11-13-00 PC Minutes
e
-
e
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 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,
November 13, 2000. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, McAleese,
Rasmussen, Hoffman and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and
Development Mark Grimes and City Planner Dan Olson.
I. Approval of Minutes - October 23, 2000
Moved by Groger, seconded by Hoffman and motion carried unanimously, to approve
the October 23, 2000 minutes.
II. Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan - Golden Meadows
P .U.D. No. 89
Applicant: SVK Development
Address:
2125 Winnetka Avenue and 2205-09 Winnetka Avenue, which is
part of Outlot 1 of Anderson's Addition and Outlot 1 of the Marimac
Addition
Purpose:
The P.U.D. would allow for the construction of seven single-family
homes on the subject vacant land and include the existing single-
family home, situated on its own lot along Winnetka Avenue, and
an existing duplex also to be situated on its own lot.
A. Variance from the Subdivision Chapter of the
Golden Valley City Code -Golden Meadows P.U.D.
No. 89
Purpose: The applicant is requesting four variances from the
Subdivision section of the City Code for the Golden Meadows
P.U.D.
Olson stated the Planning Commission had previously reviewed the above request on
October 23, 2000. This was the third review of a PUD for that site. At the October 23rd
meeting, the Commission tabled the review of the PUD so that additional information
could be placed on the site plans and so that the applicant could apply for variances for
e the PUD from the Subdivision of the City Code.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 2
At the October 23rd meeting, several items were identified as missing from the PUD _
Preliminary Design Plans. With the exception of the proposed named of the street, all of .
these items are now located on the side plans. Normally, the City's Building Inspection
Department gives streets names. Planning Staff has verified the street name "Valders
Court" forthis PUD with the Inspections Department. Placing the name of the street is a
requirement for the PUD General Plan.
In regard to the zoning requirements of the Residential zoning district:
. The Residential zoning district requires that all lots for single family homes be at
least 10,000 sq. ft. in area and be at least 80 ft. wide at the front setback line.
Lots 6, 8, and 10 still do not meet these lot area requirements. Only lots 7, 9,
and 10 meet the 80-foot width requirements.
. With the exception of the existing single-family home on lot 8, none of the single-
family homes meet the 35-foot front yard setback requirement. These front
setbacks range from 15 to 21 feet. The rear yard setback requirement is 20% of
lot depth, and all of the lots meet this setback requirement. The side setback
requirements vary depending on the lot width. Lots 2, 6, and 10 do not meet
these side yard requirements.
For this PUD, the applicant is requesting four variances from the Subdivision Code,
Chapter 12 of the City Code.
. The first requested variance is from Section 12.20, Subd. 2 (A) relating to right-
of-way widths. This Section of the Code requires local streets and cul-de-sacs
streets to be a minimum of 60 feet in width. The applicant is requesting a right-of-
way width of 50 feet.
. The second requested variance is from Sections 12.20, Subd. 5 (A), which state:
"All lots shall meet the minimum area and dimension requirements of the zoning
district in which they are located. The front of each lot shall abut entirely on an
improved public street, and the minimum front setback line shall be established
thirty-five (35) feet distant from the street right-of-the-way line". The applicant is
requesting front yard setbacks for this PUD, which ranges from 15 to 21 feet. In
addition, lots 6, 8 and 10 do not meet the 10,000 sq. ft. lot area requirements.
. The third requested variance is from Section 12.42 Subd. 1 (C) relating to street
surface. The requirement for local streets and cul-de-sacs is for the improved
surface to be a minimum of 30 feet in width. The applicant is requesting a 28-foot
width.
-
e
.
. The fourth requested variance if from Section 12.20, Subd. I relating to cul-de- _
sacs. The requirement states, " The cul-de-sac shall have a street right-of-way .
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 3
e
Diameter of 120 feet. The applicant is requesting a diameter of 100 feet.
Olson also brought to the attention of the Planning Commission that the required time
limit under the State Statutes which govern how long a City may take to review and
approve various zoning applications is about to expire. According to Minnesota Statute
15.99, the City has 60 days to approve a zoning application. This statute also allows the
City to request an additional 60-day extension without written permission of the
applicant. The applicant in writing must grant any extensions beyond this 120-day
period. The original 60-day period ended on September 23, 2000. Before that 60-day
period ended, the City extended this deadline another 60 days until November 22,
2000. In order to meet these deadlines, the Planning Commission must recommend
either approval or denial of the Golden Meadows PUD at tonight's meeting. This PUD
will then be forwarded to the City Council for approval or denial on November 21,2000.
Some questions and discussion took place by the Planning Commission to clarify this
deadline issue. It was determined that all understood the importance of making a
recommendation to the City Council tonight to meet the deadline so stated in the State
Statutes.
