01-10-11 PC MinutesRegular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 10, 2011
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,
January 10, 2011. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Schmidgall, Segelbaum and
Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City
Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners
Kluchka and McCarty were absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
December 13, 2010 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Eck noted several typographical errors.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the
December 13, 2010 minutes with the above noted corrections.
2. Informal Public Hearing -Minor Subdivision - 240 Jersey Ave N - SU17-09
Applicant: Lakewest Maki, LLC -Curt Fretham
Address: 240 Jersey Ave N
Purpose: The applicant is proposing to create two new lots for the
construction of one new home.
Hogeboom stated that since the hearing notices were mailed and the agenda packet was
sent out the applicant has changed his proposal slightly. He distributed a copy of the
proposed new plat and explained that the east/west property line has been redrawn to be
straight across instead of angled. The applicant is also proposing to demolish the existing
home and garage and construct two new homes, rather than allowing the existing house to
remain as stated on the hearing notice and the agenda. Hogeboom stated that staff feels
that straightening out the property line between the proposed new lots is the preferred way
to draw property lines in order to accommodate utilities and reduce the need for
easements. He referred to City Engineer Jeff Oliver's staff report and noted that since the
property line will be straight across the lots the condition of requiring a private easement
for utilities no longer applies. Hogeboom noted that both lots will be 10, 974 square feet in
size and both lots will meet all of the City's requirements, therefore staff is recommending
approval of this subdivision request.
Segelbaum asked who owns the property. Hogeboom stated that the applicant is in the
process of purchasing the property and will own it before final plat approval.
Cera asked about the age of the existing home. Hogeboom said he didn't know.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 10, 2011
Page 2
Eck asked if the subdivision is approved and the existing home was not removed if it
would meet setback requirements. Hogeboom stated that the existing home would not
meet the side yard setback requirements with the proposed new lot line configuration.
Grimes stated that a condition could be added by the City Council requiring that the
existing home be removed before final plat approval.
Martin Campion, Campion Engineering Services, representing the applicant, stated that
the closing for this property is scheduled for January 28, 2011. At that point, Lakewest
Maki, LLC will be the property owner. He referred to the suggestion regarding removal of
the existing house prior to final plat approval. He said he would prefer that the condition
state that the house and garage will be removed before building permit approval because
the. final plat will be filed at the County in February so there won't be enough time to
remove the house and garage before final plat approval.
Cera explained that the City can't approve a plat that would create anon-conforming
situation. Grimes said he would speak with the City Attorney regarding the existing house
being removed. Campion stated their intent is to remove the house and garage at the
same time.
Cera asked why the plans changed from the original submittal. Campion explained that
they have a potential buyer who would like to build a new house on the lot where the
existing house is currently located. Cera asked if the house will be demolished or moved.
Campion said at this point they are planning on demolishing it.
Segelbaum asked the applicant how their plans would be impacted if the sale of the
property falls through. Campion reiterated that their intent at this point is to go through with
the plans to remove the house.
Waldhauser opened the public hearing.
Joanne Marben, 220 Jersey Avenue North, asked how big the new homes will be.
Waldhauser said that probably hasn't been determined yet, but any new construction will
have to be built per the requirements of the Zoning Code. Marben asked if both of the
entrances to the properties would be on Jersey Ave. Waldhauser said yes.
Steve Mickelson, 6809 Glenwood Avenue, asked if there is any chance to sell the lot "as
is". He asked if anything can be done, or if this public hearing is just a matter of law and if
the proposal meets the requirements, the property can be developed. He asked if any
consideration will be given to the oak trees on the property. Waldhauser explained that the
City asks developers to consider certain things but if a proposal meets all of the City's
requirements it is difficult to deny a subdivision proposal. Eck added that it is in the
developer's best interest to keep as many trees as possible.
Mickelson asked what would happen if the developers want to get a variance. Waldhauser
explained that there is a variance process. Since this proposal deals with new construction
she doesn't think there would be any basis to grant any variances.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 10, 2011
Page 3
Mickelson noted that the hearing notice he received said the existing house would remain.
Hogeboom reiterated that the applicant's proposal changed after the hearing notices were
already mailed. He explained that an updated hearing notice will be mailed prior to the City
Council hearing on this proposal
Waldhauser asked the applicant if the trees on the site have been identified. Campion said
the trees have been identified but he is not sure at this point which ones will be removed.
He reiterated that the trees are valuable to the lot and they want to keep as many as
possible. Schmidgall referred to the tree preservation ordinance which requires the
replacement of trees if they're removed. Grimes discussed the tree preservation process
and noted that a significant number of tress will be preserved in this case. He stated that
he realizes this type of proposal is frustrating for neighbors because they are invited to a
public hearing for an item that is basically administrative because it meets all of the City's
requirements. Waldhauser agreed and added that it is good for the developer and City to
know the neighbor's concerns.
Hearing and seeing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public
hearing.
Schmidgall said he is not comfortable leaving the existing home out of conformance once
the subdivision is approved. Cera said the Planning Commission needs to consider this
subdivision as if the house and garage are being removed and the City Council can put
further conditions on their approval if they wish. He said he wanted it noted that the
hearing notice that was mailed for this item is not what the Planning Commission
discussed because the notice said the house is going to remain when it is not. Segelbaum
said he likes the new proposal because better homes will be built on both lots. Eck added
that there is no legal basis to deny this request.
Waldhauser suggested a condition be added that states prior to final plat approval, all
existing structures shall be removed.
MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the proposed minor subdivision at 240 Jersey Avenue North subject to
following conditions:
1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final
plat.
