Loading...
02-09-98 PC Agenda . . . AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, February 9, 1998 7pm I. Approval of Minutes - January 26, 1998 II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Applicant: GV Development LLC Address: 9145 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. (site of the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church) Purpose: Amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from Semi-Public Facilities to High Density Residential (12 units or greater per acre) III. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning Applicant: GV Development LLC Address: 9145 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: Rezone the property from 1-1 Institutional. (churches and schools) to M-1 Multiple Dwelling (limit of 3 stories in height) IV. Informal Public Hearing - Review of Preliminary Design Plan for Medley Hills Condominiums - Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 77 Applicant: GV Development LLC Address: 9145 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: Approval of the PUD would allow for the construction of two buildings with 20 units in the north building and 35 units in the south building. The north building is planned to be built in the first phase. --- SHORT RECESS --- V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals . VI. Other Business A. Planning Commission Representative at the APA National Conference in Boston, MA B. Update by the Subcommittee on the Comprehensive Plan VII. 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 applicant 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 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. . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 1998 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 26, 1998. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Martens, McAleese and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Beth Knoblauch, City Planner; and Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary. I~ I. Approval of Minutes - January 2IIf: 1998 MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 12, 1998 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearina - Amendment (No.1) to the Preliminary Desian Plan for P.U.D. No. 75 Applicant: Menard, Inc. Address: 6800 Wayzata Blvd., Golden Valley, Minnesota . Purpose: Amend P.U.D. No. 75 which would allow for additional construction on the west side of the existing structure over and beyond what was approved at a City Council meeting on July 15, 1997; and eliminate the proposed addition on the north side of the building which was approved by the City Council at its meeting of July 15, 1997. Planning Director Mark Grimes gave a brief summary of staff findings concerning the request to amend P.U.D. No. 75. Grimes reviewed an updated site plan with the commission noting the proposed northern and western additions that were approved by the City Council at its meeting of July 15, 1997. He also mentioned the parking and fencing along the north and east side of the site. Grimes told the.commission that the applicant is now requesting to amend the P.U.D. which would eliminate the proposed addition on the north side and allow for an addition of 7,4390 sq.ft. on the west side of the building which would be attached to a proposed addition approved in July, 1997. Grimes said that the new proposal on the west side would go into the setback by approximately 15 feet; the required front setback is 35 feet. He told the commission that one positive outcome of the amendment would be the elimination of the driveway which is located on the curve on Market Street. . Grimes said that the number of parking spaces would be increased by nine, and that the entire site would now be use by Menards because MGM Liquor, which leases a space from Menards, would be moving out in spring to a location in the OPUS Development along Hwy. 55. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 1998 Page 2 Grimes commented that the P.U.D. Permit would remain almost the same with some slight . modifications regarding the building size. He noted that the property would not have to be replatted. Grimes reminded the commission that when the original P.U.D. was brought before them and the City Council, there were concerns about parking. Staff placed a condition in the permit which said that if parking problems occurred, Menards would have its employees park in the back yard or find parking off-site. Grimes said that the fence being proposed for the comer of Hampshire and the Frontage Road is a black, 10 foot chain link fence. Chair Pentel questioned the height of the fence and was this height allowed per City Code, and believes the height of the fence to be excessive. Grimes said that the height of fences is not discussed in City Code; he would discuss the height of the fence with the Inspections Department. Grimes said the purpose of the fence was to eliminate people parking in the Menards lot and walking across Hampshire Avenue to the fast food restaurants. Marv Prochaska, representative for Menards, said they would replace the fencing at the height which now exists, which is believed to be 6 feet. Commissioner Groger asked Grimes to clarify how close the building would be to the setback line. Grimes said it would come to 20 feet from the right-of-way line. Groger asked if the proposed building would then be 35 or 40 feet from the street itself. Grimes said yes because of the curve in the street there is more right-of-way. Grimes reviewed the site plan and scaled out the footage from the proposed building to the street. Commissioner Martins asked if landscaping could be placed in the right-of-way, especially with the driveway being closed off. Grimes said that it could probably be done, but would . need to check with the Engineering Department. He said that materials should not be planted close to the street that would die due to snow plowing. Martens said the landscaping on the site is weak and that coniferous trees, of a good size, would enhance the site. Grimes said that the landscaping plan is part of the building permit and the BBR may ask for something more. Pentel asked if the commission could recommend an increase in the landscaping. Grimes said yes. Martens asked if the commission could recommend a certain size of tree. Grimes was unsure, but noted that the City does have landscape standards. City Planner Knoblauch said that the landscape is measured by the diameter of the tree, not height. Martins asked if the City could enforce employee parking to the rear of the building or off- site. Grimes said that if there is an issue regarding parking the permit states that employee parking must be moved away from the front of the building; this can be done by employees parking in the rear or off-site. Grimes also said that a parking analysis was completed which states that the 434 parking spaces being provided would be adequate. He said that staff believes there would be adequate parking. Marv Prochaska, representative for Menard, Inc., told the commission the reason for the amendment to the P.U.D. is because they had negotiated with MGM to leave the site in Spring. He said that because of this, they could omit the proposed construction to the north of the building, but would need to enlarge the already proposed area on the west side. Prochaska said that he would work with the City concerning landscaping on the west side of . the building in the right-of-way. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 1998 Page 3 . Pentel commented that the site plan is difficult to figure out because of the lines going through the plan. Prochaska reviewed the site plan with the commission. Pentel asked about the chain link fence along the west side of the bUilding and asked if what is being proposed would eliminate the chain link fence. Prochaska said yes. Pentel asked about the dotted areas on the site plan. Prochaska said the dotted areas represented the parking which was presented with the original P.U.D. Commissioner Kapsner asked if the floor would be raised on the southwest side to match what is existing. Prochaska commented that the entire building is built on pilings. He said the proposed addition would have the same elevation of the existing floor. Pentel told the commission and the representative that she had spent some time driving through the site and parked on the site to observe what was going on. She noted that there were cars blocking each other on the west side of the building and asked if Berglove was aware of this. Ross Berglove, General Manager of the Golden Valley Menards, commented that Monday through Friday, Saturn employees park in this western area and that it has not caused any problems. Grimes noted that when Saturn, located west of the Menards site, presented its plan to the City for a car dealership, they said they had enough parking. He said it now looks as though they are using employee parking spaces for car sales. . Commissioner Johnson asked, since Menards would be using the MGM Liquor Store space would there still be a need for the expansion. Prochaska said yes, because of the different elevated floor levels on the southwest side, more space is needed to get the same maximum space for its products. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Tom Lieberman, 250 South Jersey, commented that removing the western driveway is a good idea. He told the commission that he was present to reinforce the conditions that were approved from last summer with the original PUD. Lieberman said that one of the conditions was the use of a pager system; he said that Menards is still using a loud speaker system in the back yard. He also reminded the commission of the condition of a higher wall to shield its materials along the north property line. Pentel asked Prochaska if they are still planning on higher fencing along the north property line. Prochaska commented that none of the previously approved changes would be altered other than eliminating the northern addition to the building. Pentel asked when Menards plans on moving to a pager system. Berglove said that they have been looking at pager systems and had a problem with whom they ordered from and are now working out the problem; they hope to have this system in place by spring. City Planner Knoblauch said that technically Menards is in violation of its PUD because the permit states that the pager system was to be in place by August 1, 1997. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 1998 Page 4 Pentel asked if pagers are being used in other locations on the site. Berglove said that . pagers are used in the front office for the front parking lot but this system did not work in the back lot because it was not loud enough due to the traffic in the back lot. He said they have experimented with pagers and believe they have found one that would work. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel said that after spending time on the lot, she is in favor of Closing the western entrance into Menards, but is less in favor of moving the addition closer to the street. She believes the 14 foot wood fence and building would be too much of a presence that close to the street and would change the site line. Commissioner Prazak said that he agreed with Pentel's analysis. Johnson asked staff, of the 7439 sq.ft. addition being proposed at this meeting, how much of it could be added on without going into the front setback. Martens calculated about 2500 sq.ft. Johnson said that she believes that a 2500 sq.ft. addition would be considered a decent addition without going into the setback. Pentel said if setbacks were met, there could be additional landscaping on the west side. Prazak noted that the site is quite full at this time and having one comer softened with landscaping would be useful for the site. Martens and Pentel discussed the site plan referring to the west side of the building and the fence abutting it. Pentel asked about the 14-foot high screening fence with greenspace on . the west side. She said it would have been helpful to seen what the elevation looked like on the plan. Prochaska said that at the very left side of the site plan (L-1) it shows that the fencing would have pallets on the inside, with landscaping on the outside of the fence. Martens said that he could support this project if there were strong landscaping and some berming on the west side of the site. Martens said that he too was concerned about the 14- foot high fencing, but with the proper landscaping, would not be as bothered by it. Groger said that he was not bothered with the proposed building coming within 20 feet of the right-of-way line, because the right-of-way provides quite a bit of greenspace on the curve. He believes it is more of a benefit to remove the driveway. Groger said he would like to see landscaping as a buffer but understands it is not the commissions responsibility to decide what type of landscaping is put in. Martens asked staff if the commission could place a condition on the PUD amendment regarding landscaping because of the setback issue. Grimes said that the approval of the amendment can be conditioned on landscaping and if the City Council agrees with the commission, the landscaping can be added in the General Plan of Development; the landscaping would also be reviewed by the Board of Building Review (BBR). Grimes told the commission that he would have to talk with the City Engineer regarding landscaping in the right-of-way. Kapsner said that he would prefer to see the setbacks met, that setbacks allow for landscaping and greenspace. He said because of the uniqueness of this site with the curve, . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 1998 Page 5 . this is being accomplished. Kapsner said that he believes the City is getting a deal because Menards is closing off the entrance/exit onto Market Street from its site. He said because of the closure of the driveway and the large right-of-way, he is not as bothered by the building not meeting setback requirements on the west side. Commissioner McAleese said that he is opposed to the building encroaching into the setback area. He agreed that this is a slightly different case because of the unique curve and the City is gaining something by closing off the driveway. He said that if Menards could specify at tonight's meeting where additional landscaping could be placed in this area, he could vote in favor of the amendment, but because this issue cannot be addressed at this meeting, he would have to vote against the proposal. He would like to see a good landscape plan. Prochaska suggested Menards work with the City's Forester. Johnson agreed with Prochaska's suggestion of having Menards work with the City Forester. She also agreed with Kapsner and Martens that by having the right kind of landscaping in this area, the building would not be as noticeable, and because of the layout of Market Street. Prazak asked for clarification of the distance from building to street. Prochaska said it was approximately 40 feet from the proposed building to the street. Grimes reminded the commission that the sidewalk along that side of the street would remain. Pentel asked if the sidewalk would be put in where the driveway is being taken out. Grimes said that would be done by Menards as part of their construction. Grimes made a suggestion that the sidewalk . be extended from the building westward to the existing sidewalk. Grimes told the commission that this item would tentatively go before the City Council at its meeting of February 17. He said that an updated landscaping plan could come back to the commission at its February 9 meeting and the staff memo could reflect any comments from the commission. Kapsner said that he would be willing to make a recommendation, trusting that the BBR would do its job; he doesn't believe that the plan needs to be looked at again. Martens said that he could approve the amendment with some landscape modifications, that a landscape plan should be prepared with help from the City Forester and the Engineering Department reviewing the right-of-way for landscaping. He said that the plan could then be brought back to the commission and its comments forwarded to the City Council. MOVED by Groger with the condition that the applicant prepare a landscape plan prior to the City Council meeting and have it reviewed by the City Forester and Engineering Department, and have the paging system in and working before a permit is pulled; seconded by Martens. McAleese noted that the motion should be changed which does not attach the paging system to the building permit in case Menards does not construct the addition. Groger amended his motion, seconded by Martens. Groger suggested that the paging system be in place and working by April 1st. Prochaska agreed. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 1998 Page 6 McAleese questioned staff about the sidewalk and its extension. Prochaska said that it . would be made a part of the plan. Knoblauch commented that this is considered an off-site improvement. Pentel suggested that the commission specify the sidewalk in the motion. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger to approve the amendment to P.U.D. No. 75 with the additional condition that the sidewalk be extended westward from the building to the right-of-way sidewalk. Pentel said that she believes there is a useful purpose to maintain distance of building to streets and feels the City would be better served with a smaller building. McAleese concurred. Pentel called the vote; 5-2 in favor to recommend to the City Council for approval of the amendment to the Preliminary Design Plan for P.U.D. No. 75 which would allow for the additional construction of a 7439 sq.ft. addition onto an already approved proposed addition and that a landscape plan be submitted to the City for review by the City Forester and City Engineer; the sidewalk from the building be extended to the right-of-way sidewalk on the west side of the site; and the pager system for the back yard be in place by April 1, 1998. III. Reports on Meetinas of the City Council. Housina and Redevelopment Authority. and Board of Zonina Appeals McAleese noted that he did not get his Council agenda packet until Wednesday for Tuesday . night's City Council meeting and asked staff to verify the zip code being used by whomever sends out this agenda. Pentel talked about a Sensible Land Use luncheon she attended. IV. Adiournment Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8:05pm. Emilie Johnson, Secretary . . . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: February 5, 1998 Golden Valley Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from Semi-Public Facilities to High Density Residential--9145 Medicine Lake Road -- Arnold A. Zachman, applicant BACKGROUND The subject property consists of one lot, approximately 3.75 acres (163,350 sq.ft.) in size. It is located on the south side of Medicine Lake Road, about 550 feet west of Ensign Avenue (see attached site location map). Good Shepherd Lutheran Church had occupied the church bUilding on the site until recently. It is my understanding that they have built a new building farther out in the western suburbs. The church building is relatively small, about 1,500 sq.ft. on the main level. There is also a parking lot for approximately 30 cars. The church was constructed in 1963. In late 1997, Mr. Zachman signed a purchase agreement to buy the property from the church to develqp two condominium bUildings. He intends to tear down the church. The comprehensive plan map currently classifies this property as Semi-Public Facilities. It is necessary to amend the plan map to High Density Residential to permit the construction of the two condominium buildings. This is the first of three interrelated items for which the applicant needs to gain approval in order to achieve the goal of bUilding two condo buildings on the subject site. The end result is intended to be a Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation. According to City Code, a PUD is considered an overlay of the basic property zoning rather than a complete replacement; therefore, there must be some degree of consistency between a proposed PUD and the underlying zoning designation for the property. Furthermore, according to state law, property zoning must be in conformity with the comprehensive plan; when a proposed rezoning would have the effect of creating a conflict with the plan, there must first be a plan amendment before the rezoning can proceed. The City's comprehensive plan map guides this area for Semi-Public Facilities such as churches. The Zoning Map designates this area 1-1 Institutional which permits churches. In order for the condo proposal to go forward, both the plan map and zoning map have to be amended. <- PLANNING CONSIDERATION The proposed residential (high density) comprehensive plan map designation would allow developments with over 12 units per acre. The proposed two building condominium development with 55 total units (20 units in Building 1 and 35 units in Building 2) would have 14.6 units per acre. This is at the low end of the high density category (the medium density category goes from 6-12 units per acre). North and west of this site, in New Hope, are row type rental townhomes and apartments. East of the site, in New Hope, are single-family homes. Directly east of this site is the Zachman townhome development that is now under site development. There are 33 town home units in this development which will be constructed starting this spring. This development was approved by the City Council in late 1997. These are "for sale" town home units in two and three unit clusters. Mr. Zachman will make future townhome buyers aware that a condo development is proposed for the subject site. To the south of the site is Medley Park, one of Golden Valley's largest parks. To the west and south, adjacent to Medley Park, are three medium density residential PUD's. Directly west of the site is a small neighborhood shopping center. Access to the two condominium buildings is being proposed only from Medicine Lake Road, a minor arterial street and County road. Given these land uses and access characteristics, this site is fairly typical of other areas in Golden Valley where medium and high density residential developments are found. The use of this property for two condo buildings in the high density category appears to be a good use for this site. The adjacent uses are either medium density residential, commercial, or park. There is no single-family development adjacent to this property. Access to the site would be only from Medicine Lake Road, therefore, none of the 300-400 trips per day, generated from this development, will go directly onto neighborhood streets. Properties like the subject site - oversized and unplatted - were discussed in the Technical Background to the City's new Housing Plan (excerpt attached). Such properties, sprinkled throughout the City, have been subject to increasing redevelopment pressure for both residential and nonresidential uses. In the case of this property, several developers have tried to package it for either residential or commercial purposes. Originally, it was hoped by Mr. Zachman that it would be combined with the property where the townhomes are to be developed. Unfortunately, the church was not willing to sell it until late last year after the townhome development plans were finalized. Even though the condo property is not combined with the townhome development, staff believes that the medium and high density residential developments along Medicine Lake Road provide a good reuse of the area. These two distinct housing uses introduced in the area will provide needed hOUSing alternatives for Golden Valley citizens. If this application is turned down by the City, there will be other proposals coming along to reuse the site. As stated above, there has been commercial interest in the site. Staff believes the best reuse of the site is higher density residential. . . . 2 . . . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from Semi-Public Facilities to High Density Residential. Attachments: Location Map Excerpt from Technical Background of the Housing Plan Comprehensive Plan Map 3 "#0. .... .... ;...;: ~,..: :.,.: . .. ........... . ~ j 7 : 0 ISO c:;.,)>. ii; (0 C) ;.\ ~ - Z Q II <: ~~ 00\ ~!-" ...,. ~...... ~: rr{ II!.'!/'! ? 4, ... HIGHWAY 169 '" ... ~. ~ ..:. fTI 'f 0 r ITI +~ -< ""0 <(oJ' .5'0 'So... <~ ""<" 2. ZO.it 3 '" IS' .'" ~ Cll Z P ... ~ ~. I : ", ~ ..1\ I ~ ~ 4.,S:. ~ .. ... I ~IV.O :;.: I j;' r . ~I JI . C)I N ~ I :['. 18)i. ~ '" :.' :;;:'/;:':' "'1 r-- ". '.. ISO ..~ ~. 1~~r-- ! :;!.. I ,_ -"~. rll .~ "t~ \.0, ... ~~ ~. ,~ ~ :::, ;'';;55 EN~/6^, :, ~ 11.':> '" I t.::J 5o'oeS3"ft ~I ~ I Q. :: ~. ~I ;:oS;J a ~v; ~. :ri-rJ1;; ~ , ~I "} ,VI ~o' O,iE~' · I ~'OO'5j;" 220 =< I NO'OO'Sl"E 100 ~_' SO) ~ ~ , ~--IlC-!-iOO--I--:-OT'-{:M'OO'5f::;:'~I~ 50',):5'0\ .a' I;: I = r-_-~-jU.5 - ~ . 1.5 '^ "'; 'L. Nla~N I, N ::;;.0':;;1;:: -.~ ~ ~ ~ - ~o' - .'''''' \h ~- ~ ~ ~I ~~., -.:; : 6'.....,- ~~ N I - 1-3E~ I :/!.: ,'''' ~~.~: ,....~ ~"o9#" ~. I/O liD 100 'DO ltwI',on' ~ ' 105 .... . ~ 0 , :'U Ensign ........ ,..:~,i':iJ. m.l ....... NOOOD'~l"r m ..:'.'m.1-:.3o'oo'5rL~~__:.!2~~_~..:.:~.,; ')0 50.0l 2 2-120 ."430 . 685.70 2520 ~ .,-;'; I, t'- '~.JII I'';'' ,,,,,iJO 7U7~ -<I !J~.:S '" H1'; NO uo 1787 . 13~ c::;:'; :.: 2~~0 _ e: _ ~ ~'a.~ ,; 3; ~~'~:'~.!Il ~-: ~ 2440 _ 2500 . _ . -":......,}< rn "oj ~ 01 :;:,:f. ~I~~ - ~l:;;: .0-\(\;:; - c-- "-1'.... "9.. "" ~ 0 ,,-,, =..;:; N....; ..,"'f',.V'r:;, CllO ;,.... f":. :"te; III ~!.. 0 ....I,,~... ~ II)~ - ~ .j~ -"'I '" \h1L....~ of> 11)- ,~lL~. ... (D t.~, . 'i~ . ~.~=.-= ~1'T1 ....ftJ~~iL~. . . . . ~ "'t;;~ ~g ~ -0;; , Q; o :u~ cG b-l . ~. _'___'_liO-'-~. , SCUT f-l ... " ~ \0 '0 ~"Z.,.;~)"i '. ;"7/"99".11 t~ " 0" ,N . "i.... I ' II'" l-llo 14'Jl.7/J .' f i'J-.,!}:.; ... ~. II) ~ r:'~";:Tq n( -", ~. '" fl., ". (', ." \) 1> ::tJ " I , HIGHWAY 169 . \ ~~ ;;:'~ 'l't ...r.... ..:: ," ~ '- ~"~ , ~'" ,.;... '" 1,1 ... -AJ "I ~ '1. I !\Jeto ~8 I') '('/" N, "" f". .. ,,'~ <- c,,-:~ "- 1.7il.o'1' "'l o ~ o 'T/ Z m :E :J: o "'0 m '" ... ... ';'- ~ '" ..... "', (J.IfH' . ~..' ~l: . -!i" 6J . , 'j '" ",'" I - " c' ,H03y ; oCS 20 JJ'230W.. 1-0 I::: r . -'. ~ I~ :-D ~ ~ - . J,..., 0 ,.:'" HALSETH ADD. I i I ..-_-!.7:~a_~. .__w__L~~ :-:~ - 60 Rods . , .'- CIJ N " .. "". . _ . __l - ; -....'--', ~ :.J 0 ,- r-~ t::_ o\- J. 0 ~ '..." j ~ ~ 5...C-- J &~ ~ ~ \f, 1<; '.. 5.. '.' " '" ~ .) s:: m ..i'- C HILLSBORO! .:;0 i; Z -...::- :84.40.'_ m , F, ~e:: .,.." 6S2!;;>Q-80 .\\ r ~- ~ )> " m ::0 o )> c . s: ..." i'4!'t' - ~~ :~., ., ;2 . 1~4.~J 4-95 .~ A ;5~ ~O';C'!o"~ ~ ~ ,.,., ""'(' !!!I "" '" (,. 1"" :0 I V> "" oD r.:: i ..,. ,.: .......; :J;>' .10 ... ,.. o c: -t r ~ '" ~ . \ "l.. oi . ;~OA /':l './<1$ VSJ'o ~'!/ ..-t <.'1) b~t-: '$(/)' S./l'. ~ l. C)'" (' /\ O,l)~ .,~ v,(" '$I}t I.q,f. CO-t . .. I. ~ Ll ~Ob I.C 'TOq '-;'/tA .. 4. (/ ~S rtJ,l) I)' Cql}1 '" '" N ...______-1~_..____. ~ . <() II) (t. .Jt'!) o "',' '" '" . '~.!'---' -- ,'::'11 :, ~ ;..0 ~ N~ :~g~ c, \ ~ ~, . ;;:; "" . EXCERPT FROM "TECHNICAL BACKGROUND FOR THE GOLDEN VALLEY HOUSING PLAN; Sec. V, Land Available For Housing In Golden Valley (pages 35-38)" '" Oversized/Underused Parcels - Abutting Golden Valley's early road system are several areas with a proliferation of large, unplatted residential parcels. As with other categories of land potentially available for housing within the City, these parcels have not been completely inventoried. The main concentrations can be found along Douglas Drive, Glenwood Avenue, Golden Valley Road, Harold Avenue, Medicine Lake Road, and Highway 100. Generally between 100 and 150 feet wide and over 200 feet deep, the parcels cannot be individually subdivided into two lots of legal width even though they contain more than adequate square footage. Each parcel currently holds one home, with most over thirty years old and set well back from the street. The City has begun to see some pressure for redeveloping these parcels, usually for office or commercial use in order to take advantage of traffic levels on the abutting streets and to help recover the cost of removing the old houses. . Because in most cases there are significant volumes of traffic, these are not among Golden Valley's most desirable residential locations. On the other hand, the City should be seriously questioning just how many small office buildings it can adequately support, and how many adjacent neighborhoods it wants to disrupt with strip commercial development. There are ways to buffer new residential uses against undesirable traffic impacts, which along many of the identified streets are only a problem during peak weekday travel times. The conversion of these parcels to nonresidential use may be in the best short term interest of a given developer but not necessarily in the best long term interest of the City as a whole. Other recent proposals have retained the residential use by carving just enough land out of an adjacent parcel to meet width requirements at the street. One relatively standard new lot is then created at the front of the parcel. The remainder, usually somewhat "L" shaped, becomes a second lot of two to three times the size and twice the depth of the first. This does increase the use of the original parcel, but still does not take full advantage of the available area. There has not been any discussion about how the odd shape of the larger lot affects the calculation of required setbacks; the BZA may be resolving that issue in years to come if such subdivisions become more popular. There has also been no analysis of the long term impact on the adjacent parcel; by giving up ten feet of land or so along one side, the property owner has reduced the potential for more efficient use of that parcel in the future. . Timely and creative planning could offer several options for more efficiently redeveloping such parcels at a higher density while retaining their residential u. use. There are good reasons for not reviving the City's short-lived "back lot . split" process, which allowed the ~reation of new lots at the back end of oversized parcels with minimal driveway access out to the street. However, the City could draw up some alternatives for new streets to open up the back half of a row of deep parcels, making it possible to legally divide them. Shorter cul-de- sac designs running into the middle of two or three adjacent parcels would also allow subdivision. The cooperation of all affected property owners would be required, and the City might have to look into some form of "temporary variance", allowing the older homes to remain in place for a time after new rights-of-way or lot lines are in place. Alternatively, it might be possible to find a developer or nonprofit agency able to act as interim "banker", holding some parcels in reserve until others needed to complete a subdivision come on the market. In exploring new street options, it would be important to begin with consideration of an entire cluster of adjacent parcels, so that early subdivision of land in the middle of a group would not unnecessarily limit the potential for additional subdivisions to either side. Constructing the new street might increase the front-end cost to the developer and definitely increases the complexity of the subdivision and development process, so some property owners will resist this type of venture. If the City decides, however, that such subdivisions are in Golden Valley's best interest, it could ensure against the type of lots now being created by amending City Code to add limitations on lot depth and/or to require that all newly created lots meet certain configuration . requirements. Some parcels, individually or in groups, could also be redeveloped as PUD's, allowing a certain degree of freedom from the traditional single family lot requirements. This could mean clustered single family homes on a shared private driveway, or duplex, townhouse, or apartment style units, depending on parcel size and location. Straight rezoning for apartment use is also a possibility. With any of these options, establishing a policy framework for determining which parcels might be appropriate for what type of redevelopment is a must. Early amendment of the comprehensive plan map to designate the most obvious candidates for higher density residential redevelopment would be even better. Establishing design criteria for preferred PUD or apartment rezoning proposals might also be desirable. . 2 S"04YJII"I" .. "11 ~ .. . " ~ 0 0 . . 0 0 0 ~. ~ ~ g ~ I I i~g2~OI I I I I I MAP .8800.. Il!:::;!;~ I I \ 1 1 I I 1 I \ J' ..fI!!I!!:" 0011-11 ~"~~_' ... . \\"2i"'t '.:. 6O"-3~~~~..,c.. .\ .....~....c;.. ::=1;:' .~;:..' . """.- ' """,,,",,,,.-y;. " . == ]~~. :/' oooc- t " A,ll:) 006t- I ';3~;,. ii!:n t g 8 & g g ~ 8000"- . _)..: ~:::r:. . : := -, :i t: :ool..-s6'- ..r~-.1 - -. .....-.... -~ I I I I. 1.0..- _~. . '''-' ,'f , . ~ ..'~ ".,,,/ .~ I 1 l:o.;.- ooc.- :::t__ - ....).11Io -. :J<\O/' -. ~"'-~"t. ~ '/ " ~...- ~::='E~~~~t::i~;~~:Jt :'~~. J "~",,:~~?~': 00<0- f;-"'l--.~<=;._'''''". ~~-~ '-;'1 .:'~:: ".:. ooft- i.~. r-:.~'J.::-Z"~,J ...~."~ l:i ) .~; ~:: l~~~S:J ~~l(~'4C :.::': ':~_~~! ~i::~.. \~~T 00"- I "= -.. ~~"........~ >~- .. .J~ ~., " "tj. '.' ". ~ .,. t . ~ .--- rL~j - ",. h,.,~t..:::~:.~ ~ ~ -,-, G ::= lU;j;r:~J~,~~~~~-_. 00"- .} , -,:fjG..; '.,.,. g" _ ~ oo~ '" ~. ~ 'L.... ~ ::= ~,. ,,=r~: ~::''ti' ~~j:~ =--~ ~ 008"--, ~ ~1- ~ . =;'':-')''--'-J i:.. .--~\ 000&- &-~,:. ...-.' ;.:) If ~"': :- ~ 0011- I,,,". _ ..~. "":'''r.."~.~,, - "',_~ _ ~-.- ,,'- "., 'iC~"-"",..~~. -. 00"- =,", '- -! !i::Y"".~~ t:-~- .- ~., o ,-", . '.. ___.;.:::::;::=t~ .. ...:.. .. o"!.,: ..'~w~'" 00"- e' ", - "~~,. La .,j, C 5 == ! ~'~, ~~.~ !t I;.~ ~ l!= ::= 3. ' ~~--',l ~ !~ --=~,' " '~.: ~ t" ~ oou- J ~ i. ... c ~li ._. 00<<- 1;1 of. ." Jl \ f \ m ~ ~f'" .....,....' i! 00....- -.....,,:t.~;tJj t~ . _. .h~ ~~" ~~ ~'I!' -- """""" 'n~" - . "- I . 000<- :.,.,.:.,.,.: , [' -, :,a,,; '.,:: "...~,~:J.~i II oou- ~fJ ~:-m--~ ~" ' ~ ~l"._ !! -<- ~....=~.:,;$~,,,~~. . .=-=~_ fe_y' ~ ~~~~;.~7'~,:; ~~it, ~"':,.._ _ '? ~ _ ~O:..~! ::.......... 5".~'-. ~.; ".<,I;--ir" ~ ....- t'-~T ..L ; ."' ~ ~ f-~_ .,.3 . 0090- ... d 'f:''' ,$- : -t-.-..r J':\,~ i~~ -~~,-;:: . .. ~ ::= "--'<~,~l' ~ 0060- ~ ..... ". 00(l6- IS - :",.. ~.d~i"' ..0 t.., . -, Ii := it.~.':.~.r,{,,~.~~:^:i,~,.f.'.~~"~, ~,;.. ~~,~~,:,",.,' t.[ .....~...-~..):.. .,'," -.,;-> ". . .1,,, := ~lmi1lf~'~:--~'t' !,,-{..-. ....-,~t4;:-'1n~ - I 1 ~ 1 1 1 I I ,I I 1 I I I I~_~~~~~~~~~~~ z . l'YClSNI9aOIl .0 . =t ~ ...... to i!t .. .. o .. ~.1 Z S I <<= ~ ~ ~ . z Ii: ~ . .z .. :z: 8 i g 8 ~ i .i I ..,:.....'.. i. ~~~~~!~i!~~~~ ~ ~ ~ 1111111111111, I 1 I .L."'-:~ -.... .. ,...... ~I til".~~ -<lOll> _~ .....,."" ~"I; ., .. :~ -00." . "'~' .' Is! ,." ..' ~ . . ,. ~ ......... .~~.,... -00110 tri : : ,~.. '"'\'i 7 (,. .. ~: 1 - 0... ':~..,-..... # ~ I ,~ '''"~;-:'i -ooto.. "'''f''.l" oj ,... ! i'l -"""0 _...:l" ~'--' ~, ....-... -COlt.. '"' t)a :la-.\~J :')oQ.:...[-ooL" , w~",-ii/ -..~ --000. :.::JA-~ ' , ~. -000> ~ l' .J.."IIl -OOM t,! -0019 ... :, l ~J )n .y::",~ .. ; ~! lj~ o '.:.o.~ I ..,.J:..... . """"" .. -. --. -0000 --. -000< -OOll -OOU -oou -DO>< -DOG< -000< -oou; --< --... -000. -0010 -.... -00<0 -.... -.... -.... -..... -00" - .... -oooc -001' -.... -oose - .... _00" II II II I 1 111\ ! i i HU Hi! U~~~ "11) 0 USE PLAN H.&nORA'ld .:10 COMPREHENSIVE LAND PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC ,;/~.-~.~ CJ ~ ~ r=:J k::~::'::::::':'1 ~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (LOW DENSITY) MED IUM DENS I TY HIGH DENSITY INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL, TERMINAL WAREHOUSE AND RADIO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL . ~ - MUNICIPAL - PARKS, NATURAL AREAS SEMI-PUBLIC FACILITIES SCHOOLS, HIGHWAY DEPT. 100 FT (APPROX) GREENBELT N. OF lAUREL, E. OF PENNSYLVANIA & W. OF TURNERS CROSSROAD NATURAL AREAS r:::J ~ CDMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND PRDFESSIDNAL DFFICES - ,-.. ~ ~ o i c cr. ~ 01 - Q; .. l: ~ :: ..... J:; c - c ~ J:; ~ v. ~ l: Q; E -c l: Q; E <( v. ~ to: Q; .... 4- Q; 0: . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: February 5, 1998 Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing -- Rezoning of the Property located at 9145 Medicine Lake Rd. from 1-1 Institutional to Multiple Dwelling M-1 (3-story maximum) -GV Development LLC (Arne Zachman), Applicant . BACKGROUND The subject property consists of one, unplatted lot located on the south side of Medicine Lake Road, about 550 feet west of Ensign Avenue (location map attached). Total size of the site is 3.75 acres or 163,500 sq.ft. Currently, there is a small church located on the property. The church was formally occupied by the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church. The church has now relocated to another location in the western suburbs. This existing church building, built in 1963, is rather small with only about 1,500 sq.ft. on the first level. Approximately 30 parking spaces are adjacent to the church. The requested rezoning to Multiple Dwelling (M-1) would provide the density level necessary for the proposed two building condominium development being requested by Mr. Zachman. The rezoning is the second of three interrelated items for which the applicant needs to gain approval in order to achieve his goal of building two condominium buildings with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation. According to City Code, a PUD is considered an overlay of the basic property zoning rather than a complete replacement; therefore, there must be some degree of consistency between a proposed PUD and the zoning classification of the subject property. Furthermore, according to state