-
Olson stated the Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for
Golden Meadows Addition, PUD No. 89. The proposed 1 O-unit development would
provide additional single-family homes that are needed in Golden Valley. The staff has
met several times with SVK and the plan has been revised several times. The
recommended approval is subject to the following recommendations:
e
1.
2.
- 3.
4.
5.
e
The recommendations of City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, as found in his memos
dated August 10, 2000 and October 6, 2000 become part of this approval.
The recommendations of Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall, as found in
his memo dated July 26, 2000 become part of this approval.
The street name "Valders Court" is placed on the PUD General Design
Plan.
Dedication of 7 feet of additional right-of-way for Winnetka Avenue as has
been requested by Hennepin County.
The homeowner's association for the development may establish more
restrictive property regulations than those in City Code, but enforcement of
such provisions shall be the responsibility of the association. The
association shall not establish property restrictions in violation of applicable
federal, state or local regulations including the terms of the approved PUD
permit.
6. The notation of "P.U.D. NO.89" shall be made part of the plat name.
7. Proof of recording for the plat must be provided to the City before any
construction permits are issued.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 4
McAleese brought up the issue of the wording on naming the street being in the
ordinance as "shall be". He felt this needed to be addressed and possibly changed.
Olson stated the Staff did discuss this with the City Attorney and they are proposing a
change to the ordinance that would allow items of this nature to be at the "discretion of
the City Staff'. McAleese also wanted changes to be made in reference to language
relating to the front setback line, the subdivision code now includes a 35-foot front
setbacks and it should be included because it would give them a good visual tool
relating to the changes being requested.
Rasmussen requested clarification of the third requested variance "the 28 foot width of
the improved surface was". It was explained that it meant the street itself from curb to
curb.
Chair Pentel asked the applicant or representative to come forward.
Peter Coyle, attorney for the applicant came forward. He stated his role was to confirm
the details of the plat that have been revised and to answer any questions they may
have regarding the variance applications that have been submitted. He wanted it noted
for the record that they believe the PUD Ordinance provides ample authority for the site
plan deviations from the standard code arrangements that have been discussed with
the City Staff. He felt they have complied with Planning Commissioners concerns and
that it shows their desire to cooperate.
He stated the justifications for the variances were:
a. The right-of-way configuration that this street plays off of is a restricted right-of-
way of 50 feet. The extension of this 50-foot right-of-way into Valders Court is
made necessary by the underlying plat, so the Valders Court extension of the
right-a-way is consistent with the city's previous approval.
b. There are several variances requested due to the design of the lot
configurations as well as the configuration of the cul-de-sac. The previous
plans called for a through street, to Winnetka with the redesign to a cul-de-sac
plan it triggered odd shape parcel configurations because of their need to front
up to a circular cul-de-sac design. The consequences of this redesign to a cul-
de-sac resulted in discrepancies to which the lots are configured, which trigger
difficulties with regard to setbacks. To make efficient use of the land area, they
believe the variances are necessary to fulfill the development intent of the city
as reflected in their Comprehensive Plan. They believe that this is an efficient
use of the land area and that it is in response to the needs of the city in terms
of the housing stock the City desires and that it is ultimately compatible to the
adjacent residential area. They do not believe that the densities proposed are
out of line with the character of this neighborhood and that the plan has been
well designed to satisfy the objectives of the City.
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 5
Coyle stated that the hardship is attributed to the cul-de-sac design. Coyle noted that
the plan now complies with the City's code and that they have met the test of the
various questions that have been raised by the Planning Commission and would like to
have their support to have the plan proceed to the City Council at the next available
opportunity.
,
Pentel asked Coyle if they were to have a plan that allowed a through street to
Winnetka would they not have a hardship. Coyle responded that the previous plan
submitted to the staff with a through street did not necessitate variances. Coyle
explained that he was not attempting to advocate for the through street but that the cul-
de-sac design is what is creating the difficulties for them to site structures within the
lots. The circular pattern of the cul-de-sac is what is generating the hardship issue for
them at this point. They also do not have the ability to line the lots up in a standard
urban grid fashion due to the cul-de-sac.
Eck stated that perhaps a difference of opinion of a reasonable level of development
would be fewer houses. If they were to put in fewer houses could they meet the
requirements in all probability? Coyle stated that that is a fair observation but that they
should bear in mind that the obvious is that there are 2 existing structures on the
property, which constrain the utility of the overall parcel. We cannot change that fact
and that they are trying to simply create lots for those parcels that will make those
properties re.salable in a more traditional urban scale configuration. Secondly, we have
to provide ponding for the site that addresses run off issues and they feel that is a
constraint to the property and that it is a design consideration that they have to
accommodate. Finally, the cul-de-sac design and the square layout of the property
coupled with the existing limitations on it is not anyone fault but that's the way the
property is laid out. Those are the circumstances that force us into the hardship
situation.
