Loading...
11-08-99 PC Agenda - . . AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, November 8,1999 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - October 11, 1999 ; , II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals III. Other Business A. Planning Commission Appointment to the Citizen Advisory Committee - Golden Hills Area - Laurel AvenuelWinnetka Avenue Traffic Study ! B. Planning Commission Review of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Allianz Office Proposal IV. Adjournment : Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input 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. 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 affect the surrounding neighborhood. 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. 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. 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. . 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 t~e 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. . . ~ - e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 1999 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00 P.M. Those present were Chair Pentel, Commissioners Eck, Groger, Hoffman McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and Beth Knoblauch, City Planner. (Note: The minutes of the meeting were transcribed by Mary Dold, Planning Assistant, using the video recording of that night's meeting.) I. Approval of Minutes -- September 27,1999 MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 27, 1999 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing -- Conditional Use Permit 99-78 Applicant: The Luther Company Limited Partnership Address: 9220 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN Request: To use the existing building, along with the construction of a 7,260 sq.ft. addition, as a collision center, repairing and repainting damaged vehicles, and for administrative offices. Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, presented a report on a proposal of converting the former Golden Valley Lanes, located at 9220 Olson Memorial Highway, to a collision center that would repair and repaint damaged vehicles. Grimes commented that staff has talked with the City Attorney regarding the proposed use. It was determined that a collision center where repairing and repainting damaged vehicles could operate in the Commercial Zoning District by Conditional Use as found under the auto repair shop category. The site does not have direct access from Olson Memorial Highway. It abuts Golden Valley Road to the north, the National Camera Exchange to the west, an insurance company on the east and Olson Memorial Highway on the south. Grimes said that the zoning map is essentially the same as the Land Use Plan map identifying it as commercial. He commented that the area on the north side of the proposal is for high-density housing. This is affordable housing in this area and the City would like to maintain this use for multi-family housing. At this time there is an 18,000 sq.ft. building on the site. It lacks landscaping, no curb and gutter and most of the remaining site is parking area. The applicant would like to add an addition of approximately 7,260 sq.ft. The existing building and new addition would house nine service bays, a painting prep area, spray booths, paint room, admini~trative offices, an estimating area and a car wash. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 1999 Page 2 Grimes reviewed a colored site plan noting where customer parking would be located and where employee and vehicles waiting for repair would be parked. He commented that 51 parking spaces are required; four parking spaces for each service bay and one parking space per three employees. The applicant is proposing tandem parking on the north side of the building. If this tandem parking were eliminated, the applicant would still be providing adequate parking per city code. Grimes noted that the Borton Volvo site also uses tandem parking in their display area. Grimes said that the Deputy Fire Marshal was asked to comment on the proposed tandem parking and he did not have a concern with this type of parking. He added that the building would be sprinkled and there is also access in and out of the building on the east side. e Grimes commented that staff believes the biggest issue for this site are the setback issues. He said that the Board of Zoning Appeals would need to address these issues. Grimes noted that the existing building is too close to the west and south property line, the proposed building and parking lot would encroach into the south property line; and the north parking lot would encroach into the front setback along Golden Valley Road. He said staff is suggesting that the most northern row of tandem parking be eliminated in order to maintain the 35 foot required greenspace along Golden Valley Road. Grimes said the applicant is proposing to place a berm along Golden Valley Road, and in addition, staff is requesting that a 6-foot wood fence be placed around the north parking lot. He said there would also be a security gate at the entrance of the north driveway where cars would;.be,stored overnight. Grimes next addressed the environmental issues. He said staff has talked with AI Lundstrom, the Environmental Technician, who commented that a Drainage, Grading and Erosion Control e plan would need to be submitted for the site. Mr. Lundstrom said a Tree Preservation Plan would not need to be submitted since there are no trees on the site being removed. The applicant is proposing to add some landscaping to the site and that the landscaping would be reviewed by the Board of Building Review. Grimes noted that water quality ponding is not being required because the site does not meet the mandatory water quality ponding requirements of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. Grimes commented that with this type of use there are concerns regarding the smell of paint and other chemicals. He said that the use would need to meet the standards of the EPAlPCA. Grimes also noted that lighting standards would need to be met on the site. Grimes reviewed the ten factors for Consideration for a Conditional Use Permit as follows: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Use: The applicant has identified a need for this type of use in the area. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Map identifies this site and surrounding area for longer-term commercial use other than the high density residential site directly across the street. 3. Effect on Property Values in the Area~ The effect on property values can be debated either way. Staff believes with the berming and fencing, along with the update to the building, this should help address any negative effect. e e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 1999 Page 3 4. Effect of any Anticipated Traffic Generation Upon Current Traffic Flow and Congestion in the Area: The hours of operation are from 7:00A.M. to 6:00P.M. and the number of projected vehicles to be taken in is approximately 40 per week. The anticipated traffic is believed to be less than what was seen with the former Golden Valley Lanes operation. 5. Effect on any Increase in Population: There will be no increase in population. 6. Increase in Noise level: There can be noise associated with this use. Staff is suggesting that all doors remain close except when vehicles are entering/existing the building. 7. Any Odor, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or Vibration Caused by the Use: Staff will need to review the issue of odor and fumes. Grimes commented that looking at the Lando Body Shop (Boulevard Collission) located on Laurel and Louisiana, staff has not received any comments regarding odor or noise. 8. Any Increase in Flies, Rats, or other Vermin on the area Caused by the Use: Staff is not anticipating an increase in these rodents due to the use. 9. Visual Appearance of the Proposed Structure or Use: Staff noted that the building would be getting an uplift, there would be berming, fencing and landscaping added to the property. 10. Other Concerns Regarding the Use: Grimes commented that the applicant would need to meet all the standards of the EPA/peA. Grimes reviewed staffs recommendations for approval of the Conditional Use Permit as follows: 1. No outdoor repair/painting may occur at. any time. The doors of the facility shall remain closed except when vehicles or equipment are taken into or out of the building. 2. An approved site plan become a part of the CUP approval. Staff is suggesting some changes to the site regarding front yard setbacks that may change the proposed site plan. Also the Board of Zoning Appeals shall approve any necessary variances, before final approval is granted by the City Council. 3. The hours of operation shall be from 7:00A.M. to 6:00P.M., Monday through.Friday. 4. Where there is any question as to whether the repairs/spraying operation, ventilation system, storage of chemicals, or other structural or mechanical details meet applicable codes, the applicant shall, at its own expense, provide a report on the questioned item, prepared by a qualified engineer or fire safety specialty organization acceptable to the Fire Chief and Building Official. 5. A six-foot tall, wood fence be installed around the northern parking area for security of the vehicles parked in this area. 6. Only those vehicles being served by the collision center may use the car wash. 7. Exterior lighting on the site shall be hooded so as to prevent spillage onto adjacent lots, and shall be limited to security levels when the business is closed for the night. A lighting plan must be reviewed by the Board of BUilding Review. 8. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met. 9. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 1999 Page 4 Grimes told the Commission that Commissioner Groger had brought up the wording as found in e Section 11.30, Subd. 5 of City Code relative to the amount of horsepower being used within the facility and was the applicant adhering to this section of code. Grimes said that this issue was discussed with a staff person who was part owner in a body shop and it is not believed that this operation would come close to using the above mentioned horsepower. Commissioner Groger asked if the parking requirements were from the Commercial Zoning District and questioned the one space per three employees. Grimes commented that this is the requirement as found under service stations. Groger commented that this mimics an operation of 9 to 5 where employees are there all the time and driving separately to work. Grimes again commented that the applicant is meeting the requirements for parking as found in the code under the Commercial Zoning District. Groger also questioned whether the parked cars waiting to be worked on would not be considered outdoor storage. Grimes commented that this is not considered to be outdoor storage because there would be about 40 cars being worked on and they are continuously being moved in and out of the building. Groger commented that the Planning Commission has reviewed other service stations and requested dumpsters and other items be place indoors, and again questioned whether these cars would not be considered outdoor storage. Grimes commented thaUhis may be an interpretation issue. He added this issue had been discussed with the City Attorney who believes this is more temporary in nature. Grimes noted that Boulevard Collision, on Laurel Avenue, does keep their cars indoors overnight for security reasons. He suggested talking with the applicant to determine that if cars being worked on will remain indoors overnight. Grimes added that because this use is permitted by conditional use that the wood fence and berming would screen the vehicles from view. Chair _ Pentel noted that the Commercial Zoning District does permit, by conditional use, outdoor _ sales, including car lots, auto and equipment rentals. Commissioner Eck questioned the classification of vehicles that sit outdoors at auto dealerships. Pentel reviewed Subd. 5 of the Commercial Zoning District which addresses outdoor storage. Groger