Loading...
10-26-98 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting - Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Monday, October 26, 1998 7pm I. Approval of Minutes - September 28, 1998 II. Informal Public Hearing - Subdivision Applicant: Honeywell, Inc. Address: 1885-1985 Douglas Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota Request: To subdivide the existing property into three lots. III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals IV. Other Business V. Adjournment ~ . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 1998 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 7pm. Those present were Chair Pentel, Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Martens, McAleese, and Shaffer; absent was Kapsner. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, and Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes MOVED by Groger, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 24, 1998 minutes as submitted with the deletion of condition 7 on page five because an elevation plan was not submitted, and with the following rewording of paragraph seven on page four from "Commissioner McAleese a variance is granted because of a hardship and that cost is not justified as a hardship." to "Commissioner McAleese said that a variance is granted because of a hardship and that cost is not justified as a hardship." II. Informal Public Hearina - Amendment to the Transportation Element of the Golden Vallev Comprehensive Plan Purpose: The proposed amendment would provide for an extension of Xenia North of Glenwood Avenue, where the extended road would join with Turners Crossroad City Planner Beth Knoblauch gave the staff report, noting that two types of information would be presented, but only one falls under the official charge of the Commission. It would be important to distinguish between the two throughout the presentation and later deliberations. She noted the purpose of the hearing is to consider an amendment to the transportation element of the. comprehensive plan, which is a generalized, long-range document. The charge of the Planning Commission is to make a recommendation on whether or not it makes sense, at some future time, to extend Xenia Avenue for use as an alternative collector route to Turner's Crossroad. Because there is a specific proposal now being developed, Planner Knoblauch said staff would also try to provide as much information on the proposal as possible, but that second type of information does not fall under the charge of the Planning Commission. Planner Knoblauch summarized the legal requirements for the City's transportation plan, and how local plans must be in accordance with guidelines set by the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council. She explained how the Metro Council planning handbook defines "collector routes." The construction of 1-394 cut off direct access to Turner's Crossroad, which is a designated collector route in the transportation plan. Today access to and from 1-394 is at Xenia Avenue, which ends at Laurel. Traffic coming from or going to any point north of Laurel must zigzag between Xenia and Turner's in order to accomplish the trip. ,. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 1998 Page 2 Planner Knoblauch talked about problems with the existing street configuration, including the hazardous intersection at Glenwood Avenue and Turner's Crossroad, the difficulty of moving traffic efficiently through the zigzag route, and the generally substandard conditions along Turner's Crossroad for the amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic it must bear. The City studied options for improving Turner's Crossroad a few years ago, but none worked very well. There are thirteen single family homes on the east side of Turner's between Laurel and Glenwood, and all are set back at around the thirty-five-foot minimum distance from the right-of- way. On the west side of Turner's are only three homes, with somewhat greater setbacks; however, the church and fire station are at the minimum setback which would make widening of the road on the west very difficult. Acquiring necessary additional right-of-way and still protecting all the adjacent single family homes from traffic impacts did not appear possible along Turners. . Planner Knoblauch explained that the surplus railroad right-of-way now provides an opportunity to extend Xenia Avenue as an alternative route, eliminating the zigzag. There are fewer single family homes abutting this route than along Turner's, and since at least 1982 all of the ones south of Glenwood A venue have been designated on the comprehensive plan map for future conversion to apartment uses. While detailed design plans are not yet completed, it appears only one home absolutely must be removed in order to extend Xenia, and the City already owns that home; others are proposed for acquisition and removal because of anticipated impacts from the road. Commissioner Groger asked staff that if the Commission recommends approval of the . amendment to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and the City Council agreed, then after reviewing the specific design plan it is determined that the impact the road may have on neighboring properties is too problematic, can the plan go back to the "table". City Planner Knoblauch said that if the plan is found to be unworkable, then yes, the plan could be amended again only to take away future worries that are unfounded because the plan would not work. Knoblauch added that she believes the concept is workable but there may be some questions as to timing. She said staff is aware of some unresolved issues concerning the alignment, but there is enough information to know that it is workable. Groger