12-11-00 PC Agenda
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
Monday, December 11, 2000
Meeting Follows Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting at 5:30 PM
I. Approval of Minutes for November 13, 2000
II. Discussion on Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Bassett Creek Nature Preserve
-- Short Recess --
III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning
Appeals and other Meetings
IV. Other Business
v. Adjournment
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
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,
November 13, 2000. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
II.
Informal Public Hearing -- Prelimina
P.U.D. No. 89
Plan - Golden Meadows
Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Gro
Rasmussen, Hoffman and Shaffer. Also present were Direct
Development Mark Grimes and City Planner Dan Olson.
I. Approval of Minutes - October 23, 2000
Moved by Groger, seconded by Hoffman and mot'
the October 23,2000 minutes.
.
Applicant:
Address:
2125 Winn
part of
Addit
nue and 2205-09 Winnetka Avenue, which is
nderson's Addition and Outlot 1 of the Marimac
Purpose:
ould allow for the construction of seven single-family
e subject vacant land and include the existing single-
home, situated on its own lot along Winnetka Avenue, and
ting duplex also to be situated on its own lot.
Variance from the Subdivision Chapter of the
Golden Valley City Code -Golden Meadows P.U.D.
No. 89
Purpose: The applicant is requesting four variances from the
Subdivision section of the City Code for the Golden Meadows
P.U.D.
.
Olson stated the Planning Commission had previously reviewed the above request on
October 23, 2000. This was the third review of a PUD for that site. At the October 23m
meeting, the Commission tabled the review of the PUD so that additional information
could be placed on the site plans and so that the applicant could apply for variances for
the PUD from the Subdivision of the City Code.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 2
At the October 23rd meeting, several items were identified as missing from.the PUD
Preliminary Design Plans. With the exception of the proposed named of the street, all of'
these items are now located on the side plans. Normally, the City's Building Inspection
Department gives streets names. Planning Staff has verified the street name "Valders
Court" for this PUD with the Inspections Department. Placing the name of the street is a
requirement for the PUD General Plan.
.'
. With the exception of the existing single-f
family homes meet the 35-foot front y
setbacks range from 15 to 21 feet. Th
lot depth, and all of the lots meet .
requirements vary depending 0
these side yard requirements.
. homes be at
setback line.
. Only lots 7, 9,
In regard to the zoning requirements of the Residential zoning di
. The Residential zoning district requires that all lots fO[
least 10,000 sq. ft. in area and be at least 80 ft. wi
Lots 6, 8, and 10 still do not meet these lot area
and 10. meet the 80-foot width requirements.
n lot 8, none of the single-
requirement. These front
setback requirement is 20% of
quirement. The side setback
, Lots 2, 6, and 10 do not meet
For this PUD, the applicant is r
Chapter 12 of the City Code.
fo variances from the Subdivision Code,
.
. The first requeste
of-way widths. i
streets to be a
way width
e is from Section 12.20, Subd. 2 (A) relating to right-
of the Code requires local streets and cul-de-sacs
60 feet in width. The applicant is requesting a right-of-
sted variance is from Sections 12.20, Subd. 5 (A), which state:
eet the minimum area and dimension requirements of the zoning
h they are located. The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an
ublic street, and the minimum front setback line shall be established
thi (35) feet distant from the street right-of-the-way line". The applicant is
requesting front yard setbacks for this PUD, which ranges from 15 to 21 feet. In
addition, lots 6, 8 and 10 do not meet the 10,000 sq. ft. lot area requirements,
. The third requested variance is from Section 12.42 Subd. 1 (C) relating to street
surface. The requirement for local streets and cul-de-sacs is for the improved
surface to be a minimum of 30 feet in width. The applicant is requesting a 28-foot
width.
. The fourth requested variance iffrom Section 12.20, Subd. I relating to cul-de- .
sacs. The requirement states, "The cul-de-sac shall have a street right-of-way
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 3
. Diameter of 120 feet. The applicant is requesting a diameter of 100 feet.
Olson also brought to the attention of the Planning Commission that the required time
limit under the State Statutes which govern how long a City may take to review and
approve various zoning applications is about to expire. According to Minnesota Statute
15.99, the City has 60 days to approve a zoning application. This statute also allows the
City to request an additional 60-day extension without written permission of the'
applicant. The applicant in writing must grant any extensions bey . 120-day
period. The original60-day period ended on September 23,20 hat 60-day
period ended, the City extended this deadline another 60 da u ber 22,
2000. In order to meet these deadlines, the Planning Co ecommend
either approval or denial of the Golden Meadows PUD eting. This PUD
will then be forwarded to the City Council for approval 0 ovember 21,2000.
Some questions and discussion took place by the n' 0 ission to clarify this
deadline issue. It was determined that all unders ortance of making a
recommendation to the City Council tonight to ee deaaline so stated in the State
Statutes.
.
Olson stated the Staff recommended
Golden Meadows Addition, PUD No.
provide additional single-family h
met several times with SVK an
recommended approval is s
Preliminary Design Plan for
sed 1 O-unit development would
re needed in Golden Valley. The staff has
n a been revised several times. The
following recommendations:
1.
s of City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, as found in his memos
o and October 6, 2000 become part of this approval.
s of Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall, as found in
uly 26, 2000 become part of this approval.
e "Valders Court" is placed on the PUD General Design
2.
3.
n of 7 feet of additional right-of-way for Winnetka Avenue as has
uested by Hennepin County.
omeowner's association for the development may establish more
Ictive property regulations than those in City Code, but enforcement of
such provisions shall be the responsibility of the association. The
association shall not establish property restrictions in violation of applicable
federal, state or local regulations including the terms of the approved PUD
permit.
6. The notation of "P.U.D. NO.89" shall be made part of the plat name.
7. Proof of recording for the plat must be provided to the City before any
construction permits are issued.
.
a. The right-of- ration that this street plays off of is a restricted right-of'-
way of 50 fe nsion of this 50-foot right-of-way into Valders Court is
made n y t e underlying plat, so the Valders Court extension of the
right-a- sistent with the city's previous approval.
b. The al variances requested due to the design of the lot
ns as well as the configuration of the cul-de-sac. The previous
for a through street, to Winnetka with the redesign to a cul-de-sac
ggered odd shape parcel configurations because of their need to front
circular cul-de-sac design. The consequences of this redesign to a cul-
de-sac resulted in discrepancies to which the lots are configured, which trigger
difficulties with regard to setbacks. To make efficient use of the land area, they
believe the variances are necessary to fulfill the development intent of the city
as reflected in their Comprehensive Plan. They believe that this is an efficient
use of the land area and that it is in response to the needs of the city in terms
of the housing stock the City desires and that it is ultimately compatible to the
adjacent residential area. They do not believe that the densities proposed are
out of line with the character of this neighborhood and that the plan has been
well designed to satisfy the objectives of the City. .
foot width of
from curb to
Rasmussen requested clarification of the third requested var'
the improved surface was". It was explained that it meant
curb.
Chair Pentel asked the applicant or representative
Peter Coyle, attorney for the applicant came f
the details of the plat that have been revised
have regarding the variance applications
for the record that they believe the PU
plan deviations from the standard co
the City Staff. He felt they have c
that it shows their desire to coo
stated his role was to confirm
wer any questions they may
n submitted. He wanted it noted'
provides ample authority for the site
nts that have been discussed with
Planning Commissioners concerns and
.
He stated the justification
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 5
Coyle stated that the hardship is attributed to the cul-de-sac design. Coyle noted that
the plan now. complies with the City's code and that they have met the test of the
various questions that have beenraised by the Planning Commission and would like to
have their support to have the plan proceed to the City Council at the next available
opportunity.
Pentel asked Coyle if they were to have a plan that allowed a through street to
Winnetka would they not have a hardship. Coyle responded that ious plan
submitted to the staff with a through street did not necessitate nce. oyle
explained that he was not attempting to advocate for the thr t that the cul-
de-sac design is what is creating the difficulties for them t within the
lots. The circular pattern of the cul-de-sac is what is ge rdship issue for
them at this point. They also do not have the ability to Ii p in a standard
urban grid fashion due to the cul-de-sac.
Eck stated that perhaps a difference of opinio
would be fewer houses. If they were to put in
requirements in all probability? Coyle sta
should bear in mind that the obvious i
property, which constrain the utility of
and that they are trying to simply
properties resalable in a more t
to provide ponding for the si
constraint to the property
accommodate. Finally, th
coupled with the exis .
property is laid out. T
situation.
ona Ie level of development
ses could they meet the
a fair observation but that they'
e 2 existing structures on the
arcel. We cannot change that fact
r those parcels that will make those
I u n scale configuration. Secondly, we have
esses run off issues and they feel that is a
design consideration that they have to
sac design and the square layout of the property
ns on it is not anyone fault but that's the way the
circumstances that force us into the hardship
I 7925- 23fd Avenue No. requested thata site plan be made
ublic to better understand what they were talking about. Coyle
presente plan. He stated that lots 4 & 5 are noted as block 1 and that the
existing duplex is located on these lots and the lot further to the south of lots 4 & 5, lot 8
is where the existing single family home is located. He also pointed out that a portion
of the property in the north area is where the ponding will be placed. Coyle stated the
variances related separately to the width of the 50' right-of-way and the improved
surface area of the right-of-way and separate variances for lot setbacks and width.
Pentel added that the lots 1,2,3,4,6,7,9 & 10 also reflected a variance to the front
setback and that lots 6,8 & 10 did not meet the 10,000 sq. ft. size lot area requirement.
Olson added that the City had received a letter today pulling the application for rezoning
for the duplex from single family zoning to multiple family zoning. Pentel clarified for the
audience that the existing duplex can remain a duplex but that there will be no change
to the zoning to have it be zoned for a triplex.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 6
David Gatz, speaking for Pauline Siepka of 2200 Orkla Dr came forward. He read from
a letter written by Pauline Siepka for the last meeting. He stated that since the project
had not changed significantly they had great concerns. The letter stated that they want
a development that would go beyond minimum standards for this neighborhood.
Something that would improve this area not "just qualify". First she is requesting an iron
clad guarantee that these homes would not be rental properties, this is ~ neighborhood
of homeowners and if these units become rentals it will decline unacceptably. He .
stated that it didn't matter what the square footage of the homes if they were
two story, they would be to close together for good living condit' t and sound.
The homes are on small irregular plots unlike the homes aro d this is not
desirable. They may be too close to the street like old ho , which is not
acceptable. She would like fewer homes in the area th oposed earlier.
He stated she would not allow homes within one block 0 to be like the homes
along Medicine Lake Rd and Hwy 169. The home rages large enough to
keep cars in them or in the driveways and not 0 She does not want it to
look like the city where cars of all conditions Ii ets and look unsightly and
unsafe. This is suburban living; this is a bette than in the crowded city. She
felt the development should conform to t ound it; she did not want to have
negative pressure on the future of this . She stated that for everything that
is given up for these homes to be bui tl be built to high standards. Why
settle for the minimum just becau y promises to put property on the tax roles
that otherwise sits idle. She als to ake sure that City did not have hidden
expenses of street maintena removal or emergency access problems. She
questioned why we don't hese homes exceed the standard that is already
here. That would be real
Pentel clarified that tH
plowing and oth
be a public street and the City will maintain it with
.
.
140 23rd Ave No. stated she had received notices regarding
weeks City Council meeting. She stated the description in the
original text referring to the triplex or duplex on the property. She
the Planning Commission would be making ~ decision tonight after
hearing t uld be reduced to single-family homes. Pentel responded that they will
be making a decision and that the Planning Commission had already made the
recommendation that a rezoning not occur. Shirley VanWais-Berg asked ifthe Planning
Commission did not make a decision tonight if the plan would go to the City Council in
its original text. Grimes stated that it would go forward as 7 single-family homes.
McAleese asked for clarification: if no action was taken by the Planning Commission
and the City Council, by state statute, would the plan go forward in the original
application or the application as it is exist today. Olson stated it would be as it is exist
today. If the City Council did not make a decision by November 22, 2000 the application .
would be approved to proceed as 8 family homes and a duplex.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 7
Ed Muszynski of 7925 - 23rd Ave No. stated that he had asked at the last meeting that
Jeff Oliver, the city engineer, be present at this meeting. His concern is the pond on the
property. He wanted to know how deep the pond would be and how far it would be
setback from his property line. Grimes said he had talked with Jeff Oliver and the pond
would be 6' deep at its deepest point and that the depth of the water would vary
depending on how wet it is at any given time. Grimes stated the normal water level for
,
the pond would be at the 905 elevation, the elevation at the property line is 906, and
the lowest point in the pond would be at 900. Shaffer conferred t ighest level of
the water would be 6' and that when it reached that point it wo e excess into
the storm drainage system. Muszynski questioned whether t reduce their
property values. He also stated that a pond with no fence a present a
danger in the neighborhood. Pentel asked Grimes if th gulations
regarding fencing around ponds. Grimes stated that tra City does not fence
ponds, they have found no real need for fencing a e as not been any safety
issues raised. Muszynski again stated his concer ety of the children in the
neighbor because of the pond. Pentel sugges 0 Muszysnki that he bring this
issue forward to the City Council as well.
