02-08-99 PC Agenda
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
" Regular Meeting - Council Chamber$
,Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
,Monday, February 8,1999
7pm
I. Approval of Minutes - January 11, 1999
II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor SUbdivision (Lot Consolidation).
Applicant: Christianson & Torgerson and City of'Golden Valley, applicants
, ,
Address: 8020 Wayzata Blvd. (Holiday Inn Express) and the City-ownedpond
North ofthe Holiday Inn Express
Request: Consolidate Lot 1 (Holiday Inn Express), Lot 2 (City-owned pond), a portion Of,'
railroad property abutting Lot 2 on the' east and the adjaCent frontage road
abutting the Holiday Inn Express on the south. Subdivide the consolidated
pieces into two lots with the pond on one lot and th~Holiday Inn Express on
. another lot having access to Golden Hills Drive.
- Break-
III. Presentation 'of the City's "Draft Water Resources ManagernentPlan"'
IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment ~thority, City
Council and Board of Zoning Appeals
V. Other Business
A. Preview of upcoming Land Use mapping activities
VI. Adjournment
The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn,
first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments.
Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along
with the Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision.
l.
~
.lil
i
r
l~
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. ~
The Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon e .~
the Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning .~
Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely r
affect the surrounding neighborhood. Ii
t
i1
1j
Ii
'"
,j
"
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
With the completion of the informal public hearing(s) there will be a short recess before the
commission continues with the remainder of the agenda.
ti
rl-
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission
will utilize the following procedure:
1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff.
Commission members may ask questions of staff.
2. The proponent will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the
Commission.
3.
The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so
indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual
questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak.
Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments.
e
4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair.
Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer
your questions.
6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the
opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information,
not rebuttal.
7.
At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
i
~
- ,. ~'- -." ~ .-,. .~ ~.
~
i
!
~
. .~.!
~
1
I
j
c , ,j
.
e
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 11, 1999
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 11, 1999. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:06pm.
Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Kapsner, McAleese and
Shaffer; absent were Johnson and Martens. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director
of Planning and Development, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, and Tammi Hall,
Recording Secretary.
I. ADDroval of Minutes - December 14. 1998
Shaffer requested a change be made to the minutes of December 14,1998. He said
that the first sentence on page five should read: "Shaffer said there has not been any
recommendation at this time". Groger suggested corrections of some typographical
errors.
MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve
e the December 14, 1998 minutes with the revised page 11 and the above corrections.
II. ReDorts on Meetinas of the Housina and Redevelopment Authority. City
Council and Board of Zonina ADDeals
e
Commissioner Shaffer reported on the progress of the Xenia Avenue Design
Committee. He indicated the Committee is recommending plantings and a two-stage
pond with pathways around it. Chair Pentel asked if the road would be narrower north
of Glenwood~ Shaffer indicated the entire road is a single lane with a median.
Commissioner Kapsner asked if the road in front of the school would be closed.
Planning and Development Director Grimes responded that it will be closed and the
school district has shown an interest in purchasing the property. Shaffer also reported
that it appears, at this point, that a pedestrian bridge will not be part of the Committee's
recommendation. Pentel asked if the Committee plans to include the standard
streetscape elements. Shaffer indicated there has not been much discussion on this
topic. He added the Committee is discussing several alternatives for ensuring
pedestrian safety at the intersection of Glenwood and Xenia. Shaffer concluded by
saying that he felt the process with the facilitator has been positive and that the
Committee is making progress.
Commissioner Groger asked about the status of the United Properties proposal.
Grimes responded that United Properties is revising their proposal, including changes
to the driveway locations that will allow left turns. He indicated that, at this point, they
..
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 11, 1999
Page 2
e
plan to stay with the proposed height of six stories. Grimes reported that United
Properties conducted a shadow study which showed the surrounding residential area
being shaded by the trees around the perimeter of the property before it would be
shaded by the building itself. There was discussion regarding the overall appearance
of the building. Shaffer stated he felt the building design was mediocre and that the
developer could produce something better.
III. Other Business
A. Area B Update
Grimes reported that David Bernard has been designated as the developer for Area B.
Pentel indicated she served on the Area B Task Force and that the Bernard proposal
fulfilled many of the recommendations of the Task Force. She stated that it is an
attractive, usable design that is very pedestrian oriented. She added that the Task
Force also felt it was positive that Bernard was willing to work with existing tenants to
retain as many as possible in the new retail area of the development. Kapsner stated
that one of the concerns of redeveloping this area in the past was the increased retail
rental costs. He asked if the existing tenants would be able to afford the rental rates in
the new building. Grimes responded that approximately six to eight of the existing e
tenants have made an initial commitment to rent in the new building.