commented that this was not an inexpensive project and asked where funds would come from to pay for it. Knoblauch said that a large portion of money would come from redevelopment money. She added this road would be designated as a State Aid Road, money would also come from the State. Chair Pentel asked if the proposed road and affected area is now part of the Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan. Knoblauch said that an amendment to the Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan would come before the Planning Commission at an upcoming meeting that would include this area. Pentel asked what the ponding was for and would it cover the Golden Hills Redevelopment area as well. Knoblauch commented the proposal at this time is to make the proposed pond a regional pond. She said Jeff Oliver, the City's Engineer, could address this subject more clearly. Pentel asked staff, if the Commission recommends in favor of the proposal and goes on to the . City Council, the Commission would not see the plan again. Knoblauch said that was correct, but would see the plan again when the Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan was amended. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 1998 Page 3 Pentel reiterated Groger's comments that the specific design plan would not come back before the Planning Commission. Grimes told the Commission that the approval of this amendment is solely at the discretion of the City Council. Knoblauch said ordinarily this body would not be involved in the design of the alignment of the road. She added the Planning Commission could make a second recommendation to have the plan brought back to them when a greater level of detail on the road has been worked out. She said because reviewing the design plan is not a specific charge of the Planning Commission, the second recommendation would be needed. Commissioner Martens asked staff to comment on the driving force of this proposal. He said he understands the logic and desirability of the proposal. Martens added that he understands the traffic problem at Glenwood and Turners and future development would compound the problem. Knoblauch said the biggest problem at this time is lack of definition in a north/south route through the area. Martens said that he doesn't see a traffic problem at this time but when more high density occurs it would then be more important to straighten out that path. Knoblauch said there are now proposals for higher density uses on the south side of Laurel and referred to the traffic specialist from SEH who could address this better. Pentel asked Mr. Van Wormer to explain the difference between the recommendation found in the staff report which is different from that in the traffic study. Glen Van Wormer, a Registered Professional Engineer from SHE, came forward for his presentation. He said that the study gave several options of A, Band C and that Band C had the same concept but it differs on how the roadway continues north of Glenwood. Van Wormer gave a summary of the Traffic Study of February, 1997 reviewing attached maps of 1-394, including Laurel over to Winnetka. He said the study looked at existing traffic studies and potential development and redevelopment. By looking at trips per day, one can generally predict traffic going onto existing streets and then make recommendations. He said there were a series of meetings with the public and questionnaires were passed out, and quite.a few have been received commenting that they did not like the traffic on Laurel and Turners. He said there has been an extensive amount of public input involved to-date. He noted the extension of Golden Hills Drive east to west and down to 1-394, and said a lot of traffic is being diverted from the south and north to 1-394. Van Wormer also commented on the traffic coming out of the Colonnade and turning left onto Turners Crossroad to go north. Van Wormer next talked about traffic counts on Turners presently being around 6700 trips per day and with the expected growth from St. Louis Park and regional growth, the volume is expected to go to approximately 9000 trips per day. He noted that when the count goes above 8000, more lanes are needed. Van Wormer talked about pedestrian concerns along Turners and Glenwood and the overall concept of retuming Tumers Crossroad back into a residential street by turning traffic over to Laurel and Xenia and then north. He briefly talked about a proposed pedestrian bridge on the east side of Turners at Glenwood for safer access to the school. He said the Comprehensive Plan shows the area in question as multi-family housing and there is an opportunity to provide a south-north route by using the railroad right-of-way through the area. He reviewed the road plan and discussed pedestrian paths along the roadways, the extension north of Glenwood and the land benefit to the school because of the proposed road. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 1998 Page 4 Pentel asked about the pedestrian bridge across Glenwood Avenue and would kids use the bridge or just cross the street. She asked if there was enough space to construct the bridge. Van Wormer commented that on the north side there would be adequate room for the bridge, but on the south side there may be a space problem and may need to look at buying a home or use a portion of the front yard. Van Wormer continued by saying that experience has shown that if the elementary school can get its children to use the bridge, they will and it becomes habit, but experience also shows that jr. high kids will walk across the road instead of using the bridge. . Pentel asked if he had looked beyond the study area where traffic dumps out onto Turners Crossroad by Lilac Drive North. She is concerned about the number of trips that will go under TH 100 north of the school and connect with TH 55 near the old White House property. Van Wormer agreed that during construction of Hwy. 100 people will be very creative in their driving pattern but once construction is done, it will need to be determined how to get people out of the neighborhoods which under the new plan does not give drivers a time savings to cut through neighborhoods. Pentel questioned whether drivers coming from the Colonnade property would still use Turners Crossroad to go north. Van Wormer said the plan is to close Turners Crossroad at Golden Hills Drive so no left turn could be made. He then talked about Station 3 fire trucks having to take a few extra minutes to go to Xenia instead of going straight up Turners to Glenwood. Commissioner Shaffer asked the consultant if he foresees any additional traffic north of . Glenwood. Van Wormer said very little with this concept because there is no destination for drivers at this point. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Gregg Hackett, 130 Jersey Avenue North, commented that his children attend Meadowbrook Elementary. He said the safety of children and parents who walk to the school is a concern. He questions whether shifting the traffic from Turners Crossroad to Xenia on Glenwood will solve the traffic problem in that there will be the same amount of traffic. Children and adults, from the west, will need to cross over Xenia to get to school. Hackett does not believe the proposal would solve the safety issue for the children. He believes a 3D-foot roadway should be maintained with trees, sidewalks, and symbols that give people the cue that this is still a residential area and to slow down. Hackett noted that the Xenia extension may make sense, but don't close Turners, then Xenia and Turners can share the traffic and lessen the demand on one street. He also said the turning radius at Turners needs to be addressed and possibly made smaller which would tell drivers to slow down. Hackett again commented that the safety of school children and pedestrians is the main concern. Clarence Green, 300 Turners Crossroad, commented proper access to Glenwood Avenue from 1-394 was never handled correctly and now traffic must use Xenia and then Turners to get to Glenwood Avenue. Green questioned why the entire railroad right-of-way could not be used so his land could be left alone. Green talked about his father who owned the land previously, his . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission ~eptember 28, 1998 Page 5 . sister living in the area and that their children and grandchildren gather at his home. Hesaid that he does not understand why this area needs to be used and his home condemned. Green reviewed a map showing where the proposed holding pond could be placed in order to make the road straighter and would alleviate the taking of his property. . . Clare Miller, 5720 Laurel Avenue, said he was married to Clarence Green's sister and that she has lived on this land all her life. He questioned why the retention pond could not be placed where the tennis courts are and then use the land to the west for the road and leave their land alone. Miller questioned why the retention pond was being used for the commercial developments to the south. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, said his concern is the safety issue and believes there needs to be better access at Glenwood and Turners which would make it safer than it is today. He said traffic needs to be restricted and pedestrian pathways need to be provided. Knaeble said the issues address four or five single family dwellings that may be taken. He added that the apartments adjacent to the road would be impacted and has this proposal been presented to them. Knaeble said the Planning Commission should see more detailed design plans and believes it is a dereliction of the Commission's duties by passing it onto the City Council without reviewing detailed plans. He asked the Commission not to approve the amendment without first seeing these detailed plans. Knaeble said that if the proposal provided a safer passage to the school he would approve of it, but he doesn't see it with this plan. Knaeble believes that more study needs to be done and it would be premature to change the designation of Turners as a collector street for something that is not yet designed. Steve Craypatch, 4014 Russell Avenue, Minneapolis, told the commission that his wife was a relative of the Green's. He said that he has done volunteer work in the City of Minneapolis and understands the Commission's task at hand. He reviewed the City Planner's map showing where the Millers and Greens live and telling the Commission how these people's lives have changed over the years because of redevelopment in the area. Craypatch said the proposal for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is not for a specific road but a plan for the 'future and then said that inclusion of the entire area would be another comprehensive change to the plan. Knoblauch said there would be no land use changes to the Comprehensive Plan at this time, that the plan states the land south of Glenwood will be used for multi-family housing, except for the church and fire station. Pentel explained the next plan to come before the Commission would be an amendment to the Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan that would include this area. Craypatch told the Commission that the way the road is proposed homes would be destroyed. He requested the Commission layover the amendment until a more detailed design plan could be reviewed. Missy Nelson, 5635 Glenwood Avenue, believes that a direct link from 1-394 to Glenwood via Xenia would only increase traffic. She said many children come from the west to go to Meadowbrook School, and cannot see how Xenia will divert traffic, especially with the entire area as multi-family. Nelson questioned why multi-family was proposed as a future land use in this area. Knoblauch said that multi-family land use has been in the Comprehensive Plan at least since 1982. Grimes concurred. Nelson asked if there is any other possible way to address the traffic situation and not extend Xenia Avenue. Grimes said there are traffic projections that could be addressed by the SEH Consultant. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 1998 Page 6 Frank Hetman, 124 Paisley Lane, said that he has spent time as a Golden Valley Planning Commissioner and has been a citizen for over 50 years. He said his sister is affected by the proposal. Hetman told the Commission that it is hard for citizens to assess and understand what will happen in the future. He talked about the developments to the south of Xenia and the need for regional ponding, which is not needed for the existing homes in this area. Hetman talked about the proposed road meandering and it being four lanes in width. He asked the CommisSion to hear the people who are most affected by this proposal. Hetman said too many times plans have been accepted, and then cannot be taken back. He said there should be consideration to the issues and those.most affected by those issues, and requests this consideration. Pentel told Mr. Hetman that the proposed road would be only two lanes except at the intersections. . . Nancy Donnay, 6015 Glenwood Avenue, said the issue is that people who live on Glenwood and north of Glenwood do not know what is going on. She believes that the plan should include a much wider area, including Winnetka over to Laurel, and not just Xenia. She believes looking at only Xenia is premature. Donnay said she was concerned with safety around Meadowbrook, and by creating a larger intersection in this area would be more dangerous than what exists now. She believes thatthe City cannot keep losing low income housing in the City and not making up for it. She is concerned that a couple of homes will need to be taken in order to construct the ramp across Glenwood. Donnay believes that all these issues need to be addressed and maybe the proposal should wait until after the construction of Hwy. 100 has been completed to see what will happen with traffic flow. Laurie Frakes, 5740 Laurel Avenue, is concerned about the regional pond in that the . construction ofit will use too much property. She questioned whether the commercial property south of Laurel, which will need ponding, will infringe on the multi-family dwellings, and if so are the commercial owners going to acquire the property or will the City have title to it. She said approximately 20 adults and 20 children will be displaced by this proposal and is upset about it. Henry Pieart, 5560 Glenwood Avenue, said he does driving for a living five days a week and has seen the traffic levels on Glenwood. He said that empirical data is not needed to know that if the street is widened, the faster the traffic will flow. Pieart said the rerouting of traffic through Xenia upto Hwy. 100 is a concern for safety of children at the school. Pieart believes the wider the road the longer it will take for the children to get across. Glenn Eiden, 345 Brunswick Ave. So., said he has seen traffic increase on Glenwood and Laurel. Eiden talked about the early days of planning in the City, traffic on 1-394, Turners Crossroad and Hwy. 100, and Market Street being a service road to 1-394. Eiden said that he has no answers but agrees with Groger that a dangerous precedent would be set if the Planning Commission does not see this plan again. Pentel kept the hearing open for further comment and requested the consultant to come forward and answer questions from the public. Van Wormer said the City is lOOking an amendment to its Comprehensive Plan with some designs for the road, but said there would be no detailed designs until after the road design is added to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. He addressed the alignment . of the proposed road noting that the road designed with a curve would help create the affect that this is not a high-speed roadway. He said another option being drawn up is a straight road . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 1998 Page 7 pass the apartments and homes. Van Wormer added that the alignment could follow the railroad right-of-way but it would cut through substantial commercial area compared to residential and multi-family so there is a balance of equating roads to land use. He said the proposed road would be 30 feet wide with berming and landscaping, so it has the effect of looking wider. He added the widening of the road would be only at the intersections because of turn lanes. Van Wormer commented that as part of the design it is being looked at where the sidewalks and trails should be located. He said this plan shows sidewalks/trails on either side of Xenia and then continue the trail system around the pond. He added there are a number of options being looked at but nothing is detailed until the Comprehensive Plan says to do it. Van Wormer addressed the question of keeping Turners open. He said there would then be two major intersections on Glenwood and would be difficult to design them for s,afety and to function properly to move traffic on Glenwood. He addressed the issue of traffic moving through the residential neighborhoods and pedestrians walking to school and staying on the north side of Glenwood and keeping out of the movement of vehicles turning off of Xenia and onto Glenwood. Pentel said she was concerned