Loading...
01-26-04 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, January 26,2004 7pm I. Approval of Minutes January 12, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: 200,220,300 and 310 Turners Crossroad Purpose: To redesignate the properties on the Comprehensive Plan Map from Medium Density (5 to 11.9 units per acre) to High Density (12 or more units per acre) -- Short Recess -- II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings III. Other Business Election of Vice Chair IV. Adjournment Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission . January 12, 2004 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 12, 2004. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Keysser, McAleese and Rasmussen. Also present were Director of Planning and Develop rk Grimes and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. . I. Approval of Minutes December 22, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting Eck and Groger noted several miscellaneous typograp they wish to see corrected. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Groger and 22,2003 minutes as corrected. II. Informal Public Hearing - PU Applicant: Address: Purpose: n velopment would allow for the construction of a it senior assisted living facility and existing 32,000 ice building sed assisted living facility would be located on the former Inn site. He stated that the site is approximately 5.5 t06 den Valley Inn was removed by the City several years ago due ndll n and the cost of removal was assessed back to the owner of the ere is already a 2-story, Edina Realty office building on the eCist lot of as built under normal zoning regulations and meets all the setback e explained that the two buildings would be combined into the PUD with a Ilding. There would be a cross parking arrangement. Pentel asked if doing a PUD for this proposal would blur the property lines between the two lots. Grimes explained that the two applicants are doing a land trade. The site where the office building is now located will be reduced by .33 acres and added to the new lot for the Sunrise building and about .42 acres will be added to the Edina Realty office from the Sunrise lot just west of the office building along Olson Memorial Highway. . Pentel stated that originally theEdina Realty building met all the setback requirements and asked how the building would be meeting all of the requirements internally on the lot. Grimes said that the Edina Realty building would meet all setback requirements if it were Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 2 . in the Commercial zoning district except where there is the shared driveway with the Sunrise property. Eck asked why the office building needs to be a part of this proposed PUD. Grimes explained that the proposal qualifies as a PUD because they are sharing an access, it is in a re-developmentdistrict, it is a mixed use development with office and residential uses, it's a more efficient use of the land and there are extreme setback requirements due to the fact that there are streets on four sides of the property. Pentel referred to th be on the applicant Ottawa AvenuE;.and pedestrian crossi connectio 0 Pentel asked if the same developer that developed the Ed ina Realty developing the Sunrise building. Grimes said no, they are separate e Grimes explained that the Sunrise development wouldn't crea it will have great landscaping, it's an attractive building and Edina have been successful. . Eck asked if the Sunrise property would need to be whole site is presently zoned Commercial. He s . recommended that both the General Land Use amended prior to approval of the General Plan property would then be zoned Commerci Institutional. Grimes said the propertie Density Housing. Eck asked if was u it. Grimes said it is not unusual a that the property shouldn't be r approved because if the de property guided and zon es s ted yes, the orney has d the oning Map be nt. Eck asked if part of the would be zoned oned Commercial and Higher POD with two zoning districts in y Co mons as an example. He explained iI the preliminary PUD application is to aba cIon the PUD the City would be left with ent that may never be built. ewalk shown on the plans and asked if it was going to e City's. Grimes said it would be in City right-of-way on o Highway 55. He added that there would not be a o art of the site. Pentel asked if there would be a sidewalk Schaper Park. Works Department had talked about putting a stop sign on the at the intersection of Schaper Road and the Lilac Drive Frontage the location warrants a stop sign Public Works would install one. Pentel a out the proposed lighting plan. Grimes referred to the plans and stated that they indicate poles that would direct light downward. He suggested asking the applicant where on the site the lighting will be located. . Pentel asked if the sign for the site was going to be a monument sign. Grimes said he didn't know, but that all of the signage would have to meet the Sign Code requirements. Keysser asked if Sunrise Development is going to buy the site. Grimes said he thinks Sunrise is going to buy their property from Infinity. Keysser asked if Sunrise would be buying the property at market rate. Grimes said he didn't know but that he could possibly find out. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 3 . Laura Hester, representing Sunrise Development, stated that Sunrise is one of the oldest assisted living companies and has 340 homes across the U.S., Canada and the UK. She said they have cared for 40,000 residents since the ,company started in 1981 and the owners opened it based on the Dutch model, which is more of a residential model. She explained the reason they looked at Golden Valley as a location is because there are a substantial number of seniors and those already caring for seniors in their homes. She said they hope to offer a home .Iike atmosphere and that their care falls between independent living and nursing home care. They provide meals, housekeeping, transportation and the typical age of a resident is 83. Pentel asked Hester if they provide residents help with dressing. H provide help with bathing, grooming and dressing if desired by t discussed their principals of service and stated that they offer for all of their employees. She explained the reminiscence p~> with dementia and said they encourage activity in the commef Planning Commissioners pictures of a facility includin foy bistro