Loading...
05-14-01 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 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, May 14, 2001. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners ECk, Groger, Hoffman, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson, Director of Public Works Jeannine Clancy, City Engineer Jeff Oliver and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - April 23, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting Grpger stated that in the first line on page 8 the word "area" was misspelled and on pa~e 14, second paragraph, third sentence, the second use of the word "and" should be stricken. MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 23, 2001 minutes with the above corrections. II. Continuation of Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - Hidden lakes P.U.D. No. 74 Amendment Applicant: Hidden Lakes Development, LP Address: Block 5 and Block 9, Outlots F and M, Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The P.U.D. would allow for the construction of 7 single family homes on Block 5, and 10 single family villa homes on Block 9, Outlots F and M. Pentel stated that she would like to have a discussion on the specific items that the commissioners had questions about from the previous public hearing. Grimes stated that Public Works Director Jeannine Clancy, City Engineer Jeff Oliver and Ray Wuolo from Barr Engineering were present to act as a resource to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have. Pentel stated she wanted to learn more about the process of running the utilities under the lake and the sewage system that's required in this type of development and the capacity of the system that is currently located under the bridge. Jeff Oliver stated that the existing system there now is an old, private system with a small 6" service, which is smaller than the currentminimum accepted sanity sewer for a gravity sewer, so it does Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 2 need to be replaced. He stated that as far as installing the utilities under a water body it is a very common practice. He stated that a carrier pipe is placed under the water body and the new utilities are slid through with access on either end to allow for repairing and replacing. He stated it is the same type of process that is done with highways, major roadways and railroad tracks. Pentel asked if the system would go underneath the lake or if lies on the bottom of the lake. Oliver stated it would go underneath the bed of the lake. Pentel asked how that is done. Oliver stated it is done with augering or directional boring. Groger asked if it was the same technology that was used to go underneath Bassett Creek at the entrance to the Hidden Lakes Development and asked if there have been any problems with that. Oliver stated there have been no problems. Shaffer asked about the City's wetland regulations. Oliver stated that the City of Golden Valley has adopted the Wetland Conservation Act. Shaffer asked what the setbacks are for wetlands. Oliver stated that there is no specific wetland setbacks outlined in the Wetland Conservation Act but stated that they do encourage a 16 1/2-foot buffer zone, either created or existing, around wetlands. Pentel asked about the proposed rain gardens and referred to the materials they received stating that rain gardens are a useful technique so that water is being treated not far from where it lands. She stated in this particular proposal it sounds like the water will be piped from the south end of the peninsula fairly far to the first rain garden that sits along the east side of the peninsula. She asked how the piping system compared to an open swale and the capacity the wetland is going to have to have for different rain events. Oliver stated that rain gardens are an emerging technology in water quality treatment. He stated rain gardens are a modified infiltration basin for storm water. He stated there are pros and cons to the proposed rain gardens, but given the constraints and the ability to locate the rain gardens where they are proposed, with minimal impact to vegetation and trees, and staying outside the wetland limits, he thinks it's a modification that works well. Pentel asked about the individual sewage pumping systems that are needed for homes to be developed on the peninsula. Oliver stated that in order to reduce the extreme deep cuts that would be required through the high point on the peninsula for installation of gravity sanitary sewer, the developer approached the Public Works Department with a request to install low pressure, individual force mains or grinder pumps and force mains that can follow the same alignment as water mains which are 7 % to 8 feet underground which can change elevation with the contour. He stated the manufacturer of the product came in and met with him and presented information and performance curves and it appears they would work satisfactorily. Oliver stated he's requested that the developer contact the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services to find out if there are any specific regulations regarding individual sanitary sewer treatment systems or conveyance systems in a fully sewered community. He stated he has not yet heard from the regulatory agencies but it appears that this technology will greatly reduce the amount of area that needs to be disturbed or Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 3 excavated in order to install the utility. Instead of a 15-foot wide trench to install the proposed low-pressure force mains gravity system, the City would probably be looking at a trench somewhere between 40 and 60 feet wide through the high point on the peninsula. He stated that anytime there is work close to a water body there are additional concerns for erosion. He stated that he feels the proposal put forth by the developer addresses that issue well. Hoffman referred to the rain garden plans that they received from the developer and asked if the plants mentioned were what grew best in that area or if they are designed to protect the lake. Oliver stated his understanding of rain gardens is that it is ideal to plant water friendly vegetation and that will help allow water to infiltrate. Shaffer stated that the way the current development is set up all the streets are on outlots with easements over them for city utilities. On the peninsula they've divided it up into seven parcels and the road will go straight through them, which means the City will have an easement over the lots to gain access. He asked if an outlot for the road would be better way of dealing with that. Oliver stated that from a roadway maintenance perspective, the City of Golden Valley would not be involved. The roads are owned and maintained by the Hidden Lakes Association. He stated the easements the City has over the property are for utility purposes and to allow access to the utilities. Shaffer asked who controls the individual grinder pumps. Oliver stated that the individual lift stations in each home would be the responsibility of each homeowner. He stated that that there are check valves that will prevent