Muszynski asked why the City would b
stated the developer is proposing this
staff. The residents that live on thO
street and their taxes will be us
public streets. The city engin
wide enough to accommo
equipment turning aroun
questioned if there w
public works departm
aintenance of this street. Grimes
IC street at the suggestion of the City
be assessed the cost to construct the
the street just like any other resident on
ed the plans to be sure that the street would be
cy vehicles, garbage trucks and plowing
ul-de-sac and in his opinion it is. Muszynski
gh room for parking on the street. Pentel stated the
Marshall would make that determination.
00 Valders Ave No. stated she was concerned about the
as 2 small children and has concerns regarding the pond.
was concerned about the density: why not fewer homes? She
egarding the parking in front of their homes and the increase traffic
od. She did not feel it was the type of development she wanted by
John Blythe of 2140 Valders Ave No. stated he felt there were too many houses in the
development.
Joy Gerber of 2135 Valders Ave No. stated that if the city were to not allow parking on
the cul-de-sac or street it would put increased parking onto her street. She felt having
all the variances was compromising everything in the neighborhood. She questioned
the multiple variances: why make rules if they are just there to be broken?
Mike Jorgenson of 2200 Valders Ave No. questioned who makes the decisions on
variances. He also questioned the size of the acreage for this development and if there
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 8
..'
was a certain number of houses that could be put into such a small area. Pentel
clarified that the City has a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft. Pentel asked what the
overall acreage was, Olson stated it was 2.73 acres. Olson also stated the overall
density is 4 houses per acre. Mr. Jorgenson again asked who makes the decisions on
the variances. Pentel stated that the City Council makes the final decision after a
recommendation is made by the Planning Commission. Jorgenson asked if the public
has any say once it goes to the City Council. Pentel said there would be a hearing.
similar to this one and she hoped that any concerned residents w there to
express their concerns directly to the Council.
Joy Gerber question
you just move the lot
Outlot and that I as
that he felt there
developer th
that Dan
Id be made with
ing Commission
e meeting on
d added that he felt that if
they would ask the developer to
Jorgenson asked for more clarification on the 60 day, 120
Olson had talked about earlier. He was concerned that
out any public input. Pentel stated she was confident th
would make a recommendation tonight to the Cou .
November 21, 2000. Grimes confirmed Pentel's
the Council felt they needed more information
provide it or they would have to deny the proj
.
.
Jorgenson continued to express his c
the setbacks and that several of the I
to know if anything would be cha
Pentel stated that all of the lots
not meet the size requireme
would make the same con
Ing the development not meeting
et the size requirement. He wanted
fewer homes or if it would be ignored.
e street setback and some of them did
erstood the resident's concerns and hoped he
to the City Council.
.
ces for lot 8. The property has recently been sold: can
does it all work? Olson stated that lot 8 sits in a large
e een officially divided from the other lots. Grimes stated
type of agreement between the new owners and the
were to go through the lot could be reduced in size.
Rasmuss ed what the precedent was for setback variances in PUD's. She
questioned if it was usual to grant a setback variance as large as 15 to 21 feet instead
of 35 feet. Grimes stated we have granted substantial variances on private streets
generally. Groger added we have granted variances in other instances where its
purpose is to meet the city's goals to increase density and affordable housing where we
can.
Rasmussen asked if the lot size variance for the 3 lots that are less than the required
10,000 sq. ft, especially lot 10 where its size is 7,600 sq. feet: does this fall within this
same kind of philosophy? Groger replied that it depends on your thinking. If there is a
need for increased density, there is a significant amount of leeway for what they
approve for this development. He felt the density that is being proposed here is an
.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 9
issue because the development is surrounded by single-family homes which is different
from the other situations where they have approved significant variances. Many of
these were stand alone areas or areas surrounded by commercial areas. This
development is different because of it being surrounded on 3 sides by other homes.
Pentel added that one of the other developments does have single-family homes
across the street from it but that there was significant berming done between the
development and the street to tuck the higher density housing behind it. .
