Loading...
11-09-98 PC Minutesr ~~ ~-~~ ~; ~' Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 1998 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 Monday, November 9, 1998. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:10pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Martens, McAleese and Shaffer. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, Don Taylor, Finance Director and Tammi Hall, Recording Secretary. Approval of Minutes -October 26, 1998 MOVED by Groger, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the October 26, 1998 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing -Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map -Amendment Address: Proposed property bounded by ponding and wetland to the west, the railroad tracks to the north, Olson Memorial Highway to the south, and Ottawa Avenue to the east, excluding the Golden Valley Inn site Purpose: To amend portions of the plan map from Public and Semi-Public - Municipal -Parks, Natural Areas and Commercial to Public and Semi- - Public -Municipal -Parks, Natural Areas and Commercial City Planner, Beth Knoblauch, explained the request to change the designation on three areas of land in the Schaper area and adjacent land that once held the old White House restaurant. She stated that the Commission would not be addressing any redevelopment proposal for this area. The neighbors in the surrounding area have met with developer Frank Dunbar regarding a proposal for redevelopment of the former White House restaurant site. Mr. Dunbar plans to bring his proposal to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to request designated developer status. Knoblauch stated that the issue to be addressed by the Commission is essentially a housekeeping matter. The City attempted to change the designation on these areas a few years ago but was stalled due to a lawsuit in process. Since that time no re- designation has been pursued since there was no redevelopment proposed for the site. Knoblauch explained that the site initially consisted of two properties, the former White House restaurant and the City-owned land generally referred to as the Schaper area. The construction of a new, detached frontage road segment a few years ago resulted in splitting off small areas of land from each of the two properties. Knoblauch explained that they are requesting that the small piece of property at the north end of the former White House site (Area A), which is cut off from the rest of the property by the frontage road, be re-designated as "Municipal" and be combined with the Schaper area. The portion of property which was part of the Schaper area (Area B), but was cut off from the rest of the Schaper area by the frontage road, would be combined with the property which was the former White House restaurant site and re- designated from "Industrial" to "Commercial" use. One of the three parcels that make up the Schaper area was designated "Industrial" prior to the time the city received the property. This designation should be changed to "Municipal". Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 2 Pentel asked Knoblauch about the size of the Area C parcel and if there was any option for it to be developed. Knoblauch responded that Area C would be platted as an outlot which will be an indication it is not developable. Pentel commented that the memorandum states there is no intention to develop City-owned land. She stated this was somewhat misleading since the City owns Area B and the former White House restaurant site. Knoblauch responded that the former White House restaurant site went tax forfeit a few years ago and has now been acquired by the HRA for redevelopment. Pentel questioned if Area B, which is being re-designated as "Commercial", is the most polluted portion of the property. Knoblauch indicated she did not know, but noted that the entire area, including the former White House restaurant site, the road and a portion of the Schaper area, is designated as a superfund site. Pentel questioned if the City had considered other options for Area B, such as a park use. Knoblauch stated the exchange of land became necessary because of the land lost from the former White House restaurant site as a result of construction of the frontage road. She stated the amendment would basically add Area B to the former White House site and remove Area A. By doing this the boundaries of both properties, the former White House restaurant site and the Schaper area, would follow the road. Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes stated the former White House site has always been designated "Commercial". Knoblauch indicated the City is not considering any use other than "Commercial" for the former White House restaurant site at the present time. The purpose of this request is to adjust the property boundaries to make sense with the road. Commissioner Groger commented that it was a controversial decision when the ball fields were placed in this area. One of the issues involved was that the Schaper area, which had been donated to the City, was to remain a natural area. He asked Knoblauch to outline the portion of the property that was originally donated to the City. Knoblauch indicated the original Schaper property was north of the Golden Valley Inn and west of Ottawa to the point where there is a jog on the northern boundary shown on the location map. The original property that was donated is slightly more than one-third of the entire area. Groger stated that Area B was not included in the original Schaper property. He questioned who owns Area B. Knoblauch stated that the original Schaper property was donated to the City and that the other parcels were purchased by the City. Commissioner McAleese asked what area may potentially be developed. Knoblauch stated that Mr. Dunbar has an option for the development of the Golden Valley Inn site. His proposal would be to purchase the Golden Valley Inn site as well as the former White House restaurant site, including Area B. The property to be developed would be bordered on the north and west by Schaper Road, on the east by Ottawa Avenue and on the south by Highway 55. Grimes indicated that Dunbar plans to come to the HRA meeting to request designation as the developer for a project that would include the Golden Valley Inn site and the former White House Restaurant site. Pentel indicated she had attended the neighborhood meeting with Dunbar where he proposed a 75,000 square foot office building which would be occupied by KQRS on the first two floors, requiring a two hundred foot tower. Commissioner Shaffer asked if the City would be losing some land to the county or the state on the southern boundary of the property where it jogs around Hwy 55. Knoblauch stated she could not recall, but that it would appear on the preliminary plat to be addressed later in the meeting. She stated the City had requested possession of the vacated frontage road but the state had declined. She indicated the state probably wished to retain the property for possible future expansion of Hwy 55. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 3 Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; hearing and seeing no one; Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Johnson stated she was in favor of this proposal as presented by Knoblauch. Groger indicated he was also in favor of the proposal regardless of future development plans for the Golden Valley Inn site. He stated the existing L-shaped lot would be difficult to develop. Pentel indicated she would prefer to see the site used for other public or park activities. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendment as requested. III. Informal Public Hearinc -Rezoning Applicant: City of Golden Valley and the Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Address: Proposed property bounded by ponding and wetland to the west, the railroad tracks to the north, Olson Memorial Highway to the south, and Ottawa Avenue to the east, excluding the Golden Valley Inn site. Purpose: Rezone portions of the property from Institutional (I-4) to Commercial and Commercial to Institutional. (I-4). Pentel questioned when the zoning map was amended to show all City owned land as Institutional I-4. Knoblauch stated she was not certain when this specific property was designated Institutional I-4, but that the Institutional district as a whole was added as a zoning category in the 1950s. In the 1960s, it was divided into the five subcategories that exist today. Knoblauch explained the request is to adjust the zoning map so the two zoning classifications follow the new road alignment. The zoning for the third parcel of the Schaper area was already changed to Institutional I-4 so Area C will not be affected. The request is to change Area A from Commercial to Institutional I-4 and Area B from Institutional I-4 to Commercial. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; hearing and seeing no one; Pentel closed the informal public hearing. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed rezoning to change the small area north of Schaper Road from Commercial to Institutional I-4 and the small area south of Schaper Road from Institutional I-4 to Commercial. IV. Informal Public Hearing -Subdivision Applicant: City of Golden Valley and the Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority 1 1 1 ~~ '~ ~a ..._ s. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 4 Addres_ s: Proposed property bounded by ponding and wetland to the west, the railroad tracks to the north, Olson Memorial Highway to the south, and Ottawa Avenue to the east, excluding the Golden Valley Inn site. Purpose: To combine portions of the proposed properties and then subdivide them into two lots. Knoblauch explained that the plat map identifies the frontage road as the Schaper Road. She indicated the Commission could register an opinion on the name of the road. Commissioner Martens asked when the name of the frontage road would be formalized. Knoblauch indicated that the plat map would formalize the name of the frontage road. Pentel indicated that once it is platted a formal process would be required to change the name. Commissioner Kapsner stated that it seems appropriate the road be named after the Schapers since they donated this property to the city. Pentel agreed, adding that Schaper Road makes sense since the area is identified as Schaper field or park. Grimes stated that he hopes that at some point MnDOT would allow minimal directional signage along Highway 55. Knoblauch indicated this limitation by MnDOT is due to the fact that Hwy. 55 is not completely closed access. Pentel questioned why the plat makes reference to other plats, and suggested it would be less confusing to include everything on this plat. Knoblauch stated they prefer not to have everything on the same plat because it generally becomes illegible. Pentel referred to Item H under Subdivision Design Features in the memorandum from Knoblauch and questioned why it says there is no intention to develop the City-owned land. She stated we should be very clear about what portions exactly are City-owned land. Knoblauch responded that the City-owned land is the portion of the property which is to the north and west of Schaper Road and Area C, which would be platted as an outlot. Pentel also questioned Item B under Subdivision Design Features on the memorandum that states that for the City-owned property, a drainage and utility easement is shown across the entire site. She stated the plat map shows City-owned drainage easements on much of Area B and on part of the former White House restaurant site. She asked Knoblauch to clarify where the City drainage easements are located. Knoblauch stated there are some additional easements that may have to remain, but it is not unusual that it is not yet known which easements will need to remain at this preliminary stage. Pentel questioned if the White House site is developable even though it shows city drainage easements over it. Knoblauch responded that it is a developable site and the City will simply relocate things or remove the drainage easement if it is not being used. Martens questioned if utility and drainage easements would normally be shown along the perimeter boundary of the plat. Knoblauch responded that the plat shows the standard easements. But the plat will also show anything that is currently in place unless the surveyor is directed to remove