backflowinto the homes and his understanding is that the system will shut down if there is a plug. He stated the manufacturer has indicated that there is a very low incidence of plugging due to the type of system. He stated the individual homeowners would own the pumps themselves and the developer has indicated that the homeowners association would keep several additional pumps in stock if an individual pump failed. Pentel stated that the width of the road on the south end of the peninsula measures 16 feet to the outside of the curbs, which makes the width of the road 14.feet. She asked if the City thinks that width would be sufficient for emergency vehicles and if it could handle the traffic it will be required to handle. Oliver stated that based upon the extremely low trip generation it is acceptable, however during the winter months it will be difficult. Pentel asked about the need to have a building permit for the retaining wall and stated she was concerned about sticking with the City's regulations in terms of not building structures closer than 75 feet to the ordinary high water line. She asked why a 12-foot high retaining wall that requires a building permit is not considered a structure and is allowed to be at the 50-foot setback. Oliver stated the primary reason the retaining wall is classified as a structure and requires a building permit is because it's over 4 feet high and in order to ensure the integrity and to make sure it is built and engineered properly it would require a building permit. Pentel asked if Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 4 there were other structures that require a building permit that aren't considered "structures". Oliver gave the example of decks and bridges and stated these require permits, but are not occupied, primary structures. He stated retaining walls are installed immediately adjacent to water bodies very frequently all over the country. Pentel asked Oliver if he was comfortable with the fact that the base of the retaining wall sits right at the 1 OO-year flood mark. Oliver stated that if the wall is designed and constructed properly that it's not a problem. Rasmussen asked what the definition of disturbed land is and why it's of critical importance on the peninsula. Oliver stated that the definition of disturbed land as it relates to a development project is an area that needs to be graded and where the contour or profile of the earth is changed or altered. He stated others might argue that it means anything that is not entirely in its native state or is disturbed. He stated there is a threshold level for disturbed area for water quality improvements in compliance with the water quality policy of the Bassett Creek Watershed and with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. He stated in this case if it exceeds % an acre it would pass that threshold. Rasmussen asked if the area that would be trenched for utilities would be considered disturbed Oliver stated that area would be considered disturbed during the infrastructure phase of development and the area in and around the building pads on the individual lots would be considered disturbed during the time of custom grading for the home construction. Rasmussen asked if it's returned to its original grade and the trenches are covered over if it's not considered disturbed anymore. Oliver stated it's then considered restored. Pentel stated that the City has decided in this instance to adopt the DNR Shoreland rule requiring the lots to be 40,000 square feet and asked why the City is not then taking the DNR rule into account stating that structures should be no more than 25 feet high in a shoreland impact area. Oliver stated that his understanding of the shoreland ordinance which the City of Golden Valley has adopted says, eventually we will be required to adopt the height rule, but that now the DNR just works with cities and asks that cities comply, they don't require that all cities comply with all aspects of the ordinance. Grimes added that he spoke with the City Attorney and his opinion is that the City has an adopted shoreland ordinance, which met the requirements of the Department of Natural Resources. He stated that the DNR has rules and regulations now, but the City is not subject to those rules because we already have an adopted ordinance. Pentel referred to the cross sections of the various houses and asked about the excavation of the basements in regards to disturbed land. Oliver stated any time there is excavation done, in order to have a safe working environment, there is typically over excavation done larger than the footprint of the home. He stated that in this situation they would have the ability to review individual grading plans for each home as the building permit is applied for because these lots are not mass graded. Pentel asked if the developer would be required to build the lots in any kind of a sequence such as requiring them to start at the south end. Oliver stated he's not aware of those types of restrictions being applied, but that the market and time Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 5 schedules would be what would drive the building sequence. He stated that the Commission could discuss and recommend those kinds of restrictions. Groger referred to the retaining wall and the additional two feet of the wall that extends above the retaining wall itself as a barrier for traffic. He asked if there is a need for the additional two feet of wall or if it could be accomplished with a curb or railing to minimize the impact of the retaining wall, or if the wall is necessary in order to make sure that any water run-off is diverted in the proper direction. Oliver stated that any run- off that falls on the roadway itself would be captured within the roadway and would flow into the storm sewer system and be delivered to the rain gardens. He stated that the wall would help direct additional run-off into the street, but it is not necessary for that purpose. He stated that barrier is there as a crash barrier, however, there are numerous other forms of barriers that would meet the safety requirements. Pentel referred to the grading plan and asked if precipitation is going to somehow be directed to the fronts of the homes so that all of the water can go into the street to be captured. Oliver stated that they can strive to capture the run-off through the custom grading process and through the home design itself, but he stated with certainty that it would be impossible to get all the run-off from the roofs of the homes directed to the street. Pentel asked if there was supposed to be native planting around the ponds that are on the property now. Oliver stated he did not believe that was a requirement of the original PUD. Groger asked for clarification on the lot size requirement of 40,000 square feet. Grimes stated that the PUD permit requires that the lots meet the requirements of the shoreland regulation (20,000 square feet) and that the average size of the lots be twice that size. Rasmussen asked for clarification on how the retaining wall would be screened. Grimes stated that it's his understanding that the wall