The URL can be used to link to this page

06-10-97 PC Agenda " AGENDA e GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting I Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Tuesday, June 10, 1997 7pm I. Approval of Minutes - May 27,1997 " II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map ~ Address: 9011,9039 and 9105 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: Change the Compo Plan Map from Single-Family Low Density Residential Use to a Medium Density Residential Use which would allow for the construction of a 33-unit townhome development. III. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning Applicant Golden Valley Development Corporation e Address: 9011,9039 and 9105 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: Rezone the above mentioned property from Single-Family Residential to Two-Family (R-2) Residential which would allow for the construction of a 33-unit townhome development. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan Review for Medley Hills Townhomes Planned Unit Development (P.U.D. No. 76) Applicant: Golden Valley Development Corporation Address: 9011, 9039 and 9105 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: Review of the Preliminary Design Plan. Approval of the P.U.D. would allow for the construction of a 33-unit town home development on the above mentioned properties. - SHORT RECESS - V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and RedevelopmentAuthority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals , VI. Other Business . VII. Adjournment : r-- - uu_'. ! 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 e the Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely 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. e 4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. . i I ,I ~I . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 27,1997 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Tuesday, May 27,1997. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 6pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Greger, Kapsner, McAleese and Prazak; absent was Johnson. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - May 12. 1997 MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 12, 1997 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing -- Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Address: Portion of property located at 825 and 917 No. Lilac Drive Purpose: Change the Comprehensive Plan Map from Residential (Single-Family Low Density) to Industrial (Industrial, Terminal, Warehouse and Radio) III. Informal Public Hearing -- Rezoning Applicant: KQRS, Inc. Address: Portion of property located at 825 No. Lilac Drive Purpose: Rezone a portion of the property at 825 No.. Lilac Drive from Open Development to the Radio and Television Zoning District IV. Informal Public Hearing -- Minor Subdivision (Lot Consolidation) Applicant: KQRS, Inc. Address: Portion of property located at 825 and 917 No. Lilac Drive Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 27,1997 Page Two . Purpose: Consolidate a portion of the property at 825 No. Lilac Drive with 917 No. Lilac Drive. The proposed piece of property will be used for parking. Chair Pentel asked Director Mark Grimes if it would be appropriate to review all three requests at one time and then make individual recommendations. Grimes said yes. Planning Director Mark Grimes explained to the Commission and audience the procedure of reviewing the amendment first, the rezoning second and then the minor subdivision. Grimes showed the site plan and explained the requests by KQRS. He said that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map amendment is being requested in order to change the Plan Map from a Residential (single-family low density) use to an Industrial use (allows for radio uses in this category). Grimes told the Commission that in 1994, KQRS added another small piece of the Carson's property, to its property, for parking spaces and a garage. Because this site was . so small, the Commission did not recommend to change the Comprehensive Plan Map. Grimes said that the proposed piece of property, which is directly south of the piece of land added in 1994, and the piece from 1994 should both be amended from Low Density Residential to Industrial on the Compo Plan Map at this time. Director Grimes explained to the Commission that the proposed property, to be sold to KQRS, is currently zoned open development. He discussed MnDOT's plan to take the remaining portion of Mr. Carson's property at 825 No. Lilac Drive as part of the upgrading of Hwy. 100. He said that the remainder of the Carson property would be turned into a loop frontage system for access from the east side of Hwy. 100 to the west side of Hwy. 100. The center of the loop system will not be have any use other an open space or drainage. Grimes commented that City staff believe that this will be a "positive" road system that will benefit the City, businesses and residents. Grimes noted that based on MnDOT's proposed taking of the Carson property, approximately 24,000 sq.ft. will be available for KQRS to purchase, from the Carson's, to be used strictly as off-street parking. Grimes explained to the Commission that KQRS is requesting a rezoning of the property from Open Development to Radio and Television, which is the same . . . . Golden Valley Planning Commission May 12,1997 Page Three zoning as the existing KQRS campus. Grimes said that KQRS is not planning any new construction to its building. He noted that there is a very intense use of this building due to the added radio stations and an increase in employees. KQRS is planning to use the additional land for much needed off-street parking. Grimes talked about the proposed entrance to KQRS noting that it will be off the ring road instead of No. Lilac Drive when and if the new frontage road is constructed. MnDOT plans indicate this area will be built in 1999. He said that the majority of parking for this building is to the south. Grimes said that the MnDOT taking will make KQRS nonconforming. He said that the City does grant variances in an instance where there is a state taking for roadway. Grimes noted that when the "taking" occurs, the proposed property may come closer than the 35 foot setback requirement from a roadway. He said that the proposed lot will meet setback requirements today. Grimes talked about the minor subdivision noting that the ordinance requires all the property to be platted. He said that the replatting would result in two lots, one lot for KQRS and one lot for the remainder of the Carson property. Commissioner Groger asked if the existing parking meets current code requirements. He questioned whether the portion of the zoning code which calculates parking spaces per floor space is off because the parking on the site is extremely tight. Grimes commented that staff has seen where office buildings need more parking because there is more than one person sharing a 250 sq.ft. space within the building. He said that this could be the case for KQRS. Grimes said that KQRS did meet parking requirements. Commissioner Groger questioned staff exactly where the proposed property line and MnDOT roadway would meet. Grimes said that he believes that MnDOT will probably have some right-of-way on the west side between the road and property line. Commissioner Groger asked staff when would the City have a firm plan of what MnDOT is proposing; Grimes said this year. Groger questioned whether the Commission would be acting prematurely, approving this request without having the final layout which would reveal the setbacks. Grimes commented that MnDOT has not made an official offer to buy the Carson property. He said that MnDOT is aware of KQRS's offer to buy the proposed site and that the design of the road is acceptable to KQRS. Grimes said that MnDOT is confident that this will be the design with some changes. Golden Valley Planning Commission May 27,1997 Page Four . Director Grimes briefly talked about the regional trail system, which is being proposed on the south side of the railroad tracks. Mark Steinmetz, President and General Manager for KQRS, said that he has a great appreciation to be in Golden Valley. He said that KQRS's need for additional parking is due to the expansion of personnel within the building, due to adding another station. Chair Pentel asked if all the proposed parking spaces would actually be used. Mr. Steinmetz commented that not all the parking spaces would need to be used, but at times when guests are invited to the station, there may be a need for additional parking. He continued by saying that the mornings are usually the busiest because of the number of personnel on site working the morning broadcast. Steinmetz noted that he does not want his employees parking in the fire lane. Chair Pentel asked about the landscape plan and the number of plantings needed to screen the parking lot for the adjacent property owner at the rear of the KQRS building. She said that she was concerned about seeing only five trees and that they were not looking well. . Chair Pentel also commented on the general trash on the property pointing out the bus signs and KQRS signs leaning against the garage. She said that she was disturbed to see piles of rock in the wetland area. Mr. Steinmetz commented that a spring clean up is done every year. He is aware of the trash area which does not have a cover over it and that it does need to be moved to another area on the site. Steinmetz said that the trash area is open and when the wind picks up, trash goes flying. He also commented that the garbage company has not been doing a very good job. He said that he would look at where the signs are placed and if there is a problem he would take care of the matter. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Alan Blomquist, 5535-37 Lindsay Street, commented that he looks directly at the parking lot from his property. He said that he didn't realize that when the request was made in 1994 for a portion of Mr. Carson's property, that so many trees would be destroyed. He believes that the previous parking area has brought more people to KQRS and onto his property. He said that the trash is very . noticeable and that a poor job was done when the pine trees were planted. . Golden Valley Planning Commission May 27,1997 Page Five Blomquist believes that the value of his land will decrease if the proposal is approved. He said that he has two decks which overlook the property. The pine trees are very small at this time and do little to block the parking lot and asphalt from his view. Commissioner Kapsner asked Blomquist how far his structure was from the property line. Blomquist thought about 30 feet. Renee Bergquist, 5620 Lindsay Street, asked if the wetland would be involved in this proposal and was concerned about more antennas placed in the wetland. She asked how KQRS employees would get into the parking lot when the road was closed for construction. John Carson, 825 No. Lilac Drive, introduced himself and his wife Helen as oWning .the proposed property. He said he was unclear about the portion of property which KQRS was proposing to buy from him because the hearing notice he received, with an outline of the proposed property, does not match what he agreed to sell to KQRS. Mr. Steinmetz and Mr. Carson dismissed themselves . and reviewed the plan for consensus. Kristen Patrick, 5537 Lindsay Street, questioned why the Commission would make a recommendation without first having MnDOTs final plan. Commissioner Groger asked staff if KQRS needed the additional parking. Grimes commented that KQRS is buying the property now, otherwise MnDOT will need to do two transactions of sale, one for the Carson property and then a sale of a portion of the Carson property to KQRS. Director Grimes told the Commission that the proposed development would remain outside the wetland. He said that some trees will have to be removed to make way for the parking lot, and continued by saying that the City does not have a tree preservation ordinance. Pentel asked Grimes what distance would need to be maintained between the parking lot and the wetland. Grimes responded that there are elevations noted on the plan and this will notify KQRS the distance that will need to be maintained. Commissioner Prazak asked staff if the wetland could handle more runoff from the proposed parking lot. Grimes commented that the wetland is very large and can handle the extra runoff. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 27,1997 Page Six . Chair Pentel asked if the entrance into KQRS is changed, would the trash area need to be moved. She also inquired if a landscape plan for the new parking lot had been submitted. Grimes told the Commission that landscape plans are reviewed by the Board of Building Review (BBR). He said that because this is a simple parking lot, the BBR may not have to review any plans. Grimes also commented that he believes that KQRS would want to save as many trees as possible. Commissioner Prazak asked staff to recite to the audience and television viewing area the process that the applicant must go through for approval of these requests. Grimes said that the Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would review the requests shortly thereafter at one of its regular scheduled meetings. He continued by saying that the driveways would be reviewed by the engineering department or inspections. Grimes ended by saying that the request before the Commission is rather simple because it is only for a parking lot. Commissioner Prazak asked where the current parking lot is located. Grimes said off of Lilac Drive. Chair Pentel noted that there are two entrances into KQRS, one near No. Lilac Drive and then one further into the property which includes the handicapped parking. Knoblauch added that more parking is located to the southwest of the building. . Chair Pentel asked if any other property would be taken by MnDOT. Grimes commented that two or three lots along the frontage road would be taken. Alan Blomquist commented to the Commission that it would have been nice, when the last parking lot was constructed, if trees could have been spared. Chair Pentel asked staff about the lighting on the site. Kristin Patrick said that the lights are on 24 hours a day but they are not aware of them. She said they are more aware of the traffic going through the parking lot. Commissioner Groger asked how far the existing KQRS building will be from the new road. Knoblauch answered that it would be close but could not give a definite answer. Commissioner Kapsner asked how many lanes Hwy. 100 would be after construction. Chair Pentel answered six lanes. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 27,1997 Page Seven Commissioner Prazak commented that he doesn't see any reason to oppose the requests. Chair Pentel asked the Commission to hold off on deliberations until the informal public hearing was closed. Chair Pentel asked staff to confirm that in 1994 the Commission did not need to amend the Compo Plan Map. Knoblauch said that was correct because the proposed parcel was so small and would barely be visible on the Compo Plan Map. Commissioner Prazak asked staff that if there would be any changes made by MnDOT, would this change the parking lot configuration. Knoblauch answered no, that it would not infringe on what is being proposed. John Carson and Mark Steinmetz clarified to the Commission that the portion of land being proposed is what Mr. Carson agreed to. Mr. Carson said that he has no objection and believes that this is a business venture between the two of them. . Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Kapsner asked if a condition could be added for beefing up the landscaping. Chair Pentel questioned whether KQRS actually needs the proposed 40 parking spaces. She continued by saying that with a smaller parking area extra land could be used for screening along the railroad track. Grimes commented that this condition could be placed on the minor subdivision. Chair Pentel asked for three separate motions. MOVED by Prazak, seconded by McAleese and motion carried by a vote of 4-'1 (one commissioner absent, one vacancy) to recommend approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from Residential (Single- Family Low-Density) to Industrial (Radio). Commissioner Groger commented that he had no problem with amending the Compo Plan Map and rezoning the property, butsaid that he is against the minor subdivision request because of the setback issues. He said that he believes that there are substantial setback problems now and would like to see MnDOTs final . plan before taking action. Groger said he would vote against all three requests. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 27,1997 Page Eight . Commissioner Kapsner said that he would vote in favor of the requests in lieu that the property already exists. He said there have not been substantial problems on the site with the neighbors and because the property is small, by not approving the requests it could cause an undue hardship if KQRS is not allowed to expand its parking lot. He also commented that staff has noted that MnDOT has said that they would not need to cross the property line. MOVED by Prazak, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried by a vote of 4-1 (one commissioner absent, one vacancy) to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning of a portion of the property located at 825 No. Lilac Drive from Open Development to the Radio and Television Zoning District. Chair Pentel commented that she would like to see berming between the KQRS property and the MnDOT land and would like to see fencing between KQRS and the properties to the north along the parking lot. She said that she was not convinced that KQRS needed 40 parking spaces which would eliminate the removal of some trees. Commissioner Prazak suggested that KQRS construct the parking lot in two phases, allowing for additional parking now and expanding . later if needed. Pentel suggested that trees could be planted on the existing greenspace. Director Grimes questioned the Commission on how many conditions the City could place on the minor subdivision request. Grimes commented that there is no place in the code that says that this piece of land cannot be used for a parking lot. He said that KQRS wants more parking and in the past the City has been in favor of businesses who could supply more parking. He is not in favor of placing more parking on the site than what is needed. MOVED by Prazak, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried by a vote of 4-1 (one commissioner absent, one vacancy) to recommend to the City Council approval of the minor subdivision with the following recommended conditions: 1. KQRS berm the parking area along the east side; 2. Landscaping be added on the north side, taking into account the neighbor's concerns which could include fencing; and 3. KQRS should not put in any more parking spaces than needed, at this time. V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals No reports were given. . . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 27,1997 Page Nine VI. Other Business No other Business was discussed. VII. Adjournment MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried to adjourn the meeting at 7:05pm. Emilie Johnson, Secretary e MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 4, 1997 Golden Valley Planning Commission Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive land Use Plan Map from a low Density Use to a Medium Density Use __ 9011 J 9039 and 9105 Medicine lake Road -- Request made by the Golden Valley Development Corporation e BACKGROUND The subject property consists of three oversized, unplatted residential parcels located at Medicine Lake Road and Ensign Avenue (location map attached). Total site size is approximately 5.6 acres. There is one single family home on each parcel. The comer house is 56 years old. The middle one started out as a "basement house" in 1934 with the upper portion completed in 1951. There is no record of construction for the third house, which just about guarantees that it, too, dates back to at least the 1930's; a new well and a garage were added in the 1960's. The applicant has purchase agreements on all three properties and intends to demolish the houses for redevelopment. The comprehensive plan map amendment would retain the general residential classification of the site, but allow an increase in the permitted development density. This is the first of three interrelated items for which the applicant needs to gain approval in order to achieve his goal of building a townhome development on the subject site. The end result is intended to be a Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation. According to City Code, a PUD is considered an overlay of the basic property zoning rather than a complete replacement; therefore, there must be some degree of consistency between a proposed PUD and the zoning classification of the subject property. Furthermore, according to state law, property zoning must be in conformity with a comprehensive plan; when a proposed rezoning would have the effect of creating a conflict with the plan, there must first be a plan amendment before the rezoning can proceed. The City's comprehensive plan map and zoning map both designate the subject site for single family residential use. The comprehensive plan establishes single family density as anything up to five units per acre. Single family zoning requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, for about four dwelling units per net acre. The townhome development would be built at a density of about 6 dwelling units per gross acre (including areas for ponding and private road system). Thus, it appears e that the proposed PUD cannot go forward under the present comprehensive plan and zoning classifications. e PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The proposed medium density comprehensive plan map designation would allow between 5 and 12 dwelling units per acre; the specific development proposed in the related PUD application would fall at the lower end of that range. There is an established single family neighborhood lying to the east of the site. There are single family homes immediately to the north on the New Hope side of Medicine lake Road, changing over to townhomes toward the west. Due west and south, there is a mix of uses, including three other medium density residential PUDs located to the southwest across Medley Park. Medicine lake Road is a four-lane arterial with access to and from nearby Highway 169. Given these land use and access characteristics, the site is fairly typical of other areas in Golden Valley where medium or high density residential developments can be found. The applicant has gone to some effort to deal with concerns of the closest homeowners. He has spoken to several of them. From discussions with staff, it appears that he has considered the possibility of expanding the PUD to include both lots abutting its south side if the owners are interested, but has determined that their location and configuration would make it difficult to incorporate them into a unified site layout. There is a fourth parcel on Medicine lake Road, just west of the subject site, which the applicant also considered buying. It has been on the market. While it holds a church . instead of a single family home, it shares its neighbors' oversized, unplatted, and underused characteristics. The applicant's development proposal could be amended to e include it if a mutually agreeable sale price can be established, but at this time it appears that the price may be too high. Properties like the ones in the subject site - oversized, unplatted, single family parcels - - were discussed in the Technical Background to the City's new housing plan (excerpt attached). Such parcels, sprinkled throughout the City, have been subject to increasing redevelopment pressure for both residential and nonresidential uses. Because of their configuration, efficient redevelopment of individual parcels is difficult or impossible. Redesignating several adjacent sites for combined medium or high density PUD development was one of the options laid out as a means of providing for effective and economical redevelopment. If the current application is turned down, staff expect that others will come along. As noted above, the adjacent church property is being actively marketed. The applicant is one of several developers who have looked at part or all of this four-parcel cluster in the past year or so. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend approval of the request to amend the comprehensive plan map from low density to medium density residential use for the subject site. Attachments: location Map Excerpt from Technical Background For The Golden Valley Housing Plan e 2 . ~.; '" ~..4~ ~~~. '?'5 '_~ "., Go,,~ ..' 330 " 1;t, ~ - -MEDlt1NELAV~ DOAfF~Y~'-- ~: :.fl. ..... 1W45' I , '.. _: ; I 33":: o'\.":l 0 ~~ ~ o ,0 0:: "~ o ~.;.' . CD .,.:'" " ~ ~E :E ".1~ ,..--. . . III 0- ct .... '"' . ! ..: ;: :..: ~. It;. -:': .'" :;~ t:> ~ ..... -3J' .~ S5~".i ;~ ... !"! ~o .~ on t.,J .... " "0 2 MEDLEy OUTLOT 2 .... .... .... '~~'3e'S;,"" ':1ll..L 311..a~ .... .. _ J4J.: 9L. ~ ::- 0:'; .:_ o. ~':. .. -:-S-:;.J2'~:':: -., .,,, 2i)d ':'.. :014 .. t '0-.............. . / ;0 . 26C ~UTL~T A' f; P.U 0 -'" ,,1 . . . .. ... "lo I l . - PARK c.:s . '.dl': . -:-;:-t. /79.99 - 1263.47" N8!!J059'SOc. KINOS ~ i'O ~,,, ,0 , 150 EXCERPT FROM "TECHNICAL BACKGROUND e FOR THE GOLDEN VALLEY HOUSING PLAN; Sec. V, Land Available For Housing In Golden Valley (pages 35-38)" Oversized/Underused Parcels - Abutting Golden Valley's early road system are several areas with a proliferation of large, unplatted residential parcels. As with other categories of land potentially available for housing within the City, these parcels have not been completely inventoried. The main concentrations can be found along Douglas Drive, Glenwood Avenue, Golden Valley Road, Harold Avenue, Medicine Lake Road, and Highway 100. Generally between 100 and 150 feet wide and over 200 feet deep, the parcels cannot be individually subdivided into two lots of legal width even though they contain more than adequate square footage. Each parcel currently holds one home, with most over thirty years old and set well back from the street. The City has begun to see some pressure for redeveloping these parcels, usually for office or commercial use in order to take advantage of traffic levels on the abutting streets and to help recover the cost of removing the old houses. Because in most cases there are significant volumes of traffic, these are not among Golden Valley's most desirable residential locations. On the other hand, the City should be seriously questioning just how many small office buildings it can adequately support, and how many adjacent neighborhoods it e wants to disrupt with strip commercial development. There are ways to buffer new residential uses against undesirable traffic impacts, which along many of the identified streets are only a problem during peak weekday travel times. The conversion of these parcels to nonresidential use may be in the best short term interest of a given developer but not necessarily in the best long term interest of the City as a whole. Other recent proposals have retained the residential use by carving just enough land out of an adjacent parcel to meet width requirements at the street. One relatively standard new lot is then created at the front of the parcel. The remainder, usually somewhat ilL" shaped, becomes a second lot of two to three times the size and twice the depth of the first. This does increase the use of the original parcel, but still does not take full advantage of the available area. There has not been any discussion about how the odd shape of the larger lot affects the calculation of required setbacks; the BZA may be resolving that issue in years to come if such subdivisions become more popular. There has also been no analysis of the long term impact on the adjacent parcel; by giving up ten feet of land or so along one side, the property owner has reduced the potential for more efficient use of that parcel in the future. Timely and creative planning could offer several options for more efficiently e redeveloping such parcels at a higher density while retaining their residential It use. There are good reasons for not reviving the City's short-lived "back lot split" process, which allowed the creation of new lots at the back end of oversized parcels with minimal driveway access out to the street. However, the City could draw up some alternatives for new streets to open up the back half of a row of deep parcels, making it possible to legally divide them. Shorter cul-de- sac designs running into the middle of two or three adjacent parcels would also allow subdivision. The cooperation of all affected property owners would be required, and the City might have to look into some form of "temporary variance", allowing the older homes to remain in place for a time after new rights-of-way or lot lines are in place. Alternatively, it might be possible to find a developer or nonprofit agency able to act as interim "banker", holding some parcels in reserve until others needed to complete a subdivision come on the market. In exploring new street options, it would be important to begin with consideration of an entire cluster of adjacent parcels, so that early subdivision of land in the middle of a group would not unnecessarily limit the potential for additional subdivisions to either side. Constructing the new street might increase the front-end cost to the developer and definitely increases the complexity of the subdivision and development process, so some property owners will resist this type of venture. If the City decides, however, that such subdivisions are in Golden Valley's best interest, it could ensure against the type of lots now being created by amending City Code to add limitations on lot depth and/or to require that all newly created lots meet certain configuration requirements. It Some parcels, individually or in groups, could also be redeveloped as PUD's, allowing a certain degree of freedom from the traditional single family lot requirements. This could mean clustered single family homes on a shared private driveway, or duplex, townhouse, or apartment style units, depending on parcel size and location. Straight rezoning for apartment use is also a possibility. With any of these options, establishing a policy framework for determining which parcels might be appropriate for what type of redevelopment is a must. Early amendment of the comprehensive plan map to designate the most obvious candidates for higher density residential redevelopment would be even better. Establishing design criteria for preferred PUD or apartment rezoning proposals might also be desirable. . 