it. She indicated, at this point, where other easements are shown on the plat, that still need to be addressed. Martens questioned why there appears to be utility and drainage easements across the entire property. Knoblauch responded that this is in the City-owned land north and west of Schaper Road which was all previously platted and will not be changed. Martens questioned why the 4"'3 'C f $ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 5 property was being platted at this point when it could be combined with the Golden Valley Inn and done in one plat at the time it is redeveloped. Knoblauch stated that the re-platting is necessary due to the separation caused by the new road which makes it the responsibility of the City and not the developer. Pentel asked if it would need to be platted again when it is developed. Knoblauch responded that it would have to be platted again if the redevelopment involves the Golden Valley Inn property. Martens asked if Area C, which is being platted as an outlot, contains any utility easements. Knoblauch responded that this was part of the originally platted area so it would be a blanket easements. Martens commented that it would seem appropriate to make this clear on the plat. Knoblauch responded that she would bring this to the attention of the city engineering department and surveyor. Groger commented that the plat does show the 16-foot jog along the south side of the former White House restaurant site. He questioned if it is a concern that at some point the city would lose this portion of the property to the county or the state. Knoblauch responded that the city has not yet received MnDOT's response to the plat. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; hearing and seeing no one, Pentel closed the informal public hearing. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed subdivision of the Schaper Addition as requested. V. Informal Public Hearing -Review of Draft Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan including the Draft Tax Increment Financing Plan Knoblauch explained that Golden Hills is one of three redevelopment areas in Golden Valley. All three areas use Tax Increment Financing (TIF). TIF areas are governed by state law so redevelopment plans must be in accordance with relevant state law as well as the City's Comprehensive Plan. Knoblauch stated that the Golden Hills Redevelopment area is approximately 130 acres. The original Golden Hills Redevelopment area contained four sub- areas: the west area (west of the railroad tracks), the central area (between the railroad tracks and Turners Crossroads, the east area (east of Turners Crossroads) and the south area. This would be the first amendment to the original redevelopment plan that was written in 1984. This amendment would expand the redevelopment area boundaries to include the Xenia Avenue Extension as a new sub-area. Knoblauch explained that the current TIF district contains the west, central and east portions of the redevelopment area. The south area is part of the redevelopment area but not part of the TIF district. The laws regarding TIF allow city HRAs to capture taxes generated by improvements within the TIF district and use these funds for additional improvements in a designated redevelopment area. The designated redevelopment area is often larger than the TIF district. Pentel questioned why it is necessary to sell bonds if the redevelopment is to be funded by the TIF district taxes. Knoblauch responded that the bond front-ends the improvements and the bonds are then retired using the TIF funds. She stated that the redevelopment plan is being amended to add the Xenia Avenue Extension as a sub-area. It would not be part of the TIF district but would be designated as part of the redevelopment area. In regard to the Xenia ~~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 6 Avenue Extension area, the proposed amendment contains no changes in the land use designations and the City is not planning redevelopment of the property except properties that would be part of public improvements. She explained that these would be the Xenia Avenue Extension, a potential storm water detention pond, possible changes in the access to and from Turners Crossroads and possible sale of excess land to the school district for Meadowbrook School. Pentel commented that most of the objectives remained the same in the amended plan as they had been stated in the original plan except for the first objective which has been changed to more generally encompass the area along I-394 and the intersection with Turners Crossroads. She commented that she felt the objectives should include reference to the north/south access and the safety issues since these have been discussed as major reasons for the project. She added that the list of Current Plan Components does not mention the formation of the Xenia Avenue Extension Advisory Committee. She also commented that the Action Plan neglects to mention the pedestrian overpass to the school or the safety issue. Knoblauch responded that the safety issue is addressed in the first bullet under Circulation on page 7. She stated that if the Commission felt more objectives should be added, those revisions could be part of their recommendation. Pentel referred to the central area and questioned if it is necessary to use TIF to redevelop these areas since it is described as an attractive location. Knoblauch responded that it is an attractive location, but that there are definite problems with the properties such as pollution, title problems and a raft of MnDOT tur-nbacks. She added that these are the types of problems that developers generally do not want to spend money to clean up even if the location is attractive. Martens stated there is a gap between market value of the land and the cost to acquire the land in its present form and get it ready for the market. He stated that, theoretically, TIF funds are to be .used to fill that gap. He stated that these are true redevelopment sites. The goal of the City should be to sell them for market value. Grimes explained that, historically, the City has purchased properties and done environmental clean-up, which would not be done if the City was not involved. In this type of situation, the City generally would have to spend double or triple the market value of the property to purchase the property and get it ready for development. Kapsner commented that what is being proposed is expansion of the expenditure area for the TIF District. Knoblauch responded that we are not expanding the TIF District but we are expanding the redevelopment area where the TIF proceeds can be spent. Kapsner asked what would happen to the money that will be spent in the proposed expansion area if the redevelopment area was not expanded.