will be a poured, textured wall with a neutral color so it blends in and doesn't draw attention to it. He stated there would be some natural landscaping along the wall as well. Pentel referred to page 4 of the seeps and springs hydrology report from Barr Engineering and asked about the view that the source of the seeps is from wetlands to the south of the peninsula. She asked how certain we are the excavations for the basements and roads are not going to somehow hit the water table and if they have to do some dynamic compaction to make sure they will have a stable surface. Oliver stated compaction under the building pads and roadways can be accomplished with routine back filling and compaction methods. He stated density tests are required in disturbed areas and trenches to minimize the threats of any future settlements. Pentel asked if there have been any properties in the Hidden Lakes Development that have had issues with slippage of their foundations. Oliver stated that he didn't know of any, but the building official would be the best person to answer that question. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 6 Pentel asked about the seeps and springs and wanted to discuss the various theories of how water moves through the area. Ray Wuolo, Geohydrologist, Barr Engineering, who has been hired by the City stated that there are two theories on how the seeps and springs exist. The first theory is that the infiltration on the peninsula itself is responsible solely for the seeps and springs. He stated he didn't think that it was in dispute that all the water that infiltrates on the peninsula finds its way to the lake and that a portion of the seeps and springs probably derives some of its from water from infiltration on the peninsula. He stated what is at question is whether all the seep and spring flow is from infiltration on the peninsula or if there is another source. He stated the consultant for the developer has another hypothesis that a portion of the water source is coming from wetlands to the south of Sweeney and Twin Lakes with flow approximately in a north or northeast direction and into the peninsula and discharged into the lakes. He referred to a graph that showed the concept that all the infiltration on the peninsula is responsible for the seeps. He stated that the infiltration on the peninsula is probably making its way as seeps and springs and it's also probably making its way into the lake as flow underneath the lake level or at the lake level that is not seen as seeps and springs. Wuolo showed another graph showing infiltration falling on the ground surface where some of the infiltration, as in the other concept, infiltrates into the ground and makes its way to the water table, but some of it ponds up in wetlands where it stays wet most of the year and seeps into the ground at a constant rate and provides an area of mounding underneath the wetlands that can drive flow for some distance. He stated there are merits to both hypotheses. He stated that there are some things indicated in his studies that show this is occurring to some extent. One of the things is that the water chemistry of the seeps and springs shows a high iron content which indicates that either it's had a long time underground where it can lose its oxygen and dissolve iron or because there is a lot of organic material in the area in which it flows. He stated that his indications show it's because the water has a long flow path. He stated that when he first looked at the idea that the wetlands would contribute to the seeps and springs he thought that was a bit farfetched because regional ground water flow in this part of Hennepin County is west to east toward the Mississippi River and the flow would have to be more south to north. He stated when he did further studies he did find some flow that would go to Sweeney Lake and Twin Lake. He stated that there are still some outstanding issues as to whether or not the flow makes it all the way up to the central part of the peninsula and then discharges to areas where the seeps and springs occur. Pentel asked with all the development south of Highway 55 if he thought there were areas that would be causing the infiltration. Wuolo stated there are wetlands in that area that have been identified and referred to two particular wetlands that have ponded water most of the year and stated they could be two potential sources for water that could be infiltrated. Eck referred to the proposed villa homes and stated he doesn't have nearly the concern about that area as he does about development on the peninsula. He stated Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 7 development on block 9 was anticipated because there is development all around it already. Pentel stated she is concerned about the loss of trees and green space in the upland area. She stated she mourns the loss of the oak trees and the little bit of vista that exists and stated there may be some future issues with the homes being in line with golf balls from Theodore Wirth Park but that one positive thing about the homes being proposed is that there is some off street parking provided. She agreed with Eck in that it is not as disturbing as development on the peninsula. McAleese stated that the developer could do better, visually, than lining the homes up in a row. He stated he was struck by the irony that one of the reasons they are lined up in a row is because of utilities that are immediately in front of the properties that don't easily allow the homes to be staggered and in a sense it belies the concept of a Planned Unit Development and that the planning of a couple of years ago has resulted in the forcing of these homes to line up in a row. Grimes stated there are different elevations and the homes will follow the topography of the land and there will be vertical changes in the elevations. Shaffer stated he is not in favor of the houses being in a straight line and that it is kind of ironic because now the houses are just stuck there and it's not possible to move them around. He stated it's not much different from the original carriage home plan that was proposed in 1997 except now there will be ten feet between them instead of zero so in some way that is better. Groger stated originally the plan allowed for twelve homes, so ten does seem reasonable and there are some trees that will be saved. Pentel stated she would like commissioners to make comments about the peninsula development and figure out what kind of recommendation the Commission would like to make to the City Council. Eck stated that he sincerely believes that the developer is proposing to put the seven large single family homes on the peninsula through the use of such devices as a narrow street, retaining walls, rain gardens and conservation easements, in a manner that is as environmentally responsible as it is possible to be and still achieve his objective. He stated he believes the developer wants the development to be a credit to the City, and to the surrounding property owners. Eck stated that although the language of the PUD Ordinance does not specifically preclude it's application to large