area and said that 40% of the homes are made encourage socializing. urse Pentel asked if Sunrise offers volunteer activitie that there are formal volunteer opportunif through the schools with lots of apport ester said yes and stated that there are programs . Hester referred to the site plans because it is important to Sunri most of the residents would that it is more likely that a a sidewalk connection to side of the site beca se 0 block. ere re benches every 150 feet outside m like atmosphere. She explained that 00 franiilo be able to walk to Schaper Park and them there. She explained that there would be the west side of the site, but not on the north ety concerns of having a cross walk in the middle of a s terial was chosen instead of concrete for the sidewalks. r to maintain and it is a better material for walkers and bikers. responsible for the sidewalks. Grimes said they would be maintained by the City. All internal walks would be maintained o the landscape plan and said she was concerned about the plantings being re nded for the memory garden on the northeast side of the building. Grimes said that the City's Environmental Coordinator AI Lundstrom would be reviewing the landscape plans and the plant materials. . Grimes referred to the plans and noted that all of the building's equipment is hidden on the roof. Pentel asked ifthere were any plans to have lighting that would shine up at the building. Hester stated no and explained that there is site lighting and pathway lighting. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 4 . Hester explained that the traffic impact would be very minimal because the employees don't work normal shift hours and the only days there is really a need for overflow parking is on Mothers Day and Christmas and they have an agreement with Infinity to use their parking lot. Keysser asked Hester about the Dutch model she referred to earlier. Hester stated that the Dutch have always offered a more,residential modefwhere residents have their own gardens and it feels less institutional. . Pentel referred to the catch basin that Jeff Oliver wrote about on pag Grimes explained that he is referring to the catch basin in the joint n two lots. Pentel referred to the .42 acres between the two lots on the and asked what could be put there. Grimes said that area w parking. Pentel asked how many employees Sunrise wou have a total of 60 employees, but there would b time. ted that they would mployees at anyone Pentel asked what the residents do for resident's prescriptions are delivered b delivered twice a week to the no s. Hester explained that the ndi'~~~;!1 deliveryvehicles and that food is building. Pentel stated that it is her u third full and that parking that th Edina Realty building is one-halfto one-' issue because it is not fully occupied. Scott Schmidt, Clea that the office buildi Realty to provi an pment, representing the Infinity Office Building, stated full and that they have a lease agreement with Edina ber of parking spaces. Drive, Managing Partner of Pondwood Office Park and retired t he's worked a lot with senior housing and assisted living facilities. on for doing this project as a PUD is so the applicant won't have to tringent setback requirements on the west and north sides of the Grimes explained that the City does nothave any parking requirements for senior housing so this project would have had to meet the parking requirements for an apartment building which would be 150 spaces and that is not practical for an assisted living facility because almost all of the residents do not own .cars. . Pentel said that the question is, if by creating a PUD, are we making it so the applicant won't have to follow the setback requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 5 . Grimes explained that the onlyvariance is for a parking setback along Schaper Road. He said that the applicant has a right to apply for a PUD because it meets several of the criteria for consideration to be a PUD such as the fact that it is in the North Wirth Parkway Redevelopment District. Mundt referred to the site plans and asked if the lot between Edina Realty and Sunrise is going to be developed. Pentel explained that area is going to become parking space and that it is not a requirement by the City rather a lease agreement that requires this area be parking. Grimes added that it is not unusual for companies to provide marking than what is required. . Mundt stated that the Sunrise development seems to be placed He said the parking lot is on the most desirable part of the sit He said he would rather see the plans "flipped" over and th from Highway 55. He explained.that assisted living facilities years ago and were usually attached to a nursing ho and t stand alone facilities have been having financial diffic about the services at Sunrise including Medicare licensing. He asked if Sunrise has done a mark constructed building and what type of constructi like to see brick or stone used. He added. being proposed on this site and compli site. park. er away ta about 15 few years id concerned and who regulates the tudy. e asked if it is a wood roposed and said he would ction to the type of use on the design of the building. Pentel asked if the residents on stated that if that they were wit were s nt notice of this meeting. Grimes dius they should have received a notice. Hester explained that Su She said that they have significant need in t is co well as an LPN and rsing home, but rather an assisted living facility. e stive market study that has shown there is a . She added that they have a full time nurse on staff as I mangers. that a resident is no longer capable of living in their r said they make every effort to help residents stay as long as nts are made by the nurse with the family and the family's ts themselves. . s to address the questions asked by Mr. Mundt about the building. that the building is steel framed, fully sprinklered and has 2-hour fire een each floor. Mundt asked about the regulations regarding assisted living units today as well as "flipping" the orientation of the building around on the site. Hester explained that the State licenses the care part of the program only and that the County regulates the.food programs. . Pentel asked if the State regulates the size of the rooms. Hester said she didn't believe so and explained that they offer a variety of room sizes. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 6 Hester explained that there are very few Sunrise facilities with parking in the front and it is very intentional so that all of the parking will not be at the front door. She said .the Victorian architecture is clapboard siding and when all brick is used it makes the building seem very massive. She said she would entertain the City's thoughts regarding the building materials. Grimes said that he feels that is the Board of Building Review's decision. , Mundt asked what the projected rental cost for a studio room would be. Hester said a private single room would be approximately $3,500 per month plus $1,0 r month for dementia care if needed. She said that Medicare and Medicaid do no assisted living. Pentel closed the public hearing. Groger said he thinks it is a good use for the site and that th minimal. He said it has the best landscaping plan he's en a addition to the community and the City. He added tha proposal being a PUD because it meets at least Eck said he agreed with Groger and that he has PUD but he still didn't understand why th Grimes explained that there really is n situation. with the Sunrise site being a ds to be a part of the PUD. the shared driveway Groger said that he would be c a PUD the City has more co is an exceptional propos . would want to make changes, but with r said e agreed with Groger and stated that this eautiful. McAleese stated he PUDs but he doesn rting the proposal. He said that he is not a big fan of ide to this one. Pentel said she';" . extension he the pro' attache s ,seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to recommend 97 which would allow for two lots. One lot would be for the construction of a 3-st unit senior assisted living facility and one lot would be for an existing 32,000 square foot office building. -- Short Recess -- . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2004 Page 7 II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority,City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Pentel stated that since the Planning Commission has not yet elected a vice-chair, she would attend the January 27,2004 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. She asked that the election of a vice.,chair be added to the next Planning Commission agenda. III. Other Business Discuss higher density housing criteria. Grimes referred to the memo he wrote regarding criteria or ques . consider when there are proposals to change the Comprehen density housing. He asked the Commissioners for some dir to see added or changed on list of criteria. Pentel suggested being better about requiring proposa'lts?, shown on their plans. Pentelreferred to number six on Grimes' memo the site and suggested that it ask how pu blic transit being available to tedinto the site. Keysser referred to number eight on G being within walking distance of t walking community. Grimes sta 100% of the criteria on the Ii arding services and shopping e t Golden Valley is not really a saying that people should have to meet Rasmussen said she tho Groger referred to regarding how ousi suggested the f uses in hi r n Grimes' memo and suggested adding something ts would be buffered from Industrial areas. He also h developers using city financing or requiring mixed lopments. Planning Commission meeting and asked Grimes when the Comprehensive Plan Map changes would be coming back to the s n. Grimes said he felt it best to have the City Attorney present at the e Comprehensive Plan Map changes were discussed and the City ailable until the January 26 Planning Commission meeting. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9: 12 pm. . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: January 22, 2004 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Amendment to General Land Use Plan Map for 200,220,300 and 310Turners Crossroad At the December 22, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held an informal public hearing to consider changes to the General Land Use Plan map and text. The proposed changes were being discussed due to a conflict between the Zoning map and General Land Use Plan map (a.k.a. Comprehensive Plan Map). It had been determined by staff that the subject property is guided on the General Land Use Plan map for Medium Density Housing (5-12 units per acre) and the Zoning Map designates the property as M-1 (Multiple Family Residential) that permits the construction of almost 20 units per acre. State Statute requires that there should not be a conflict between the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map. Therefore, there must be a change in the Comprehensive Plan Map or the Zoning Map to eliminate the conflict. No action was taken at the December 22, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Consideration of this matter was tabled until a future meeting with a request to get an opinion from the City Attorney. Staff had determined that there are other parcels in the City with similar conflicts as stated in the memo to the Planning Commission from me dated December 18, 2003. However, the Planning Commission directed staff to limit discussion on changes to the Comprehensive Plan to only the 200,220,300, and 310 Turners Crossroad properties. The Planning Commission believes that the other areas in the City that have conflicts should be studied in greater detail. When the City Council considered and approved the preliminary plat of Oak Park Acres aUheirJanuary 20, 2004 City Council meeting, the Council gave direction that the conflicts issues between the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map should be address throughout the City in. a timely manner but that the Oak Park Acres conflict should be considered separate from other areas of the City. This matter was first tabled until the January 12, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. This was continued until the upcoming January 26, 2004 meeting because the City Attorney was not available on January 12, 2004. City Attorney Allen Barnard will be at this meeting to discuss the attached letter to me dated January 6, 2004. This letter is marked confidential attorney client privileged material and should be for your own information and not shown to others. After reviewing this letter, it is the staff's recommendation that the General Land Use Plan Map 1 . . . designation for the 200,220,300, and 310 Turners Crossroad properties be changed to. High Density Residential. This would eliminate any conflict between the General Land Use Plan Map and the Zoning Map. (The High Density category on the General Land Use Plan Map is any housing with over 12 units per acre. The proposed Goldman property will have just less than 20 units per acre.) This property was zoned Open Development from the time the City first adopted a Zoning Code in the 1930's or 1940's until 2000. Until the 1950's, all residential uses were in the Open Development district. This area remained Open Development until 2000 when it was rezoned to M-1 Multiple Family. (The City finally eliminated the Open Development district as part of the adoption of the new Zoning Map in 2000. The Open Development zoning was seen as a "holding district". When a new use was proposed for a property zoned Open Development, it w<;>uld be rezoned to the corresponding zoning district.) The City's first Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1959. The subject property was designated for single-family housing. The next Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1975 designated the area for medium density PUD. Medium density was not defined in the Comprehensive Plan Map or in the text. In 1982, the Comprehensive Plan was revised and the subject area was designated for medium density housing (5-12 units per acre). The current Comprehensive Plan Map maintains the medium density-housing category of 5-11.9 units per acre. Attachments Location Map Letter from City Attorney Allen Barnard, dated January 6,2004 Memo to Planning Commission from Mark Grimes dated December 18, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 22, 2003 2 . "A_.. /: / I ''''/-,.; .. ---....~" '.. I J:"C 1\:1, ..' """" ~\\ \ . \ \, I~' Iffi 1 I~ ;~ j) i ///, I ~ I ~~ ~ 1:,_~~~9;, i:-~j I :~~, 1:-^ " .t.~<(;" ; 0'. '"'S-, I " 'Q' ~ I ~' (~_ _ ____ ____;' , <%,"" '" 1>"-1< _GC-<, __L_, _u_ .J ---- m 'T'~, [ I \ --0' ~ ~ -' ,- -' ..-- -- '--, ---- ------.. -'- -.. 'n,~ \ o() \ ;':7a --, - \ ---- .c-C"kENWOOD-A"r- T- -it- / / r GL"N~O;;~~r~'i~_I'I- --::--L_ _ _\ ..~\ ' .. j / . I en n, n". 'n___ \ ---- / A ,- f- --- a-- -- r--~~-_ !GL<N!iiO"n-.,-,"____ - -- , I I-ll ,- - l~~jl[ ___'~-_I-~---=:~'~ l' 1/1 }\ 1// ..1 \ / " . \ / I'd / \ ---/! / I (~ [---~I ~--l= ~~~r1-- ( \ I L /,,----- ----_-11 \ \ \ I --}l--_--"=, / =--C:_ - r/ jC=-C=C-:C_ =::',--:c--=-=- LAUREl AVE:":: - - - ---I \ _ _ -- - ~RNj>TKi RICj-TURNP/Ki:/?o . f / I 6, ~,' - .1 !~__-+_ __) / . ,Iii I ~I f--- "''''0''; ~D- ::,,==II~'--=_l=-____: ,I I ~\ I ~II~ '- Tn-lrITr"r~;ft=, __.I JL. --, (~ In_,~ \ \:, c-1-1 JiJr+-r- i "'" 'al-----~..-.c,"',.,,=c-= ,--, "-7 ~'\ \ . . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095/ 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 property would 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 Development areas 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 westof 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 Glenwood Ave. 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 similar to 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 maximum density with 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 character. 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 General Land 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 itwill be changed to medium density to reflect its actual use. Attachments Zoning Map General Land Use Plan Map Comprehensive Plan Designation Chart 3 Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission . 1 December 22, 2003 -.!f'tf \;I.i' f;, A regular m, eetin"g, of the Pia nnl~i",\9,<"",.,commission was hel,d a,l th~...9ttJ en Valley City Hall Counc~,. . bers, 7800 Golde~'\ValleyRoad, Golden Valle Innesota, on Monday December 0,,03. Chair Pent,Jcalled the meeting to 'er at 7 pm. , ~ ~~~:u~~~sne~~~~affer.ir p~n~~'~~t ~e~:iSS Ci~;~fE~~h~~~g":;,:~:::r~p~::.es_e, Mark Grimes and Administrat' '~,' sista Isa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes age six and stat t the wording should be changed to say tha e liked the w' the draft PUD makes' leforlhe-Rlanning-,- Commission to.~., sider all issues w, n reviewing a PUD. MOVED b~sser, seconded by E6k and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes from December 8, 2003 with the above noted change. . 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. Grimes reminded tne Planning Commission that a public hearing for a minor subdivision was held on December 8, 2003 to allow for a consolidation of four lots located at the corner of Laurel and Turners Crossroad, north of Fire Station Number 2 to allow for a 3- story apartment building to be constructed. He stated that the owner of this property is also the owner of Laurel Estates located to the west and that he has been in the process of planning for this type of development in this location for several years. . Grimes said that it was brought to staff's attention that there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan Map designation and the Zoning Map designation in the area along Turners Crossroad where the new apartment building is being proposed. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan Map allows up to 11.9 units per acre to be built, however, . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22,2003 Page 2 the Zoning Map allows 19.8 units per acre. He added that in 1997, new State legislation requires that the Zoning Map be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Map. Grimes stated that when staff looked at this area in 1999 the intent was to allow something similar to the Lau_rel Estates apartments and that Mr. Goldman, the property owner, would like to build up to the maximum number of units allowed per acre in the M-1 zoning district. He referred to his staff report and said that there is more than this one location in Golden Valley where there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan Map and theZoning Map. Pentel referred to Laurel Estates and stated that it is a PUD and that the PUD ordinance gives an exception for making the General Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map match. Grimes said that PUD for Laurel Estates was created in 1979 and at that time it was designated medium density housing but that somehow it was allowed higher density than that. . -~_..