Loading...
12-08-03 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2003 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 10, 2003. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Keysser, McAleese and Rasmussen. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Shaffer was absent. I. Approval of Minutes November 10, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting e Groger referred to the last sentence on page 2, and stated that the word "sited" was misspelled. MOVED by Eck, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 10, 2003 minutes with the above noted correction. November 24, 2003 Joint Planning Commission/Council Meeting Eck referred to page 2, paragraph 6 and stated that the word "decrease" should be changed to the word "increase". MOVED by Groger, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approved the November 24, 2003 minutes with the above noted change. e II. Inf9rmal Public Hearing - Subdivision - Lot Consolidation (SU13.11) Applicant: Goldman, Friedel! & Sachs LLP Address: 200,220,300 and 310 Turners Crossroad Purpose: To allow four existing lots to be consolidated into one lot so an apartment building can be constructed on the newly created lot. Grimes referred to the preliminary plat of the properties and reviewed the applicant's request to consolidate four existing lots, located north of fire station number 2, into one lot. He explained that the applicant is proposing to build an 86-unit apartment building on the newly created lot. Grimes referred to his memo dated December 4, 2003 and discussed the factors for consideration. He said that the property is zoned M-1 which allows for buildings up to 3- stories to be built. He added that this proposal is not looking at the specific building rather if the lot is large enough for this type of use. He stated that the lot is large enough to build an apartment building to meet the requirements of the M-1 zoning district. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 2 Grimes explained that there is a discrepancy between the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Zoning Map designation for this property. He stated that the property is shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map as medium density which allows 6-12 units per acre and the Zoning Map shows M-1 which allows for higher density. The discrepancy between the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map must be resolved for this area prior to issuance of building permits. Grimes stated that one of the neighborhood concerns is the traffic that will be generated from a new apartment building. He explained that there would probably be an added 600 to 800 trips per day on Turners Crossroad and that there is capacity on Turners Crossroad to handle the added traffic since it used to handle 5,000 to 6,000 trips per day before it was closed south of Glenwood Avenue. e Pentel referred to the discrepancy between the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Zoning Map and asked if the Zoning Map takes precedence over the Comprehensive Plan Map. Grimes explained that State laws say when there is a conflict between the two maps it has to be resolved so the Zoning Map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map. Groger referred to the bituminous path shown on site plans and asked if it was a walking path. Grimes stated that it is a walking path and a fire access. He explained that the intent of the applicant is to sprinkler the new apartment building and in that case they are not required to provide full access all the way around the building for vehicles but the path does have to be maintained for fire fighter access. Grimes stated that there are two driveways being proposed and that he is suggesting they be placed in such a manner as to not interfere with the residential driveways across the street. He said he would also like the applicant to put in sidewalks on both sides of the e street and a berm to help screen the building and parking lot. Pentel asked if the building and parking lot meet all of the setback requirements. Grimes stated yes they are meeting all of the setback requirements. Pentel asked how high the berm would be constructed. Grimes said that it would have to be high enough to screen headlights from the residential property to the east. Pentel asked if the applicant has had any neighborhood meetings. Grimes stated that the applicant met with the property owners in November. Gary Gandrud, Faegre and Benson, 90 South th Street, 2200 Wells Fargo Center, Minneapolis, representing Goldman, Friedell and Sachs, stated that since the discrepancy between the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map just recently came to his attention he would confine his remarks to the preliminary plat. He stated that they did meet with the neighborhood on November 13 at Laurel Estates. He said that the applicants have owned the Laurel Estates apartment building for 20 years and they have owned two of the lots involved in the subdivision request for 17 years and that they have been talking to the City for 17 years about constructing another apartment building. He Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 3 stated that the proposed new apartments would have the same demographics as Laurel Estates next door. He referred to the traffic data and stated that the vehicle trip counts come out of the National Traffic Engineering manual. He said that the traffic would be similar to Laurel Estates which has about 1/10 that amount of traffic. Eck asked Gandrud why he thinks the traffic would be the same at the new building as it is at Laurel Estates. Gandrud said because of the demographics in the area and that a large number of the residents don't drive. Groger referred to the half-circle driveway on the site plans and asked if the applicants have allowed room for people to park there short amounts of time. Mark Jasters, Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, 13400-15th Ave. N., Plymouth, engineer for the project, stated that there would be sufficient room to park cars and not impede the traffic flow. e Groger referred to the tree preservation plan and asked if they had taken everything into account in order save as many trees as possible. Jasters stated that some of the perimeter trees may be able stay and explained that the pond requirements for the site also impacted the trees on the property. Groger stated if anything could be done to preserve the trees it would be appreciated by the neighborhood. Grimes explained that it is to