single family homes on sizeable lots, it seems clear to him that the intent of the residential application of this ordinance is to facilitate the construction of higher than normal density residential structures on designated parcels of land to provide alternative types of housing or land use to meet community housing goals such as affordable, minimum maintenance, or life cycle housing. He stated that he does recognize that in the currently developed area of the PUD, there are a number Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 8 of large and very expensive homes on sizeable lots, but they are contained within or are on the perimeter of the main area of the PUD, adjacent to much higher density homesites. He stated Block 5, the "peninsula" is sufficiently removed from the rest of the PUD and should be considered as a separate area and be judged on its own merits. He stated that although a developer is entitled to reasonable economic development of his land, the peninsula is a very environmentally and aesthetically controversial piece of property, and its development must be carefully considered. Eck stated that after careful review of all the input he has received on this project, it does not seem proper to him that the PUD Ordinance should be used to facilitate the construction of large, single family homes in a sensitive area, which would not otherwise be possible if conventional zoning code standards were applied. He stated there is clearly a benefit to the developer, but questioned what, other than property tax revenue, is the benefit to the City of permitting this development and questioned what housing goals were being fulfilled. Eck referred to the recent request to the Planning Commission to approve the use of the PUD Ordinance to permit a higher than normal density of expensive single family homes to be built on the Lions Park Development property at Harold and Louisiana Avenues, and the commission voted unanimously against it as an improper application of the PUD Ordinance. The developer subsequently changed the density to conform to standard zoning requirements. He stated that although the illustration is not an exact parallel to the peninsula situation, given the size of the proposed lots on the peninsula, the principal involved is the same. He recognized that there is already one home on the peninsula that has been there for many years and stated it is not his intent to deny all further development opportunity, but the City should recommend approval only of what can be accomplished without the use of, or with only the most minimal use of the PUD Ordinance. Groger stated he understands Eck's comments but stated it's not an isolated parcel of land and he doesn't see how it can be viewed as a separate PUD because it is not. He stated the commission is in an awkward position because of the actions in 1997 when the PUD was in some respects approved with this parcel as part of it. He stated he thinks the decision that was made in 1997 somewhat constrains the Commission based upon the criteria that were placed by the City Council and the conditions that were placed upon further approval of development on the peninsula. Groger stated he has struggled with his decision and would like to preserve the peninsula in its entirety, but stated that they need to look at the conditions set forth in 1997 and see what is reasonable for development on the peninsula as it says in the City Council minutes from June of 1997. He stated this is private property and the owner does have some rights to use that property. He stated the peninsula is a place he would hate to see lost, but feels that it is possible to have some development and still be environmently cautious and protect the integrity of the lakes and minimize its impact. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 9 Groger stated he's not totally opposed to development, but would be in favor of the proposal with some restrictions and some changes including, minimizing the height of the retaining wall to four feet, changing the road width to 20 feet for safety and a height restriction for whatever is built to minimize the visual impact. He stated that some restrictions may reduce the number of lots that can be developed, but thinks that the City's actions in 1997 in some ways obligated the commission to seriously consider development as long as the developer met the conditions set forth by the Council. He stated for the City to have told the developer that they should go ahead with the development of the rest of the PUD and the City would then look at the development of the peninsula once they've done all these other things and then for the City to pull it back and say no, we're not going to let you develop the peninsula would not be fair. He stated that if the City had no intention of allowing development on the peninsula they should have said so in 1997. He stated he feels some obligation to work with the developer to approve something that is reasonable and he would be in favor of the proposal with some further conditions. McAleese stated that he thinks the peninsula is part of the overall PUD and in this case the argument is strong that this does qualify as a PUD. He stated he disagrees with Groger because this proposal is an amendment, and under Subd. 12 of the City's PUD Ordinance, it is like starting over with the PUD. He stated the City didn't make any promises in 1997 that development could occur on the peninsula, but the City did state they would consider certain things in the future and that is what's being done. McAleese stated that he feels development on the peninsula is really a stupid idea, but developers can do things that he finds to be stupid and they have an absolute right to do that. He stated development of a limited sort is appropriate on the peninsula, but the development that is being proposed is a little more dense then what it ought to be. He stated he favors a strict application of the standards that are set in the shoreland ordinance and would require the 75-foot structure setback and he thinks the proposed retaining wall qualifies as a structure under the City's zoning code and that they ought to push the wall back which would make a couple of the proposed lots not so developable. He stated, because of the unique situation, the City should apply very strict standards and stated the developer could go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and apply for variances. McAleese stated he's not comfortable with the plans that have been proposed but feels the conditions that were set forth in 1997 have been met. He stated he felt the rain gardens were a very good idea, but it's hard to find detailed information because it is such a new tool, so the City needs to make sure that the rain gardens can adequately handle the water. He stated there should be some mechanism in place that assures they are working the way the City wants them to be working. He stated the roads are fairly narrow, and would favor at least 20-foot wide roads. He stated that if the height is limited too much there starts to be sprawl of the structure. He stated he