2 ,- , e MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 4,1997 Golden Valley Planning Commission Beth Knoblauch, City Planner Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning of the Properties located at 9011,9039 and 9105 Medicine lake Road from Single-Family Residential to Two-Family (R-2) Residential - Golden Valley Developmetn Corporation, Applicant e BACKGROUND The subject property consists of three oversized, unplatted residential parcels located on Medicine lake Road at Ensign Avenue (location map attached). Total site size is approximately 5.6 acres. There is one single family home on each parcel. The comer house is 56 years old. The middle one started out as a "basement houseD in 1934 with the upper portion completed in 1951. There is no record of construction for the third house, which just about guarantees that it, too, dates back to at least the 1930's; a new well and a garage were added in the 1960's~ The applicant has purchase agreements on all three properties and intends to demolish the houses for redevelopment. The requested rezoning would provide the density level necessary for townhome development, and the underlying zoning standards most appropriate for evaluating the proposed PUD. This is the second of three interrelated items for which the applicant needs to gain approval in order to achieve his goal of building a townhome development with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation. According to City Code, a PUD is considered an overlay of the basic property zoning rather than a complete replacement; therefore, there must be some degree of consistency between a proposed PUD and the zoning classification of the subject property. Furthermore, according to state law, property zoning must be in conformity with a comprehensive plan; when a proposed rezoning would have the effect of creating a conflict with the plan, there must first be a plan amendment before the rezoning can proceed. e PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Many of the planning issues attending this rezoning proposal are the same as those addressed in the related comprehensive plan map amendment proposal; if that item is approved, most of the questions regarding the appropriateness of the rezoning are also resolved. As stated above, the rezoning must be compatible with the comprehensive plan designation. When this PUD proposal first came up, staff recommended the M-1 Multiple Dwelling sub-district as the most appropriate underlying zoning classification. The City's four Multiple Dwelling sub-districts are the only zoning districts where townhomes are allowed, and M-1 represents the least intensive level of development. On comparing allowable densities between the comprehensive plan's "medium" category and the four Multiple dwelling sub-districts, staff have discovered that there is no conformity between the proposed plan designation and the originally proposed zoning designation. M-1 is the least dense Multiple Dwelling sub- district, yet zoning provisions establish its allowable densities at 15 to 18 units per acre, while the comprehensive plan's concept of medium density ranges only between five and twelve units per acre. Furthermore, while the Multiple Dwelling sub-districts are intended for application to all types of housing with three or more dwelling units in the same structure, the requirements for those structures are clearly based on apartment-style construction alone. There are no separate allowances for the different characteristics of townhomes. The R-2 Two-Family Residential zoning district has traditionally been considered appropriate within areas designated for low density residential development (1-5 units per acre) on the comprehensive plan map. Double bungalows have historically been sited alone or in clusters of two to four structures at scattered locations surrounded by single family homes, so the overall neighborhood density remains under 5 units per acre. If a large area were to be developed entirely with double bungalows, however, the resulting density would be around eight units per acre. That number fits squarely within the medium density range for comprehensive plan purposes. Also, the structural characteristics of townhomes are more similar to double bungalows than to apartments, so it will be easier to compare the proposed PUD with the standards for R-2 zoning than for M-1 zoning. There are no existing residential PUDs in Golden Valley with an underlying zoning classification of R-2 Residential, but staff now believe R-2 zoning to be the most appropriate for PUD's with all townhome units. Multiple Dwelling zoning exceeds the density needs for townhome developments and does not provide other standards suitable to the construction style. The remaining alternative, Single Family Residential zoning, is probably more compatible than Multiple Dwelling zoning in terms of general district standards but still creates a conflict with the comprehensive plan - this time because the allowable density is too low to fall within the range needed for townhome developments. One additional planning consideration always comes up with PUD proposals. No matter how qualified the developer or how good the plan, there is always a slight possibility that the specific PUD proposal might somehow fall through after the basic rezoning has been approved. The question then is whether straight zoning can support some acceptable level of development if necessary. The subject property consists of three parcels of land; they will be replatted as a requirement of the PUD process, but if the PUD fails the three parcels remain. Under R-2 2 ~ '1, e e e e Residential zoning, each parcel could legally accommodate one double- bungalow; more doubles could be supported with additional replatting, but that would almost certainly require construction of a stub street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend approval of the proposed rezoning from Residential to R-2 Residential for the subject site if the related comprehensive plan amendment is also approved. Conformity between zoning and the comprehensive plan is a legal requirement in the state of Minnesota. If for any reason the PUD fails to be completed after the rezoning is approved, the two existing parcels are each adequate for double bungalow development under straight R-2 zoning. Attachments: Location Map e e 3 . OUTLOT .,.... . :.... ~.4: It.: $ , ._ ~ ,.., Go,,: ,.' 330 ,.,. ~;y~ ;. - -MED1t"'INELAK&~OAfF~P.--- -: :f.. ~- .. .: I 33': O,\~ "'';) o a:: o CD U) ..J ..J :E I:) Cl: I ,I:) - ~ -=> '. ... CD . ::~ .~ ..~ -1~ . 111 0- .. ... '"' . ! , . ...: -:. ..,: .;: 'I;. ~.: .... :; .... ') :t ..... - "3..." :. S!~".3 ~.: ~ !'J :. .~ ft iJ ...., "0 :2 ,_, :014 .; .... ............... MEDLey 2 ... ... ::. ,a~'3C'S;",' ':t1L.L ).1..1!1 ~ .. _ J:J.:J'L. ~:: 0:<.:- .-._ .~:~: \ !5".JZ.:....;: _ ... ." Cnd - " lO ' ~ .... ::; o -\oj ~., oi '" ~ I I ~ PARK 26;; '79.99 -/263.47" N83os9'so.e KINOS .... 0:<' ~. ~,,,,, .0 '.. /50 ~ .., Of') ~ I " . . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 4, 1997 Golden Valley Planning Commission Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan Review for Medley Hills Townhomes, P.U.D. No. 76 - 9011,9039, and 9105 Medicine Lake Road- Golden Valley Development Corp., Applicant BACKGROUND This is the third of three interrelated items for which the applicant needs to gain approval in order to achieve his goal of building a town home development on the subject property (location map attached). The first two items - amending the comprehensive plan map from low density to medium density residential uses, and rezoning the property from the Single Family Residential District to R-2 Two-Family - establish that the site is generally appropriate for townhome-style development. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process will now begin to establish the exact requirements under which the development will be built and operated. There are two stages of approval for all PUD proposals. This is the first, or Preliminary Plan stage. The purpose of this stage is two-fold: to give broad concept approval to the proposal, and to call out issues that must be addressed in detail as the proposal moves ahead to the General Plan stage. Preliminary Plan approval does not guarantee that a proposal will become reality. It gives an applicant some assurance of being on the right track, and some guidance in how to proceed. In the case of the Planning Commission in particular, the limitations of Preliminary Plan approval are clearly laid out. CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 6.D provides that: "The Planning Commission's consideration of the application shall be limited to a determination of whether the application constitutes an appropriate land use under the general principals and standards adhered to in the City and, .if necessary, its report shall include recommended changes in the land use planned by the applicant so as to conform the application or recommend approval subject to certain conditions or modifications." SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant intends to demolish the three existing single family homes on this 5.6 acre site and redevelop it for townhome use. There will be 33 units in two- and three-unit structures, for an overall site density of about 6 units per acre. Most or . , all units are expected to be one-level (in one application document the height is . given as one AND two stories; elsewhere it has been cited as one story), and the targeted market is the "empty nester" household. Through the PUD platting process, each unit will have its own lot so that each can be owner-occupied. They will be market-rate units, with initial sales prices of approximately $180,000 and up. There will be a private road system with one access to Medicine Lake Road and another to Ensign Avenue; on-site storm water pending will be provided. For the applicant to meet full site size per his plans, the City must vacate about 25 feet of right-of-way acquired back in the 1960's for Ensign Avenue. The applicant has submitted information to support an assertion that the City's deed for the right- of-way does not match the actual location of the road, which apparently falls into a "gap" between old property divisions. The applicant feels the City should turn back the right-of-way, which was acquired by quit claim from the comer property in the subject site, and undertake its own registration process to prove claim to the actual location of the road based on the information supplied. The City Manager has agreed. Staff do not know how the erroneous property descriptions might affect the timely platting of the subject site as part of the PUD process, but the applicant says he is working to get the County plat review staff involved at an early point. ELIGIBILITY OF APPLICATION PUD's are regulated under City Code Section 11.55. Four subdivisions of that section come into play when screening PUD applications for eligibility. Each is discussed below. After considering Medley Hills Townhomes in view of all four subdivisions, staff find that the proposal is eligible as a PUD and may enter the Preliminary Plan stage of application. PUD Definition - PUD's are defined in CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 2. This proposal clearly meets the terms of Subd. 2.A.4, which allows townhome PUDs consisting of "single family, attached dwelling units on separate parcels of land which are constructed contiguous to one another and separated by a bearing wall or walls." PUD Purpose and Intent - Applications must also meet the general purpose and intent of PUD's in Golden Valley, as set out in CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 1. According to Subd. 1, the PUD process is designed for use in situations "where designation of a single use zoning district or application of standard zoning provisions are too rigid for practical application." In order to build this development under standard zoning, it would either have to be cut back to all double bungalows for R-2 zoning, or the developer would have to go to M-1 Multiple Dwelling zoning; although the latter designation is the only one in Golden Valley where town homes are allowed, the specific design characteristics of townhomes were not taken into consideration when the zoning provisions were written. Individual lots for townhomes under M-1 zoning would be impossible. Through the minor subdivision for double bungalow, individual lots are possible under R-2 zoning, but all lots would have to front on a public street, which would raise its own design issues based on site location and configuration. Thus, there are definite problems trying to develop this site for medium density residential use under the standard zoning provisions. 2 . . , J" . Standards and Criteria for PUD's - City Code establishes basic requirements for different types of PUD in Sec. 11.55, Subd. 5. Residential uses are discussed in Subd. 5.B. According to the strict terms of the code, only apartment developments would fall into the residential PUD category. Over the years, however, the City has consistently applied the established standards and criteria to all residential PUD applications, many of which have consisted of twin homes or townhomes. There are eight items covered under the basic standards for residential PUD's. Only two can be unquestionably demonstrated at this time. Others will be formalized in various plans and agreements, some of which are not required until the General Plan stage of application. The list is as follows: 1. All residential PUD's must have at least 100 feet of frontage on a public street "as measured at building setback line," which is 35 feet back from the property line. The subject property has ample frontage on both Medicine lake Road and Ensign Avenue. 2. All development must be served by public sewer and water, and fire hydrants must be installed according to a plan approved by City Staff. Water and sewer lines are available at the site. Detailed planning for utility service, including fire hydrants, will come with the General Plan. 3. No principal building in the PUD can be located closer than the measurement of its own height to a rear or side property line when such line abuts a single family use. Building height is given on the application as 22'; distances to the south property line do comply. There is one unit located 20 feet from the west property line, adjacent to the church site. Since the church is not a single family use at this time, it does not require the 22' buffer; however, its future use may remain somewhat uncertain as long as it remains on the market; if necessary, there is room to move the affected two-unit townhome structure two feet to the east, closer to the private drive access on Medicine lake Road. 4. Private roadways within the PUD must be constructed according to' a plan and with the approval of the City Engineer as to type and location. Engineering staff are already reviewing preliminary plans for the private road system, and will provide any requirements that the applicant must incorporate into the plans before the General Plan stage of application. 5. No building within the PUD can be located closer than 15 feet from the back of the curb along any internal road. This requirement is met for all units. Most front yards have between and sixteen and eighteen feet from garage to street. 6. Provisions for solid waste storage and disposal must be in accordance with a plan approved by the City. Again, this level of detail will be handled at the General Plan stage of application. 7. landscaping must be in accordance with a detailed planting plan approved by the City, and must meet the established minimum landscape standards for the type of development. Detailed landscape plans are a General Plan requirement. The applicant has voluntarily supplied preliminary planting plans for the site and for typical lots within the site. 8. Shared land, buildings, or infrastructure must be either dedicated to the general public, placed under a landlord's control, or regulated through a landowners . . 3 association. If the association option is used, its covenants are subject to review and approval by the City before final PUD approval. There will be a homeowners association to maintain the private roads and coordinate other basic services within the development. Covenants will be submitted for review at the General Plan stage of application, as is customary for PUDs. Although the City's subdivision requirements state that draft covenants are to be submitted along with preliminary plat applications, and the PUD requirements state that Preliminary Plan applications must include all items required for a preliminary plat, the City considers PUD covenants to be a requirement of the PUD process alone and not related to the subdivision requirements (which only provide for covenants in the case of minor subdivisions for double bungalows). Because PUD covenants are more complex than subdivision covenants, and often are not fully outlined until after the proposal has had some public review and comment, it is premature to consider them at the Preliminary Plan stage. Completeness of Application Packet - The final screening of any PUD proposal for eligibility purposes is based on CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 6.A, which establishes the various components that must be submitted at the Preliminary Plan stage of application. The City is in possession of the required application form, the preliminary design exhibits, the required mailing list, a preliminary plat application, and an application filing fee, and staff find all components suitably complete. PLANNING CONSIDERA liONS The types of issues that come up in connection with PUD applications can vary based on the PUD type and on specific characteristics of each PUD. In this case, staff have identified no particular concerns beyond those that generally accompany residential PUDs. They can be grouped into the categories of zoning trade-offs, park dedication, Livable Communities, and miscellaneous engineering/construction issues. Each category will be addressed in the following paragraphs. Zoning - The "Purpose and Intent" paragraph of the City's PUD requirements makes it clear that a major intent of the PUD process is to "permit design flexibility by substantial variances from the provisions of [the zoning] chapter, including uses, setbacks, height, parking requirements, and similar regulations." Thus, to some extent, variances are a given with any PUD; that is part of what the process exists to do for qualified PUD applications. As noted earlier, the Medley Hills Townhome proposal does qualify to apply for a residential PUD designation. Despite the basic intent of the PUD process with regard to variances, the City must ensure that each proposal does not exceed the bounds of good design practices in the type and extent of variances being requested. To that end, it is useful to have an understanding of how any proposal varies from the normal zoning standards. Based on the related rezoning application, the standards to use for comparison with the Medley Hills Townhome proposal are those of the R-2 Residential district. After reviewing the proposal, staff have found the built-in requests for variances to be relatively modest. There may still be safety, aesthetic, or other concerns that would cause the City to require modification of the plan, but the applicant is not asking for any extreme departures from normal code requirements. 