Loading...
12-22-03 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, December 22,2003 7pm I. Approval of Minutes December 8,2003 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: 1. To change the definition of Medium Density on the Comprehensive Plan Map from 5.5 to 11.9 units per acre to 5-20 units per acre. 2. To change the definition of High Density on the Comprehensive Plan Map from 12 or more units per acre to 20 or more units per acre. 3. Redesignate certain parcels due to the definition changes. -- Short Recess -- II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings III. Other Business IV. Adjournment . . - Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2003 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 10, 2003. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. II. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Key and Rasmussen. Also present were Director of Planning and Develop Grimes and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. Commissioner S I. Approval of Minutes November 10,2003 Planning Commission Meetin Groger referred to the last sentence on page 2, and s misspelled. MOVED by Eck, seconded by McAleese and m November 10, 2003 minutes with the abo unanimously to approve the November 24,2003 Joint PI Eck referred to page 2, paragra changed to the word "increa " hat the word "decrease" should be MOVED by Groger, see November 24, 2003 inut motion carried unanimously to approved the the above noted change. ubdivision - Lot Consolidation (5U13-11) 220,300 and 310 Turners Crossroad To allow four existing lots to be consolidated into one lot so an apartment building can be constructed on the newly created lot. Grimes re ed to the preliminary plat of the properties and reviewed the applicant's request to consolidate four existing lots, located north of fire station number 2, into one lot. He explained that the applicantis proposing to build an 86-unit apartment building on the newly created lot. Grimes referred to his memo dated December 4, 2003 and discussed the factors for consideration. He said that the property is zoned M-1 which allows for buildings up to 3- stories to be built. He added that this proposal is not looking at the specific building rather if the lot is large enough forthis type of use. He stated that the lot is large enough to build an apartment building to meet the requirements of the M..1 zoning district. Minutes ofthe Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 2 . Grimes explained that there is a discrepancy between the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Zoning Map designation for this property. He stated that the property is shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map as medium density which allows 6-12 units per acre ano the Zoning Map shows M-1 which allows for higher density. The discrepancy between the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map must be resolved for this area prior to issuance of building permits. Grimes stated that there ar they be placed in such the street. He said he wo the street and a be h Grimes stated that one of the neighborhood concerns is the traffic that from a new apartment building. He explained that there would proba to 800 trips per day on Turners Crossroad and that there is capac' 0 Crossroad to handle the added traffic since it used to handle 5 to 6, before it was closed south of Glenwood Avenue. erday Pentel referred to the discrepancy between the Comprehensl Map and asked if the Zoning Map takes precedence Grimes explained that State laws say whenthere . has to be resolved so the Zoning Map is consist d the Zoning sive Plan Map. een the two maps it hensive Plan Map. . Groger referred to the bituminous path sh path. Grimes stated that it is a walking intent of the applicant is to sprinkler th not required to provide full access path does have to be maintaine nd asked if it was a walking . He explained that the n uilding and in that case they are he building for vehicles but the ccess. ys being proposed and that he is suggesting t interfere with the residential driveways across pplicant to put in sidewalks on both sides of n the building and parking lot. Pentel asked i stated yes the rking lot meet all of the setback requirements. Grimes g all of the setback requirements. berm would be constructed. Grimes said that it would have to creen headlights from the residential property to the east. . he applicant has had any neighborhood meetings. Grimes stated that the th the property owners in November. Gary Gandrud, Faegre and Benson, 90 South ih Street, 2200 Wells Fargo Center, Minneapolis, representing Goldman, Friedell and Sachs, stated that since the discrepancy between the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map just recently came to his attention he would' confine his remarks to the preliminary plat. He stated that they did meet with the neighborhood on November 13 at Laurel Estates. He said that the applicants have owned the Laurel Estates apartment building for 20 years and they have owned two of the lots involved in the subdivision request for 17years and that they have been talking to the City for 17 years about constructing another apartment building. He Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 3 . stated that the proposed new apartments would have the same demographics as Laurel Estates next door. He referred to the traffic data and stated that the vehicle trip counts come out of the National Traffic Engineering manual. He said that the traffic would be similar to Laurel Estates which has about 1/10 that amount of traffic. Eck asked Gandrud why he thinks the traffic would be the same at the new building