the applicant's advantage to try and save trees because compensation is required after a certain amount is removed according to the City's tree preservation ordinance. Pentel opened the public hearing. e George Peters, 209 Turners Crossroad South, stated he lives directly across the street and has concerns. He said that the berm at Laurel Estates is more than two feet high. He said their quality of life will be diminished if the berm is only two feet high. He said that he was hit by a car coming out of Laurel Estates last autumn and he is concerned about another one of these types of apartments with these types of drivers because some of the driver's abilities are diminishing with age. He said that he is also concerned about how intrusive the construction will be and asked if there was anything that could be done to make the construction less intrusive. He suggested that the driveway be connected to the other apartments' driveway and empty onto Laurel instead of the access being located on Turners Crossroad. Pentel asked Grimes if there are requirements on the hours of operation for construction. Grimes said that they can't start construction before 7 am and that there is a limitation in the evening. Pentel asked if the City would review a lighting plan for the site. Grimes said that as part of the permit process the lighting plan would have to be reviewed and approved. He said the doesn't see a great need for a tremendous amount of lighting at this site and added that he doesn't think the applicant would be against putting in a higher berm. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 4 Tommy Dunne, 201 Turners Crossroad South, stated that he is also concerned about traffic. He said it would make more sense to have one driveway for access because it would be safer with only one left turn. Pentel asked what is located directly south of the site. Grimes said Fire Station Number 2 is to the south. He said that Laurel Estates would have to grant an easement to use their access and that since this proposal is not a PUD or CUP it is the applicant's decision as long as there is reasonable consideration taken for capacity on the roads. He said that staff is proposing that the city's traffic engineer look at the plans in order to reduce the impact to the neighborhood. e Millie Olson, 319 Turners Crossroad South, stated that he has had problems with cars coming right out of Laurel Estates because some drivers do not look both directions before exiting. She said she is concerned about the error Grimes referred to on the Zoning Map in 1999. Grimes stated that the issue is with the Comprehensive Plan Map which shows the property is guided for mid density which only allows 12 units per acre and the Zoning Map is designated M-1 which allows for more units. Richard Runde, Golden Valley Lutheran Church, 5501 Glenwood Avenue, said that he is concerned about the proposal because the church had water problems when the church constructed an addition on their building. As a result, they couldn't build the basement level as planned because of the springs in the ground in that area. Grimes said that the applicants have done a number of soil borings and that it is their responsibility to prove to the City that the project will work. e Hearing, and seeing no one, Pentel closed the public hearing. Pentel asked Grimes if the amount of surface parking is set by the City Code. Grimes said yes. Gandrud added that 5610 Laurel doesn't use all of their parking and that the City is comfortable with the amount of parking being provided. Groger asked Grimes if there would be any benefit to the neighbor's to add as a condition of approval something about the lighting. Grimes said that lighting is covered by code but there is nothing wrong with saying the Planning Commission is concerned and would like to see lower levels of lighting on the site. Pentel said she is concerned with the berm being high enough. She suggested putting plantings and a fence on top of the berm and said it would be the right thing to do when there is residential property right across the street. Grimes said that the applicants will work with the environmental coordinator on the types of plantings that could be located on a berm. Groger made a motion to add as a condition of approval that a berm should be constructed along the length of the property with a preference of protecting the residential Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 5 area. He said that he thinks this proposal is logical and part of a natural increase in density and that the design is as sensitive as it could get it. Keysser asked if approving this subdivision request would conflict with fixing the Comprehensive Plan issue. Grimes stated that he would like to see the Comprehensive Plan Map come to the Planning Commission soon. McAleese stated that the Commission knows they are dealing with just the lot consolidation and not the building plans at this meeting but that he is not sure they can attach a condition to a subdivision request. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the request to consolidate 200,220,300 and 310 Turners Crossroad into one lot. e -- Short Recess -- II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. III. Other Business A. Discuss Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) chapter with Bill Thibault e Bill Thibault, Thibault Associates discussed the history of how the PUD chapter was rewritten. He said they started the draft chapter by studying existing PUD areas and by reviewing four other cities. He said he used the minutes from the joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting held more than a year ago and wrote the purpose statement from that information. He said the challenge was to simplify the chapter and incorporate the 23 issues brought up at the joint meeting. He said that he got rid of some of the language in the existing PUD chapter and then looked very carefully at the role of the Planning Commission. Thibault highlighted some of the changes to the PUD chapter such as, neighborhood meetings, traffic, setbacks and buffering and said that the Planning Commission will look at PUD's at the preliminary and final stages of development. He said that he kept the flexibility of the current PUD chapter but linked it to having to match the Comprehensive Plan. Pentel said she thought the draft chapter is wonderful and suggested they go through it page by page. She referred to line 15 on the first page and said that the words "method of land use regulations" seem problematic. Thibault said he wouldn't recommend having a new PUD chapter start that way but that Golden Valley has been using this approach for 30 years. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8,2003 Page 6 McAleese suggested changing the wording and offering Thibault more flexibility in wording the purpose statement. Thibault stated there are three choices for PUD's: one is to make them be a separate zoning district, another would be to treat them like a conditional use and the last would be to leave it like it is as an overlay district. Pentel said to her, a PUD is like a CUP allowed in any zoning district. Thibault said it could be difference of voting. Pentel said she would like to see PUD's take a 2/3 vote and the way the City has used PUD's is to ignore the zoning district. Grimes said the Comprehensive Plan should be consistent with the PUD. e Rasmussen asked what the difference would be to use PUD's as a zoning district versus as a CUP. Thibault explained that if the City is challenged in court it is easier to sustain a CUP because it is based more on standards. If a proposal meets those standards it is difficult to deny the CUP. He said that zoning is more of a legislative fu nction. Pentel said she thinks there is still a lot of flexibility in the draft chapter and there are still a lot of gray areas. Thibault agreed but said the applicants have to show a high quality of design. Eck said "high quality" is still subjective and that his pet peeve with the PUD chapter is developers who have attempted to use the PUD process strictly for financial gain. e McAleese said that he doesn't think anyone thinks PUD's aren't important. He believes that it is frequently misused and the City is not necessarily getting something out of it and that is why he prefers the zoning approach over the CUP approach because it puts the City in a better position. Pentel added that she liked that this draft makes the Planning Commission able to consider all issues when reviewing a PUD. Grimes said he would like to talk to the City Attorney about which approach to use. Pentel referred to item number two on page five, regarding minor deviations being allowed and said that she would like the information that is in the sidebar to be part of the chapter language. Thibault said he agreed and would incorporate the sidebar comments in the text. Pentel referred to line number 259 on page seven and asked what "processing" means. Thibault said it is referring to the application process. Pentel suggested changing the word to "process". Pentel referred to line number 282 on page eight and asked if it meant that there would be more than one public hearing for preliminary plans. Thibault stated that the intent is to have an official public hearing. Eck suggested making the sentence more clear by striking the word "A" and making the word "hearing" plural. Pentel said she wants plans to show where sidewalks are located and that the draft chapter doesn't address that until the very end. Thibault said it is because the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 7 assumption is that the final PUD application would have more details than the preliminary application. Grimes suggested adding "pedestrian trails or sidewalks" on line 298 on page 5. Thibault questioned how detailed the City would want applicants to be in the preliminary stage. Pentel referred to line number 423 on page 11 and stated that the words "other action deemed appropriate by the Council" looked like a gray area. Thibault stated that he put that wording in because under the 60-day rule it may be too late for the City Council to send a proposal back to the Planning Commission. He suggested adding the words "such as referral back to the Planning Commission" to make it more clear. e Pentel referred to the bottom of page 12 regarding preservation plans and said that items three through seven may need to be reworked regarding what should be first on the list. Grimes suggested making items four through seven sub-headings of the preservation plan. Grimes referred to item number 10 on page 14 regarding private streets and asked what kind of "waiver" could be granted by the City Council. Thibault said that the streets should be public and the message to send is that private streets are not allowed except with a waiver. Pentel referred to item number 11 on page 15 regarding the maximum hard cover percentage and asked if that percentage equals the amount of setback area that is required. Grimes explained that the ordinance is regarding hard surface, not buildings. Eck referred to line number 580 on page 15 and stated that the wording should read "expected not to exceed" instead of "expected to not exceed". e Pentel referred to item number 16 on page 16 and asked about the language in this draft regarding signs. Thibault explained that the sign ordinance is not part of the Zoning Code, but this paragraph shows an applicant what to expect. Groger referred to line 645 on page 16 and said he was concerned about using the words "high quality" because that could mean expensive and deter affordable housing where the costs are trying to be kept down. Pentel suggested saying "building design" instead of "building materials". Groger said he just didn't want it to be a deterrent for affordable housing. McAleese referred to line number 843 on page 21 regarding "approval of a PUD by ordinance, requiring an affirmative vote of a majority of the Council" and said he didn't think that would be accurate if it is decided to treat PUD's as a zoning district. Thibault said that if a PUD is adopted by ordinance than it can be removed by ordinance. Thibault referred to the bottom of page one regarding "favorable housing types" and said that he thinks that could be a technical problem because a development might not be housing. Pentel suggested using the words "housing plans" instead. ~ e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2003 Page 8 Grimes asked the Commission if they would like staff to make changes to this draft PUD chapter and bring it back to them. Pentel suggested the staff making the suggested changes and then having a joint meeting with the City Council. B. Discuss housing study write up. There was no discussion on the housing study write up. c. Holiday party with BZA on December 16, 2003 at 6:30 pm at Brookview Grill. Grimes reminded the Commissioners that the Board of Zoning Appeals invited them to attend their holiday party on December 16 at 6:30 at the Brookview Grill. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm.