Loading...
04-25-05 Joint PC-CC Minutes . . . Joint Meeting City Council and Planning Commission 1-394 Corridor Study Kick-Off Presentation April 25, 2005 A joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, April 25, 2005. Mayor Loomis called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Rasmussen, Schmidgall and Waldhauser and Mayor, Loomis and Council Members Freiberg, Grayson, Pentel and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, Assistant City Manager, Jeanne Andre, URS Planning Consultants David Showalter, Suzanne Rhees and Eric Padget and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. I. 1-394 Corridor Study Kick-Off Presentation - by URS, Planning Consultant Grimes reminded the Council Members and Planning Commissioners that on May 2 at 5:30 pm there will be a tour of several different communities that have also done corridor redevelopments. He explained that this presentation is to give an update on where URS is in their study of the 1-394 corridor and introduced the URS Consultants. Dave Showalter, URS said that they are trying to assist the City with this corridor study process and help provide the City with some vision and the opportunity to create value in the Corridor and to find a way to manage the process and bring in as many stakeholders as possible into the process. He referred to the Commercial-Industrial areas in the Corridor and stated that they are trying to identify and encourage opportunities for intensification and update of some of these properties. He talked about land use linkage and connection issues and the opportunities to look at north/south connections in the corridor area. He discussed housing issues and looking at areas that could possibly support higher density residential uses. He referred to storm water management practices and regulatory issues in the zoning code. He stated that they are looking at a phased study with the 1-394 Corridor being first and the upper level of the TH 55 Corridor next. He referred to a timeline chart and stated that they are anticipating the study to be complete within 12 to 14 months. He explained that they will be using. a regular series of newsletters that would build on Envision Golden Valley. He stated that they will be supporting some events including a mobile tour, training, surveys, focus groups and regular joint meetings with the Planning Commission and Council. Showalter referred to a map showing intersection concerns and capacity and stated that there are a series of good east/west connections in the corridor and that they are looking at opportunities to better move north and south through the district. He explained that as a part of this study they will be looking at the street capacities and the issues surrounding future land use, the opportunity to combine rails and trails and the importance of the watershed and storm water management ponding. . . . Joint meeting of the City Council & Planning Commission April 25, 2005 Page 2 Suzanne Rhees referred to a map of the area and stated that they came up with a different set of land use categories to capture the existing uses in the corridor and to understand the character of the corridor. She said the first category is corporate and multi-tenant offices such as Allianz, The Colonnade and the Florida West building. She said the next category, which is more predominant in the corridor area, are office- showroom-light industrial such as Golden Hills Office Park. The next category is the general industrial uses which generally have higher truck traffic. Another category is the auto related uses including dealerships and auto services. She talked about the variety and character of commercial uses in the corridor such as franchises, lodging and dining. The next category she discussed was institutional and multi-family uses. Rhees discussed the residential neighborhoods in the corridor and stated that they have an attractive, rustic character which is unusual considering its location. She said that the neighborhoods have a good pedestrian connections and a good open space system. She added that the thing that may be lacking is the vehicular north/south connections which may be seen by some people as a strength, rather than a weakness because people living in this area are obviously heavily impacted by the traffic. Pentel asked Rhees what led her to think that the City would want more north/south connections. She said that many of the residential neighborhoods would prefer that there not be strong north/south connections because they are afraid of cut-through traffic from 1-394. She said she understands the need for good north/south connections for pedestrians but not vehicular connections. Rhees said that the north/south vehicular connections is not intended to be a goal of the study, but that it is an issue to be addressed and that that is something that was observed while driving and walking around the area. Freiberg said that he lives in that area and he can say confidently that the neighbors would not want traffic from Laurel Avenue on their streets. Rhees agreed and stated that they want to hear from the Council, businesses and residents before they come up with any recommendations, but that it is an issue in this study because more and more traffic is funneled onto the few streets that do go north and south and it creates some dangerous intersections. Rhees discussed the various zoning districts located throughout the corridor. She stated that most of the corridor is zoned industrial. She explained that PUDs have been used as a way to do master planning in this area because the existing zoning is not quite nuanced enough to achieve that level of design control. She referred to a table and discussed minimum lot areas and parking and setback requirements. She stated that one thing she is interested in learning about is whether there are any conflicts between the commercial and industrial districts as far as the way people use the facilities and how it functions. Eric Padget pointed out that this is not a traffic study and that there have been several traffic studies already done in this area. He explained that congestion as a whole is not so much a daily congestion issue but there are definitely peak times when congestion is an issue. He discussed some of the recent studies that have been done and stated that they have not shown a real congestion issue, but the reason they are talking about traffic is because more intense development will bring more traffic or certain land uses Joint meeting of the City Council & Planning Commission April 25, 2005 Page 3 . could bring more traffic. He referred to the Laurel/Winnetka Study and improvements and the desire for trail connections and transit connections in order to tie into the existing regional system. Grimes referred to the issue of public involvement and said that it is critical to the success of the process. He referred to the Envision process and said that this study builds on that process. He discussed the primary focus area which is the commercial/industrial area south of Laurel Avenue and east of Rhode Island, and the secondary focus area which is the 1-394 neighborhood south of Highway 55, between Highway 100 and Brookview Parkway. He stated that every issue of the CityNews will have a story on the study and that there will be presentations to various groups starting in July. He discussed the various ways the City is looking for feedback and talked about the business and residential surveys and the visual preference survey that will be available at the Golden Valley Days festival. Rhees discussed the visual preference survey and showed some examples of pictures from various development projects that have been used in similar visual preference surveys. . Pentel asked how much uniqueness would be found in doing the visual preference survey. Rhees stated that there is always some element of surprise. She agreed that it is not scientific and that it is more subjective, but it is intended to get people thinking. Pentel suggested having some more pictures of high density developments in the survey. Grimes reminded the Council Members and Commissioners that they will be going on a tour of other corridor developments in the Twin Cities on May 2. He explained that cameras would be given out at the tour in order for them to take pictures of different types of good and bad design. Grayson asked about the various ways that the City is going to try to get input from the residents. Showalter talked about various ways to get feedback from residents including providing information at banks, grocery stores, libraries and community centers. Grimes added that a survey is going to be mailed to all of the residents in the corridor area in order to get as much feedback as possible. Pentel asked that staff make sure that residents who live in apartments get a survey as well. Grimes explained that the goal of the corridor study is to have URS come up with concepts and then have zoning and ordinances that help realize the chosen concepts. Showalter reiterated that this study will help the City get ahead of what it will be facing in the few years. He stated that this is a good opportunity to do something that has not been done before in creating a model of freeway development. . Shaffer said that this is a process he hopes citizens get involved in and have fun doing. . . . Joint meeting of the City Council & Planning Commission April 25, 2005 Page 4 C. Set Advisory group (2 each Council & Planning Commission) Loomis said that Pentel and Shaffer will be the representatives from the Council for the advisory group. Keysser said that he and Hackett will be the representatives from Planning Commission. - Short Recess - II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Approval of Minutes from the April 11, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 11, 2005 minutes as submitted. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm.