Loading...
02-28-00 PC Minutes . - . - . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 28, 2000 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, February 28, 2000. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00 P.M. Those present were Chair Pentel, Commissioners Eck, McAleese, Shaffer, Hoffman, and Rasmussen; absent was Groger. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes and Recording Secretary Heidi Reinke. I. Approval of Minutes - January 24, 2000 MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Shaffer, and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 24, 2000 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (Lot Consolidation) Applicant: Daniel and Debbie Grossman Address: 1126 Florida Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: To allow for the consolidation of two lots in order to construct a new garage to the rear of the existing house. Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, eXplained the request for a minor subdivision-lot consolidation of Lots 409 and 410 in order to construct a garage behind the existing house. Grimes indicated the location of the two lots on the location map. The existing garage, shown on the survey, has been demolished. The property owners want to consolidate the two lots in order to build a detached garage. The proposed garage would be placed over the now existing lot lines. By consolidating the two lots, the applicants hope to build a conforming garage on the lot. Daniel Grossman indicated that he was present to answer any questions if needed. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to allow for the consolidation of two lots in order to construct a new garage to the rear of the existing house. III. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning Applicant: David Bernard Builders & Developers (a division of Rottlund Homes), Brookstone- V anman LLP, CommonBond Communities and the Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 28, 2000 Page 2 Address: That portion of property bounded by Winnetka Avenue on the east, Golden Valley Road on the south, Wisconsin Avenue on the west and Basset Creek on the north . Purpose: Rezone portions of the existing properties from Commercial to M-l (Multiple Dwelling) in order to construct townhomes, one-level stacked condominiums, and affordable rental housing on the site. The southeast comer would remain commercial. Director Grimes said that the request for a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 86 (Item IV on the agenda) corresponds to the request for Rezoning. Grimes addressed the request for rezoning portions of the existing properties from Commercial to M-l (Multiple Dwelling) in order to construct townhomes, one-level stacked condominiums, and affordable rental housing on the site. The current property, as shown on the zoning map, is a 12- acre site. The existing commercial zoning (as indicated on the zoning map) has reflected the previous uses of the 12-acre site that was previously dominated by a grocery store and retail uses along Winnetka Avenue. The current plan for this area, as stated in the Valley Square Redevelopment Plan, is for the creation of a mixed-use redevelopment. The plan is consistent with the goals outlined in the Valley Square Plan. The proposed redevelopment of this area is also consistent with the ideas developed for the area by the Area B Task Force appointed by the City Council in 1997. - Grimes told the Commission that in 1999, the City Council approved a new General Land Use Plan Map for the City of Golden Valley. This plan map indicates that Area B is guided for High Density residential uses with the exception of the northwest comer of Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road. The comer is recommended for commercial uses. When the Plan Map was approved by the City Council in 1999, the staff was already working with the development team on the plan for Area B that is now being considered. The guiding of Area B on the Plan Map was done in a manner consistent with this plan proposed by the development team. . Richard Palmiter, representative of David Bernard Builders and Developers stated that he would be available to answer any questions. e Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one; Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel stated that the rezoning was consistent with the Land Use Plan. McAleese added that this issue has been discussed for several years. He agreed that it is consistent with the Land Use Plan and also in the direction that the HRA is heading. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Hoffman and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to rezone portions of existing properties from Commercial to M-l (Multiple Dwelling) in order to construct townhomes, one-level stacked condominiums, and affordable rental housing on the site. . . -- . e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 28,2000 Page 3 IV. Informal Public Hearing - Review of the Preliminary Design Plan for Wesley Commons/Town Square, a.Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 86 Applicant: David Bernard Builders & Developers (a division of Rottlund Homes), Brookstone-Vanman LLP, CommonBond Communities and the Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Address: That portion of property bounded by Winnetka Avenue on the east, Golden Valley Road on the south, Wisconsin Avenue on the west and Basset Creek on the north Purpose: The proposal is to construct 130 townhomeslone-Ievel stacked condominiums; a 38,000 sq.ft. office/retail facility; and 25 units of affordable rental housing for families. Director Grimes addressed the request for review of the Preliminary Design Plan for P.U.D. No. 86, a proposal to construct 130 townhomes/one-Ievel stacked condominiums, a 38,000 sq. ft. office/retail facility, and 25 units of affordable rental housing for families. The development team for this proposal consists of David Bernard Builders (a division of Rottlund Homes), Brookstone-Vanman LLP, and CommonBond Communities. The Golden Valley HRA is also an applicant, as the HRA currently owns the land and will have a long-term interest in the land due to a land-lease with Brookstone- V anman LLP and the temporary operation of the Tower Square shopping center. The PUD will be a staged development in that the existing Tower Square retail center will remain on Area B until the new retail/office building is completed. After the new building is complete, Common Bond will buy from the HRA the property where the existing Tower Square shopping center is located. Grimes said the David Bernard Builders would like to begin construction of the townhomes and stacked flats in the spring/summer of 2000, with completion of some ofthe units by spring of 2001. Construction on the retail/office building is anticipated to begin in spring of 2000, with completion in 2001. The construction of the CommonBond townhomes would begin in 2001, after the retaiVoffice building is complete. Site plans, elevations, and grading plans have been submitted for staff review. Grimes said the site is a difficult shape to work with, and grading and setback issues have caused much difficulty. Grimes stated that this project qualifies as a P.U.D. under the following conditions: 1. The proposed development is in a redevelopment area. 2. The development has two or more principal use structures located on two or more lots either in single or multiple ownership and the entire area are greater than one acre in size. Grimes listed the issues that staff would like to highlight in reviewing the proposal: 1. The development does help to meet some of the City's housing needs and goals by providing affordable housing and more lifecycle housing, including 130 townhomeslstacked flats. Ofthe 130 townhomes and stacked flats, 115 would be sold at market rate ranging from $150,000 to $220,000. Because the City received Livable Communities Funds from the Metropolitan Council to help subsidize the development, a portion of the for-sale townhomes must be affordable to families making 80% of the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 28, 2000 Page 4 metropolitan median income. David Bernard has agreed to sell 15 units that Would be considered affordable by Livable Communities standards. At the current time, that price is $135,000. The CommonBond development will provide 25 affordabletownhome units aimed strictly at families. The families in this development will make 50% or less than the metropolitan median income. Funding for this development comes from the Federal Tax Credit Program. . 2. David Bernard has asked for flexibility in determining the future mix of the 130 townhomes and stacked flats. At this time, the plan to construct 56 "urban town homes" in three buildings and 74 stacked flats in four buildings. Depending on sales, they would like the flexibility to change the mix. This would be possible because the buildings are about the same width. The staff believes that this flexibility is reasonable in order to better serve the market. 3. Parking is an issue for this development. In the case of this P.U.D., the development would not meet the parking requirements as outlined in the M-I (multiple dwelling) and Commercial zoning districts. Each unit in the townhomes and stacked flats has two parking spaces in an underground garage. There are a total of 260 underground spaces. The Zoning Code requires 209 underground or garage spaces due to the mix of two and three bedroom units. However, the Bernard townhomes have only 30 non-enclosed spaces for all the units when the code requires 130. As part ofthe PUD permit, the townhome dwellers will have the right to park on the lower level of the shopping center (about 50 spaces) between 5:30 P.M. and 8:00 A.M., Monday through Friday, and anytime on weekends or holidays; e The proposed non-enclosed parking for the Bernard development is located on private streets and in a couple of small parking areas. There is some limited on- street parking on Wisconsin Avenue. The Planning Commission should plan to discuss this issue with the developer. . Town Center, the new retail/office building, will have 147 parking spaces. Surface parking in the front and sides ofthe building would provide 55 staBs for customer use. Surface parking below the deck at the rear of the building would provide 45 spaces, mainly for employees and destination-oriented customers. This area would also provide parking for the overnight guests of adjacent homeowners and renters. Parking on top of the deck would total 47 spaces and be used primarily for customer parking, employee and limited short-term parking for CommonBond renters. The Town Center component is approximately 40,000 sq.ft., 17,000 sq.ft. of retail space; 11,800 sq.ft. of office space; and about 10,000 sq.ft. of lower level retail, storage, and production space. The Zoning Code would normally require about 167 spaces based on one space for every 150 sq.ft. of retail space and one space for every 250 sq .ft. of office space. Staff believes that the 147 spaces would be adequate to meet the demand generated by this type of retail/office building. With the combination of office, storage, and retail space that have different peak hours, the number of spaces should be adequate, even with some shared parking for the housing. e 4. In this PUD, there are substantial setback variances on each of the components. In this case, the HRA and City promoted the use of this site for more compact development that would not meet the requirements of normal zoning. As indicated on the plans, most of the buildings and parking do not meet the required 35-foot setback from the public street. . . - . e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 28,2000 Page 5 Another significant variance is from Bassett Creek. The Shore land Chapter of the Zoning Code requires that there be no Structures or hard surface areas within 50 feet ofthe top of the bank. The small parking lot between the two western-most townhome buildings is within the setback. 5. As part ofthe Livable Communities grant, the City said that live/work units would be considered as part ofthe development. These home occupations would be limited to office type occupations. The stacked flats could be purchased with higher electronic capacity that would be helpful to someone running a home-based office business. Staff will be working with David Bernard Builders to come up with wording on the types of home-based business that would be permitted. This would be included in the final PUD permit. 6. As part of the development of Area A, one ofthe requirements was that there will be a trail along Bassett Creek. The plans indicate such a trail approximately 12 feet wide, unless the width has to be reduced to 8 feet due to certain geographical circumstances. 7. There are significant public works and engineering issues related to this development. City Engineer Jeff Oliver has written a memo to Mark Grimes stating that the preliminary design plan is generally acceptable. However, several issues must be resolved prior to submission of the General Plan. This memo will become part of the Staff recommendation on the Preliminary Design Plan. 8. Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall, has written a memo to Mark Grimes dated February 22, 2000 that covers public safety issues. As indicated in the memo, all buildings will have fire sprinkler systems. This memo will become a part of the staff recommendation on the Preliminary Design Plan. 9. Planning staff has been in contact with Building Official Gary Johnson regarding building code issues. Mr. Johnson has indicated to the applicant that there is additional information needed prior to submittal of the General Plan of Development. This additional information is a code analysis that indicates that the types of buildings that are proposed meet all building code requirements. 10. During the construction of the townhomes and stacked flats, David Bernard has asked to place a sales trailer on the property. The staff does not object to this but it should be removed after a townhome or stacked flat building is completed. At that time, one ofthe units can be used as the sales office. 11. There are no signage plans in the preliminary design plan application. As part of the General Plan, the applicants should submit a signage plan that would include both directional and private street signs. This should also cover the signs for the retail/office building. Generally, the PUD permit will allow the same signage as permitted in the underlying zoning district. 12. There are preliminary landscape plans for each component of the PUD. Final landscape plans will have to be submitted to the Building Board of Review as part of the building permit process. Staff has given a preliminary review to the landscape plan. There are some additions that would have to be added including re-vegetation of the creek slope. Also, the tree preservation plan and the landscape plan will have to coordinate. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 28,2000 Page 6 13. The CommonBond property will include two playground areas for the tenants. The playground area closest to the building would be for younger children. The second playground would be located directly west of the parking deck, about 50 feet southwest of the CommonBond building. This playground would be located on the David Bernard property and open to all children in the development. The only other public spaces in the development include the trail and patio areas for eating outsides the retail building at the corner of Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road. . Grimes stated that he had already gone over several of the recommended actions. He would like some more information in regards to the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Tree Preservation Plan must be submitted as part of the General Plan of Development that meets the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Commissioner Hoffman asked where the 15 affordable units would be located within the townhomes. Grimes said that units would be spread throughout the buildings. The tenants will be able to make upgrades to their units, so after the upgrades, the units may not be affordable. Hoffman stated that he does not have a problem with giving the developers flexibility with the development. e Grimes said that the developers have gone back and forth with the number of units within the buildings, though the size ofthe buildings has not been reduced. Therefore, the present concern is for parking. The developers have allotted two underground parking stalls for each unit. Chair Pentel inquired what the Metropolitan Council thoughts were on a bus stop near the development. Grimes said that Metro Transit has discussed rerouting a bus line through the new development area and a meeting will take place next week to discuss this issue. . Pentel addressed the issue of barbecuing at the town homes. She asked if there was an area outside the building for barbecuing. Grimes responded that the City does not have rules regarding barbecuing, though they do want to limit this activity on wooden decks. Richard Palmiter agreed that if this issue is important to the