favors Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 10 somehow controlling what gets built, but is not sure height restrictions will solve the visual impact problem. Shaffer stated that one of the things he looks at when he reviews a PUD is how it's approached. He referred to the Lions Park Development where they wanted a PUD, but the Commission thought they could do it under standard zoning if they did it correctly. He stated that the developer for the peninsula just sliced it up into seven pieces, making sure they had the average 40,000 square foot lot size and protected a few trees as a token gesture to the City. He stated concern that the developer went about it in such a way to fit within what he considered the critical aspects of our zoning code and to push the other aspects. Shaffer referred to the City's Shoreland Ordinance where it states roads and parking areas should meet a setback of 75 feet from the Ordinary High Water Line where feasible and practical. He stated the developer took feasible and practical to mean that in this case it's not feasible and practical because they couldn't get seven lots in if they did that. He stated he did some math to using the 75-foot setback, 20-foot roadway and 20-foot setback from the road to the houses and found that he came up with about 5 buildable lots. He stated that the PUD Ordinance is there to protect something for the City, or to give something to the City, not just for tax dollars and seems to him that this is just the developer trying to fit seven lots onto a small piece of land. Shaffer stated one of the things he asked for from the developer, which they didn't really get, was a plan showing how much of the peninsula was actually going to be graded and moved around. He stated that if the peninsula was laid out into all the areas that were going to be destroyed, it would be so massive people would be amazed. He stated that part of his review of the PUD is to ask, is this going to have a negative impact upon the City of Golden Valley and he thinks this proposal will by allowing certain things to happen from the developer's standpoint and not from the City's standpoint. He stated the developer provided lots of information, but took the approach that they were trying to get as much as they can instead of doing something good. Rasmussen stated she believes the 1997 language did lead the Planning Commission in the direction of supporting some development on the peninsula. She stated the developer has satisfied the requirements and has made great attempts to make sure development is done in an environmentally sound way. She stated every standard should be applied very strictly. She stated she is concerned about the height of the buildings and stated she looks at this property as a buffer between the intense development in the main section of Hidden Lakes and the rest of Golden Valley. She stated concerns about the roadway and stated it is minimally adequate and it should be setback to the required amount. She stated she could probably support a four or five home development on the peninsula, which would be enough to develop it but would Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 11 not disturb as much land as the current proposal. She stated her specific concerns could be addressed by strictly applying the rules. Hoffman stated that he read the Council minutes from 1997 and they were very specific about what the developer needed to do. He stated this property could generate over one million dollars in tax revenue and hoped that this money could help improve the area. He stated he is also concerned about the width of the road. He stated he favors going ahead with the project. Pentel stated the Council did indicate that there would be some development that would be looked at on the peninsula. She stated she could not support this proposal and would not vote in favor of this PUD amendment. She stated she's concerned about the roadway and the setbacks and sees it as pushing the envelope in a very sensitive area. She stated having the road set 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark is not appropriate and that 75 feet is more appropriate. She stated that having three houses on the north end would not cause too much disturbance to the entire peninsula and stated that she appreciated the developer setting aside the lot with the grove of oak trees. She stated the rain gardens are a wonderful idea but is concerned about the piping of water before it is allowed to infiltrate. She is concerned about the rebuilding of the bridge and stated that the staff report mentioned that the bridge would be tested to see how strong it was going to be but then the applicant came forward and talked about a new bridge being built. She stated she's disturbed with the amount of grading that would have to take place and suggested sticking with the 25-foot height restriction. She stated she agreed with Eck in that it's not clear what the benefit is to the City. She stated that she doesn't feel the need to have any public property on the peninsula and sees no problem with having the land be private. She stated that the proposal before them has too many homes and it would be violating too many zoning and setback ordinances. Groger stated that the one of the conditions from the Council minutes from 1997 specifically states that the 50-foot setback will be maintained and asked if it now would be a problem to change that recommendation to a 75-foot setback. Pentel stated the Commission is not changing what the Council said, they are making their own recommendation to the City Council and that the Planning Commission does not have to lock step with what the Council does. Shaffer stated he feels the 75-foot setback is the requirement, not the 50-foot setback and referred to the shoreland ordinance. Grimes referred to the Area 8 project and stated the City used retaining walls that are within the shoreland setback area in that instance to allow for the development to occur. Paula agreed but stated that development is bringing the City affordable housing, is a mixed use development with commercial and is meeting other City objectives. Groger stated he was thinking that the commissioners are in agreement about some development and that there isn't a huge difference in thinking. Shaffer stated the developer would have to come back with new plans in order to define a Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 12 recommendation to the Council. Grimes stated that one option would be to ask the developer if they would like the opportunity to redesign their plans based on the Commission's feedback and come back, or that they could just vote one way or the other. Groger asked which option would be most helpful to the Council. Grimes stated that the more information they could give the better. Hoffman asked if it were possible to break the recommendation into two parts, the golf villas and the peninsula. Pentel stated that it should be left as one and it should be noted they don't have issues with the golf villas, just the peninsula. McAleese stated he tends to favor an up or down vote and that the best approach is to express their