Groger stated the other difference to this proposal is the acces
strictly through a single-family home neighborhood where 0
a major street which doesn't have as much impact on a si
Although there are only 7 single family homes in this de
generate will still have to go through a single-family nei
troublesome. Groger felt there was too much dens'
were significant, especially the front setback (ou
neighborhood). Groger stated he did not feel
possibility of this land being developed with ~
would be voting against the proposal as
elopment is
access from
hborhood.
traffic they will
nd this is
t variances requested
with the surrounding
a hardship and that there is a
meeting city code. Therefore
. re them.
Eck stated that after discussion with
was a lot of pressure for addition
justification for a development
potential homeowners out th
maintenance type situatio
only at the economical h
for maximum financi e 0
in respect to the char
here and becaus
some variances.
s the position of the staff that there
ily homes in Golden Valley. The
i at there are a significant number of
sire smaller lot sizes and a minimum
that in evaluating the hardship, we cannot look
. He felt that the developer wanted this many homes
property. Eck agreed with statements made by Groger
area and also felt there were to many units proposed
- e-sac even a development with fewer units may require
e proposed development was too dense.
's understanding of a PUD was to allow a developer with some
rn the City receives something. His concern with this development
doing anything for the city, only the developer. Some of the impacts
to the nei ood are of concern, but no matter how this area is developed some of
those concerns will remain, like the ponding and cul-de-sac. The concern he has
regarding approval of a PUD is what does the City gain if anything. There is no low-
income housing or park land here to be gained by the City. It appears the only one
gaining is the developer. Shaffer felt we would be granting alot variances that don't fit
the character of the neighborhood at all. Shaffer felt the development was heading in
the wrong direction.
Pentel asked if any other commissioners wanted to speak or if a motion could be given.
McAleese spoke, stating they were talking about 2 types of variances, the strict
subdivision coding and zoning code. He understood the dispute as to whether or not
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 10
the PUD ordinance allows a waiver to the subdivision code requirements however the
standards between the two are very different. McAleese felt the section 12.54 variance
requirements were very harsh and strict hardship requirements and should be
addressed.
.
McAleese stated the developer is asking for 4 variances from the subdivision code. The
felt the variance from the street is reasonable and that the developer is correct in
requesting it because we have limited the entrance street to a 50' -way which
has caused a degree of hardship. As to whether or not the oth flows from
that McAleese felt that didn't make any sense. In regards to ships, the 35'
setback requirement and the need for less than 80' wide I of the desire
to put so many homes in the development. McAleese s . reed with the one
hardship and that he would recommend to the council t nce for the street be
granted but that he cannot support the others and u d mea recommendation
to the council to grant them. McAleese conclude the positions taken by
other commissioners in regards to the varian r to t e zoning code
requirements and that he would not approve ntin the PUD.
Pentel asked for a m
P.U.D. No. 89
he density is to high forthe
leased with the number of variances
portunity to place some homes in this
I t area with such small lot sizes would be a
Ie and that she would not be supporting this
.
Pentel stated that she too did not sup
location of the development and that
being asked for. She felt that ther
development but to allow 7 ne
detriment to the neighborho
preliminary design plan.
ove the Preliminary Design Plan - Golden Meadows
Hoffman made a
Preliminary
otion to approve the staff recommendation for this
onditions stated in the memo. Seconded by Shaffer.
Those ot in r re Commissioners Rasmussen, Hoffman, Groger, McAleese,
Shaffe , Chair Pentel. The motion was denied 7 to O. Chair Pentel then asked
for a moti eny the application. Shaffer moved to deny the application, Eck
seconded. The reasons for the denial are as stated previously by various
commissioners.
Those in favor of this application being denied were Commissioners Rasmussen,
Hoffman, Groger, McAleese, Shaffer, Eck and Chair Pentel, those not in favor of
denying this application were none. The motion was passed unanimously.
The application will go forward to the City Council at its next regularly scheduled
meeting of November 21, 2000.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13. 2000
Page 11
.
II.
Informal Public Hearing - Property Subdivision (SU14-10)
Applicant: Honeywell, Inc.
Address: Southwest corner of Douglas Drive and Sandburg Road - portion
of Honeywell, Inc. located at 1885 - 1985 Douglas Drive, Golden
Valley, MN .
.
