Loading...
11-05-12 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 5, 2012 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 5, 2012. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Kisch, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall, and Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom, City Engineer Jeff Oliver, Engineer Mark Ray and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Segelbaum was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes October 22, 2012 Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to approve the October 22, 2012 minutes as submitted. Commissioners Cera and McCarty abstained from voting. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Planned Unit Development (PUD) — Northwest Corner I-394 and Highway 100 — The 3.9.4 Apartments — PU-112 — Preliminary Plan Applicant: Global One Golden Valley, LLC Address: Northwest Corner of I-394 and Highway 100 Purpose: To allow for the construction of a 6-story, 308 unit, market rate apartment building and a 6-story, 118 unit, senior living building. Hogeboom stated that Global One is seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for the construction of a 6-story (75 feet), 308 unit market rate apartment building and a 6-story, 118 unit market rate senior living (assisted living and memory care) building. The apartment building is proposed to be constructed in two phases, first to the west, then to the east. He explained that the site is made up of two parcels. The parcel to the south is a MnDOT owned property and the parcel to the north is the Mayfair Apartments property. Hogeboom referred to the I-394 study and noted that the properties are guided on the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map as I-394 Mixed Use. He explained that the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning Qistrict has three height sub-district levels. The southernmost property has a 6-stary height limit while the northernmost property has a 3-story height limit. The proposed building would be constructed up to the limit of where 6-stories are allowed so the building being proposed is considered to be conforming. Hogeboom referred to the proposed parking plan and stated that the applicant is proposing 191 surface parking spaces and 373 enclosed parking spaces for the apartment building which is considered to be adequate. He explained that the Zoning Code requires senior Minutes of the Gotden Valley Planning Commission November 5, 2012 Page 2 living facilities to show "an adequate plan" for parking because the number of residents wha drive varies greatly. Hogeboom stated that most multi-family housing developments in Golden Valley function under the guidance of a PUD permit and allow flexibility for the development to vary from City Code. In this instance, City Code (I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District) allows buildings to be a maximum of 6-stories in height as is proposed, and requires that no more than 65% of a lot be covered by impervious surface. In this proposal approximately 64.1% of the site is covered by impervious surfaces. The I-394 Mixed Use zoning district requires a 15-foot landscaped setback. The applicant is proposing a 15-foot setback area along the perimeter of the site. Hogeboom stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposal based on the following findings: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. Efficient— Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and alf other PUD ordinance provisions. And subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated Qctaber 1, 2012, shall become part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated October 30, 2012, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The City Attorney shall determine if a park dedication fee is required for this projeet prior to Final PUD approval. 5. All signs on the property shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission Navember 5, 2Q12 Page 3 Waldhauser stated that a few of the documents submitted by the applicant vary slightly regarding the impervious surFace coverage. She also noted that the height limit noted on some of the documents indicate that the building will be higher than 6 stories. McCarty questioned why an email submitted by a resident stated that the impervious surface area is greater than 65%. Hogeboom said he thought the email was sent before he did a detailed analysis of the impervious surface coverage. McCarty referred to the PUD findings and asked what is meant by "preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City." Fie asked if that language is defined in the City Code. Hogeboom stated that part of the charge of the Planning Commission is to determine if that language applies to PUD proposals. Waldhauser added that that language is from State Statute and that sometimes it means that nothing negative is being proposed. Mark Globus, Global One Golden Valley, LLC, Applicant, referred to illustrations of the proposal and reiterated that the project is comprised of two separate buildings, a 308-unit luxury apartment building and a 118-unit senior living building. He gave a brief history of the project and stated that they have been working with the City on this project for over 5 years to make it compatible with the neighborhood. He stated that one thing they've really worked on is the issue of traffic. He noted that other uses allowed in the Mixed Use zoning district would create much more traffic than the apartment buildings he is proposing. He stated that the senior building is designed to have a high level of care with residents that don't have cars which will lower the amount of traffic. He added that the amount of traffic with this proposal has been reduced by 45-50% compared to previous proposals he'd considered for this site. He stated that the property is designated for higher density and has been