Chair Pentel opened the hearing to the public.
Mr. Ed Muszynski of 7925 - 23rd Avenue No. requested that a site plan be made
available for the public to better understand what they were talking about. Coyle
presented a site plan. He stated that lots 4 & 5 are noted as block 1 and that the
existing duplex is located on these lots and the lot further to the south of lots 4 & 5, lot 8
is where the existing single family home is located. He also pointed out that a portion
of the property in the north area is where the ponding will be placed. Coyle stated the
variances related separately to the width of the 50' right-of-way and the improved
surface area of the right-of-way and separate variances for lot setbacks and width.
Pentel added that the lots 1,2,3,4,6,7,9 & 10 also reflected a variance to the front
setback and that lots 6,8 & 10 did not meet the 10,000 sq. ft. size lot area requirement.
Olson added that the City had received a letter today pulling the application for rezoning
for the duplex from single family zoning to multiple family zoning. Pentel clarified for the
audience that the existing duplex can remain a duplex but that there will be no change
to the zoning to have it be zoned for a triplex.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 6
David Gatz, speaking for Pauline Siepka of 2200 Orkla Dr came forward. He read from
a letter written by Pauline Siepka for the last meeting. He stated that since the project .
had not changed significantly they had great concerns. The letter stated that they want
a development that would go beyond minimum standards for this neighborhood.
Something that would improve this area not "just qualify". First she is requesting an iron
clad guarantee that these homes would not be rental properties, this is a neighborhood
of homeowners and if these units become rentals it will decline unacceptably. He.
stated that it didn't matter what the square footage of the homes were or if they were
two story, they would be to close together for good living conditions of sight and sound.
The homes are on small irregular plots unlike the homes around them and this is not
desirable. They may be too close to the street like old homes downtown, which is not
acceptable. She would like fewer homes in the area than what was proposed earlier.
He stated she would not allow homes within one block of her home to be like the homes
along Medicine Lake Rd and Hwy 169. The homes must have garages large enough to
keep cars in them or in the driveways and not on the streets. She does not want it to
look like the city where cars of all conditions line the streets and look unsightly and
unsafe. This is suburban living; this is a better way of life than in the crowded city. She
felt the development should conform to the standard around it; she did not want to have
negative pressure on the future of this neighborhood. She stated that for everything that
is given up for these homes to be built, they should be built to high standards. Why
settle for the minimum just because somebody promises to put property on the tax roles
that otherwise sits idle. She also wanted to make sure that City did not have hidden
expenses of street maintenance, snow removal or emergency access problems. She
questioned why we don't demand that these homes exceed the standard that is already
here. That would be real progress.
Pentel clarified that the street will be a public street and the City will maintain it with
plowing and other services.
Shirley VanWais-Berg of 8140 23rd Ave No. stated she had received notices regarding
this hearing and next weeks City Council meeting. She stated the description in the
notices described the original text referring to the triplex or duplex on the property. She
wanted to know if the Planning Commission would be making a decision tonight after
hearing that it would be reduced to single-family homes. Pentel responded that they will
be making a decision and that the Planning Commission had already made the
recommendation that a rezoning not occur. Shirley VanWais-Berg asked if the Planning
Commission did not make a decision tonight if the plan would go to the City Council in
its original text. Grimes stated that it would go forward as 7 single-family homes.
McAleese asked for clarification: if no action was taken by the Planning Commission
and the City Council, by state statute, would the plan go forward in the original
application or the application as it is exist today. Olson stated it would be as it is exist
today. If the City Council did not make a decision by November 22,2000 the application
would be approved to proceed as 8 family homes and a duplex.
e
-
e
-
e
e
-
e
e
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 7
Ed Muszynski of 7925 - 23rd Ave No. stated that he had asked at the last meeting that
Jeff Oliver, the city engineer, be present at this meeting. His concern is the pond on the'
property. He wanted to know how deep the pond would be and how far it would be
setback from his property line. Grimes said he had talked with Jeff Oliver and the pond
would be 6' deep at its deepest point and that the depth of the water would vary
depending on how wet it is at any given time. Grimes stated the normal water level for
the pond would be at the 905 elevation, the elevation at the property line is 906; and
the lowest point in the pond would be at 900. Shaffer conferred that the highest level of
the water would be 6' and that when it reached that point it would run off the excess into
the storm drainage system. Muszynski questioned whether the pond would reduce their
property values. He also stated that a pond with no fence around it would present a
danger in the neighborhood. Pentel asked Grimes if there were any regulations
regarding fencing around ponds. Grimes stated that traditionally the City does not fence
ponds, they have found no real need for fencing and that there has not been any safety
issues raised. Muszynski again stated his concern for the safety of the children in the
neighbor because of the pond. Pentel suggested to Mr. Muszysnki that he bring this
issue forward to the City Council as well.