City then more discussion should take place. Richard Palmiter, David Bernard Builders & Developers, stated that they have spent many hours on this project and want to make it work for the City. He addressed all the areas of the site, beginning with the site plan. e Palmiter stated that the site is small, without much room to move the buildings around. He said working with the other developers for this project has so far been successful. Palmiter talked about the townhome layout noting that parking will be built on the underground lower level, living areas on the first level, and bedroom space on the second level. He proceeded to show elevations of the New Urban Townhomes. The townhomes are adjacent to the creek and trail system. The design of the townhomes is an urban style with the front door built off the sidewalk, along the street. The underground parking will eliminate garages along the street. The underground parking is divided into two stalls per unit, which has an optional garage door for additional security and privacy. Palmiter next described the stacked flats in the middle of the site, which were designed for the "empty nester". The flats are designed with a few stairs to accommodate people with disabilities . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 28, 2000 Page 7 . or those who have difficulty climbing stairs. David Bernard Builders has found this design in much demand. He presented an elevation of the stacked flats. The living and bedroom spaces are on one level. The next flat is stacked on top of the first level flat. Each unit will have two stalls of underground parking below the unit. An elevator will eliminate the se90nd floor tenants from having to climb stairs up to their flats from the garage. e . e . Pentel asked about the accessibility for handicap guests. Palmiter commented that the guests would have to make arrangements with the owner to enter through the private garage. The front entrance has a few steps that are not wheelchair accessible. Palmiter said that the south building is a transitional type of building. He said the market would determine whether this building would be for townhomes or stacked flats. He added the unit count for this building in either case would be the same. Palmiter described the road system that would be built through the development. He said private roads would go through the development. In the middle of the development, a major road would be constructed. A one-way road would be built around the north end of the stacked flats and proceeding east. The one-way road is designed to separate the residential from the commercial area. This design will help deter people using the commercial area from parking at the apartments. Palmiter stated that the lighting plan is not yet fully developed. He added that all the developers have much experience with this type of housing and feel the final design will provide enough lighting for everyone to feel safe after dark. Palmiter said that a ponding area would be created in the northeast portion of the site. They have worked hard with the watershed district at creating the pond. Retaining walls will be built for the sides of the pond and be built in phases. He added that the retaining wall would be built as the building on the east side of the site is constructed. It will remain a partial pond until the existing buildings are removed and the new building constructed. Palmiter discussed the landscaping plan. The proposed plan is to use oversized trees (4 inch in diameter) so as have the feel of trees right away. Arteca has worked with staff on choosing the type of trees to be used. Each building has its own landscaping plan, including shrubs, gravel, and other plants. The tree replacement on this site is quite extensive and expensive. There are large cotton wood trees along the creek. Palmiter added that the plan entails replacing many trees, there are still not enough in the plan. More discussion with City staff on this issue is necessary. Palmiter addressed parking for the site. He is confident that parking for the homeowners will be sufficient. The amount of guest parking is the concern. The developers would like to give all the guests an opportunity to park close to the townhomes and single family flats, but there is little room for parking on the site. Parking on one side of the interior streets is provided. Also, there is guest parking in the ramp on the east side of the lot. On-street parking is another option. There is some parking along Wisconsin A venue. He said City staff is recommending there be no parking along Golden Valley road due to some site line issues. Palmiter said David Bernard Builders would like to see some parking along that road. Commissioner Eck noted that the housing is densely packed into the site. He added that unfortunately, there is shortfall of 45 outdoor parking spaces, and noted that staff is suggesting Y2 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 28, 2000 Page 8 space for each unit should be provided. Palmiter commented that the other projects completed with David Bernard Builders usually are designed with Yz space per unit. With the shortfall in parking, the tenants of the retail/office development would have to be dependent on the agreement of the shared usage of the ramp. Eck suggested that eliminating one or two units might decrease the parking problems. . Palmiter said that in meetings with the other developers, the shared usage does not seem to pose a problem. The residents' guests will most likely use the ramp during off-hours of the commercial and retail spaces. The commercial developers would be responsible for enforcing the shared and limited usage ofthe ramp parking for residents. He would like to have more discussion regarding