about the school having to monitor another intersection at the north end of the extended Xenia, especially because drivers will want to take the quickest route to their destinations, such as in St. Louis Park with Home Depot and other amenities. She noted that there is a significant walking population coming to Meadowbrook located north of Glenwood and west of Turners. Van Wormer commented that either the children will need to walk along the sidewalks on Xenia Avenue north of Glenwood or maybe something could be done north of the railroad tracks, located north of the school. He added that this particular question may be getting into the design of the road. He suggested that many of the questions are good ones, but how far can we go into details. Pentel commented that these are issues that should be addressed at some time during the process. Van Wormer agreed. Commissioner Shaffer asked Van Wormer when he investigated the Xenia road design, that if the road went straight how would it affect properties along it. Van Wormer said with the road curving to the west, it stays almost completely out of the apartment property but impacts the northerly of the two houses to the south. If the road would go straight north, it would be close to the northerly house on to the west and close to the apartments, but moving it over the road affects different properties. Commissioner McAleese asked if the proposed road would look like Laurel Avenue or the current Turners Crossroad. Van Wormer said the concept drawing shows a 30-foot wide street with curb and gutter. He talked about the road meandering which makes it look more residential which slows traffic down. McAleese believes at first the meandering road would slow him down but after its been driven the 10th time, he's not sure it would slow him down anymore. Van Wormer said studies have found that on a wide road drivers go fast, on curvy roads drivers slow down. McAleese said that when one drives down the same road over and over again, it's easy to overcome going slow because one becomes familiar with the surrounding characteristics. Van Wormer said the human factor shows that on a curved road people may over accelerate, but then lower their speed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 1998 Page 8 Jeff Oliver, City Engineer, said that the proposed pond is a regional pond and that ponding is a requirement for flood control and water quality. He said as development increases so does water runoff, and with the construction of ponds, water is held in it long enough to eliminate flooding down stream. He added that water contains sediment and nutrients that settle to the bottom on the pond before draining through the south fork of Sweeney Lake, Sweeney Lake itself, then Bassett Creek and its final destination of the Mississippi. Oliver said that large regional ponds are preferred and the concept of the regional pond was developed for efficiency and maintenance. He said land is more efficiently used by creating one large pond instead of many smaller ponds. . Oliver responded to McAleese's question on how the road would look. He said the vision of the road is not like Laurel or Turners. He sees it more heavily landscaped like a parkway that would include sidewalks and trails to make it pedestrian friendly - like a gateway into the community. Pentel said an audience member had a question about regional ponding used for commercial development to the south or elsewhere in Golden Hills. Oliver said the regional ponding would serve the area throughout the Golden Hills Redevelopment area. Martens asked if there were alternatives to this regional pond. Oliver said not really, that staff is trying to identify other flood storage areas within this subwatershed and there are not a lot of options available due to the density of development. Martens asked if the commercial land use was reduced could it accommodate ponding on site. Oliver said it was possible, but to keep in mind the efficiencies of a regional pond vs. smaller ponds. Martens asked if the ponding could . be placed south as well as north of Laurel and Oliver said it could depending on how much redevelopment land the HRA could give up for ponding. Martens asked how much land would be taken up. Oliver responded the regional pond would take up a large portion of land and depends on the volume that is driven by the wet volume that is needed for the water quality improvements to Sweeney Lake. Grimes noted that a majority of property where the pond is proposed is on excess railroad right-of-way that the City has purchased; Oliver concurred. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, asked about traffic counts for Xenia Avenue, noting that Turners is approximately 7800 trips per day; Van Wormer said slightly under 7000. Knaeble said if Xenia was not constructed the trip per day would go to 9000. Van Wormer said correct. Knaeble said there are two separate issues the first being the need for regional ponding in this area and then traffic. He said the study shows that the increase in traffic to Laurel in the next 20 years is 20 or 30% and believes this is not a significant increase. He questioned whether the need for the road is driven by the traffic on 1-394 and should the traffic from the south be restricted instead of having a back door to Glenwood or Hwy. 100. Frank Hetman, 124 Paisley Lane, asked if the Chair had said that this item would be continued. Pentel said that she continued the present informal public hearing until after the consultant spoke to answer questions from the audience, but would close the public hearing if no one in the audience had further questions. Hetman believes that the hearing should be continued because other issues have been brought up. He said he doesn't believe the regional pond is in the correct place. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 1998 Page 9 . Clarence Green, 5740 Laurel and 300 Turners Crossroad, suggested that the road follow the railroad right-of-way from the south end to the north which would eliminate the taking of properties. He reviewed a map pointing out where the road could go and the pond could be placed on an abandoned house site. Nancy Donnay, 6015 Glenwood Avenue, believes the road will increase traffic flow in this area and the entire area of Golden Hills. She believes traffic should be looked at to see what roads drivers are using. She suggested the Commission hold another informal public hearing with a plan that shows more details. Missy Nelson, 5635 Glenwood Avenue, suggested that the Commission hold another hearing because there have been no other hearings on this matter. She said she heard about the meeting through word of mouth. Clare Miller, 5720 Laurel Avenue, has not seen anyone come out to his property to look at it and welcomed the Commission to do so. He does not believe that people have been contacted concerning this amendment. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel told the audience that the Planning Commission's charge is to make a recommendation to the City Council and it is that body that makes the decision concerning this proposal. . Martens asked staff about the notification process. Knoblauch commented that there is no specific notification process, but there are people who should be involved with the process and that is done through a legal notice. She said the legal notice, an article on the amendment and a notice from the City were written up in the Sun Post. McAleese stated that no notices were sent because it is a change to the Comprehensive Plan, which affects a broad area, and it is difficult to determine who has a specific interest in this item. Knoblauch said that was correct. McAleese said the concern is that people feel their homes are going to be taken by the City in the future and believes this process is a little bit different than the typical process. Knoblauch said there have been meetings with immediate affected property owners that are still on-going. She said it is the intention of the City to meet with all affected property owners. McAleese said that when the City looks at amending its Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Land Use Plan, it has usually looked at impacts, such as the Livable Communities commitment the City has made. He asked if the City has looked at this particular case since homes would be affected by this amendment. Knoblauch said the City is not sure what the rents for the proposed affected units are going at. She said staff is looking at the possibility of bringing Habitat for Humanity to do .some housing. She also commented that those people that would be displaced by the proposed road would receive relocation funds. Pentel asked if relocation money was available for renters as well; Knoblauch said yes. . Pentel commented that she has children attending Meadowbrook Elementary and is aware of the access issues. She said she is not convinced that there needs to be another road and this road extension can potentially adversely impact the school. Pentel noted that traffic counts are Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 1998 Page 10 an educated guess as to how much additional traffic would be generated. She said it is difficult to make a decision when one does not have all the specifics, but knows this is an important piece that needs to be acted on prior to the City figuring out the specifics to the design. Groger commented that it is extremely difficult to make a decision without seeing the specifics of the road design. He said this specific plan troubles him because he sees traffic problems at Turners and Glenwood as substandard and it needs improvements, but is boxed in with the school and church on corners across from each other. He talked about the intersection to the south of Turners and Glenwood being difficult to turn left to go north on Turners. Groger said he sees the need for an improvement in traffic in this area. He said there have been professional traffic managers who have looked at this problem and the concept plan presented is what they came up with. He said he was inclined to recommend approval for the design with reservations and also with the understanding that this is not a specific proposal before the Commission. Groger said he would make a second motion to have a more specific plan come back to the Commission for review because there are many questions left, such as width, turning lanes, and pedestrian crossings. He said that if it is determined that the details cannot be worked out, this plan can be turned back. Martens said he understands the logic of the realignment and agrees with Mr. Hackett's comments about priorities and traffic safety. He said he would like to see more detail before he could give his support to the amendment. Johnson questioned whether an alternative corridor makes sense or does the proposed concept make sense, and believes the Commission does not have enough detail to where the road should be placed. She believes the existing situation at Turners and Glenwood is a hazardous area and a road extension to the north of this intersection is a good alternative for the children. She believes there would be advantages to have adequate signals at an intersection north of Turners and Glenwood. She doesn't believe the width of the proposed road is an issue because it would be smaller or the same as many residential streets. She said she likes the idea of a curving road between the two intersections. Johnson supports the proposed