Muszynski asked why the City would be doing the maintenance of this street. Grimes
stated the developer is proposing this to be a public street at the suggestion of the City
staff. The residents that live on this street will be assessed the cost to construct the
street and their taxes will be used to maintain the street just like any other resident on
public streets. The city engineer reviewed the plans to be sure that the street would be
wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles, garbage trucks and plowing
equipment turning around in the cul-de-sac and in his opinion it is. Muszynski
questioned if there would be enough room for parking on the street. Pentel stated the
public works department and Fire Marshall would make that determination.
Mary Kay Jorgenson of 2200 Valders Ave No. stated she was concerned about the
whole development. She has 2 small children and has concerns regarding the pond.
She also stated she was concerned about the density: why not fewer homes? She
expressed concern regarding the parking in front of their homes and the increase traffic
in the neighborhood. She did not feel it was the type of development she wanted by
her.
John Blythe of 2140Valders Ave No. stated he felt there were too many houses in the
development.
Joy Gerber of 2135 Valders Ave No. stated that if the city were to not allow parking on
the cul-de-sac or street it would put increased parking onto her street. She felt having
all the variances was compromising everything in the neighborhood. She questioned
the multiple variances: why make rules if they are just there to be broken?
Mike Jorgenson of 2200 Valders Ave No. questioned who makes the decisions on
variances. He also questioned the size of the acreage for this development and if there
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 8
was a certain number of houses that could be put into such a small area. Pentel
clarified that the City has a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft. Pentel asked what the e
overall acreage was, Olson stated it was 2.73 acres. Olson also stated the overall
density is 4 houses per acre. Mr. Jorgenson again asked who makes the decisions on
the variances. Pentel stated that the City Council makes the final decision after a
recommendation is made by the Planning Commission. Jorgenson asked if the public
has any say once it goes to the City Council. Pentel said there would be a hearing
similar to this one and she hoped that any concerned residents would be there to
express their concerns directly to the Council.
Jorgenson asked for more clarification on the 60 day, 120-day extension that Dan
Olson had talked about earlier. He was concerned that a decision could be made with
out any public input. Pentel stated she was confident that the Planning Commission
would make a recommendation tonight to the Council for the next meeting on
November 21,2000. Grimes confirmed Pentel's statement and added that he felt that if _
the Council felt they needed more information and time they would ask the developer to
provide it or they would have to deny the project overall.
Jorgenson continued to express his concern regarding the development not meeting
the setbacks and that several of the lots did not meet the size requirement. He wanted
to know if anything would be changed maybe fewer homes or if it would be ignored.
Pentel stated that all of the lots did not meet the street setback and some of them did
not meet the size requirement. She understood the resident's concerns and hoped he e
would make the same concerns known to the City Council.
Joy Gerber questioned the variances for lot 8. The property has recently been sold: can
you just move the lot lines or how does it all work? Olson stated that lot 8 sits in a large
Outlot and that lot has not yet been officially divided from the other lots. Grimes stated
that he felt there was some type of agreement between the new owners and the e
developer that if this PUD were to go through the lot could be reduced in size.
Pentel closed the public hearing.
Rasmussen asked what the precedent was for setback variances in PUD's. She
questioned if it was usual to grant a setback variance as large as 15 to 21 feet instead
of 35 feet. Grimes stated we have granted substantial variances on private streets
generally. Groger added we have granted variances in other instances where its
purpose is to meet the city's goals to increase density and affordable housing where we
can.
Rasmussen asked if the lot size variance for the 3 lots that are less than the required
10,000 sq. ft, especially lot 10 where its size is 7,600 sq. feet: does this fall within this
same kind of philosophy? Groger replied that it depends on your thinking. If there is a
need for increased density, there is a significant amount of leeway for what they e
approve for this development. He felt the density that is being proposed here is an
e
e
e
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 9
issue because the development is surrounded by single-family homes which is different
from the other situations where they have approved significant variances. Many of
these were stand alone areas or areas surrounded by commercial areas. This
development is different because of it being surrounded on 3 sides by other homes.
Pentel added that one of the other developments does have single-family homes
across the street from it but that there was significant berming done be,tween the
development and the street to tuck the higher density housing behind it.