said this subdivision is an interpretation call for the Planning Commission. Chair Pentel commented that Boulevard Collission has stacks on top of their building and the renderings submitted for this use does not show stacks. Grimes commented thaUhis operation must be addressing the exhausting in a different manner, and suggested this issue be addressed by the applicant. Commissioner McAleese questioned the notice procedure for this meeting and asked if the notice went to the owner of the building; but not the tenants. Grimes commented that a notice was tacked on to each bulletin board in each of the five buildings and additional notices were left in each building. McAleese commented that staff went up and beyond what was required. Tim Q'Dougherty, representative for Luther Companies, addressed the Commission telling them that Mr. Grimes gave a good synopsis of the proposal. He added that some of the site plan design took into consideration the existing structure. Q'Dougherty commented that the proposal conforms to parking requirements and building setbacks to a degree that is feasible for this project. The representative commented that screening was being provided along Golden e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 1999 Page 5 e Valley Road that would help temper the appearance of the building on the north side. l:Ie agreed with staff's recommendations, but to optimize the operation there must be tandem parking on the north side. To give the tandem parking up could create some issues in the long run. Pentel asked about the stacks on the top of the building. Mark Morcomb, Luther Company Representative, commented that there would be stacks on the building. Pentel asked how many stacks there would be. Morcomb commented that he did not know specifically, but believed approximately six stacks. Q'Dougherty said they would be similar to the Lando Building, but would be located more toward the interior of the building, and there would not be as many as the Lando building has. Shaffer asked if they would be located near the painting prep area. O'Dougherty said that would be the only area they would be located in. Morcomb showed on the site plan where they would be located. Eck asked with the berming and landscaping along Golden Valley Road would the stacks be visible? O'Dougherty believed the stacks would be visible. He added that it would be difficult to screen, and trying to screen the stacks may become an eye sore. He added that Luther cannot guarantee the stacks won't be visible. . Shaffer asked the representatives to discuss the issue of odors. O'Dougherty commented that dust would be minimal due to filters and that the latest technology would be used in the building to minimize odors. . Groger asked how many cars would there be on the lot during the week. O'Dougherty said 40 cars would be worked on at any given time and would take approximately 9.6 days to fix a vehicle. O'Dougherty said that a good number of them would be stored inside because of where they may be in the process. Groger asked about the 60 stacked spaces and are that many necessary. Q'Dougherty commented the reason for 60 stacked spaces was to have a margin of safety. He reviewed the number of parking and believes that they need the number on the site plan. Groger asked about horsepower and believes the most horsepower needed would be for frame straightening. O'Dougherty concurred. Morcomb commented that he could not answer that question. Timothy Pugh, Sherwin Williams Company, 9201 Penn Avenue, Bloomington, commented that the frame straightening equipment is arrow dynamic and explained the amount of horsepower used, which he believed Was very minimal. He added, in shops the major horsepower would be located in the air compressor, and most other tools are hand held. Pugh said he was not aware of a shop that uses a 100 horsepower. Groger asked about the noise generated to the outside of the building. Pugh said that technology has changed so much and work is done differently today. Pentel asked how tall the overhead doors were facing Golden Valley Road. O'Dougherty said that he believes it would be 12 to 14 feet. He added the openings to the shop have been minimized to lower any noise outside, and with the doors closed the noise is very muffled. e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 1999 Page 6 . Pentel asked if the building would be a smoke free environment, and if so, where would the employees go to smoke or eat outside. O'Dougherty said that he had not looked at outside space for this use, but believed it would be located inside the fenced-in area and with limited exposure. e Hoffman asked O'Dougherty to reveal 'on the color site plan where the tandem parking was located, which he did. Eck commented that O'Dougherty said that in the long run it would be detrimental not to have the tandem parking and asked what might change in the future to require the tandem parking. O'Dougherty said that Luther has submitted an application as if it would be a fully operational body shop with 20 employees immediately. He said initially there would be approximately 12 employees on site and in three to five years possibly 20 to 22 employees. Eck asked if the service they were supplying was for the general public. O'Dougherty commented that most of the body shop is driven by dealer contact, but a good number is referred directly from direct repair facilities from the insurance companies. He said it was more regional and geographically driven. Pentel asked where signage would be located on the site and the height of the signage. O'Dougherty said that he had not thought about signage for the site and that all signs would conform to City Code. He commented that Luther would probably like to have a pylon on Olson Memorial Highway and possibly on Golden Valley Road or just a monument sign on Golden Valley Road. Pentel asked about the elevation of the building. O'Dougherty commented that he believes there is about a 12-foot clearance inside. Pentel asked about the proposed 14- foot door on the e north side. O'Dougherty said that