1. The Planning Commission was
provided by Honeywell. This in
there is adequate space 0
presented at the Oct. 23r
Purpose:
The applicant is requesting a subdivision 0
in order to create two new lots along Sa
of Sandburg Road and Douglas Drive
arcel of land
at the corner
At the October 23,2000 Planning Commission meeting,
on the preliminary plat of Honeywell Golden Valle d
information.
ssion tabled action
o for additional
The following is a list of the information reque
ith the parking information
eeded in order to determine that
ell lot for its own needs. The information
not specific. The staff asked Honeywell to
provide additional i
building and the la
Honeywell has
Honeywell has
industrial!
250 sq. ft. 0
indus
indi
one
arding the specific size of the Honeywell
he parking areas after the subdivision is completed.
is new information. The information indicates that
. ft. of office space and 813,872-sq. ft. of
space. Based on the requirement for one space for each
pace and one space for each 500 sq. ft. of
se space, the Honeywell lot requires 2,474 spaces. They have
e Parking Addition Worksheet, dated 6 November 2000 that the
can be expanded and altered to provide the necessary 2,474
e Honeywell Revised Parking Modification plan dated 11/6/00
he location of the parking spaces.
Honeywell has asked that some of the parking spaces be "proof of parking"
spaces. In other words, some of the spaces would not have to be built until there
is shown to be a need. This arrangement would have to be worked out between
the Inspections Department, Planning Department and Honeywell. Based on the
number of employees that currently work at Honeywell, additional spaces are not
currently needed to be built.
.
The Parking Calculation Sheet dated 11/1/00 indicates that there is a total of
92,478 sq. ft. of service space in the building. This space includes wiring closets,
custodian closets, garages and covered loading docks. Honeywell has not
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 12
assigned a parking requirement to that space. The Zoning Code requires that the
parking requirement be based on gross square footage in a building with the
exception of garages and covered loading docks. Subtracting the garage and
covered loading docks, there is 69,500 sq. ft. of service area that would require
parking. If the one space per 500 sq. ft. were assigned for these service areas,
an additional 139 spaces would be required for the site. Althoug~ not shown on
the Honeywell Revised Parking Modification plan, the applicant has indicated
that this additional amount of space could be added in fro Honeywell
building along Douglas Dr., west of the Purple Lot, east e Lot or
south of the Red Lot. A revised plan indicating the 10'0 ditional139
spaces should be submitted to the City prior to app' Iiminary plat by
the City Council.
.
3. regarding the ordinance that was passed by the City Council
d the Honeywell property from Open Development to
e Ordinance indicates that no building may be constructed within
las Drive on the property that was rezoned. (This rezoning
e 300 ft. parcel that is now owned by Honeywell at the southwest
cor ouglas and Sandberg. This parcel was not a part of the 1956
rezoning.)The City Attorney has reviewed this Ordinance and stated that the
restriction is valid. This means that the building on the proposed northeast lot will
have to be constructed a manner consistent with restriction placed on the zoning
of the Honeywell site in 1956.
ro Sandberg Dr. that
II lot is a private street.
n ode unless a part of the
ts are prohibited, they are not
Code defines a street as
ie, whether desig nated as a street,
, oad, avenue, boulevard, land, place
2. There was a question regarding whether th
serves the proposed two lots and the ora
Private streets are not permitted by the
Planned Unit Development. Although
defined in the Subdivision Code. "[
follows: A public right-of-way fo
highway, thoroughfare, parkwa
or however otherwise desi
.
Using this logic, the s
qualify as a private
driveway. The driv
a public street
parking lots.
t believe that the driveway off Sandberg would
is no private right-of-way dedicated for the
part of one of the lots. The driveway does not connect
ublic street. It essentially provides access to private
Accordingly to the City Attorney, this restriction means that no building may be
located closer than 200 feet from the right-of-way of Douglas Drive as it existed
in 1956. In 1956, the right-of-way for Douglas Dr. was 66 ft wide. Today the right- .
of-way is 100 ft. Half of this additional 34 ft. of width (17 ft.) was taken from the
Honeywell side sometime after 1956. Therefore, the setback from the widened
Douglas Dr. is 184 ft. (200 ft. minus 17 ft.). It should also be noted that the 200 ft.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 13
.
setback does not apply to the 300 ft. by 300-ft. property that was acquired by
Honeywell after 1956.
This additional setback requirement does not mean that the City cannot approve
the preliminary plat. It means that the building will have to be redesigned (made
smaller or changed) to accommodate the additional setback reqyirement.