Groger stated the other difference to this proposal is the access to the development is
strictly through a single-family home neighborhood where others have had access from
a major street which doesn't have as much impact on a single-family neighborhood.
Although there are only 7 single family homes in this development the traffic they will
generate will still have to go through a single-family neighborhood and this is
troublesome. Grogerfelt there was too much density and that the variances requested
were significant, especially the front setback (out of character with the surrounding
neighborhood). Groger stated he did not feel there was a hardship and that there is a
possibility of this land being developed with fewer units meeting city code. Therefore
would be voting against the proposal as presented before them.
Eck stated that qfter discussion with City staff it was the position of the staff that there
was a lot of pressure for additional single family homes in Golden Valley. The
justification for a development of this kind is that there are a significant number of
potential homeowners out there that desire smaller lot sizes and a minimum
maintenance type situation. Eck stated that in evaluating the hardship, we cannot look
at the economic hardships. He felt that the developer wanted this many homes for
maximum financial use of the property. Eck agreed with statements made by Groger in
respect to the character of the area and also felt there were too many units proposed
here and because of the cul-de-sac even a development with fewer units may require
some variances. Eck felt the proposed development was too dense.
Shaffer stated that his understanding of a PUD was to allow a developer with some
variances and in return the City receives something. His concern with this development
was that it wasn't doing anything for the city, only the developer. Some of the impacts
to the neighborhood are of concern, but no matter how this area is developed some of
those concerns will remain, like the ponding and cul-de-sac. The concern he has
regarding approval of a PUD is what does the City gain if anything. There is no low-
income housing or park land here to be gained by the City. It appears the only one
gaining is the developer. Shaffer felt we would be granting alot variances that don't fit
the character of the neighborhood at all. Shaffer felt the development was heading in
the wrong direction.
Pentel asked if any other commissioners wanted to speak or if a motion could be given.
e McAleese spoke, stating they were talking about 2 types of variances, the strict
subdivision coding and zoning code. He understood the dispute as to whether or not
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 10
the PUD ordinance allows a waiver to the subdivision code requirements however the
standards between the two are very different. McAleese felt the section 12.54 variance
requirements were very harsh and strict hardship requirements and should be
addressed.
e
McAleese stated the developer is asking for 4 variances from the subdivision code. The
felt the variance from the street is reasonable and that the developer is correct in
requesting it because we have limited the entrance street to a 50' right-of-way which
has caused a degree of hardship. As to whether or not the other hardships flows from
that McAleese felt that didn't make any sense. In regards to the other hardships, the 35'
setback requirement and the need for less than 80' wide lots are a result of the desire
to put so many homes in the development. McAleese said that he agreed with the one
hardship and that he would recommend to the council that the variance for the street be
granted but that he cannot support the others and would not make a recommendation
to the council to grant them. McAleese concluded by adopting the positions taken by
other commissioners in regards to the variances related to the zoning code
requirements and that he would not approve granting of the PUD.
e
Pentel stated that she too did not support the PUD. The density is to high for the
location of the development and that she was not pleased with the number of variances
being asked for. She felt that there was an opportunity to place some homes in this
development but to allow 7 new homes in this area with such small lot sizes would be a
detriment to the neighborhood as a whole and that she would not be supporting this
preliminary design plan.
e
Pentel asked for a motion to approve the Preliminary Design Plan - Golden Meadows
P.U.D. No. 89
Hoffman made a positive motion to approve the staff recommendation for this
Preliminary Design Plan conditions stated in the memo. Seconded by Shaffer.
-
Those not in favor were Commissioners Rasmussen, Hoffman, Groger, McAleese,
Shaffer, Eck and Chair Pentel. The motion was denied 7 to O. Chair Pentel then asked
for a motion to deny the application. Shaffer moved to deny the application, Eck
seconded. The reasons for the denial are as stated previously by various
commissioners.
Those in favor of this application being denied were Commissioners Rasmussen,
Hoffman, Groger, McAleese, Shaffer, Eck and Chair Pentel, those not in favor of
denying this application were none. The motion was passed unanimously.
The application will go forward to the City Council at its next regularly scheduled
meeting of November 21,2000.
e
e
-
e
e
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 11
II.
Informal Public Hearing - Property Subdivision (SU14-10)
Applicant: Honeywell, Inc.
Address: Southwest corner of Douglas Drive and Sandburg Road - portion
of Honeywell, Inc. located at 1885 - 1985 Douglas Drive, Golden
Valley, MN .
Purpose: The applicant is requesting a subdivision of the main parcel of land
in order to create two new lots along Sandburg Road at the corner
of Sandburg Road and Douglas Drive
At the October 23, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission tabled action
on the preliminary plat of Honeywell Golden Valley 2}'d Addition for additional
information.