law, property zoning must be in conformity with the comprehensive plan; when a proposed rezoning would have the effect of creating a conflict with the plan, there must first be a plan amendment before the rezoning can proceed . PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Many of the planning issues attending this rezoning proposal are the same as those addressed in the related comprehensive plan map amendment proposal; if that item is approved, most of the questions regarding the appropriateness of . the rezoning are resolved. As stated above, the rezoning must be compatible with the comprehensive plan designation. In the case of the Zachman proposal, the zoning, which would be the most appropriate underlying zoning classification, is the Multiple Dwelling M-1 District. This permits apartment type buildings with up to three stories in height. It also permits a density of 18 units per acre (2,400 sq.ft. of land area per unit). The two condo buildings that are proposed generally fall within the requirements of that district. Because both of the buildings are being constructed on one lot, the development may only be approved as a PUD. There is a concern that if the zoning is changed for a parcel with the assumption that there would be a PUD to follow, what would happen if the PUD was never approved. The question is whether the straight zoning can support some acceptable level of development if necessary. In this case, the property is 3.75 acres in size. This property could be utilized for an apartment building with about 67 units total on up to three stories. This is a reasonable use of this property at this location. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning from 1-1 Institutional to Multiple Dwelling M-1 (3-story maximum height) for the subject site if the related comprehensive plan map amendment is also approved. If for any reason the PUD fails to be completed after the rezoning is approved, the existing parcel is adequate for the construction of one multiple dwelling building. Attachments: Location Map Section 11.25 -- Multiple Dwelling Zoning District . 2 CITY OF NEW HOPE .:,':. l66 7Z -N:,051j" '1 -"- ....cr. /-f!....s. -/ <"',-,:, .. t; b '].10 n,-:_,,:, Zd'Rl"_ ~~~()~:-: ;. 3 ~/7S "'~ 0, m", "'N i' "" .J, ;;'! -..,:;::, I "'0 m CO ...... ~ I CJ I ci' ; C: <(~1 . ~I .--1 'wG :t: I I ... i. I LLJ", 3 CJ) i~ I ~Ia: """0 <(~;l~ " ~..I, f ,"":.~,.. .. ~ I. ~ $' /I Z l ~ ?J' m CO ...... f~~r~-",,:: ~~'/() '""),,0\ V" '0. _' v "'1'" '" "- '..... "'0'" >-.... -....., 'j... ::;; .1 . . 2373-85 . ~l" 't " ~~ \:) MEDLEY ~<j l,,; ~~ . t',; 2352-68 2359.7'1 >- ~ I (9 I "l ~ . I) ... 2345-57 "l NO. :Jb~. 48 ......i ';." fI' ::.< ,;;( .~ (',1",-1"1'11 cl~ 7 :;' ~ :- I- !L" (- MEDICINE LAKE ROAD . .\~ () ...... "I 0 ~) ,.....~ ':~ o v'~I' en'" , ~..... (/) " ' ...J '-, ...J 'l~ J: .... . Se'''O V' .~~," F lI'l ". <t .no ---'-'-i~YR. -539'.3:~.'~ lfil ':.\.; i';' MEDLEY ':~ '1 .. .'1, 'j 10- ... 2 . 21H' I /79.99 .. 1263.47" N830S9'SOMc KINOS .J)~14 ~'I . . , " /' 1>,' I i~ 'I- ::.. .0 "'! V'l ~'i ~ PARK A ~ ~ ~ 't)- ~ .v s3-'b ......." ~o't)-~ <:J~~ .~ ~ ,," L. 't)- ;::j ~'V 'v ~.!,~" !;J ,,,0 ~ ~~Ji ~ ~~ ~ .f-' ~~ 'i:-~ . / J . l 01 ~ ""1 't, I 5 ". ~ ~ OUTLOT H1l.Lh \I ~q' ~OIS ;,'\... ,~II )rl..l5 OL. I ~: ::- .._J~.Ob :"!'i: b/4... -\'7~: ,_ I.::: " J,z ,}Z"I~ N II 200 [ I ~cale S. . 2 .. /\M~DI~ ". ~. 896.. . . " IJ4-J I 30j'lJ ~,.Jb.. I: ~ (.-:-~)>>j,) I ......:.0 s' NI-ji.r" '"',~ ';"1 ~ ~ 1241 o~.1 '" - , ~: ,-,I ~I'" ~I'" ~'" '<ll~ .~I ~I ~I ~I ::;;1 ., ,H6C> :.;.;:. :;:~i~;:: 9- ~ --. --.. -.. S8~~~;'5"! -0 ;~. "~!. n{lvl '" :;; ~ .:: '.",:;_, .....1:.; ~; 0.- (,J ~ 8..~ :~ ~ 9'JIO.~ .':; r..., ~ or\-.''''' .~ ""m'3~'5n 110 .;: ;:, "....,.o.,Vo; z ~.,.. '....\) \&J ";;!;.1l."o.'l^'C~'I""'I'O . ~. J l......~~":Q : ~ "'.1 _~"" ~~MED~EY LA. \, t 111"- .. .~ 11, 61". '~'. .~ ~ ME ;~I~ I ~J~:: : ,.".., '190/ ~I:?A"'~ .~,1,)"H -. ~~~'4 .~: "-tDn a (.;~~/.f~ ..... 1'5 "'~ lot . ~ . '?h. .':'."" - 14'1: .. -1"r .. iz~ .., . ~~M,'Jj "3"~O'5'''^,' I N".Z5'ziIY.,.... -"Ig- a I~ ~ ~ . CI I' 2 .<\ ... 10 Nt 0') ~....:) '::: 1- _.:: - .~' '" ;j7~.;"J .r,: I ')3 ':$ -if(~.l .~ ~ ~. It ~ : ~ ~ 1-.11 11 ZZW,- : .... ,.".... 9f I ItS I '''' ....'" 1;89'ZS'iZ"'V.' -'25 - -)d7'oh:", ~:~_ I !:! .~ ;-15~U _~ 1- - CI) :.,..; ~, C I'" .~ - w'! S Z W ~ .... Ieee' , . V" I ~'^' ~ '^ 7 ~: ""-. 90/! 16 R . . )1 I ~~ i " "":1 ~I ! 'f ~)> ~ ;., ,I . . I , -2nd :.: ~ v. ~ \oJ ..... .... '.\ '" : --'50 - ~;:T - ::. 9/./1- . ., I \ 1:)1.... ~I~ I~ .'- ....t N,8fZ,?'?2"lV <:) ~ 0-<" 1o,:t',,; .0 '.. 150 S 11.25 SEC. 11.25. MULTIPLE DWELLING ZONING DISTRICT. . Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Multiple Family Zoning District is to provide for medium to high densi ty housing (15-27 units per acre) along directly related and complementary uses. Subd. 2. District Established. Properties shall be established within the Multiple Dwelling Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subd. 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.25, Subd. 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.25 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subd. 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addi tion the Multiple Dwelling Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to thesame which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. Subd. 3. Uses Permitted. The following uses and no other shall be permitted in the Multiple Dwelling Zoning Districts: A. All uses permitted in the R-1 and R-2 Residential Zoning Districts may be allowed as a condi tional use, and shall be subject to any restrictions upon such uses elsewhere in this Chapter. B. A "Dwelling-Multiple", as herein defined. C. Accessory buildings and uses, customarily inciden- tal to multi-family uses, such as garages. . Source: Ordinance No. 544 Effective Date: 6-26-81 D. Foster family homes. Source: Ordinance No. 653 Effective Date: 4-12-85 E. Essential Services - Class I Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series Effective Date: 11-28-91 Subd. 4. Lot Area, Height, Parking. All property in the Multiple Dwelling Zoning District shall be subject to the following restrictions on use thereof: A. Lot Area. The following schedule shall be followed in the determination of the maximum number of dwelling units per lot. Net buildable lot area per unit exclusive of required open spaces as required under Subd. 5 of this Section. Number of Stories . 1-2 3 4 5 6-8 2,700 square feet 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 GOLDEN VALLEY CC 223 (3-16-92) . . . S 11.25 Where all of the garages are buried to the extent that the site area normally covered by the garages can be occupied by other uses such as parking or recreation areas, the above schedule shall be reduced by 200 square feet. B. Subdistricts and Height Limitations. Four subdistricts and corresponding height limitations are hereby established within the Multiple Dwelling District to be known as: M-l Maximum height three (3) stories .M-2 Maximum height four (4) stories M-3 Maximum height six (6) stories M-4 Maximum height eight (8) stories c. Parking Space. One enclosed garage space for each single bedroom dwelling unit or efficiency apartment dwelling uni t, and one-half enclosed gar age space for each add i tional bedroom, in a dwelling uni t, shall be provided on the premises on which any multiple dwelling is erected, and if said enclosed garage is detached from the dwelling unit, it shall be constructed of comparable materials and shall be of the same architectural treatment as the dwelling unit. In addition to the above required enclosed garage basis, one off-street nonenclosed parking space shall be provided for each dwelling unit. Subd. S. Minimum Yard Requirements. A. The minimum required front, rear and side yards for any structure in the Multiple Dwelling District shall be as follows: Front Yard: Side and Rear Yard: 35 feet. 50 feet when directly abutting a residential; 25 feet from any other zoning district; 35 feet along a public right-of-way. B. The minimum required front and rear side yards for parking lots as measured from the lot line shall be as follows: Front Yard: Side and Rear Yard: 35 feet landscaped yard; One-half of the setback required for a structure. C. Relationship of Setback to Building Height. Along any side of an apartment building across the street from or directly abutting a Residential Zoning District or Open Development District, the minimum required building setback shall not be less than one-half the height of the building as measured from the average level of that particular side. Along any side of an GOLDEN VALLEY CC 224 (6-30-88) . . . S 11.25 apartment building across the street from or directly abutting any other zoning district, the minimum required building setback shall not be less than twenty-five (25) feet. D. Lot Coverage. No structures including accessory buildings shall occupy more than thirty-five (35) percent of the lot area: provided, however, that when the provisions of this Subparagraph are in conflict with the provisions of Subdivision 4, Subparagraph A, above, the provisions of requiring the larger amount of lot area unoccupied by structure shall prevail. Subd. 6. Accessory Uses. In addition to those subordi- nate uses which are clearly and customarily incidental to the principal uses, such as driveways, parking areas and garages, the following additional accessory uses shall be permitted: A. In all districts, private recreational facili- ties, including swimming pools and tennis courts, intended solely for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the principal use and their guests. B. Shops and restaurants within multiple residence complexes of more than 100 units; provided they are accessible only from the interior of the building, are intended solely for the use of residents, and have no advertising or display visible from the outside of the building. Not more than five (5) percent of the gross floor area of the building in which it is located may be devoted to these accessory uses. Source: Ordinance No. 544 Effective Date: 6-26-81 Subd. 7. Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. Residential facilities serving up to 25 persons. B. Group foster homes. Source: Ordinance No. 6~3 Effective Date: 4-12-85 (Sections 11.26 through 11.29, inclusive, reserved for future expansion. ) GOLDEN VALLEY CC 225 (6-30-88) . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: February 5, 1998 Golden Valley Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan Review for Medley Hills Condominiums, PUD No. 77 -- 9145 Medicine Lake Road - GV Development LLC, (Arne Zachman), Applicant . BACKGROUND This is the third of three interrelated items for which the applicant needs to gain approval in order to achieve his goal of building two condominium buildings totaling 55 units on the subject property (location map attached). The first two items -- amending the comprehensive plan map from Semi-Public Facilities to High Density Residential uses and rezoning the property from 1-1 Institutional to Multiple Dwelling M-1 -- establish that the site is generally appropriate for condominium type development. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process will now begin to establish the exact requirements under which the development would be built and operated. There are two stages of approval for all PUD proposals. This is the first, or Preliminary Design Plan stage. The purpose of this stage is two fold: to give broad concept approval to the proposal, and to call out issues that must be addressed in detail as the proposal moves ahead to the General Plan stage. Preliminary Plan approval does not guarantee that a proposal will become reality. It gives an applicant some assurance of being on the right track, and some guidance in how to proceed. In the case of the Planning Commission in particular, the limitations of Preliminary Plan approval are clearly laid out. CC Sec. 11.55 Subd. 6.0 states that: The Planning Commission's consideration of the application shall limited to a determination of whether the application constitutes an appropriate land use under the general principals and standards adhered to in the City and, if necessary, its report shall include recommended changes in the land use planned by the applicant so as to conform the application or recommend approval subject to certain conditions or modifications. . . SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL Mr. Zachman intends to demolish the existing church building and parking lot on this 3.75 acre site and construct two condominium buildings. Building 1, at the north end of the site, would have 20 units on three levels and Building 2, at the south end, would have 35 units on three levels. Building 1 will have 25 underground parking spaces and Building 2 will have 45 underground parking spaces. The overall density of the site is 14.6 units per acre. The units are primarily two bedroom units with several three bedroom units. The units are all on one level with square footage ranging from about 1,400 sq.ft. to 1,900 sq.ft. Each unit includes a heated, underground garage stall. A second stall can be purchased. The selling prices will start at about $140,000. The market for these units is primarily "empty nesters" , singles and couples without children. They expect very few, if any, children in the buildings. (Enclosed is a brochure from his Eden Prairie condo development which is very similar in scale and price.) The buildings will be condominiums which allow for ownership of each of the units. Separate condominium documents will have to be drawn up which meet state requirements. A draft of those documents has already been submitted to the City for review. The City Attorney and Engineering staff find these documents to be satisfactory. Access to the two buildings will be from a private driveway off of Medicine Lake Road. The development will be required to provide for its own on- site ponding. This item will be discussed later in this report. . . ELIGIBILITY OF APPLICATION PUD's are regulated under City Code Section 11.55. Four subdivisions of that section come into play when screening PUD applications for eligibility. Each is discussed below. After considering Medley Hills Condos in view of all four subdivisions, staff find that the proposal is eligible as a PUD and may enter the Preliminary stage of application. PUD Definition--PUD's are defined in CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 2. This proposal clearly meets the terms of Subd. 2.A.2, which allows PUD's for developments having two or more principal structures on a single parcel of land. PUD Purpose and Intent--Applications must also meet the general purpose and intent of PUD's in Golden Valley, as set out in CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 1. According to Subd. 1, the PUD process is designed for use in situations "where designation of a single use zoning district or application of standard zoning provisions are too rigid for practical application." In order to construct these two buildings under standard zoning (M-1), each unit would have to have frontage on a public street. 2 . Because the entire lot is only 330 feet wide, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct these two buildings, side by side, giving each a lot off of Medicine Lake Road. It would require extra paving for driveways and require an additional driveway off Medicine Lake Road. The County will permit only one driveway for this lot. An alternative may be to build one larger, 55 unit building on the site. The intent of the developer is to have two smaller buildings in order to keep the scale down. Due to ponding requirements, the development of on-site ponding works better if the ponding requirements would be combined for both buildings. Standards and Criteria for PUD's--City Code establishes basic requirements for different types of PUD's in Sec. 11.55, Subd. 5. Residential uses are discussed in Subd. 5. B. There are eight items covered under the basic standards for residential PUD's. The list is as follows with staff comments: . 1. All residential PUD's must have at least 100 ft. of frontage on a public street as measured at the front setback line. The subject property has ample frontage on Medicine Lake Road. 2. All developments must be served by public sewer and water, and fire hydrants must be installed according to a plan approved by City Staff. Water and sewer lines are available to the site. The City Engineering Department has given preliminary review to the utility and grading plan. These items will be addressed in greater detail when the General Plan is reviewed. 3. No principal building shall be nearer than its height to the rear or side property line when such line abuts on a single family use. This development does not abut a single family use. 4. Private roadways and driveways shall be constructed in accordance with a plan approved by the City Engineer. The Engineering Department has reviewed the preliminary plans. Prior to General Plan approval, the final plans will have to be approved by the City Engineer. This is standard practice. 5. No building within the PUD can be located closer than 15 ft. from the back of the curb along any internal road. This requirement is met for both buildings. 6. Provisions for solid waste storage and disposal must be in accordance with a plan approved by the City. Again, this level of detail will be handled at the General Plan stage. 7. Landscaping must be in accordance with a detailed planting plan approved by the City, and must meet the established minimum landscape standards for the type of development. Detailed landscape plans are a General Plan requirement. The developer has submitted a preliminary planting plan on the site plan. The final landscape plan will be . 3 . reviewed by the Building Board of Review. A landscape bond must be submitted to insure the landscape material will survive two years. 