The URL can be used to link to this page

03-24-97 PC Agenda .". " ;' ,-, AGENDA. .GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING .COMMISSION' Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers March 24, 1997 7pm . I. Approval ofMil'lutes- February 24 and March 10,1997 ..Election of Officers u. HI. Informal'Public Hearing....Minor Subdivi$ion (LotCon$olidation) Applicant: Art Bakshian(Ace Label Systems Inc.) Address: Lots 2 and 3, Block 1; MueUer Industrial Park Purpose: To- allow f9rthe consolidation of two lots. (The applicant is proposing to construct a conforming, one-story building for office, storage and manufacturing use.) - .. ' IV. Informal Publ.ic Hearing - Review of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) -- Don Taylor, Director of Finance and Fred Salsbuly, Director of . Public Works will be present to answer questions ..,. Short Recess- V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevel.opment Authority, City . ,Council,and Board of Zoning Appeals VI. . Other Business . A. Review of Attendance B. Summary Judgment in Otten Case C. Follow-up on Planning Commission Cable Casting 'D. Letter from the Golden Valley Human. Rights Commission regarding. the Hidden Lakes Dev~lopment 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 proponent will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the Commission. 3. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/ comments. 4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. e 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. . e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chair Prazak at 7pm. Those present were Commissioners Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, Pentel and Prazak; absent was Groger. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Elizabeth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - February 10. 1997 MOVED by Pentel, seconded by and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 10, 1997 minutes as submitted with one spelling correction on page three. II. Informal Public Hearing.. Amendment to the Comprehensive land Use Plan MaR Address: 4121-4147 Golden Valley Road Purpose: To change the designation of the subject property from Semi-Public Facilities to Low Density Residential III. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning - Hidden lakes Development Applicant: Hidden Lakes Development, LP Address: 4121-4147 Golden Valley Road (portion of Golden Valley Health Center site) Purpose: Rezoning of the SUbject property from Institutional to Residential Chair Prazak informed the commission that the Plan Map Amendment and Rezoning would be considered and voted on before the PUD Preliminary Design Plan is heard. Commissioner Lewis questioned the process of making a motion on these two items before hearing the PUD request. Commissioner Kapsner wanted it made clear to the audience, that if the Plan Map Amendment and Rezoning are approved, this does not mean that the commission will automatically approve the PUD request. Commissioner Pentel asked the Chair if there would be one informal public hearing for both the Plan Map amendment and the Rezoning and then another informal public hearing for the review of the Preliminary Design Plan. Chair Prazak answered yes. Amendment to the Comprehensive land Use Plan Map - Director Mark Grimes outlined on a zoning map, the portion of property being reviewed. He then reviewed the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map (Plan Map) and told commission that an amendment to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Two e Plan Map must be followed by a rezoning of the subject property. The reason for the Plan Map amendment is that the underlying use of the subject property is semi-public and there needs to be consistency between the Plan Map and the Zoning Map. The applicant has requested the City to amend its Plan Map from Semi-Public to Low Density Residential for that portion of the proposed Hidden Lakes PUD that will be used for residential development. Grimes talked about the Plan Map as a guide to City uses. He noted that if an amendment to the Plan Map is approved by the City Council, an amendment request would be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for review, which is required under State law. Grimes continued saying that the Met Council has the responsibility of determining what, if any, effects the proposed development may have on the metropolitan systems such as highways, sewers, regional parks and airports. Final action on the Hidden Lakes development cannot be given by the City Council until comments have been received back by the Met Council on the Plan Map amendment. This review process can take anywhere from 2 weeks to a couple of months. Director Grimes told the commission that the administration section of City Code does not give much direction as for review of the Plan Map. Grimes talked about traffic and access on Golden Valley Road. A major concern is traffic, in that there is only one access in and out of the development off of Golden Valley Road. Staff believes that a use other than low- _ density could cause a greater traffic problem on Golden Valley Road. The proposed ., development will share the only access with the Courage Center, THC, and the Neurological building. Director Grimes noted that the Comprehensive Plan states that 17% of the City is guided for institutional use. With the reduction of 68 acres of institutional land, found in the proposed development, 16% total acreage remains in this category. He said the property had been on the market for several years, to be used as an institutional use, with no potential buyers. Because the property is located on two lakes, the land is very valuable, and may have cost more than a potential institutional buyer would want to pay. Staff believe there is a need for additional residential property because the City is fully developed. Any significant new residential development, in the City, can only occur with redevelopment or changing of land uses on a specific site. City staff have received calls from interested individuals and developers indicating an interest in residential development properties. The proposed property is a prime site due to its close proximity to downtown Minneapolis and the lakes it is located next to. Director Grimes commented that this development would help the City fulfill only a portion of its Livable Communities goals, in that it would provide needed life-cycle housing for the community. Grimes said the development is relatively low density with about 2.6 units per acre, which is similar to most single family developments in Golden Valley. The housing proposed for this site will not help the City meet its Livable Communities affordability goal because of the higher price tag on the townhomes and single family units. e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Three Grimes told the commission that the proposed, low-density, residential development is one of the best types of development for this site because of its environmental sensitive area, especially due to its steep slopes and location next to Twin and Sweeney Lakes. The coverage of lots, with impervious surfaces, is less than most other types of development. Staff is recommending approval of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map amendment for the Hidden Lakes Development from Semi-Public Facilities to Low Density Residential. Rezoning - Director Grimes reviewed the portion of Hidden Lakes development to be rezoned from Institutional (1-3) to Residential. Grimes talked about the residential district providing for single-family detached units and that although the developer is proposing townhome units, the overall density is in the low density category of 2.6 units per acre. He said that staff recommends the Residential zoning district because it is most appropriate for this type of development, being low density. With the PUD process, consideration of other forms of residential uses can be used, such as townhomes, where a single use application is too rigid for practical application. e Staff is in favor of the PUD process because it provides more sensitive site utilization minimizing effects on the natural environmental and providing a variety of housing. Staff recommends a rezoning of the subject property from Institutional to Residential. Commissioner Kapsner asked staff what would happen to the existing PUD if the commission approved the rezoning and the Plan Map amendment and denied the proposed amendment to PUD 45. He also asked if the PUD has to match the zoning of the property, which is currently institutional. Director Grimes said the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council and the Council would make a decision regarding the Plan Map amendment and rezoning of the proposed property. Commissioner Pentel said that she was unclear on exactly what portion of the existing PUD would be rezoned and what areas of the Plan Map would be amended. Pentel would like to know the ownership of the other properties in the PUD, and finally, could staff explain the number of trips that THC is generating in terms of traffic. Director Grimes explained what areas of the existing PUD would be changed. Grimes reviewed the existing PUD 45, noting that portions of the Courage Center and Neurology Center, which are within PUD 45, will remain institutional and all of the THC site will remain institutional. Pentel asked, in reference to the THC site, with different zonings next to each other does this change or alter the setbacks and if this were not a PUD, what would the setback requirements be. Grimes said that if the property were not a PUD, there would be setback requirements between institutional and residential properties. City Planner Beth Knoblauch said institutional setbacks are universal in that the building setback is 50 feet, 25 feet for parking, and 35 feet from a public street; changing the zoning, if this were not a PUD, would not make a difference. e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Three e Chair Prazak asked staff to explain semi-public and institutional uses. Grimes commented that semi-public language is associated with the Plan Map and are uses such as hospitals, clinics or institutions. Institutional is a designation in the Zoning Code and are uses such as private clubs, hospitals, resthomes, nursing homes and clinics. Pentel asked why the rezoning would be residential instead of two-family (R-2). She asked staff if potential buyers would own individual lots? Grimes said yes, the attached townhomes would be ownership. John Shardlow, representative for Hidden Lakes told the Commission that they would not be making a presentation at this time but would be presenting at the time of the Preliminary Design Plan review. Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Hugh Maynard, 1420 Spring Valley Road, commented that the Plan Map amendment is fine and that the single-family zoning is the norm and a good idea. He believes that it is inappropriate to rezone the entire site single-family residential. Maynard showed a colored site plan and commented that he believes it is two projects: 1) the peninsula and lakeview _ homes is a substantial detached neighborhood, and 2) the upper area which have duplexes . and on small lots. He said, one can see it is two developments by looking at the street system and how the streets separate. Mr. Maynard talked about single family development on the peninsula and the upper area being R-2. Chair Prazak told Mr. Maynard that he did not understand the distinction that he was trying to make between the PUD designation between the two areas and having separate zonings. Director Grimes told Mr. Maynard and the commission that it was not the developer, but staff who recommended the entire area be zoned residential. Maynard said there should be two zonings districts for this site, single-family and duplexes. Chair Prazak asked if he was saying that the upper part of the development should be a PUD but the lower part meet single-family zoning standards and not be a part of the proposed PUD. Commissioner Kapsner asked if everyone was going to own their own lot and Grimes answered yes. Commissioner McAleese questioned whether this issue is a discussion that should happen at the preliminary design plan stage. He said that if the recommendation is to change the Plan Map and underlying zoning, the Planning Commission could recommend against a PUD for the entire site or part of the site. Commissioner Pentel commented that if the zoning is changed, will this preclude any other opportunities. She continued asking that if the PUD is denied, what will happen to the site _ due to the commission's recommended approval of a Plan Map amendment and a rezoning . of the property. . e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24,1997 Page Five Commissioner Kapsner recommended that the informal public hearing be continued before the commission made comments and asked questions. Thomas Zins, 8925 23rd Avenue North, said that he had a procedure questions. He said that the Park Board had past a resolution suggesting that land be set aside for public park. He asked staff if the rezoning eliminates the dedication of park land. Director Grimes said that if there is subdivision of land in the City of Golden Valley, no matter if its a single-family or a townhome development, there would still need to be a dedication of park land or a cash dedication made in lieu of a land dedication. This is a decision of the City Council. Don Paquette, 2000 Aquila Avenue North, asked if the approval of the Plan Map and Rezoning constituted approval of the Hidden Lakes Project. Chair Prazak answered no. Richard Peet, 3245 Noble Avenue North, believes that once the rezoning is changed, no other alternatives will be available and that the preliminary design plan should be discussed also. He is not in favor of split zoning and being locked out of semi-pubic use. He does not believe there is a need for more housing or businesses in Golden Valley. Jack Mogelson, 1131 Toledo Avenue North, believes the zoning issues are complicated and all three issues should be reviewed together. He questioned the developer's request for this land to be a PUD by setting aside regulations for building, and why is there a concern that something other than what was presented would be built. Mogelson also was concerned that the development will cut off his access to the lakes. He noted that some people had little information and other people had more information and those people wanted to know if there is a rush to complete the development and can the process be done in a sequential way so information is available for discussions and then deal with the issues over a period of time and not run to conclusions. Director Grimes commented that the Plan Map and Rezoning must be decided before the PUD because the PUD must be consistent with the Plan Map and zoning for the property. Grimes noted that family dwellings cannot be placed on an institutional site. Commissioner Lewis commented that she would feel more comfortable making a recommendation on the Plan Map, Rezoning, and the Preliminary Design Plan all at once. Lewis noted that there is uncertainty that the PUD would pass and then the land would be rezoned to residential. Commissioner Kapsner suggested the Chair close the informal public hearing before discussions of the commission take place. Floyd Anderson, 4920 Kilarney Drive, noted that he lives on Sweeney Lake and was a physician at Glenwood Hospital for a short time. He said that as much as he would like to see the land remain as it is, he realizes there is a new owner and need for redevelopment. Anderson believes there is no hope to use the property for institutional in the future and also has the wish for the land to be used as residential, and would like to see what would be the most private use for the land, ie residential use. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Six . David Fellman, 1540 St.Croix Circle suggested the property be rezoned to R-1 and then discuss the PUD. He stated that this item is a complicated issue because of the institutional sites included in the PUD. Chair Prazak said that the Planning Commission would be discussing only those portions of the property that are not under the control of Courage Center, THC or Neurological Center. Leslie Foltz-Morrison, 1840 Spring Valley Circle, asked if the Planning Commission had a goal in mind for this area before the Hidden Lakes project came along. Foltz-Morrison wanted to know what the City's dreams and hopes are for the proposed site. John Shardlow, representative for Hidden Lakes and planner for DSU, told the commission that the developers would come forward with the presentation of the Preliminary Design Plan. He told the commission that if the proposed PUD is approved the development would then proceed with what was specifically outlined in the PUD. The plan being proposed is lower than R-1 density and the developer is comfortable with this plan. If it would be the Planning Commissions intent to have two designations of R-1 and R-2 the developer would still come forward with a PUD for the entire site. David Kline, 4700 Kilamey Drive, urged the commission to reject the proposed rezoning, and consider it for park property. e Jack Mogelson, 1131 Toledo Avenue North, commented that he had not heard a response to whether he would have access to Twin Lake with the ability to get there by land. Chair Prazak informed Mr. Mogelson that this issue would be addressed at the time the Preliminary Design Plan is discussed. Paul Wanous, 2200 Legend Drive, briefly talked about the area, and would not walk the proposed property and parts of Wirth Parkway. Wanous said that he does not want to see the peninsula developed as park land. He would rather have his property value increase due to homes on the proposed site. He asked about public access for citizens of Golden Valley to the lakes. Director Grimes told Mr. Wanous that the proposed site is private property with no access, access can be obtained to Twin Lake from Wirth Park and access on the west side of Sweeney Lake via a 15 foot easement and a lot owned by the City of Golden Valley. Wanous asked if these accesses were part of the proposal and Grimes said no. Commissioner McAleese asked staff to clarify whether there is no access to the lakes across the PUD. Grimes answered no. Commissioner McAleese asked staff if the issue of access would be affected by amending the Plan Map or rezoning of the property. Grimes answered no. Grimes noted that access to the lakes could be part of the discussion when the commission reviews the preliminary design plan. Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Pentel readdressed Mr. Zins issue of the Park Broad's recommendation for e dedication of park land if the proposed property is rezoned to residential. Pentel noted that . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Seven the zoning map notes a special zoning designation for park land , but in rezoning the entire property residential, does this preclude park land in the PUD. Grimes noted that the City Council would take the steps, at its meeting, to rezone a portion of the PUD to park land. City Planner Beth Knoblauch said that given the fact that this a PUD, it may not be strictly necessary, should a park be established there, to specifically zone it to park land because the PUD allows mixtures of uses not allowed under strict zoning laws. Pentel also asked whether the building at the entry point, which is not residential, will not be a problem under the residential zoning. Grimes noted that with a PUD there can be a mixture of uses that are complimentary to the primary use of the development. Chair Prazak commented that the proposed amendment to the Plan Map and rezoning is most appropriate and reasonable because it will have the least intense use of the property as possible, and will generate the least amount of traffic and impact on the area. Commissioner Johnson agreed with Chair Prazak's statement and said that it is a significant factor that no one is interested in an institutional use and believes the switch to low density and request for a rezoning is appropriate. e Commissioner Kapsner commented on the "dream" of the property. He said that a "dream" for the land would be a park, but is not realistic in that the City doesn't have the money available for this type of use. He agreed with Mr. Wanous that he does not want his taxes raised in order to make the proposed site park land. Kapsner said that when looking at traffic on Duluth and at the interchange for Hwy. 100, low density housing would be the best use for the property. Commissioner McAleese concurred. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from Semi-Public Facilities to Low Density Residential. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to rezone a portion of the Golden Valley Health Center Site from Institutional to Residential, with the exception of the three parcels that will remain Institutional. Commissioner Lewis asked staff for an explanation of how the zoning map would change and Grimes explained that the appropriate designation would be shown on the map. III. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminaiy Design Plan. Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 45 Applicant: Hidden Lakes Development, LP e Address: 4101-4147 Golden Valley Road (Portion of Golden Valley Health Center Site) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Eight . Request: Review of the Preliminary Design Plan which would allow for the construction of 176 residences in detached and attached construction styles on a portion of the P.U.D. Planning Director Mark Grimes summarized his staff report by telling the commission that Hidden Lakes Development has presented a proposal which includes 67.8 acres of a total 79.5 acres, which is in the Golden Valley Health Center PUD No. 45. He noted that the acres being discussed are all above the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Sweeney Lake. Grimes noted that the existing PUD allows for only institutional uses, however the proposed amendment to the PUD is for a mixed use of residential and institutional uses which includes portions of the Courage Center, Neurology Clinic, and all of the THC hospital. Hidden Lakes Development is proposing the construction of 41 single-family homes, 25 detached "golf-villa" homes and 110 townhomes, totally 176 units. Director Grimes noted that the Golden Valley Health Center ceased its operation in 1992. He told the commissioners that the THC hospital would continue to operate at its present location at the south end of the site. Grimes stated that the proposed PUD may now go forward for preliminary design plan review because of action taken by the City Council, at its meeting of February 4, 1997, regarding the review of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and now the motion made by the Planning Commission, at this meeting. to recommend approval of the Plan Map and Rezoning has been approved. e Director Grimes brought up the issue of this application being eligible for a PUD. The City staff and the City Attorney have determined that the application is complete and the Hidden Lakes Development application can be considered for an amendment to the PUD for single- family use and institutional uses. Grimes read the City Attorney's letter to the Planning Commission regarding the appropriateness of using a PUD for this proposal. Director Grimes told the Planning Commission that they are being asked to consider the first stage of a two stage PUD process - the first stage being the Preliminary Design Plan review. Grimes explained the procedure for public hearings saying that the City Council will hold a formal public hearing on the Preliminary Design Plan after receiving the Planning Commission recommendation. If the City Council approves this plan, the developer will proceed to prepare a General Plan of Development which will go before the City Council for approval. The Planning Commission will be looking at the broad concept of the preliminary design plan and the recommendation can include any changes it feels necessary. Director Grimes reviewed a memo submitted by Jeff Oliver, Assistant City Engineer. He talked about several issues, which must be reviewed as part ot development, and about specific requirements as part of the PUD. He said that the engineering memo should be made a part of the approval by the Planning Commission. Grimes then commented on _ portions of the memo as follows: (1) final tree preservation plan be made a part of the PUD .- which identifies trees on the site and trees which should be saved, and look at lots and where houses can be moved around to save quality trees on lots; (2) multiple access to e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Nine e neighborhood clusters for emergency vehicle access; (3) provide appropriate easements for utilities, storm water ponds and emergency vehicle access to be approved by the City; (4) At the EAW review, several residents were concurred with seeps and springs on the peninsula, a plan must be submitted minimizing the effect of development on these seeps and springs; (5) submit an erosion control plan prior to the start of construction, subject to review and approval by the Bassett Creek Water Management Organization; (6) move villas closer to the front of the properties to keep them away from the steep slopes to the rear of the lots which will minimize the impact to the steep slopes to the east; (7) the City will require conservation easements in various locations to protect wooded slopes, especially to the southeast portion, including shoreland and wetland areas. Commissioner McAleese asked Grimes to explain what a conservation easement was. Grimes said a conservation easement is an easement along environment sensitive areas of the development where restriction of development will occur. It notes where trees and natural vegetation must be preserved, type of access to the lakes in those areas, limits the amount of clear cut space at each of the lake front lots, sharing boat dockage, etc.; (8) look at alternatives for filling wetland areas and submit justification for filling wetland area; (9) provide plan for maintenance of yards and common areas. Grimes noted that the developer will be hiring only one maintenance company which should help reduce the use of phosphorus fertilizers throughout the development; and (10) submit a landscaping plan for the entire area. Staff is proposing that the City and DNR restrict Twin Lake to non-motorized boats with possible exception for electric motors. Mr. Oliver's memo also says that the City Council should address the use of only non-motorized boats, and as part of the bridge revitalization, provide portage of canoes. Grimes noted that this engineering memo should be made a part of the P.U.D., if it is approved. Director Grimes talked about development of the peninsula commenting that it is 9 acr.es in size. The developer is proposing 10 single family lots accessed by private road. (Grimes noted that all streets in the development are private.) The existing house on the peninsula will be removed. He commented on the purpose of the Shoreland Management Code which is to regulate the subdivision, use, and development of shoreland in Golden Valley in order to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, reserve the economic and natural environmental values of the shorelands and provide for the wise utilization of waters and related land resources. Grimes noted that the DNR will have review of the final plans, and they have given preliminary approval of the concept plans. The DNR stated in its comment letter regarding the EAW that the "evaluation of the modified project in a shoreland management context, including the proposed peninsula development, leads us to conclude that the project is consistent with the applicable shoreland management standards as administered by the City of Golden Valley". e Grimes said that the developer has stated that no variances are required from the shoreland management code in order to permit development of the peninsula. Lots meet the width and setbacks from the OHWL. He said that one concern, made by several commenters, is that the private road maintain the 50 foot requirement from the OHWL. Grimes noted that if the OHWL could not be maintained, there would need to be a reduction of lots on the peninsula. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Ten e The Planning Commission must also considered the effect of the private road on the overall natural environment, and if the road is approved, landscaping alternatives or engineering features that could be employed to soften the presence of the roadway. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission examine the storm water runoff plan, when reviewing the peninsula road, noting Section 11.65, Subd. 5(C). Grimes said that the runoff will be directed northward to a storm water management pond, where it can be treated before running into Sweeney or Twin Lake. Grimes briefly talked about filling of a wetland area on the peninsula and staff's position is that the wetland area not be filled. Grimes stated that the readability of the survey submitted by the developer, as determined by the City Engineer and City Attorney, is valid. Grimes talked about traffic considerations noting that a traffic study was done using the density of 176 housing units on the subject property and that the development would not decrease the level of service on Golden Valley Road. Staff has looked at other accesses into the development from the east, west or south. The Minneapolis Park Board has notified staff that they will not permit any access from the east or south. Grimes briefly talked about park dedication and referred to a-letter from the Open Space & e Recreation Commission recommending open space on the development. In particular, the Board is recommending a tot lot, open space dedication, fishing pier, parking lot and canoe launch. Grimes noted that the Comprehensive Plan, which the staff looks for guidance, says the City should investigate access that would not cause an adverse impact on the surrounding residents. The Plan notes that the existing park system is sufficient to serve the present population. Grimes said that there will be a public walkway or trail through the length of the PUD that will connect to the edge of Wirth Park on the south. The City will try to coordinate with the Minneapolis Park Board on the trail system. Staff is suggesting that a sign be placed at the entrance of the development so the public doesn't feel they are crossing private property by using the trail system. Staff is also suggesting that the trail system, through the development, be dedicated to the City by easement. Grimes told the commission that the City has adopted the Livable Communities housing goals, and the City is making efforts to meet its goals. The project helps achieve one of the goals of Iife-cycle housing for the City, but it does not meet the affordable housing or increased housing density goal. Grimes noted the development did submit a list of variance categories, ie. building setback, street width, cul-de-sac length, etc. He told the commission that allowing differences from "normaln zoning is the function of the PUD process which allows for the development of a better plan for the site and the City as a whole. The PUD section of the zoning code states that it is the intent of this section of the code to allow design flexibility, with substantial variances from provisions of the Zoning Code. The function of the zoning code is to set e minimal standards. Grimes commented that in the case of clustered housing development, . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Eleven such as Hidden Lakes, it may not meet standard zoning requirements. However, the overall density of development would remain low and the effect of the buildings on surrounding areas would be minimal.. Director Grimes said that staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary Design Plan provided that the issues outlined in Asst. City Engineer Oliver's memo be addressed, along with the recommendation from the Planning Commission on park dedication and the density of development of the peninsula. As noted in the staff memo, the Planning Commission can suggest changes that would improve and enhance the development and that they can call out specific issues for additional review and possible revision. Commissioner Kapsner asked if there were any instructions on the size of the parking area that would go along with what the Park Board is suggesting for public areas. Grimes commented that a small parking area would be appropriate. Commissioner Lewis asked if the City was spending any taxpayer money on the site. Grimes commented no, that the developer is paying for the total development of the site. e Commissioner Pentel commented on the variances, noting that they were not enumerated on but that the commission received supplemental materials outlining the variances from the public. Pentel asked if staff was in concurrence that this is an accurate list of variances being requested. Grimes commented that if the commission were considering single-family zoning, the list submitted would be the variances required. He continued by saying that this development is not for single-family zoning, but a PUD, which allows for changes as part of the PUD. Commissioner McAleese commented that the staff and attorney have determined that PUD is appropriate. But the-City Code says that the Planning Commission and City Council must interpret the code and that if people want to speak concerning the issue of the PUD, it is appropriate. John Shardlow, representative for Hidden Lakes and Architect for DSU, introduced himself, the developer, Bob Schmidt, the Project Manager, Bill Huser and Kevin VonRiedel who is with.the engineering company working on this project. He presented materials to the commission. He commented on the ownership of the PUD and that the Courage Center, Neurology Clinic, and THC want to be included in the PUD. He also said that since the completion of the EAW hearing, contracts have been executed between the developer and builders for the project. Mr. Shardlow named those companies involved. Shardlow noted that the item before the Planning Commission was for concept approval. He said that the concept is a bit tighter than needed because they have been working on grading plans and the concept plan could be loosen up, and find private open space and shared facilities within development. He told the commission that he had prepared the e original PUD 45 in 1984. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Twelve Shardlow gave a narrative of his work background. He reviewed the EAW process that had taken place which was reviewed by the City Council at its meeting of February 4, 1997. Shardlow commented that the documentation required in Asst. Jeff Oliver's memo, the restrictions that the developer is volunteering to do, plus conditions noted by staff, would make this development one of the most regulated developments in the City, before, during and after construction. He continued talking about the process of the EAWand comments made on the EAW. Shardlow showed a color plan of the original Golden Valley Health Center PUD 45. He talked about the reserving of open spaces and those spaces. were reserved on the original PUD. He reviewed numerous location maps and site plans of the project noting the relationship of the development to Wirth Park and Sweeney and Twin Lakes. Shardlow talked about the grading, demolition of buildings, and removal of asbestos on the site. In showing some of the plans, Shardlow commented on the numerous constraints to the development, such as the prominent hills with steep slopes, the small area of bluffs and the peninsula, which is very narrow and will need to be approached with great care. He reviewed where homes and townhomes would be located. He also talked about the entrance into the development. and the shared entries to the Neurological Clinic and Courage Center and a trail system through the development. He discussed the cluster development where the existing hospital is now located, the lake side homes and staggered lots to provide a lake side view. Shardlow talked about the enhancement to the bridge to support vehicles. He again touched on park dedication of either cash or land. He noted an area on a plan, indicating the amount of park land requested by the Open Space and Rec Commission, and that it is not economically feasible to accommodate the amount wanted. He questioned whether there were alternative solutions that might provide access into Twin Lake and trail to the community. Shardlow reviewed an aerial plan outlining the trail system around the development and how this might be connected to and through the development and to give access to Twin and Sweeney Lakes. He addressed the nuisance area of Wirth Park, and public access to the area from Twin Lake and Sweeney Lake. If there would be public access to Sweeney Lake at the north end of the site, the Neurological Clinic is concerned about the overflow of cars to their lot. The developer says there are things they can and cannot do and is willing to work with the City to resolve the park land issue for everyone's benefit. He reviewed site data, density, land coverage area, and housing density information. Shardlow reviewed a plan outlining the area covered by land and water. He noted the one access into the property and discussed private roads, long cul-de-sacs, turn around and variances for the streets. He reviewed a site plan submitted by Mr. Hugh Maynard talking about the requested variances. He told the commission that all single-family homes would be sprinklered. He noted that Outlots A and B, on the existing PUD No. 45, are reserved open space, not preserved open space, and not dedicated. Shardlow said that the City has no right, as a result of PUD 45 to maintain the open space in perpetuity. Shardlow talked about the principles that guide the redesign process, ie. maximum site development, the reasons/benefits of the PUD approach, and the purpose of shoreland e e e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Thirteen management (as outlined in the presentation booklet). He said that the intent of DNR not to make developable property, undevelopable, but to guide how development would occur in shoreland areas. Shardlow briefly talked about the development of shoreland and meeting objectives. He reviewed a plan of the peninsula and summarized the shoreland management objectives for the peninsula development The DNR recently looked at the proposed development of the peninsula, analyzed it and concluded that the DNR would be inclined to approve the project when submitted for final approval at a later date. He told the commission that the wetland on the peninsula would not be filled. In conclusion Shardlow talked about what was reasonable. He said that the privately owned property had been on the market for some time. He said that the opponents to the development need to weigh their opinions and understand what is reasonable. The developer is committed to working with the City on the development. He continued talking about the beauty of the land, the constraints to development and the cost for development. Shardlow said that they were presenting a concept with room for improvement, and that it is not reasonable to say "no" to any use of this property. They believe the development, before the commission, is a good one and will work with the City through its full development. e Chair Prazak thanked Mr. Shardlow for the graphics which helped in Mr. Shardlow's presentation of the proposed development. Commissioner Kapsner brought up a previous speaker's (Mr. Mogelson) concern about changes coming later because the impression was left that City would approve something and then changed the development later without input. His question to Shardlow was, that to your knowledge is there something you know about the development that will not be doable? Shardlow said it is the developer, City staff's opinion that project is feasible and everything can be worked out in the detailed development stage. Shardlow noted that he heard the question a little differently I that of "bait and switch". He said that any change in the approved plan, with significant departure from the approved plan, would require an amendment to the PUD. Commissioner Lewis asked if parking would be allowed on the private roads in the development. Shardlow said no on-street parking is proposed at this time, but it can be discussed at the development stage. . Commissioner Johnson asked if there had been any concerns raised because of the proximity to Wirth Park. Shardlow answered yes. Johnson asked if there have been any questions in regards to the development and have any steps been taken. Shardlow said it was an on-going issue and the development team will be in dialogue with the City of Golden Valley and City of Minneapolis on this issue. Johnson asked if there would be any additional lighting in the area that borders the development and Wirth Park; Shardlow answered yes. Johnson asked if the developer is working on any agreements with the City of Minneapolis regarding security in "the Wirth Park area or is this between the cities to negotiate. Shardlow responded that it would be between the cities, but if the developer is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24,1997 Page Fourteen e successful in getting a trail extended, and designed properly, it would move more people through the area and increase security in the area. Commissioner Pentel commented that it was good to see that canoes would be able to go over the road at the bridge area and asked if the public would be able to fish from the bridge. Shardlow answered yes. Pentel asked if the City would plow the streets. Shardlow said the development would be handling the maintenance. Commissioner McAleese noted that the single-family homes would be sprinkled and asked if the townhomes will have sprinkler systems. Project Manager Bill Huser commented that he was not certain and is still working with builders, and the fire department, and referred to Jeff Oliver's memo concerning this issue. Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Jane McDonald Black, 924 Adeline Lane North, commented that she was the previous president of the Sweeney Lake Association but was not representing the Association now. She commented that she was in favor of the development in considering what other uses could have been built on the site. McDonald Black said that the concentration should be on _ the big picture and believes this 'dev~lopment willbea "positive"and affirming to the area ,., keeping in mind the Wirth Park area that was just in the news; that it provides a good tax base for the City; and helps the entire school district. She questioned whether "variance" is a dirty word and doesn't believe it is. She received a variance from the City on her property and neighbors were in favor of it. She said variances are important and gives flexibility. McDonald Black said that if we get too strict with the rules on flexibility the City looses as much as the developer. She believes that City staff has done a good job working with the developer and hopes this continues. Hugh Maynard, 1420 Spring Valley Road, noted that he was part of an adhoc group whose theme is to preserve Twin Lake and members of the group would be speaking after him. Maynard talked about having only two homes, with large lots, on the peninsula (existing home and another) sharing a long driveway and that the remainder of the peninsula be dedicated as preserved, not "reserved", open space. He said that it doesn't matter how the land was preserved, either through park dedication or owned by the homeowners association or privately. He noted that there should be a minimal number of houses on the bluff, and there should be no filling of wetlands and no other development that would endanger Twin Lake. Maynard presented the next six speakers in his group. Maynard said he would at the end address variances, whether a custom family-home project is a valid use of the PUD ordinance, shoreland ordinance and open space. Corey Austed, 1241 Toledo Avenue, talked about deeded lake access. She noted that she was a medical consultant and outdoor enthusiast. She bought her house because of where . it is located and uses this area as an inter-city wilderness; She said she has been on the subject property a lot and the idea of having a canoe portage over the bridge is problematic, in that this particular area is very swampy. She said she portages over to the peninsula . e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Fifteen beCause of the dry land, but the muck is still about a foot deep. She says this is a wild area with lots of swampy area and "notD sandy beaches. Austed talked about the wild life on the peninsula, walking her dog along the railroad tracks to Wirth Park and then to the bluff area, on the subject property, to see the gorgeous view. She said she enjoys the peacefulness of the area and the sunsets. Austed said that she uses the area for cross-country skiing, by going across the lake, over the peninsula and then to Wirth Park. She noted that when she canoes, she carries the canoe down to Sweeney Lake, follows the shoreline to enjoy the wildlife, but if they want to swim, they portage over the peninsula to Twin Lake because the water is much more pure compared to Sweeney Lake. People use the subject property for access for swimming and fishing, and the Courage Center residents also enjoy the view of the lakes. Austed said that "enjoymenf depends on the remoteness of the area. She noted her concern that the proposed private roads preclude access to the peninsula and remaining property in the development. She said that if the development is approved, she will not be able to do the activities as noted above. Austed gave the commission signed petitions, against the development of the peninsula, and reviewed a map of what areas these petitions were gathered from. She would like to see the peninsula maintained as open space. She said that she and her husband did not visit homes around the lake but farther away when getting signatures on the petition, and noted that people told her they were not receiving information from the City on the development. She commented on the reasons why people were in favor of the development. Austed also commented that if another 176 homes were built in the area this could cause problems using the tennis courts at Schied Park. Austed talked about the EAWand believes the developer did not divulge the existence of a dump on the site or how they will deal with this area. She talked about the 55 gallon drum of "RaidD found on the site and other debris in the snow and the damage that could have been done. Austed said that she does not want the developer to pay a cash payment for open space, but wants the land to be preserved for open space and does not want development that will come so close to the water and natural areas. Chair Prazak questioned what area of the development the petition is centered on. Austed answered the petition is for the peninsula not the bluffs. Commissioner Lewis asked her to respond again about the use of the tennis courts, which Austed did as noted above. Commissioner Johnson asked if she handed in two petitions. Austed noted that there were two different forms,and some names were on both lists, but it was noted on the petition. Joe Novotny, 4120 Golden Valley Road, commented that he was a Water Quality Professional in water chemistry but was not representing his employer. His presentation is on treatment plans relative to the planning process ofthe.Hidden Lakes Development. It will consist of a water chemistry discussion and his concerns about whether the desired effect of water treatment will be achieved, and issues to considered relative to the planning process for water quality protection and development planning. Novotny talked about eutrophication and run-off and how the two work together. Eutrophication is the natural death process of lakes by sedimentation and plant decay; it is irreversible. When a limiting Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Sixteen e chemical constituent is introduced into the watershed, it throws the equilibrium off balance and accelerates the eutrophication process. In this area, the limiting chemical constituent is orthophosphorus, which is found in fertilizers and detergents. At worst, the ponds as proposed appear to be inadequate to protect Sweeney and Twin Lakes from eutrophication. At best, the water treatment information is inadequate to make an educated decision at this time. He talked about water treatment when designing municipal water treatment plant: 1 )primary, removing suspended solids; 2) secondary, removal of the oxygen demand that the waste water will be exerting on the body of water that it is being sent into; and 3) tertiary, removal of nutrients. Most treatment plants deal only with primary and secondary treatment. His main concern is nutrient removal, which is tertiary treatment and needs to be addressed in a unique manner. Talked about tables in the EAW concerning total suspended solids (ie sand, silt runoff) and total phosphorous. Tables showed tremendous decrease in total suspended phosphorus by treatment ponds and that is what is expected. They also showed excellent reduction of total phosphorous. The tables have a bias toward suspended particulates; they do not address orthophosphorus or dissolved nutrients. For example, take a bowl of water, representing a treatment pond. Add sand and gravel to _ represent suspended solids. Add salt and sugar to represent nutrients. Stir it up, then let it .. settle until the water clears. Then pour the water into a second bowl, representing a lake. The sand and gravel stay behind, but the salt and sugar have dissolved into the water and so pass into the second bowl. There is no settling process for dissolved nutrients. Summary: design of development should consider addressing the following water quality parameters: orthophosphorus; nitrogen compounds; oxygen demand; ethylene glycol, the principal ingredient in anti-freeze; benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethyl benzene, the major constituents of fuels for cars. All of these will wash into the ponds with run-off water and pass into the lakes. In closing, each lake maintains a unique chemical and biological equilibrium; a universal standard of water quality and water treatment is inadequate and inappropriate in maintaining this balance and preventing eutrophication. Chair Prazak asked what the bottom line was. Mr. Novotny commented that additional questions need to be asked and addition data gathered in looking at the proposed water treatment plans for the development to ensure maintenance of the watershed. Commissioner Lewis asked if Mr. Novotny had any knowledge of preventing runoff of antifreeze and oils from cars on the peninsula into the waters. Mr. Novotny said that he was not an environmental planning consultant and this was out of his expertise. He said what he was addressing were water quality issues. Chair Prazak reiterated that he was trying to call attention to the need for closer examination of the process to assure clear water going into the lakes. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Seventeen Commissioner Kapsner asked the City Engineer if there are settling ponds for storm sewers on the west side of the lake, in the existing neighborhoods, or does the storm sewer go directly into the lake? City Engineer Fred Salsbury commented that most of the water goes directly into the lake. e David Fellman, 1540 St. Croix Circle, said that he would like to clear up a misconception regarding the road on the peninsula, that it is not 50 feet from the OHWL of Sweeney Lake. Fellman stated that in the presentation before they skipped Lots 1, 2 and 3 which are less than 50 feet from Sweeney Lake and Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 are less than 50 feet from Twin Lake. Fellman talked about the developer saying that the road meets DNR standard for setbacks. He noted that the DNR does not have standards for setbacks. He reviewed a portion of the EAW noting that the road on the peninsula appears to meet the 50 foot setback as stated in the rules. Fellman noted that the rules are the Golden Valley rules which say, ~in no instance shall the road be less than 50 feet". He talked about visiting with Mr. Schmidt concerning the 50 foot setback and that they were measuring from the wrong area. Fellman talked about there being no survey showing the OHWL and that the developer superimposed on the survey the OHWL. He said that if the land were a foot higher it would be considered a protected bluff. He read material from the DNR which said that when you buy a piece of shoreland always check with the local zoning officials to verify exact local requirements because they may be stricter than statewide standards. He told the commission that he wants to see that the developer is held to Golden Valley shoreline standards. Fellman briefly talked about park dedication on the existing PUD No. 45. Fellman told the commission that he wrote to the DNR and the City and talked with the developer about springs on the peninsula and that in January 16, 1997, 14 springs were found. He noted that the developer's expert reported that the springs are not recharged on the peninsula. Fellman talked about a letter from the developer's attorney concerning where the recharge of springs and seeps were located and that the City Engineer was misinformed because they didn't know where the water was coming from. He noted that the letter from the expert said that it is more likely that the recharge of the springs and seeps comes from the off-site wetlands to the immediate northeast of Hidden Lakes. Mr. Fellman talked about the 50 gallon drum of "RAID" found on the site and wonders where the material inside went. He also addressed the protection of trees around the dynamic compaction site and believes that dirt is being pushed around and the developer is not being the stewards of the environment that they claim to be. He commented on the condition of the existing hospital site and showed a picture of where demolition took place and was left in a demolished state. Fellman believes what they did was illegal. e Fellman commented on a Phase II environmental report and believes that the developer does have it although he has been told there isn't one and that the City has never seen it. The Phase II report shows hazards on the site. He believes the spring issue is important because of the dynamic compaction area, which at one time was a dump, noting that Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Eighteen e medical waste was dumped there for 30 years. Fellman told the commission that he had talked with two people who worked on the site and that the a dump is located under the compaction area and the soil is being disturbed because of the compaction. Fellman also said that a report by GME, from January, 1987 talked about 8 foot borings. Fellman noted that there is 40 feet of fill at this location. He told the commission to tell the PCA; they need to know about the dump site. He also recommends to the City Council the need for additional environmental work on "dump" area. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Fellman if he had an accurate map of the proposed development on the peninsula. Mr. Fellman reviewed a colored drawing provided by the developer and colored by Mr. Maynard, of where he believes the road lies. Mr. Fellman asked if the retaining wall was considered an impervious surface and never received an answer from the developer or the City. He believes the retaining wall should be considered an impervious surface. He also believes the setbacks are incorrect. He told the commission that the land should be developed as R-1 and welcomes the new neighbors but challenges anyone who says that by the Golden Valley ordinance that the road is 50 feet. Chair Prazak said that this issue can be settled, as a matter of fact, at some point. Fellman says that he concedes that they did meet the DNR standard for road because there is no standard. Bob Mattison, 1120 Angelo Drive, commented on this complex development and has a simple component by asking if this development, as proposed, is an appropriate use for the peninsula specifically. He urged the commission to use their own common sense in land use planning. He referred to the Oliver memo in that it contains fundamental issues, that will be being considered down the line as part of the review. He told the commission to look at the 21 issues outlined as issues that need to be answered in order to answer if single family development is appropriate for development of the peninsula. e Mr. Mattison talked about grading and the damage it will cause to the lake and peninsula, and erosion that will take place. He believes there needs to be more details. He talked about the structural analysis of the bridge, and if a new bridge is necessary there will need to be excavation. He questioned storm and sanitary sewer and a lift station and wanted more information on who supports the lift station and how does it work. Mattison also wanted to know the placement of utilities and talked about the existing utilities that run through a tube under the bridge. He believes it is an essential issue to know where utilities will be placed. He questioned whether the emergency vehicle access is sufficient. He questioned whether single-family development is going to affect the quality of water going into Sweeney and Twin Lake. Mattison said that these are not details that need to be worked out by the engineering department but need to be answered by the commission. Mattison briefly mentioned the development helping out with the tax base, that things that sound too good to be true, usually are. He ended, commenting that Sweeney Lake is not like Minnetonka Lake and with the mucky lake bottom and lake shore, and the location of the development on a relatively small lake, and not allowing big boats on Sweeney, will someone spend a $1 million for a lot. He believes the City should be skeptical and get evidence. He is against the proposed development on the peninsula and asked the commission to look at the issues themselves and not rely on the experts. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Nineteen e Faith Woodman, 1420 Spring Valley Road, said that she would be talking about how the Hidden Lakes Development is an abuse of the PUD process and how John Shardlow and Larkin Hoffman, who represented the Golden Valley Health Center PUD No. 45 and now represent Hidden Lakes Develop, have changed their tune since the original PUD was approved. She showed a map of the existing PUD No. 45 and said it was a classic PUD. The developer received substantial variances in exchange for reserving substantial general open space (as noted on map). Woodman talked about the development of the existing PUD noting that the City got something tangible and significant for the variance it granted and that was the retention of large open spaces. She talked about Bob Schmidt buying the property and developing it intensely as possible so he and his investors could make as much money as possible with little concern for the nature landscape or the two lakes it borders. She said the developer of the proposed Hidden Lakes PUD offers no open space or amenities; only areas like bluffs and wetlands are being spared. She said that the only land he dedicates to the public is below the OHWL where there is very little dry land. She reviewed the developer's site plan for amenities such as streets cape treatment, entry pergolas, a concierge building, turn-around, wetland edge landscape treatment, a fountain and a entry gate for the owners, etc. Woodman questioned whether these amenities we're suppose to justify the City's PUD approval with the wavier of hundreds of variances under normal zoning laws. Woodman talked about the amount of dirt to be moved on development and the harm it will cause to the natural habitat and wild life and ruin of the lakes. She agreed with Mr. Shardlow that this development would be the most heavily regulated because of the sensitive nature of the site. Ms. Woodman talked about the DNR's definition of open space and questioned how Shardlow and Larkin Hoffman could so drastically change their position, regarding open space, from the original PUD to the proposed PUD. Woodman referred to correspondence in the file from the original PUD concerning reserved open space in conjunction with medical facilities. She talked about a memo written by a former Planning Coordinator in regards to preserving open space in the event of future development. She requested the Planning Commission to reject the PUD application. Fred Hoisington, President of the Hoisington Kegler Group, briefly described his qualifications. He reviewed colored graphics and commented that he has known the site for many years and that it Is a beautiful site. He said that the entire peninsula is sloped except where the existing house is now located. The upper level is sloped and steep, and heavily wooded and is a very difficult site to develop, so it needs to be done right. e Hoisington argued that more open space would be provided using conventional zoning and subdivision requirements than with the Hidden Lakes PUD. He noted that the DNR's criteria to define open space does not provide for real open space. Hoisington said that the proposed development exceeds the DNR standard for impervious surface cover. He also talked about the City getting nothing in return for the multitude of variances being requested and that the PUD does not represent good land use planning. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Twenty e Hoisington said that when looking at the proposed PUD and the application of conventional zoning and subdivision regulations, the later would produce more open space. He talked about what was proposed as open space, ie ponds, wetlands, steep slopes and bluffs noting that about 20% of the site represents protected open space and the remainder of open space is private yards. He discussed the private road system. He said the short driveway to the peninsula house should be allowed to remain. A loop street system would be needed on the main portion of the development which would cut down on the length of cul-de-sacs, but not all cul-de-sacs could be shortened. Hoisington talked about another access into the site going behind the Courage Center and to the east side, but this is not an ideal option. He said that with conventional zoning not all the lots would be 10,000 sq.ft. in size as stated in the single-family zoning district. He said the market would come into play and the lots would reflect what could be sold. He told the commission that the only way the peninsula could be developed was through a PUD or grant a multitude of variances outside the PUD which could not be justified. Hoisington commented that the site would get more protection with conventional zoning than through a PUD application. He again commented on the DNR definition of open space as the standard of adequacy for open space for this site, and is not disputing this but would remind the commission that the open spaces are wetlands, ponds, bluffs, steeps slopes, _ shore impact zones and private yards but no usable open space. Hoisington said that the _ only common space is Outlot A and a few other areas. In regards to housing sites on the proposed development, the site warrants the maximum sensitivity and creativity. Hoisington talked about variances and the hard surface cover noting the DNR's requirement that no more than 25% of the properly be hard surface. He said the developer's plan indicates that 28.7% of the site is hard surface. If the THC, Courage Center and Neurological Clinic are included, the hard surface would exceed 30%. Mr. Hoisington commented on what the City gets in return, which is not a great deal. The City is getting less open space when compared with the Golden Valley Health Center PUD. He said the commission should think about common open space which is usable for people as an important part of this PUD. Also, the City is getting very long and narrow cul-de-sacs and added tax base. Hoisington noted that PUD's are not employed for the purpose of generating a tax base but are created for better places for people to live, to be more responsive to the environment, and to provide open spaces. Hoisington said that it is their opinion that this PUD does not represent good land use, does not adequately protect the natural resources or provide open spaces; and crams development on the peninsula that would not otherwise be developable without the PUD. He said, in conclusion, this PUD is an effort to put development first and the site second and puts development where none is intended, produces no usable open space, exceeds DNR standards for hard cover, produces nothing but tax base in return for granting _ variances. _ e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Twenty-one Hugh Maynard, 1420 Spring Valley Road, referred to the staff report, written to the City Council, for its meeting of February 4, 1997, and to the Planning Director who said that it has been determined that there is no need for more environmental studies on this site. Maynard told the commission what was decided was that there was no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) because of the magnitude of the project and the overall environmental consequences of the site, did not justify an EIS. He said that at this meeting the Mayor assured "us" that environmental concerns would be considered throughout the PUD process. Maynard said that it is the City's duty to monitor and look into, and if necessary, enforce. He noted Grimes' memo on variances citing that the City will see to it that this site is designed to preserve the health, safety and morals of this project; Maynard said that this is the general phrase used in all zoning. Commission Kapsner told Mr. Maynard that he was confused. He wanted to know if Mr. Maynard was saying that the PUD process is the best way of handling this unique parcel of land although most of the speakers are saying not to use the PUD process. Maynard responded that that the City, Planning Commission, and City Council are to protect the environment to the maximum extent. He said that the environmental inquiries have not come to an end just because there is no need for an EIS. Maynard commented on Commissioner's Lewis question of how wide the peninsula was and he said he has been asking that same question. He said that he would like to see a better survey of the site, commenting on the topography and wanting to see one (1) foot contours, instead of the two (2) feet as on the survey. Maynard said he talked with Mark Hurd who said that they only do two (2) foot contours and Maynard said that RLK drew the one (1) foot contours on the survey. Maynard noted that this point is important because if the peninsula was a little bit bigger, there is an existing bluff that would need to be protected. He also talked about when the survey was taken and how the area has changed since that time. Mr. Maynard next addressed open space and talked about whether the City's definition is the same as the DNR's d~finition noting that the City's Shoreline ordinance does not have a definition for open space, and that the City's ordinance was adopted before the DNR imposed the regulation on percentage of open space. The DNR's definition is that anything that is not covered is open space, and the City's ordinance does not have this definition. He told the commission it was up to them to decide if there is enough worthwhile open space. Mr. Maynard then addressed variances reviewing a plan outlining the 454 variances in 20 different categories of variances. He asked why this was importantl The Code says in the PUD section that substantial variances will be allowed; this doesn't mean to throw out the rule book. It means the nature of a PUD process is a negotiation, in that the City will grant variances for something in return. Maynard said that variances have to be justified and asked the commission to think about this. Mr. Maynard questioned when the list of variances were turned into the City because it was not attached to the copy of the application he received. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Twenty-two e Mr. Maynard next talked about variances on the shoreline. Maynard disputed the developers claim that he doesn't need variances on the peninsula. Maynard is saying that the road is within 50 feet of the shore which includes five (5) lots and an outlot. He noted that the DNR said that this project appears to comply with state wide shoreline management regulations as administered by the City of Golden Valley. Maynard questioned this because the City's code says a road cannot go closer than 50 feet to the shore. He talked about a letter that he wrote to Tom Hovey and questioned the distance to the shore. Mr. Hovey wrote back and said the nature of a PUD is to grant variances. Maynard said this is a negotiation, variances from the City for something in exchange for something. Maynard noted that Mr. Hovey has not said that the road satisfies the 50 feet, and its plain that it doesn't. Maynard asked if custom single-family homes is an appropriate type of project for the City's PUD ordinancel He told the commission that he has reviewed the ordinance, comprehensive plan and the City's PUD's and noted the types of adjoining uses. He said this PUD is very large compared to others. He read from the PUD ordinance and why the City has PUD ordinances, noting a section on tracts with poor soil ... or need for transition. This is what PUD's have been used for in Golden Valley. Chair Prazak asked if it was necessary to review the wording in the .Comprehensive Plan. e Maynard said it was and read from the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. He said the City's ordinance is about buildings and not just simply subdivision of land. Chair Prazak commented that the commission is familiar with the language of the PUD from reviewing it over the years and requested that other people be given a chance to talk. Mr. Maynard said that he would stick around to finish his comments. Leo Miller, 2150 Indiana Ave. No., commented that there have changes to the water, due to past damming and dumping around Sweeney and Twin Lakes, which could have changed the OHWL. He said it would be impossible to carry a canoe over the bridge. Mr. Miller commented on other development in the area and the problem with traffic on Golden Valley Road and not being able to safely make the turn onto this road. He believes the traffic on Golden Valley Road will become worse with the development of Hidden Lakes. Bob Morrison, 1840 Spring Valley Circle, commented on a couple of a concerns. One is a sense of exclusive attitude for high-end development. He heard this was a private land development and commented that he was a private land owner and also has to work with and meet all the requirements of the City. He talked about the proposed plan going before the Met Council and how they will see how it fits into the regional plan for development in the Twin Cities. Morrison is concerned with building a city within a city and people who buy on the high-end don't want a lot of people around. He noted that he was a member of Human Rights Commission. Morrison also commented on his concern of eXClusivity for _ housing and that Mark Grimes commented at a meeting a couple of years ago that the City _ was developed. He wanted to know if there were other housing options discussed for this site. He talked about the cities having an over abundance of housing at the high income e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Twenty-three levels. He wondered if there was an adequate market for 176 high value homes in this location. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Morrison if he was representing the Human Rights Commission and he said no, he was acting as a resident of Golden Valley. Jim Simpson, 1850 Major Drive, talked about using the lake in the summer and winter and that the quality of the lake has dropped. He showed the commission a picture of the peninsula with a row of houses transposed on it. He said that he has been on the peninsula and that there is no way that houses can be placed on it. Simpson said that he was worried about the development from an environmental standpoint. Don Paquette, 2000 Aquila Avenue North, commented on enjoying the use of the lake and said that the peninsula should not be developed and would be a real tragedy. He talked about being on the property and watching the sunset and that there is no other property like this in the Twin City area and one needs to go up north to find this kind of nature. He said that the peninsula cannot be developed without cutting down a lot of the trees. He commented on the private road length, on the peninsula, and its closeness to the water, and the environmental issues. e Mr. Paquette commented on Mr. Shardlow's presentation and noted the last portion concerning the amount of taxes this development will generate and what we really have here is the environment vs. taxes. Paquette commented on Mr. Shardlow's presentation concerning that this was a regulatory taking and Mr. Paquette believes that if the City doesn't give the developer what he wants, he'll sue. e Mr. Paquette said that he talked with Mr. Grimes and during that conversation Mr. Grimes said that the City wants to do what is best for the community. He commented on a report received from Tom Balcom, from the DNR, dated February 28, 1996, regarding site development of the peninsula and it should not be allowed from a natural resource perspective. Paquette said that he talked with Mr. Hovey about a meeting that occurred on March 6, 1996 and asked why they changed their minds about development of the peninsula. Mr. Paquette asked Mssrs. Hovey and Balcom anything they stated in their first letter (development with 700+ units) was true. They responded that their goal is to protect the peninsula and that the letter was full of opinions about how best to preserve and protect the peninsula. Paquette asked if those opinions still stand and they answered yes. Paquette said the DNR also recommended avoiding the springs, talked about washout, temporary damage to the lake, etc. But Hovey stated that one cannot rely on opinions and that they would like to see all development off the peninsula. Mr. Paquette commented on Mr. Fellman's belief that the DNR does not have standards to prohibit setbacks and Paquette submits that the DNR does have standards. Paquette talked about the design of the road to take into consideration vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening of the view from public waters. He said Hovey and Balcom based DNR approval with the understanding that the roadway would be 50 feet from the OHWL. It was Mr. Paquette's opinion that the DNR leaned in favor of the City of Golden Valley and the developer. Paquette asked the question if the DNR had been pressured; he said that the DNR had no answer. The DNR submitted that the City of Golden Valley was neutral. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission. February 24, 1997 Page Twenty-four e Paquette noted that as something as important as the development of the peninsula should not be neutral. Paquette said that Grimes, in his memo, does not make a recommendation, but it is his job to make a recommendation of whether the peninsula should be developed. Paquette does not believe that the peninsula can be developed effectively without damaging the lake and questioned the number of trees that would have to be removed, and there would no longer be that pristine look. It is an obligation of the City to review whether the springs will be damaged with this development. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Paquette that if he did not attend the March 6 meeting, between the DNR, City and the developer, how did he get his information. Mr. Paquette said through the people who were there. Laurel Newtson, 1250 Angelo Drive, said that she was in favor of the development of Hidden Lakes but the developer needs to abide by the existing codes, EPA requirements, regarding water quality, wetland, density issues, traffic, forest preservation and management. Dave Phillips, Director of the Courage Center, assumed property would develop and the lower the density the better because of their busy property. He said that he has been working with developer in terms of access improvement and parking. Phillips commented that he sees. no adverse effect on the Courage Center because of the development. e Pat Convoy, 1100 Angelo Drive, commented that the peninsula is the issue with her. She doesn't understand how a road and homes can be placed on this land. She talked about the ridge and small flat area. She feels there is the potential of destroying the peninsula with developing it. Convoy questioned if there was anyway to separate the peninsula from the rest of the project. Chair Prazak commented that the commission has flexibility on the recommendations made to the City Council. Eric Fournier, 2205 Mary Hills Drive, is opposed to the development on the peninsula and has real concerns about traffic. Fournier talked about the speed and traffic on Golden Valley Road. He is also concerned about the condition of the bridge on Golden Valley Road, east of the site. He questioned the development on the peninsula and the total change that would occur. Fournier said that he would like the developer to be successful but hopes that can happen without the development of the peninsula. Vice-Chair Pentel asked staff if the bridge on Golden Valley Road would be reconstructed and Grimes said yes. Jean Rudelius, 1805 Major Drive, commented that after reviewing the proposals for the peninsula, has great concerns regarding the viability for the project, commenting on the grading of the peninsula and having to bring in dirt because of the sensitivity of the area. e It Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24,1997 Page Twenty-five She is concerned about the road, and water and storm runoff and emergency vehicle access. Rudelius agrees that low-density residential is clearly 'the way to go on this site. She is concerned with the environmental issues and would like an accounting of this. Barney Rosen, 4820 Kilarney Drive, has been living on the lake for 30 years but enjoying for 60 years which includes the peninsula, Sweeney and Twin Lakes. He is against the development of the peninsula and the bluffs on the east side of Twin Lake. Rosen talked about the past erosion on the lake which is made up of fine sand. Linda Loomis, Chair Person for the Open Space and Recreation Commission reminded the commission that they had received a letter from Park and Rec Director Rick Jacobson. She was appearing before them to let them know that the Commission is recommending the full amount of park dedication required by City ordinance. She commented that the plan submitted to the Open Space and Rec Commission, in 1885 or 1996, did not have public open space and neither does the revised plan. She said that in any case, the commission is recommending an open space dedication. Chair Prazak commended the citizens of Golden Valley for their resourcefulness and persistence in digging out some of these issues. It Commissioner McAleese said that he was also impressed with the number of people who had tramped over the site, given the prominence of the big yellow criminal no trespass signs. Hugh Maynard, 1840 Spring Valley Road, commented on the planned homes for the development and its compatibility. The City's ordinance is designed to review all parts of the home building and its plans when all the plans are the same. He says it doesn't make any sense when there will be 41 different custom single family homes. Is it believable that they will all architecturally be the same. He asked if the City wants to be in the business of reviewing 41 different home plans I Maynard commented on the design and locations of the building, architectural style and other plans at General Plan review. We have no assurance what these homes will look like. Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing and asked for a motion to have the informal public hearing reconvened to the next regular meeting. Commissioner Pentel asked the Chair for clarification on hearing public testimony. Chair Prazak commented that no further public testimony would be heard at the next regular meeting. It Commissioner Lewis asked about the 60 day deadline. Director Grimes commented that the City can automatically extend the 60 day deadline and if need be work with the developer for another extension. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 24, 1997 Page Twenty-six MOVED by Pentel, seconded by McAleese and moved unanimously to reconvene the informal public hearing of the Hidden Lakes Development to the next regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission. Chair Prazak adjourned the meeting at 12:45am. Jean Lewis, Secretary e e e "'t e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, and Pentel absent was Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Elizabeth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - February 24. 1997 MOVED by Johnson, seconded by McAleese to table the February 24, 1997 minutes to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. II. (Continued - Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan _ Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Applicant: Hidden Lakes Development, LP e Address: 4101-4147 Golden Valley Road (Portion of Golden Valley Health Center Site) Purpose: Review of the Preliminary Design Plan which would allow for the construction of 176 residences in detached and attached construction styles on a portion of the P.U.D. Vice Chair Pentel introduced the agenda item and explained where the Planning Commission is in the process. She stated that the Commission understood the public's frustration over how late the previous meeting had run, but that the public hearing portion of the process had been concluded at that time and the Commissioners had held it open until there were no more people waiting to be heard. She encouraged those who still had statements to make to send letters to the City Council or to attend the upcoming public hearing at the Councilleve!. She explained that, while the informal public hearing was closed, the Commissioners would be asking questions of staff, the applicant, and perhaps others who had spoken during the hearing. She noted that she had prepared a list of the issue areas that had surfaced with regard to the proposal, and she would use that list to guide the discussion of the Commissioners. She suggested going through the list once to ask questions, then again for decision-making purposes. The first issue area was whether the proposal is acceptable under Golden Valley's PUD regulations. Commissioner McAleese noted that he had some comments to make on that issue, but would reserve them for a later point in the meeting; he had no questions. None of e the other Commissioners had questions on that issue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Two e The second issue area was Livable Communities. Commissioner Lewis asked if the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority had investigated any financing mechanisms for getting affordable housing included in the Hidden Lakes development. Director of Planning and Development Grimes indicated that the HRA had not looked into the matter. It might come up again when the proposal goes before the City Council. That body has made a commitment to the Livable Communities principles, which include making efforts toward affordable housing. However, Director Grimes questioned whether the Hidden Lakes site would be an appropriate area for those efforts, given the costs involved. Commissioner McAleese asked Director Grimes to back up and provide an overview of what Livable Communities means. Director Grimes did so. The Hidden Lakes development will help to broaden the supply of life cycle housing, or housing alternatives to traditional single family homes. It will not help with providing more affordable housing. The third issue area was peninsula development. Vice Chair Pentel asked about the fifty-foot setback. Director Grimes indicated that the developer has redesigned the original peninsula layout so that the fifty-foot setback for hard surfacing can be met at every single point along the peninsula's length except for where the existing driveway crosses the bridge and comes up onto the peninsula. Commissioner Kapsner asked about the adequacy of the survey done by the developer. Director Grimes responded that the survey had been signed by a registered e land surveyor and is considered acceptable. As the proposal proceeds into the General Plan stage, the developer will be required to go out and stake such features as the setbacks and conservation easements, so that everyone can see how various requirements are being met. Commissioner Groger asked for information on the conservation easements. Director Grimes explained that there is no standard provision for such easements, but one of the requirements of approving the PUD amendment is that the developer will provide a forty-foot conservation easement all along both sides of the peninsula. Assistant City Engineer Oliver came forward to explain further. Conservation easements, as a general rule, do prohibit any disturbance of the areas they cover. In this particular case, the extent of prohibition is still subject to negotiation. It is expected that some provision will be made for homeowners to maintain lake access. Staff are currently considering a maximum area of disturbance of 500 square feet per lot for any dock or other disturbances of the natural vegetation, but that is only a working position at this time. This issue will be settled during final plan approval. Commissioner Kapsner asked what agencies or City departments will be involved in overseeing the project as it goes forward. Mr. Oliver replied that, if the project proceeds as expected with no wetland impacts, the Department of Natural Resources will be involved during the PUD review and approval process. After that, a permit will be required for any work on the bridge out to the peninsula, as well as any other work that. occurs below the established ordinary high water level. Primary responsibilities during actual development will fall to the City staff in _ Engineering, Public Works, Inspections, and Planning Departments, and the City Forester. _ I' e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Three Vice Chair Pentel asked about the utility lines that would be suspended from the bridge: is this common, how will it work, and will there be a need for a lift station. Mr. Oliver explained that this is fairly common, and makes for easier maintenance than if the utilities lines are bored under the water. There will be lift stations for the sanitary and storm sewer lines. The City will maintain those lift stations. Commissioner McAleese noted that a large number of calculations will be needed to ensure that adequate storm water ponding is provided. He asked if the DNR would have any role in evaluating those calculations. Mr. Oliver said that the DNR typically does not get involved in such work. The Bassett Creek Water Management Organization will perform a technical review, however. Storm water from the peninsula will be routed into the pond directly north of the bridge access road. There is no plan at this time for channeling the water through more than one pond before letting it flow into the creek or lake, but that is something that certainly could be looked at. Typically, the longer storm water can be held, the cleaner it is at the time of release. When it finally ends up in the lake, it must meet water quality standards established by the Management Organization. e Commissioner McAleese said he was sure the water quality would meet standards in year one, but he wanted to know who would be responsible for ensuring that the standards continue to be met into the far future. According to Mr. Oliver, oversight would be undertaken by the City and the Watershed Commission, of which the City is a member. Ongoing pond maintenance will be the responsibility of the City, which already has an aggressive pond maintenance program in place citywide. Access for City maintenance will be provided through drainage and utility easements. Staff have been exploring the possibility of creating a special service district for the Hidden Lakes PUD, because there may be some extraordinary maintenance costs involved. Commissioner McAleese said he understood that many of the final details will not be resolved until a later date, but he felt it was good to know where things stand now because many people are concerned about these matters. He also asked whether there would be a backup power supply for the lift stations. According to Mr. Oliver, that would not be a typical lift station feature, and there are other means to provide emergency power if necessary. Alarms are in place to notify the City of power failures in such systems. Mr. Oliver returned to his seat. Vice Chair Pentel asked Director Grimes if the springs on the peninsula have been mapped yet. Director Grimes responded that the mapping has been completed by the developer and the springs are noted on the revised peninsula design layout. Vice Chair Pentel asked how much grading would be necessary on the peninsula, and how much wetland filling would occur. Developer Grimes reported that the developer has done away with any proposal for filling wetland areas, and the peninsula design layout gives some indication of grading. Commissioner Groger asked whether there would be any fencing between the last house on e the peninsula and the park land beyond. There is a partial fence on the property line now, and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 1 a, 1997 Page Four e such fences are allowed in Golden Valley. Director Grimes suggested that a representative for the developer step forward, present the revised peninsula layout, and answer questions. John