the bowling lanes were located on the north end of the building and were below grade causing the outside door to be 14 feet in height. McAleese asked if vehicles would exit out of the new addition and to do this would there be ramping up to ground level. O'Dougherty said there would be ramping inside the building due to the grade change. McAleese asked if they looked at an option where the new addition would conform to all code requirements. O'Dougherty said that he believes the architect found it to be unfeasible to place the addition anywhere else. He said the architect looked at placing the addition on the north side but would still infringe into the setback. He said the architect believes that placing the addition on the north end would not give the look of a balanced out site. Groger asked if the applicant sees any problem with snow removal due to having the exterior fence adjacent to the parking lot and berming behind. O'Dougherty commented another reason for the additional parking on the north end was to be able to push the snow up to the fence. Groger questioned the applicant that because there would be no tow trucks or flat bed trucks on the property, would vehicles be brought in by contractors? O'Dougherty said there would be no on-site trucks except for a service vehicle that would be a van or sports utility vehicle. This vehicle would be stored inside if not driven by an employee. O'Dougherty concluded by saying that Luther Company is making its best effort to improve the site that is excessively paved at this time. Pentel opened the informal public hearihg; seeing and hearing no one; Pentel closed the informal public hearing. e , Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 1999 Page 7 . Pentel said one issue she had with the development was a front yard - back yard question, and was Luther treating this proposal with Olson Memorial Highway as the front yard or was Golden Valley Road, with the apartments across the street,. as the front yard. She said that this was just an observation she had taken in. Hoffman noted that with the proposed additional landscaping along Golden Valley Road, the site may look better than it does at the current time. Pentel noted that in the past berms have not always been constructed to what has been approved, Hoffman asked if there was a legal definition of a berm. Pentel said no and that the Commission's action should include language of a berm and direct staff to verify that this occurs. Shaffer said he had a concern that berming this particular piece of property would not limit the apartment. building directly across Golden Valley Road from seeing beyond the berm or fencing. Pentel said the fence would help those driving by to not see the damaged cars in the lot. Groger commented that there would not need to be berming or fencing if there were not what he would call "outdoor storage" on the site contrary to City Code. Groger said he was troubled by the proposal and believes it is a poor use for the site. He said this is a very visible piece of property and the proposal is squeezing much on this property. Groger said that he does not believe the "use" and "outdoor storage" are appropriate given there are residential uses to the south and north, and the existing building is already encroaching into the side setback. He therefore believes too much of an inappropriate use is being proposed in the Commercial Zoning District and would have to vote against the request. e Pentel said she is concerned with the stacks on top of the building and that the apartments would look directly at the stacks. She believes this proposal is a lot of development for the site. Eck commented that just a short distance to the east of this site is Golden Valley Tire which seems to be short on parking. He asked Director Grimes if there has been a problem with this site. Grimes commented that in terms that they park in the setback area and staff tells them not to and it continues, there is a problem. This use does not meet the parking requirement on this site but they have been there for many years and basically they are considered legally nonconforming with parking and setback issues. Eck said he believes the appearance of the proposed site would look much better than the Golden Valley Tire site. Shaffer said that he believes that the proposal should improve what is presently there now, but that is not necessary the point. He said he is not sure it is an appropriate use for this site. given Farmers Insurance to the east, National Camera to the west and the apartments to the north. He said another concern is that the building is very close to the west and south property line, as is the proposed trash enclosure to the south property line. Pentel asked a representative to address the outdoor storage because this is something that staff suggested be moved into the building. O'Dougherty commented that the architect was trying to predict what the City would like to see and said that it would not be a problem to move the trash enclosure into the building. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 1999 Page 8 . Shaffer said another issue is the parking lot along Golden Valley Road sitting in the front setback area. He said he does not see why parking should go into the front setback based on want, but may necessarily needed. He believes the berm would not necessary cover up the damaged cars. He said he was concerned with the amount of the site being developed. Shaffer said he would have to vote against the proposal. . McAleese said he was gong to vote against the proposal for the same reasons pointed out by other Members of the Commission. He said the use is too dense for this particular site because the proposed addition needs to project into the setback and there is a need that additional parking needs to intrude into the front setback. McAleese added that the use does not fit the site. He said he would hesitate to recommend approval and then send this on to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) because it makes it difficult for the Board to turn down an