Loading...
11-13-06 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room Monday,November13,2006 7pm 1. Approval of Minutes October 23, 2006 Special Planning Commission Meeting October 23, 2006 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Discussion Regarding Infill Housing Issues 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission . October 23, 2006 A special meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, October 23,2006. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development 'mes, City Engineer Jeff Oliver, Environmental Coordinator AI Lundstrom and A Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners McCarty and Schmidgall r I. Storm Water Management Discussion with City En Oliver referred to 2 year s 100 year storm has a 1 % 90% chance of occurring i occurring in any gi ar was based on a two that today's de st based on 10 tudy the sues related I y ineer Jeff Oliver e technical Keysser stated that the City Council has asked the Planning issues of infill and~',tear down" development. He expla' th to this type of development is stormwater drainage so to attend this meeting in order to give the Planni information about the stormwater drainage issu Oliver gave the Commissioners copies of that the thing that stands out the most yard storm sewer or catch basins in ba developed there was little though the future. er base map. He explained the dramatic absence of rear rom added that when the City was ainage and what would happen in . storms and 100 year storms and explained that a ring in any given year, a 10 year storm has a ven ye r and a 2 year storm has a 98% chance of ted that the design standard used several years ago 'ch results in considerably smaller pipes. He added designed for a higher intensity of storm events and are hich results in bigger pipes and more capacity. equency or intensity of storm events have been getting worse. know but there has been some discussion nationally about reviewing cu rves. . t most of the concerns the City hears about is water standing on somebo t. He said that until approximately 10 years ago there really wasn't a lot of attention paid to the grading of property for sheds, fences and landscaping and what those things do to the drainage patterns. He explained that the City's policy for dealing with rear yard drainage is that the City is responsible for storm water once it hits the streets or is intercepted by a pipe that it owns and maintains. When the problem is in back yards, the City will provide technical advice and help analyze the situation but it is the homeowner's responsibility. Waldhauser said that she thinks residents realize there is probably a technical solution, but they feel they are paying to drain the neighborhood. . . . Oliver explained that the City will provide a public improvement project to extend storm sewer into a backyard if the affected property owners, or everybody that contributes to the drainage, pays for it. He stated that since he has worked in Golden Valley there has never been that type of a public improvement project done. Waldhauser agreed that the homeowner's would probably not do a public improvement project voluntarily. Keysser asked if the City could do a special assessment district. Oliver said the City could, but they are very difficult to establish because they have to go through the public hearing process and the homeowner's that don't have a problem don't typically want to pay an assessment because they won't see as obvious of a benefit. Waldhauser stated the homeowner's are required to pay an assessm be reconstructed. Oliver said that is a little different because stree everybody uses. Streets are much more visual and more hand drainage is a little more ushadowy". For example, one homeo drainage problem, but ten properties might be contributing t Oliver explained that most of Golden Valley's drainag proper grading. He said that there are very few ho surface water draining issues most of the issues high water table. treets to at ter a Ived with Un! that have ter infiltration and the Grimes asked if the funds that property 0 go to maintain the existing system. Oli projects such as nutrient and sedim environmental manholes, etc. He in general are addressed by th enforcing those issues. urface water management oes into water quality types of sewer cleaning, street sweeping, st 0 e rate control and flooding issues . t and the City is responsible for Waldhauser said that m new properties bein de problems worse. S issue to begin ith a conditions. Oli low spots . floodin surface g rs concerns seem to be about the run-off from nd tha the new home being built will make their water lot of these properties already have a groundwater additional surface water adds to these existing ost common surface water issue is water standing in . Kluchka asked if the surface water contributes to basement , but generally it takes a minimum of a 2% grade to get good