Loading...
01-10-00 PC Minutes . - . e . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2000 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chamber, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota on January 10, 2000. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00P.M. Those present were Chair Pentel, Commissioners Groger, Hoffman, McAleese, Shaffer, and Rasmussen; absent was Eck. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes and Recording Secretary, Heidi Reinke. (Note: Commissioner Eck attended the Laurel/Winnetka A venue Advisory Committee meeting and arrived prior to the discussion of attendance to the AP A Conference in New York.) I. Approval of Minutes - December 13,1999 and December 27,1999 MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the December 13, 1999 minutes as submitted. Commissioner Pentel indicated that there was an error on page 3 of the December 27th minutes. She did not second the motion to rezone the property. Pentel stated that Shaffer seconded the motion. On page 10, the second sentence requires some rewording to make it more understandable. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the December 27, 1999l11inutes with the above revisions. II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan's General Land Use Plan Map - Office to Schools and Religious Facilities Applicant: City of Golden Valley (Request made by Breck School) Address: Portion of Property located at 123 Ottawa Avenue North Golden Valley, MN Purpose: Amend the General Land Use Plan Map from "Office" to "Schools and Religious Facilities". Property is owned by Breck School and will continue to be used as soccer fields. Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, explained the amendment to the City's General Land Use Plan Map regarding Breck School's intentions for improvement to its site. He reviewed the City's amended General Land Use Plan Map. The map indicates that the proposed property has a designation of "Office". To the immediate southeast of the subject property is the American Legion Chester Bird Post No. 523 that is also designated as "Office". The American Legion would retain its designation of "Office". Grimes continued to discuss the history of the site, as noted in Planning Assistant Dold's memo of January 5, 2000. He said staff is recommending an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan from "Office" to "Schools and Religious Facilities" because the property is used by Breck School as soccer fields, and as part of the PUD, Breck would be platting the subject property as part ofthe main campus. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2000 Page 2 Pente'l asked how often the General Land Use Plan Map is updated and changed. Grimes answered that the map is updated at regular intervals. . III. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning - Business and Professional Office to 1-1 Institutional (Churches and Schools) Applicant: Breck School Address: Portion of Property located at 123 Ottawa Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: Rezone a portion of property from "Business and Professional Office" to "1-1 Institutional". Property is owned by Breck School and will continue to be used as soccer fields. Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, next addressed the rezoning of the same property addressed above. He reviewed a portion of the zoning map that was colored in by staff. He said that Breck is requesting a rezoning of this portion of property from Business and Professional ... Office to 1-1 Institutional (Churches and Schools). ... Grimes continued his review by stating the history of the property from Planning Assistant Dold's memo. The proposed portion of property to be rezoned from Business and Professional Office to 1-1 Institutional is approximately 7.11 acres in size. The entire Breck site is approximately 52 acres in size. The proposed property in 1971 had a zoning of "Open Development" as was the American Legion's to the southeast of the proposed property. In April of 1971, the Village Council rezoned the subject property to Business and Professional Office and at the same meeting rezoned the American . Legion property to 1-3 Institutional. Deitrich Company was the applicant for the rezoning of the subject property, and the intention was to construct an office building on this site. Breck school representatives had no additional comments. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing for both the amendment to the General Land Use Plan Map and Rezoning. Groger stated that he was in favor of the rezoning, as the subject property is a good site for the school, and not for an office building. e MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan's General Land Use Plan Map, from Office to Schools and Religious Facilities. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Hoffman and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to approve the rezoning from Business and Professional Office to 1-1 Institutional. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan Review for the Breck Addition, Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 88 Applicant: Breck School Address: 123 Ottawa Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN . . - . . . Minutes ofthe Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2000 Page 3 Purpose: Review of the Preliminary Design Plan - The applicant is proposing to construct an attached field house onto the east side of the existing school, construct a small concession building adjacent to a revamped track and field stadium, add new bleachers and additional parking to the site. Director Grimes began with reviewing the site plan for the P.D.D. He said Breck School, located at 123 Ottawa Avenue North, has applied for a Planned Unit Development (P.D.D.) in order to expand and remodel its school. Breck School is a private school for grades K-12. There are 1160 students and about 215 faculty and staff. They have been in Golden Valley since 1980 when they purchased the former Golden Valley High School property from the Hopkins School District. Since that time, several improvements and additions have been made to the building and site. Grimes stated that the school is located east of Highway 100, west of Natchez Avenue North, south of the Soo Line tracks and north of G1enwood Ave. The main access to the site is from Ottawa Avenue North. There are secondary access points from the American Legion parking lot and from Natchez A venue at the northeast corner of the site. The school encourages students, parents, faculty and staff to use Ottawa Avenue as the main access point. Grimes said Breck currently has about 225,000 square feet of building area on the site. This includes classrooms, gyms, dining facilities, offices, performing arts theater, and chapel. They also have a bus garage on the site where buses are stored and repaired. This includes gas pumps to fuel the buses. Grimes indicated that the site is approximately 52 acres in size. This acreage is located on several unplatted lots. In addition to the buildings, the site includes about 450 parking spaces, tennis courts, athletic fields, and other typical school facilities. Much of the site is below the 100-year flood elevation that makes any additions to the site difficult. As noted in the memo from the City Engineer Jeff Oliver, dated January 5, 2000, the City and Breck are now going through a process that would revise the flood plain elevation. This revision would increase the flood plain elevation and, therefore, allow for the field house expansion and the new football/soccer stadium. Grimes added that in late 1999, Breck began construction on an addition to the performing arts center at the southwest end of the building. There is also some minor building expansions being done along the north side of the building in conjunction with the arts center expansion. These building expansions did not require a change in the flood plain elevation. These improvements will add about 23,000 square feet to the overall building size. Grimes stated that in order for the additional development to occur on the Breck campus, the staff is recommending that a P.D.D. permit be issued. The size and complexity of the Breck campus make it a unique use in the City. Staff has determined that it does in fact support several different uses and buildings. Designation as a P.D.D. would bring greater certainty to the long-term land use expectations ofthe school, neighborhood, and City as well as protecting the neighborhood and City against future land owners who may not be as cooperative and conscientious as Breck. The P.D.D. process also makes sense in this case because of the need for a subdivision of the property (to consolidate the property into one lot) and the need for a comprehensive plan map and zoning map amendments that permit the entire site to be used for a school. Grimes reviewed the changes to the site which includes revamping the track and football/soccer stadium at the south end of the site, a new track would be built along with new stands, a new concession building, a new field irrigation system, and new lighting. Breck will also be moving its bus operation (garage, storage and fueling point) to another off-site location. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2000 Page 4 Grimes addressed the issue of improved traffic circulation for both the school buses and parents . picking up and dropping off children. This new pattern has been proposed due to the congestion that now occurs in front of the school (south side) with bus pick up and drop off and parent pick up and drop off. The plan isto take the buses around the north side of the building for pick up and drop off. One more loading and unloading point for the buses would be established on the north side. Buses enter and leave the site only from Ottawa Avenue. Grimes said that the traffic circulation has been a concern for neighbors. Breck hires off-duty Golden Valley Police Officers to help control traffic in the morning and afternoon. The two officers help direct traffic and control access to Glenwood A venue at Ottawa. There have been some complaints about traffic on Natchez; however, these complaints have become fewer from those received at the beginning of the school year. Grimes indicated that a preservation plan and revised landscape plan would be required and reviewed by the Building Board of Review. As indicated in the Oliver memo, there are two significant stands of trees on the site. The one stand, that is east of the water quality pond, provides screening of the campus from the east. Care will have to be taken to maintain this stand, especially during construction. The tree preservation plan will outline steps needed to preserve these trees. e Grimes addressed the issue of parking. He said that the proposed site plan indicates that there would be 452 parking spaces. This does not include the 56 spaces that Breck leases from the Legion for student parking at the west end of the site. The new plan indicates the same amount of parking even with the new ponds and buildings. The same amount of parking is maintained because of the elimination of the bus operation along the north side of the building and more efficient design of parking. Grimes indicated the code requirement for parking is one space for each three units of seating capacity for a school. In this case, the seating capacity of the school is considered the same as the enrollment. The enrollment for Breck (K-12) is 1160. Based on the enrollment, the parking requirement is 386. In my discussions with Breck, they believe that the 452 are more than adequate to handle the parking demand generated by staff, students and visitors. Only on rare occasion (such as graduation weekend) has there been inadequate parking. . Grimes stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals has granted variances for the construction of buildings and driveway areas in the required 50 foot side yard setback area. These variances were granted along the north property line adjacent to the railroad tracks. There is a fence and tree and landscape cover along this property line. To the north of the fence is either single family housing or offices. In this case the Board of Zoning Appeals felt that the variances were justified and approved the request to allow construction on the north side of the school. e Grimes added that City Engineer Jeff Oliver has written a memo discussing issues related to flood plains, wetlands, preliminary plat, easements, utilities, grading, drainage and erosion control, tree preservation, and landscaping. The recommendations in the memo will become a condition of approval for the Preliminary Design Plan. Grimes would like the following items to be considered part of the proposal: 1. Preliminary PUD Submittal dated December 20, 1999, including: site plan, utility plan, tree inventory, preliminary plat, topographic survey, floor plans, and building elevations. 2. Memo from Jeff Oliver dated January 5, 2000 3. Memo from Deputy Fire Marshall Ed Anderson dated January 5, 2000 . . e . e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2000 Page 5 4. Breck continues to hire off-duty Golden Valley Police Officers to control traffic in the peak morning and afternoon periods 5. Breck School continues to closely monitor the use of the Natchez access to the campus. 6. A Landscape Plan and a Tree Preservation Plan will have to be submitted. 7. After June 2000, buses will no longer be stored on campus. The fuel tank will be removed by June 2000. Rasmussen inquired if the flood plain will have to be filled. Grimes responded that a change to the elevation would be made and would be impossible to fill. Bassett Creek will make changes and improvements to the watershed. It would lower the flood plain elevation and allow more land to be used. Grimes said Breck School is working with the City and the necessary agencies regarding this issue. He added that building permits cannot be issued until the existing flood plain elevation has been amended. Dawn Wyzoreck, architect with the Cunningham Group, is the representative for Breck School. She stated that a neighborhood meeting was held last Monday evening and only nine people came to look at the project. She said overall, there was positive feedback from the meeting. One complaint was directed toward the traffic and speed on Natchez Avenue. The only other complaint was from a neighbor on Ottawa A venue regarding students that use her driveway to turn around. Wyzoreck stated that Breck is a good neighbor in Golden Valley. Breck snowplows before the city, which gives the neighbors a safe route to drive around the school. The facilities at Breck are open to