appeal. McAleese continued by saying that it seems that being keepers of the Zoning Code they have a fundamental purpose in protecting the code and the commission can say intruding into the setback is wrong. He added that if it were just the existing building, and not the addition, he could live with this intrusion, but with the addition and parking on the south and north ends protruding into front setbacks is unacceptable. He said there is just too much building on the site. McAleese said that he also agrees with Commissioner Groger that the damaged vehicles are outside storage. He believes this proposal seems fundamentally different in that a car dealership is dealing with new cars or rather good looking cars. The cars on the proposed lot need body work. He added that the existing building and parking lot are not very attractive and this proposal could have looked better but'sets a bad precedent and believes there are things that would be a better fit for this site. Rasmussen said that she questions whether this use is not better suited for an industrial area vs. a commercial area. She believes the applicant will have a difficult time screening the site from the apartments on Golden Valley Road because they are at a higher elevation. Rasmussen does not agree that the parking lot should be extended and the project is too dense for the site. She said the stacks on the building add another element to the property that would not be attractive. She added that the applicant has provided for better landscaping but hopes that they can find a larger piece of property that is more suitable for this operation. e Pentel asked staff what kind of motion staff is looking for. Grimes commented that a motion of denial would be appropriate. Knoblauch added that there would need to be findings for this recommendation. She said one finding could be that there is too much development for the site. The second finding could be that the commission believes there would be outdoor storage and a third finding could be visual appearance of the stacks are not appropriate for the commercial zoning district. Groger said he would be inclined to add that he does not find the "use" appropriate in the Commercial Zoning District, and that a collision repair shop is different from a service station with service bays. Pentel said the renters in the apartment building would be able to see over the fence and see cars parked very tight, unlike a car dealership. She believes the fence is there more for security reasons. Eck asked if it would be an accurate statement to say that the renters on the second floor of the apartment building would see the parked cars. Pentel said possibly depending on the type of fence being used. Shaffer questioned the use of putting a fence around the entire northern parking area and creating a "Menards" yard. e , Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 1999 Page 9 . MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of the proposal based on the following recommendation: 1. The request incorporates too much development for the site's size, as evidenced by the requested variances; 2. A collision repair center is a different and more industrial scale of use than the gas stations, battery and tire services, and other routine auto maintenance facilities found in the Commercial zoning district, with characteristics such as multiple rooftop venting stacks and outdoor storage of vehicles under repair for an average of 9.6 days at a time; and 3. The proposed site is a particularly visible commercial property, given its frontage on and proximity to both Highway 55 and Golden valley Road, which in combination with existing and proposed variances leaves no appropriate "back yard" area where the more industrial aspects of the use might be adequately concealed from view. III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning.Appeals e Commissioner Hoffman reported on the HRA meeting of October 5th, at which the pUblic comment process for the Allianz Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was discussed. He also raised several questions about the drafting and purpose of an EAW. Staff provided a brief explanation, and stated that each commissioner would receive a copy of the EAW when it is released for comment. The commissioner talked about EAWs in general. IV. Other Business A. Discussion of the Olympic Printing Site Study Design The commissioners discussed staff's draft study outline. Several decisions remain to be made about the exact scheduling and formatbfattivities proposed for each step in the study design. There was concern about whether the proposal includes more public input than the scope of this particular study calls for. Staff explained that the outline is intended to serve as a prototype of the larger-scale 1-394 corridor study planned for a later date. It will be relatively simple to adapt some steps in the overall design ifthe commissioners decide that a more compact public input segment will result in greater willingness to participate in this preliminary effort. Staff and commissioners talked about some alternatives for different steps. There was also discussion about the uncertainty of the Allianz redevelopment proposal at this time. If Allianz does not go forward, there will be no additional tax increment available to support the types of development activities thatmight be recommended as an outcome of this site study. Commissioners were reluctant to raise public expectations through the study process without having a reasonable assurance that a development "vision" for the site could really be implemented. In addition, waiting for more detailed information on the Allianz development's scale, appearance, and timing will improve the quality of the proposed study. e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 1999 Page 10 f The Commission instructed staff to proceed with other information-gathering as described in the study outline. The two blocks bounded by Laurel Avenue, Colorado Avenue, 1-394, and Florida Avenue will be added to the data collection area initially proposed