Shardlow and Bill Huser, consultants for the developer, presented a large-scale rendering of the revised peninsula layout. It does indicate locations of all seeps and springs, it shows the access road meeting the fifty-foot setback line, and it includes cross sections of typical homes on two of the ten lots. On all ten lots, scaled footprints of actual homes built elsewhere by the selected peninsula builders have been drawn in, to show that very large homes, in the range of 7,000 square feet, could be accommodated within the building envelope. The existing peninsula house is smaller than the illustrative footprint at the same approximate location. A retaining wall is now proposed adjacent to the road as it passes by the wetland area, to eliminate the need for any filling. Vice Chair Pentel asked how wide the peninsula road would be. Mr. Huser replied that it would be twenty feet wide along most of the peninsula and would narrow down to fourteen feet at the southerly end. Vice Chair Pentel asked whether the storm water drainage system is also intended to capture the water coming off of the house roofs. Mr. Huser replied that it is. There will be curbing on the road help capture storm water, and there is a gradient from south to north to promote flow. e Gravity feed might be adequate to get the storm water over to the designated pond, or a lift station could be used, or a siphon-type feed; all of these options are being discussed with the Engineering Department. Mr. Huser went over the details of the two cross section views, one of which was drawn on lot 9, where the setback constraints will be greatest. Vice Chair Pentel asked staff whether any setback variances were likely to occur on any of the ten lots. Director Grimes felt there would not be. Mr. Shardlow stated that the developer would commit to no variances for the peninsula homes. Vice Chair Pentel asked about the PUD provision stating that no principle building can be nearer than its own height to an adjacent property. City Planner Knoblauch replied that staff interpret that provision to apply only at the edges of the PUD and it would not affect lots within the PUD. Vice Chair Pentel asked whether there would normally be a height limit of twenty-five feet for the peninsula homes. Staff replied that City Code provides for three stories; the DNR may have a twenty-five foot height limit in shoreland areas. Mr. Shardlow and Mr. Huser left the podium. The fourth issue area on Vice Chair Pentel's list was bluff development. She reminded the Commission that the stability of the bluff areas was called into question at the informal public hearing. She asked whether there was any certainty as to the stability of the bluffs, and also asked whether the proposed road would need to be relocated due to bluff impacts or whether the disruption had already taken place when the existing home was built. Director Grimes replied that the DNR has declared the bluff where the road crosses over to the peninsula to be e an already altered bluff, and therefore not subject to the same level of protection as undisturbed bluffs elsewhere on the site. Moving the road to the south as the developer e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Five proposes meets the DNR's standards for that particular location. The developer's plan meets DNR protection requirements for the other bluff areas. The fifth issue area was the on-site landfill. Vice Chair Pentel noted that there had been reports of medical waste in the filled area, and questions had been raised at the informal public hearing as to the adequacy of the soil borings. Director Grimes indicated a letter submitted to the Commissioners by John Shardlow, addressing these concerns. Mr. Shardlow had also submitted to staff information on the borings themselves. Depth of borings varies between twenty and sixty feet, and no evidence of medical waste or garbage turned up. e Commissioner McAleese recalled that at the previous meeting the developer had mentioned that the EAW was not technically required by law for this proposal, but it was done anyway. The proposal has now reached a stage where the environmental issues can be managed by staff, according to the developer's packet. Commissioner McAleese wanted to know what happens in a situation like this, where additional questions come up. Which staff member is responsible for monitoring environmental factors. Director Grimes stated that environmental issues would primarily fall to the Engineering and Inspection Departments. For example, the utility construction will involve daily on-site inspections. If staff see any signs of pollution at any excavated areas, work will have to stop until additional analysis can be done. This has happened on other sites around the City, particularly HRA redevelopment parcels. Staff are concerned about ensuring the long term viability of the utility systems, and soil conditions will be evaluated carefully at locations for utilities and for the private roads. Vice Chair Pentel asked Director Grimes if he felt the landfill issue has been resolved. He replied that staff have seen the Phase I environmental audit, and no particular issues were called out. At this time, staff feel any further questions are a private matter between the developer and participating financing agencies. At the suggestion of staff, Vice Chair Pentel had John Shardlow come forward and summarize the contents of his letter for the benefit of those in the audience. Mr. Shardlow addressed public concerns about a Phase" environmental report having been done and not being available to the public. There is no Phase " report at this time. The Phase I document sets out known conditions on the site and recommends additional studies to be done, construction practices to be followed, and steps to be taken if pollution is found. He described the numerous borings that have been done and the five separate geotechnical reports involved. In response to reports of medical dumping, a former hospital official has been contacted and has stated that, years ago, debris was hauled to the south end of the site and regularly burned. That area has been rained on for many years, and in Mr. Shardlow's opinion, anything that could leach out of the burned materials has already done so. If there is any pollution beneath the forty feet of twenty-year-old demolition debris, Mr. Shardlow believes that the best solution would be to cap it with as much impervious surface as possible. e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Six e Vice Chair Pentel asked if there is a map of the borings anywhere in the Commission's packet. Mr. Shardlow said there is a map in the materials given to staff. Copies of the documents were not given to all Commissioners because it is not relevant to the zoning matter at hand. Mr. Shardlow sat down. Commissioner Kapsner said he thought it was important to state that no favoritism was being shown to the developer, nor was the informal public hearing being reopened; the Commission is simply answering questions, and it is important for the public to understand that. Vice Chair Pentel further clarified that the Commission has the right to ask questions of anyone who gave testimony at the last meeting. Commissioner McAleese noted that the Commission has even gone beyond the appropriate level of review for this stage. That has been done because the City Council is going to ask many of those questions anyway, and likes to have the Planning Commission raise them first. Also, part of what the Commission does is helping the public understand what is happening. The sixth issue area on the list was park dedication. For the record, Director Grimes read a recommendation from the Open Space and Recreation Commission, dated March 3, 1997, in its entirety. Linda Loomis, Chair of the Open Space Commission, stepped up to answer questions. Vice Chair Pentel asked if the Open Space Commission had thought about where public access might best be located. Ms. Loomis replied that the Commission left that up to developer as the one with the design experience at his disposal. Commissioner Johnson asked if it is important to have both developed park land and open space. Ms. Loomis said the Open Space Commission asked for a picnic site and playground area, maybe a fishing pier, and some parking. The Open Space Commission feels the lake is not suitable for motorized vehicles, but someone with a car-top watercraft should be able to put it in the lake. e Commissioner Kapsner asked about the amount of parking to be provided. Ms. Loomis felt that six to ten spaces would be adequate. Commissioner Groger asked if the Open Space Commission had considered that people might use those parking spaces for other reasons. Ms. Loomis said there had been no discussion about reasons for use, but the Commission had talked about posting IIno parkingll signs on the streets to help control lake access and prevent overuse. Commissioner Kapsner noted that the City already has access to Twin Lake, and he wondered if there had been any discussion about developing that access. Ms. Loomis acknowledged that the City owns a lake shore lot at the south end of Sweeney Lake. She has never been there herself, but has heard that it is steep but passable, and people do put their canoes in. It is just a vacant lot with trees on it. It is on a dead-end, and is hard to find. It has never been considered for official lake access. Commissioner Kapsner felt that conditions on the Hidden Lakes site would be similar to the City's lot. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Seven Director Grimes stated that the City's lot at the south end of Sweeney Lake was acquired for storm sewer purposes, not for lake access. An adjacent property owner wants to buy it. There is also a fifteen-foot-wide public access easement off of Angelo Drive. Vice Chair Pentel said that access is very steep; one could stand at the top and fling a canoe to the bottom, but it would arrive in pieces. She feels the City-owned lot is also heavily gullied and would not provide easy access. Commissioner Kapsner asked if the terrain is any different on the Hidden Lakes side of the lake. Vice Chair Pentel said the north end of the lake on the Hidden Lakes property is flat. Commissioner Kapsner noted that putting the park there raises the potential problem of overflow parking on adjacent lots. Commissioner McAleese asked if the parking at the City-owned lot was on the cul-de-sac. Director Grimes said the location of the lot is not well known. There are no "no parking" signs on the street. Ms. Loomis said adjacent landowners have estimated about 100 people use the lot for lake access during the summer. e Commissioner McAleese asked how much land the Open Space Commission wanted the developer to dedicate. Ms. Loomis said the Commission has asked for the maximum amount allowed. Director Grimes said that would be up to ten percent of the total acreage. Commissioner McAleese noted that the developers materials refer to the ten percent as 6.8 acres, but that only takes into account the specific Hidden Lakes land, not the PUD as a whole. City Planner Knoblauch stated that the terms of the existing permit provide for park dedication as specific lots are developed, so it is not incorrect for the developer to base his numbers on the smaller acreage. Commissioner McAleese asked whether PUD 45 remains in existence if this proposal is approved. Staff said that the proposal is an amendment to existing PUD 45. As part of the amendment, and purely for administrative purposes, staff are recommending a new name and number for the entire PUD. If this causes problems for the Planning Commission or City Council, the current number and name can be retained. The seventh issue area on Vice Chair Pentel's list was the public access trail running through the development and into adjacent Wirth Park. Vice Chair Pentel asked whether the trail would be on a sidewalk and would be open 24 hours a day. Director Grimes said the details have not been worked out yet. Staff's intent is that the trail will have signs posted at Golden Valley Road, identifying it as a public trail, and that it will be more than just a sidewalk, so it will be suitable for biking as well. He has calculated that a trail of ten to fifteen feet in width running through the site would come to roughly 30,000 square feet of linear open space available to the public. Vice Chair Pentel asked if dedicated park land within the site couldn't also be signed at Golden Valley Road, making it easier to find. Director Grimes said it could. . Vice Chair Pentel asked about public use of other private roads in the development. Given that the developer has talked about a canoe portage across the peninsula bridge and public fishing from the bridge, will the public have to arrive at that point by canoe, or can they walk in from the road. Bill Huser stepped up to address that question. He reviewed the trail system on the basic site plan. There will be a trail link between the main trail and the bridge. Once the private road Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Eight e actually reaches the peninsula, no public access is intended. Access as far as the bridge is intended to be pedestrian rather than vehicular. On the peninsula side of the bridge there will be a hammer-head turnaround surfaced in something like turf block for cars that do get that far. The main trail will be separate from the road, but will cross from the west to east side at one point. The road will be lighted. and the trail will be on the same side as the lights so they can serve both road and trail. The eighth issue area was variances. Commissioner Lewis noted that staff usually list the variances involved in a PUD, and this time there is no list. Commissioner McAleese clarified that the issue seemed to be whether the application was deficient for not coming in with a list of variances attached. He had reviewed the file and found there was a list. It was not exceedingly detailed, but met the application requirement. The requirement is not in code; it is a staff requirement for administrative use. The important thing is that the City has the plat and site plans, which are what staff really use. The application package is complete. Commissioner Groger asked what variances would still be necessary with the revised peninsula plan. City Planner Knoblauch pointed out that the developer had committed to no variances for the homes on the peninsula lots. Director Grimes said that there obviously would be no way to put a sixty-foot-wide public road on the peninsula and have the homes set back 35 feet from it. Staff could think of no other variances on the peninsula, except for the location of the existing e road segment. Commissioner Kapsner stated that there is no way to get onto the peninsula without getting close to the water at some point. The peninsula seems to be the source of most of the variance problems, and the public's concern seems to be that the proposed streets are not wide enough. Vice Chair Pentel noted that setbacks from the private streets seem to be a concern throughout the development. Director Grimes stated that the 35-foot setback requirement does not apply to private streets. Vice Chair Pentel noted that there is still a fifteen-foot setback specified in the PUD regulations. Director Grimes said the fifteen-foot setback is met in this development. The ninth issue area was the engineering concerns outlined in the staff report of February 13, 1997, known as the Oliver memo. Commissioner Groger said he was troubled by the inadequate turn-arounds on dead-end streets. Assistant City Engineer Oliver returned to the podium to report that staff have been meeting with the developer on this issue. The primary concern is emergency vehicle access. Staff are confident that the matter can be resolved as part of the final process. There have also been discussions about realignment of some intersections and connectivity of the road system. Again, public safety access is the City's main concern, and staff are confident that any problems can be resolved. Vice Chair Pentel asked about the tree inventory and preservation plan. The developer's plan shows street plantings, but not much else. Given the amount of grading to be done, Vice Chair Pentel wondered if it would be possible to save existing trees in areas other than the steep ~ slopes and conservation areas. Mr. Oliver explained that custom grading, which will be used at the site, is able to work around trees. Most of the trees identified for preservation are in areas e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Nine that will not be subject to grading at all. He is confident that custom grading can successfully preserve other trees on a case by case basis, with oversight by the City Forester as individual site grading plans are reviewed. Commissioner McAleese asked whether the developer had submitted a list of the many restrictive covenants that will be required as part of the development. Mr. Oliver said he had seen no such list. Most of the issues raised in the Oliver memo would not be addressed through restrictive covenants. Commissioner McAleese stated that normally the restrictive covenants would be part of the preliminary plat process. He asked if the developer had begun working on the covenants. John Shardlow stated for the record that all of the issues raised in the Oliver memo would be addressed, whether through restrictive covenants or other means; there are no written covenants ready at this time. Commissioner McAleese noted that the PUD preliminary plan stage is supposed to include all materials normally submitted with a preliminary plat; to him, it seems clear that copies of the restrictive covenants are needed in order to evaluate what is being proposed. He expected that something could be worked out before the City Council hearing. He would not expect them to be too detailed at this point, but there are so many things to be covered that they need to be addressed at some level now. e Commissioner Groger had a question that was not part of the Oliver memo, but was on a related subject. The preliminary site plan includes a notation that overhead utilities on the south and west property lines will be buried. He thought the overhead utilities were on the south and east, not the west. Staff confirmed that it should be east. The tenth and final issue area was conservation easements. Commissioners had no questions that had not already been addressed in earlier discussion. Vice Chair Pentel asked if there were any other questions that Commissioners wanted to ask before proceeding to discussion on a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner McAleese asked for a brief explanation from John Shardlow on information he submitted with regard to impervious surfacing calculations. Mr. Shardlow said that the developer's calculation of the amount of impervious surfacing in the shoreland area had been called into question at the informal public hearing. He wanted the Commission to know that the calculations had been revisited, and they are correct as presented. The Hidden Lakes calculations assume that the entire building envelope on each lot will become impervious surface, no matter how large an area that is. The shoreland area impervious surfacing will meet DNR guidelines. The only way he can see for any other conclusion to have been reached is if portions of the site outside of the shoreland area are included in the calculations. Commissioner McAleese asked what happens to the calculations if already-developed portions of the shoreland area are included along with the Hidden Lakes development areas. Mr. Shardlow said his understanding is that number would still fall within the DNR guidelines. The Commission moved on to discussion of the issues and formulation of a recommendation to e the City Council. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission e March 10, 1997 Page Ten The first issue area was whether the proposal is acceptable under Golden Valley's PUD regulations. Commissioner McAleese noted that this issue had been raised by Mr. Maynard in materials submitted to the City as testimony, and had been addressed by Director Grimes in the staff memo. Staff have stated that the proposal is acceptable, but in Golden Valley City Code it is the City Council that makes a final determination in cases like this where an administrative interpretation of the PUD regulations is challenged. It is the role of the Planning Commission to assemble facts and make a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner McAleese said that the completeness of the application had been satisfactorily addressed, but that there was still some question as to whether the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning code. In response to that question, Commissioner McAleese suggested that the Commission adopt the written opinion of the City Attorney stating that it does. After reading City Code, Commissioner McAleese feels that reasonable people can disagree on this point. However, looking back at the preamble to the PUD regulations and at the City's comprehensive plan, it clearly has been a long-time intention of the City to apply the PUD provisions to residential developments. Commissioner McAleese recommended that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council the opinion of the City Attorney, along with a recommendation that this development does qualify as a PUD. Commissioner McAleese also noted that one of the things the DNR always likes local governments to consider with PUD applications is whether the PUD is appropriate at the particular location, so it is important to address the question for that reason e as well. Commissioner Kapsner stated that there had been quite a lot of testimony from the public that they feel this should not be a PUD, but in his view, if this were not a PUD he would suggest that it be made one because of the environmental concerns. The City has better long-term controls over the site when it is a PUD. There are management tools available through the PUD process that the City wouldn't have if this were a standard development. It is important for the public to understand, whether they agree with the final decision or not, that the PUD really puts the City in a stronger position. The second issue area was Livable Communities. Vice Chair Pentel said that it had become clear that while this proposal may be improving the City's supply of life cycle housing, it does nothing for afford ability. Commissioner Kapsner said that he feels the Planning Commission should support affordable housing, but it is impossible to consider affordable units as part of this development. Limited access to the site requires low density housing, which is not in keeping with Livable Community goals. Vice Chair Pentel pointed out that the earlier proposal for the site had included higher density in part through senior housing, which might not have much of an impact on traffic concerns. Director Grimes said that the EAW showed a traffic generation of 6,000 to 7,000 cars per day for the earlier proposal and only 1,500 cars per day with the current proposal. Commissioner Lewis felt that the developer was coming to the City asking for a lot of variances, and there should be trade-offs for that. She stated that she could not support the proposal e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Eleven without the inclusion of affordable housing. Commissioner Johnson questioned whether the City could realistically consider affordable housing in this area; she felt that Valley Square's Area B would be a more appropriate location, and was one where affordable housing has been discussed. Commissioner McAleese said that in reading through a number of housing reports from several groups, he had never seen a reported deficiency of housing for the wealthy in Golden Valley, but there is a need for affordable housing. At the Livable Communities amount of $115,000, the developer should be able to accommodate a few units. If the City is serious about Livable Communities, Commissioner McAleese feels it is time to take a stand. Commissioner Lewis agreed, stating that this is an exclusive, sterile community and there is a need to bring in some diversity; she also thought that the Livable Communities afford ability price had gone up, and that funding does exist to help bridge the remaining gap. Commissioner Kapsner said the City could very likely get the developer to provide some affordable units, but only for the first sale; Realtors say "location, location, location'" and the market factors at this location will quickly drive prices right back up if the City tries to lower them artificially. e The third issue area was peninsula development. Commissioner Johnson asked Assistant City Engineer Oliver to comment on the narrowness of the peninsula road in the revised layout. Mr. Oliver said he had not had much time to review the new layout, and he wasn't prepared to discuss whether it raises any concerns with regard to public safety access. The fact that all homes on the peninsula will have sprinkler systems does lessen any concern about fire access, but he will need time to evaluate the narrower road before making any comment. Commissioner Groger stated that he had not been present at the previous meeting, but had reviewed the hours of tape as well as all written materials so that he could participate in this discussion. He had found the peninsula development to be the most troubling aspect of the proposal. He has walked the peninsula, and even taken along a tape measure. The ideal situation would be no development on the peninsula, but in the ideal world he would rather that the entire lake not be developed so the City could put a trail around it and a rose garden and have its own Lake Harriet. The one point he kept coming back to in reviewing the testimony was that much of the discussion was about the peninsula, but the fact remains that this is private property. If it was his land, he would expect to be considered reasonably by the City. The development on the peninsula is tight, but it does work. He is reluctantly satisfied on that point. Homes on the west side of the lake are closer to the lake than 75 feet, and have mowed lawns down to the shore, which is more damaging than what is proposed for the peninsula. The road is narrow, but it is a private road; there are private roads in other PUD's, and there are shared driveways and homes sitting behind other homes with only a narrow access. The one thing he would insist on is some form of turnaround for emergency vehicles at the end of the road. He likes the fact that there will be public access as far as the bridge; it is unfortunate that what some may have perceived as a right to use the land on the peninsula will be gone, but legally, people do not have the right to use it now - it is private property. The PUD will provide legal public access that does not exist now. e Vice Chair Pentel said that she sees the developer as meeting the required fifty-foot setback by Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Twelve . making the road narrower and narrower, and that bothers her. She agrees that it is private property. The developer is asking for things from the City, and she wonders what the City is getting back. There is very little passive public land proposed within the development; there will be children living there or visiting, and there is no place for them to play. She feels that the flfty- foot setback would not be allowed under standard zoning, and does not like using the PUD to allow a greater environmental impact. The idea of fitting homes onto the peninsula by putting the road fifty feet from the shore and narrowing it down to fourteen feet, which is less than a normal double-driveway, is not acceptable. Commissioner Johnson said she is also concerned about the width of the road. She feels the developer is giving up road width in order to have bigger houses. With fewer houses on the peninsula, the road could be worked around to make it wider for improved emergency access, and there would be turn-around space. She would also like to see part of the peninsula included in a park dedication, so the public could have access to both Sweeney and Twin Lakes. Commissioner Lewis agreed that she could not support the preliminary plan as submitted. The peninsula is over-developed. Her concerns were similar to those already noted. Commissioner McAleese said he has never used Twin Lake. One thing is clear to him: unlike tit Sweeney Lake, Twin Lake is a wilderness lake, and he would hate to see this change. He understands this is private property, and sometimes private property gets developed. He feels that it is an especially environmentally sensitive area, and even though this is a PUD, it should be held to the strictest standards. Code says that the road should be 75 feet back where feasible and practical; there are certainly areas where it is feasible and practical to meet this requirement, but then it cuts into the number of developable lots. The City should apply normal variance requirements, including an explanation of hardship for all variances on the peninsula He would like the City to use the same concept as the DNR, which applies a tier system when considering PUD proposals; moving back from the shore in tiers, the DNR applies different principles in its review. He would really like to see the number of homes on the peninsula reduced, he would certainly like to see the road wider, and with that type of road he feels there will have to be covenants restricting parking. He also wonders if anyone has addressed questions such as how to get moving vans down the peninsula road and back. There may also be a weight restriction on the bridge. Those are issues that need to be addressed. He intends to vote against the current plan in the hope that doing so will allow the City to enter into some more negotiating that will result in lesser development of the peninsula. Commissioner Kapsner said most of his comments had been made by others. He agrees that if a landowner can meet requirements and wants to develop his property, he should be able to do so. There are many instances in Golden Valley with shared driveways very similar to the proposed peninsula road, which at its narrowest point serves not more than three homes. In his mindr this situation is a shared driveway, not a public road. He agrees with Commissioner Groger that this is a beautiful piece of property, and he would like it to remain the same, but he . e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Thirteen feels strongly that it is neither right nor fair for the City to say "you can't develop that property because we like the way it looks now." Vice Chair Pentel commented that there was obviously some disagreement among the Commissioners that was probably reflected in the audience as well. She asked if the Commissioners felt they should be voting on each issue as it came up. It was agreed that the minutes should reflect the strength of feeling on individual issues, but the Council would be expecting a single recommendation. Vice Chair Pentel moved down to the sixth issue area, park dedication. In the first run-through of issues, it did not appear that the Commissioners had a great deal to say about the areas of bluff development or the landfill, so she proposed to skip over those. e Commissioner Johnson said she would like to see an area set aside for picnic use as recommended by the Open Space Commission, with parking and canoe access to both lakes. She did not feel that was asking a great deal of the developer. She does not know where the City-owned lot is on the west side of the lake, and she thinks this development would be a beautiful spot in Golden Valley to have access for the public. She would also like to see some undeveloped open space in addition to the park site. She agrees with the Open Space Commission that the City should get the maximum amount of land allowable rather than accepting the cash value. For clarification, Commissioner McAleese asked if access to both lakes meant Commissioner Johnson wanted at least part of the park dedication to be on the peninsula; she said yes. Vice Chair Pentel asked if an access easement across the peninsula would be satisfactory; Commissioner Johnson said she had not thought about that level of detail. Director Grimes noted that there are many details which would have to be worked out before a final park dedication could be determined. The Park Department would have to evaluate any site in view of the rest of the park system and of the City's ability to maintain it. The Public Safety Department should be consulted with regard to policing issues. Vice Chair Pentel agreed that the City should require the maximum amount of land for park dedication. She suggested that the northernmost lot along the shore line of Sweeney Lake would be a good location for a developed park. Also, within the development itself, things are very tight, and there is very little open space within the project that is not a steeply wooded slope, or someone's private yard, or road, or wetland. Putting the recreation area near the entry to the site might make public lake access more acceptable. She would like to see part of the peninsula left in a conservation easement; that area perhaps could count toward the park contribution if the City does not get the maximum amount of acreage through outright dedication. Director Grimes pointed out that this site is adjacent to the largest open space in Golden Valley, Wirth Park. The proposed trail system will open up Wirth Park, as it has not been in the past, e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10,1997 Page Fourteen e through connection to park trails. Instead of unofficial paths across railroad tracks or whatever, there will actually be dedicated public access, and that has some value to the City. There have been policing problems in Wirth Park because of its isolation and iack of access. Providing a better trail system will bring more people to the park, and the Director of Public Safety feels that will increase the level of safety for everyone. Commissioner Groger asked what sort of problems have come up in the park. Director Grimes read from a list of police incidents: disturbances, indecent exposure, intoxication, juvenile calls, one case of rape last summer. Patrol of the area has been left to Golden Valley police, even though it is a Minneapolis park. Commissioner Groger said that is one of his concerns. He likes the idea of public access to the lakes. He has been there only once, and had to trespass to do it. When he got over to Twin Lake, he was rather shocked, and he has not been back. He did not feel comfortable, because there was a lot of illegal activity going on. The police have had to restrict parking down by Highway 55, where many park visitors have sought access over the years. There are definite issues involving the behavior of the people who frequent Twin Lake. He is concerned that outsiders looking for new ways down to Twin Lake would learn about any park dedication in this development and will overrun the parking area so it would not serve Golden Valley residents. Commissioner McAleese commented that inappropriate behavior is not unusual in any Golden Valley park. The way to deal with it is to ensure adequate policing. Director Grimes said that if it becomes easier for the public and the police to have legal access to more of the park area, problems can be reduced. Vice Chair Pentel agreed. Having public access to the lakes will not increase problems. This development and the development down on the Schaper area will have a substantial taming effect on park behavior. e Commissioner Groger said he would support the move to have some park dedication, but not to the maximum amount allowed. Being surrounded on three sides by park land or lake, this is not an area that is in need of much more open space. He would like to have some access, but the City needs to keep in mind the public trail that has already been proposed. Commissioner Kapsner noted that the City has had access to Sweeney Lake for a long time, and did not see any need to develop it for park use, so it turned into a lot full of weeds and washed-out gullies. If the City is going to insist on lake access as part of the Hidden Lakes proposal, the City should also be prepared to spend the money needed to develop it rather than just having another patch of weeds going down to the lake. If the City isn't willing to take responsibility for another park, then it should not be telling the developer he has to dedicate the land. . Commissioner McAleese supported the need for park dedication. He agreed that the most appropriate location is probably the lot indicated by Vice Chair Pentel. At the very least, all residents of Hidden Lakes should have access to some form of open space on the peninsula, e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Fifteen and it would be nice to have public access for portaging canoes. A public park on the peninsula could cause real traffic problems because of road constraints, but many people have commented that portaging canoes across the peninsula is much easier than trying to deal with the bridge. There is a need for usable open space in the upper portion of the development as well. There seem to be several conflicting totals of open space for this PUD, ranging from 44.3 acres down to 13.9. One thing that still needs to be resolved is whether the developer should be allowed to continue limiting his discussion to just the Hidden Lakes development proposal, or if he should be required to address the PUD as a whole. Also, much of what the developer wants to count as open space is back yards, which are not what we generally think of when we talk about open space. Even the DNR seems unable to settle on the adequacy of the open space within the development. Of all the ways of counting open space in the proposal, the figure of 13.9 acres, which has been certified by a registered engineer, seems most appropriate for the City to use. The larger numbers all come from the developer and include a variety of "open" spaces. The 13.9 acres seems to include basically the wooded slopes and the small open areas around the road system. Vice Chair Pentel moved the discussion on to the issue area of variances. She recalled Commissioner McAleese's earlier comments about the need to be more strict on the peninsula development. e Commissioner Kapsner noted that width of streets had figured into much of the debate _ whether they are workable or not. In solving that issue, a great number of variances would be eliminated. He does not have a strong feeling against narrow streets, and is willing to leave the final decisions to the Engineering Department as far as safety is concerned. A narrower street can certainly serve a neighborhood. Some people seem to think that the developer is benefiting unfairly by having narrow streets, but he does not have a problem with the street width, and is confident that staff can resolve any problems. Once the streets are taken out of the discussion, many of the variance issues go away. Commissioner Johnson said the street variances were of the most concern to her as well. If the developer addresses the issues in the Oliver memo, she does not see the variances as a problem. Vice Chair Pentel said one of the issues that has not been much talked about is the small setbacks of the homes from the already narrow streets. The developer is using the minimum fifteen-foot setback from the narrow streets, and she wonders how that will play out visually. What sort of green space or tree plantings does that allow? How much of the area will actually be usable front yard as opposed to driveway? The narrower streets do not bother her, but there is only a fifteen-foot setback from the narrow street to a house that is going to be massive. She is not talking about the peninsula here. For example, there will be a twenty-foot setback from the typical lot on the hilltop homes; with a twenty-foot wide street and homes on both sides, there is only sixty feet from home to home across the street. Currently in Golden e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Sixteen e Valley the standard is for sixty feet of right-of-way, plus setbacks. This development will have a very different appearance, and she is not sure that it will sell with the market segment the developer wants to attract. Also, this is another instance where the City is giving a bit from its normal standards, and she wonders what is being gained in return. Staff commented that there does seem to be a market for developments like Hidden Lakes. People who buy there will know what they are getting into, and they will be there by choice. Also, advocates of "neotraditional" planning say cities should move toward features like narrower streets and reduced front setbacks. Vice Chair Pentel responded that neotraditionalism is about much more than that; it features large common open spaces and short blocks with many street connections. This development is not neotraditional. Commissioner McAleese said the lack of common open space is his fundamental problem with this development. There are huge tracts of open space, but they are private yards. You can look, but not go in them. The people who live here will have beautiful houses, but they will live in pretty cramped quarters, and all they can do for recreation is walk the trail. There is no place where they can go out and throw a Frisbee around. Commissioner McAleese said he is also surprised to hear that the City Code does not apply to private streets; he is sure it has been applied that way on other occasions. The subdivision e chapter of City Code does say that front setback lines must be thirty-five feet back from public right-of-way. The PUO regulations say that PUO's can incorporate variances from the zoning chapter, not from other chapters of City Code. If there is right-of-way under these private streets, any reduction from the thirty-five feet still needs a separate subdivision variance. Subdivision variances require a demonstration of hardship, and the only reason for variances here is the developer is putting lots of homes in a small area. Commissioner McAleese is concerned about the procedural issues involved. Staff clarified that there are no rights-of-way; the term had been mistakenly applied to what are actually easements for utility purposes. Based on the clarification, Commissioner McAleese withdrew his comments on this point. Commissioner Kapsner stated that the Planning Commission is forgetting one thing: this site borders one of the largest parks in the metropolitan area. One-fourth of the peninsula is park _ wild, with trees. Everybody living here is within walking distance of park land. What Commissioner Groger said earlier is important: this development is providing public access to a lot of park land where there is no access now. There being no more comments on issue areas, the Commission moved on to formulating its recommendations. Commissioner Groger moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary design plan for Hidden Lakes PUO 74, subject to resolution of the issues raised in the Engineering memo, and subject to any subsequent motions that may be approved on specific issues. Vice Chair Pentel said she thought the Commission needed to get the issues e outlined before acting on the motion. e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Seventeen City Planner Knoblauch offered a list of issues that she had been maintaining as discussion progressed. Main points of concern seemed to fall into five points. There needs to be a Uvable Communities element included in the plan. There is a big concern with public safety access, which seems to be well-covered under the broader heading of the Engineering memo. With regard to the peninsula, there should be fewer homes, with some public open space, and better justification for any variances. Preliminary covenants in draft form need to be available for City review as soon as possible. There must be public park area with access to both lakes. Director Grimes suggested a reference to the recommendations of the Open Space Commission to cover the park issue. Vice Chair Pentel and Commissioner Johnson wanted the wording to be stronger than that, with direct reference to park dedication and access to both lakes. Vice Chair Pentel noted that each Commissioner might have a different idea of how much the density on the peninsula should be reduced. Commissioner Kapsner said there is going to be disagreement on other issues as well, but the Commission has to rely on the minutes to reflect individual positions, and the Council will certainly want to spend a lot of time reviewing those minutes. He is willing to trust that his opinions will be conveyed by the minutes, even if they are not spelled out in the letter of the overall motion. e Commissioner Johnson summarized that, for review purposes, the motion is approval with the five issue areas being addressed. Commissioner McAleese recalled that earlier he had talked about forwarding a recommendation on whether this proposal is appropriate as a PUD. He felt there should be a motion on that point before the motion on the PUD plan. Commissioner Groger withdrew his earlier motion. Moved by McAleese, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously that this application be deemed qualified as a PUD, submitting as facts the completeness of the application, supporting statements in the comprehensive plan, and the written opinion of the City Attorney. Vice Chair Pentel again summarized the elements of the motion on the preliminary design plan as discussed so far. Commissioner McAleese suggested one more issue, based on a comment he recalled Mr. Shardlow making: liThe concept as you see it today is probably a little tighter than weld like it to be." Commissioner McAleese felt it would be appropriate to forward that to the City Council in the form of a recommendation for reduced density throughout the rest of the development in addition to the peninsula recommendation. His recollection was that Mr. Shardlow had indicated a modified plan was already being considered but had not been completed. Director Grimes noted that, as the plan goes forward, other issues such as adequacy of the road widths or provision of public park land would contribute to reduced density without a separate recommendation. e. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Eighteen e Commissioner Lewis suggested a recommendation to explore options for additional site access. Director Grimes said the City has tried over the years, but keeps hitting a brick wall; with the currently proposed level of development, the existing access has been determined to be adequate for the expected traffic generation. Vice Chair Pentel asked for a new motion. Commissioner Groger asked if the subsequent issues are to be rolled into a single motion, and was told that they were. He noted that he would have to explain his motion very carefully in that case. Commissioner Groger moved to recommend approval of the preliminary design plan for Hidden Lakes PUD 74, subject to resolution of the issues in the Engineering memo as well as subsequent issues identified by the Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Johnson. For discussion purposes, City Planner Knoblauch restated the additional issues to be included in the motion. Commissioner Groger said he was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with his own motion. _ In the interest of moving on, he would accept the package. Looking at the list, it would be nice . to see all of those issues resolved, but he thinks some of them are unreasonable. He would not necessarily deny the PUD based on them. He would strike all of the add-ons except for the Engineering memo in order to see the PUD approved. He wanted the Commissioners to keep in mind what the City is already getting. Also, he felt the city to some extent made the property unusable by not allowing medical office expansion in the past. The Commission has a beautiful development here, and a vast improvement over the site today. There will be no City money involved. The property will be cleaned up. It will give the City access to Twin Lake, which it does not have now. There is more open space in this development than there is in his neighborhood. If too many demands are placed on the developer, he may walk. The next development proposal might be a state-owned juvenile detention facility. He likes all of the ideas that have been raised, but he also really likes the general concept for this development and doesn't want to pick it apart. His overall feeling is that he wants to see this PUD proceed. Commissioner Johnson said that she agrees with Commissioner Grogers comments. Maybe it would be better to begin with a motion on the PUD concept, followed by separate motions on the issues. Commissioner Groger said he felt the Commissioners had adequate representation of individual views in the minutes, and on that basis he would support the package, unless another Commissioner had strong feelings against a specific issue being included. Commissioner Lewis stated that she would not recommend approval of the concept unless it was tied to affordable housing. She also would not support it without a reduction in the density e of the peninsula development. e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Nineteen Vice Chair Pentel said that each Commissioner has specific concerns; each one has a different point at which he or she would say no to this proposal. She would hate to choose one issue over another. The City Council is certainly going to get a feel for what the Commission considers the major issues to be. Commissioner McAleese said he is a little uncomfortable now with this big, massive motion. He is opposed to the development proposal as it was presented to the Commission. He could probably vote in favor of the development that this motion represents, but it isn't what the developer is currently proposing. It is a wish list. If the Commission wants to vote on the package, fine, but that does not reflect the proposal as it stands. Developer Grimes asked Commissioner McAleese just how much of the proposed development was causing his negative position; it appeared to be a very small percentage of the overall proposal. . Commissioner McAleese stated that the depth of his feeling is strong enough to make the failure to address those issues fatal in his mind. If the developer would take the Commission's suggestions and work with those before going to the Council, that would be okay. He is in favor of the idea of putting houses on the site. He is in favor of the ideas raised by the Commission. Historically, however, PUD concepts have been pretty straightforward. They have either been voted up or down. If voted down, the developer would then be told what he could change to gain support the next time. Vice Chair Pentel called the question. Moved by Groger, seconded by Johnson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Hidden Lakes P.U.D. No. 74, subject to the following conditions: · The developer should contribute an unspecified number of units toward the City's Uvable Communities affordable housing commitment; · The developer should resolve all issues identified in the Engineering staff memo dated February 13, 1997; · The developer should reduce the density of development on the peninsula, with some open space provided, and better justification for any remaining variances to be granted as part of the PUD; · The developer should have preliminary covenants available in draft form for City review as soon as possible; and · The developer should dedicate park land, preferably with access to both Sweeney and Twin Lakes, per the recommendations of the Open Space and Recreation Commission as stated in the letter dated March 3, 1997. e Motion approved with five ayes and one nay. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Twenty e III. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment (No.1) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 96-69-02 Applicant: Minneapolis Crisis Nursery Address: 5400 Glenwood Avenue, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: To amend the existing CUP which would allow for the construction of an addition to the rear of the building and a garage located to the northwest comer (rear) of the lot City Planner Knoblauch went through the staff report. While the applicant is proposing an addition to the existing building, plus a new outbuilding, no increase is proposed for the previously approved maximum of 18 children to be cared for at any given time. Of the ten factors that must be considered for any CUP proposal, staff found no impact at all in seven. A slight increase might occur in the number of people on the site, but staff found no significant impact due to such increase. With regard to general appearance, staff found a potential impact due to the detached outbuilding and its purpose as a storage area for goods and equipment. Finally, in terms of other miscellaneous concerns, staff found a potential impact due to the fact that the added construction would increase the existing nonconformities on the site and would e limit options for Mure re-use of the property if the Crisis Nursery ever has to sell it. Staff noted for the record that, because of inadequate parking, there appears to be no way for the building to ever revert to clinic or medical office use once the addition has been built. Commissioner Lewis asked if the building would be sprinklered. Ms. Knoblauch said her understanding was that the existing structure would be substantially gutted and refitted to meet all current code requirements. Vice Chair Pentel, who has children attending adjacent Meadowbrook school, asked about the distance between the proposed outbuilding and the nearest entrance to the school. She also asked if the school has an easement through the Nursery driveway to the school parking lot on the north. With the completion of major remodeling, the school's main entrance is now on the east side, though farther north than the Nursery property. Commissioner Johnson, a former Meadowbrook teacher, estimated that the distance between the comer of the Nursery property and the nearest school entrance is about fifty feet. Planning Director Grimes stated that the school does have an access easement across the Nursery property. Commissioner Groger asked if the entire property would be fenced, and what sort of variances were involved. Ms. Knoblauch deferred to the applicant on the fencing, but explained the existing and proposed variances. The existing building has a variance for the westerly front comer, but otherwise is and would remain fully conforming. Staff will have to confer with the Inspections Department as to past practice with regard to the outbuilding setback, because City Code does not specifically address accessory buildings in the Institutional zoning district. There e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Twenty-One is a landscaping variance for part of the west parking area, and that would need to be extended. There are no variances at present for existing parking area infringement into the front setback, so those would have to be obtained. Landscaping variances would also be needed for new parking areas along the north property line. Commissioner Groger commented on the narrowness of the driveway out to Glenwood Avenue. Ms. Knoblauch noted that Glenwood Avenue is a county road, so any request for a wider driveway would have to be approved by Hennepin County. Vice Chair Pentel stated that school traffic using the driveway seems to deal well with the narrow access and drivers watch out for each other because they know access is limited. Commissioner Kapsner said people on Glenwood can see ahead to the traffic signal at Turners Crossroad, and drivers do stop to allow cars out of the driveway if the upcoming signal is red. e Connie Skillingstad, of the Minneapolis Crisis Nursery, came forward to speak as the applicant. She noted that the staff report was incorrect in saying that the money for the necessary improvements had already been raised; in fact the Nursery is still actively seeking funds, but the proposed additions are very important if the property is to fully meet the Nursery's needs. She also explained that the traffic generated by the Nursery itself would not be likely to affect other Glenwood Avenue traffic because work shifts at the Nursery are different from normal working hours. The only fencing would be around the play area on the east side of the building. She discussed.the use of the proposed garage for storage of the Nursery's one van, perhaps some maintenance equipment, and various donated goods, most of which would move quickly. Commissioner Groger asked if the Nursery had considered putting the garage up against the main building, in an angle created on the west side of the proposed addition. Ms. Skillingstad said no, though an alternate location near the school driveway access had been considered. Courtney Kouch, architect for the Crisis Nursery, came forward to provide additional information. Ms. Knoblauch had earlier noted a small discrepancy between the site plan submitted with the CUP application and one submitted with the variance application. Mr. Kouch stated that the latter plan was correct; three existing parking spaces will be removed and two new ones will be added in the affected area. Vice Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, she closed the hearing. Commissioner Groger said he is concerned about the proposed garage, especially if it would require variances. The school is right next door, and there is too much potential for children hiding out or getting hit by cars if they start running around the garage and then cross into the driveway. He feels a detached garage should be avoided if at all possible. Commissioner Johnson asked if the garage could be moved. Mr. Kouch said he could look at e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page twenty-two . reducing its size and fitting it up against the main building. Vice Chair Pentel said she would be more comfortable with an attached garage. Commissioner Johnson agreed. Mr. Kouch asked if an attached garage would have to meet the same setback as the main building. Ms. Knoblauch said it would, but the Nursery could apply for a variance. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Lewis and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the requested amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for Minneapolis Crisis Nursery, with the conditions listed in the staff report, and with relocation of the proposed garage adjacent to the main building. Commissioner McAleese pointed out that the reference to the site plan in staffs list of recommended conditions would have to be amended, based on the altered parking spaces in the more recent variance application. He also stated that he would like to see a condition prohibiting outdoor storage, which staff had suggested as a possibility but had not included in the actual list of conditions. MOVED by Johnson, Seconded by Lewis and motion earned unanimously to amend the above motion to include both of Commissioner McAleese's points as noted above. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 75 e Applicant: Menard, Inc. Address: 6800 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: Review of the Preliminary Design Plan to allow for a mixed use of retail, office, warehouse and a lumber yard on the existing Menard site. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition onto the west side of the building and the north side of the building. Director of Planning and Development Grimes summarized the staff report. The proposed PUD would allow Menard Inc., which has been doing business at the site for about fifteen years, to remain. In addition, Menards proposes to add another 26,000 square feet - not 36,000 as noted in the written staff report - to the building on the west side and to the rear. The property is Industrially zoned, and lumber yards are permitted uses in that zoning district. When Menards first came to the City, a determination was made that it did qualify as a lumberyard. MGM Liquor is also on the site. Although it is a retail operation, which would not be permitted in the Industrial zoning district, this apparently was not clear at the time it first opened. There have been other problems with retail uses on parts of the site over the years. e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page twenty-three The only reason staff have supported a PUD for this property is to find a way to eliminate the illegal retail use of the property. In meetings over the past year, staff and the City Attorney negotiated with Menards to continue at the site as a PUD, on condition that the liquor store moves out when its lease is up, and Menards takes over that space. Staff did not know about the proposed expansion until right before the application came in. Parking is a major issue. The site already has a large parking variance, and an additional variance would have to be included in the PUD process because of the expansion. A parking study done for Menards shows less parking on the site than is needed. The study has also been reviewed by a second expert chosen by the City; his concern is that the numbers are based on the 85th percentile day of the year, meaning that the site has inadequate parking for more than fifty days of the year. Staff believe it is necessary to plan for the busiest day of the year, because there are no alternative parking options in this area except on the street, and that is already a problem. Staff recommend that the matter be tabled until further parking studies can be completed. e Commissioner Groger asked for more information about on-street parking problems. Director Grimes said that winter is especially bad, because the streets are narrower. The City is looking at putting up IIno parking" signs on Wayzata Boulevard because of the ~ongestion near the adjacent fast food restaurants; on some days, it is impossible to get two cars past each other. Menards is not necessarily causing the on-street parking problem. Some of it may be due to Speak the Word Church, though that is rather far away and does have agreements to use other off-street parking lots in the area. Other businesses could also be contributing. Commissioner Lewis asked how any more parking could possibly be added to the site. Director Grimes said there is an option for adding parking behind the building if some of the storage area is removed. Patrick Harrigan, of Menard, Inc., rose to speak as applicant. He presented a revised site plan that had just been prepared in response to the concerns cited in the staff report. An additional 71 parking spaces have been provided at the rear of the building, 57 spaces to the east, and six to the west on the new plan. Vice Chair Pentel commented that the west entrance to the site is particularly tight, and she cannot see those parking spaces working very well. She asked if the City Engineer had seen the revised plan. Mr. Harrigan said no; it is a new plan. Because the rear yard is a secured area, those spaces would be intended for commercial contractors who do volume business at Menards. Menards is starting a new program, called the Contractor Club, for such customers. Employee parking would be on the east side. e Ross Berglove, Manager at Menards since 1986, stepped up to hand out materials on the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page twenty-four e Contractor Club and explain it to the Commission. Fifteen to twenty percent of his customers are contractors, so providing parking for them in the rear yard will help alleviate any parking problem. With regard to parking, he has seen the business grow quite a bit since 1986. Currently, he sees the parking lot overflow onto the street three or four weekend days per year. Most of the weekend problems occur on the east end of the store, and are caused by the restaurant customers or members of Speak the Word Church. Church members do use his lot sometimes instead of the contracted lots. During the week, most of the rush is at midday, and again the problems tend to occur over by the restaurants. When his customers do have to park on the street, they do it right in front of Menards, and it is easy for traffic to get past them. The proposed addition is not for retail purposes; it will take materials currently kept in the yard and reorganize them so customers can more easily get them out of the store. He expects that the upcoming opening of Home Depot will cut into his business; at other Menards locations, the cuts have been in the area of 25 percent. He is doing all he can to take care of any parking problems, and will continue to do so. Vice Chair Pentel noted that part of the parking lot is taken over for Christmas tree sales or other outdoor sales at different times of the year. She asked Director Grimes if that is allowed under the City Code. Mr. Berglove said that the display sheds have been incorporated into the proposed site plan in such a way that they do not take up any parking spaces. Director Grimes said that the tree sales have occurred annually for many years. Mr. Berglove said that Menards e could look at other parts of the lot for tree sales if parking convenience is an issue. Commissioner Kapsner asked Director Grimes how he felt about the proposal in view of the newly expanded parking. Director Grimes said staff and the parking consultant will need time to review the new plan before he could make any comment. Commissioner Kapsner said the Planning Commission also needs to consider how far it is willing to go to accommodate businesses in this area, because they are really nonconforming. As time goes on, businesses get grandfathered in because the City never addresses the issues. Vice Chair Pentel asked how parking requirements on the site would change if it were all Menards. Director Grimes said that would result in slightly lower parking demand, according to the consultant. Vice Chair Pentel asked if the City always takes the busiest shopping day as an indicator of parking need. Director Grimes said no, but in a case like this where no alternative parking is available, the City has to look at peak demand. Two consultants have said the site does not have enough parking. Mr. Harrigan stepped forward again to discuss parking experience with Menards stores all over the midwest. With the revised plan, the site has 446 parking spaces. He handed out a sheet of statistics showing what Menards typically requires for new stores of varying types. e . e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page twenty-five Vice Chair Pentel asked for more information on the rear parking area. To her, it seems to be full of supplies. Mr. Harrigan showed an aerial photograph with a view of the area available in the yard. Commissioner Groger asked if the main entrance would remain where it is after the expansion, and whether there were plans to add another entrance. Mr. Berglove said it would stay where it is now, and no others will be added. Commissioner Johnson asked Director Grimes if he felt he should have someone review the adequacy of the number of parking spaces and layout. Director Grimes said he would like the City's traffic consultant to look at the new plan. Much of the added parking is specialized, and whether it will meet the site's needs is the $64,000 question. This new contractor program has never been mentioned before. Vice Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Tom Lieberman, 250 South Jersey, said his is probably the closest home to the Menards property. He has a problem with Menards that has not been addressed by staff. The speakers in the back lot are used constantly to page various employees, and the noise spills over dramatically. On Saturdays in the summer, at 7 or 7:30 in the