Comprehensive Plan on the City's web site. Hogeboom said he didn't know exactly how many people have used the link, but he knows the Plan is being reviewed because he has received questions about it. Keysser asked if a counting mechanism could be added to the City's web site. Hogeboom said he would look into the possibility of adding a counting mechanism. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 2 Kluchka asked if there are any trends in the types of questions staff has received. Hogeboom said the typical questions tend to be very specific to a certain area or certain specific aspect of the Plan such as items that show on a map but aren't specifically addressed as a goal in the Plan. Eck noted that there is a projected population increase of almost 4,000 people in the next 20 years. He asked if the City knows who these people are and what kind of housing they are going to need. Hogeboom explained that the projected population number comes from the Metropolitan Council and that staff initially tried to dispute that number. He stated that the projected number involves future births, deaths, regional migration, housing trends, gas prices, etc. He added that most of the accommodation for future growth will be in the 1-394 Corridor area. Eck asked what types of housing the City could provide for an additional 4,000 people. Kluchka said he thinks the issue is addressed in the Plan itself and added that the 4,000 number is a good goal for the Plan to address, but it will be driven by the market. Grimes explained that while this is a plan for the City it is also a regional plan that the Metropolitan Council uses to ensure that existing resources are used efficiently as possible. Hogeboom discussed demographic information and noted that the future land availability along freeway corridors indicates a growth in employment numbers. In 2010 Golden Valley is projected to have 31,700 jobs and the number of jobs is expected to grow by approximately 2,000 jobs in the next 20 years. Hogeboom showed a proposed land use map and chart showing how land use in Golden Valley is comprised. Residential properties account for 48% of the total land, commercial properties account for 7% of the total land, industrial properties account for 8% of the total land, institutional and recreational account for 25% of the total land and major highways account for 6% of the total land. Hogeboom discussed land use issues and challenges including the integration of new development with the existing style of development in Golden Valley, preserving the character of post-war suburban architecture unique to first-ring suburbs, protecting the character of neighborhoods while promoting business and tax growth, enhancing community shopping and service options, considering quality mixed use designs for future development, working to connect to regional destinations, and encouraging appropriate placement of high density development. Hogeboom referred to Chapter 4 of the Plan titled Special Planning Districts. He explained that currently this chapter only includes the 1-394 Corridor study with the possibility of amending the Plan in the future to include the Douglas Drive Corridor study. Hogeboom referred to Chapter 5 of the Plan titled Housing. He stated that housing consumes 3,195 acres in Golden Valley and of that 81.4% is owner-occupied. Golden Valley has 6,430 single family homes and a total number of 8,450 rental units. Cera referred to the 81.4% owner-occupied figure and asked if that was 81.4% of single family homes or of total housing units in Golden Valley. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 3 Hogeboom said it is total units in Golden Valley. Grimes stated he thinks the number 8,450 listed for rental units is incorrect and that the number 8,450 represents the total number of housing units, not rental units. Hogeboom agreed. Keysser asked how senior housing is figured into the numbers. Hogeboom said it depends if the units are owned or rented. Hogeboom discussed housing factors including: lifecycle housing, inclusionary housing and housing maintenance issues. He referred to a map that illustrated the age of the housing stock in Golden Valley. Hogeboom stated that other chapters in the Plan include: Parks, Transportation, Wastewater, Water Supply and Surface Water. Grimes added that Chapter 11 of the Plan is the Capital Improvement Program. Cera asked if an update of the Plan is done every ten years. Hogeboom said yes and added that the next full update of the Plan will occur in 2018. Grimes added that if the Plan is amended before the next required update, the City is required to have the Metropolitan Council and neighboring communities review any proposed amendments. Keysser asked if staff has received any feedback from surrounding communities. Hogeboom stated that they have received some minor comments from the Three Rivers Park District and that all comments and responses from surrounding communities are included in Golden Valley's submittal. Grimes added that Golden Valley's Plan has been very well received by surrounding communities. Cera asked if Golden Valley has received any surrounding community's plans. Hogeboom said he has received a few plans from surrounding communities. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Kluchka said he thinks it is important to help people understand that this is a long term plan and not necessarily specific to their individual property. He suggested placing all resident comments and questions on the City's web site. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the adoption of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. 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 Assistant City Manager Jeanne Andre, reviewed the history of the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Plan. She explained that the HRA, in response to an application submitted by United Properties for senior housing at Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road, was going to consider a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district for Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 4 some of the parcels. As part of creating a TIF district there has to be a redevelopment plan in place. She stated that United Properties has not proceeded with their plans since the Redevelopment Plan was last reviewed by the Planning Commission. However, the City Council and the HRA are still interested in going forward with the Redevelopment Plan at this time. Andre said she understands the Planning Commission's concerns were that the proposed redevelopment area was too small and that the Plan defined specific uses rather than just defining the existing conditions. She said the Plan went back to the HRA with the Planning Commission comments. She reported that the HRA would like to proceed with the smaller area originally presented to the Planning Commission. She suggested that the reason the HRA wants to proceed with the smaller area is that there are infrastructure issues to address, particularly the need for a sidewalk or trail on the east side of Douglas Drive between Duluth Street down to the Luce Line trail. She added that sometimes a redevelopment plan must be in place in order to apply for funding. Andre referred to the Planning Commission's second concern regarding specific uses rather than just defining the existing conditions. She noted that a new section titled Development Opportunities has been added to plan. She explained that the purpose of a redevelopment plan is to identify opportunities and what could hypothetically happen and the direction the City would like to take. Andre referred to the resolution approving the Plan and explained that the previous resolution referred to both the TIF plan and the Redevelopment Plan but this new resolution, which has been