the public, such as the fields and tennis courts. She also stated that with the improvements proposed for the school, the 1160 student capacity will not increase. This project will only address improvements to the existing facilities. Some ofthe improvements include: the middle school dining room, practice facilities in the fieldhouse (additional basketball courts and walking track), and others. Wyzoreck said traffic during construction might be tight, but after the construction, traffic flow would be much improved. She said the area that is now used by the buses would be used by students once the buses are parked on-site. She added off-duty Police Officers would continue to monitor and direct traffic around the school. Breck wants to continue to maintain its good relationship with Golden Valley. Groger asked if Breck School would allow the field house to be used for outside parties and other organizations. John Thiel, Director of Athletics at Breck School, discussed the proposed uses ofthe fieldhouse. He said that Breck would rent out the fieldhouse for summer basketball camps, local AAU youth basketball tournaments, and would be open to usage by other local organizations. He stated that Breck wants to use the fieldhouse for community use only. Groger inquired about the amount of parking for the fieldhouse. Thiel responded that there are only 40 spaces, but new spaces would be created behind the fieldhouse where the existing bus parking is now located. There shouldn't be a problem with parking for the fieldhouse. Hoffman asked if the field house would become the regular basketball facility. Thiel responded that the regular gymnasium would continue to be used for games. The fieldhouse would be used only for practice. The fieldhouse would contain four basketball courts, volleyball, badminton, tennis, and gymnastics. There will be no seating in the fieldhouse. He also stated that the entrance to the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2000 Page 6 fieldhouse would be through the school. There would be no street entrance, which will help to . eliminate dirt being tracked into the building. In addition, the fieldhouse would be passively cooled during the summer and lit by daylight during the school hours. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Mark Hovelson, Bossardt Corporation and representative for Breck School, voiced his concern regarding the time frame for City approval and the construction period. He noted that in order for Breck to build on portions of land that are located in the flood elevation, several agencies would have to give approval. He asked the Planning Commission to be flexible with the approval schedule noting the timeframe for further application submittals that need to be reviewed by the City Council. He would the City to go forward as the Basset Creek Watershed Commission reviews the request. He added that he would like to see the construction completed by September 2000, but Basset Creek review is adding several months to the tight schedule. Pentel interjected that the Planning Commission does not have the control to make this sort of decision. Grimes added that the process is being reviewed as quickly as possible. He added that it would be impossible to issue a building permit until the approval process is completed. Grimes added e that if Breck would go forward with construction, they could have a problem with obtaining flood msurance. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel stated that the flood plain elevation issue is important and there are certain guidelines that need to be followed. McAleese said that this complex project has several problems that should be addressed before approving it as a P.D.D. Breck has several separate buildings, yet they are all attached. A P.D.D. is defined for 5 specific types of development: 1) Developments having two or more principal uses on a single p~rcel of land; 2) Developments having two or more principal structures on a single parcel of land;, 3) & 4) deal with apartment projects; and 5) Developments having two or more principal use structures located on two or more lots either in single or multiple ownership, provided the combined area totals one or more acres and the plan submitted includes the area to which the planned unit will apply. McAleese said that unfortunately, this project does not exactly follow any of these rules for a P.D.D. He said the use ofthe site is a "School". There are several ancillary uses, but they all fall under the category of school uses. He added there are several structures on the property that are all connected; therefore, the structure can be defined as one main structure with several accessory structures, which again does not follow the definition for a P.D.D. . e McAleese said he could not vote in favor of this project as a P.D.D., as it would set bad precedent for projects in the future. He does not want to lose the right to enforce the zoning code due to the habit of letting some of the rules slide on projects such as this one. Groger agreed with McAleese on this subject. Pentel added that ifthe Planning Commission decided against the P.D.D., then the conditions added to this project might have to be redefined. McAleese agreed that there are advantages to the applicant ifthis was made a P.D.D., but the city code must also be followed. He added that the City Council has the power to ignore the decision made by the Planning Commission, but the Commission must make its own decision about this project. . Everyone has the prerogative to interpret the code in different ways. . e . e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2000 Page 7 Shaffer said that by following McAleese's logic, the proposal does not qualify as a P.U.D. He also agrees that setting a precedent is important, thus the decision regarding making this a P.U.D. is important. If Breck were to emphasize that the fieldhouse was a separate building, then it might fall into the category of two or more separate buildings on one site. Additional members of the commission emphasized that this proposal does not necessarily follow the code definition of a P.U.D. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried 4-2 (one commissioner absent) to recommend to the City Council that the Breck Addition, P.U.D. No. 88 does not follow the City Code requirements as a P.U.D. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council, that ifthe City Council deems the Breck Addition, P.U.D. No. 88 meets the requirements ofa P.U.D. the following conditions be recommended as part of the approval: I. The Preliminary PUD Submittal dated December 20, 1999 shall become a part of this approval. This submittal includes a site plan, utility plan, tree inventory, preliminary plat, topographic survey, floor plans and building elevations. 2. The memo from Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer, to Mark W. Grimes, dated January 5, 2000 shall become a part of this approval. The recommendations of his memo shall become a part of these recommendations. These recommendations include the provision that Breck not be permitted to apply for the General Plan of Development until the approval of the Conditional Letter of Map Revision by the Federal Management Commission is issues; and that the wetland impact and mitigation plan be approved by other agencies and the City. 3. The memo from Deputy Fire Marshall Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes dated January 4, 2000 becomes a part of this approval. 4. Breck School should continue to monitor and hire off-duty Police Officers/Law Enforcement Persons to control traffic in the peak morning and afternoon periods if necessary. Flexibility should be allowed as to which officers are hired for monitoring. S. Breck School continues to closely monitor the use of the Natchez access to the campus. If the City determines that the use of the Natchez access is a problem, the City has the right to control it use. This could include the closing off of the access except for emergency vehicles. 6. As part of the General Plan, a Landscape Plan will have to be submitted. A Tree Preservation Plan shall also be submitted. 7. After June 2000, buses will no longer be stored on campus. The fuel tank will be removed as per the requirements ofthe Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. McAleese asked permission to extend and amend his comments on the issue of Breck School and the P.U.D. He said he would like to add an addendum that would specifically reflect his ideas only. The Planning Commission agreed to attach the addendum if it were simply a recommendation to the Council. The addendum can be found as an attachment to these minutes. V. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (No. 88) Commissioner Shaffer stepped down as a commissioner for this particular item because he is the architect for the proposal.) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10,2000 Page 8 Applicant: Helen DeAlwis/Basset Creek Montessori School . Address: 2580 Hillsboro Avenue, Golden Valley, MN (Sunny Hollow Shopping Center) Request: To allow for the operation of a child care facility in the Commercial zoning district by Conditional Use. Director Grimes stated that the owner of the Montessori School is the applicant of this Conditional Use Permit (No. 88). The Montessori School, currently located in Crystal, has to be relocated because of the highway. The applicants have come to an agreement with the owner of the shopping center to move into the existing Super America, which is moving across the street to a new site next month. Grimes said that the property is currently zoned "Commercial". The zoning of the property is consistent with the land use as it is designated as commercial. Within the Commercial zoning district (Section 11.30, Subd. 4[RD childcare is permitted by conditional use. The Montessori School would like to be considered under this use. Grimes said the Montessori School is proposing to use .A approximately 2,400 sq.ft. of the shopping center. He said there are no anticipated additions to the . center that would change the site plan. Grimes said in reviewing the survey, only minor infractions occur regarding parking, green space and trash enclosure setbacks. Staff has spoken with the owner of the center who anticipates the removal of the trash enclosure along Medicine Lake Road. The school would use the container located on the east side of the building. Staff believes that these small code infractions should be addressed at a time when the footprint of the building is changed or some other major event occurs on the property, such as a fenced-in play area. Grimes continued that the architect would be addressing improvements to meet the school's needs. He . told the commission the School is intending to use the Medley Hills Park as its playground area. As noted in materials from the State, an outdoor play area must be within 2000 feet of walking distance and contain muscle equipment. Staff believes that Medley Hills Park meets these requirements. The applicant has indicated that the children will be walked to Medley Hills Park using either the back sidewalk and gravel area or the front sidewalk. The gravel walkway to the rear of the building ends in the parking lot. Staff suggests that the owner of the property and the school work together to somehow continue the path to the park entrance so the parking lot is not used as a walkway. Grimes ~ added that some arrangement be made to maintain this trail in the winter, as it becomes slippery and W' dangerous with snow and ice. Grimes stated that the 100 parking spaces on site was adequatt\ to meet the needs of the center and the school. He said the Commercial zoning district does not address parking requirements for a school. He reviewed Super America's requirements for parking as one space for every 150 square feet oftloor space, which equals 16 parking spaces. The school would have a staff of four with a maximum of 40 children. Grimes said if one looked at the Industrial zoning district the parking requirement for schools would be one parking space for every three units of seating. Because the children do not have a need for the spaces, the existing spaces should be adequate. It is anticipated that four parking spaces would need to be available for staff and three to four spaces available for drop-off and pick-up. Grimes said that this school has been successful in Crystal, and with the existing need for this type of school, he sees no problem with the proposed project. Staff recommends approval under several conditions, including: . . e . - . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2000 Page 9 1) The site plan, prepared by The Foundation, dated December 30, 1999 becomes a part of this approval. Any change to the site plan after Council approval will require an amendment to the C.D.P. 2) The interior improvements shall meet all requirements of the building and fire code. 3) The enrollment of children on this site shall be limited to 40. 4) The Montessori School shall use Medley Hills Park as its playground. If a playground is needed on the subject property, the applicant will need to amend its C.D.P. 5) The hours of operation shall be 6am to 6pm. 6) All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met. Groger voiced concern that the driveway in the rear of the shopping center is . gravel and should be paved. If it becomes the access for the children to get to the playground, then a paved access may be less dangerous. He also suggested that it become part ofthe shopping center owner's long-term plans. The second option is for the children to walk on the sidewalk in front of the building instead of the gravel road. McAleese stated concern about operating a child care center so close to the busy intersection along Medicine Lake Road, which could potentially become a problem for parents picking up and dropping off children. Grimes said an adult would always accompany the children while they are outside, thus there should be no concern for the busy intersection. He also commented on the gravel access road, saying that if it is paved, people might begin using it as a driveway. He felt that the biggest issue is the distance to the play area, which is almost Y2 mile. Pentel asked if there were any plans for creating a sideyard play area. Grimes added that some of the parking area could be used to create a play area, but parking is not an issue at this time. He said if it would be feasible to create a play area nearby, the C.U.P. would need to be amended. Robert Shaffer, Architect of the Foundation Architects, presented his design and ideas for the Montessori School. He referred to the floor plan and described the layout ofthe school. Shaffer