by staff. Overall study design will not be finalized by the Commissioners until the Allianz matter is more settled. . V. Work Session on Allianz EAW Given the earlier discussion about the EAW process, and the importance of the results of this particular EAW to the proposed site study; Commissioners felt they would benefit from an educational session on the EAW. Several of them have questions about what triggers an EAW, what information is required, how the data are collected and analyzed, and how the results might be used. All Commissioners agreed that they do not want to infringe on the role of the City Council as the responsible governmental unit for reviewing the EAW, but the Commissioners felt that educating them through a publicized work session could provide an extra opportunity for the Council to educate the general public. Moved by MCAleese, seconded by Hoffman, and unanimously approved to make the following request to the City Council: That the consultant on the EAW be made available for an educational work session with the Planning Commission; .:. to be scheduled for the Commission's November 8th meeting; .:. with prior public notice of the session; .:. with cable televising of the session, though it will clearly be billed as a work session and not an informal public hearing of any sort; and .:. with or without an opportunity (at the Council's discretion) for the public to ask their own questions for clarification purposes-but not to enter any comment into the record. If the Council prefers that no public questions be entertained at this work session, members of the public will be given an explanation of how, when, and to whom any questions or comments should appropriately be directed. e VI. Adjournment Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 9:15P.M. Richard Groger, Secretary e I~i e MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: November 2, 1999 Golden Valley Planning Commission Mary Dold, Planning Assistant Planning Commission Appointment to the Citizen Advisory Committee - Golden Hills Area - laurel AvenuelWinnetka Avenue Traffic Study e I recently called each member of the Commission asking who would be interested in serving as a member of the above-mentioned committee. Several of you have responded favorably. Attached is an outline of the Purpose, Structure and Requirements of the committee. Please be prepared to review this information at the Planning Commission meeting of November 8, 1999 and have the commission appoint a member to serve on this committee. Attachment e ,. e e e . liey Golden Hills Area Laurel Avenue/Winnetka Avenue Traffic Study Citizen Advisory Committee: Purpose: Help define the problems and concerns Review data that is collected Help develop and evaluate options and alternatives Help develop recommendations to the City Council Provide additional method of communication with the neighbors Council will appoint 10-12 citizens. Members will be geographically distributed from neighborhoods An outside facilitator will coordinate the committee meetings City staff will provide information, technical support and direction where necessary Structure: Requirements: An "open mind" to assess concerns and develop and evaluate options and solutions A willingness to act as a representative of a specific neighborhood and communicate with the neighbors A commitment to attend 3 to 6 committee meetings in November and December If interested, please so note on your questionnaire. . Golden Hills Area .. Laurel Avenue/Winnetka Avenue Traffic Study e Concerns expressed at past meetings: Traffic volumes on Laurel Avenue Pedestrians crossing Winnetka Avenue Pedestrians on Laurel Avenue Pedestrians on Winnetka Avenue Pedestrians crossing at Frontage Road Pedestrian traffic to and at park Trucks using Laurel Avenue Truck volumes on Winnetka Avenue Empty buses on Winnetka Avenue Commercial traffic in neighborhood Speed of traffic Speed limits are ignored Geometric design of Laurel/Winnetka intersection Delay of traffic on Laurel atWinnetka Delays/congestion on Laurel at Pennsylvania Signing is not effective Headlights shine in windows at intersection Traffic drives on shoulders/lawn No alternate routes No sense of neighborhood e I' . e e . lley Golden Hills Area Laurel Avenue/Winnetka Avenue Traffic Study Ideas expressed at past meetings: Can traffic be diverted to other north/south streets? Can traffic be diverted to other east/west streets? Can truck traffic be prohibited? Can buses be rerouted? Are other alternate routes available? Would changes or additional signing help? Would turn lanes at Laurel/Winnetka be beneficial? Should the streets be widened? Are sidewalks necessary and where should crosswalks be? Would landscaping, buffers or curbs better control traffic? . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: November 2, 1999 Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Mark W. Grimes Director of Planning and Development Planning Commission Review of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Allianz Office Proposal . At the October 11, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested that they be given an opportunity to review the EAW for the Allianz. proposal. The Commission felt that the information in the EAW would be helpful in the study of the Olympic printing site and potential development in the area. I have been extensively involved in the preparation of the EAW. If there are questions about the EAW, I will try to answer them or forward the questions to the proper City staff member. Members of the Planning Commission also have the right to make official written comments on the EAW that would be forwarded to the City Council through my office. These comments must be received no later than December 1, 1999. The City Council will also be holding a public meeting on the EAW. This meeting is scheduled to be apart of the regular City Council meeting on Tuesday, November 16, 1999. At that meeting, City staff and consultants who helped with the EAW will be available to answer questions and gather comments. Attachments: · EAW Document .