renumbered to match the year, is only regarding the Redevelopment Plan. She explained that according to state statute the Planning Commission is to review the Plan and decide if it is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The next step is to bring the Plan to the City Council for approval. Keysser asked what was changed in Section 6 in the plan. Andre explained what changed and said the main goal is to focus on the infrastructure in that area. Kluchka asked if the redevelopment plan is targeted for areas where the City wants redevelopment to take place and how the City addresses not identifying areas that have been recently developed or areas that we know don't need development. He asked Andre to address why there are areas defined and not specific properties. Andre said she used Valley Square as a guide for this redevelopment plan. She said typically the items that aren't changing are addressed in the text of the plan and the map shows the boundaries. She explained that redevelopment areas are also about public infrastructure as well as private developments and that redevelopment doesn't always involve removing a building and constructing something new in its place. Keysser asked if United Properties were to come back with their Applewood proposal how it would fit in with this redevelopment plan and if the properties would have to be rezoned. Andre stated that the properties would have to be rezoned and the project would have to be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 5 Keysser suggested that the resolution be changed to say that the Redevelopment Plan is compatible with the proposed 2008 Comprehensive Plan, not the City's current Comprehensive Plan. Kluchka asked Grimes to describe how this Redevelopment Plan is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Grimes explained that the properties in the Douglas Drive Corridor area are designated for either medium density or high density residential from Golden Valley Road all the way to the rail road tracks to the north. The properties to the north of the rail road tracks are all designated for office or commercial. Andre added that the parcel to the south of Golden Valley Road is designated Industrial. Waldhauser stated that she recalls the Comprehensive Plan having language that says the City wants to see increased retail/commercial development at major intersections and more opportunities for multi-family housing buffering single family neighborhoods so she thinks the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Plan is consistent to the Comprehensive Plan. Keysser reiterated that he would like the resolution be changed to include the words "2008 Comprehensive Plan as currently recommended". Andre said she would review the language with the attorney who wrote it. Kluchka suggested writing a list, similar to findings, stating how this redevelopment plan is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Grimes stated that he would address that in his memo to the City Council. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously finding that the Redevelopment Plan for the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Project Area conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan and to approve Resolution 09-01. 4. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding Definition of "Building Height" and "Average Grade" Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the definition of Building Height and Average Grade in the City Code Hogeboom reminded the Planning Commission that they reviewed this item at their January 12,2009 meeting. He explained the reason he is bringing it back to the Planning Commission now is that staff has added language to the ordinance regarding criteria that would be considered by staff to allow the average grade to be more than one foot higher than the previously existing grade if there are drainage issues with the property. He added that there was also language in the building height definition that referred to average grade so that language has now been moved to be made a part of the "average grade" definition. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 6 Keysser asked if the proposed new language would apply to a property where the grade was already above the elevation of the street. Hogeboom said no, the proposed new language would only apply to properties where the grade creates a drainage issue. Grimes added that staff needs language in the Code that allows for dealing with extenuating circumstances. Waldhauser referred to the first paragraph in the definition of "average grade" and asked if the language means that the average grade for a property facing two streets would be taken at six points. Hogeboom said he would clarify the language in the first paragraph. Keysser opened the public hearing. Rich Baker, 224 Janalyn Circle, stated he thinks criteria numbers three and four in the proposed new language are quantitative, but criteria numbers one and two are not. Keysser explained that criteria numbers two and three work together because staff needs to know the elevation of the street in order to establish a minimum driveway grade of 3%. Kluchka added that criteria number one is also quantitative because it establishes where measurements are taken from. Grimes added that every time a home is demolished elevations are taken prior to the demolition in order to establish the grade for a new house. Baker asked if a person could build a berm in order to raise the grade up. Keysser said this ordinance would not allow that. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak, Keysser closed the public hearing. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of amending definitions 8.5 (Average Grade) and 12 (Building Height) in Section 11.03 of the City Code. --Short Recess-- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kluchka asked about the February 10, 2009 Council/Manager meeting where the Douglas Drive Corridor study was discussed. Hogeboom stated that he gave an update to the City Council regarding the status of the Douglas Drive Corridor Study. He stated that Transit for Livable Communities (TLC) has more grant money available and theywould like Golden Valley to reduce the number of lanes on Douglas Drive from four lanes to three lanes, the center lane being a turn lane, from Medicine Lake Road to Golden Valley Road. Changing the lanes would allow for bike lanes or shoulders on both sides of the street. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2009 Page 7 Grimes added that three lanes seem to work well and one benefit is if it doesn't work out the lanes can be repainted or changed in the future. Hogeboom said the next steps are to prioritize which infrastructure improvements have priority. 6. Other Business Waldhauser noted that more and more documents are being put on the City's web site and questioned if there was a way to make PDF documents smaller or somehow easier to download for people with a slower internet connection. Hogeboom said he would talk to the Communications staff about what could be done. Kluchka stated that the PDF format is a standard format and recommended that the City not change the way documents are being put on the web site. Grimes stated that the Comprehensive Plan will also be available on CD. Waldhauser asked about the progress of amending the zoning code regarding the height allowed for buildings in the R-4 zoning district. Grimes said his recollection of previous discussions is that allowing a height of 96 feet in the R-4 zoning district is too much. He thinks the intent was to allow 60 feet or 5 stories and heights above that would require a variance or a PUD. He added that proposed new language will come back to the Planning Commission in the future. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm. ~~