Loading...
06-10-97 PC Minuteslea Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1997 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Tuesday June 10, 1997. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, McAleese and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - Mav 27, 1997 MOVED by Prazak, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 27, 1997 minutes as submitted. Informal Public Hearing --Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Address: 9011, 9039 and 9105 Medicine Lake Road, Golden VaNey, MN Purpose: Change the Comp. Plan Map from a 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 Address: 9011, 9039 and 9105 Medicine Lake Road, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: Rezone the above mentioned properties from Single-Family Residential to Two-Family (R-2) Residential which would allow for the construction of a 33-unit townhome development. City Planner Beth Knoblauch summarized her staff. reports to the Planning Commission on a Comp. Plan Map amendment and a rezoning of the above mentioned properties. City Planner Knoblauch reviewed a colored map outlining the subject properties and those adjoining properties in the area. She noted to the Commission on what lies directly to the north of the subject properties in New Hope. Knoblauch talked about the surrounding land uses and how well the proposed townhomes would fit in. She said that this type of development is similar to what could be found elsewhere in the City considering neighboring uses. Knoblauch also commented that the proposed properties tend to be subject to redevelopment of some type because owners of these kinds of properties are getting older. She said the proposed area could be developed for people who want to stay in the City; who no longer want to own asingle-family home and do maintenance work. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1997 Page 2 City Planner Knoblauch briefly talked about the church property, located to the west of the proposed site; the Zoning Map and the Comp. Plan Map show the use of the property as Institutional. She noted that the redevelopment of this property would be uncertain until it is sold. Knoblauch told the Commission that the developer had spoken with the owners of the properties to the immediate south about selling. The developer told staff that the owners were not ready to sell Knoblauch stated staff is recommending the amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from aloes-density residential use to amedium-density residential use. Knoblauch reviewed the rezoning request commenting that the zoning of the property and the amendment to the Comp. Plan Map have almost identical issues. Knoblauch said that staff first believed that the development would be zoned M-1 Multiple Dwelling because there were more than just doubles proposed for the site (some triples are planned). Staff reviewed the City Code more closely and noted that M-1 was more geared toward apartment buildings and believe that the R-2 zoning is more appropriate. She also commented that the R-2 zoning gives the neighborhood more protection if this project would not go through. Knoblauch said that the R-2 zoning, without a PUD, does meet R-2 requirements of City Code, that each townhome could be sold separately. Knoblauch stated staff is recommending rezoning of the property from single-family residential to two-family (R-2) residential Commissioner Johnson asked staff to explain why the Comp. Plan Map is being amended to medium density but the properties are being rezoned to R-2. Knoblauch said that low density equals 1- 4.9 units per acre, medium density is 5-12 units per acre and high density starts at 15 units per acre. Commissioner Kapsner asked if the Kings Valley development was individually owned. Knoblauch said that that development was unique in that the units are owned by individuals but the land under the units are held in common with a lease of 99 years. Johnson asked if there was any rental property in Medley Park Townhomes. Knoblauch said these townhomes are subsidized rental units. Commissioner Prazak asked if the church property is large enough to accommodate its own development. Knoblauch said yes. Commissioner McAleese irritated that the proposal is for a medium density use of 5-12 units per acre. He noted that R-2 doesn't address the maximum amount of units per acre and if developed as a double bungalow it would be eight (8) units per acre. He asked if 12 units per acre is the maximum, not particularly for this development, but in the future. Knoblauch commented that the difference comes in between the straight terms of the zoning code and the PUD overlay. McAleese then related this to the church property, which is 3+ acres, one is then talking about 36 units per acre, and with only an exit/entrance on Medicine Lake Road, would 36 units be reasonable. Knoblauch responded that this type of development, for the church property, would have to go through the P.U.D. process and staff can take into account any traffic problems that may arise. McAleese commented that he believes the City is setting a r ..« ~.. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1997 Page 3 precedent by taking the combination of what is allowed in the Comp. Plan and what the Code says are R-2 is, and feels developers will go for the cap. Knoblauch said that that is not always the case, that this developer was proposing M-1 and went down to R-2. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, talked about the required ponding on this development and added that townhome developments are .not coming in as dense as they could because of other requirements and people wanting one-level living. McAleese said he understood this but the market changes from year to year and again noted that the City would be setting along-term precedent for maximum use of land. Knoblauch commented that through the hearing process, the Planning Commission, City Council and members of public could ask to have the number of units reduced. Commissioner Groger noted that the proposed properties are ripe for expansion given its size. He wanted to know if the development were for 15-20 single-family homes, with a cul-de-sac off of Ensign Avenue, would be possible. Knoblauch said that asingle-family development would be impacted by how the roads go through the development and the configuration of the lots could be difficult to do. She did add that asingle-family development would only need subdivision approval. Groger noted that 20 homes could go on the site which isn't much different than the proposal before them. Commissioner McAleese asked if residents in New Hope, within the 500 feet radius, received a hearing notice. Knoblauch said that a notice is sent to the City of New Hope and it is up to them to relay the notice. She also commented that the Community Development Coordinator for New Hope requested staff's memo for this development proposal. The developer, Arne Zachman told the Commission that its marketing was for empty nesters. Mr. Zachman said that the information they received says that empty. nesters generally want to stay in the area where they presently live and want townhome like living. He said the development would be set up with an association that would take care of the maintenance. Zachman said that the units being proposed are single to two-level with a price tag of $180,000 - $200,000. He told the Commission and audience that he has other developments and would be happy to show them. He also noted that he had designed a development of single-family lots but found that he could not get as many lots as he wanted because of the need for a cul-de-sac and that the minimum cost for single-family home would be in the area of $250,000. He said he would be concerned with about who would buy these homes with a high density use on the church site to the west. Zachman told the Commission that he had met with the homeowners and one concern was the roadway coming out of the development onto Ensign Avenue. He said that the residents in that neighborhood want to see a stop sign further to the south to help slow down traffic. Zachman talked about the letter sent in by a neighbor and said that he does not believe that empty nesters would be having loud parties. He said that he didn't believe that traffic from the development would be fast because they wouldn't have that far to go to Medicine Lake Road. Kapsner asked if the roadway within his development could tie in with the possible development of the church site. Zachman responded that it could but it would be up to the City if they wanted the road cross over to a development on the church site. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1997 Page 4 Chair Pentel asked. about the style of the townhomes and how many bedrooms would there be. Zachman said two to three. Pentel asked about the porches on the back and whether they were walkout or steps down to the ground. Zachman said that there would one step down to the patio and about 10 steps down from the decks, which would extend no farther than 10 feet. Pentel asked staff if they knew what the value of homes were in this area. She said she believes that if someone sold there home in this area, they could not afford to buy in this development. Staff said they did not know. Zachman talked about his Plymouth development and said that 40% of the owners come from Golden Valley. Prazak talked about the roads in Kings Valley and the association wanting the City to take over the care. He asked staff what prevents this developer from wanting the same. Knoblauch commented that the P.U.D, is more stringent on this issue and that engineering would be making. their recommendations concerning the roads. Groger asked Zachman about the two single-family homes directly to the south and is there any intention to buy them. Zachman responded that they do not want to sell. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Dale Folen, 2420 Ensign Avenue North, said that he was spokesperson for the neighborhood. He handed staff a petition opposing the rezoning of the property and the townhome development. Mr. Folen said that he talked with the City before he bought his property and that he bought intelligently -- if he would have known that this area would be rezoned he would not --- have purchased his house. He finds the rezoning unfair if not maintained as single-family. He said there is a concern with storm water runoff and would like assurances that this will be handled. Folen believes an R-2 zoning will decrease property values. He said he also believes the only ones to benefit from this development are the existing homeowners and the developer. Kapsner said that if the property is developed with 20 single-family homes, he sees very little difference from the proposal before them. He said he can see objecting to rental property. Folen commented that a too tightly packed development of townhomes would change the atmosphere of the neighborhood. Dennis Steen, 8845 Medley Lane, is concerned with what will happen to the neighborhood because of the proposed development. He talked about the closeness of the people who live in this area and the close proximity of Medley Park. He noted that this area is a safe place to live and a very good looking neighboring. He also commented that the community is turning over to young people with children. Mr. Steen said that he is concerned with the traffic, from Medicine Lake Road, speeding down Ensign to 23rd. He sees additional traffic being generated from this development. He believes that more park space is needed and would rather see this property bought by the City and turned into park land or see a development of single-family homes. He does not want the property rezoned. Mr. Steen is concerned that the units will not be sold because of the high price tag. He also wanted to know where snow would be pushed to on these small lots. Jim Johnson, 2420 Decatur Avenue North, believes that it is wrong to rezone this area for townhomes. He reaffirmed Mr. Steen's finding about the neighborhood becoming very close with many children in the area. Mr. Johnson noted that if this development is targeted for empty nesters, the empty nesters will have nothing to do with the neighborhood, and that retirees do ~~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1997 Page 5 not fit in the neighborhood. He is concerned with a drop in property values and traffic. He would like to see single-family homes on the site. Mr. Johnson asked staff to explain the minimum lot size and how many homes could be placed on the site. Staff said with streets, probably 3 an acre or 15 homes all together. Mr. Johnson said that asingle-family development would be brought into the community, but an empty nester development is radically different and would not be included into the community. Pentel commented that people moving into the proposed development would not be radically different than his community and she hoped that the neighborhood would make overtures to whomever lives in the area. Mr. Johnson commented that the persons Mr. Zachman is targeting (empty nesters) would be different. Kapsner mentioned how the neighborhood is in transition and the City is looking for housing for everyone, including rental, and that everyone has that responsibility. Kapsner noted that as the neighborhood changes, wouldn't it be great to move across the street for housing. Blaine Johnson, 2500 Ensign Avenue North, said he was concerned .and opposed with the. driveway coming out onto Ensign. He talked about the existing traffic on Ensign and that another 60 cars would be added. Mr. Johnson said that he has talked with the City to put a stop sign on Ensign. Howard Noreen, 2425 Decatur Avenue North, commented that this is an area where there are children, where turnover is happening and that this is a nurturing area. he believes that townhomes are somewhat transient and that a price tag of $200,000 is too much money; people will end up moving in and out. Mr. Noreen said that there were may children in the area and is concerned with the amount of traffic on Ensign to 23rd. Eric Mattson, 2445 Decatur Avenue North, said that his house is directly across from the proposed access to the development and is worried about seeing only headlights at night. He believes the development doesn't fit into neighborhood. Mr. Mattson would like to see single- family homes or nothing at all. Bob Blenkush, 2340 Ensign Avenue North, said his only concern is traffic using Ensign down to 23rd and then over to Winnetka Avenue. He said that more traffic is not needed on Ensign. Dave Babcock, 2430 Ensign Avenue North, also said he was concerned with traffic, noting that both sides of the street is lined with cars in the evenings and kid shoot out between these cars. He would like to see the entrance on Ensign eliminated and placed on Medicine Lake Road. Donna Hamel, 2440 Ensign Avenue North, wrote a letter to the Planning Commission. Pentel acknowledge that the Commission has the letter and noted her issues. Ms. Hamel questioned whether residents in the area would have to pay for sidewalks because of the development or will there be sidewalks within the development. Grimes said that sidewalks are not assessed to property owners. Grimes also said that sidewalks are placed on heavily traveled streets. Pentel noted that sidewalks usually go in when the public asks for sidewalks. Zachman commented that empty nesters want to stay within their neighborhood and near their churches. He said that this type of project is happening all over Hennepin County. Zachman told staff that he is willing to work with the City on the traffic issue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1997 Page 6 Sheila Anderson, 8840 Elgin Place, said that she has been in real estate for a number of years and doesn't believe property values will change. She said that she can see the concern with traffic on Ensign. Ms. Anderson believes