- Pentel responded that she believes the district would achieve parity sooner and the taxes would go back to the school districts. Martens stated that we are expanding the redevelopment area but we can not add to the TIF district. Knoblauch responded that she did not know that we could not add to the TIF district, but expansion of the TIF district is not being proposed. Martens questioned if the city would be in a better financial position if the TIF district was expanded and requested City Finance Director, Don Taylor, address this issue in his presentation. Knoblauch continued summarizing the. changes proposed in the amended plan for the four sub- areas that are already part of the redevelopment. She stated that HRA involvement is almost Kr~: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning. Commission November 9, 1998 Page 7 complete in the west area. The necessary land has been acquired and the developer expects to have both sites under construction in the spring. This amendment brings the plan up to date with regard to the west area. Most of the proposed changes involve the central area. The original plan from 1984 indicated that the HRA would not be involved in the northeast quadrant. This area is now a redevelopment site with United Properties as the developer. Redevelopment would most likely occur in this area eventually but will proceed more quickly with the assistance of the HRA. Pentel stated that the old plan included height restrictions of 4 to 6 stories in the area across from the Colonnade to the west of Xenia, and that this restriction has been deleted in the revised plan. Knoblauch responded that the new plan replaced the height restriction with a square footage limitation. She stated that a height limit could be added if the Commission feels it should be included. Pentel responded that the original plan was the result of long term planning and consideration of many factors. She stated the height restrictions were included for a purpose and should not be removed. Martens stated he would have some concerns regarding setting height restrictions at this point. He added that the individual projects will be coming before the Commission and to restrict height to a specific number of stories for all development at this point may not be appropriate. Pentel questioned if the City should encourage higher density development and the additional traffic it would generate in this area. Knoblauch responded that the plan still includes a general goal of locating higher density development adjacent to I-394 and lower density development away from I-394, but she. added that it would not be a problem to revise the plan to include the height restriction. Knoblauch stated that the other major change in the central area is in regard to the southwest quadrant. Only a portion of this area was identified as a redevelopment site in the original plan. Since that time, MnDOT pushed the frontage road farther north and acquired the property. The residual of the parcel is not developable on its own but is too big to leave undeveloped. The amendment would expand the redevelopment site to include the entire block. The only substantial change in the east area is that the previous plan considered the apartment buildings as property to be acquired. Knoblauch indicated that, at this time, the City does not believe that will happen. The City will be considering proposals to improve the shopping center. Pentel referred to page 14 that mentions alternatives for the existing apartment site. Knoblauch responded that the City assumes this property will be redeveloped in the future even without the involvement of the HRA. Pentel asked if there was any information available on the affordability of the apartments. Grimes responded that the City has a list of all apartment buildings but not information on the rental rates. Knoblauch stated that the only change in the south area is the addition of potential annexation and detachment of this area to the City of St. Louis Park. She explained Duke who also owns an adjacent site that is much larger and is located in St. Louis Park owns the entire south area. Duke plans to redevelop the entire property, and since it would be one redevelopment area, it would be beneficial if it was not located in two different jurisdictions. Martens asked which sites would be potential hotel uses. Knoblauch responded that the service use designation refers to hotels and restaurants. She added that there had been a ;~ 9 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 8 discussion regarding more specific use designations in the plan but that it is sometimes detrimental to be too specific. Martens questioned if the City views hotels differently than other service uses. Knoblauch responded that each proposal would be evaluated individually. Martens questioned if it would be the same in the Comprehensive Plan. Knoblauch responded that this is an issue that is currently under discussion. Grimes stated that there has been hotel interest in each of the areas and that there is currently a hotel in the west area. Martens commented that he felt the hotel interest should be considered with some priority in the interest of obtaining the right mix for the area. Knoblauch stated that one site has been specifically reserved for a hotel. Shaffer stated that the Xenia Avenue Extension area is outlined on the map and questioned if these are the definite boundaries for redevelopment in the area. He asked if the plan would have to be amended again in the future if the redevelopment includes pedestrian bridges that go outside the area shown on the map. Knoblauch responded that the area outlined on the map includes improvements