stated that he visited the site to evaluate the parking situation. The school would require far less parking than the existing Super America. He added that currently there is approximately one car per minute coming and going to the site, whereas the school would have one car every four minutes coming and going from the site. Pentel inquired if the 240 sq.ft. was adequate space for 40 students. Shaffer verified that this amount of square footage would be adequate. He added that several new additions would be made to the structure, including a window for more light and an exit door to the south side. Rohan and Helen DeAlwis, Owners of the Bassett Creek Montessori School, 3333 Veracruz Avenue, discussed the Montessori School. The said the issue of walking to the park is a complicated problem. Using the sidewalk along the front of the building could be the best option, though other solutions would be welcomed. They said the children would bring their lunch to school. The kitchen would house only a refrigerator and a microwave. Don Keefe, owner of the Sunny Hollow Shopping Center, told the commission that he bought the center in June. He said there are several items on his list of improvements, including the roof, facade, landscaping, sprinkling ofthe Montessori School area, and HV/AC. He mentioned that since there are many improvements to make, the paving ofthe gravel road might not be done for 1-2 years. He suggested that curb stops or ballast could be used to open up an area for the children to walk to the park. The stops would protect the sidewalk allowing the children to safely walk to the park. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2000 Page 10 Groger suggested that by moving the handicap spaces it would also create more space. There are several alternatives to discuss. . Keefe stated that at some point he would like to move the school closer to the south end of the shopping center (neater the park). Grimes added that any space up to 2,400 square feet of the shopping center could be used for the school. The only regulation would be that the space be on the first level. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; hearing and seeing no one, Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. McAleese said that he favors the proposal. He would like to see the school moved to a more southern location in the shopping center away from the congested intersection. He added that the proposal is acceptable with two conditions: 1) any portion of the shopping center on ground level, containing the appropriate space for the school, is acceptable; and 2) children shall not cross an active parking lot to access the Medley Hills Park play area. Grimes stated his concern about maintaining the trail through the park during the wintertime. The trail .. is hazardous with ice and snow and should be maintained. Discussion with the City's Park and ~ Recreation Department, concerning maintenance of the trail, should be considered. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Hoffman and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the operation of a child care facility in the Commercial zoning district by Conditional Use with the following conditions: 1. The attached interior site plan, prepared by The Foundation, dated December 30, 1999 become a . part of this approval. Any change to the site plan after Council approval will require an amendment to the CUP. The school may be moved to any first floor space in the center that provides adequate space for such a school- this move will not require an amendment to the Permit 2. The interior improvements shall meet all requirements of the building and fire code. 3. The enrollment of children on this site shall be limited to 40. 4. The Montessori School shall use Medley Hills Park as its playground. If a playground is needed e on the subject property, the applicant will need to amend its CUP. 5. The hours of operation shall be 6:00A.M. to 6:00P.M. 6. The applicant shall provide, prior to the City's final building inspection, a plan that shows how the children will access Medley Hills Park without using the active parking lot. 7. The applicant and owner of the center work with the City to maintain a safe access year-round to Medley Hills Park to allow the children ofthe center to use the park. 8. Signage for Montessori School shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Ordinance for the Commercial zoning district. 9. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met. 10. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Conditional use Permit. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2000 Page 11 . IV. Reports on Meetings ofthe Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. V. Other Business A. American Planning Association (AP A) National Conference - Attendance Pentel opened the discussion of attendance to the AP A convention to be held in New York City. She suggested Eck be considered as a candidate for the conference. She stated that any member interested is welcome to attend the meeting. The Planning Commission has funds available to send one commission, but may send two, splitting the funds that are available. Eck said he was interested in attending. _ Grimes added that the decision should be made soon so that the member can sign up for his/her preferred workshops. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:40PM. . - . Addendum to the Planning Commission Minutes of January 10,2000 . [Commissioner McAleese asked the Planning Commission at its January 24, 2000, meeting for leave to organize and clarify his extemporaneous remarks regarding the Preliminary Design Plan Review for the Breck Addition, PUD No. 88. The Commission agreed to forward his comments as an Addendum to their minutes, stipulating that they will be identified as Commissioner McAleese's personal remarks.] Commissioner McAleese extends and amends his remarks as follows: This is an attempt to provide stronger organization and some necessary supporting background to the arguments I made in support ofthe motion to deny PUD No. 88 for failure to qualify as a PUD. Argument I explains why it was squarely within the power of the Planning Commission to reject staffs conclusion that the Breck application qualifies as a Planned Unit Development, and to recommend that the Council should deny the application. Argument II states the reasons I believe the application fails to qualify as a PUD. - Argument III explains why I believe the disagreement between staff and the Planning Commission is more than a small, technical issue. I. The Planning Commission has a general duty to resolve conflicts between staff positions and the zoning code in favor of the code, and a specific duty to provide a . recommendation to the Council regarding such conflicts when considering an application for a Planned Unit Development. A. Whenever there appears to be a conflict between the zoning code and actions or recommendations by staff, the Planning Commission has a duty to support the code Land use in Golden Valley is regulated by the terms of the zoning code, City of Golden Valley Code Chapter 11. The supremacy of the code in all land use decisions is self-evident. The sole question is whether the Planning Commission must defer to the positions adopted and recommendations made by staff. e The answer to this question ought to be equally obvious. Imagine the following: Starbuck's seeks to convert a portion of an owner-occupied house in a single-family residential (R-l) neighborhood into a coffeehouse, which will be limited to 15 customers at a time. Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit, concluding that the proposed coffeehouse qualifies as a "residential facility serving 7-25 people" (Golden Valley Code ~ 11.21, subd. 13(A). The staff recommendation ignores, first, the zoning code definition of a residential facility (Golden Valley Code ~ 11.03 (78)), and, second, the purpose of the residential zoning district (Golden Valley Code ~ 11.21 subd. 2). The Planning Commission must have the power to challenge staff s decision . . - . - . Addendum Page 2 here. If it cannot reject such an egregiously bad recommendation, the Commission serves no useful purpose. We assume the City Council expects us to serve in a genuine evaluative and advisory capacity. The Council has designated the Planning Commission as the city's planning agency, and directed the planning department to serve as our staff. If the Council had wanted the planning department to have the decisive advisory role in land use matters, it was free to appoint staff as the planning agency. (See Minn. Stat. 9462.354, subd. 1 (2)) The Council's decision to insert us in the planning process, when another option was available, refutes the notion that we must act as a mere rubber stamp for city staff. In practice, the Planning Commission recognizes the expertise of the planning staff and generally adopts their positions and recommendations. When appropriate, however, we have always felt free to take issue with them. Consider, for example, the recent proposal by Rudy Luther to build and operate a collision repair center. Staff recommended approval of the required Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The Planning Commission rejected staff s advice as inconsistent with the zoning code, and recommended that the Council should deny the CUP. (The position adopted by the Council.) We have rejected staffs recommendations on whether a CUP should issue, and even on proposed rezonings, a number of times. We routinely take issue with specific conditions recommended by staff, sometimes rejecting staff's proposals, more often adding additional conditions we feel are required. The City Council has not always agreed with our interpretation of the zoning code, but council members have always accepted that we use the code as our decision-making standard rather than strictly deferring to city staff. Thus, by both design and longstanding custom, the Planning Commission's loyalty is to the provisions of the zoning code, not staff. Where, as in this PUD application by Breck, we believe the position of staff conflicts with the code, we have a right and a duty to so advise the City Council. B. The Planning Commission has a specific duty to make recommendations to the Council regarding issues of interpretation of the Planned Unit Development section of the city's zoning code. Even absent our general duty to uphold the zoning code, the Planning Commission has a specific obligation to inform the Council about the problems we see with Breck's application for a PUD. Golden Valley Code ~ 11.55 subd 4 provides that: "Whenever a question arises concerning the interpretation of any portion of [the PUD section of the zoning code], the Planning Commission shall ascertain all facts concerning the question and forward all data and a recommendation to the Council for determination." Whether the Breck application does or does not qualify as a PUD turns upon different interpretations of the zoning code language. The Planning Commission has a duty to provide guidance to the Council on this issue. II. The application fails to meet the minimal zoning code requirements for a Planned Unit Development. A. The zoning code establishes the minimal requirements any application must meet to qualify as a Planned Unit Development. Addendum Page 3 Golden Valley Code ~ 11.55 establishes six conditions (numbered 1 through 5) under which the Breck application might qualify as a PUD: Subdivision 2. Definition of Planned Unit Developments. A. Planned Unit Developments are defined for purposes ofthis Section to include only the following: 1. Developments having two or more principal uses on a single parcel of land. 2. Developments having two or more principal structures on a single parcel of land. . /\parrrnerlt f)Ct).jects i wiTh retail at ground fino; lcvel. [l nlLdll-use Sln.k:lure.. sue ;:1S dn unaxtrnent t:uildint.: . . 4.fO\vnhouses \vhich tor purposes of this Section afC defincd as singh:: family. attached dwelling units on separate parcels of land which are constructed contiguous to one another and separated by a bearing wall ur walls. Such dwelling units shall be contained within one structure and shall be of the rmv house type in contrast to multiple dwelling apartmenl structures, [hey shaH also havc separate entrances to front and rear \ards. 5. jJeveiopUlents ha\iing 1\-\"0 or Inore use structure~; ~ocaled ()i"i t\-\'o ()!" rnOfe lOb either in siug!e or multiple ownership, provided the cornbined area towls one or inore acres and the plan submitted includes the entire area \u which the j)lanned unit \vil! apply. Parcels within redevelopment areas which have been eSTablished pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.4 II - 462.716. and all acts amendatory thereof. e (Emphasis supplied) In his staff presentation, Mr. Grimes stated that the Breck proposal qualifies as a PUD for several reasons: . 1. There are multiple uses on the site; 2. There are multiple buildings on the site. Specifically, the new field house qualifies as a separate building for the purpose of applying the PUD section; 3. Designation as a PUD would be beneficial to the city, the applicant, and the surrounding neighborhoods; 4. The size and complexity of the Breck campus make it a unique use within the city. 5. Designation as a PUD is wise because of the need for a subdivision of the property, as well as the need to amend the comprehensive plan and the underlying zoning, and 6. The City Attorney says so. - While I understand staffs desire to treat this application as a PUD, the zoning code is clear that PUD status is available "only" if a proposal meets one conditions set forth in Golden Valley Code ~ 11.55 subd. 2. The conditions do not include the need to subdivide, amend the comprehensive plan, or re-zone. Neither do they include size or complexity. Similarly, there is no city-attomey-says-so condition. It is undoubtedly true that designation as a PUD would benefit the city, Breck, and the neighborhood for the reasons Mr. Grimes stated. It is also true that, at least in transitional areas, a desire for maximum public control of eventual development may provide the basis for issuing a PUD. Unfortunately, even if staff and the Planning Commission could agree that . . Addendum Page 4 the Breck site is in a transitional area, the application must first meet oneofthe conditions in subdivision 2 before a PUD permit may issue. See Golden Valley Code S 11.55 subd. 5 ("If a proposed Planned Unit Development meets the definition contained herein, a PUD permit may be used.. ..)( emphasis supplied). Accordingly, Mr. Grimes' rationales 3 through 6 for treating the application as a PUD fail to meet the minimal requirements of the zoning code. Ifthe Breck proposal qualifies as a PUD, it must be because there are multiple qualifying uses or buildings on the site. B. Staffs position that there are multiple structures on this site qualifying the application as a PUD ignores the plain language of the zoning code. Mr. Grimes refuted the idea that there are multiple buildings on this site when he stated during the Planning Commission hearing that Breck's proposal can go forward under standard zoning should the application for a PUD be denied. Golden Valley Code S 11.12 provides that, for all zoning districts, "in no case shall there be more than one principal structure on a lot." Mr. Grimes believes that, upon completion of all additions to the Breck e site, there will only be one structure on the lot. Nevertheless, staffhas adopted the position that the proposed field house is a separate building from the school, resulting in the p~esence of two principal structures on a single lot, and thereby permitting the application to qualify as a PUD. The difficulty with this position is that it defies reality and ignores the language of the zoning code. . . . A building in Golden Valley is "[a ]ny structure for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or property of any kind...." Golden Valley Code S 11.03 (lO).Where portions of a building are "separated by dividing walls without openings, each portion of such buildings, so separated, shall be deemed a separate building." Id. (emphasis supplied). The proposed field house would be a separate building if there were no openings in the dividing wall between it and the school. However, both Mr. Grimes and the applicant testified that there are doors in the wall. The doors are intended as the primary route students and faculty will use to go back and forth between the school and field house. The doors are important. Their presence has an effect for zoning purposes: it causes the two "structures" to become nothing more than two rooms of a single building. Thus, the field house is not a separate building. Are there other qualifying buildings available? I concede the existing Breck site gives the appearance of a multi-building campus. However, looks are deceiving. Because of the way the various units of Breck are connected to each other (i.e., because there are openings in the dividing walls), the units comprise a single building under our zoning code. Breck proposes to build a concession building as part of its track/stadium upgrade, but it is unreasonable to suggest this is a principal building as required by the PUD code (i.e., "a building in which is conducted the principal use of the lot on which it is situated"). The concession stand and school are on the same lot; it cannot easily be argued that the principal use of the lot is selling concessions. Moreover, Mr. Grimes' admission that the city would allow the development to go forward under standard zoning shows staff has concluded the concession stand is not principal building (see Golden Valley Code S 11.12 (only one principal building per lot)). Addendum Page 5 c. Staff's position that there are multiple uses on this site qualifying the application as a PUD ignores the plain language of the zoning code and ignores long established custom. . An application may qualify as a PUD when there are "two or more principal uses on a single parcel of land." Golden Valley Code ~ 11.55 subd. 2(A)(1). A principal use is the purpose for which "land or a building or structure thereon is designed, arranged, intended or maintained", or the purpose for which "[land or a building or structure thereon] is or may be used or occupied." Golden Valley Code ~ 11.03 (73). Staff did not specifically enumerate the qualifying principal uses: Mr. Grimes stated that staff has concluded there are multiple uses, and that the city attorney concurs. To be fair, I believe staff felt the multiple uses were obvious: an athletic use in the separate field house building, and one or more different uses in the separate school building. If there were two structures in this development, the multiple use requirement might be met. Unfortunately, neither Mr. Grimes nor I believe the field house is actually a separate structure. I concede there are numerous uses in the Breck building: classrooms, offices, a chapel, athletic facilities, eating facilities, etc. Similarly, there are numerous uses on the surrounding land: parking areas, recreation areas, athletic facilities, etc. The issue is whether these amount to multiple principal uses. e When defining PUDs, the Council carefully chose the qualified term "principal uses", rather than the naked term "uses". Golden Valley Code ~ 11.55 subd. 2(A)(1). As the Council knows, virtually every development has multiple uses on site. An office building, for example, has at least an office use and a parking use. A retail store has at least a retail and a parking use, and frequently an office use. If the Council had intended the PUD section to apply to every development with multiple uses, it could have made the section apply to all developments, or, to avoid the odd single-use development, only those "with two or more uses on a single parcel." It went further. Not all uses are intended to trigger the need for a PUD. . To distinguish those cases where multiple uses demand a PUD permit from those that don't, the Council required an activity to cross a certain threshold before the PUD section applies. The zoning code does not precisely define the "principal use" threshold; whether a use is principal or not revolves upon "purpose", which depends upon the specific facts in each application. Other language in the code and long established city practice offer guidance when evaluating those facts . It is useful here to remember the true character of a PUD. A "planned unit development" might also be termed a "zoning-district-trumping conditional use permit." (See Minn. Stat. ~ 462.3595 subd. I (granting authority to create planned unit developments as type of conditional use)) A development that meets the definition of a PUD can be sited in any zoning district in the city, and may be excused from meeting any or all of the normal provisions ofthe zoning code. Like any other conditional use permit, the PUD permit is necessary only where it permits something not otherwise allowed. Thus, Golden Valley Code ~ 11.55 subd.1 states in part that: . . ~ . - . Addendum Page 6 Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) are created hereby in recognition of the economic and cultural advantages of planned community-type developments of sufficient size to provide related areas for various housing types, retail and service activities, industrial operations, recreation, school, public facilities, and other uses of land. The pun procedure is designed to be used where designation of a single use zoning district or application of standard zoning provisions to a development are too rigid for practical application. (Emphasis supplied.) Fundamentally, PUDs exist to permit developments containing two or more uses the zoning code generally treats as incompatible, either with each other or within the underlying zoning district. Conversely, PUDs are not designed to be used for developments containing two or more uses which are permitted within a single use zoning district or under application of standard zoning provisions. The