2. The City Engineer's memo, dated December 29, 2010, will become part of this approval.
3. A park dedication fee in the amount of $1,400 shall be paid by the applicant prior to final
plat approval.
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 memo dated December 29, 2010.
5. .All applicable City permits must be obtained prior to the development of the new lots.
6. Prior to final plat approval, all existing structures shall be removed.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 10, 2011
Page 4
3. Informal Public Hearing -Property Rezonings - 8805, 8905, 9191 and 9393
Wayzata Blvd from Industrial to Commercial and 5075 Wayzata Blvd and
1400, 1500 Highway 100 South from Commercial to Business and
Professional Offices
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Addresses: 8805, 8905, 9191, 9393 and 5075 Wayzata Blvd and 1400, 1500
Highway 100 South
Purpose: To bring the properties into conformance with the recently updated
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
Hogeboom reminded the Commissioners that the Metropolitan Council recently approved
the City's Comprehensive Plan update. As part of the update process, state statute
requires that the Zoning Map match the Comprehensive Plan's General Land Use Plan
Map. He explained that the City Council has decided they would like to proceed with the
rezoning process starting with areas that don't involve residential properties.
Hogeboom referred to the General Land Use Plan Map and pointed out the area at the
southeast intersection of I-394 and TH-169 (8805, 8905, 9191 and 9393 Wayzata Blvd). He
explained that these properties are currently zoned Industrial and consist of auto
dealerships and auto related uses. In order to match the General Land Use Plan Map the
City is proposing to rezone these properties to Commercial. Rezoning these properties will
not make the uses become non-conforming because both the Industrial zoning district and
the Commercial zoning district require a Conditional Use Permit for auto uses.
Hogeboom noted that the other area being discussed at this meeting is the area west of
Highway 100, south of I-394 (5075 Wayzata Blvd and 1400, 1500 Highway 100 South).
This is the area that will be used for the parking ramp for the West End office
development proposed by Duke Realty. The property is currently zoned Commercial and
the City is proposing to rezone it to Business and Professional Offices (BPO) to better
match Duke's proposed office use and the General Land Use Plan map. He stated that
Duke has expressed concern about the proposed rezoning because the Commercial
zoning district allows for astand-alone parking structure whereas the BPO district
requires that a parking ramp be an accessory use to a business or office located on the
same parcel. He stated that staff is recommending that the public hearing regarding the
rezoning of this area be tabled to a future Planning Commission meeting in order to allow
the City Attorney and staff more time for further study.
Cera asked how St. Louis Park has the West End office property zoned. Hogeboom said
the. office tower is part of the West End PUD but the underlying zoning is office. He added
that traffic analysis has shown that an office use would work better than a commercial use
in this area.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 10, 2011
Page 5
Segelbaum referred to the BPO zoning district and asked if a building and parking structure
have to be physically connected. Hogeboom said a building and parking structure need to
be on the same lot, but they don't have to be connected.
Grimes said the City is looking at potential future developments for this area when
considering the zoning. He explained that if something changes with Duke's plans to
develop the area as an office use and the area is zoned Commercial, then anything
allowed in the Commercial zoning district could be built.
Segelbaum said rezoning the properties to BPO could limit Duke and questioned if the City
wants this land to sit vacant for several years. Schmidgall said that the Commercial zoning
district seems more flexible. Waldhauser said they also need to look at what is most
advantageous for the City. Grimes noted that offices are also allowed in the Commercial
zoning district but at this point the City feels rezoning the properties to BPO is best, with the
understanding that the properties could be rezoned and the General Land Use Plan Map
could be re-guided in the future.
Waldhauser suggested separating the two areas when making a motion.
Waldhauser opened the public hearing, seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Waldhauser closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table the
proposed rezoning for the properties located at 5075 Wayzata Blvd and 1400, 1500
Highway 100 South from Commercial to Business and Professional Offices.
Waldhauser referred to the other properties on the agenda (8805, 8905, 9191, 9393 and
5075 Wayzata Blvd) and asked if they remained Industrial if they would have to be rezoned
if the auto dealers sold their properties in the future. Hogeboom explained that another auto
dealer could apply for a Conditional Use Permit if the properties remained Industrial, but
leaving the properties zoned Industrial is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan designation
for that area.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of rezoning the properties located at 8805, 8905, 9191, 9393 and 5075 Wayzata
Blvd from Industrial to Commercial.
--Short Recess--
5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Waldhauser said she attended the January 4, 2011 City Council where the Menards
PUD amendment was approved. She stated that the issues of snow storage and
requiring Menards to submit a parking plan were discussed.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 10, 2011
Page 6
6. Other Business
a. Planning Commission Representative to the Golden Valley 125th
Anniversary Planning Team
Hogeboom reminded the Commissioners that the 125th Anniversary Planning Team
is looking for volunteers to serve on their team.
Waldhauser referred to the Planning Commission work plan she has been working
on and distributed a list of potential items she would like the Planning Commission
to review including meeting with the City Attorney to discuss the Commissioners
role, ethics in planning, communication between commissioners, and reviewing the
MnAPA Citizen Planner Handbook.
Hogeboom discussed some of the upcoming items that the Planning Commission
will be reviewing including several property rezonings due to the Comprehensive
Plan Update, the Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives, the Douglas
Drive moratorium study and Complete Streets.
Grimes suggested that the Planning Commission have a workshop/meeting with the
City Council to discuss potential issues that the Planning Commission could review.
He also suggested having discussions about tree preservation and water quality
issues. Segelbaum suggested having a basic review of what uses are allowed in
various zoning districts.
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 pm.
I, r
Les r Eck, cre ary