4. The City has been in contact with the School District regar .
They have reviewed the plan with staff and do not feel it have
impact on the school. They did state that they would r
sidewalk on the north side of Sandberg Drive. The
back from the City's consulting traffic engineer r
proposed development. The report indicates that
only minor revisions or changes are sugges
subdivision.
adverse
use the
ed a report
yout of the
s acceptable and
Recommended Action
.
The staff recommends approval of the Pr
2nd Addition. The applicant has provo
indicates that there is more than ade
demand on each of the lots in the
recommending that a proof of
allow some of the parking to
The staff believes that the
driveway as permitted by
P of Honeywell Golden Valley .
with additional information that
available to meet the parking
ubdivision. The staff is also
ment be made with Honeywell that would
Iy when it is determined it is needed by the City.
Sandberg Dr. is not a private street but a
division Code.
Honeywell and future
requirement that'
This requirement'
Douglas Dr.
to meet thl
e new lot along Douglas Dr. will have to meet the
e setback 200 ft. from Douglas Dr., as it existed in 1956.
d for the north 300 ft. of the Honeywell property adjacent to
uire that a building on the northeast lot will have to be adjusted
ent.
The sta . al commending that Honeywell be subject to a park dedication fee as
outlined in ubdivision Code. This amount will be determined prior to approval of
the final plat by the City Council.
Grimes stated that this application is also nearing its deadline for a decision. The 12th of
December is the final' date in which a decision needs to be made. Staff is
recommending to the Planning Commission that a recommendation be made at this
meeting in order that a recommendation can be forwarded to the City Council for the
November 21, 2000 meeting.
. Pentel questioned if a sidewalk should be constructed on Sandberg Rd for people to
use when walking to the small commercial area on Douglas Drive. Grimes stated that
the commission could make that a condition in the recommendation. Pentel stated that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 14
she would prefer to have sidewalks for people to walk on rather than in the roadways.
Grimes indicated that the commission position has been that they prefer sidewalks on
collector streets. Pentel agreed and stated that when there is new construction, this is
the time for making sidewalks a requirement.
.
Shaffer asked if we know what Honeywell's employee count is. Grimes replied that he
was unsure but that Honeywell has indicated that there are fewer employees there than
the required 2,474 parking spaces. Grimes stated that Honeywe t want to add
any additional parking spaces at this time. Shaffer asked if Hon hey had
enough parking spaces for their employees and visitors. Gri y do not feel
there is a need for additional parking spaces.
McAleese asked if th
not and that is b u
week.
etback. Grimes
ed to.
Rasmussen asked if they could ask for a variance from
replied that they could go to the BZA and ask for t .
Grimes stated that anyone could ask but that
sympathetic because it is a new lot that was
conditions when they created it.
B would not be very
d they were aware of the
McAleese questioned the subdivision
the preliminary plat should be cle
not legible and that perhaps it
clarification from Grimes and
because they were given r:
was required that 15 copi
s. He stated that section 12.11 stated
Iy drawn. He felt that these plans were
at was used. McAleese stated he sought
ound that the larger plans were clearer and that
. s the problem lay there. McAleese stated that it
ovided and that they should be of the large size.
.
ft setback was on the drawings. Grimes stated it was
's attorney made the determination on that setback last
Ication on the parking. He wanted it understood between the City
e parking should be based on 337,000 sq. feet of the area.
Grimes e d that lab space is generally not considered office space. If however,
they were to remake lab space into office space the Inspection Department should
catch it and require additional parking space. Groger stated he calculated there to be a
need for 2,864 parking spaces based on their figures for space in the buildings and that
that was about 400 more spaces than they figured. Groger questioned how picky does
the City want to be on this issue. He stated his concern was that .any future building
owners have a clear understanding of what the City's requirements for this are.
Groger stated there was one lot that had parking spaces that were to small and that in .
the northeast corner there was no landscaping near the lot. Grimes stated that the code
indicates that the parking be determined from the gross square footage of the building
and that if the commission required the developer to consider the entire square feet of
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 15
.
the building when calculating the needed parking spaces they could find ample space
on the property for parking. Groger stated that that is his preference and that it be
reviewed before .it goes to the Council. Shaffer added that sometimes laboratories are
considered different than offices because of the fixed equipment, cabinets and less
occupancy. If it were viewed that way the number of parking spaces would be reduced
drastically. Groger stated that the concern was that they don't know what the future use
may be and that if it were to become all offices the parking issues would be addtessed.
Grimes stated he would like to go through he footage again to m rrection
determination.