that may occur across the .street, such as a pedestrian overpass. She added that the consultants on the project have recommended the city compile a list of parcel .identification numbers of property in the redevelopment area. Pentel commented there appeared to be no legal description for the Xenia Avenue Extension area. Shaffer questioned if the listing of parcel identification numbers would serve as the legal description. Knoblauch responded the City has been compiling this list and it would be filed with the proposed amended document. She said they may create two categories of properties, those within the limits of the redevelopment area and those that may be affected by the redevelopment. City Finance Director, Don Taylor, explained that the City is not recommending expansion of the current TIF district but requesting amendment of the TIF plan to provide additional expenditure and bonding authority for the Xenia Avenue Extension project and the United Properties project on the Robert Hamilton site, and for the Duke project which is currently in negotiations. Taylor covered some of the highlights of the amended plan. He referred to page 6-2 reviewing the amended budget as adopted September 1, 1998. He explained the Xenia Avenue Extension project has not yet been designed so the budget is the best estimate that could be compiled at this time. Taylor explained that the southwest project budget is also an estimate since there is not yet a development agreement with Duke, the potential developer. The northwest project contains the printing company and at this point is not generating enough increment to proceed with redevelopment. The northeast project has a development agreement in place with United Properties. The total amended budget for the redevelopment would be slightly over $58 million. Taylor indicated we are currently at about $26 million in expenditures to-date in the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area. He explained that the TIF plan also sets a limit on the amount of bonds that can be sold. He reviewed page 7-1 which detailed the amount of bonds the City will have the authority to sell when this plan is approved. He stated that the amended plan would authorize the City to sell approximately $46 million in tax increment bonds to finance the redevelopment projects. Pentel questioned how the City determines when to close these districts. Taylor responded that HRAs and cities carefully monitor the districts to ensure they are closed when assets are equal to bonds and no other projects are anticipated. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 9 Martens questioned if the money could be spent outside the TIF district. Taylor responded that the money can be spent outside the TIF district in the designated redevelopment area. He added that in the past there was a limited percentage that could be spent outside the TIF district, but this limitation has been removed. Currently, the amount of TIF that can be spent outside the district in the redevelopment area is unlimited. However, it must be spent in the designated redevelopment area, it cannot be spent in other redevelopment areas. Taylor responded to a question that had previously been raised as to whether the plan could have been amended to expand the TIF district. He stated that the TIF district could be expanded but, in this case, the redevelopment could be financed without expansion of the district and the City prefers not to expand the TIF district if it is not necessary. Taylor explained that the City must also show the state that sufficient increment will be generated to pay off the bonds. He referred the Commission to Exhibit 4 and reviewed the existing tax increment being generated, future tax increment to be generated, MEPC increment, interest, debt service on bonds, old and new bonds which the city is authorized to issue. The final analysis shows a cash balance of over $5 million. Pentel asked if the district could be closed earlier. Taylor responded that would be a possibility, but reminded the Commission that these are only projections. Pentel asked why there was no assumption report for the Xenia Avenue Extension area. Taylor responded there was no assumption report because there is no development there. Martens asked what the land sale assumptions per square foot were for the MEPC and United Properties projects. Taylor responded they were $5 per square foot for the United Properties project. Taylor indicated he could not answer this question for the southwest area since the development agreement with Duke is currently in negotiations. Martens asked if the City enters into minimum assessment agreements for these projects and are they value agreements or taxes payable per building or per square foot. Taylor responded that development agreements include minimum assessment agreements. These agreements set a minimum value on which the developer must pay taxes regardless of whether the development occurs. Taylor stated that most of the City's assessment.agreements are based on minimum value. Martens questioned if the other method is better in terms of protecting the City from changes in tax rates. Taylor responded that the City has done it both ways. He commented that the value approach can be slightly more risky. He added that the agreement with United Properties is a guarantee of taxes rather than value. Groger commented the issuance of the bonds would be on a fairly short time frame. He questioned what would happen if the Xenia Avenue Extension is not possible or if development on the southwest site falls through. He asked if the City delays issuing bonds until a firm development agreement is in place. Taylor responded that by law, tax increment bonds cannot be sold unless there is a completed development agreement. Taylor indicated that bonds could not be issued for the Xenia Avenue Extension only. The increment from the Duke and United Properties redevelopment is needed to complete the Xenia Avenue Extension project. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, indicated he had several concerns with the amendment. He referred to page 5 and the objective of improving north/south access into ~',~~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 10 Golden Hills. He questioned why there was a need for improved access from a commercial area to a residential area to the north. It was his understanding that the redevelopment would take place regardless of the access. Knaeble referred to page 6 and the absence of the mention of any trade off for the additional traffic that would be generated. He commented that if these developments did not occur then the extension of Xenia Avenue would not be needed. He then referred to page 7, the second bullet from the top, which addresses the issue of placing higher density development directly adjacent to I-394. He stated this seems to be in direct conflict with the United Properties development which calls fora 180,000 sq. ft., six-story office building with 815 parking spaces and is located right next to the residential area. He referred to the same issue on page 14. Also on page 14, he referred to the statement that the Olympic Printing site was not feasible to develop. He questioned how this site was different from the United Properties site and why it was considered not feasible to develop. He commented that the plan talks about maximizing site density without compromising green space. He indicated that a considerable amount of green space would be lost on the United Properties site. Knaeble referred to page 19 that states the street extension would alleviate a hazardous intersection. He stated it should be clear that the hazardous intersection would not be alleviated, it would merely be relocated from Glenwood and Turners Crossroads to Glenwood and Xenia. He also addressed the reference to the extension improving the poorly defined route from the commercial area into the residential area to the north. He stated that the poorly defined route is beneficial to the residential area to separate it from the intense commercial area. Knaeble then referred to page 20, Exhibit G. Referring to the Xenia Avenue Extension area, he stated that no area is designated as reconstruction and that areas should be redefined to include pedestrian bridges, sidewalks and trails. Knaeble's final question was in regard to the date of December 1, 1998 on the proposed amended plan. He questioned when the plan was actually prepared. He added that at the City Council meeting on October 20, the estimated budget for the Xenia Avenue Extension project was $4-$5 million and the budget in the proposed amended plan is $8 million. He asked if the budget included in the proposed amendment was provided to the City Council or the Planning Commission at the time the project was approved. Pentel stated that the Planning Commission was not aware of any budget at its last meeting when they recommended approval to the City Council. The Commission asked Taylor to respond to the question raised regarding whether the redevelopment could proceed without the Xenia Avenue Extension project. Taylor stated that it was the desire of the HRA to provide an overall plan for traffic due to the redevelopment. The redevelopment could be completed without the extension of Xenia Avenue but it would be difficult for traffic on Turners Crossroads. Pentel asked about the plan for the Roberts Hamilton site, specifically the number of stories proposed and the green space projections. Knoblauch responded that they are proposing a six-story building and that the site plan includes more green space than is required by city code. Pentel asked if it was in keeping with the intent of the original plan to locate asix-story building this far off I-394. Knoblauch responded that she felt the original intent was to have a stepping down as you moved away from I-394. She stated the Colonnade is a 15-story building, so it seemed to be in keeping with the stepping down philosophy of the original plan to develop asix- story building in this location. ~~~~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 11 Grimes stated that when the Xenia Avenue Extension is complete there will be a substantial reduction in traffic on Turners Crossroads which will be a benefit to the neighborhood that is east of Turners Crossroads. Pentel asked if Turners Crossroads will be reconstructed. Knoblauch responded there are several different concepts currently under discussion. Pentel questioned what the cost would be for reconstructing Turners Crossroads and how the City proposed to cover that cost. Taylor responded that the budget proposed for the Xenia Avenue Extension includes funds for reconstruction of Turners Crossroads. He added this was why the budget had been increased from earlier projections. Pentel asked when this document was presented to the HRA. Taylor responded the document was reviewed by the HRA at their September meeting. Pentel asked why the Planning Commission did not receive the proposed budget at their last meeting. Taylor responded that the numbers, at that time, were very preliminary and he did not feel confident to present them to the Planning Commission until firmer estimates were available. Linda Loomis, 6677 Olson Memorial Highway, asked the Commission to reconsider the amendment to the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. In reading the minutes from the last meeting, she felt the Commission had addressed some legitimate concerns. She expressed concern regarding the demolition of affordable housing. The minutes stated that Turners Crossroads could not be expanded due to minimum setbacks for the Fire Station and the Church. She stated that the Xenia Avenue Extension will eliminate the minimum setback for an apartment building that she felt should be given the same priority as the Fire Station and the Church since it is living space. She expressed concern regarding the proposed width of the road. She questioned if the cost of pedestrian bridges and sidewalks are included in the budget. She asked if there had been any input from the citizens of Golden Valley to determine if they were willing to trade tax dollars for increased traffic. She also stated that there have been no good projections given regarding the actual increased traffic to be generated by the redevelopment and the extension. Pentel asked if the Xenia Avenue Extension has been engineered. Grimes responded that the road has not yet been designed