that single-family homes would be a real plus. Dennis Steen, 8845 Medley Lane, said that the neighbors would socialize with those in the development. He said that he was concerned with a comment by a commissioner that the City is trying to provide housing for everyone. He said that he is not saying that housing should not be available to everyone, but there is ample land elsewhere. He said that if Golden Valley is to provide housing for anyone, and at any price, there should be care in where it is provided. Mr. Steen said that it was incorrect for the developer to associate people buying $200,000 townhomes in Minnetonka and Plymouth, to buying in Golden Valley. Chair Pentel closed the Informal Public Hearing. Pentel asked staff to address Mr. Folen's concern about storm water ponding and drainage problems. Knoblauch noted that the Assistant City Engineer does have concerns about this issue and will also be watching what happens very closely, if this proposal goes forward. Knoblauch noted that the Asst. City Engineer has made a list of items that will have to be attended to. Pentel asked staff who would be responsible for snow removal. Knoblauch said the association. Pentel asked if these are two-car garages. Zachman said yes. Pentel asked if there has been a traffic study done in this neighborhood and asked if Hennepin County would allow a driveway out onto Medicine Lake Road. Knoblauch said that the City could pursue a driveway out onto Medicine Lake Road. She said that Hennepin County approves/denies driveway permits. She suggested that staff talk with the City's Public Safety Department with having only access out onto Medicine Lake Road. Knoblauch noted that Hennepin County has been reluctant to have any more .driveways on a county road if there are alternatives. Pentel asked about headlights coming out onto other properties and wanted to know if there were mechanisms to help eliminate the problem. Knoblauch talked about another development proposal and how it provided screening for headlights. She said that screening could be addressed here also. Prazak commented that this is an appropriate use in the general sense and an attractive site for a townhomes. He believes this is a housing alternative and an appropriate use. Johnson agreed with Prazak saying that she lives in the area. She said that one needs to look at alternatives for the proposed area, which will front Medicine Lake Road and is one block from Hwy. 169. Johnson believes the solution to the "race track" on Ensign Avenue is to talk with the City's Pubic Safety Department and maybe the soft ball teams using the park. She believes the plan is a decent plan and that the rezoning and amendment to R-2 is appropriate. Groger commented that there are three pieces of property to look at that will eventually be developed, and that there could be worse things proposed. He said that he was concerned about the impact on Ensign. Groger said that of one looks at this property as single-family, and then if the church property is developed at a higher density, the same issues will arise as having .~ .%" ;~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1997 Page 7 single-family homes next to a higher density use. He believes the rezoning will be good for the area and that this type of housing is in need and a desire for it. McAleese commented that he liked the project being proposed, although he sees no compelling reason to change the Comp. Plan Map onto rezone the property. He also commented that he believes this area could be single family with 15 or so homes and be an appropriate use for the property. McAleese commented on the two homes, to the south of the development, being stuck between the development and the park. He said that traffic is an important issue because of the problem of getting onto Medicine Lake Road, but noted that if a subdivision for single- family would go in, there would still be a traffic problem. He said that he was not opposing the amendment to the Comp. Plan Map and rezoning because of this problem. Kapsner agreed with McAleese about having no compelling reason to rezone the properties. He commented on the issue of who would benefit from this development. He noted that the Commission, when deciding issues, have always looked at neighborhood concerns, not who benefits from the development. He believes that because this development is not that different from single-family, the two houses to the south should work with the proposed development. Kapsner said that 33 empty nesters townhomes will generate less traffic than single family homes with teenagers. Kapsner said he supports the rezoning. Pentel agreed with points made by Groger and Johnson. She said that she doesn't see the townhome development in this area and price range that different from single-family homes. Pentel said that she was concerned about traffic but was not the main concern before the Commission. She supports the amendment to the Comp. Plan Map and the rezoning. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Prazak and motion carried by a vote of 5-1 (one seat vacant) to recommend to the City Council approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from a Low Density Residential use to a Medium Density Residential use. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Johnson and motion carried by a vote of 5-1 (one seat vacant) to recommend to the City Council approval of a rezoning of the properties from Single- Family Residential to Two-Family (R-1) Residential. 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 townhome development on the above mentioned properties. City Planner Knoblauch told the Commission and audience thaf the developer must go through two more hearings after tonight, Preliminary Design Plan review and General Plan of Development Review before the City Council. She noted that the Commission will make recommendations which will be forwarded to the City Council. .~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1997 Page 8 Knoblauch reviewed her memo regarding the Preliminary Design Plan talking about the number of units in the development, storm water runoff, and about the developer requesting the City to vacate a portion of Ensign Avenue. She noted that the dedicated right-of-way was quite a ways west of where the road actually lies. She added that there would be a 60 foot right-of-way, which was a gap, along Ensign Avenue. Knoblauch reviewed portions of Section 11.55, noting four (4) subdivisions that come into play. Beth reviewed Purpose and Intent, Definition, Applicability and Standards and Criteria. She said that in order for the developer to construct these townhomes under normal zoning, it would have to be under M-1(does not meet needs of townhome construction) or be cut back to all doubles. She talked about the eight (8) items found under Subd. 5. noting that only two of the eight items can unquestionably be demonstrated at the Preliminary Design Plan stage and the others would be coming up at General Plan .review. Knoblauch reviewed "Planning Considerations" of Zoning, Park Land, Livable Communities and Engineering/Construction Issues. She said concerning the item of zoning, that a major intent of the PUD process is to "permit design flexibility by substantial variances from the provision of [the zoning] chapter, including uses, setbacks, height, parking requirements, and similar regulations". Knoblauch said variances are given with a PUD. She said that staff looks to make sure that what the developer is asking for is not harmful to the City or to be found exorbitant; and that there were not extreme variances required for the development. Knoblauch said that there could be other concerns about safety, aesthetics, or points not related strictly to zoning requirements that could cause this body or the City Council to lower the density, but from a strictly zoning aspect, the applicant is not asking for a great deal. Knoblauch then reviewed. "Comparison of Standards" - R-2 Residential Zoning vs. Medley Hills Townhome PUD. Another issue talked about by Knoblauch concerned additional berming along Medicine Lake Road which may be desirable. Knoblauch talked about the angled lots and that it is advantageous to have these because one is not looking into the windows of the one across the lot. She talked about an area that could affect the number of variances, commenting on the additional three feet the County is requesting for a bike trail. The County is requesting 10 feet of right-of-way, 3 feet of which is for a bike trail .which can be taken as an easement or right-of-way. She said the Commission had three alternatives to choose from regarding the extra 3 feet and forwarding something to the City Council, which are: 1) requiring it by right-of-way which will make the lot sizes smaller, 2) take it by an easement, which would allow the affected square footage to still be counted in the lot size, or 3) do nothing at all. Knoblauch noted that staff has no information. about Medicine Lake Road being a bike route. Knoblauch talked about the park land issue saying that there is no official recommendation from the Open Space and Recreation Commission. Rick Jacobson, staff liaison told staff that the Commission would be taking a tour of the parks between the Planning Commission meeting and when this item goes to the City Council. He said the Commission would be made aware of the proposal Knoblauch told the Commission that City Code allows Land area or cash in lieu of. She said that Jacobson's early opinion is that the Commission would not want more park land in this area and felt that they would be asking for cash in lieu of, this is staff's educated guess. Knoblauch said that the Planning Commission can make its own recommendation. Knoblauch talked about the Livable Communities goals noting that Golden Valley made a commitment to the Livable Communities Act of the State Legislature. She said as part of its commitment, the City adopted a policy of including a Livable Communities impact evaluation in ~,~.