zoned for development for more than 30 years. He showed the Commission illustrations of the proposed buildings and said they would serve as a transition to the neighbors to the narth and will create a buffer from I-394. He added that the market rate apartments cater to long- term residents who may want to move from their existing single family home that they own, as well as young professionals looking for high quality rental units. He referred to a site plan and explained how it has been modified to keep the parking area as far away from the neighbor's properties as possible and haw there won't be headlights from the proposed apartments facing into the backyards of the neighbor's properties. He also nated that they've doubled the amount of landscaped buffer area for the neighbors to the north. He stated that he understands the neighborhood is concerned about this proposal but they've worked hard to be sensitive. They've incorporated trails and sidewalks to help this development tie in to the existing neighborhood. He showed additional illustrations and said he thinks they've done a nice jab with the design of the buildings. The apartment building will be a modern design and the senior building will be an old-world European design and both buildings will be clad in limestone brick and fiber cement board. Kluchka asked Globus about converting the apartments to condominiums if the market changes. Globus stated that the demand right now is for apartments and it is not his preference to convert them into condaminiums. Waldhauser asked Globus if he is intending to own or sell the buildings. Globus said they would be bringing in professional management partners. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 5, 2012 Page 4 Waldhauser asked Globus if he has built other projects like the one being proposed. Globus said no, but his architect, Tushie Montgomery Architects, is very well versed in this type af product. Cera asked Globus if he has had a meeting with the neighborhood. Globus said yes, they have had a meeting with the neighborhood. Hogeboom added that having a neighborhood meeting is a requirement of the PUD application process. Cera asked about the issues raised at the neighborhood meeting. Globus said that traffic was the main concern he heard. He reiterated that this current proposal will have significantly less traffic than what has been proposed in the past and that this proposed use is one of the iowest traffic generating uses allowed in the Mixed Use zoning district. Waldhauser asked if the senior building will have any independent living units. Globus said all the units will be memory care units. McCarty asked when the senior building would be constructed. Globus said the senior building will probably be built at the same time as the first phase of the apartment building. Kluchka asked Globus to explain the reasoning of the placement of the buildings on the plan. He asked if the building location could be adjusted so 300 cars aren't going against the back fence (along the north side of the site) twice a day. Globus referred to the site plan and explained what the traffic patterns might be. He stated that some of the traffic will likely use the alley access to the west of the site. Kluchka referred to the location of the garage entrance and stated that a lot of the traffic will be on the east side of the property with virtually none on the west. He suggested that the location of the buildings be flipped to minimize trips. Cera questioned if the elevations of the site would be an issue. Globus stated that part of the design is dictated by emergency vehicle access. Grimes asked for an explanation regarding the landscaping and fence along the north side of the property. Gary Tushie, Tushie Montgomery Architects, explained that the view to downtown is the reason the apartment building was pushed toward the east af the site. He also noted that seniors typically like an "activity view" so having the senior building on the west portion of the site works for that. He referred to the landscaping plan and explained that they are proposing to have a 25 to 40 foot wide buffer along the north property line which is much larger than in previous plans. He added that there would also be landscaping installed on both sides of the fence. Cera stated that the garage entrance lights will be a problem because light would still shine through the buffer area. He agreed the garage entrance could be located elsewhere. Tushie noted that the proposed fence will be made of a solid material. John Bender, MFRA, Engineer for the Globus, explained that it would be difficult to change the location of the garage entrance because there is an 11-foot grade difference so the garage entrance as proposed on the east allows for a safer entrance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 5, 2012 Page 5 Kisch asked about the number of parking spaces per unit proposed far both buildings and asked the applicant what their market studies have shown regarding parking. He stated that he calculated the amount of parking to be 1.7 spaces per unit and suggested that the applicant might be able to reduce the amount of parking. Tushie stated that the market will dictate 1 parking space per unit inside and '/z of a parking space outside for the apartment building and the senior building will have approximately 74 parking spaces. Kisch asked about the staff to patient ratio. Tushie clarified that the overall parking ratio is 1.32 parking spaces per unit. Mark Applebaum, part of the Globus team, representing the senior living building, said the assumption is that nobody in the senior living building will have a car so staff would use the underground parking spaces and visitors would use the surface spaces. Waldhauser asked if it is common to have two adults living in a unit where one of them may have a car or be more independent. Applebaum said the residents