Xenia road extension from Laurel to north of Meadowbrook School, but said it is a hard decision without seeing more details. She agrees with Groger that when a more detailed plan is ready to be presented to the City Council that it come back to the Commission for review. McAleese said he holds the same position as Johnson. He agrees that it makes sense to have this extension going through this area, but the location does not make sense at this point. He said other options should be looked at for the roadway itself. McAleese said he was unsure what the vote by the commission does because of a "concept plan" being passed on to the City Council and then the Metropolitan Council. He asked if the proposal could be approved without any kind of drawing associated with it. Knoblauch said yes but some sort of drawing would need to be passed on to the Metropolitan Council showing that the City wants some kind of connection from "this point to this point" and the attached is an illustrative drawing. She added that the concept plan is a concept picture of what would happen, which will give the Metropolitan planners an idea of what is being proposed instead of what is there now. McAleese said he was reluctant to vote in favor of the amendment, but would because he believes it needs to go on to the next process and strongly encourages the City Council to bring the design details back to the Commission which gives the public more opportunities to speak. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 28, 1998 Page 11 . Pentel said she could not support the proposal because she is not convinced there needs to be a different connection at Turners Crossroad and Glenwood Avenue. She questioned whether this would correct other traffic problems in the corridor and mayor may not create other problems. Shaffer suggested there needs to be some kind of fix-up because of what has been done by 1- 394 and Turners noting there is no real route through this area. He said there should be a direct route, but how to do this is an issue. He said there are concerns about whether this road design is safer, and believes it could be if it is well thought out and goes through the process of public input from the community, church and school. Shaffer said anott-ler issue is the displacement of residents for a street and this should be a concern of the City, and avoid taking any homes if possible. He said in general he is in favor of the amendment for a road but believes it still needs a lot of work. MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried by a vote of 4 to 2 (one Commissioner absent) to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed amendment to the Transportation element of the Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan for a connector road from Xenia to the north end of Turners. Groger suggested the concept plan (Figure 78), found in the traffic study, be used for presentation because it is more generic. . MOVED by Groger, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously that should the proposed amendment be approved by the City Council, it be routed back to the Planning Commission at an informal public hearing to review with a more detailed design of the road. III. Reports on Meetinas of the Housina and Redevelopment Authoritv. City Council and Board of Zonina Appeals No reports were given. IV. Other Business Martens said that he may attend one of the conferences. No other business was addressed. V. Adjournment Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 9:40pm. Emilie Johnson, Secretary . / . MEMORANDUM RE: October 20, 1998 Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Plat of Honeywell Golden Valley Addition -1885-1985 Douglas Drive -- Honeywell, Inc., Applicant DATE: TO: FROM: . This application for subdivision covers all of the 98 acres owned by Honeywell on their Douglas Drive campus. The property is currently not platted. Honeywell would now like to sell the west 10.9 acres of the site. In order to sell this property, Honeywell must plat the entire campus into lots. The proposed plat would consist of three platted lots. Lot 1 is the west lot where the Little League field is now located. It is about 11 acres in size. Lot 2 is the existing site for the Honeywell plant and is 83.5 acres in size. Lot 3 is at the southeast comer of the site. This 3.5 acre lot is the site of a drainage pond over which the City now has an easement. The proposal is to have Honeywell give Lot 3 to the City for drainage purposes. The Honeywell property is currently designated on the Comprehensive Plan map for Industrial uses. The property is zoned Industrial. The current use of the property by Honeywell is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning for the site. The existing building and parking areas all meet or exceed the required setbacks as the property now exists. (The Little League field is considered a legally non-conforming use. The current zoning code requires that ball fields now are permitted in the Industrial zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit.) Access and utility services to the site will remain as they are today. If and when the west lot (Lot 1) is developed, utility and driveway access will have to be provided to the site. I have spoken to the City Engineer and it appears feasible to provide utility and access to Lot 1 from Sandburg Road. Lot 1 is clearly large enough to support a building since it is over 10 acres in size and has over 400 feet of frontage on Sandburg Road. The existing Little League field now exists on Lot 1. The City has entered into preliminary discussions with Honeywell regarding the purchase of Lot 1. If the City does purchase Lot 1, the Little League field will remain. If the City does