~ L Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1997 Page 9 considering any proposed housing development. She noted the four measurement areas involved in this development, those being: housing variety, negative impact on ownership affordability, owner/renter mix, and multi-unit density. Knoblauch said that only the multi-unit density is related but is considered very low. She noted that for the City to increase its density, it would have to build more buildings like the Calvary Co-op, which is unlikely.. Knoblauch moved on to the Engineering and Construction issues mentioning. Assistant City Engineer Oliver's memo. She said that the applicant would need to provide additional information to the Engineering Department. Knoblauch said staff's recommendation is for approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Medley Hills Townhomes, P.U.D. No. 76, subject to the following items: 1. All recommendations and requirements set out in the Engineering Department memo dated June 4, 1997; 2. A decision regarding the appropriateness of the dedication of ten feet of right-of-way along Medicine Lake Road, or seven feet plus athree-foot wide bike path easement, or just the seven feet as with other plats in the area; 3. Any park dedication recommendation the Planning Commission deems it appropriate to make; and 4. Any Livable Communities recommendation the Planning Commission deems it appropriate to make. Prazak asked what steps were in process to assure that the types of units being proposed would be built, because there has been concern that the market cannot handle the price tag of $180-200,000. He asked what would prevent the developer from building $75,000-100,000 units. Knoblauch commented that if all the engineering and construction concerns are met there is little to prevent the lower price tag -- prices of the units are up to the developer. She further commented that the P.U.D. permit can specify amenities, siding, roads, etc; once something is in the permit, it would take an amendment to change it. McAleese said for the record, that specific details would be discussed at General Plan review and there will be another public hearing for the public to address concerns.. Knoblauch agreed. Grimes noted that part of .thee information to be supplied at General Plan review would be landscaping and architectural plans including exterior wall .finishing which can be made a part of the P.U.D. permit. Groger had related questions to access commenting on what kind of odds were there that the County would allow another access onto Medicine Lake Road, and if this were not possible, how close could the access be moved on Ensign Avenue to Medicine Lake Road. Knoblauch commented that she did not feel qualified to comment on how close the Ensign driveway could be moved to Medicine Lake Road. She said that staff will do research and have it available for the City Council meeting. Knoblauch said, in regard to another access on Medicine Lake Road, she would want the public safety people to comment, and in particular the Fire Department. She added that she was unsure whether the County would accept the proposal and noted that a number of existing driveways would be removed. She said that staff would talk with the County on this matter. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1997 Page 10 Grimes commented that he is concerned with the width of the proposal from east or west and to put in another access could cause problems regarding turning distances. Groger commented that his concern with the access, at the lower end on Ensign, would encourage people to go south, cutting through neighborhoods. If the access were closer to Medicine Lake Road, drivers may tend to use Medicine Lake Road. Grimes said that the trips per day may be slightly higher for the empty nesters, but they use the road at different times during the day. Groger said it is important to minimize the amount of traffic on Ensign and not make it any worse. McAleese asked if staff had a recommendation about whether the right-of-way or easement for the 3-foot bike trail would be better, noting that variances would be greater with the recommendation of a right-of-way. Knoblauch commented that Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works, said that the three feet was a last minute add-on to a County motion which caused this to be a bike route. Staff isn't sure that this will materialize, but based on the lack of information, staff would lean toward the easement, because if the trail was never put in, then the land is there for the people who live there. Pentel asked about dedicated right-of-way on Ensign, and does it go pass the homes to the south down to the park. Knoblauch said yes. Pentel questioned whether this land would have been set aside for a sidewalk connection to the park. Knoblauch said no, that it was a surveying issue. Grimes said that there is adequate space for sidewalks if needed. Arne Zachman talked about the townhome, at the northwest corner of the development, that it doesn't meet the square footage requirement. He said that the road that is proposed to go into the church property probably would not happen, therefore the townhome could be turned. He talked about the length of driveways and being able to get parking in front of the garages, that there would be six foot berms along Medicine Lake Road and Ensign Avenue to shield road from the townhomes, and that he has given the seven feet for right-of-way and will work with. staff on the other three feet. Zachman talked about the townhomes being one-level living, but can offer full basements, or an upstairs area which is cheaper to do and have more natural lighting. Knoblauch asked if this would affect the 22 foot height of the building to the rear property line. Zachman said yes. Knoblauch noted to Mr. Zachman about staying away from the rear property line of asingle-family lots as many feet as the height of the townhome. Zachman asked staff whether a patio is a structure. Grimes said no. Zachman said that the porches, on the rear, would be 10' x 10' which would provide a bit more square footage, which would make the townhomes more eye appealing. Grimes asked Zachman about having only access onto Medicine Lake Road. Zachman said that is a County issue, but feels it would be a problem far homeowners trying to get onto Medicine Lake Road. He likes seeing the road coming out onto Ensign Avenue. He said that he would be willing to work with the neighbors across Ensign or move the road closer to Medicine Lake Road. Groger asked the applicant which units would be used fortwo-story, if someone expressed an interest. Zachman commented that the footprint of all the buildings would be the same, that the difference would be a bit more height in the front and would show more at the rear. Groger asked about the landscaping plan. Zachman commented that the planting shown on the plan is what they were .proposing, but would continue the berming along Ensign. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1997 Page 11 Pentel noted that there are currently large trees on the property and asked if any of these could be saved. Zachman said trees up to eight inches, using a spade, could likely be saved and would try to save as many as possible because trees give a more woodsy effect. He noted the square footage of plantings as a requirement. Prazak asked if the evergreens would remain because they would be a good buffer. Zachman said that he couldn't answer that question. Prazak said that he hoped his landscape plan could show what trees could be saved. Knoblauch told Zachman that the City does have a Forester who could come out to the site. Prazak asked the developer to mention where his other projects were which may be helpful to those who wanted to look at them. Zachman commented on the ones in Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. Pentel said that she realized that this was a preliminary plan but she did not see any elevations and did he have any plans with elevations. Zachman said not with him. Pentel asked Zachman what style townhomes he was planning. Zachman said that they would be of a ranch style with a front bay area. The front would be done with brick, with aluminum facia and soffit and vinyl siding. Prazak asked if there would be access directly to Medley Park from the development. Zachman said that he doesn't have a problem with providing access and will work with staff on this item. Johnson asked if there would be trails. Zachman said he would work with staff. Grimes said that staff would work with the Park Department, that there may be a grade change which wouldn't allow the access. Knoblauch commented that Park and Rec Director, Rick Jacobson said that there is enough of a grade change that it would be easier to walk out of the development on to Ensign and use the park entrance. Jacobson also noted that there is an easement from the park at the northwest corner to get out to Hillsboro. Chair Pentel opened the Informal Public Hearing. Dale Folen, 2420 Ensign Avenue North, asked about storm water ponding and whether the overhead telephone and other lines would be placed underground. He also wanted to know where the sanitary sewer would go through on Medicine Lake Road or Ensign Avenue. He is concerned about the trees and feels the developer did not take into account the trees. when he laid out the development. Folen said that he had met with the development but issues were not resolved. He also noted that the development affects the landowner across the driveway on Ensign the most. Pentel asked about the overhead lines on west side. Zachman said that the litres associated with his project would be underground and that sewer and water would come off of Medicine Lake Road. Zachman commented on the pond issue noting that Pasce Engineering placed it in the best spot on the development. He said that he could not answer, at this time, how many trees would be saved. Pentel said that this may be addressed at the City Council meeting. Dennis Steen, 8845 Medley Lane, commented on the landscape area and buffer area on Medicine Lake Road and Ensign Avenue. He wanted to know if there is enough space available to build a buffer and leave room for the balconies. Pentel informed Mr. Steen that these were ~a a .~-,~ ,! Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1997 Page 12 porches or patios, not balconies. Grimes said that they would be outside the 35 foot setback area. Mr. Steen questioned whether the plantings being put in meet code requirement for square footage of shrubbery. Mr. Steen questioned whether 33 units of empty nesters met the City's Livable Community goals on diversity. He asked if there would be a condition that a certain amount of these townhomes be diversified. Mr. Steen commented that he was disappointed about notification to those persons within 500 feet because many people in the neighborhood, outside the 500 feet, didn't get noticed. He believes that the people were ignored at the meeting and that the elected Commission set their own agenda. Pentel informed. Mr. Steen that the Commission is not elected but appointed and that the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council who are elected. Pentel responded to the question on the size of plantings and noted that the Commission can make a recommendation. Grimes noted that a detail landscape plan will be submitted at the General Plan review. He also noted that the City does not have a tree preservation program. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Prazak said he has lived in the area for many years. He said that he was concerned with the conflicting objections that too high of a sales price would bring in the wrong people. Prazak noted that at his end of the block (south end of Ensign) there is a nice diversity of seniors and families and he doesn't see why there would be something different from one end to the other. He noted that this development is an alternative to rental property and more desirable. He would like to see the entrance to the development moved closer to Medicine Lake Road and would like to see an access to the Medley Park. Prazak believes the neighbors will benefit and the development will allow people a choice to remain in Golden Valley. He believes property values will go up due to the development. McAleese said that he remains convinced that this land would be better as single-family. He continued by saying that he does like the proposal before the Commission and finds it appropriate. He said on the issue of the bike path, that the Commission should recommend the 3 feet as a dedicated easement. McAleese said that he was unsure how to address the park dedication and suggested leaving this to the City Council who will hopefully have the recommendation from the Open Space and Recreation Commission. He specifically noted to incorporate the City Engineer and Fire Department reviews and agrees with the issues raised. He recommends to preserve as many trees on the site as possible and endorses Prazak's comments to move the driveway on Ensign closer to Medicine Lake Road, placing it between the houses across Ensign. McAleese said that he was concerned about the Livable Cities issue, but in this case it was a wash, that there is an increasing need to provide empty nester housing, but on the other hand a detriment to other goals. He said he did not find this issue a problem. Kapsner said he agrees with berming along Ensign and is in favor of saving as many trees as possible. He noted that one cannot put six foot berms around existing trees, that there would be new plantings in with the berming. Kapsner said this would be a benefit to the residents on Ensign instead of looking at back yards. Prazak recommended that the plan show where mature trees are now located and where berming would be. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1997 Page 13 Johnson commented that she liked the development because it would be owner occupied and that it is addressing a need in Golden Valley for those who may not want to care for a big home anymore. She would like to see as many matures trees saved as possible and berming along Ensign and Medicine Lake Road. Johnson would like the developer to look at the size of the plantings so it doesn't take 30 years to grow. She said she would like to see the entrances on Medicine Lake Road, if it wouldn't cause problems within the development. Groger commented that in was in favor of the Preliminary Design Plan subject to the four recommendations outlined in staff's memo along with an easement for the bike trail, alternative for a driveway on Ensign, and retaining as many existing trees as possible. Pentel said that she would like the Planning Commission to consider and make a recommendation on park land dedication and seems that it would be advantage since the land is going from three single-family homes to 33 townhome units. She believes that a cash dedication would be appropriate. She would like the developer to explore access to Medley Parka Prazak asked that one more condition be looked at which provides common space for meetings and encourages get togethers. MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to the City Council for the Preliminary Design Plan for Medley Hills Townhomes, P.U.D. No. 76 subject to the following recommendations: 1. All recommendations and requirements set out in the Engineering Department memo dated June 4, 1997; 2. A dedication of seven feet plus athree-foot wide bike path easement; 3. The developer make a cash payment in lieu of providing park land; 4. The 33 townhome units be provided as an alternative housing need for empty nesters in Golden Valley; 5. Explore trail access to Medley Park; 6. Retain as many existing trees as possible; 7. An alternative for street access by explored, by placing all access on Medicine Lake Road or moving the proposed entrance on Ensign Avenue closer to Medicine Lake Road and placing it between the houses across the street on Ensign; 8. Provide some common area within the development; and 9. Maximum green space on the development Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 1997 Page 14 V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Development Authroity. City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals Commissioner Groger gave a brief summary of the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting from May 27, 1997. Chair Pentel briefed the Commission on a City council meeting she attended. VI. Other Business No other business was presented. VII. Adjournment Chair Pentel closed the meeting at 10:30pm. 1 1