-~c-Rentel~skedifgUQs..createexGeptionstothe Zoning Map.Grimes.said~yes,Qut-not-t.f)-~-~---"--~~. ... the Comprehensive Plan. PUDs should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but prior to 1997 it was the reverse, the Zoning ordinance took precedence over the Comprehensive Plan. . . Pentel stated that in this case the last time the General Land Use Plan Map was updated it should have been changed to high density. Grimes agreed and said in 1999 the Laurel Estates area should have been changed to high density and the property around it should have most logically also have been changed to high density on the General Land Use Plan Map. He suggested that alternative would be to just change the designation for the proposed Goldman apartment area at this meeting. It may be best to have more time to study the entire City to be sure all conflicts are resolved. Pentel said she agreed that there are so many issues that are inherent in making a wholesale change to the General Land Use Plan Map that they need to take more time to study it. She asked why they have to work on changing the designation on this proposed property now when the subdivision is going through the approval process and the City has a pretty good idea of what the proposed development will look like. Grimes stated that in talkingto the City Attorney he feels the conflict should really be addressed now. Pentel clarified that changing the designation for these specific properties would allow for up to 20 units per acre but that the zoning for the properties would not change. Grimes said that is correct, the zoning would not be changing. Rasmussen asked what kind of assumptions the applicant made about the use of the land when the streets were reconfigured during the Meadowbrook reconstruction. Grimes said the applicants looked at it the same way as staff did, as a 3-story apartment building. He added that street capacity is not an issue with this property. Grimes stated that in doing research he also became aware of some properties that need to be re-designated the other way and are not appropriate for high density housing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22,2003 Page 3 . Rasmussen asked why these maps weren't checked during the Comprehensive Plan update process the last time it was updated. Grimes said that the Laurel Estates area should have been designated high density at that time because it is high density and that fact that it wasn't is because it was missed by himself or other planners. Pentel opened the public hearing. Catherine Mcintire, 625 Turnpike Rd., stated that the neighborhood heard nothing ofthis meeting before the previous Saturday. Grimes stated that notices were sent out to all property owners that are within 500 feet of the subject property even though it is not a requirement to send out hearing notices for Comprehensive Plan changes. Gary Gandrud, Faegre & Benson, 90 S. 7th Street, Minneapolis, Attorney representing applicant, stated they also notified everyone within 500 feet when they had their ---neighborhood-rneetingontheminor-subdivision.Pentel. askedwhentt:leyhad their---.- meeting. Gandrud said it was in November. Pentel asked if itwas prior.to the re-platting of the lots. Gandrud said yes. . Gandrud stated that they have been talking with the City on and off for 17 years about combining these lots. He said the property was priced as M-1 property, they planned it as M-1 property and they have proceeded in good faith under M-1 requirements. He said he agrees that this one property should be addressed and that the properties in the rest of the City should be studied further and added that this isn't a hearing for their plans but that they are available to answer questions. Mary Zilinski, 633 Turnpike Road, asked if the public notice was. given before or after the conflict between the General Land Use Plan Map and the Zoning Map was identified. She said that she would like to know more about the appropriate procedure to amend the Comprehensive Plan. She said it strikes her as odd to say the City only has to give notice for any changes to property owners within 500 feet if we're talking about the Comprehensive Plan because she envisions it to be more like the constitution whereas talking about zoning is a little more like a statute, so if the overall plan for Golden Valley is going to be amended she thinks the citizens that are anywhere near a subject property have the right to know what's going on. She added that the notice she received the previous Saturday is the first she has heard about this application. Pentel asked Grimes if a public hearing notice was sent out for this meeting and what it said. Grimes said yes, a notice was sent out to those property ownerswithin500 feet of the property where this proposed apartment building is being proposed, not to the other areas where other changes to the General Land Use Plan Map were in .conflict with the Zoning Code. He said that in 1999 when the entire Comprehensive Plan Map was updated a notice was not sent to every homeowner. Notice was given by an article in the newspaper or newsletter. Formal public hearings before the City CounCil require an offiCial hearing notice in the SunPost. . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 4 Pentel stated that in the past properties and re-development proposals have come before the Planning Commission where there is a Zoning Map change and a Land Map change. She asked if in those situations for those individual properties if the only notice that's gone out for Planning Commission meetings is to property owners within 500 feet. She asked ifPUD get noticed separately in the newspaper. Grimes stated that only notices for formal. public hearings where the decision is made by the City Council are published in the newspaper. McAleese stated that part of the confusion with this application is that the applicant had a separate meeting in November that had nothing to do with the minor subdivision. Grimes added that in effect if an applicant meets the zoning requirements they don't need Planning Commission or City Council approval. Jon Dibb, representing his mother, Mildred Olson, who lives at 319 Turners Crossroad, presented a petition to the Commissioners. It expresses that the people in the area want ...tomaintaintheucurrentdensityon the Comprehensive Plan despitewhatthe property is.... zoned. He said in this situation there is more to be concerned about. The neighbors don't want to worry about more traffic and any other safety issues. He said one thing that concerned him is that he heard the Planning Commission won't listen and that it is already a done deal. He stated that he has the signature of the minister of Golden Valley Lutheran Church who said he feels comfortable signing the petition for all 800 people in the congregation and that they don't approve changing the Comprehensive Plan Map just to get it in line with the Zoning Map. Dibb said in general he realizes there is going to be more density than what is there now and that 51 units would be allowed under the current zoning. He discussed the access to the site and stated that they never had seen traffic on the back streets such as Lawn Terrace, Radisson, and Turnpike trying to get to Highway 100 prior to the closing of Turners Crossroad south of Glenwood. He said he is concerned about a double driveway right across from single family homes where kids play and people walk their dogs. He stated that this is going to be a huge change and that the people have adjusted to the closing of Turners Crossroad and to reverse the clock and throw a bunch of people back in the area is concerning. He said there are other apartments in the area but not are coming right off into a residential area. Pentel asked Mr. Dibb if the neighborhood would support keeping the apartment proposal to 51 units which would complywith M-1 even though the zoning is for 19 units per acre, recognizing that there would still be a conflict with the Laurel Estates property. Dibb stated yes, and added that property values are a concern and traffic and safety are a big concern als.o. He said that the proposed apartments would be a change of 35 units compared to Laurel Estates which is 40 to 50 units so the new apartments would be one and half times the size of Laurel Estates. Charles Reynolds, 200 Turnpike Road, stated that he did receive two notices regarding this property, one from Mr. Goldman and one from the City. He said he realizes his neighbors concerns and agrees that they don't want to revert to the way Turners Crossroad was but that he d.oesn't think that is the intent. He said he certainly would not want to see headlights coming into his house and understands that concern. He stated that he attended the meeting that the applicant held in November and that he found them . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 5 to bevery workable, high quality people to work with. He said that he does not see this proposed development devaluing the property values in the area at all and that the applicant is not a short term developer which he appreciates. He said he drives by Laurel Estates 3 to 4 times a day and it is a very attractive building. He added that this property has been zoned for apartments, there is nothing they can do about it, and it's going to be apartments. The building is not going to be junk, the applicant maintains his properties and he appreciates it. He stated that he does want to make sure that the entrance isn't a problem for the houses across the street and that the berm is high enough so that the cars in the parking lot won't be seen. Carol Gohman, 621 Turners Crossroad, stated that there are a lot of uncontrolled intersections on Turnpike Road and Lawn Terrace and she gets nervous about people walking their dogs and playing. She said that there would be a 68% increase between 51 units and 86 units and that there will be a lot of extra cars. . Pentel suggested a right turn out oftheproposed.apartmentbuilding which would direct traffic back to Xenia. Grimes stated that as part of the traffic study the traffic engineer will review the internal circulation on the site plan and make suggestions on how traffic should be routed. Pentel said that traffic isn't an issue the Planning Commission can handle at this meeting but she is glad it will be in the minutes and that calling out these issues is good. Shaffer clarified that the issue is that if the proposal complied with the Zoning Code the proposal would not have to come before the Planning Commission or City Council at all. Pentel stated that if the proposal were for 12 units an acre which is what the General Land Use Plan Map allows for M-1 there would be no issue. Grimes agreed and said that generally. speaking the way zoning is looked at is that people have the right to build up to the maximum density that is allowed in the Zoning Code. McAleese said that if state law says that the Comprehensive Plan governs then people don't have a right, even if there is an error on the Zoning Map, to build up to 20 units because the Zoning Code says a person can build to "a maximum of' which means there really isn't a conflict in complete terms because an M-1 type of development could still be built. It would just be limited to the density per acre based on what the Comprehensive Plan Map says. Gandrud clarified that Laurel Estates has 65 units and that they are planning a right in right out on Turners Crossroad. He stated that there is a condition on the final approval of the subdivision that a berm must be put in. Gretchen Meyer, 201 Turners Crossroad asked whose responsibility, before pen was ever put to.paper, in developing these plans to determine what the size of this building should be. Was it Mr. Goldman's responsibility, his architect, or his hired attorney to have contacted the City to make sure their ducks were in a row? Grimes stated that it is all public information. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 6 . Pentel asked if the applicants have brought in any actual plans of the proposed building with an actual number of units. Grimes reminded the Commissioners that the applicant did show plans of the proposed building at the last Planning Commission meeting. He added that the applicants have gone above and beyond what they have needed to do and that Staff held their public hearing off an agenda so the public could see what the proposed building was going to look like. . . Tommy Dunne, 201 Turners Crossroad stated that he is one of the people who canvassed the neighborhood to get signatures for the petition. He said that all of the houses he went to with the exception of two thought the General Land Use Plan Map should stay medium density. He added that every time he opens his door and looks out his front window he's going to be staring straight at this and he wants it to be a maximum of 51 units. Mildred Olson, 319 Turners Crossroad stated that she wanted to clarify that the . --applicants did not have the neighborhood meeting until one of the neighbors saw a truck .... boring soil samples. She said that she stopped by the City and talked to Mark Grimes and he gave her Mr. Goldman's name so she called him and asked if he could have a meeting with the neighborhood. He said yes he would in two weeks, they didn't hear anything from Mr. Goldman for over a month. She added that it was upon her insistence that the neighborhood finally found out what was going to happen. Grimes explained that he asked Mr. Goldman to have a neighborhood meeting far before his discussion with Ms. Olson. He said it was always Mr. Goldman's intent to have a meeting and that it was delayed somewhat in getting drawings done. He said it is Staff's policy to encourage developers to meet with communities first before they hear it from the City because then people think the proposal is a done deal. McAleese said that the point in fact is that the subdivision code doesn't require that the applicant have a neighborhood meeting and that he should be commended for having a meeting and the fact that it was delayed for drawings seems reasonable. Eric Wibholm, 109 Turners Crossroad said that he lives directly across the street from the site. He said it is a family area and there are lots of children on that street. He stated that there is a lot of opposition and that everyone he has spoken to does not want the Comprehensive Plan changes. He suggested getting the traffic to exit onto Laurel or Xenia as a solution to the traffic problem and said he thinks that would alleviate a lot of the opposition to the proposed apartment building. Pentel said that was discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting and that the City can't always teH people where to access their property. Grimes explained that Xenia goes to a wetland area and having traffic go on to Laurel would encumber Mr. Goldman's other property and that it is up to him whether he wants to look at that option or not. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 7 Mary Zilinski, 633Turnpike Road, asked what the next steps are procedurally to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Pentel said the next step is a public hearing at the City Council. She added'that there will be a notice published in SunPost Newspaper before that meeting. McAleese explained that the Planning Commission's job is to make a recommendation to the City Council and that the Council makes the final decision on the issue. Zilinski said that the Planning Commission is talking about amending the entire plan and that she is puzzled with the notion of only providing notice within 500 feet of anyone affected by the Plan in all of those areas affected by the discrepancies between the two documents and it seems that there would be more than just a few people within 500 feet of each of those areas that should be notified. Pentel explained that making all of the changes to the General Land Use Plan Map at this meeting is beyond the scope of what the Planning Commission wants to tackle at this meeting so ultimately what they are discussing is this particular property and the Laurel Estates PUD. She explained that if the City were to make changes globally to the General Land Use Plan Map that the Planning Commission is not required to send out notices. Tommy Dunne, 201 Turners Crossroad, referred to a Commissioner saying earlier that if the traffic was to spill out across the owners other property (Laurel Estates) it would cause an encumbrance to the property owner. He said that their property is already encumbered by this proposal and their property values have plummeted. He said he spoke to one neighbor who said he won't even have time to sell his house. Pentel stated that this property has been zoned M-1 which allows multiple unit dwellings and has been designated medium density and that people have had the fortune of not having a building in this location but it is allowable for the proposed apartment build to be build according to the existing Land Use Plan and Zoning Code. Grimes said that the City has not shown a devaluation of property throughout the City where multiple dwellingunits have gone in. John Dibb thanked Grimes for quick response to his email. He said that there are no sidewalks for people to walk and asked which comes first the General Land Use Plan or the Zoning Map. To him the General Land Use Plan comes first then the Zoning Map. Steve Feigin, 25 Turnpike Road, asked how the disruption to their daily lives could be minimized once the construction starts on Turners Crossroad. Pentel said that normally construction can occur from 7 am t01 0 pm and that no one is allowed to store materials on the street without a permit from the City. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 8 . Feigin asked about big trucks parked on both sides of the street. Pentel said that the Public Safety Department takes that very seriously and would try to make sure that would not occur. Feigin said there are rules, and things that people aren't required to do, but there are also people's lives and there has to be understanding, leeway and communication because it is not going to affect the Commissioners lives, it's going to affect their lives dramatically. Seeing and hearing no one further wanting to speak. Pentel closed the public hearing. Grimes reiterated that the City tries to keep the construction disruption to a minimum. Groger stated that he agrees that the Planning Commission should limit their discussion to these two specific properties. He said that there are too many other issues city wide to discuss at this meeting without having more publicity. He asked what liability the City has because the proponent has said they bought the property with a certain understanding, however, the General Land Use Plan is a public document available to all. He asked if there was a time frame or deadline for action for the City to do something in order to allow or not allow construction to take place. . Grimes said that once the final plat is approved he assumes the applicants are going to want to start building. He said that the City Attorney has said that the property owner has made decisions based on the Zoning Map information and that there has been dependency on that information as well, buLhe hasn't made his definitive statement on this issue yet. McAleese stated that they are talking about reliance and that the idea of reliance has to be reasonable. What they have is a state statute that says two things have to be in compliance with each other. He said there is a conflict because the Zoning Code says here is the maximum number of units allowed