will primarily be memory care and assisted living residents. However, it is possible that a spouse could live in the apartment building, but not in the senior building. Grimes added that the amount of parking proposed in this project seems to work well in other buildings similar to this. Kisch asked again if there would be any room in the plans to take out some of the proposed parking spaces. Tushie said that can't lose any spaces inside because they are currently at the minimum amount. Kisch suggested removing 33 surface parking spaces on the eastern portion of the property which would allow for a 40-foot buffer area forthe residents to north. Grimes stated that the circulation patterns have to be maintained for emergency vehicle access. He suggested that the applicant could possibly show proof of parking, but he is comfortable with the parking as it has been proposed. Waldhauser asked if the driveway will be 20 feet side. Tushie stated that they are still working with the Fire Department on that issue. Kluchka encouraged the applicant to consider moving the garage entrance to the west side of the building since this plan is still a concept plan. Tushie agreed that they would continue to look at options in order to have cars not driving along the fence south of the homes on Circle Down. Waldhauser asked the applicant if he had pictures of the elevations of the neighboring properties. Tushie said he did not have pictures and explained that the grade change varies from 2 feet to 6 feet along the north. He also explained the location and height of the proposed retaining walL Waldhauser asked if the 75 feet of height includes the parapet. Tushie said no. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Shelley Maasch, 5011 Circle Down, stated that there is a significant portion of the building that is 6 staries in the 3-story zone. She showed a picture of a 6-story building behind a Chili's restaurant to illustrate the height. She said that they are going to lose their privacy and the proposed buildings will only be 120 to 130 feet away from her property. She said Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 5, 2012 Page 6 she would like to see a transitional height because the proposed buildings seem too tall to be that close to single family residential properties. She said there should also be more than one access point and there is something wrong about having so many cars enter and exit at the same point. Harold Berman, 601 Radisson Road, stated that he has a storm sewer pipe in the back of his property and on occasion has had storm water "geyser up" out of his yard. He asked if there is a way to mitigate some of the storm water drainage. John Sonsalla, 5301 Circle Down, said this proposal will add 2,299 trips per day and he thinks that is asking a lot of the residents who live on Circle Down. He said traffic is already bad and this is asking for a lot af firouble. He stated that the entrance is right next door to him, 20 feet away from his house and suggested the applicant retain the angled driveway that currently exists. He said there will be a lot of added noise and he already hears noise from the Mayfair Apartments. He said he is concerned about snowplows running for three to four hours at night and two years of construction also concerns him. He said he thinks there will need to be a lot of soil remediation done which will be noisy and shake his house. He said this project is toa big for this area. Mike Iwan, 5020 Circle Down, said this project is too big for the neighboring properties, too big for the infrastructure in the area and too big according to his interpretation of the zoning ordinances. He gave the Planning Commissioners a letter stating his concerns. He asked staff where in the City Code they are getting the parking requirements because he read in the City Code that the requirement is 2.0 spaces per unit. Hogeboom explained that the parking requirements recently changed and that he would make sure the City's web site is updated. He added that PUDs are allowed to vary from the requirements in the City Code. Iwan said this project is overbuilt for the space and they don't have enough parking spaces to support the size of building they are proposing. He stated that it is also his interpretation that one-third ta one-half of their building is closer than allowed to the single family residential houses to the north. He said the proposal is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and that there is nothing "mixed use" about this project. He added that he is not opposed to development on this site; he is opposed to this development. Jane Gjerstad, 5420 Circle Down, said she already has issues getting in and out of her driveway. She said she's had people pull out around her and make a right turn in front of her so adding 2200 cars to Circle Down is unreasonable to the neighborhood. She said she doesn't understand what the applicant is thinking because this project is way too big. Dan Goldman, 5307 & 5311 Circle Down, Mayfair Apartments owner, talked about the history of the property in this area and explained that in the mid-1960s the area was zoned for multiple-family housing because apartments are a good buffer from the highway. He stated that MnDOT, after constructing I-394, left a weird shaped piece of land that is very difficult to build on and he knows what the applicant has gone through in designing this proposed project in order to appease staff. He said he thinks apartments are the best thing to be built on this property and will provide the best buffer between 1-394 and the houses to the north and that an office or retail use would not be a good fit. He urged the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the proposaL Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 5, 2012 Page 7 David Webb, 541 p Wayzata Blvd, referred to the impervious surface on the property and stated that the applicant is counting 8.2% of the green roof area as pervious space. He read the definition of impervious surface and the definition of a structure. He asked how the 1 to 1 credit far the pervious surface space is decided upon. He asked if the 20-foot requirement for emergency aceess has been addressed. He referred to Section 11.55, Subd. 7(B) in the City Code and noted that it states that hardcover surfaces for a PUD are not to exceed 42% for apartments and condominiums. He asked why the proposal is using the 65% impervious threshold as stated in the Mixed-Use section of City Code instead of the 42% threshold mentioned in the PUD section of City Code. He added that the PUD section of City Code also states that the PUD section will apply to all Planned Unit Developments. He read the definition of a "lot" where it states that all lots shall have frontage on an improved public street and said that two of the lots in the proposal don't have street frontage. He referred to the staff report which stated that buildings over three-stories in height do not have to be mixed use and said he cauldn'fi find where in the City Code it states that. He referred to the City Code regarding the heights allowed in the Mixed Use Zoning District and said 25 feet of the building is in the three story district. Jeff Vaala, 5320 Circle Down, said his driveway is directly across from the current apartment entrance. He said is concerned about funneling the traffic dawn Circle Down and non-stap lights flashing on his house at all times. He said it baffles his mind that the entrance to this proposed apartment complex is on Circle Down. He stated that the home at the end of the street is a home for autistic kids so to have more cars going by that property isn't a good idea. It seems more logical to him to have the entrance on Turners Crossroad and funnel traffic into that entrance instead of Circle Down. He said it doesn't make sense to access this through a cul-de-sac of 24 homes and until they can figure out a better access this project doesn't make sense. Dale Falk, 5100 Circle Down, referred to the developer stating that people in assisted living don't drive vehicles. He said his parents just got out of 10 years of living in an assisted living facility in Columbia Heights where there was a 6-month wait to get a space in the parking garage and the exterior parking lat was completely full. In his experience there was considerable traffic going in and out his parent's facility and the applicant is absolutely false in saying the senior residents won't be driving. H� added that due to the height of the building the neighbors will also lose a considerable amount of sunlight in the winter. He stated that there have been considerable problems with water in the area and that pilings will be needed. He questioned if the applicant will be dewatering the property and who will pay for the six or seven homes that will probably be damaged. He referred to Mr. Goldman's camment that an apartment building will be a wonderful buffer for the neighborhood but he thinks the trees that are there now are a sufficient buffer. He said it is interesting to him that the applicant has said he has no experience building this type of project. Laura Itman, 5300 Circle Down, referred to the Excelsior and Grand apartment project in St. Louis Park and stated that they didn't even build those buildings 6 stories tall. She said there is no way their street can handle this amount of traffic and this project is not feasible. She pleaded with the Planning Commission not to let this happen at this scale. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 5, 2012 Page 8 Doug Wageman, 5400 Circle Down, said he is not opposed to the development but he would push to use the alley as the main access for safety reasons. He said he undersfiands the alley isn't currently wide enough, but somehow it could be made to be the primary access. Meg Schauer, 5210 Circle Down, asked if the City has ever considered the differences in mixed use. She said that a medical clinic, a bank or a retail use would be less intrusive to the neighborhood because they have different hours of operation. She referred to busses that come down the street and said that the street is so narrow that people have to stop for the busses for safety reasons but also more traffic will interfere with the busses because they pick up kids at 8:10 or 8:15 am. She referred to the autistic group home mentioned earlier and stated that they will not adjust well to the lights and noise. She added that she also has a grandmother that drives a lot and �ives in an assisted living building. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked for clarification regarding the zoning district height requirements of 3 stories versus 6 stories. Hogeboom explained that the southern portion of the site, where the building would be constructed allows buildings to be 6 stories in height. The northern part of the site, allows 3 stories in height because it borders single family residential properties. Kluchka asked about the storm water management issues. Oliver stated that the storm sewer in the area was upgraded as part of the 2011 Pavement Management Project however, in spite of the increased capacity there are still some concerns that will need to be addressed. Cera asked about the issue of the 65% versus 42% impervious surface. Grimes explained that the Mixed Used zoning district allows a maximum impervious surface coverage of 65% and the PUD section of the Zoning Code states that impervious surface is expected not to exceed 42%. Waldhauser asked if the proposed green roof was included in the calculations. Hogeboom stated that the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission would also be reviewing the plans. Kluchka referred to the traffic study and asked staff about how the traffic in this proposal will work, Grimes explained that the City looks at the traffic generation and the impact on local streets and in this case the impact to the Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive intersection because there is a capacity issue at that intersection. He stated that Golden Valley has a commitment with MnDOT and the City of St. Louis Park regarding projects that would over- strain the I-394/Xenia Avenue intersection. Oliver stated that the traffic study laoked at the intersections along the Xenia Avenue corridor and for compliance with the I-394 Overlay District requirements. He explained that based on the trips generated for this site, as well as potential developments at the Colonnade site and the former Olympic Printing site, all of the intersections in the study area operate at an acceptable level and traffic management plans will not be required. City Traffic Engineer Ray reiterated that the key intersection is Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive because with Allianz and the Colonnade building it is a busy intersection that per the I-394 Overlay District cannot be compromised by the surrounding development. He stated that previaus designs for this site which included medical uses and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 5, 2012 Page 9 office uses, created peak hour traffic similar to the uses in the area that would not be consistent with the requirements in the I-394 Overlay District. He added that there are proposals to do some re-striping of the lanes on Golden Hills Drive to create a center turn lane in order to help the drivers turning into and out of the office buildings. Kluchka said he is looking at seven houses that will be amazingly impacted by 335 cars in the morning and again at night. He asked how, with a narrowed street, those trips will be okay. Ray stated that it will be residential traffic with morning and afternaon trips, similar to the current traffic pattern. He said the proposed development will increase traffic volumes. However, there are a number of residential streets in the City that experience the same amount of traffic with the same width of 26 feet and Circle Down can handle the capacity functionally from an operational standpoint. Waldhauser asked if the existing alley could be used as the main entrance. Oliver showed the Commissioners a map and photos of the alley area. He stated traffic issues could be created because the alley isn't wide enough at 28 feet to handle utilities, snow storage and turning movements. Kluchka questioned if the applicant has worked with the alley's owner on solutions so it could be used as the entrance. McCarty stated that the proposed building is a 308 unit apartment building, not 335 units. There is going to be a vacancy rate also, so there will be fewer than 335 cars. They will also have different jobs at different times during the day so the trips won't all occur at 8 am and 6 pm, they will be staggered. Grimes added that part of the reason the applicant likes this site is its proximity to jobs and good bus service and people can walk and bike to work. Kluchka asked for clarificatian on how the site is using the Mixed Use overlay. Hogeboom referred to his staff report and said it should be corrected to state that a multiple dwelling of three or more units, not three stories, can be in a stand-alone building. Grimes said he also feels that the senior assisted living building is very different than the apartment building and is considered to be mixed use. Waldhauser noted that since the City did the I-394 Corridor study the market for what was envisioned at that time has changed and that the ideal mixed use doesn't always work. Kisch asked the applicant if they have worked with the owner of the alley to potentially widen it and use it as their main entrance. Globus said they have discussed many plans with the adjacent property owner a number of times over the past years to no avail. Grimes added that the City has also looked at this site and the access to this site for a number of years and has not be able to reach an acceptable agreement with the owner of the af the former �olden Hills Shopping Center to expand public access to the subject site. Kluchka asked if purchasing some of the homes on Circle Down has been discussed in order to mitigate the impact of the traffic. Globus said there is not enough margin in this type of project to start acquiring property. Grimes reiterated that Circle Down is a local street and this proposal will require that Circle Down carry more traffic than it does today, but it isn't beyond what a local street can carry. He reiterated that similar traffic has worked in other locations and he is confident it will function acceptably. Waldhauser said she thinks the concern isn't if the street can handle the traffic it is a livability issue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 5, 2012 Page 10 Waldhauser asked how the shadowing would change if the buildings were five stories. Tushie said the shadows wouldn't change at all and that the existing Metropolitan building already shadows the homes to the north. Cera suggested the project might be more palatable if it were smaller. Globus said he understands the concerns but he has also heard from people who like the proposed design and it will serve the needs of the City, seniors and people who aren't looking for a single family home. He said if they reduce the buildings by one floor, the development couldn't work. Tushie referred to a site plan and showed that the entire building, with the exception of one corner "point intrusion" meets the 75-foot setback requirement. Kisch referred to the north line of the alley easement and said some of the bump-outs of the building are in the setback area. Tushie noted that the decks "bump ouY' and that he would be happy to take another look at the plans. Tushie also noted that there are 563 total parking spaces so they are