4 , \ . . . , . Of the six zoning comparison items (table attached), the most significant is permitted use. The R-2 district allows only double bungalows, while five out of eleven Medley Hill structures will be tripl~unit. In Golden Valley, it is impossible to have more than two.attached dwelling units on individual lots for separate ownership except within a PUD. Excluding the five center units in the triples, lot widths are basically conforming. Those center unit lots appear very narrow at 38 feet, but a conforming 50-foot-wide lot for a double would only allow a 35-foot wide building - three feet less than provided for here - after subtracting the necessary 15-foot setback. It is physically impossible to provide any side setback for the center unit in a row. The 38-foot- wide lots are thus fully conforming as to buildable width if not total width. The next two smallest lots, at 42 and 44 feet wide, abut the storm water drainage pond and therefore will appear much wider. Street setbacks are met at all points for public streets and private access roads as provided in code. The applicant has mentioned the possibility of additional buffering along Medicine Lake Road in the form of berms, though that idea is not reflected in the preliminary grading plan. Side and rear setbacks show a greater use of variances. The seven smallest side setbacks occur with the five center units in triples and the two lots abutting the pond; they all offer good justification for not meeting zoning standards. However, that still leaves ten lots with side setbacks ranging from ten to fourteen feet instead of the required fifteen feet. Another eight units, all at the center of the site, fail to meet the twenty percent rear yard setback. In an earlier site plan reviewed by staff, there were no "porches" at the back of any units; without those porches, rear yard variances would occur on only three or four lots. Rear yard variances might be entirely eliminated by aligning all four structures with rear property lines in addition to removing the porches. On the other hand, the skewed alignments will actually increase the sense of space and privacy for occupants of the eight affected units, because sight lines between units will be at angles; no one will be looking directly into the neighbors' windows. After subtracting out "lot areas" given over to the private road system, which are included in the counts shown on the developer's plans, lot areas vary from a minimum of 3,952 square feet to a maximum of almost 8,800 square feet. Eleven lots exceed the standard. or are within a few percent of meeting it. Again, the six smallest areas occur with the center units of triples and one of the lots abutting the pond, providing justification for reduced size. Aside from those six, no lot falls below 75% of the standard. One other planning issue affects the site, and potentially affects the number of variances that are built into the design plans. Medicine Lake Road is a county road. Hennepin County's right-of-way standard is 80 feet, with 40 feet on either side of the center line. While the New Hope side is at the required width, the Golden Valley side abutting the subject site is only 33 feet wide. Per staffs advice prior to seeing the letter from the County, the applicant amended his plans to include dedication of the remaining seven feet all along the north side of the site. To staffs surprise, it seems the County has recently designated Medicine Lake Road as a bike route, and is now requiring an additional ten feet of right-of-way instead of seven, or a . . 5 three-foot dedicated easement for the bike path portion (letter attached). The City has not been a party to any planning for bike routes along Medicine Lake Road. There are no other segments of easement or right-of-way along that street as far as staff know. Staff have no specific recommendation to make regarding the extra three feet, since this has never come up before. Park Land - As a residential development, Medley Hills is subject to the City's park dedication requirement of land or its equivalent cash value. The plans show no land reserved for public park within the proposed development. Golden Valley's Medley Park is located immediately southwest of the subject site. Local topography and the arrangement of use areas within the park may make it difficult for townhome residents to get directly into the park across the joint property line, but relatively easy access is available by going out to Ensign Avenue and then south to Medley Lane. The development plans have been sent to the Park and Recreation Department. If a recommendation is available by the night of the informal public hearing, staff will pass it on. Livable Communities - Golden Valley, like most other metro area cities, has made a commitment to contribute its best efforts toward increasing the supply of affordable and life cycle housing by participating in the Livable Communities program created by state law. As part of its commitment, the City adopted a policy of including a Livable Communities impact evaluation in the consideration of any proposed housing development. Staff have prepared a Uvable Communities evaluation (attached) for Medley Hills. Of the four Livable Communities measurement areas impacted by the proposal, the evaluation indicates a positive impact on housing variety, and a negative impact on ownership afford ability , owner/renter mix, and multi-unit density. Engineering/Construction Issues - Comments are expected from the Engineering Department (attached) and the Inspections Department. Since specific construction details generally do not come up until quite late in the development process, the comments of the Inspections Department are considerably less detailed than the Engineering comments. While there are Engineering comments on several aspects of the proposal, the issues appear to be related to width of private roadways, grading and drainage, etc. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend approval of the preliminary design plan for Medley Hills Townhomes, PUD No. 76, subject to the following additional recommendations: · all recommendations and requirements set out in the Engineering Department memo dated June 4,1997; · a decision regarding the appropriateness of the dedication of ten feet of right-of- way along Medicine Lake Road, or seven feet plus a three-foot wide bike path easement, or just the seven feet as with other plats in the area; · any park dedication recommendation the Planning Commission deems it appropriate to make; and 6 , . . . , . · any Livable Communities recommendation the Planning Commission deems it appropriate to make. Attachments: Location Map Site Plans (oversized plans may be attached separately) Zoning Comparison Uvable Communities Evaluation Hennepin County Letter dated April 21, 1997 (Note: this letter responds to an earlier plan which excluded the third oversized residential parcel; while the amended plans have been forwarded to the County as required, staff do not expect the response to be significantly different - should the amended response arrive in time for the informal public hearing, it will be supplied to the Planning Commission) Engineering Department Memo dated June 4, 1997 Inspections Department Memo (Available Tuesday night) Letter from Donna and Thomas Hamel (Note: letter was received when this item was on the Planning Commission's agenda in early April. Staff has not mentioned this letter in its memo.) \ . . 7 , ~,,"'.4: ~.:s. . ,. ! ...~ "., ~o'V'! ~;"t; ~ -'-MEll1c"iNE ... ., ... _; I - ,"30 " LA~ioAff~P.-- -1 33': ~.-' Q Cl: I ,<:l " ), o ~... .,..... . ::~ '.. <It; l~ . III 0- .. ,.r" ;: , ! . . :.. ~ ". I. ... ~ ! If;. :': .", :; .... ') ~ ..... ~ -; t. ~ ~ ,- S!~".3 :: ~ ~ !-! ~o .~ ft ...~ .n', "0 2 MEDLey OUTLOT 2 ... ... ~ "a~l~c.s e'.\ ':"f11...L. l!1..IS ... ... ._ f;J:9L. ~::- 0:';.,:.-' b. ~,:_ .. .~~-;.J .-:;',:: Z..~.. _ .. '" c"d _:' . .:0' 4 -. ! "0............... A- ::. () -'" ~') .. ~ "". l PARK Z6C /79,99 -1263.47" N890S9'SO-E. KINGS ... 