not purchase the lot, it will be sold on the open market for a use that is consistent with . / . the Industrial zoning of the lot. In that case, the Little League field mayor may not remain, depending on the future use of the site. The Little League field has existed on this site for the past 30 years on a lease from Honeywell to the Golden Valley Little League. Honeywell now uses Lot 1 for storage and parking. There are about 140 parking spaces on what would be Lot 1. Prior to the final plat being approved by the City Council, the parking on Lot 1 would have to be removed and the proper setback from the parking lot at the west end of Lot 2 be reestablished. (Parking areas are to be setback at least 10 feet from side property lines.) The parking on Lot 1 may only be used for parking for uses on Lot 2 if such permission is granted by the City Council. If such permission were requested, the parking lot on Lot 1 would also have to meet the required side setback of 10 feet from the east property line of Lot 1. (In other words, there would have to be a 20 foot green area between the parking lot on Lot 1 and the parking lot on Lot 2.) Platting Requirements Because the Honeywell property is not currently platted, the division of this property into three lots must be considered a full subdivision rather than a minor subdivision. This is the preliminary platting state in which City Code Section 12.11 calls for information to be provided on a variety of existing conditions, subdivision design features, and miscellaneous other characteristics. This information is summarized below: 1. The boundaries of the plat are clearly indicated, as required. 2. The existing zoning is Industrial. 3. The approximate acreage is 95. 4. The preliminary plat provides information on existing streets and other public right-of-way or easements within its boundaries and around its perimeter. The plat does not, however, include the location of all existing buildings on the site. This matter was discussed with the owner and the City Engineer. It was decided that information regarding the building and parking lot locations was not necessary over most of the site. Information regarding the location of driveways and parking areas is provided over the western 600 feet of the Honeywell property where any new development would occur. 5. The preliminary plat provides all required information of existing utilities where new development would occur (near Lot 1). 6. Boundary lines of adjacent properties are shown on the plat. 7. The plat reflects the required topographic and related data for the Lot 1 and the western portion of Lot 2. It was determined this information was not required for the entire preliminary plat after consultation with the City Engineer. Subdivision Design Features. Since City and County streets and City utilities already serve this site, there are few design features to discuss. The following are those that should be highlighted: 1. When Lot 1 is developed, the developer will have to obtain City utility services. Those utility services are available in Sandburg Road. . . 2 . 2. When Lot 1 is developed, the developer will be required to provide on-site ponding for water quality and quantity purposes. 3. This plat has been submitted to Hennepin County for review. The staff expects that the County will request that the City require additional right-of- way for Douglas Drive. As you can see on the plat, there is an uneven right- of-way width along Douglas Drive in front of Honeywell. 4. Lot 3 at the southeast corner of the site will be given to the City for drainage purposes. Currently, the City has an easement over this property. The Department of Public Works prefers this as a dedication to the City. 5. At the northeast comer of the site, there is a 220-foot by 262-foot area that is not a part of this plat. City records show that this area is a part of the Honeywell site. The staff is recommending that this area be made a part of Lot 2. My understanding is that this is the former site of a gas station. 6. The plat indicates that Sandburg Road and Douglas Drive are given to the City and County by easement for roadway purposes. On the final plat, these roads must be shown by dedication. 7. The plat now shows easements for street and utility purposes. Additional drainage and utility easements along property lines must also be shown on the final plat as required by the City Engineer. . Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of Honeywell Golden Valley with the following conditions: 1. The property at the northeast corner of the plat, which measures 216 feet by 262 feet be made a part of the final plat. Honeywell owns this property. It should be combined with Lot 2. 2. If requested by Hennepin County, Honeywell shall dedicate additional right-of- way for Douglas Drive. 3. All drainage and utilities easements required by the City Engineer shall be shown on the final plat. 4. All streets shall be dedicated on the final plat. 5. Prior to approval of the final plat, the parking lot shown on Lot 1 shall be removed. The parking area at the west end of Lot 2 shall be modified in order to provide for the required 10-foot sideyard setback from its west property line. 6. Lot 3 shall be deeded to the City immediately after the final plat is filed. 7. The subdivision is subject to park dedication requirements as outlined in the Subdivision Code. The amount of the park dedication shall be determined prior to the final plat being approved by the City Council. Attachments: Location Map Preliminary Plat/Survey . 3 . +- I i , j ; ~ - '-1 - :=~- _ "J ..:\ ~Iil _ ex>. "OIl ~ J. : - ..: .. 'JIOl . ; .; z ~ ~ V' ~ ~ ~ ~ 0' ; 1\"" ';a . , : . J."' L::-- :. ;. , - ~ ;" t, . , ~" i . " , t -- ~ i ~~ .~ t ~ , . -