Grimes briefly reviewed the three housing concepts included in the development. He
indicated there would be urban town homes which will be two to three level units with a
two-car garage under each unit. The second type of housing will be stacked flats that
would be two level, single-story town homes. Each of these units will also have an
underground two-car garage. Pentel questioned if the second level units are accessible
from the street level to accommodate potential transportation such as Medi-Van.
Grimes responded he was uncertain if the second level units could be accessed from
the street or if the only access would be the elevators from the garage. It was
suggested that Medi-Van type transportation may need to access the underground
garage for pick-up and delivery of residents. There was discussion regarding the
required height for underground parking and whether a Medi-Van type vehicle would be
able to enter the underground garage. Groger asked if there is a handicapped
requirement in this type of housing. Grimes indicated that a certain number of units
must be handicapped accessible. He indicated that the first level would be fully
accessible, but the second level units may not be handicapped accessible. Grimes
indicated the third type of housing would be affordable townhomes. Bernard will be
teaming with Common Bond and Cornerstone to develop this portion of the housing.
There was discussion regarding the elimination of live-work units. Grimes responded
that the market study results showed a lukewarm response to live-work units. He _
added that the companies developing live-work units were in other cities and that .
.
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 11, 1999
Page 3
nothing comparable has been done in the Twin Cities. He said that Common Bond
may consider some live-work units in the affordable town homes section. A daycare has
been mentioned as a possible business that would be appropriate for a live-work unit.
He stated that Common Bond is focused on providing housing and education. They will
include a community room supplied With computers and they would coordinate with
existing programs to assist residents.
There was discussion regarding the visitor parking situation. Grimes stated that visitor
parking will be on the street, possibly on Golden Valley Road or on a private street
within the development. He added there is a concern about street maintenance if a
public street is used for visitor parking. He indicated there has also been discussion of
using the bank parking lot during non-peak hours for visitor parking. Groger indicated
he was uncomfortable with visitor parking on Golden Valley Road or in the bank parking
lot due to the dangerous curve in the road at this location. Grimes responded that the
developer may need to provide parking on the site with bump out spots and on private
streets. The City will require 1/2 space ~f visitor parking for each unit.
e
Shaffer asked if this proposal has been published. Knoblauch responded that it will be
in the Sun Post this week. Grimes stated that he did not believe there would be
neighborhood opposition to this project.
B. Comprehensive Plan Update
City Planner Knoblauch reported that the existing land use mapping is done. She will
provide the updated information to the Commission at their next meeting. Since it is
impossible to reproduce in an 8-1/2 by 11 format, she will be unable to provide copies
to commission members for review in advance. She stated that a city consultant would
be providing the transportation and sanitary sewer plans.
Knoblauch reported that a committee has been reviewing the Surface Water
Management Plan. They have reviewed Chapter One of the plan that relates to policy
and are recommending changes to the plan. Knoblauch stated the recommendations
are scheduled to be reviewed by the Commission in February, March and April. At the
February meeting the consultant will go through the plan and the recommendations.
Knoblauch indicated she would anticipate at least one working session in March. She
added that a public hearing would be held in April.
C. Commissioner attendance at National APA Conference
e
There was discussion regarding attendance at the National APA Conference to be held
in Seattle from April 24-28. Pentel stated that Commissioner Martens has indicated he
would like to attend this conference. He would be open to sharing the cost if any other
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 11, 1999
Page 4
Commissioners wish to attend. Shaffer indicated he could possibly attend but has a
potential conflict. It was decided that Martens would attend the conference in Seattle.
If Shaffer decides he wishes to attend, he will notify staff and share the cost with
Martens. .
IV. Adjournment
MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to
adjourn the meeting at 8:29p.m.
Emilie Johnson, Secretary
.
.
e
.
"
e
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
February 3, 1999
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - MINOR SUBDIVISION,
GOLDEN HILLS WEST 5TH ADDITION; 8020 HOLIDAY INN
EXPRESS AND THE CITY-OWNED POND TO THE NORTH
OF THE HOLlDANY INN EXPRESS - CITY OF GOLDEN
VALLEY AND CHRISTIANSON & TORGERSON,
APPLICANTS
e
Last year the City approved Golden Hills West 4th Addition, which provided
for the extension of Golden Hills Drive and the partial vacation of the old 1-
394 frontage road. At the time, Commissioners noted that those and
future platting activities in the Golden Hills Central Area would ultimately
leave the Holiday Inn Express property with no direct land connection to
any public street. Since the City has for many years worked to eliminate
such situations where they have been created in the past, Commissioners
felt every effort should be made to prevent a new occurrence. The
proposed minor subdivision (preliminary sketch attached) will create the
desired land connection along the east side of the City's pond lot - where
a new driveway is already in place with easement permission from the City
- up to Golden Hills Drive. In addition to the Holiday Inn Express lot and
the pond lot, the subdivision will also incorporate some residual land in the
vacated right-of-way corridor and along the railroad corridor that abuts the
pond lot on its east side (location map attached).
Considerations for approving or denying minor subdivisions are set out in
City Code Section 12.50, Subdivision 3. Staff findings on each of the nine
points are as follows:
A. PROPOSED LOTS MUST MEET REQUIREMENTS OF THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT - the subject property is zoned
Industrial (including the pond lot). Minimum lot size and minimum
street frontage are not specified for that zoning district. The pond lot
will continue to have substantial street frontage on Golden Hills Drive
even after being reduced in size to create the access corridor for the
Holiday Inn Express lot. The new corridor will provide about 60 feet of
street frontage for the motel. Both lots will thus meet Industrial zoning
requirements if the proposed subdivision is approved. The pond lot
e
"
will also meet Institutional zoning requirements should it eventually be
rezoned to the district typically reserved for City-owned properties.
B. BUILDABLE PORTION OF ANY NEW LOT MUST NOT BE
EXCESSIVELY ENCUMBERED BY STEEP SLOPES OR WETNESS
- there will be no increase in the number of lots, only a reconfiguration
of the two existing ones. The Holiday Inn Express site is already
established as a buildable lot. The pond lot does have steep slopes
and wetness, but that is its function, so it is not considered to be
"excessively encumbered. n
C. PUBLIC SEWER AND WATER CONNECTIONS MUST BE
AVAILABLE -they are.
D. APPLICANT MUST GRANT ALL NECESSARY EASEMENTS FOR
PUBLIC PURPOSES PER CITY ENGINEER - in addition to standard
easements along property lines, at least two others will be needed in
this case. First, the City must retain an access and maintenance
easement for the pond embankment, which lies partly in the new
access corridor. Second, while the old frontage road is being vacated,
there are substantial utility lines running beneath most of its 60-foot
width; they must all be protected by easement. The Holiday Inn
Express owner wants to expand his building slightly into this latter
easement area. Engineering staff have stated that if the affected
utilities can be satisfactorily relocated at the owner's expense, the
easement area can be reduced. This should be made a condition of
subdivision approval.
E. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WITH SOME FORM OF JURISDICTION
OVER THE AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MAY APPLY
THEIR OWN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - the proposed minor
subdivision abuts a major highway, so MnDOT has been contacted for
review and comment. Staff probably will not have a response in time
for the informal hearing, but no substantial comments are expected
since the land has already been platted in the recent past. In addition
to the standard MnDOT plat review, the applicant is also still working
out the exact location of the southerly lot limit; MnDOT owns the land
under the south half of the old frontage road, and needs to retain a few
feet for fence access and maintenance purposes. This is a minor
issue that does not require the City to hold back on preliminary minor
subdivision review; however, the conditions of approval should include
a requirement that the matter be resolved before the City Council
grants final plat approval.
F. THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE TO SUBMIT TO TITLE REVIEW AND
AGREE TO RESOLVE ANY ISSUES THAT ARISE - the City
generally requires title review for complex plats or plats where land or
easements are being obtained from private property. This minor
subdivision is quite simple, and the only new easements will be on
land now in public hands. As a condition of getting the vacated right-
of-way from MnDOT, the applicant has already agreed to do a title
registration to clear any historical issues affecting that long-time stretch
e
e
e
2
.
of road. If the City Attorney so advises, the title registration
requirement could be added as a condition of this approval as well.
G. NEW DEVELOPMENT ON NONRESIDENTIAL LOTS MUST NOT
CAUSE STRAIN ON ADJACENT ROADS OR PUBLIC UTILITIES, OR
ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL, INSTITUTIONAL,
OR PUBLIC LAND USES - the proposed expansion of the Holiday Inn
Express will not cause a strain on Golden Hills Drive, or on any utilities
except possibly as already covered in D above. There are no adjacent
residential or institutional uses, and the only public use is the pond lot;
engineering staff have studied the proposed land corridor carefully to I
ensure that it will not be a problem for the pond.
H. APPLIES ONLY TO RESIDENTIAL MINOR SUBDIVISIONS
I. APPLIES ONLY TO RESIDENTIAL MINOR SUBDIVISIONS
.
Staff Recommendation
Staff find no reason not to recommend approval of the proposed minor
subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall reflect an easement for pond access and
maintenance along the new street access corridor as directed by the
City Engineer, a utility easement over all of the former frontage road
right-of-way except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer,
standard drainage and utility easements along all other sides of the
Holiday Inn Express lot, and such additional easements as the City
Engineer may find desirable for public purposes.