er a turf area. re is a way to make this issue easier for people to understand. Oliver al is to not make an existing situation worse. He handed out copies of the gra inage and erosion control plan application and explained all of the information at is required from applicants. Grimes added that the City is also starting to implement subdivision agreements that will help with the grading, drainage and erosion control issues. Cera stated that the grading, drainage and erosion control plans are submitted at the time the building permit process starts and questioned if the timing could be different so drainage plans are submitted earlier in the process. Oliver said it is difficult because often times lots are custom graded and designed after the property has been subdivided so staff doesn't know what type of house is going to be built. . . . Kluchka asked how the grading plans are enforced. Lundstrom explained that a Certificate of Occupancy is not issued until there is a final inspection of the grading to make sure that the property is graded properly. Keysser asked about the effectiveness rain gardens, environmental manholes, etc. Oliver said they are all tools in the tool box but in the right place they can be tremendously successful. Keysser asked how much maintenance is involved with rain gardens and how the City enforces the maintenance. Oliver explained that the City requires applicants to enter into maintenance agreements and they are supposed to do the routine maintenance and report back to the City annually. He added that the City does have the ability to do order that the maintenance work be done or the City can do the work a e property owner. Cera asked if the maintenance agreements are permanently on said yes. Waldhauser asked how onerous the maintenance on ponds most storm water !)onds need to be dredged after ap ima rain gardens haven't been around long enough to k . Oliver said . .He said that nce yet. Keysser asked if larger sized commercial sites r management. Oliver said that the City follows th Cera asked if the City periodically che Oliver reiterated that the applicants ar added that periodic inspections ar staff has put together a list of m do. er Ie I of storm water District standards. gardens once they are built. bmit annual reports. Lundstrom nstruction stage. He stated that that are reasonable for a homeowner to Cera asked if there is a Lundstrom stated that m on a complaint basi Keysser noted drainage situati grading p built b 'n gardens that would not be taxing on the staff. maint ance issues with rain gardens will be handled Ision requests the grading plan can make the existing era said it comes back to how the City is going to enforce the ned that there may be increase in run-off when a new house is Iy quantify the total volume is very difficult. 's a fee for the maintenance agreement. Grimes said yes. Cera asked oes bonding. Oliver said that bonds are hard to collect on. Oliver reit ed that staff takes drainage issues very seriously and spend a lot of time making sure that proposed drainage plans will work. He said that if a proposal goes to the Planning Commission with a positive recommendation they can be confident that staff feels the proposed drainage plan will work. Grimes added that if the City Engineer is not confident about a proposed drainage plan the proposal most likely won't even go to the Planning Commission. II. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 pm. . . . Regular Meeting of the. Golden Valley Planning Commission October 23, 2006 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, October 23, 2006. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluch~a and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Ma rimes, City Engineer Jeff Oliver, SEH Traffic Consultant Mike Kotila and Administr 'stant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners McCarty and Schmidgall were absent. I. Approval of minutes September 25, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and motio the September 25,2006 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary PUD No. 53-A2 Applicant: Minnesota ND Pr Insurance an rporation owned by Teachers of New York Address: Purpose: o square foot office building with two additional arking ramp. Grimes explained th to a site plan 0 Golden Hills D . hotel. He they w t is proposing to amend their existing PUD. He referred ated that the vacant part of the site at the corner of ia Avenue was originally designated for the construction of a ners now feel that a hotel doesn't make economic sense and second office building instead. e proposed new office building have 7 to 8 stories of parking and ve that. He said that the main issue regarding this proposal is the at the intersection of Golden Hills Drive and Xenia Avenue. He stated that staff s to make sure that intersection will operate effectively and efficiently in the future. He added that staff has suggested that there should be some limitation on the amount of employees which is not acceptable to the applicant. He said that another solution may be to limit the amount of parking on the site but those numbers still need to be worked out between the City and the applicant. The applicant has said they would be comfortable limiting the number of parking spaces which will reduce the peak hour trips to an acceptable level. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 2 . He said he thinks the number of parking spaces will between 1,600 and 2,200. He added that there are some significant public improvements that are going to be required with the project and that the developer has committed to doing these improvements. Grimes stated that the applicant is using the same architect used for the first building so the proposed new office building will be consistent with the existing building. Eck referred to Grimes' staff report and noted that in it, it states that the number of parking spaces would be limited to 1,600. Grimes explained that was the n mber proposed by staff but the applicant isn't comfortable with that number '11 be working with the applicant to come up with a number of parking spac rk. Sellegren showed the Commis . peak hour trips from all the dev trips for a 200,000 square for a 240,000 square foo square foot office building hat the Golden Hills ctid any in the metro osal is to add two levels to ave seven levels of parking ssed the entrances and exits o the proposed new building. Waldhauser stated that the 1-394 Corridor Study looked at the future developments in that area and asked if the Colonnad ' the Corridor Study. 'Grimes stated that it does and stated th Mike Kotila looked at both the Corridor Study and the Colonn . Dave Sellegren, Attorney representing the prope Drive and Xenia Avenue intersection is as studi area. He referred to an area map and explained the existing parking ramp and a new offic and 240,000 square feet of office spac on the site and showed several persp t illustrated the projected amount of PM in rea, the projected amount of peak hour ing and the projected amount of peak hour trips '\i~e said that the difference between a 200,000 40,000 'square foot office building is 38 trips. chitect for the project, stated that the building design Ived from continuing the same design and materials as stated that the proposed new building will be approximately e shorter than the existing Colonnade building. It will have 8 r 7 levels of parking. He stated that they are only requiring two ill be along Golden Hills Drive and will be used for delivery trucks rs will continue to use the existing entrances to access the parking buildings. Farr showe he Commissioners a shadow study. The study looked at the summer and winter solstice and showed the proposal with the previously proposed hotel and the newly proposed office building. He said that the hotel and proposed office building would have pretty much the same impact to the neighborhood. . Cera asked about the height difference between the previously proposed hotel and the newly proposed office building. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 3 . Farr said that the hotel was proposed to be 150 to 170 feet high and the office building is proposed to be 200 feet in height. Grimes added that the height of the hotel was never really determined and that the plans were conceptual. Eck referred to the driveway plan and asked if the new truck access would be able to accommodate trailers as mentioned as a concern in the staff reports. Farr explained that there is a loading berth that can hold two semi-truck trailer lengths as well as a trash berth recessed under the parking deck that will service the phase two building. Cera asked if the existing sidewal sidewalks will stay or be contin there is a sculpture an II service phase two rr stated that there were t will be enlarged for phase IC Management Plan. Keysser asked if there will be a sign on Golden Hills Drive that says th trucks only. Farr said yes. He added that there will be no access to t that side of the building and it will be for delivery trucks only. Keysser asked if there is a plan for any type of retail use. Fa the phase two bUilding is connected to the phase one buildi cafeteria, the capacity for a restaurant and some small retail Keysser asked if there are any plans for public a and a pond that set the stage in the phase one as well. Keysser asked if there are plans for bic also bicycle racks installed in the phase 0 two. Grimes added that bicycle racks w' . able. Farr said that existing the site will have full pedestrian access. Waldhauser asked the ap the 1-394 Corridor Study sounds like there is no int workers during bus' intentions for that ar restaurant for ic the corridor w traffic Sp existing10 Corridor i Hi edev inter ion. west 0 ade any attempts to try to accommodate any of icter height limits and mixed use. She said