Pentel asked if the applicant would like to come forward.
ed they did not
any question of him
e the 2 lots along
Gerald Duffy, Attorney for Industrial Equities, came forw
have any additional comments and asked if the co .
(Industrial Equities has entered into an agreeme
Sandburg Rd from Honeywell).
.
Pentel asked if they felt there would be a
property. Duffy stated that as of where
there would. be any problem with the
just received the information toda
satisfied that the site is big eno
without obtaining variances.
ing the 200-ft. setback on the ·
oday with the project he did not feel
ing the setback. He stated that they
OO-ft. setback. He indicated that they are
y will be able to construct a building
Pentel opened the public
lie hearing was closed.
Pentel stated sh
Council will
will have t
do eve hing
had sa
Council.
sed with the findings of the 200-ft setback and that the City
eal with the "front door/back door" issue. She stated that this
nt of the Building Board of Review and that she hoped they would
power to get the best possible building on this site. Pentel felt they
uestions raised and that she would be able to pass this forward to the
Pentel asked that a condition be put on the plan for a sidewalk along south side of
Sandburg Rd, the north side of their property. Grimes stated the sidewalk should be
along the south side of Sandburg Rd. across the entire Honeywell property.
Groger asked that the condition of proof of parking be revised as necessary as staff
determines prior to it being seen by Council.
. Rasmussen added the condition of the 200 ft setback be met.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13. 2000
Page 16
.
Rasmussen made the motion to approve the preliminary plat with the 3 conditions:
. A sidewalk be constructed along Sandburg Road from Douglas Dr. to the
west end of the Honeywell Golden Valley rd Addition.
. The proofof parking is revised as necessary as staff determines.
. The 200 ft setback is satisfied.
.
Eck seconded the motion.
McAleese stated that he felt this was a reasonable proposal to and that the
proposal meets the subdivision requirements. However, the n im,
especially the driveway. He understands that it is an ease operty and felt
the zoning code for the required area that is to be land 5 ft. front yard
setback and that the side and back setback is to be % 0 d building setback.
He questioned that under the zoning code we defi sp ces as including
ingress and egress area. That would then includ y in the parking space.
The problem he sees is that we are ignoring t ping requirement on this
driveway because it is going between two pa noring the landscaping area at
the back of the parcel leading to the Hon elt we should allow the
preliminary plat to go forward but that plat is approved the City will have to
address this issue in some fashion. uld mean granting variances so
these driveways go through. If it large lot we would not allow the driveway .
to run up the property line so w g this when there are two properties. This
is seen when we are approv' , and in residential subdivisions but not where
there is clearly access to s in this case with Honeywell parking lots
having access to public s
there is 10ft of green area on both sides of the
a the paved area between the green areas is considered
that it is in clear violation of what the code requires and at
addressed. McAleese read the definition of a parking area
that there are parking spaces in the 20-ft setback on the sides and
e are creating and that isn't allowed under the zoning code. We
ces under the appropriate circumstances.
Grimes stated that from a practical stand point they are doing this because the city
wants to see as few driveways as possible off of a collector street and that sharing a
driveway was best in the interest of public safety. McAleese stated it was an issue for
him because we are creating 2 new parcels that should have the 20 ft landscape area
and these don't. Again McAleese stated that he wanted this to go forward as a
preliminary plan but that before the final plan is approved this issue needs to be
addressed. Shaffer commented that he felt we were splitting hairs. He did not feel that
the entrance to a parking lot is the same as the parking lot.
.
Pentel stated there was a motion and a second on the floor to approve this plan to be
forwarded to the City Council and asked if there was any more discussion.
\
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 17
A vote was taken and the motion was passed unanimously.
-- Short Recess --
IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Eck reported on the traffic study on Laurel/Winnetka done by the
Committee.
innetka
V. Other Business
Pentel talked about a document from the Planners web
Commission". She felt it was excellent for the new
copies be obtained for everyone. She also had
website on "How to get Participation", she su
website.
e to the
d would request
the Virginia Tech
I review the document and the
Grimes stated there was no formal ag
They would be meeting jointly with th
Recreation Commission. He woul
for review. Grimes asked if ther
December, as the second m
would be okay.
ext regularly scheduled meeting.
tal Commission and the Park &
get the packet out to them ahead of time
osition to only having 1 meeting in
Id fall on Christmas Day. All agreed that that
VI.
Richard Groger, Secretary