2. Final plat approval shall be withheld until receipt of comments from
MnDOT and compliance with any applicable conditions listed therein.
3. Final plat approval shall be withheld until the applicant and MnDOT
agree on the exact location of the southerly lot limits and any
associated easements to be retained by MnDOT.
4. If the City Attorney so advises, final plat approval shall be conditioned
on the applicant's commitment to undertake the title registration of the
former right-of-way area.
Attachments:
. Preliminary Sketch
. Location Map
.
3
400
\#nu;)~nu"lJ
-,uii --
"
J/Q 6J&.'
JoJul" st. ,.. 'DO
UIU
. :':':3.:'.' Res. '" ·
'6."
.
BR
'/4
---
h
..
..
~
.~'"
..
~
~<t'
~'I'{- -
'-~'?
~"
.;::,<l?
v~
.
O.
~
'J6I
DOC.HO.S.HJfl
..
I()O-'SQ
.~
<.
c::: '.
..,.... t
~
J
~
~
<i
.
.
o
,."
'#Ill
\I
.()
.:;).
<to
t;
~
----------~
M ~---------
ft..
.
,N
-i
..
fI)
....,
~
~ "1..-
...
~
~
..
Ie
O.
~
~.
~
~.
c::s
~
<S
,,"
....
.;
~
. ,
. !;
': ..
'-' <<
~\ 0
..
.-
., .-; \ :0'
.. . '\ .
.~..,. ...\ '\.
" .,,\~ ';~
I...... . . . ..
- - -::.:' _ _ -_ ...... \S'
) -COi.ORAD~ T AVr'ib-- -80-:- - '..:)'::'/1:1-
.
~.
::::"
q,.
.
..
~;'~
.._It
..,..
. . .
'.....
",
'>>'1
.....(,
.. .
:.::t~..\
.....
.....Z571.6J flu....
18
ACREAGE
1
1''-'"
Ir.
,.""
e
,\ .......j-
20. T
.1iI
..
-..___fJl...-!t_.... ;~
.
.._...l______ ___ ...
".Y- ---,i,-- - .'
" ..
t; !
~t.!
.;".:,'
~.
'-.
...J
,
i
.
l:!.
t~
~ ~~
~
.
:
~
alS
:g -ri
Q) .2:
Q. lD
.X Q) lIJ
W:t::=1Q
COON
-=C)~
>..6 :>
lIJOO>
~ a~
Oa..OI
:r: CO
.
I
~
a
I
"
.
:
II
ii
..
e
0-
~
.
"'~
~
'So
'So
C\I"C
~
Q~
o
\!>
'lr'"'",
'"
...
1'1'.',
!!
Ii!
(~EC. 5,
,
,.
I
." f
'"i
.
R. 2f
.,
1;, '~
. l
. ,
e
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
February 1, 1999
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
REVIEW PROCESS FOR SURFACE WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
e
The City's consultant will attend Monday night's meeting and give a
background presentation on the draft Surface Water Management element
of the Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the plan will be handed out at that
time. There will be no camera coverage, because the presentation is not
a hearing item. The consultant will go over the legal requirements for such
plans and summarize the drafting process to date. He will also describe
the plan's seventeen (often short) chapters and eight appendices; much of
the content is state-mandated technical data over which the City has little
control except for grammar and format, so the presentation will be a useful
guide to which chapters can be safely skipped if the reading gets to be too
much. YOU WON'T WANT TO MISS THIS MEETING.
State law and City Code give the Commission primary responsibility for
plan formulation and recommendations. The City's regular comprehensive
planning process is self-educating, as Commissioners' direct involvement
is continuous from the earliest research stages. An alternate process was
used with this particular element, and you will be seeing it for the first time
in a very finished state. To allow as much time as possible for absorbing
its purpose and information, staff have set up a three-month schedule for
Commission review. After the consultant's presentation, Commissioners
will have a month to study and take notes on the draft. The first March
meeting will include a second work session for Commissioners to compare
notes and discuss any necessary or desirable changes; the second March
meeting is set aside in case the discussion runs too long to complete at
the earlier meeting. The first April meeting is expected to be the actual
informal hearing date for the draft plan; the second April meeting will be
available if the hearing or the Commission's subsequent deliberations and
final recommendation cannot be completed in a single night.
The City is already past the state-mandated deadline for completion of an
updated comprehensive plan, and has been granted an extension only
until June at this point. If the Commission feels the review period for this
element is longer than necessary, the schedule can certainly be
compressed.
e