as it is at Laurel Estates. Gandrud said because of the demographics in the area and that a large number of the residents don't drive. Groger referred to the half-circle driveway on the site plans and aske have allowed room for people to park there short amounts of time a Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, 13400-15th Ave. N., Plym , engl project, stated that there would be sufficient room to park car n flow. e try and save trees because oved according to the City's tree Groger referred to the tree preservation plan and aske account in order save as many trees as possible. perimeter trees may be able stay and explained also impacted the trees on the property. Groger preserve the trees it would be appreciated . Grimes. explained that it is to the appli compensation is required after a preservation ordinance. Pentel opened the public and has concerns. said their quality of I roa uth, stated he lives directly across the street e berm at Laurel Estates is more than twofeet high. He . ished if the berm is only two feet high. He said that he rei Estates last autumn and he is concerned about of apartments with these types ofdrivers because some of inishing with age. He said that he is also concerned about ion will be and asked if there was anything that could be done ction less intrusive. He suggested that the driveway be connected to s' driveway and empty onto Laurel instead of the access being rs Crossroad. Pentel as rimes ifthere are requirements on the hours of operation for construction. Grimes said that they can't start construction before 7 am and that there is a limitation in the evening. . Pentel asked if the City would review a lighting plan for the site. Grimes said that as part of the permit process the lighting plan would have to be reviewed and approved. He said the doesn!t see a great need for a tremendous amount of lighting at this site and added that he doesn't think the applicant would be against putting in a higher berm. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 4 . is concerned with the berm being high enough. She suggested putting fence on top of the berm and said it would be the right thing to do when there is re ntial property right across the street. Grimes said that the applicants will work with the environmental coordinator on the types of plantings that could be located on a berm. Tommy Dunne, 201 Turners Crossroad South, stated that he is also concerned about traffic. He said it would make more sense to have one driveway for access because it would be safer with only one left turn. Pentel asked what is located directly south of the site. Grimes said. Fire Station Nu mber 2 is to the south. He said that Laurel Estates would have to grant an easement to use their access and that since this proposal is not a PUD or CUP it is the applicant's decision as long as there is reasonable consideration taken for capacity on the roads. He said that staff is proposing that the city's traffic engineer look at the plans in order to reduce the impact to the neighborhood. Millie Olson, 319 Turners Crossroad South, stated that he has ha coming right out of Laurel Estates because some drivers do no before exiting. She said she is concerned about the error Gr' Zoning Map in 1999. Grimes stated that the issue is with th which shows the property is guided for mid density which onl and the Zoning Map is designated M-1 which allows f r ars s e Ian Map s per acre Richard Runde, Golden Valley Lutheran Church concerned about the proposal because the chu constructed an addition on their building. level as planned because of the springs' o venue, said that he is r problems when the church uldn't build the basement area. . Grimes said that the applicants ha responsibility to prove to the Ci 'f soil borings and that it is their will work. Hearing and seeing no on Pentel asked Grimes if th said yes. Gandrud d City is comfortable t of s aCe parking is set by the City Code. Grimes 10 Laurel doesn't use all of their parking and that the t of parking being provided. e would be any benefit to the neighbor's to add as a condition t the lighting. Grimes said that lighting is covered by code but saying the Planning Commission is concerned and would like ting on the site. . Groger made a motion to add as a condition of approval that a berm should be constructed along the length of the property with a preference of protecting the residential area. He said that hethinks this proposal is logical and part of a natural increase in density and that the design is as sensitive as it could get it. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 5 . Keysser asked if approving this subdivision requ st would conflict with fixing the Comprehensive Plan issue. Grimes stated that h would like to see the Comprehensive Plan Map come to the Planning Commission soo McAleese stated thatthe Commission knows the are dealing with just the lot consolidation and not the building plans at this meting but that he is not sure they can attach a condition to a subdivision request. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the request to consolidate 200,220,300 and 310Tu oers Crossroad into thought the draft chapter is wond rful and suggested they go through it he referred to line 15 on the first age and said that the words "method of land use regulations" seem problematic. Thiba It said he wouldn't recommend having a new PUD chapter start that way but that olden Valley has been using this approach for 30 years. II. No other meetings were discussed. III. Other Business A. Discoss Planned Unit Devel apter with Bill Thibault . Bill Thibault, Thibault Associates dis rewritten, He said they started th reviewing four other cities, He Commission/City Council m statement from that infor incorporate the 23 issue some of the langua in t role of the Planning f changes to the UD chapter such as, neighborhood nd buffering and said that the Planning Commission will 'nary and final stages f development. He said that he kept t PUD chapter but linke it to having to match the . McAleese suggested changing the wording and 0 ering Thibault more flexibility in wording the purpose statement. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 6 . Thibault stated there are three choices for PUD's: one is to make them be a separate zoning district, another would be to treat them like a conditional use and the last would be to leave it like it is as an overlay district. Pentel said to her, a PUD is like a CUP allowed in any zoning district. Thibault said it could be difference of voting. Pentel said she would like to see PUD's take a 2/3 vote and the way the City has used PUD's is to ignore the zoning district. Grimes said the Comprehensive Plan should be consistent with the PUD. Pentel referred to it allowed and said th the chapter la comments in th Rasmussen asked what the difference would be to use PUD's as a z. versus as a CUP. Thibault explained that if the City is challenged' sustain a CUP because it is based more on standards. If a pro standards itis difficult to deny the CUP. He said that zoningi function. rto Pentel said she thinks there is still a lot of flexibility in still a lot of gray areas. Thibault agreed but said th quality of design. Eck said "high quality" is still s PUD chapter is developers who have attempted financial gain. there are e to show a high is pet peeve with the UD process strictly for . McAleese said that he doesn't think a that it is frequently misused and th and that is why he prefers thez the City ina better position. Pe the Planning Commission would like to talk to the aren't important. He believes rily getting something out of it ver the CUP approach because it puts e is pleased that this PUD draft puts g to say no to proposals. Grimes said he ut which approach to use. on page five, regarding minor deviations being . e the information that is in the sidebar to be part of d he agreed and would incorporate the sidebar her 259 on page seven and asked what "processing" means. erring to the application process. Pentel suggested changing the o line number 282 on page eight and asked .if it meant that there would be more t one public hearing for preliminary plans. Thibault stated that the intent is to have an official public hearing. Eck suggested making the sentence more clear by striking the word "A" and making the word "hearing" plural. . Pentel said she wants plans to show where sidewalks.are located and that the draft chapter doesn't address that until the very end. Thibault said it is because the assumption is that the final PUD application would have more details than the preliminary application. Grimes suggested adding "pedestrian trails or sidewalks" on line . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 7 298 on page 5. Thibault questioned how detailed the City would want applicants to be in the preliminary stage. Pentel referred to line number 423 on page 11 and stated that the words "other action deemed appropriate by the Council" looked like a gray area. Thibault stated that he put that wording in because under the 60-day rule it may be too late for the City Council to send a proposal back to the Planning Commission. He suggested adding the words "such as referral back to the Planning Commission" to make it more clear. . Pentel referred to item number 11 on pag percentage and asked if that percentag required. Grimes explained that the or Pentel referred to the bottom of page 12 regarding preservation plan items three through seven may need to be reworked regarding w s the list. Grimes suggested making items four through seven su adlng preservation plan. Grimes referred to item number 10 on page 14 regarding priv what kind of "waiver" could be granted by the City Co should be public and the message to send is that with a waiver. asked at the streets e not allowed except aximum hard cover of setback area that is ar ng hard surface, not buildings. Eckreferred to line number 580 "expected not to exceed" instea stated that the wording should read not exceed". Pentel referred to item n draft regarding signs. Thi Zoning Code, but t ra e 16 and asked about the language in this aine at the sign ordinance is not part of the hows an applicant what to expect. ,,;It v e16 and said he was concerned about using the e that could mean expensive and deter affordable housing o be kept down. Pentel suggested saying "building design" Is", Groger said he just didn't want it to be a deterrent for ed to line number 843 on page 21 regarding "approval of a PUD by ring an affirmative vote of a majority of the Council" and said he didn't think that d be accurate if it is decided to treat PUD's as a zoning district. Thibault said that if a PUD is adopted by ordinance than it can be removed by ordinance. . Thibault referred to the bottom of page one regarding "favorable housing types" and said that he thinks that could be a technical problem because a development might not be housing. Pentel suggested using the words "housing plans" instead. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 8 Grimes asked the Commission if they would like staff to make changes to this draft PUD chapter and bring it back to them. Pentel suggested the staff making the suggested changes and then having a joint meeting with the City Council. B. Discuss housing study write up. There was no discussion on the housing study write up. c. Holiday party with BZA on December 16, 2003 at 6:30 p Grill. Grimes reminded the Commissioners that the Board of Zoning attend their holiday party on December 16 at 6:30 at the Broo to IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm. .' . . . ) lIey Planning 763-593-80951 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: December 18, 2003 To: Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Amendment to Definition of Medium and High Density Residential in the General Land Use Plan (Text and Map) and Amendment to Map for Certain Parcels Based Definition Changes and Map Errors At the December 8, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended approval of the minor subdivision for Oak Park Acres. This minor subdivision would consolidate four lots into one lot. The owner of the propertywould like to use the one consolidated lot for the construction of an 80+-unit apartment building. This minor subdivision will be going before the City Council for consideration on January 20, 2004. The City Council will hold a public hearing on this minor subdivision at that time. Prior to the Planning Commission review of this minor subdivision on December 8, 2003, a resident of the area brought to staff's attention an inconsistency that exists in the area between the General Land Use Plan Map approved by the City Council in 1999 and the Zoning Map that was last approved by the City Council in 2002. This inconsistency does not cause any issues regarding the minor subdivision, however, the inconsistency should be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the apartment proposed by the owner of Oak Park Acres. The inconsistency between the General Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map for the Oak Park Acres property is that the Plan Map designates this area for Medium Density residential (5-11.9 units per acre) and the property is zoned for M-1 Multiple Family that permits almost 20 units per acre. The rift occurs because State Statute requires that if there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan Map (or General Land Use Plan Map) and the Zoning Map, the Zoning Map must be brought into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan Map. Prior to 1997, State) Statute said the opposite in that the Zoning Map trumped the Comprehensive Plan when there was a conflict. The area that is north of Laurel Ave., south of Glenwood Ave., west of Turners Crossroad and east of new Xenia Ave. has been designated for medium density housing on the Comprehensive Plan Map (with the exception of the church property and the fire station) since at least 1981. The 1 . . . " new General Land Use Plan Map adopted by the City Council in 1999 continued this medium density designation. The medium density designation on both the 1981 and 1999 plan calls medium density housing at 6-11.9 units per acre. Prior to the adoption of the new Zoning Map in 2002, the Oak Park Acres area was zoned Open Development. (The Open Development zoning district was'eliminated by the new Zoning Map in 2002 and all the Open Developmentareas were given a zoning designation consistent with the General Land Use Plan designation. In the case of Oak Park Acres, the area was designated on the plan map for medium density residential, and the zoning was changed to M-1 Multiple Family.) Laurel Estates (the apartment building west of the fire station on Laurel Ave.) was zoned Open Development when it was constructed in 1979. Laurel Estates was constructed using a PUD probably because it was not consistent with the Open Development zoning at the time. The 1993 Zoning Map shows that Laurel Estates was rezoned to M-1 sometime after its construction. By continuing this medium density housing designation for this area on the 1999 General Land Use Plan Map, the City created a conflict between the General Land Use Plan and the zoning ordinance. The existing Laurel Hills Estate apartment owned by Mr. Goldman has about 15 units per acre. This density exceeds the medium density designation shown on the General Land Use Plan Map. The Crossroads Apartments at the intersection of Xenia Ave. and GlenwoodAve. is slightly less than 12 units per acre so it does fit in the medium density designation on the plan map. In case of both the existing apartment buildings (Laurel Estates and Crossroads), the zoning is M-1 Multiple Family. This M-1 zoning permits three story buildings with up to 20 units per acre. There lies the conflict. In the case of Oak Park Acres the owner probably relied on the Zoning Map when he acquired the properties. He assumed that the zoning would allow a three- story apartment building with up to 20 units per acre similarto the Laurel Estates apartment he owns on Laurel Ave. State Statute requires that the Zoning Code must be brought into consistency with the General Land Use Plan Map. In this case, staff is recommending a change to the General Land Use Plan that would alter both the medium and high density categories by defining medium density housing from 6-20 units per acre and high density housing over 20 units per acre. (High-density housing is currently anything over 12 units per acre.) After reviewing the General Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map, there are a number of other conflicts throughout the City that are similar to this Oak Park Acres and Laurel Estates situation that would be "solved" by this change. The alternative would be to create a new zoning district that would allow multiple family housing with a density of 6-12 units per acre. (There is no zoning district "between" the R-2 district and the M-1 Multiple Family district other than the use of a PUD. The maximurndensitywith