on-street parking around the site. Commissioner Shaffer commented that parking remains a concern. If the City does not allow on- street parking, other parking options should be explored. The lack of parking might cause a problem if a resident has a gathering with several cars. A possibility would be parking on both sides of the one-way street. Without adequate parking, the development does not work well. Palmiter stated that parking is a concern for the west. side of the site. Residents near the parking ramp do not have much of a problem with availability of parking. e Grimes answered Shaffer's questions regarding the City's recommendation of no on-street parking. The curve in Golden Valley Road makes the area dangerous to park. He said that vehicles are driven very fast around this curve. The City is looking at ideas of how to slow down the traffic, such as building a median. Since the site is tight, there is not much room to move the buildings or make cutouts for parking. Another option is to discuss a parking agreement with the bank. Palmiter commented that this project is not self-contained and is relying on the street system to provide on-street parking in cooperation with the project. He added that it is impossible to build an additional parking area due to inadequate space. . Rick Martins, developer from Brookstone-Vanman LLP, commented on the parking questions that relate to the residential development. He said parking would be readily available to the residents and guests. The peak time for the commercial area is lunchtime Monday through Friday. Saturday's and Sunday's are not busy and parking would be available to residents at that time. e Martins discussed his retail/office development. He said his design is centered on recommendations from the Task Force. The goals were as follows: to establish a pedestrian friendly complex, a complex that blends into the existing topography, a multi-level and multi-use building, and efficient use of parking. Carey Lyons, Architect with Vanman Companies, discussed the commercial development. He said there would be access to this portion of the development from Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road. Parking for the development would total 147 stalls. The city streetscape project would incorporate planters, brick pathways, landscaping, trees, benches, and lighting. Additional handicap parking on the west side of the building would provide direct access to the building. Lyons next explained the landscaping concepts of the development. A plaza area is designed in the center of the site. Hanging baskets, seasonal landscaping, and raised bed planting areas would be built. The plaza would also have a fountain and eating areas. The light poles would be equipped with removable caps for banners to be used on a seasonal basis. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 28,2000 Page 9 . Lyons showed the floor plans of the three-story building. The lower level consists of a parking area and a retail area. A walkout would lead to the street between the building and residential development. The second level is retail. The southwest comer would be a restaurant area. The remainder ofthis level would be for various retail tenants (mostly relocated from the existing strip mall). The upper level would be an office lease area. Grimes inquired about dining areas. Lyons said that there would be dining areas located in the lobby area and in the outdoor plaza area. e Doug Mayo, Director of Development for CommonBond Communities, discussed the concept for the affordable housing. This unique housing provides an urban-type environment. There is little concern with pa king, as they will also have access to the parking ramp. He said the only time where parking ight be a problem would be during the rush hour lunch period. Mayo believes it is most likely, t at guests would come in the evenings or weekends. Mayo said landscaping has also been a prio ity for this project. The objective was to incorporate all the pieces of this development to oordinate. This development includes ground cover, trees, and perennials that blend with the ity's existing landscaping. Harry Olson, A chitect for CommonBond Communities, presented the design ofthe affordable units. Access t the units would be from Winnetka Avenue. The parking for this development is underground, b low the units. He said these units are two level living with the bedrooms on the second floor an living space on the first level. A community center for these residents is located in the center of he building. He presented the exterior elevations of the building. . Pentel inquired bout the landscaping between the parking ramp and the CommonBond building. Olsen replied t at the plan includes trees and green space in this area. e Pentel expresse concern about the aesthetic consistency throughout these three developments. She believes it 's important that these buildings are all compatible with each other. Palmiter stated that this issue h s been taken into consideration. Grimes stated that he would suggest to the Building Board of Review to consider the coordination of the entire project before issuing building permit. Palmiter addres ed another concern about on-street parking. He said that Wisconsin Avenue could offer abo t 10 spaces or more. Currently, the project has 45 spaces, but would need 65 to meet the 12 stal per unit requirement. Pentel asked w 0 would monitor the 15 affordable units of the New Urban Townhomes. Grimes added that this ssue is between David Bernard Builders and the City of Golden Valley. He said that this is not federal or state program, but the City did commit to make these units affordable. Palmiter added that David Bernard Builders has designed and sold similar affordable