The following is a list of the information requested and staff comment:
1. The Planning Commission was not satisfied with the parking information
provided by Honeywell. This information is needed in order to determine that
there is adequate space on the Honeywell lot for its own needs. The information
presented at the Oct. 23rd meeting was not specific. The staff asked Honeywell to
provide additional information regarding the specific size of the Honeywell
building and the layout of the parking areas after the subdivision is completed.
Honeywell has supplied this new information. The information indicates that
Honeywell has 211 ,540-sq. ft. of office space and 813,872-sq. ft. of
industrial/warehouse space. Based on the requirement for one space for each
250 sq. ft. of office space and one space for each 500 sq. ft. of
industrial/warehouse space, the Honeywell lot requires 2,474 spaces. They have
indicated on the Parking Addition Worksheet, dated 6 November 2000 that the
Honeywell lot can be expanded and altered to provide the necessary 2,474
spaces. The Honeywell Revised Parking Modification plan dated 11/6/00
indicates the location of the parking spaces.
Honeywell has asked that some of the parking spaces be "proof of parking"
spaces. In other words, some of the spaces would not have to be built until there
is shown to be a need. This arrangement would have to be worked out between
the Inspections Department, Planning Department and Honeywell. Based on the
number of employees that currently work at Honeywell, additional spaces are not
currently needed to be built.
The Parking Calculation Sheet dated 11/1/00 indicates that there is a total of
92,478 sq. ft. of service space in the building. This space includes wiring closets,
custodian closets, garages and covered loading docks. Honeywell has not
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 12
assigned a parking requirement to that space. The Zoning Code requires that the
parking requirement be based on gross square footage in a building with the
exception of garages and covered loading docks. Subtracting the garage and
covered loading docks, there is 69,500 sq. ft. of service area that would require
parking. If the one space per 500 sq. ft. were assigned for these service areas,
an additional 139 spaces would be required for the site. Althougr not shown on
the Honeywell Revised Parking Modification plan, the applicant has indicated
that this additional amount of space could be added in front of the Honeywell
building along Douglas Dr., west of the Purple Lot, east of the Orange Lot or
south of the Red Lot. A revised plan indicating the location of the additional 139
spaces should be submitted to the City prior to approval of the preliminary plat by
the City Council.
2. There was a question regarding whether the driveway from Sandberg Dr. that
serves the proposed two lots and the orange Honeywell lot is a private street.
Private streets are not permitted by the Subdivision Code unless a part of the
Planned Unit Development. Although private streets are prohibited, they are not
defined in the Subdivision Code. The Subdivision Code defines a street as
follows: A public right-of-way for vehicular traffic, whether designated as a street,
highway, thoroughfare, parkway, thruway, road, avenue, boulevard, land, place
or however otherwise designed.
Using this logic, the staff does not believe that the driveway off Sandberg would
qualify as a private street. There is no private right-of-way dedicated for the
driveway. The driveway is part of one of the lots. The driveway does not connect
a public.street to another public street. It essentially provides access to private
parking lots.
3. There was question regarding.the ordinance that was passed by the City Council
in 1956 that rezoned the Honeywell property from Open Development to
Industrial. The Ordinance indicates that no building may be constructed within
200 ft. of Douglas Drive on the property that was rezoned. (This rezoning
excludes the 300 ft. parcel that is now owned by Honeywell at the southwest
corner of Douglas and Sandberg. This parcel was not a part ofthe 1956
rezoning.) The City Attorney has reviewed this Ordinance and stated that the
restriction is valid. This means that the building on the proposed northeast lot will
have to be constructed a manner consistent with restriction placed on the zoning
of the Honeywell site in 1956.
Accordingly to the City Attorney, this restriction means that no building may be
located closer than 200 feet from the right-of-way of Douglas Drive as it existed
in 1956. In 1956, the right-of-way for Douglas Dr. was 66 ft wide. Today the right-
of-way is 100 ft. Half of this additional 34 ft. of width (17 ft.) was taken from the
Honeywell side sometime after 1956. Therefore, the setback from the widened
Douglas Dr. is 184 ft. (200 ft. minus 17 ft.). It should also be noted that the 200 ft.
e
-
e
e
e
e
e
e
-
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 13
setback does not apply to the 300 ft. by 300-ft. property that was acquired by
Honeywell after 1956.
This additional setback requirement does not mean that the City cannot approve
the preliminary plat. It means that the building will have to be redesigned (made
smaller or changed) to accommodate the additional setback requirement.