staff has long followed this approach when reviewing applications. I have seen many proposals for development that contained multiple permitted uses. In each instance, unless there was another issue (e.g., two structures on one lot), staff recommended standard zoning should apply. I am unaware of a single PUD in the city where multiple uses permitted by the underlying zoning district served as the sole basis for treating the application as a PUD. Even if incompatibility is not the only appropriate measure, I am unable to find two or more "principal" uses here. I find one: a school use. Every other use mentioned at this hearing seems complementary or secondary to that one. Neither staff nor the Planning Commission typically treats a complementary uses as relevant in zoning matters where use is the issue. Mr. Grimes stated that the city attorney has concluded there are multiple principal uses on this site. The Commission did not hear directly from Mr. Barnard. I don't know which uses he so identified, or why. In any event, I believe the question whether a use is a "principal use" is a question offact for the City Council, and not a matter oflaw to be determined by the city attorney. III. Adoption of the staff interpretation that the application qualifies as a Planned Unit Development will result in a change of policy that threatens the fundamental integrity of the city's official land use controls. Staff seeks to treat this application as a PUD not because such treatment is necessary for the project to go forward, but because staff believes designation as a PUD would be beneficial to the city, the surrounding neighborhood, and the applicant. Staff understood at the beginning ofthe application process that the proposed development does not fall cleanly within the zoning code's definition ofa PUD. To force the application within that definition, staff overlooked past practice, proposed one entirely fictitious rationale, and adopted some unusual interpretations of the code requirements. Like staff, I can foresee the benefits of designating this site as a PUD, and I believe staff's motives were pure. Unfortunately, I believe staff has tried too hard to fit a square peg into a round hole. A dispute over the interpretation of the terms "principal structures" and "principal uses" seems like a small thing. It is not. If the City Council adopts staffs interpretations, the reach ofthe PUD section will be extended so far as to constitute a fundamental change of the zoning code. Addendum Page 7 A. Staff's interpretation of the "principal structures" extends the reach of the PUD section to almost every development in the city. Concluding that the field house is a separate building, staff proposes a new rule: for the purpose of qualifying as a PUD, two structures with differing (but permitted) uses connected by a dividing wall with openings constitute two principal structures. Under that rule few, if any, developments in the city fail to qualify as a PUD. Imagine the poor homeowner who applies for a building permit to install a new bay window and is informed by the city that, because the house (structure and use one) has an attached garage (structure and use two), it will be necessary to apply for and receive a PUD permit. . Before now, the PUD section simply did not reach to a house with an attached garage in the residential zoning district. If staff s interpretation is adopted, it will. This is a huge change in policy. B. Staff's interpretation of the "principal uses" extends the reach of the PUD section to every development in the city. Frankly, I'm not sure what precise rule staff applied when finding multiple qualifying uses. If the finding required a preliminary application of the new, fictional "two structures" rule, then staffs "principal uses" rule will not extend the reach of the PUD section to every development, just most of them. ~ I assume staff believes the existence of multiple uses should stand as an independent basis for applying the PUD. That is, even if there is only one structure on the Breck site, the application still qualifies as a PUD because there. are two or more principal uses on a single parcel. Accordingly, the new rule must be along the lines of: Staff may determine that any two uses on a single parcel of land may constitute two "principal uses" for the purpose of defining a PUD, providing that the city attorney agrees. . I am not trying to be intentionally sarcastic or facetious. The problem, as noted earlier, is that "use" is an extremely flexible term that can be applied to virtually any activity, resulting in almost every development having multiple uses. Until now, in PUD applications, staff and the Planning Commission have applied two heuristics: (I) that complementary or auxiliary uses are irrelevant,.and (2) one or more ofthe qualifying "principal uses" must be normally incompatible with the other or with the underlying zoning. Imagine here the poor homeowner who seeks a building permit to add a window to his garage -less home only to be informed he must apply for a PUD because he parks a car in his driveway (use one) and uses the house to prepare meals (use two), clean laundry (use 3), exercise (use 4), etc. ~ Before now, the PUD section simply did not reach to a house where the only uses are those expressly permitted, or those complementary to the permitted uses. If staffs interpretation is adopted, it will. This, too, is a huge change in policy. C. Extending the reach of the PUD section as staff has done threatens the integrity of the zoning code. Golden Valley's zoning code expresses a coherent approach to zoning, favoring the application of single use zoning districts and standard zoning practices. The City Council never intended for PUDs to become the pre-eminent form of zoning control. In the Council's own words, the PUD procedure "is designed to be used where designation of a single use zoning district or application of standard zoning provisions to a development are too rigid for practical application." Golden Valley Code ~ . . Addendum Page 8 11.55 subd. The Council carefully established six conditions that must be used to define a PUD, and limits the PUD section's reach. Staff's interpretations turn the zoning code on its head. The PUD section can henceforth be extended to every development in the city, essentially at the whim of staff. Whether the new reach of the PUD section turns out to be good or bad is not the point, only that it threatens the integrity of the current zoning code. (I do not expect staff to behave whimsically, or wrongly; rather, I refer to staff's enormous power in the development process. While the Planning Commission reviews all PUD applications, for example, staff can limit the effectiveness of our review and the weight accorded our recommendations to the Council. The present matter is illustrative. By enlisting the city attorney to conclude that this application qualifies as a PUD, staff has made it more difficult to advise the Council otherwise.) It is also important to remember that the decision to apply as a PUD is often made by the developer. Suppose it was the homeowner in one of the examples above who actually sought to receive a PUD permit. Given staffs current interpretations, how could the application be denied? The PUD section _ would reach to the development even ifthat was not the Council's desire. . - .