and that the width of the road has not been determined. The Council has created the Advisory Committee to review issues such as road width. Pentel asked about the funding for sidewalks outside the redevelopment area. Taylor responded that he had included estimates for these costs in the Xenia Avenue Extension budget. He added that TIF rules state that an improvement that is outside the redevelopment area but is directly related to the project is considered part of the redevelopment. In regard to input from the public concerning the redevelopment, Pentel suggested the Commission discuss this issue after the public hearing was closed. Amy Rosen, 205 Idaho Avenue North, stated that the Xenia Avenue Extension is a large project. It is a 38-acre parcel and represents roughly one third of the total redevelopment area. She indicated that currently there has been cooperation between the commercial area and the residential area to enable them to comfortably coexist-exist. With the Xenia Avenue Extension the City is moving north into the residential area. She stated that traffic is a tremendous issue Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 12 in this area and there has not been adequate discussion about the increase in traffic. She said that at the City Council meeting the estimated numbers for increased traffic were provided by the engineering firm that has a vested interest in seeing this project proceed. She suggested that moving the intersection allows vehicles to gain speed in this area increasing the safety problem. Chair Pentel closed the public hearing. Kapsner commented that he feels the city has not been strong enough in bringing forward the point that this road is not being built because of the redevelopment. The road would need to be built even if there was no redevelopment. It will improve traffic flow that has been a problem since Turners was cut off from access to 1394. Pentel asked how the city would pay for the road if there was no redevelopment. Shaffer stated that the road needs to be changed and that the changes are being paid for by the redevelopment. Groger commented that the TIF district is long standing. He added that this area is ripe for redevelopment. The primary reason for redevelopment is not to bring in new tax dollars but to redevelop an area that has undergone substantial change due to the construction of 1394. He believes it to be beneficial if the money from the redevelopment can be used to finance other necessary projects. Groger indicated that he supports the general concept and that the details regarding the Xenia Avenue Extension will need to be worked out in the design phase. Martens commented that he was still concerned with the Xenia Avenue Extension and that he was not fully convinced it will be the best solution. He added he was in favor of the general redevelopment of the area. Shaffer stated that with the redevelopment, changes in the road will be needed to allow traffic to flow properly in the area. He stated he was unsure if the Xenia Avenue Extension is the best .solution, but it will be the task of the Advisory Committee to resolve that issue. He stated he would be in favor of the overall plan for redevelopment. Johnson stated the Xenia Avenue Extension is one part of this whole redevelopment plan. It will be the responsibility of the Advisory Committee to study all the issues that have been raised. She added that one of the individuals from the audience will serve on the Advisory Committee. She believes that with the diverse group of people appointed to the committee, they will be able to reach a solution. She would be in favor of recommending approval of the amended redevelopment plan. McAleese stated that the proposed amendment makes some minor changes to an old plan document, but that the Xenia Avenue Extension is a major change. He said there is a fundamental problem with the HRA development process, which often times does not come to the attention of the public, even though the hearings are public, until the development plan is well underway. He said that the United Properties development of a six-story building is probably higher than the original document intended for this site. He stated he is in agreement with the amendments to the document. The Xenia Avenue Extension seems reasonable and the details will need to be resolved by the Advisory Committee. He added that he agreed with ~' Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 13 Pentel that the document should address the need for the north/south connector route and that the original language regarding height restrictions should be reinstated. As far as the suggested input from citizens regarding the trade off of tax dollars for neighborhoods, he suggested the City Council may wish to schedule another town meeting. Pentel stated she has a problem with extending the redevelopment area and bonding to complete the Xenia Avenue Extension project. She added that the city is making a radical departure by moving north into a residential area and that she was not convinced the Xenia Avenue Extension should proceed. She stated the maps do not identify all the properties that may be acquired so we do not know how much affordable housing will be lost. She concluded that most of the redevelopment amendments are necessary but she is not in favor of proceeding with the Xenia Avenue Extension. Kapsner commented that there has been much discussion about the amount of traffic that will be generated by the redevelopment. He stated it is impossible to limit the amount of traffic in this area due to development in St. Louis Park. The Xenia Avenue Extension may not be a perfect solution but it is clear that Turners Crossroads currently does not work. This whole issue has come up because the railroad land became available. Kapsner stated that if we were not redeveloping this area, improvements would -have to be made to Turners Crossroads and a different group of neighbors would be unhappy. Pentel stated that from a planning standpoint there should have been more of a discussion at the time the railroad property came for sale prior to the purchase by the city. Martens commented that after hearing points made by other commission members he would be in favor