4. The City has been in contact with the School District regarding this subdivision.
They have reviewed the plan with staff and do not feel it will have an adverse
impact on the school. They did state that they would like students to use the
sidewalk on the north side of Sandberg Drive. The City has received a report
back from the City's consulting traffic engineer regarding the layout of the
proposed development. The report indicates that the layout is acceptable and
only minor revisions or changes are suggested.
Recommended Action
The staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat of Honeywell Golden Valley
2nd Addition. The applicant has provided the staff with additional information that
indicates that there is more than adequate parking available to meet the parking
demand on each of the lots in the proposed subdivision. The staff is also
recommending that a proof of parking arrangement be made with Honeywell that would
allow some of the parking to be built only when it is determined it is needed by the City.
The staff believes that the driveway from Sandberg Dr. is not a private street but a
driveway as permitted by the Subdivision Code.
Honeywell and future owners of the new lot along Douglas Dr. will have to meet the
requirement that buildings be setback 200 ft. from Douglas Dr., as it existed in 1956.
This requirement is not valid for the north 300 ft. of the Honeywell property adjacent to
Douglas Dr. This will require that a building on the northeast lot will have to be adjusted
to meet this requirement.
The staff is also recommending that Honeywell be subject to a park dedication fee as
outlined in the Subdivision Code. This amount will be determined prior to approval of
the final plat by the City Council.
Grimes stated that this application is also nearing its deadline for a decision. The 12th of
December is the final date in which a decision needs to be made. Staff is
recommending to the Planning Commission that a recommendation be made at this
meeting in order that a recommendation can be forwarded to the City Council for the
November 21, 2000 meeting.
Pentel questioned if a sidewalk should be constructed on Sandberg Rd for people to
use when walking to the small commercial area on Douglas Drive. Grimes stated that
the commission could make that a condition in the recommendation. Pentel stated that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13. 2000
Page 14
she would prefer to have sidewalks for people to walk on rather than in the roadways. e
Grimes indicated that the commission position has been that they prefer sidewalks on
collector streets. Pentel agreed and stated that when there is new construction, this is
the time for making sidewalks a requirement.
Shaffer asked if we know what Honeywell's employee count is. Grimes. replied that he
was unsure but that Honeywell has indicated that there are fewer employees there than
the required 2,474 parking spaces. Grimes stated that Honeywell did not want to add
any additional parking spaces at this time. Shaffer asked if Honeywell felt they had
enough parking spaces for their employees and visitors. Grimes stated they do not feel
there is a need for additional parking spaces.
Rasmussen asked if they could ask for a variance from the 200-ft setback. Grimes
replied that they could go to the BZA and ask for that if they wanted to.
Grimes stated that anyone could ask but that he felt the BZA would not be very
sympathetic because it is a new lot that was created and they were aware of the
conditions when they created it.
e
McAleese questioned the subdivision requirements. He stated that section 12.11 stated
the preliminary plat should be clearly and legibly drawn. He felt that these plans were
not legible and that perhaps it was the scale that was used. McAleese stated he sought
clarification from Grimes and that he found that the larger plans were clearer and that
because they were given reduced copies the problem lay there. McAleese stated that it
was required that 15 copies be provided and that they should be of the large size.
e
McAleese asked if the special 200 ft setback was on the drawings. Grimes stated it was
not and that is because the City's attorney made the determination on that setback last
week.
e
Groger wanted clarification on the parking. He wanted it understood between the City
and Honeywell that the parking should be based on 337,000 sq. feet of the area.
Grimes explained that lab space is generally not considered office space. If however,
they were to remake lab space into office space the Inspection Department should
catch it and require additional parking space. Groger stated he calculated there to be a
need for 2,864 parking spaces based on their figures for space in the buildings and that
that was about 400 more spaces than they figured. Groger questioned how picky does
the City want to be on this issue. He stated his concern was that any future building
owners have a clear understanding of what the City's requirements for this are.
Greger stated there was one lot that had parking spaces that were too small and that in
the northeast corner there was no landscaping near the lot. Grimes stated that the code
indicates that the parking be determined from the gross square footage of the building
and that if the commission required the developer to consider the entire square. feet of
e
e
-
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 15
the building when calculating the needed parking spaces they could find ample space
on the property for parking. Groger stated that that is his preference and that it be
reviewed before it goes to the Council. Shaffer added that sometimes laboratories are
considered different than offices because of the fixed equipment, cabinets and less
occupancy. If it were viewed that way the number of parking spaces would be reduced
drastically. Groger stated that the concern was that they don't know what the future use
may be and that if it were to become all offices the parking issues would be addressed.
Grimes stated he would like to go through he footage again to make a correction
determination.
Pentel asked if the applicant would like to come forward.