units in the past. They pi to work out a program with regards to the priority stated HRA qualifications for those who can uy these homes. . McAleese addr ssed a question to Rick Martins regarding the parking agreements. In the event of a dispute, h w will it be resolved? Rick Martins said that the parking agreement would state the hours that arking would be allowed in the ramp by those owners of the townhomes and single-family ats. If a problem occurs, it is possible that the cars could be towed away. He said the manageme t ofthe commercial building would address this issue, should it occur. Minutes ofthe Golden Valley Planning Commission February 28, 2000 Page 10 Pentel said that the trail along the creek is being proPQsed for 12 feet wide. She felt that 10 feet might be sufficient. Grimes agreed with her statement. Palmiter commented that the Homeowners' Association would be responsible for maintaining the trail. . Palmiter talked about the Associations noting there would be two Homeowners' Associations. Until 75% ofthe units are sold, a third party management company would be hired to oversee the Association. After that, the homeowner's themselves would have control to make decisions. The owners would decide to keep the management company or manage the Association themselves. Unfortunately, there will not be a facility for the Homeowners' Association; therefore, they would have to find some place to meet. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Greg Hackett, 130 Jersey Avenue North, described the Task Force's image in creating this project. He said the Task Force wanted this development to resemble an urban setting, with homes built right along the sidewalk and street. The original ideas for the development revolved around the oId-style city living, homes above retail shops. Hackett said on-street parking goes hand-in-hand with the "urban" image of the development. He gave an example of Annapolis, as a model of urban living and on-street parking. At this site, the road is 45 feet wide, allowing plenty of room for on-street parking. He believes there should be a compromise for parking on at least one side of Golden Valley Road. Hackett believes adequate parking is essential for this project to succeed. He added that finding a solution for slowing the traffic on Golden Valley Road would reduce some traffic concerns if parking were allowed on this road. He said that the Task Force envisioned a dense development and it would be a shame if units were taken out due to inadequate parking. - . Hackett concluded with a statement regarding the connections between the site and neighboring sites. The north/south street is important to connect the rest ofthe neighborhoods to this development. It is also important that these connections are developed with consideration to pedestrian safety. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. e Pentel said she was a member of both the Area Band C Task Forces. She felt that this redevelopment captured the ideas that were discussed by the Task Force. She noted the City has hired someone to look at the pedestrian connections in the development. In addition, sidewalks and easy access along the development should slow the traffic along Golden Valley Road. Pentel noted the Task Force did not want to have a median. She said the Task Force was disappointed that the City does not want parking on Golden Valley Road. Grimes commented that the City does not want parking on Golden Valley Road due to the lack of visibility around the curve, adding that the bank driveway also adds to the problem. By creating a median, it would narrow the road and force people to drive more slowly. Eck said there is insufficient aboveground parking for the western buildings on the site. This issue needs to be addressed, either with on-street parking or by providing some additional parking within the confines of the site. . . e . e . Minutes of the olden Valley Planning Commission February 28, 20 0 Page II Shaffer said that the City has made a big commitment to the development ofthis piece of property. He su gested that another alternative for slowing traffic on Golden Valley Road would be to create a co blestone-like street. The traffic would immediately be slowed down, allowing parking to work on both sides ofthe street. Shaffer agreed that the parking situation is a problem. He does not wa t to see lots of striping on the roadway, such as that near Loring Park. Rasmussen agre d that this was a good idea. Pentel stated he concern about the Bassett Creek setback. She does not want the City to set a precedent of en roaching into the creek setback. If the City allows this, then private developers will want to hav this concession also. McAleese confi ed that this development qualifies as a PUD, but a few other issues remain. First, he agreed hat parking on Golden Valley Road is quite dangerous. The curve, bank driveways, and ast traffic make this area very treacherous. The creation of a median would slow traffic at first, b t he does not believe it would last. Secondly, he would like to see a condition recommending oordination between the aesthetics of the sites. Thirdly, the barbecuing issue should be addre sed, noting that a possible communal outdoor barbecue area should be discussed. Fourthly, he sai creating home offices in the units would be an interesting idea. He would like to see City staff work with this issue. Pentel suggeste the Homeowners' Association have access to space in the City Hall for their meetings. Grimes said tha parking remains a concern. The development may be too dense if additional parking is not p ovided. On-street parking should be reevaluated. The creation of cutouts for on- street parking i another option. In most cases, the parking requirements exceed the actual amount necessary to accommodate the vehicles. He said that the east side ofthe site works effectively, but the west side is lacking parking. Pen tel suggested cutting into the street to create a recessed area for the parked cars. She also feels that there may be some options for using on-street parking. McAleese said that we should require parking on the site, as it is the typical approach. Since the City decided to take a different approach in creating this dense development, other alternatives need to be discussed. Shaffer agreed that on-street parking is not usually allowed. In this instance, the City is aiming for an urban setting and needs to reevaluate the parking situation. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Hoffman, motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to approve the Preliminary Design Plan for Planned Unit Development No. 86 subject to the following conditions including two additional conditions (13 and 14). 1. David Bernard, Brookstone- Vanman LLP and CommonBond have submitted drawings and other plans. These plans become a part of this approval. The Bernard plans were prepared by Pioneer Engineering and dated 2/4/00. These plans include a cover sheet, site plan, preliminary plat, preliminary grading plan, preliminary utility plan and tree plan. Brookstone-Vanman LLP plans include a site plan, an illustrative drawing, a landscape concept outline and drawing, and floor plans. These plans have all been prepared by Vanman Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 28, 2000 Page 12 Companies. CommonBond plans were prepared by SMMA Architects and are dated 2/1/00. . These plans include a grading and drainage plan, a utility plan, planting plan, site plan, floor plans and exterior elevations. A landscape plan for the Bernard portion of the pun has been prepared by Arteka and dated. 2/15/00. 2. The memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver to Mark Grimes dated February 22, 2000, shall become a part of this approval. It should be noted that the trail is to be 12 feet wide rather than 8 feet wide as noted in the Oliver memo. All requirements outlined in this memo should be completed in the time frame stipulated in the memo. 3. The memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes dated February 22, 2000, shall become a part of this approval. All requirements outlined in this memo shall be completed in the time frame stipulated in the memo. 4. A building code analysis must be submitted to the Building Official in order to determine if the structures meet the requirements of the Building Code. This analysis shall be prepared prior to the submission deadline for the General Plan of Development. 5. The location of pedestrian crossings across public streets should be in a location that is consistent with the pedestrian circulation study prepared by Glen VanWormer in February 2000. 6. An overall signage plan shall be submitted with the General Plan of Development. This e would include both directional signs and building signs. 7. Bernard may have a sales trailer on this site that is located no closer than 20 feet from any public street. The sales trailer must be removed within 30 days after a certificate of occupancy is granted for one of the stacked flats or townhome buildings. At that time, a sales office may be located in one of the units. 8. The applicants must prepare all cross parking agreements and other agreements regarding joint maintenance and other shared issues as part of the submittals for the General Plan of . Development. 9. The Building Board of Review shall approve the final landscape plans. 10. In the future, the City may want to add a bridge across Bassett Creek to connect to the creek trail between Wisconsin Ave. and Winnetka Ave. If the City obtains the rights to build the bridge, and obtains the necessary financing, the PUD permit will state that such a bridge may be built. 11. As stated in the City Engineer Oliver's memo, a Tree Preservation Plan must be submitted as part of the General Plan of Development that meets the requirements of the Tree Preservation ~ Ordinance. ., 12. David Bernard may substitute townhome buildings for stacked flat buildings and visa versa as long as the footprint ofthe building remains essentially the same and all building code requirements are met. 13. Additional parking should be created in order to have 65 aboveground spaces for the David Bernard units (in addition to the two parking spaces below grade for each unit). Some of these parking spaces could be on-street parking along Golden Valley Road. The Commission asks the City Council to reconsider the use of Golden Valley Road for on-street parking. The Commission believes that if additional parking cannot be created, the density of the development should be reduced. The Commission believes that the City Council should take measures to reduce the speed on Golden Valley Road in order to make it safer for vehicles and pedestrians. 14. The developers should develop a unified streetscape and exterior plan for consistency and compatibility between the properties. . . - . - . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 28, 2000 Page 13 V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings Grimes noted that the City Council meeting would be held on March 6, instead of the original date set on March 7th. Pentel commented that she attended the HRA meeting. The meeting went smoothly with nothing to report to the Planning Commission. Pentel asked Grimes to distribute a map and footprint ofthe Olympic Printing site for better understanding of the project at hand. VI. Other Business There was no other business discussed. YD. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M.