proposing 27 more spaces than required. Grimes stated the Planning Commission and City Council have designated this location on the Comprehensive Plan for higher density development. He said this is a unique property and he thinks there is justification for doing a PUD for this project. He added that this is the kind of housing Golden Valley needs and it is a balance between new and existing neighbors. McCarty asked if there is a reason the existing, angled entrance can't be used. Tushie said he doesn't think staff wants the entrance to be angled like it currently exists; they want it to be straightened out for safety reasons. McCarty agreed but said keeping it at an angle would move the driveway away from the neighboring house. Kisch said his biggest concern is the access to the site. He said he wants to know why the driveway can't angle to an intersection with Circle Down and he would like that option to be further explored. He said he wauld also like continued exploration of interior vehicle circulation and would like the parking count firmed up. He would also suggest clarification that no portian of the 6-story building falls within the 3-story zone. He would alsa like explaration to be done on the "point intrusion" and he would like the final building materials subject to review during the final plan process. MOVED by Schmidgall to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD request with Kisch's recommendations. Cera seconded the motion and asked that exploration regarding the circulation include reevaluating the location of the garage entrance. Waldhauser said she would not be in favor of requiring the developer to look at the "point intrusion" encroachment. She said it is a tight space and an oddly shaped property and resolving that encroachment would not substantially affect the neighbor's concerns. McCarty agreed. Kluchka said because this is at the concept stage he would like it to keep going through the process, but he wants the items discussed to be strong recommendations. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 5, 2012 Page 11 After discussion, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to recommend approval of Preliminary PUD Plan for The 3.9.4 Apartments—PU-112 subject to following conditions and findings: Conditions 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated Qctober 1, 2012, shall become part of this approval. 3. The recommendatians and requirements outlined in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated October 30, 2012, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The City Attorney shall determine if a park dedication fee is required for this project prior to Final PUD approval. 5. All signs on the property shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 6. This approval is subject to all ather state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 7. The applicant shall further explore the option of an angled driveway entrance to the site from Circle Down. 8. The applicant shall further explore the interior vehicle circulation of the site. 9. The applicant shall confirm the number of parking stalls proposed for the entire site. 10. The applicant shall further explore options for the location of the garage entrance. Findinqs 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. Efficient— Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all ather PUD ordinance provisions. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 5, 2012 Page 12 3. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — Glenwood Avenue and Harold Avenue — Olin Woods — SU17-10 Applicant: Dr. Paul Olin Addresses: Lot 1, Block 1 Olin Addition and Lot 1, Block 1 Fahrendorff Addition (Glenwood Avenue and Harold Avenue) Purpose: To allow for the reconfiguration of two existing single family residential lots into three new single family residential lots. Grimes stated that the applicant lives at 6900 Harold Avenue and is proposing to subdivide the two properties to the south of 6900 Harold Avenue into three single family lots. All three new Iots would exceed the minimum lot size requirements however two of the lots would not meet the minimum lot width requirement. The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum lot width requirement because he would like all of the lots to have access on Harold Avenue. He stated that Harold Avenue is a very large cul-de-sac and can support three driveways. Also, the City and the County wauld prefer that there not be driveway access on Glenwood. Dr. Olin included a conforming plan showing three lots that would meet the minimum lot width requirement of 80 feet. However one of these lots had access on Glenwood Avenue. Waldhauser clarified that the conforming option doesn't need variances, but the City and County don't prefer that option. Grimes said that is correct and added that one of the conditions of approval of the proposed option would be not to allow a driveway on Glenwood Ave. Waldhauser stated that there would be no variance issues if the property was divided into two lots instead of three. McCarty referred to the proposed site plan and asked if the jog in the property line is okay and if Lot 3 wauld be able to meet all of the setback requirements. Cera said the lots could be made wider. He added that this is a difficult situation because the need for the variance is being created by the landowner. McCarty agreed and noted that economic difficulties do not constitute a hardship and the situation regarding the hardship is created by the landowner in this case. Peter Knaeble, Terra Engineering, representing the applicant, referred to the proposed ptat and explained that the lot widths wouldn't change even if they added property from a fourth lot. It would make the lots more uniform, but it would not make them wider due to the curve along the Harold Ave. cul-de-sac. He said they would agree to subdivide the property either way, they just think it is better to have all of the driveways have access on Harold Ave. instead of having one of the driveways on Glenwood Ave. He added that the fiourth lot is also a man-made wetland area. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 5, 2012 Page 13 Kisch asked if Hennepin County would grant a driveway access on Glenwood Ave. Grimes said the County would probably have to grant access on Glenwood Ave, but he thinks they would want to avoid having a driveway in that location. Cera said he thinks the Planning Commission should have a discussion about how to handle these types of subdivision requests that ask for variances. Grimes agreed but noted that this is a unique property. Kisch asked where the walkway easement would be located. Knaeble concurred with the recommendation for the walkway easement and said it would be added to the final plat. Grimes noted that the walkway easement will overlap a utility easement. Kisch suggested expanding the walkway easement so the sidewalk doesn't go right up to the edge of the setback line. Crimes explained that there will be approximately 25 feet of width in which to install a 6-foot wide sidewalk. McCarty said he is having a difficult time finding a hardship for this proposal. Kisch said he thinks the County's preference for the location of the driveway access and the shape of the properties are driving this proposed lot configuration. McCarty reiterated that the property owner is creating the hardship. Waldhauser said she is in favor of the proposal and thinks it is a good infill development that is good for the City and that granting the variance from the lot width requirement is not detrimental in this case. Cera suggested that there is a safety hardship in this case because it will be safer not to have a driveway on Glenwaod Ave. McCarty reiterated that the applicant could split the property into two lots. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried 4 to 2 to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision with the lot width variance as requested with the conditions and findings below. Commissioners McCarty and Cera voted no. Conditions 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. A park dedication fee of $$50 shall be paid before final plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated October 26, 2012 shall become part of this approval including no driveways to the rear of the lots from Glenwaod Ave. 4. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that will include issues found in the City Engineer's memorandum. 5. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 6. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the subdivision variance allowing Lots 1 and 2 to be narrower at the front setback line from Harold Ave. Findinqs 1. The proposed Lot 1 measures 62.6 feet in width along Harold Ave. front setback line. 2. The proposed Lot 2 measures 66.6 feet in width along the Harold Ave. front setback line. 3. Section 12.20, Subdivision 5(A) of City Code requires that interior lots measure at least 80 feet in width along the front setback lines. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 5, 2Q12 Page 14 4. Reducing the lot width requirement eliminates the construction of a driveway on to a minor arterial street that carries 12,000 trips per day (Co. Rd. 40 or Glenwood Ave.) In addition, the driveway to the conforming lot on Glenwood would be located on a curve near the intersection with Harold Ave. and near the intersection with TH 55. Both the County Public Works staff and City Public Works staff recommend against additional driveways on Glenwood Ave. when there are other alternatives. 5. Furthermore, Section 12.54 (Subdivision Chapter) states that the Gity Council may grant a variance if findings are made on all of three conditions. These three conditions are as follows with the recommended findings: 1. There are special circumstances for conditions affecting said property so that the strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would create an unusual hardship and deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his land. Economic difficulty or inconvenience shall not constitute a hardship situation for the purpose of this ordinance. Finding: If the plan with three conforming lots were approved, one of the lots would have driveway access from Glenwood Ave. on a curve. This creates an unsafe condition for the location of a house. The location of this lot at this curve is a special circumstance and creates an unusual hardship for the sale and occupancy of the lot. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. Finding: Without the variance, any sale of the lot with a driveway access on a curve of Glenwood Ave. would be much less likely and reduce the owner's ability to sell the property in manner consistent with the General Land Use Plan for the City. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which said property is situated. Finding: If there was a lot constructed on the curve of Glenwood Ave., this could be considered a detriment to the public welfare and injurious to other property in the area. If the variance was granted to allow the three lots to come off the cul-de-sac, this would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. This street has adequate capacity to handle three additional driveways and 30 additional trips per day (approximately 10 trips for single family home). 6. The propased variance is consistent with the other land uses in the area and that the Olin Woods plans with three driveways on to Harold Ave. is in the public interest in order to reduce traffic conflicts and safety. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 5. Other Business No other business was discussed. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:11 pm. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 5, 2012 Page 15 David A. Cera, Secretary