8. Shared land, buildings, or infrastructure must be either dedicated to the general public, placed under the landlord's control, or regulated through a landowners association. If the association is used, the documents of the association as subject to City Council approval. In the case of Medley Hills Condos, there will be an association that will be responsible for the maintenance of the buildings, landscaping, driveways and utility systems. The draft of those documents has already been submitted and given preliminary approval. Completeness of Application Packet -- The final screening of any PUD proposal for eligibility purposes in based on CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 6.A.,which establishes the various components that must be submitted at the Preliminary Design Plan stage of application. The City is in possession of the required application form, the preliminary design exhibits, the required mailing list, a preliminary plat application, and an application filing fee. The staff find all components complete. . PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The types of issues that come up in connection with PUD applications vary based on the type of development and the specific characteristics of the development. In this case, staff have identified no particular concerns beyond those that generally accompany residential PUD's. They can be grouped into the categories of zoning trade-offs, park dedication, Livable Communities and miscellaneous engineering/construction issues. Each category will be addressed in the following paragraphs: Zoninq. The "Purpose and Intent" paragraph of the PUD requirements make it clear that a major intent of the PUD process is to "permit design flexibility by substantial variances from the provision of the zoning chapter, including uses, setbacks, height, parking requirements, and similar regulations." Thus, to some extent, variances are a given with any PUD; that is part of what the process exists to do for qualified PUD applications. As noted earlier, the Medley Hills Condos proposal does qualify to apply for a PUD designation. Despite the basic intent of the PUD process with regard to variances, the City must ensure that each proposal does not exceed the bounds of good design practices in the type and extent of variances being requested. To that end, it is useful to have an understanding of how any proposal varies from the normal zoning standards. Based on the related rezoning application, the standards to use for a comparison with the Medley Hills Condo proposal are those of the M-1 Multiple Dwelling district. After reviewing the proposal, staff found that the proposal generally meets with the requirements of that district and that the number of variances are minimal. City Planner Knoblauch has developed a comparison table for the existing or proposed zoning of the site and the actual PUD proposal. Six categories are . 4 . considered including permitted uses, lot width, lot area, setbacks, height and parking. The only major deviation from M-1 standards relates to the parking or garage requirements. The proposed use of the site for two condo buildings is considered a permitted use in the M-1 district. There is no minimum lot width required in the M-1 district. There is no minimum lot area required in the M-1 district. Each unit or apartment must have a least 2,400 sq.ft. of lot area. This site is 3.75 acres or 163,500 sq.ft. in area. Therefore, the maximum number of units that may go on this site is 68. The Zachman proposal is for 55 total units. The M-1 district does have minimum setback requirements. The proposal meets all front, side and rear setback requirements with one exception. Along the east property line close to Building 2, the driveway that goes to the underground parking garage for Building 2 gets as close as 5 feet to the property line for about 120 feet. In the M-1 district, the code states that parking areas shall be at least 12.5 feet from a side property line. The site plan does indicate that there will be a 6 foot wood fence the entire length of the driveway. The M-1 district states that buildings are restricted to three stories. The two condo buildings are to be three stories each. The M-1 district requires that each unit have at least one enclosed garage space for each unit plus one-half garage space for each additional bedroom in a dwelling unit. The Zachman proposal has 55 enclosed parking spaces. This is fewer spaces than would be required under the M-1 standards. If each of the units are considered two bedroom, there should be 83 enclosed spaces and 55 surface spaces for a total of 138 spaces (2.5 spaces per unit). The Zachman proposal indicates 70 enclosed spaces and 27 surface spaces for a total of 97 spaces (1.76 spaces per unit). Mr. Zachman contends that 97 spaces (which includes 11 proof of parking spaces) is adequate for this type of development due to the likely owners. The owners are projected to be "empty nesters", singles and couples without children. He had indicated that in his other development, he has used the same parking ratio and it is more than adequate. I have spoken to planners for the cities of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka where Mr. Zachman has built. In both of those cities, they use two spaces per unit as the standard (one enclosed and one surface). They have both indicated that that standard is adequate. The staff would like to see this proposal have more surface parking in order that there are two spaces per each unit. This would require that 13 more spaces be shown on the site plan. This would then adequately provide for visitor parking and those that chose not to buy a garage space for the second car. The City has been in contact with Hennepin County because they must be made aware of any proposal on a County road. They have told staff that they will not object to the driveway location on Medicine Lake Road. Ideally, the County would have liked the access from the Zachman town home and condo project combined. This was not feasible due to the different time the projects developed. . . 5 . As part of the final plat for this project, Zachman will be required to dedicate an additional 7 feet of right-of-way for Medicine Lake Road. In addition, Zachman will be required to give the County a 3 foot wide easement for a County bike route along Medicine Lake Rd. Park Land Dedication. As a residential development which includes a subdivision, Medley Hills Condos is subject to the City's park dedication requirement of land or its equivalent cash value. The plan shows no land reserved for public purposes with the exception of the dedication of a trail/path over the southwest corner of the site. This path leads to Medley Park. The condo plan has been sent to the Park and Recreation Department for review. They have recommended that the City Council take a cash dedication. Livable Communities. Golden Valley, like most other metro area cities, has made a commitment to contribute its best efforts toward increasing the supply of affordable and life cycle housing by participating in the Livable Communities program created by state law. As part of its commitment, the City adopted a policy of including a Livable Cities impact evaluation in the consideration of any proposed housing development. Staff has prepared such an evaluation (attached). Of the four Livable Communities measurement areas impacted by the proposal, the evaluation indicates a positive impact on housing variety and multi-unit density and a negative impact on ownership affordability and owner/renter mix. Enoineerino/construction Issues. Assistant City Engineer Jeff Oliver has commented on the preliminary grading and utility plans. A copy of his memo is attached. The comments that have been made by the Mr. Oliver are now being addressed by the developer. None of the comments are serious and will be addressed as part of the final development plans. The staff has provided copies to the Inspections Department. Comments from Inspections will be forthcoming when more detailed construction plans are developed. . . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Medley Hills Condominiums, PUD No. 77, subject to the following conditions: 1. All recommendations and requirements. set out in the Engineering Memo from Jeff Oliver, P.E., dated January 26, 1998. 2. The final plat indicate that there is a 7 foot right-of-way dedication for Medicine Lake Road and that a 3 foot bikeway easement be given to Hennepin County. 3. The developer make a park dedication as per the recommendation of the Planning Commission and that the trail/path at the southwest corner of the site be dedicated to the City by easement. 4. Parking be increase to 110 spaces, including 70 enclosed spaces shown on the site plan. 5. Any Livable Communities recommendation the Planning Commission deems it appropriate to make. 6 . Attachments: Location map Site Plans (enclosed separately Zoning Comparison Livable Communities Evaluation Engineering Memo Zachman brochure on Eden Lake Condos (enclosed separately) . . 7 . : '. ". ~ :." CITY OF NEW HOPE f?' ,:,':. l66 7Z ,. -N:,i51/11 t .". "0- . /-1! -;So ,. '-': " &69.10 .. 2bTR':' . 9_n~ ~ 3' __ ~- ~ 17$ "'i!: 0, m"" "'N i\ ;... "', ;' . N oJ....... '"0 I ~Iy ~ " l Cl MEDLEY "C; t,; ~c::, . ~'" 2352-68 0> <0 ..... ~ I, ~~, .,lJ >- ~ I c.9 I !A,';;; y _Ll(]~ '-J~ .. - . . <I 'V 2 -1'1 '" ~ \L~ '<S ,,0> ,,<0 "l.:"t"- ~>- <( S I S2 I :c!l2r~-". ~ ~I . . .:' ,~',~ 2l'~ "'I'" ... "- '0.... ,....,GtIv )- - - "" '..f .. ,:; .1 ' 2359-7'1 . :1 If) ~ . o .. 2J45-57' "l 3("~, 48 . '-,-':", . . o o ~~I . ~I .......J ,wtJ :J: I I ... I. I L&J :", 3 en i-g ..J'l)ICl: .' <~;,~ " ~,I, 1. . "'Y', ~" .. 2l'f ?J' . 2373-85 NO. . MEDICINE LAKE ROAD 'F:J~ ::~.,.. '\~ r.:,' ~o..... '" o I ~\ 0:: " ~ o V~:;<I . CO ::::: ., en " . .-J " ~ .J; Sc:'~'O ~r ..'....~. ::<. Ifjl -;.,-""; ~ ~"'l'l' d~ 7 :;-- " I- ~ L. C /79.99 .. 1263.47" N89059'50-E KINOS ',: /\,MFPI~ '!', .... 69!J. : : .,. IJ~-l ' 30lP _;'-'/J., I. I ~ ~.).~, I ......:.o.s~ NI --izs' """ .;, I ~ ~ 12<< ,~I '" - I ~: 1...1 ",I~ C\ ~I", :" II f '<II:':: ~ ;;:1 j l. s'-- ." . ~ I ~I ~~ 10 . <I '" ::;;1 '1 ,H6u :,;;:, ~~i~::: 9- _.__._ . 'l a. ,'C ' ~ . -: m~;~'~,! ~ . $!nli'Nt ~ ~ I ,f' ~ .:.. """ 1.~,"7...t .'3 I .~~ .:;. 0 ~8: -~ .~ o 91)10 ~ ~ ~ ~l 0 ~ ~ .l\.' , . ~m'3~'H E 110 -10""'''"'' 0: ;,>. -'~"...