views and why they feel the way they do and to bump the proposal up to the decision makers. MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by Groger to approve the preliminary design plan of Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74 Amendment One. Commissioners McAleese, Pentel, Rasmussen, Shaffer and Eck voted against the proposal. II. Informal Public Hearing - General land Use Plan Map Amendment (Z021- 08) and Property Rezoning (Z013-05) Applicant: Golden Valley Lutheran Church Address: 5431 Glenwood Avenue; 21 Turners Crossroad South; east half of Turners Crossroad South adjacent to these two lots, all in Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting to change the General Land Use Plan Map for 5431 Glenwood Avenue and for 21 Turners Crossroad South from Low Density Residential to Schools and Religious Facilities. For the east half of Turners Crossroads South adjacent to these two lots, the applicant is requesting to change the General Land Use Plan Map from a vacated right-of-way to Schools and Religious Facilities. The applicant is requesting to rezone the properties at 5431 Glenwood Avenue and for 21 Turners Crossroad South from Residential to Institutional (1-1). For the east half of Turners Crossroads South adjacent to these two lots, the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from a vacated right-of-way to Institutional (1-1). Olson referred to his memo dated May 9, 2001 and showed a location map of the site. He stated the proposal is to rezone two parcels of land adjacent to the church from Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 13 Residential to Institutional (1-1) and to change the General Land Use Plan map from Low Density Residential to Schools and Religious Facilities. He gave some background on the properties and stated that the two adjacent lots were formally the sites of two single family homes. The lots were purchased by the City as part of the Xenia Avenue reconstruction and in 1999 both of the homes were demolished by the City and the property is now being sold to the Church to be used in the future as a parking lot. Pentel asked if the parking lot would have access off of Glenwood Avenue. Grimes stated that it doesn't have access off of Glenwood and stated it was reconverted to a sidewalk and all the access would come off at Turners Crossroad. Hoffman asked if the resident located adjacent to the property on Turnpike Road had been notified of this public hearing. Olson stated yes, they were notified. Hoffman asked if the Church knew when Xenia Avenue was formed that these lots were going to become available. Director of Public Works, Jeannine Clancy stated that Mr. Dick Remdy, a representative from the Church was on the Xenia Avenue Advisory Committee and stated that the property was purchased by the City for several reasons. She stated there was discussion about building a pedestrian bridge over Glenwood Avenue. There was a need for transit facilities and the City wanted to completely sever the connection between Turners Crossroad and Glenwood Avenue and wanted to also create a berm to guide all pedestrians to the intersection of Xenia and Glenwood. She stated that when the pedestrian bridge was not recommended to the City Council by the advisory committee, the two lots became remnant parcels. She stated the City looked at the parcels to determine what the most appropriate use for these lots was and stated that since they don't want access on Glenwood and they want to protect the berm and want to protect all the pedestrian facilities and all of the work they did to guide people to the intersection at Xenia and Glenwood there was very few uses that were acceptable. One was to adjoin it with the adjacent property and one was to adjoin it to the Church. The Church came to the City and asked if we would be interested in selling it to them. Pentel asked when this property becomes a parking lot if there would be a berm or screening required to protect the residential uses abutting this parking lot. Olson stated there is nothing in the City Code that would require screening, however one resident has requested screening. Hoffman asked if the Church intended to build anything on the lots in the future. Olson stated the Church has indicated that at this time, they intend to leave it as open space and eventually they hope to make it a parking lot. Grimes stated one of the issues is that there are utilities in the Old Turners Crossroad right-of~way that have to be maintained, so there can be no construction over those utilities. Grimes stated there is a strict setback requirement of 50 feet from any institutional use to a residential use and no parking lot can come any closer than 25 feet to a residential use and that it has to be a landscaped area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 14 Groger asked if the lots are currently buildable. Grimes stated it would be pretty difficult because of the setback requirements. Groger asked if the City foresees a lot consolidation ultimately on these lots. Clancy stated that one of the difficulties with these lots, even if they're consolidated, and if they are not associated with the church use, or with the single family home to the east of these properties on Glenwood is that they are not going to be provided access off of Glenwood, so they would have to gain access to the private access off of Turners Crossroads that goes into the church. Pentel asked the applicant, Dick Remdy, what the Church's ultimate plans are for this property. Remdy stated that right now they have no long term plans to develop the property and stated that with the closing of Turners Crossroad they expanded their parking by about 40 spots. He stated that long term they may need the land for additional parking, but right now they intend to keep it green space. Pentel asked if the property were to be developed into a parking lot if it would be a problem for the church to provide screening for the adjacent neighbors even though it isn't a regulation. Remdy stated he didn't think it would be a problem to provide some kind of screening or plantings. Rasmussen questioned why there aren't any screening requirements for when a parking lot abuts a residential area. Grimes stated that there are just setback requirements, but if it were a new development, they would have to show a landscape plan to the Building Board of Review. Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Diana Dearring, 5 Turnpike Road, stated that her property is right below the two lots in the proposal. She stated that she is concerned about the moving of the land and stated that when construction was being done on Turners Crossroad her house was moving and shaking and now she has water problems. She stated she is very much against the proposal and is concerned about the aesthetic value and the property value of her house if it looks out onto a parking lot and she's concerned about how the parking lot would drain. Larry Klick, 5415 Glenwood, also representing Charles Clark, 5405 Glenwood stated he sees three possible solutions for the proposed property. One is the Church and the only flaw he sees with that is that if there isn't a moratorium on any kind of construction the people in the neighborhood are going to be upset. He stated the new sidewalk and berm that were just put in last fall would have to go if the church puts in a parking lot. The second solution is residential with access and driveway on the vacated Turners Crossroad. He stated it doesn't make sense to take out a corner lot for a parking lot or a building. He stated the third option is to leave it as green space and he said the City took the green space across the street and is now building gymnasiums. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 15 Pentel asked what portion of the driveway into the Church does the Church own. Clancy stated the west half of Turners Crossroad has been vacated and has gone to the Church. The east half of Turners Crossroad has been vacated up to 220 feet south of Glenwood and that has been vacated to the properties in questions. She stated Hennepin County and Staff would not support a separate access to Glenwood. Frances Nemet, 5423 Glenwood stated she is very opposed to a parking lot and stated when the City built Xenia Avenue she was told in letters and in conversations it was going to be green space. Diana Dearring, 5 Turnpike Road, stated she wanted existing homes to have the same screening and buffering zoning regulations that are applied to new developments. Pentel asked if this was a case of the City trying to sell these lots. Clancy stated no, the Church approached the City to buy these lots. Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Groger asked if residents were told when the Xenia Avenue project was done that these lots would remain green space. Clancy stated she didn't recall. Shaffer stated the only thing he recalled was that the property was purchased by the City because of the potential pedestrian overpass, which would have used that area. Clancy clarified that the purchase agreement that it currently being considered has a permanent easement over the area so that the improvements made such as the berm, sidewalk and transit improvements made would be maintained. Clancy referred to the map and showed where the improvements were made. Groger asked what the width of these lots is. Clancy stated they are about 100 feet long and about 15,000 square feet. Groger asked if the setback for parking lots along residential property lines is 25 feet. Grimes stated yes and the ordinance requires that the setback area be landscaped. Pentel asked if a developer had come forward to the Council and suggested putting in a house that would have been on the tax roles, if that offer would have been entertained. Rasmussen stated it was prudent for the Church to want the vacant property next to them. She asked if the City was currently maintaining the property. Grimes stated yes. Pentel asked if the purchase agreement goes through, would the Church be required to maintain the easement area or if the City would still maintain the easement area. Clancy stated the Church would maintain the easement area, but the City would maintain the sidewalk, as is required by the sidewalk policy. She stated she wanted to make it clear that the purchase agreement was subject to the purchaser receiving rezoning on the property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 16 McAleese asked if the property were not rezoned and it remained residential in character, could anything be built on that property, under our zoning code without any problems and if it met the other requirements of the residential portion of the zoning code. Grimes stated all lots have to have frontage on a public street. He stated he would have to talk to the City Attorney about that, but the City has given up the right to have access on Glenwood. Rasmussen stated that it seems like the proposal is a bad idea to her and that it would be nice to leave the area as green space. Grimes stated this is happening more and more to churches in Golden Valley. They need to expand their parking as they grow, so if they want to stay in Golden Valley they are going to need additional parking. Groger asked if the Church would have to do a lot consolidation because the parking lot would go over the lot line. Grimes stated that they can't build a structure over the property line, but a parking lot is not considered a structure Pentel stated she feels for the neighbors and stated that if the property was advertised by the City as green space it should be rezoned as green space. She stated she is not in favor of the proposed rezoning and as institutions expand they get closer to neighborhoods. Shaffer stated he also feels for the neighbors, but he is looking at the long-term aspects of the proposal and likes the idea of trying to keep churches in Golden Valley. He stated he would be in favor of the proposal. Eck asked for clarification from the Church on their parking requirements. The representative from the church stated they had no plans to develop the two lots into a parking lot, but Grimes stated sometimes the parking lot is full and they have to park on the street. Remdy stated that occasionally there is an overlap in services but generally the parking right now is fine. Eck stated that it seems to him to be a logical use for the proposed property and supports the proposal. Rasmussen stated she is not in favor of the proposal because she thinks the neighbors deserve some degree of certainty. MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by Groger to approve revising the General Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Residential to Schools and Religious Facilities for the properties located at 5431 Glenwood Avenue and 21 Turners Crossroad South and from Right of Way to Schools and Religious Facilities for the property located at east half of Turners Crossroad South adjacent to 5431 Glenwood Avenue and 21 Turners Crossroad and to approve rezoning the properties located at 5431 Glenwood Avenue and 21 Turners Crossroad South from Residential to Institutional (1-1) and the property located at the east half of Turners Crossroad South adjacent to 5431 Glenwood Avenue and 21 Turners Crossroad from Right of Way to Institutional (1-1). Commissioners Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 17 McAleese, Groger, Eck, Shaffer and Hoffman voted in favor of the proposal, Commissioners Rasmussen and Pentel voted against the proposal. V. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment Applicant: Premier Investments, LLC Address: Light Industrial Zoning Districts, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting to add "Trade schools or Training Centers" as a Conditional Use to the City's Light Industrial zoning districts. Olson discussed his memo dated May 9,2001. He stated that currently trade schools are allowed as a permitted use in the Commercial Zoning District and as a Conditional Use in the Industrial Zoning District. He stated that at this point it is only a zoning code text amendment and if it is approved the applicant would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. He stated the applicant is proposing to open a dental academy and that the parking spaces currently there would be adequate for that use. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposal. Hoffman asked what the hours of operation would be. Dan stated he thought there were day and evening classes but didn't think the classes would go past 8:00 or 9:00 pm. McAleese clarified that the Commission isn't discussing the specific school at this time, they are just discussing the changing of the Zoning Code to allow this use. Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one Pentel closed the public hearing. MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the Zoning Code text amendment as purposed. VI. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - KQRS, Inc. - P.U.D. No. 93 Applicant: KQRS, Inc. - ABC, Inc. Address: Lot 1, Block 1, KQRS 2nd Addition (917 North Lilac Drive), Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting to subdivide the property into two parcels in order to create an office building on one lot and radio antenna towers on the other lot. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 18 Grimes referred to his memo dated May 9, 2001 and stated that originally this proposal was going to be a rezoning of the front parcel to business and professional offices and keep the radio and television zoning district for the towers. However, because the location of the building did not meet the zoning requirements for the business and professional office zoning district it was decided that applying for a PUD would be appropriate. Grimes referred to the site map and discussed the MnDOT Highway 100 construction project and how it has affected this property. He discussed the new road that will provide access on either side of Highway 100 for the frontage road system. Grimes stated they are recommending approval based on the conditions listed in his memo. Pentel asked where the proposed KQRS Drive goes to. Grimes stated it goes under the bridge and accesses the frontage road. Pentel asked if park dedication would be an issue in this proposal. Grimes stated that the City only requires park dedication when there is a new use created and there aren't any new uses created with this proposal. Groger stated it seems like this proposal is a benefit to the property owner, but questioned the benefit to the City. Grimes stated that KQRS still uses the towers that are on the site and for them to sell the building and maintain the towers they have to divide the property. Grimes stated an advantage to the City would be that it gets to keep an office building, with adequate parking. Groger stated that he doesn't feel that it's a benefit to keep the office building where it is, because it's in a bad location. He stated that the City has granted KQRS variances in the past and now they are selling it and trying to get their money out of it and all the City is left with is an office building in a bad location. Grimes stated KQRS is asking the City how they can sell this as an office building and maintain the use of the antennas and the only way they can do it is to apply for a PUD. He stated that the Commission doesn't have to recommend approval but then the only thing the property could be used for is radio and television. Larry Martin, applicant, stated he didn't have a lot to add to Grimes narrative but stated he brought a number of consultants with him to answer any questions. He stated KQRS is now in the process of trying to mitigate damages arising from the taking and are involved in a lawsuit with MnDOT. He stated the proposal is being made to market the building and if the proposal were approved they would be able to sell the office building and thereby reduce the damages in the lawsuit. Pentel asked the applicant if they had a neighborhood meeting. Martin stated that they had not. Grimes clarified that the City just recently switched the application from a rezoning to a PUD. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 19 Eck asked if KQRS ended up moving because they needed more space or because of the situation with MnDOT. Martin stated that the intent of KQRS was to expand onto the property that was taken by MnDOT. He stated they had looked at several other sites in Golden Valley but none of them worked out. Rasmussen asked if the applicant wanted the antennas to stay where they are regardless of whether or not the PUD is approved. Martin stated that was correct. McAleese referred to some overhead wires that are coming out of the building and asked what the purpose of the garage being converted into a mechanical unit is. Martin stated they would be required to move the wires to the existing garage, before a certificate of occupancy would be granted. Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Leo Anderson, 5625 Lindsay Street stated that what the applicant is proposing wouldn't bother any of the neighbors. He stated that another office building in the area wouldn't affect the traffic or bother anybody. Renee Bergquist, 5620 Lindsay Street stated she was concerned about what kind of business would go into the building and what kind of hours they would keep. She stated she has concerns about the traffic on her street. Carol Evans, 5525 Lindsay Street stated that she has no problems with the proposal and stated she would like to see the back property kept as it is with the antennas because of the wildlife that is there. Arlene Dietz, 5640 Lindsay Street stated she is also concerned about the traffic and what kind of business would be on the property. Leo Anderson, 5625 Lindsay Street asked if Lindsay Street would tie into the new service road. Dave Rally, MnDOT, stated Lindsay would be tied to Lilac Drive. Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel stated the City couldn't control who leases or buys the office building. Grimes stated that any business wanting to move there would have to fit in the Business & Professional Offices Zoning District. Eck stated the alternative to not approving the PUD would be to tear the building down and questioned if that is the highest and best use of the property. Groger stated he is going to vote against the proposal due to the closeness of the residential lot line and highway. He stated this is nothing that the Commission would approve in any other situation and that he would rather see it torn down and reutilized in some other way that would be more in conformance with the City's Zoning Code. Grimes stated that if the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 20 City were to go on strict zoning they wouldn't be able to put a building where it is located now. Shaffer stated that if this proposal were to come to the Board of Zoning Appeals there would be no way it would get approved, but the reality is that it's there and it could be used as an office building. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Rasmussen to approve the preliminary design plan of KQRS, Inc. PUD No. 93. Commissioners McAleese and Groger voted against the proposal. -- Short Recess -- VII. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. VIII. Other Business No other business was discussed. IX. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 pm.