it ve an retail other than what will serve the office e asked the applicants if they are aware of the City's that he didn't think the owners would object to a ey are using the land judiciously and adding density in absorbed instead of putting it further away from the main ilding up, not out and they are in scale and context with the orridor. Waldhauser stated that the direction in the 1-394 lower heights. Grimes explained that this property is in the Golden t area and the City has said it wants higher buildings at this added that the 1-394 Corridor study area is really looked at as starting o Avenue. Waldhauser said the shadow study was helpful but the site lines will be affected as well. . Sellegren stated that Golden Valley has been working on the Golden Hills Redevelopment area for a long time and that this is the area where the community wanted the mass, the image and the jobs. He said in regard to traffic there are Allianz, United Properties, the Miner Site as well as the Colonnade and the Colonnade Phase two. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 4 . He said they acknowledge that they are a contributor to the traffic and explained that as suggested in their Traffic Management Plan they intend to install a gate mechanism in their parking ramp such as Allianz has in order to help manage the traffic. Sellegren said that the last thing they are prepared to do is place limitations on the parking. He said he thinks the traffic numbers will work if they don't add on the proposed two levels to the existing parking ramp, but then they wouldn't meet the City's parking ratio requirements. He stated that the City also has an 1-394 Overlay Ordinance that they have their tenants follow; He stated that he thinks using the Traffic Mana ement Plan, the gate control and the limited amount of parking will work. Cera aske office sga need t w they . e gate . He eysser rred to the ps have not dded that there will be ransit that will help as Keysser asked for clarification regarding the gate in the parking r would avoid cars parking all over the neighborhood streets. Oli in the parking ramp would be tied into the signal control cab' stated that the details would be worked out in the public imp asked how long people would have to wait in the rampto get Allianz parking ramp which is similar and said that so come close to the threshold and the gates haven' an emphasis placed on flexible work schedules a whole. . Keysser asked if there has been any di the schedule in this area. Grimes state about the added development in t ransit about adding buses to et with Metro Transit and told them Grimes asked about the curr stated that their occupanc occupancy rate was at 1 100% occupancy and if t Grimes suggested put in "no parking" Sl y nu 'er. Kim Ihle, CB Richard Ellis, applicant, tly in the mid 70% range. Keysser asked if their uld be a problem. Ihle said they are never at 95% I they would still be ok regarding parking. e to the PUD Permit that will require the developer to ounding neighborhood if required by the City. ssibly build less than the proposed 240,000 square feet of they've analyzed that but their economics indicate that they uare feet. at currently the Colonnade has low density offices and asked if the uilding will have similar density. Sellegren said the density and tenants will be the new building. He said that they may get the critical mass necessary to have pu IC retail facilities again; but when they tried previously it just didn't work. Waldhauser said she thinks street level access to any public fadlities would help. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. . Kluchka said he is disappointed that a development of this size doesn't utilize mixed use and let the public use this building. He said the parking and traffic issues have been addressed but the development concerns him. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 5 Grimes explained that this property is a big part of the Golden Hills Redevelopment area which doesn't say anything about mixed use. He said he knows they have talked a lot about mixed use in the corridor area but the Louisiana Avenue area is where the City wants to emphasis mixed use. The Colonnade area has always been seen as a higher density area. He explained that the first phase of the Colonnade was a mixed use development and had a restaurant and a proposed hotel but staff feels the use should be limited because of the parking and traffic concerns. Waldhauser noted that the City is requiring mixed use right across-the corn r at the proposed Miner Site. Grimes explained that the Miner site is adjacent ntial area and the Colonnade site is right on 1-394. The City wanted the develo down from higher level buildings toward the residential area in the case t development. Kluchka stated there are also restaurants right 0 94 that is a valid argument for the Colonnade not to have mixe proposed new building isn't addressing