0:'<. i' ~,,,,, ,0 '" 150 <i) "'l ~ I I I , " . . . COMPARISON OF STANDARDS: R-2 RESIDENTIAL ZONING vs. MEDLEY HilLS TOWNHOME PUD R-2 Zoning PUD Proposal Permitted Use: Double Bungalows Proposed Uses: Doubles and Triples Minimum Lot Width: 50 Feet Proposed lot Width: 20 lots Okay 6 lots at 48 Ft. 2 Lots at 42/44 Ft. 5 Lots at 38 Ft. Note: all 38' widths are center units of triples. Note: 42144' widths are lots abutting pond. Minimum Lot Area: 6,250 Square Ft. Proposed lot Area: 10 Lots Greater Than 6250 S.F. 1 Lot 6,000 to 6,250 (96-100% of req.) 12 Lots 5,000 to 5,999 (80-95% of req.) 4 Lots 4,688 to 4,999 (75-79% of req.) 6 Lots 3,952 to 4,576 Note: 6 smallest lots are all center triples, plus one lot abutting pond. Minimum Setbacks: Street: 35 Feet Side: 15 Feet (only one per lot) Proposed Setbacks: Street: Okay Side: 16 Lots Okay 10 Lots 10-14' 2 Lots at 5' 5 Lots 0' Rear: 25 Lots Okay 8 Lots (angled) Less Note: Along interior (private) streets the PUD permitted 15' alternative is considered "okay". Note: The five lots with no side setbacks are the center triples. Not~: The two lots with 5' side setbacks abut the pond. Rear: 20% of Depth . Maximum Height: 3 Stories Proposed Height: 1-2 Stories (22 Feet) Minimum Garage Stalls: 1 Per Unit Proposed: 33 Lots All Okay This comparison assumes seven-foot right-of-way dedication along Medicine Lake Road, with the three feet for bike path use either by "invisible" easement or not at all. ~ ". LIVABLE COMMUNITIES EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PUD 76, . MEDLEY HILLS TOWNHOMES As part of its Livable Communities participation, Golden Valley has committed to including a Livable Communities impact evaluation in its consideration of any proposed housing development. Adopted policy says the City will look at potential impacts on all Livable Communities benchmark areas, but will not necessarily give equal weight to all impacted areas for a particular development, and will not necessarily allow the Livable Communities evaluation to outweigh other concerns that may arise in connection with a proposed development. There are six Livable Communities benchmark areas, not all of which are applicable to this proposal. Staff's evaluation of each area is as follows: Ownership Affordability Golden Valley was at 60% in its ownership affordability in 1996. The benchmark range is 60% to 77%, so the City is barely inside the bottom limit. The City's goal is to increase its affordable ownership units to 62%. All units in Medley Hills PUD are intended for owner occupancy rather than rental. The developer's early estimates of average sale price are close to $200,000 per unit, well above the current Livable Communities affordability level of $120,000. The developer does not propose to lower the price on any units to meet Livable Communities goals. . He has stated that his development costs do not leave enough margin to make the project worthwhile if he has to subsidize a substantial reduction on' any units. There are also related issues such as how to maintain affordability after the first sale and how to keep the homeowners association fees (which are part of ownership costs) from pushing the unit beyond the affordability limit. Rental Affordability This benchmark area is not applicable to the Medley Hills PUD proposal. Variety in Housing . For the purposes of Livable Communities, any type of housing unit that is not in the form of traditional detached single family homes is considered as contributing to variety in housing. Current estimates put Golden Valley's non-detached housing units at 27.6% of total housing. The benchmark range is 37 to 41 %. The City's goal is 31 %. If the Medley Hills PUD is built with 33 townhome units, and no traditional single family homes are built in the same period, the City's varied housing will increase to 27.9% of total housing units. Owner/Renter Mix Golden Valley's ranking in this area is 79% owned units. The benchmark range is 64 to 67%. The City's goal is to maintain the present level. The Medley Hills . ... / ~. . . . PUD proposal is intended to be all owner-occupied, which will work against the City's stated goal. Single Family Detached Density . This benchmark area is not applicable to the Medley Hills PUD proposal. Multi-Unit Density Golden Valley's present ranking is 10.8 units per acre. The benchmark range is 14 to 15 units per acre. The City's goal is 12 units per acre. The only way to make a significant upward change in this benchmark area is to concentrate on high-rise developments such as the Calvary Square PUD. The proposed density of the Medley Hills PUD is only six units per acre, not enough to meet the City's current average, much less help Golden Valley move toward its goal. 2 ..., r ,.. Hennepin County An Equal CJpponunU, Employer . RECEIVED APR 2:3 1997 By:"-1J~r;f April 21, 1997 Mark Grimes, Planner City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Rd, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Proposed Plat - Melody Hills CSAH 70 Section 30, Township 118, Range 21 Hennepin County Plat No. 2401 Review and Recommendations Dear Mr. Grimes: . Plats and Surveys, require county review of We reviewed the above plat and make the Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, proposed plats abutting county roads. following comments: · The developer should dedicate an additional 10 feet of right of way or create - an easement to provide for the future bikeway as shown on the city-county plan (see attached typical section). · The proposed access, opposite Flag Avenue, is acceptable but should be at least 28 feet wide (36 feet is preferable) to ease turning movements and provide internal access to the parcel immediately west. This westerly parcel currently has two private driveway entrances and appears to be redevelopable. Hennepin County is therefore strongly recommending that the Melody Hills entrance be designed to provide future access to this westerly site so that upon redevelopment, access from CSAH 70 will no longer be needed. Minimizing access reduces conflict points thereby maintaining the safety and efficiency of the roadway. As a part of the county's minor arterial system, access to CSAH 70 should be limited to well-spaced street entrances rather than individual driveways. There are also drainage structures at this location that will require revision by the developer. Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins. Minnesota 55343-8496 (612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513 TDD:(612)930-2696 Rec,cIed P. I Mark Grimes April 21, 1997 Page 2 . · All proposed construction within county right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for the appropriate permit forms. · The developer must restore all areas, within the county right of way, disturbed during construction. Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at 930-2548. As a matter of procedure, we request that the City Clerk inform us of the City Council's action on the right of way and access provisions. Sincerely, ~~~b. Transportation Planning Engineer .TDJ/DKZ/jh .~ cc: Pete Tulkki Dave Swenson . , !" I -_..------- ..... ---------'.-.....--.---...- ..... -- ..---- ............. ~" 4 LANE URBAN UNDIVIDED fUNC110N CUll: COLlECtOR llIIfOR AllffRIJlI .RO.I. AD' Wll."1I ',a. ...a AD' "HOt 15'40 IIPII q fVW I 42' LINE I BASIC ROADWAY CURRENI' TYPICAL , DES/ON COMPATIBLE " ROAD . , . L . '~CIIIlI'lIRNDIlIoUmll \ . f~ ._-. UU1111 OU'IOUUlIR I I IIIlIVIfG LAHI IlllWlllANI 1- OPflIA1lOHAL CUAIlIOIll ' IfIW il &r ur. t ~ '~,'ri ~ '. a MULTI-USE ~ 12' ,.~ PATH "g ADJACENT TO ~ ROADWAY ~ &; I " FULL I , ~ , ACCOMMODATION .~ , fIDOO&a:1f " ~ ;. ~URE',4 I ~ 1I1M11 ~: '~. ," Rnlled.,..," " 'I 'I' 'iI "'/ , . . . MEMORANDUM DATE: JUNE 4, 1997 MARK GRIMES DIRECTOR OF PLAJ:, NI NO DEVELOPMENT JEFF OLIVER, P.E.-' ASSISTANTCITYE R CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW OF MELODY HILLS TOWNHOMES PUD TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Engineering staff has completed a concept plan review of the proposed Melody Hills Townhomes Planned Unit Development. The proposed development is located in the southwest quadrant of Ensign Avenue North and Medicine Lake Road. . In general, the proposed PUD concept is acceptable from an engineering standpoint. However, there are several issues identified during the review that need to be addressed prior to approval of final PUD plans. The items identified for further review are discussed as follows: Preliminary Plat: 1. The developer is proposing to construct 26 foot wide private streets within the PUD. Several issues regarding the street system need to be addressed: a) No information is given regarding the extent of parking that will be allowed within the development. Based upon the proposed roadway widths and the ability of emergency response equipment to access the townhomes, restricting parking on one side of the roadway should be considered. The Public Safety Department should provide further comment on street widths and parking restrictions. b) Because these roadways will be privately owned and maintained, there is no need for the roadway easement that is shown on the preliminary pial . 2. The roadway system within the PUD must be constructed to a 7 ton design standard, consistent with City standards for local streets. The developer will be required to submit soil borings with estimated R values, and all roadway design calculations for review and comment. . 3. The sanitary sewer and watermains within this PUD will eventually become the responsibility of the City of Golden Valley. Therefore, drainage and utility easements must be dedicated to the City over these utilities. These easements must 'extend a minimum of ten feet beyond each utility, including around all fire hydrants. These easements should be shown on the preliminary and final plats. Utility Plan: 1. As previously discussed, the sanitary sewer and watermain systems within this PUD will be City utilities. Therefore, these utilities must be constructed to City standards. The developer will be required to submit construction plans and specifications for review for these utilities. Construction of the utilities will be the contractors responsibility, with all inspection of the sanitary sewer and watermain provided by the City of Golden Valley. 2. The contractor will be responsible for all City costs associated with construction of the development, including the public utilities. This includes all plan review and inspection costs. . 