morning, he feels like they are paging him. He has talked with Mr. Berglove about it several times; the volume always gets turned down, but it creeps back up. He doesn't know if that is something this PUD can address, but he knows that the new car dealerships to the west have switched to individual pagers. He also noted that part of the rear yard fencing at Menards is lower than the rest, and he can see the lumber piles from his living room. He would like to see the fence height raised, or maybe some additional landscaping to screen the view. There was additional discussion on the speaker issue. Various alternatives were raised. Director Grimes said that the PUD can address the issue. Marv Prochaska, Vice President of Real Estate for Menards, stepped up to discuss fencing. He had pictures of a fourteen foot tall structure that serves as opaque screening from the outside, but holds stacked lumber in a four foot deep pallet rack on the yard side. The taller structure would also help with the noise issue. Menards would like to install structures like this. The low section of the fence is at ten feet now. Commissioner Kapsner said that he has a problem with a fourteen foot high opaque fence so close to the property line. It would be' like having a building there. He does not have a strong feeling about it, but he does have a problem with it. Vice Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission. March 10, 1997 Page twenty-six . Moved by Johnson, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to table this matter until staff can review and evaluate the amount and configuration of parking spaces in the revised site plan. Staff should also look into noise and screening, and the adequacy of driveway width next to the parallel parking spaces by the Market Street entrance. v. Informal Public Hearing - Review of the Draft North Wirth Parkway Redevelopment Plan Amendment City Planner Knoblauch gave a brief summary of the staff report, concentrating on the conformity between the redevelopment plan and the City's comprehensive plan. Staff found the two plans to be basically consistent. Ms. Knoblauch highlighted three areas where there is some discrepancy between the land uses proposed in the two plans. In the West Area of North Wirth, the redevelopment plan calls for either all medium to high density residential uses, or for a portion of the area to be used for limited office and service businesses, while the comprehensive plan calls for a portion of the area to be commercial in use; there is no comprehensive plan use category that exactly matches the "limited office and service" concept, but such uses could be established under the broader commercial designation. In the Central Area, the comprehensive plan does not reflect the new alignment of the Highway 55 frontage road, which created some land remnants that are ultimately expected e to be combined with adjacent parcels; the combinations will cause some shifting of land use designations to match new property lines. Also in the Central Area, the comprehensive plan designates the site of the proposed recreational and environmental improvements is as semi- public; this is an error that affects several city-owned properties on the comprehensive plan land use map, and should be corrected. Vice Chair Pentel asked if the comprehensive plan map designation of the Schaper area could have anything to do with the way the land was acquired by the city. Ms. Knoblauch replied that what is now called the SChaper area was originally three parcels of land that were acquired at different times and in different ways. The designation on the comprehensive plan map is an error that appears to have occurred because of the use of both a color and a pattern to identify City-owned land. On some sites, the pattern was never added, so they show up as semi-public instead of City-owned. Vice Chair Pentel asked if the Planning Commission was to limit its comments to the consistency between the two plans. Ms. Knoblauch said the Commission could include other recommendations. Vice Chair Pentel had two additional recommendations that she wanted to include in the Planning Commission's comments to the City Council. The first was in regard to the goal and objective statements of the redevelopment plan. On page six, the listed objective of evaluating and facilitating reasonable development of lands encumbered by steep slopes or wet areas . gives the impression that all such lands ought to be built upon. That is not in keeping with _ contemporary land use ideas, and Vice Chair Pentel recommended that the language of that ., objective be modernized to reflect greater environmental awareness. . e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page twenty-seven Secondly, Vice Chair Pentel noted that the current action plan item describing the combined recreational and environmental improvements for the Central Area only lists lighted ball fields and storm water management, omitting other elements of the project. Ms. Knoblauch agreed that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority has approved a specific improvement plan, and the cited action plan item does not reflect all of the elements to be included in the project. Vice Chair Pentel is particularly interested in the planned trail through the area, since street access in this part of the City is so limited. Ms. Knoblauch informed the Commissioners that, not only is the trail part of the overall improvement plan, but Hennepin County has agreed in principle to the reimbursement of costs incurred in trail construction, because it will eventually become part of a regional trail system. Vice Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one, she closed the hearing. Moved by Groger, seconded by Kapsner, and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval to the amended North Wirth Parkway Redevelopment Plan, with two changes: · In "Redevelopment Goals and Objectives", the third bulleted objective under the strengthening tax base goal (page 6) should be reworded so as not to give the appearance that all lands containing natural features such as slopes or wet areas should be developed. · In "Current Action Plan Components" for the Central Area (page 14), the item identifying the establishment of lighted ball fields and storm water management improvements should be expanded to reflect the full extent of the facilities (such as public trail and tot lot) contemplated in the combined recreational and environmental improvement plan. VI. Informal Public Hearing - Review of the Capital Improvement prog~a: (CIP) Don Taylor. Director of Finance and Fred SalsburY. Director of Pu Ii Works will be present to answer questions This item was delayed to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. VII. Reports on meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals No reports were given. VIII. Other Business No other business was discussed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page twenty-eight IX. Adjournment The Vice-Chair adjourned the meeting at 12:15am. . Jean Lewis, Secretary e e . ec e MEMORANDUM Date: March 19, 1997 To: - Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary Subject: Election of Officers According to the Planning Commission By-Laws, Section 1, the annual meeting of the Planning Commission should take place at its first meeting in March. Due to the continued informal public hearing of Hidden Lakes, this item was delayed to the second meeting in March. Section 11 states that the Commission shall elect a Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary and such -other officers as it may deem necessary at its annual meeting. mkd e MEMORANDUM Date: March 18, 1997 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing -- Minor Subdivision (Lot Consolidation) -- Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Mueller Industrial Park, Art Bakshian (Ace Label), Applicant e The properties involved in this minor subdivision request (location map attached) are two of three lots created through a previous minor subdivision in late 1992. Both lots are Industrially zoned. Both are vacant. Each is under an acre in area. Staff had some concerns about the small lot sizes in 1992; however, there is no specified minimum size for Industrially zoned lots, the lots met the requirements of the minor subdivision process, and there was a particular local company intending to buy one of the lots and construct a new headquarters. Construction never took place, and both lots remained on the market. Now another local company wants to consolidate them back into a single building site (site plan, showing proposed building, attached). The only way to do this under Golden Valley's City Code is to replat the properties through a minor subdivision application. Conditions for Approval or Denial e Approval of minor subdivisions is fairly straightforward in Golden Valley. The nine conditions for approval or denial are spelled out in City Code Section 12.50, Subd. 3. Staff review of those conditions is summarized as follows: · As required by the first condition, the single proposed lot meets the standards for the Industrial zoning district and has adequate frontage on a public street. · With regard to the second condition, the proposed lot is not encumbered by steep slopes or excessively wet areas. · With regard to the third condition, public sewer and water connections are available. · The fourth condition requires the granting of utility easements around the property lines. The City does expect the easements in the existing plat to be retained around the outer boundary of. the site. The City is willing to release the existing easement where the common lot line will be eliminated. e · The fifth condition provides for outside review and approval by other agencies having some form of jurisdiction over the site. In this case, there are no such agencies to consult. · Because no additional dedication of easements or right-of-way is involved, the applicant does not have to submit to a title review as provided in the sixth condition. · The seventh condition provides that a nonresidential minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that resulting development will cause undue strain on local infrastructure or adverse impacts on adjacent residential, institutional, or public land uses. No undue strain on streets or utilities is expected because of the proposed consolidation, and there are no adjacent land uses of the type identified in this condition. · The eighth condition applies only to residential properties. · The ninth condition applies only to double bungalow residential properties. Staff Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the proposed minor subdivision to consolidate lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Mueller Industrial Park, on condition that the final plat reflect e the required easement lines around the perimeter of the site. Attachments Location Map Site Plan With Proposed Building (oversized) e N 1/2 NEW I , H1 SEC. 29, 7: //8 200 0 200 400 I . scale . feet u._________ ..,... r-- ,.-, :~ :::. \...' : 2n \ . VI' i. , '(" R r":' }' \':-< - )0 ,;' I ,.,1 I . '-I ...... ~~;:... ~:.,.~- ~~.. .... Ea, 100 - ,. - .. "/ -- "- !. _ _ _ _l~"':.!'_:J'____... .. Iro!!' '7165 ;;:;:;' ad '1"-;';:;;' ,~ =: 40.40 . \~~"I . ~75 Ed :.. 'c ITY () ~ I Sll ...... 13 '" ~ G"'~ ~S ~ or- ~~~. i - ~~ € I"'o"'~~~ \to..\ ~ .......... Wes; I "'~ O"'T'I'" DQ \"~ __.J..___________.....________ C ~ I S3', 5 I fI/'7f 30fJ 200 I _ J__ _ _ _ _ _ Jf.!si__J________ 5/',0 I '1:0> ,.... I ~&...,a. II I ,..,>>...a I ~=t~ . ... . 12 . . ~ It) III 18 ~ ffi ... ~ '" ~14 ~15 . 13 II 16, ~ :z ~ I . . 1(, AVE!.OOEtI'~ 1I~5 0-830.'3- .,6.611 . , I ~I '0'", ~I~ (' ~ I "" ~, I ~ .. o 1- '1r ~ '\ -0 \. , -:)o. '!<o ..". C?- o .J..,....': """:. t->>. ...... ..,a c..'l'" Cll". -~~ I _ _ ~ ____ _ _ _t!e!tJ_ _ ____~_ 4S'; I we,) 417. )5 I 8 Jsf ~{j ,. 77 We,! 4"," I " I ~ 17 ,~ ~ ,"- A'''''~'tti I --. . "', -".. ""-'l ('.q.l q,. ~ C'J' o...... -=-' -!.) . ~ ...~~ " - 9\ ~.-. ""'4 J'o.~1;" ..t. - - - -2' -..../ · '0130 ~ .~ I g ./;2 :! 9', - ,..' ~ 'II Q ". e-: 11\ ~I ~ !I. ~ j;l;~ -- :i!....... t::l · ~ -tlJG7J ~. . I lID' ....~ ~g I~ ~cu '" Go:> ~ ~ ~ Q...' \l. I 10 > e- . , . ..,~ -12 ltf"'+B'f4.W - 651:8(, - ISO I ..; ~ \oS C!) l.O CllS 4 '-!) Z '-!) l4 c--, 0,... .... .... - -.: ens .()~ 3 "" ~ ON _tn ~... .. ClO "j ~ ::: II ~~ e I!-~~! I iI..t. . 1;:- ,. j lulli! " I~I ~~ ~i elolltUUJW '''81111 ^ -PIG!) '~9V' ~:)V JO:l 8u!pl!ng pasodoJd ~!I' I" I is J :( JIJ L , I i ~ i ! i I .m\ 8 it ':"'=-- -- -- i- ~- -- -- -- -::-- -- -- -- =--:- -- -- -- ----::t'~\ - -~ ~:-~ ~ --=--1 ~~ l : l +1 I I I . I I , , I I I I : I I I l"ci I~ I : J J . ~ i ~ ! ,< !II n~ I ~ · ~ ... ..- I I'P ":." f . J 9 "I p.' iil i!~ I I i~ .@! ~U~h~ ; IIf ,i i~ I i I .. !~5 h !P.~liilJrllm' I~~J' e J I !~f f ~r!~~!:~~~:~ ~~!!!:!J! h~!!!! J ~~. !~ ;r " ~ la9 II ! liiii~ .a~~ g; .Ia i~~ ~ III .11 . 2 lilill II! ~ B ! ;il9;ll! i I i~}~U~J i ~ I ~ ~ . h ~ S.... i ,I!S: . I'll" ~. I ill~ ~ - J i. ~ ~ lj-J -'; l.ll ~ ~lBnl~ ~I i j! J~b_ b ~....~.~ .; j.~ ,;~~ ~ ~ . tal ~ J ~l. !ti.i_1 g ~ iiI~ ~ ~ · im~~iI~ i I !!J~ i 1 - >w iI wv I.. ~: I '~ " - , l I. I'::~ ~,iimuw 11 .. ~ I ~ i iIiiiiiii :~ f ~u II e . ii ~,' .. ::;; I,!h;ifil' !. ~a !~f !~ :~ :': I ~ I ~hill :pr~ ~ Ii ~ J I;~ I ~B~i h !__ ~~~~ ~il ~if ~f . !II 8Ii l " I \, _. I r- I : ! r I I I II , ~ I II ~B J I' ai I I~ -.: I ~. . 'ioI I ~I a a~ I r I !; I I B~ .. ~ "'''-' . , ~!! Be I $; I I I) I :1 I \1 ~ ~--- -- --,--~- - - · --2~r-\ 'I; \ I.i e I ~ , j! !,: 1 i! I: I 11./11 WJ11~W Irr I~J I II' I ! Jt ~~il i III i im' ! i I'IWI'I'I~'I~ I : i I I, I ': 1'.1; III1 i ! il i II IIII ' I'll I I .Afg~~;,.: . ~ I I 5" .., ::;" ., . ~ a 5 I j I I I \ ./ \ ! U-~r -" .r ~, r A-JIO ~. B ---1 I z - U ~-I ~ ...... "'- ~. ~ ~... ~-. 2 , I I l~ _==-u____J I I . a I I I ~'" I I I I -! I _ .J :} ,: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---~-::~ ,10 ,,\ \ - ..J . e e - Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM March 19, 1997 - Golden Valley Planning Commission Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary, Planning and Development Review of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) will be on the agenda for the meeting of March 24. Materials were hand delivered to you previously. Since that time, the Finance Department has submitted replacement pages. Don Taylor says the only change is the years; the old pages started with 1996. Don Taylor, Finance Director a!1cfFred Salsbury, Director of Public Works will be- available to answer questions. This is an informal public hearing item and will be cable-cast. The Commission will need to make a -recommendation to the City COuncil the night of the meeting. mkd attachment e e . MEMORANDUM Date: March 19, 1997 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary, Planning and Developmenf Subject: Review of Attendance According to the Planning Commission By-Laws, the Chair is to review the attendance of the Commissioners in February and August. Due to the number of informal public hearings, the Planning Secretary unintentionally missed the February review date. Below is an outline of meeting dates and attendance by commissioners. Planning Commission Attendance Record . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: e e March 19, 1997 Golden Valley Planning Commission Beth Knoblauch, City Planner Outcome of Otten Rezoning Lawsuit On March 13, the court granted the City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Otten case. Judge Albrecht's memorandum explaining his decision runs to twelve pages, so staff didn't want to force it on anyone who might not have the time or energy to get through it. On the other hand, the text is all double-spaced, and the writing is mostly understandable ev~n for those of ~ us who don't have a law degree. If there are members of the Planning Commission who would like a copy, just to get an idea of what happens when a City's zoning decisions end up in a court of law, we'd be happy to supply it. The judge seems to have relied heavily on the fact that EITHER sin~le or two family _ homes would be appropriate uses under the City's comprehensive plan, as well as on the City's having c~ear records of the proceedings and reasonable findings of fact. See? Staff don't nag you about those details for nothing. -, ~ e e e ." r MEMORANDUM Date: March 20, 1997 To: Golden.Valley Planning Commission From: Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary, Planning and Development Subject: Planning Commission Cable-Casting Attached you will find a memo to the City Council from Mayor Anderson and the minutes of that meeting. It was the decision of the Council that they would like to see the Planning Commission meetings continue with cable-casting. Cheryl Weiler, Communications Coordinator, has supplied additional information cOAcerning cost and viewership. The graph attached shows viewership for the northwest suburbs. Staff does not have the 1996 information, nor a breakdown of just . Golden Valley. Ms. Weiler beHeves.that the figures on the graph are close to average for any of the cities within this suburb: . As you can se~ that view~rship is in the range of 49%, which includes frequently, occasionally and rarely. Those that never watched cable is at 51%. The cost to the City for 1996 was $334.13. Please keep in mind that this was for only five meetings because we started cable-casting in June. In talking with Ms. Weiler, she said that the cost for a total year should fall somewhere under $2,000. The commission needs tQ keep in mind that only informal public hearing items are on cable and that "on average" the PI~nning Commission holds approximately 15 out of 26 meetings a year. '- ; e e e DA TE: February 11, 1997 TO: Golden Valley City Council FROM: Mary E. Anderson, Mayor SUBJECT: Planning Commission Comments on Cable Casting and Review of the Decision to Cable Cast Meetings A question was asked about the cost and if it was an expenditure that was worthwhile in relation to number of people who watch. . A general discussion on communications suggested exploring a variety of avenues of communication with citizens and I said our staff would be bringing us some information and a recommendation on how to evaluate and decide how we might improve communications. One person felt being on cable required more formality and fewer options for informal give and take with proponents. Another commented that there is a certain loss of anonymity.. . One Commissioner had no concerns about it and felt it was an appropriate way to get information to the public. Another Commissioner said more calls had been generated but felt that might be due to the issues and not cable casting. .. It was suggested that the public be fully informed that the Planning Commission was a voluntary advisory body and that the Council had the authority to make decisions. I responded that the Commission could design ways to communicate that message before each public hearing. One Commissioner suggested there might be issues discussed by the Planning Commission that were not public hearings but may be of interest to the public, such as the review and revision of the Compre.hensive Plan. I said I assunied the Commission could identify such issues and ask that they be cable cast. There was not a strong opposition to cable casting but some reservations and suggestions. I recommend we continue cable casting the Planning Commission meetings and respond to their suggestions and questions. Questions: How much does it cost? What is viewership? e Regular Meeting of the City Council February 18, 1997 Page 10 Cable Casting elf Planning Commission Meetings Linda Loomis, League of Women Voters, stated the League supports the continuation of cable casting the Planning Commission meeting. MOVED by Micks, seconded by LeSuer and motion carried unanimously to continue the cable casting the Planning Commission meetings for public hearing purposes. *Bassett Creek Mayors' Meeting Updates MOVED by Micks, seconded by Russell and motion carried unanimously to receive and file the memo from Mayor Anderson, dated February 13, 1997 updating the Council on the Bassett Creek Mayors' meeting. Board/Commission Reappointment and Set Interview Dates - . - - Staff was requested to set up interviews with the Board/Commission candidates for March 4, 1997 beginning at 5:30 p.m. e The Council will make the reappointments and appointments at the March 4, 1997 meeting: Communica~ion from City Attorney Allen Barnard Regarding Hidden Lakes Allen Barnard reviewe_d his memo and recommended the Council refer to him any communications from legal counsel for Hidden Lakes parties. Adjournment MOVED by Micks, seconded by Russell and motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Mary E. Anderson, Mayor ATTEST: e Judy Nally, Administrative Secretary flEWERSHIP OF Clfv COUNCIL MEET~GS.. Northwest Community Television 1995 , . 60. . '.' . . . . . . .. . . .. ..;.' .. .. -:.. . . :. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .- sol.." ' .. " . . . .. . '" . ,':-' - _,.:. .,e'e, 401" , ,. ., . , . .. .- ... " ., ...... .. -, '. .. '. ;:.' -::'", :. . 's II................ 1994 tudy t~1~t1~@: .:::::::;:::;::::: 1995 Study . Frequently Occasionally 8 22 7 19 Rarely 30 23 .\ ~ ...... .... " Decision Resources, Ltd. Not At All 40 51 : ey fa{ ywr IM-txMfWJ . March 17, 1997 City HaIL _.,~ 7800 Golden VaIIq Road Golden ~MN 55427-4588 (612) 593-8000"'.: -- FAX (612) 593-8109 TOO (612) 59~3968 Golden Valley Planning Commission Mayor and CounciJ 593-8006 CityManager 593-8002 Dear Chair and Commission Members: Public Safety - - Police 593-8079 Fue 593-8080 Fax 593-8098 The Golden Valley Human Rights Commission (HRC), at its meeting of March 13, 1997, voted unanimously to support the Planning Commission's recommended change to the Preliminary Design Plan for the Hidden Lakes Project related to affor{jable housing. Public Wow 593-8030 - The recommended change would be that ttte developer-should contribute an unnamed .number of units toward the City's Livable Communities affordable h~using commitment. The HRC further encourages both the Planning Coml'J1issi~nand the City Council to find ways to fulfill the City's commitment to toe Livable Communities Act and provide balance in housing options for the City of Gotden Valley. A. ~ODS 593.8092 Motor Vehicle 593-810] Planning and Zoning - 593-8095 Yours truly, .. ~~ u#A-~ ~ __ Hilmer Erickson -(../ ~cx~ Chair, Golden Valley Human Rights Commission Finance 593-8013 ~ 593-8020 Park and Recreation 200 Brookview Parkway Golden Valley; MN- 55426-],364 - (612) 544-5218 FAX (612) 544-0398 lDD (612) 593-3968 cc: Maxor and City Council Members -.