the community. Gri require mixed use at the Allianz site and that a mixed se wo explained that the City can't force people to build thin added that this is a very difficult corner and the C' corner for retail because of the traffic and pedes t think he City didn't ry site. He is not there. He ant to emphasize this es. long 1-394 but the e agrees with the applicant ere is no restaurant close by. He h the developer that a hotel is not user said the direction the City wants to -sync ith what the developers would prefer, at Golden Valley can attract. Waldhauser said it's interesting that other Colonnade applicants say a hotel won' that a hotel would not work well in this said he agrees with the market an the highest and best use for thi take with the 1-394 Corridor but we also have to be pr Grimes suggested langu spaces will be dete . eliminating condition the City and th spaces all we ded a a condition of approval that a number of parking final City Council approval. Keysser suggested . Grimes' memo and replace it with language that says me to an agreement on a maximum number of parking prior to going forward to the City Council. round the top of the existing Colonnade building and asked if it rr stated that the red light on top of the building is required to be on, 'ring the white light to be on. he proposed street lighting plan looks great and asked if there is going to be significa lighting on the building. Farr said the lighting on the site is derived by three concepts. The first concept is the pedestrian lighting, such as bollards. The second concept is the over-story street lighting and the third cpncept is the building illumination. He stated that the look and feel of the building and lighting will be the same as in the phase one building. Kluchka asked if the proposed lighting fits within the City's proposed new lighting ordinance. Grimes said their lighting plan would be subject to the proposed new lighting ordinance because it should be adopted by the building is constructed. Farr said they would design the lighting plan accordingly. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 23, 2006 Page 6 . Keysser asked the applicant about the construction timetable. Sellegren explained that they need government approvals first and they need to have 60% of the space pre-leased before they begin construction. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carried 3 to 2. to approve the amendment to PUD No. 53 with the following conditions. Commissioners Kluchka and Waldhauser voted no. . 1. The Colonnade Phase II Plans prepared by Edward Farr Architects, In . and dated 10/21/06 shall become a part of this approval. 2. The City and the Developer will come to an agreement on a maxi parking spaces allowed on the site prior to going forward to th 3. The Traffic Management Plan prepared for ND Properties covering the Colonnade Phase I and II and dated Septe of this approval:" 4. The memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal" date &., become a part of this approval. Recommended chafl" plans for the PUD. 5. The memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, P part of this approval. Recommendations fou applicant and made a part of the final from the City's consulting traffic en . reflected in changes to the final pia for Colonnade I and II. 6. As required by the 1-394 Ov for both Phase I and II as out 'ct, a Traffic Management Fee shall be paid nce IV. be , 2006 shall become a o shall be addressed by the ached to his memo is a memo . His recommendations shall be raft of the Traffic Management Plan III. Reports on mee Council, Board 0 ing and Redevelopment Authority, City s and other meetings g Infill Housing he St. Louis Park report regarding infill developments and suggested mission study it and have a more lengthy discussion regarding infill their next meeting. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned ~t 8:40 pm. . . ~ 1~ ~~ , , ; ~~@; "'III ~ II a .. II ";j . )- 'CLd ".!~III/' I,~ 22 C&I''''GoIdMV...,. 7IllD~V"'_ =:=.IIlH6&ot7J-dU _.CllJllllllrH'lIIy.Wl.UI Bitt ~EtLT tP:U ...;I 1m mil I~ B=E:1I+1\=R" ' I ;.~ J ~~gm Et arr~~ =;, ~IIIIJI1\\\~ if1YJ sr~ ..- WF ~ ?~ ~ ~~ rr ~ JJ , I ~ ~ l:::- 'L~. :_~( (~ ;fiJ ~ u~ DRAFT :~ -~ .- v . 'I \ \1 . ~ley R.1 Residential Lots over 20,000 square feet _ Subdividable Lots (225) _ Not subdividable (783) o PUDs Note: This study does NOT Include elClsli1g vacant lots or elllslhg homes sluated on mulllple platted loti of racord. It only Indudea Iola over 20,000 d. that would meet current zoning standards. Methodology: To be subdividable, . lot must have 20,000 ..t. and an eo fool 101 width me.sured al the 35' lronlMlback line. Comer 101. were typicIlly dlvtded at. dlagona~ creating 2101:&, ..ch tontng on. dift'.rent street Plata and quarter section maps were coMUled when Bv.llable, and m..llUl'ementa were taken U5lngArcMap GIS IIOftware. =:--U.2llOII N :::;:'*O:~~=:'~la.r>>o5l. A