Gerald Duffy, Attorney for Industrial Equities, came forward and stated they did not
have any additional comments and asked if the commission had any question of him
(Industrial Equities has entered into an agreement to purchase the 2 lots along
Sandburg Rd from Honeywell).
Pentel asked if they felt there would be a problem meeting the 200-ft. setback on the
property. Duffy stated that as of where they're are to~ay with the project he did not feel
there would be any problem with the building meeting the setback. He stated that they
just received the information today about the 20Q-ft. setback. He indicated that they are
satisfied that the site is big enough so that they will be able to construct a building
without obtaining variances.
Pentel opened the public hearing.
No one came forward and the public hearing was closed.
e Pentel stated she was pleased with the findings of the 200-ft setback and that the City
Council will still have to deal with the "front door/back door" issue. She stated that this
will have to go in front of the Building Board of Review and that she hoped they would
do everything in their power to get the best possible building on this site. Pentel felt they
had satisfied the questions raised and that she would be able to pass this forward to the
Council.
e
Pentel asked that a condition be put on the plan for a sidewalk along south side of
Sandburg Rd, the north side of their property. Grimes stated the sidewalk should be
along the south side of Sandburg Rd. across the entire Honeywell property.
Groger asked that the condition of proof of parking be revised as necessary as staff
determines prior to it being seen by Council.
Rasmussen added the condition of the 200 ft setback be met.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 16
Rasmussen made the motion to approve the preliminary plat with the 3 conditions: e
· A sidewalk be constructed along Sandburg Road from Douglas Dr. to the .
west end of the Honeywell Golden Valley 2,'1d Addition.
· The proof of parking is revised as necessary as staff determines.
. The 200 ft setback is satisfied.
Eck seconded the motion.
McAleese stated that he felt this was a reasonable proposal to go forward and that the
proposal meets the subdivision requirements. However, the plan puzzles him,
especially the driveway. He understands that it is an easement on the property and felt
the zoning code for the required area that is to be landscaped in the 35 ft. front yard
setback and that the side and back setback is to be % of the required building setback.
He questioned that under the zoning code we define parking spaces as including
ingress and egress area. That would then include the driveway in the parking space. e
The problem he sees is that we are ignoring the landscaping requirement on this
driveway because it is going between two parcels and ignoring the landscaping area at
the back of the parcel leading to the Honeywell lot. He felt we should allow the .
preliminary plat to go forward but that before a final plat is approved the City will have to
address this issue in some fashion. Maybe that would mean granting variances so
these driveways go through. If it were a single large lot we would not allow the driveway
to run up the property line so why are we doing this when there are two properties. This e
is seen when we are approving P.U.D.s' and in residential subdivisions but not where
there is clearly access to public streets as in this case with Honeywell parking lots
having access to public streets.
Grimes showed on the plans that there is 10ft of green area on both sides of the
driveway. McAleese stated that the paved area between the green areas is considered
parking under our code and that it is in clear violation of what the code requires and at _
some point it needs to be addressed. McAleese read the definition of a parking area
and then pointed out that there are parking spaces in the 20-ft setback on the sides and
the back of the lots we are creating and that isn't allowed under the zoning code. We
could grant variances under the appropriate circumstances.
Grimes stated that from a practical stand point they are doing this because the city
wants to see as few driveways as possible off of a collector street and that sharing a
driveway was best in the interest of public safety. McAleese stated it was an issue for
him because we are creating 2 new parcels that should have the 20 ft landscape area
and these don't. Again McAleese stated that he wanted this to go forward as a
preliminary plan but that before the final plan is approved this issue needs to be
addressed. Shaffer commented that he felt we were splitting hairs. He did not feel that
the entrance to a parking lot is the same as the parking lot.
Pentel stated there was a motion and a second on the floor to approve this plan to be
forwarded to the City Council and asked if there was any more discussion.
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 13, 2000
Page 17
e A vote was taken and the motion was passed unanimously.
-- Short Recess --
-
e
e
e
IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Eck reported on the traffic study on LaurellWinnetka done by the LaurellWinnetka
Committee.
V. Other Business
Pentel talked about a document from the Planners website "Welcome to the
Commission". She felt it was excellent for the newer members and would request
copies be obtained for everyone. She also had a handout from the Virginia Tech
website on "How to get Participation", she suggested all review the document and the
website.
Grimes stated there was no formal agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting.
They would be meeting jointly with the Environmental Commission and the Park &
Recreation Commission. He would be sure to get the packet out to them ahead of time
for review. Grimes asked if there was any opposition to only having 1 meeting in
December, as the second meeting would fall on Christmas Day. All agreed that that
would be okay.
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
Richard Groger, Secretary