Loading...
03-10-97 PC Minutes229 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning .Commission March 10, 9 997 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. 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 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 Council level. 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 the other Commissioners had questions on that issue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Two 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 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 aforty-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 instill 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. 231 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. 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 the peninsula and the park land beyond. There is a partial fence on the property line now, and 232 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Four 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 alarge-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. 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 atwenty-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 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 233 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. 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 II environmental report having been done and not being available to the public. There is no Phase II 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. 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 X34 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Six 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 acar-top watercraft should be able to put it in the lake: 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 "no parking" signs on the streets to help control lake access and prevent overuse. Commissioner Kapsner noted that the City already has access to Sweeney 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. 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 afifteen-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 235 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Seven 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. 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 developer's 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. Staffs 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 1 236 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Eight 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 asixty-foot-wide public road on the peninsula and have the homes setback 35 feet from it. Staff could think of no other variances on the peninsula, except for the location of the existing 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 afifteen-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 237 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. 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 the City Council ~~R Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Ten 1 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 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 affordability. 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 239 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 affordability 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. 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. Vice Chair Pentel said that she sees the developer as meeting the required fifty-foot setback by making the road narrower and narrower, and that bothers her. She agrees that it is private 240 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Twelve 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 fifty- 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 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 mind, 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 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." 241 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Thirteen 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 dawn 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. 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, through connection to park trails. Instead of unofficial paths across railroad tracks or whatever, 1 ~~,. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997. Page Fourteen 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 lack 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. 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. {f 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, 243 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. Commissioner Kapsner noted that width of streets had figured into much of the debate -- whetherthey 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 frnal 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 afifteen-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 atwenty-foot wide street and homes on both sides, there is only sixty feet from home to home across the street. Currently in Golden 244 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Sixteen 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 developerwants to attract: Atso, 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 chapter of City Code does say that front setback lines must be thirty-five feet back from public right-of-way. The PUD regulations say that PUD'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 PUD 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 outlined before acting on the motion. 245 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 Livable 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. 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: "The concept as you see it today is probably a little tighter than we'd 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. '~: [.~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Eighteen 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 wiN 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 Groger's 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 of the peninsula development. 24~ 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. Director 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, fo 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 Livable 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. Motion approved with five ayes and one nay. 248 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Twenty 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 corner (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 limit options for future 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 I.ot 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 corner 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 corner, 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 249 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. 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 2~n 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 carried 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 Develo~rnent (PUD) No. 75 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. 1 25l 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. 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 "no parking" signs on Wayzata Boulevard because of the congestion 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. Ross Berglove, Manager at Menards since 1986, stepped up to hand out materials on the X52 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Twenty-four 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 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. 1 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. 253 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. 254 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 Redeveloament 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 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. 255 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 Program (CIPI Don Taylor, Director of Finance and Fred Salsbury, Director of Public 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. ~~V Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 1997 Page Twenty-eight IX. Adjournment The Vice-Chair adjourned the meeting at 12:15am. J an Lewis, ecretary 1