of approving the amendment and allowing the Advisory Committee to work out the details. MOVED by Martens, seconded by McAleese to recommend to the City Council approval of the Draft Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan including the Draft Tax Increment Financing Plan subject to revision to include the height restrictions for the central area as stated in the original document .and to include one or more specific objectives regarding the north/south connector route and the hazardous intersection. Motion carried with six in favor. Pentel opposed. Taylor stated that the Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan will go before the City Council at their meeting on December 1, 1998. VI. Informal Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit (No. 75) Applicant: Borton Volvo Address: 905 Hampshire Avenue South Purpose: To allow an auto dealership by Conditional Use in the Industrial Zoning District 1 1 1 Ll ~. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 14 Grimes stated that this is a request for a conditional use permit to allow an auto dealership in the Industrial Zoning District. Borton Volvo plans to re-use the existing building on this property, which was formerly a restaurant, as a car dealership. They plan to construct an addition to the building for the service area. He said there was a cell tower on the site which will be leased back to the cell tower company. The property will meet the setback requirements on all sides. He indicated a variance was granted several years ago for the existing restaurant building that will remain. Borton has submitted a new parking plan that is in compliance with city code. There is a gated trash enclosure on site. Gorton Volvo will maintain the existing signboard. Grimes added that from a land use standpoint, this has been an unsuccessful restaurant site and that the location may be better suited to a car dealership. He said that Borton believes with proper signage and advertising the location will be successful for them. Grimes stated the storm sewers will handle the drainage. Johnson asked about plans for signage on the site. Grimes stated there is an existing 27-foot sign board and height restrictions in the code will not allow a higher sign on this site. He commented that the city has allowed higher signs in locations next to I-394 so they can be seen from the highway, but that would not be allowed on this site. Groger commented that there are two parcels of land involved in this site and the current building straddles the two parcels. He stated that the CUP can proceed given this situation but questioned if it wouldn't be in the best interest of the city to combine this into one parcel at this time. Grimes responded that the city does allow this type of situation but that they may be able to re-plat the property or go to the county and ask them to eliminate the property line through an administrative process. Knoblauch stated that it would be in the best interest of the City and the property owner to have it made into one parcel. Grimes stated the city will try to resolve this problem either through an administrative process or through re-platting, which would involve the additional property owner of the third parcel. David Phillips of DCA Architects, 1250 East Moore Lake Drive in Fridley, spoke on behalf of his client, Borton Volvo. He stated that the parking lot plan has been revised to comply with city code and that they will comply with all landscape, signage and engineering requirements. He requested the Planning Commission recommend approval of the permit. Pentel asked if there was any problem with the lighting requirements. Phillips responded that his office has completed projects for more than 50% of the car dealerships in the metropolitan area. He added that the new technology in lighting allows for very good lighting at dealerships. His firm will recommend the lighting level be lowered to approximately 25% at 10:00 or 10:30pm. Pentel asked if it would be necessary to include a recommendation that cars cannot be displayed in the setback area. Grimes responded that car dealerships are allowed to use the setback for display a limited number of times per year. Otherwise, the restriction is enforced and it could be included in the recommendation. Knoblauch asked if Borton Volvo would share in the cost of whatever process is necessary to remove the property line between the two parcels. Phillips responded that Borton Volvo would cooperate with the City in an equitable process to eliminate the property line. d~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 9, 1998 Page 15 Martens asked what hours the dealership would be open. Phillips responded they plan to have sales open Monday through Thursday from gam to 9pm. He indicated service would be open from lam to 6pm Monday through Thursday. On Fridays, sales and service would be open from Gam to 6pm. Sales would be open from gam to 6pm on Saturday. He added that service hours may be extended to midnight or added on Saturday if it is necessary to meet market demand. He stated that Borton will generate less traffic than a restaurant. Pentel asked if the dealership would be selling used vehicles. Phillips said yes. Pentel asked if they service vehicles other than Volvos. Phillips responded that they primarily service Volvos, but they will provide service to any customer. Pentel stated that our recommendation should include removal of the property line and require that no automobiles be displayed in the setback area. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; hearing and seeing no one, Pentel closed the informal public hearing. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to recommend to City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit (No. 75) for Borton Volvo to allow a auto dealership in the Industrial zoning district, with the additional stipulation that no automobiles will be displayed in the setback area and that the property line dividing the two parcels be removed. VII. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals No report was presented. VIII. Other Business No other business was presented. IX. Adjournment Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 10: 1