3. The developer will be required to provide a security to the City for 150% of the direct and indirect costs of the public utilities. This security may be in the form of a letter of credit or other security which is acceptable to the City. The developers engineer must provide a utility construction cost estimate for review to aid in determination of the security amount. 4. Each proposed townhome unit must have a separate water meter. 5. It appears that several existing fire hydrants adjacent to the site have not been shown on the utility plan. These hydrants must be shown in order to determine the location of new hydrants to be installed with the development. 6. The existing utilities within Me~ley Lane south of the site and Ensign Avenue to the east must be shown on the utility plan. 7. If lawn irrigation proposed within the PUD is to be the responsibility of a homeowners association, meters for the irrigation must be separate . . . from the domestic meters. If irrigation responsibilities are to be the responsibility of each townhome owner, the sprinkler systems may be connected to the services for each unit. 8. The location of all manholes, services, hydrants and valves are subject to revision during construction plan review. Gradina Plan: 1. The proposed PUD is located within the Medicine Lake subdistrict of the Bassett Creek Watershed. Medicine Lake is classified as a level 1 waterbody by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC). Therefore, the development of the site must conform to the water quality standards outlined by the Commission in the Water Quality Policy and is subject to the review and approval of the Commission. 2. A final grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be submitted with the final plans. This final plan must meet the requirements for erosion and sediment control plans as outlined by the BCWMC. Among the items that must be included on this final plan are: a) The location, standard detail and maintenance schedule for a gravel construction entrances; b) Catch basin inlet protection information including details and maintenance schedule; c) Specifications and schedule for temporary and permanent revegetation; d) Installation of rip rap at all storm sewer inlets and outlets at the proposed pond and the receiving waters within Medley Park. 3. The erosion control plan must include installation of an erosion colJtrol blanket on the banks of the pond. 4. As previously discussed, the storm water ponding on site must meet the requirements of the BCWMC. The developer must provide all hydrauliclhydrologic calculations for the development for review by the City and the Commission. This must include calculations for the water quality ponding. 5. . There is an existing storm sewer along the south right-of-way line for Medley Lane that must be shown on the grading plan. In addition, there is an existing storm sewer along the west line of this development that must be shown on the plans. These two storm sewers outlet in the same location within Medley Park. The developer must extend the outlet from the ponding within the development into Medley Park to the location of the two existing storm sewers. The developer must combine . the three storm sewers into a single manhole with one outlet pipe. 6. The proposed storm sewer from the streets into the pond must be extended to the normal water level of the pond. Rip-rap for erosion control must be placed at the outlet of this pipe. 7. The high water level of the proposed pond must be shown on the grading plan. 8. There should be curb and gutter placed on the end of the street stubs in the northeast and northwest comers of the development in order to help convey runoff into the storm sewer system. 9. It appears that the intersections within the development will have drainage that flows across the roadway before it reaches the storm sewer system. This situation can create safety concerns during periods of melt and refreeze of snow and ice. The developer should consider installing additional catch basins to minimize or eliminate the cross intersection drainage. 10. Along with the streets, the storm sewer system within the proposed . PUD will be owned and maintained by the developer and/or the townhome association following construction. This responsibility includes the removal of accumulated sediment from the storm water pond so adequate nutrient removal efficiency can be maintained. The developer will be required to monitor and remove sediment from the pond on an annual basis. Certification that sediment has been removed from the pond must be submitted to the Public Works Department each year. Details of this monitoring plan must be determined during final plan review. Preliminary Landscape Plan: 1. The notes on the landscape plan indicate that an irrigation system will be installed on site. A permit will be required from the Public Works Departm~nt for placement of the irrigation system, or any other obstructions, within the right-of-way for Ensign Avenue. Conclusions: Based upon the review of the Medley Hills Townhomes PUD, engineering staff has determined that the plans submitted are acceptable in concept. The review of these plans identified several issues which need to be addressed . prior to final PUD approval. These major issues are outlined as follows: . 1. Subject to the comments and recommendations of the Public Safety Department regarding street width, parking restridions and the accessibility of the site to emergency vehicles. 2. A final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be submitted with the final plans that meets all City and Bassett Creek Water Management Commission requirements for storm water quantity and quality. Additional information, as outlined within this review, must also be included on the final plan. 3. Subjed the other comments addressed in this review. Please feel free to call me if you have any qllestions regarding this matter. c: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Safety . . Dear Mary Dold: . We oppose the rezoning proposal for the properties located at 9039 and 9011 Medicine lake Road. We reside directly across the street from the site, at 2440 Ensign Avenue North. We recently purchased our first home last June. One of the main reasons that we purchased a home at this location was because there were no buildings across the street, making it a very quiet neighborhood. Another reason that we chose this area was the very low crime rate. We want to live in a crime-watch neighborhood. It is very hard to keep up such a neighborhood in a multi-dwelling setting. We oppose any and all plans for the "Melody Hills Townhomes P.U.D. No. 76." More town homes are not necessary for this area since there are several of them within a two block radius of the proposed site. If homes must be built in this area, single-family residential homes should be maintained. The families in this neighborhood consist of many small children. We plan on starting our own family in a year. With the possibility of increased traffic, we are very concerned with the safety of all the children in the neighborhood. . We moved to this location because we believed this was an upper-middle class area. We feel th~t any rezoning and additions of multi-dwellings will bring down our property values considerably and decrease the value of the neighborhood. Crime, pollution, noise, and other hazards will also follow with a population increase. Unfortunately, we will be unable to attend the April 14, 1997 public hearing planned to discuss this topic. We hope that you will take our comments into careful consideration when deciding on.this important issue. s~~ - 1 L....::" '5 H Co.,... e-( Donna and Thomas Hamel . ~ e City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 (612) 593-8000 FAX (612) 593-8109 TOO (612) 593-3968 TO: Mayor and Council 593-8006 City Manager 593-8002 Public Safety Police 593-8079 Fire 593-8080 Fax 593-8098 DATE: June 9, 1997 Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development FROM: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections SUBJECT: Site Review of Melody Hills Townhomes PUD Inspection Services staff has completed a concept plan review of the proposed Melody Hills Townhomes Planned Unit Development. The following items must be addressed prior to approval of final PUD plans: Public Works "3-8030 Inspections 593-8090 Motor Vehicle 593-8101 Planning and Zoning 593-8095 Finance 593-8013 Assessing 593-8020 Park and Reaeation 200 Brookview Parkway Golden Valley, MN 55426-1364 (612) 512-2345 FAX (612) 512-2344 TOO (612)593-3968 e 1. STREETS: Width of street and issue of parking on street (coordinate with Jeff Olivers memo). If streets are constructed at 26 feet, parking shall only be allowed on one side. The other side shall be posted NO PARKING FIRE LANE. On turns, both sides shall be posted NO PARKING FIRE LANE. Signage shall be installed in accordance with City Ordinance. 2. FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS: Recommend that all living units have fire suppression systems. Systems shall be installed according to Fire Code Standards. 3. FIRE HYDRANTS: Hydrant spacing shall not exceed 300 feet. Unobstructed access shall be provided. Locations to be approved by City Engineer and Fire Department. 4. STREET NAMES/ADDRESSES: Addresses and street names must be approved by the Building Official. Street numbers must be posted in accordance with City Ordinance. 5. PORCHES & FUTURE DECKS: Size and location of future porches and decks must be identified on the plans. 6. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: All special inspections must be identified before building permit is issued. . 7. AS-BUILT SURVEY: As-built survey will be required before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 8. OPENINGS: All openings must be a minimum of 2 feet above high water level of proposed pond (at least units adjacent to pond). 9. STREET TURNING RADIUS: Street turning radius adequate to accommodate 40 foot long fire apparatus. cc: Jeff Oliver, Assistant City Engineer e e