the R-2 district is about 5 units per acre and the maximum density with the M-1 district is about 20 units per acre.) The recommendation to change the Comprehensive Plan definition for medium and high density residential is made because allowing medium density up to 20 units per acre seems to be the most consistent with how multiple family properties are now being used in Golden Valley. Currently, there are at least 8 multiple family developments in the City that are designated on the General Land -Use Plan Map for medium density housing but are zoned multiple housing that would permit more than 12 units per acre. There are a couple of circumstances where the 2 .' . . . General Plan Map calls for a high density designation but it is an area that is more appropriate for a medium density designation if the medium density is moved to 6-20 units per acre. In the case of the Oak Pak Acres site, the staff believes that the intent of the City has been to allow this site to be constructed in a similar manner to the Laurel Estates apartment and Crossroad apartments. These existing buildings are three-story apartment buildings that are considered low-rise and medium density in char~cter. The M-1 zoning was probably chosen for this area because it permits these types of apartment buildings. Staff also believes that increasing the medium density to up to 20 units an acre in those areas already zoned M-1 and currently designated medium density residential will give the city some increased housing opportunities. If the amendment to the General Land Use Plan Map to allow medium density residential up to 20 units per acre and high density development to go over 20 units an acre is approved, the General Land Use Plan Map will have to change in certain areas. The best way to show the change is on the Existing Land Use Plan Map. The attached map and chart indicates those areas that will be affected by the change in the density categories on the General Land Use Plan Map. A Zoning Map is enclosed for reference purposes. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Generaltand Use Plan designation of medium density residential be changed from 6-11.9 units per acre to 6-20 units per acre and that the high density residential be changed from over 12 units per acre to over 20 units per acre. The General Land Use Plan Map would also have to be altered for those areas where there is M-1 zoning and the General Land Use Plan Map designation is now high density and will be changed to medium density (those multiple family developments that now have a density of between 12 and 20 units per acre). There are several other changes that will have to be made where the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map is high density and it will be changed to medium density to reflect its actual use. Attachments Zoning Map General Land Use Plan Map Comprehensive Plan Designation Chart 3 Letter On Compo Plan Ma A B C D E F G H J K L M Comprehensive Plan Designation Chart Name Brookview Condos. 9141-9177 Olson Memorial Hi hwa Copacabana 1725 Lilac N. Crossroads 5601 Glenwood Dover Hills 2400 Rhode Island Douglas 1400-1600 Dou las Drive GV Arms 6150 St. Croix Hidden Village 6000 Golden Valle Rd. Laurel Estates Condos. 5610 Laurel Ave. Mallard Creek 8300-8430 Golden Valle Rd. Laurel Hills Condos 5901 Laurel Valle Dior 7501 Harold Valley Village 600 Lilac Village Terrace 242 Yosemite Z()lling M-1 M-1 M-1 M-1 PUD) M-1 M-1 M-1 {PUD R-2 (PUD) M-1 M-1 Current Compo Plan Description MD MD MD MD HD HD HD MD HD MD MD HD HD Proposed Comp...Plcln Description MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD Actual Density Per Acre 3.4* 12 11.7 17.6 16.6 11.3 10.2 14.4 15.8 9.9 3.3* 6.9* 10.7 Letter On Current Actual Compo Proposed Plan Name Zoning Comp.Plan Compo Plall Density Map Description De~cription Per Acre Valley View N 6533 Golden Valle Rd. M-1 HD MD 12.6 No Name 0 2100-2122 Dou las Dr. M-1 MD LD 4 No Name 6739 Golden Valley Rd. P Group Home M-1 HD MD 10 Condos on Douglas (Villas) N. of Golden Valley Road on Q Bassett Creek M-1 HD MD 19.8 Zachman Condos (Medley Hills) M-1 R On Medicine Lake Road (PUD HD MD 14.3 S HD MD 16.8 T CommonBond HD MD 14.7 Colonial Trentwood 9100 Golden Valle Rd. U M-1 HD MD 8.4 V Colonial Ct. 5743 Glenwood M-1 HD MD 15.0 W Westbrook Manor 6200 Golden Valle Rd. M-1 HD MD 8'.1 x Oak Park Acres (Site of roposed Goldman a ts. M-1 MD MD 19.8 y Briarwood 2327 Unity M-1 PUD) MD+HD MD 7.0 Z Laurel Hills Condos. MD MD 10 * Due to large amount of open space density would be significantly greater and should be considered in the medium density category. . . VA CITY OF 'sf Q. tY ,/ A' "..~r7."'...1 '~r.'.' f~/A!~ /0'4 . "'r:w,' IT lr:!1 }Jr' GENERAL LAND USE PLAN RESIDENTIAL D Low Density (Less than 5 units per acre) ~ Medium Density (5 to 11.9 units per acre) _ High Density (12 or more units per acre) COMMERCIAL f;;iWri~[i;{,jOff. ;,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,"\ Ice _ Commercial (also includes Office) INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial (also includes Office) Industrial (also includes Office) . Open Space - Public and Private Ownership Iii Schools and Religious Facilities Public Facilities - Miscellaneous Semi-Public Facilities - Miscellaneous _ Open Water Wetlands National Wetland Inventory. not field verified (Minor adjustments made to some wetlands) ~ Railroad _PED Existing Local Trail Proposed Local Trail Regional Trail Proposed Regional Trail Pedestrian Bridge RoadRights~of-Way ....... . . . . . . . ~~~..:.:..JIII!Il' Municipal Line 1 inch = 1,833 feet <l> . Thibault ASSCC1ATES D...'"'.....1 R.b..l"'..... Golden Valley May 1999 Comprehensive Plan 1999 - 2020