under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan says here is the maximum number of units allowed under the Comprehensive Plan, which is a smaller number. He said he thinks that the two documents can be construed together and that a reasonable person understanding that the Comprehensive Plan governs should have understood that the lower number is the maximum number of units that's available. He said he doesn't know how a person can argue reliance when the Comprehensive Plan, which is a public document, and the Zoning Code say different things and state law says the Comprehensive Plan is the top document. Pentel said she agrees with Commissioner McAleese. She said when she looks at PUD number 18A (Laurel Estates) and this proposal she doesn't have a problem with recommending the General Land Use Plan be changed to high density because that is what is accurate. She said she has a greater problem changing the other properties. . McAleese said that reliance on the Zoning Code doesn't make sense and the single question should be is if changing the Comprehensive Plan is appropriate. . . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 9 Rasmussen said she is not inclined to separate the properties and feels it would be setting some kind of precedent. She said she is not comfortable without an opinion from the City Attorney and she is not in favor of changing this piece of property; She added that this is a good example of how a public hearing can be conducted. She said the developer has been cooperative and the citizens have been respectful. Pentel said the applicants re-platting can go ahead as planned and agreed that an opinion of the City Attorney would be helpful. Eck stated that he can understand how the developer would rely on the zoning when determining the density he could .build there without comparing the Zoning Map to the General Land Use Plan Map and asked how the density numbers that are specified in the General Land Use Plan came about. Grimes said that the density numbers have been on the General Land Use Plan Map since 1981 and were copied over to the 1999 version. A planning consultantwho wrote the first Comprehensive Plan in the 1970's probably came up with the density numbers. He explained that up until 1999, there used to be a single family category on the General Land Use Plan Map but it was changed to low density in order to include lower density town home and 2-family homes. He said he thinks the Planning Commission and the City Council have seen a need to have a variety of housing as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and there are very few locations where we have even a chance for having some diversity and density in housing. He thinks the Planning Commission and the City Council saw this area as one of those areas where they would have the chance to have some diversity in housing and higher density. Eck said he wonders if the designation on the Plan Map or the numbering system should be changed. Pentel referred to Vallee D'or and said that it is another case where the underlying zoning doesn't match the General Land Use Plan. Shaffer said that earlier it was said that the General Land Use Plan Map had low, medium and high density categories and that at some point Open Development was eliminated from the Zoning Map. He asked when the Zoning Map was changed. Grimes said in 2002 the subject property was rezoned from Open Development to M-1. Shaffer said it was changed at that point to the higher density and now it seems like the Planning Commission is saying that's not what we want. He added that it seems like the density should have been changed on the General Land Use Plan Map in 2002 as well. Eck asked when the State changed the law that requires the General Land Use Plan Map to be the ruling document. Grimes said 1997. Eck said that the City probably wasn't allowed to do what was done in 2002. Grimes said probably not. McAleese said that isn't necessarily the case. He said you have to assume that when you are talking about the lower density number in the Comprehensive Plan that it is inconsistent with the language of the Zoning Code and it isn't. The Zoning Code says you ... . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 10 can build "up to a maximum" of, you can build "up to" this amount it doesn't say you get this completely or that your entitled fully to it. Shaffer said that the Planning Commission changed the Zoning Code in 2002 to M-1 thinking it could go up to 20 acres, the maximum it could go. Pentel disagreed and said that the Zoning Code was changed to M-1 because R-1 and R-2 did not seem rational and M-1 is the first category above R-2. Keysser said he thinks it is incumbent on the developer to check both the Zoning Map and the Land Use Map. Gandrud said that they came to this meeting on the recommendation of staff and that he did not make the point on reliance, the Planning Commission mentioned that. He added that Golden Valley is the applicant and Golden Valley is trying to correct an error. McAleese said the Commission is saying that they are trying to make their decision not based upon the issue of if there was reliance because they don't think that is a real issue for them to consider. Keysser said he thinks the two properties can be looked at separately from the rest of the City. He said he doesn't think 86 units would be inappropriate for this site. He asked the Commissioners if they think this request should be tabled until they can get a legal opinion. Shaffer said he thought that would be wise. Keysser said he is concerned about traffic dumping onto Turnpike Road and the traffic going further onto Lawn Terrace. He added that there has been a jump in the amount of traffic after Turnpike was closed. Groger asked if there is a deadline to make this decision on this issue. McAleese asked the Commissioners if they only want to make a motion at this meeting regarding the proposed Oak Park Acres site and Laurel Estates. Rasmussen said she would like some history of when changes were made to this property and to the General Land Use Plan Map. Grimes said he would do some research and clarify the questions the Planning Commission has with the City Attorney. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to table the following requests relating only to the proposed Oak Park Acres site and the Laurel Estates property until the January 12, 2004 meeting. 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. -- Short Recess -..