\ ; j,j/. '.;J' '" z ~',':- " .0 I 4 , 1J & ~.., rI Vf 60 ' .. Ii \ :-___ ...~q'~O'S.";" tL -~'" :,~MEO..EY 'LA. ... i ' l.l llt,lS ;..," G- '0 ZI 82,"-;- . . OL I .... .-. ~ I iI' ~. . _ ,J'JO" .... nd.''' ~.d D/~ .-. b. ~:~. G:l';Q I ~.~ .. \'. ." 'ol'~ ~.- 'S".j~:;;:'..-=' ... '.~ 9 .~.- Din"" (, t., . -. 4 .L, U ::; - _ ~_ _ !..'~. _ ";';'ol._IO~ , _ 0 .- ... '41. Ti ;l~ J h d,'30'H'(i' Nn.l~'lijy <:> In Q ~ ~I~ 2 - ~ I .. " '~I- - - - .~, '" .lJ?':o"J 'g ? .:~ j'li,' en 'a 3 o. '. () Zo ,"O't- i-.IHSZZWj- ; '. ,->~ 9f I Its '''' ",,,, - !i'i~.z5'iz"l;- 1-' -,tS - -)Bl'4V1 ~I~I <:> 6> '" '5+1.' _'1:1= :::: 'in ::;: ~, c: ,'" ~~ - W. !S~.W ~ t .... 'i'e~ ,;v- 1 ~ _",19"', 7 ~: U1 .,.. ot ,'" :::... '> () ," '" ') oi ~ _':..' ,JJ .... 'I . ! " .1 go,' I I :~ I- ::J .0 10)' Vl "oj ~ , i i I i ---3..J.O_,_ '''I' Z~} R. 5d9'3: Sb'~ ~II :. ,., a-.~ .ro.} '0 ... MeDLEy A PARK '~\27 2B'?n ~~'t~ \27T28/?.9,~ h "- ~. ~ _~ .v sS" . l:> " " ~O~~ ~q::~ ~ ~ <:.J" L. ~ .:::: 1....-"'; "v c::;. . ~Q.J ",," " ,.,~ ' ~ '"V sY ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~rt i:-~ . I ... "'\ · 1 01 l ""I -{, I I i I I I 5 ". ~ ~ OUTLOT "'. ' . 11 , ." ~ 2 N II 200 r , scale J"'... 9011 16 R . I ~'l. i ""', ~f ! \ I 'IS ,,\ /f ~ I , :.-: ~ v, ." '" .", '" "} '-. : --;50 - ~;;T - ~ 91./1- , .. I \ ~I"" ~I~ I~ ,'- ...i. ~_silr;2.2"W ~ ~ 0-<' ~o{.,\" .0 '.. /50 . . . ATTACHMENT: COMPARISON OF STANDARDS M-1 MULTIPLE DWELLING ZONING vs. Medley Hills Condominiums M-1 Zoning PUD Proposal Permitted Use: Multi-Unit Dwelling Proposed Uses: 2 buildings, 3 stories Structures up to Three Stories Tall each, to be used as condominiums Width of Lot: N/A Width of Lot: N/A Minimum Lot Area: 2,400 sq.ft. per Proposed Lot Area: 2,900 sq.ft. per unit unit Maximum Height: 3 stories Maximum Height: 3 stories Minimum Setbacks: Proposed Setbacks: Street: Street: 35 Feet Building Building Okay 35 Feet Parking/Driveways Parking Area: on east side, driveway narrows down to 5 feet. Side and Rear: Side and Rear: 25 Feet Building Meets required setbacks. 12.5 Feet Parking/Driveways Minimum Parking: 82.5 Garage Stalls Proposed: 70 Garage Stalls. 55 Outside Sp. 16 Outside Spaces Based on 1 per unit, plus 'Yz per 2nd bedroom. *11 proof of parking spaces located at the Rooms identified as "dens" were not counted southeast side of building 1 as bedrooms; and 1 outside space for each unit. This comparison is based on overall existing AND proposed PUD characteristics. . LIVABLE COMMUNITES EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PUD 77 MEDLEY HILLS CONDOMINIUMS As part of its Livable Communities participation, Golden Valley has committed to including a Livable Communities impact evaluation in its consideration of any proposed housing development. Adopted policy says the City will look at potential impacts on all Livable Communities benchmark areas, but will not necessarily give equal weight to all impacted areas for a particular development, and will not necessarily allow the Livable Communities evaluation to outweigh other concerns that may arise in connection with a proposed development. There are six Livable Communities benchmark areas, not all of which are applicable to this proposal. Staff's evaluation of each area is as follows: . Ownership Affordabilitv Golden Valley was at 60% in its ownership affordability in 1996. The benchmark range is 60% to 77%, so the City is barely inside the bottom limit. The City's goal is to increase its affordable ownership units to 62%. All units in Medley Hills Condo PUD are intended for owner occupancy rather than rental. The developer's early estimates of average sale price are close to $150,000 per unit, well above the current Livable Communitiesaffordability level of $120,000. The developer does not propose to lower the price on any units to meet Livable Communities goals. He has stated that his development costs to not leave enough margin to make the project worthwhile if he has to subsidize a substantial reduction on any units. There are also related issues such as how to maintain affordability after the first sale and how to keep the homeowners association fees (which are part of the ownership costs) from pushing the unit beyond the affordability limit. Rental Affordabilitv This benchmark area is not applicable to the Medley Hills Condo PUD proposal. Variety in House For the purposes of Livable Communities, any type of housing unit that is not in the form of traditional detached single family homes is considered as contributing to variety in housing. Current estimates put Golden Valley's non- detached housing units at 27.6% of total housing. The benchmark range is 37 to 41%. The City's goal is 31%. If the Medley Hills Condo PUD is built with 55 condo units, and no traditional single family homes are built in the same period, the City's varied housing will increase to 28.3% of total housing units. . Owner/Renter Mix Golden Valley's ranking in this area is 79% owned units. The benchmark range is 64 to 67%. The City's goal is to maintain the present level. The Medley Hills Condo PUD 'proposal is intended to be all owner-occupied, which will work against the City's stated goal. 1 . . . SinQle-Familv Detached Densitv This benchmark area is not applicable to the Medley Hills Condo PUD proposal. Multi-Unit Densitv Golden Valley's present ranking is 10.8 units per acre. The benchmark range is 14 to 15 units per acre. The City's goal is 12 units per acre. The only way to make a significant upward change in this benchmark area is to concentrate on high-rise developments such as the Calvary Square PUD. The proposed density of the Medley Hills Gondo PUD is about 15 units per acre, which will slightly help Golden Valley move toward its goal. 2 . MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: MARK GRIMES DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT JEFF OLIVER, P.E. ~ ASSISTANT CITY ~ER DATE: JANUARY 26,1998 REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR MEDLEY HILLS CONDOMINIUMS SUBJECT: Engineering staff has reviewed the plans submitted for the proposed Medley Hills Condominiums project. This project is located south of Medicine Lake Road and immediately west of the Medley Hills Townhomes site. Based upon this review, staff has identified the following issues that need to be addressed: . Site and Utility Plan: 1) The plan indicates two watermain extensions from the east to serve this development. In order to provide adequate domestic and fire flows and minimize the possibility of shutting down all water to the site, it is desirable to provide watermain looping from two different directions. The City currently has a six inch watermain available just 'outside of this property to the southwest, in the same development where the sewer is being extended from. Connection to this system is possible, but additional drainage and utility easements will be needed to cover extension into this property. The developer must acquire these easements and submit a legal description to the City for review and preparation of an easement document. Copies of the as-built drawings and plats for this area will be forwarded to the developer's engineer for their use. 2) Because the watermain as discussed above provides an important loop in the City system, it must be designed and constructed to City standards, and will eventually become part of the City system. The sanitary sewer will be the developers responsibility to maintain. 3) The location of all internal fire hydrants must be shown on this plan. . 4) As required by City Code, the developer must provide a drainage and utility easement covering all the water distribution system on site. This easement must be 20 feet wide, centered on the watermain. The developer must provide a legal description for this easement. . Gradina Plan: 1) A permit will be required from the Hennepin County Public Works Department for the driveway connection to Medicine Lake Road. 2) The detail plate for the gravel construction entrance must include a drive over berm as required by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. 3) Additional silt fence must be included on the plan across the entire southern plat boundary and along Medicine Lake Road. 4) The developer must submit all water quality/quantity calculations for the proposed ponding systems for review by the City and the BCWMC. 5) The developer must submit calculations of the capacity of the existing storm sewer system along the eastern boundary for review. These calculations must include the discharges from both pond and the existing flow, and must be carried though to the discharge to the south. . 6) The proposed pond does not appear to include a 10 foot wide shelf around the perimeter as required by the BCWMC. 7) The plan shows a retaining wall, varying from 0 to 9 feet tall, on the downhill side of the pond. In order to eliminate any possible wall failures due to loading, any required walls must be on the up hill side of the pond. 8) The storm sewer discharge into the pond must be relocated to maximize the distance from the pond outlet.' 9) The driveway grades in the loop in front of the southern building appear to be quite steep when vehicles starting from a stopped position at the drop off, especially in winter, are considered. The developer should review and lessen the grades if possible. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. c: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections. Brent Roshell, Passe Engineering Arnie Zachmann .