Loading...
05-10-99 PC Agenda . . e AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, May 10,1999 7pm I. Approval of Minutes - April 12 and 19, 1999 II. Election of Officers III. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision Applicant: Howard Gilbert Address: 6909 Olympia Street and 1525 Jersey Avenue North Request: The subdivision will reconfigure the existing two lots by adjusting the location of the property line between the two lots. - - - - - - - - Break - - - - - - .. - IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority , City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals V. Workshop - Transportation Plan and Wastewater Plan VI. Other Business VII. Adjournment . Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon . the Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. With the completion of the informal public hearing(s) there will be a short recess before the commission continues with the remainder of the agenda. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff. Commission members may ask questions of staff. : 2. The proponent will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the Commission. 3. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit. for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. e 4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record; 5. Direct your questions/comments to th~ Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. e > . , . e e Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 12, 1999 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, April 12, 1999. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Martens, McAleese and Shaffer. Absent were: Kapsner and Johnson. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, and Tammi Hall, Recording Secretary. I. ADDroval of Minutes - March 15 and March 22. 1999 MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the March 15, 1999 minutes as submitted. MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the March 22, 1999 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearina - Minor Subdivision (Lot Consolidation) Applicant: Dan Otten Address: Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Val-Wood Second Addition (Winnetka Avenue) Purpose: To review a request for a minor subdivision (lot consolidation) of two existing sub-standard lots (7 and 8) into a single lot. Knoblauch stated that the subject property consists of two vacant lots, one 65 feet wide and the other only 35 feet wide, located just north of Olympia Avenue. She indicated the owner wants to consolidate the properties into a single, 1 OO-foot wide lot for residential home construction. Knoblauch said the larger of the two existing lots, while it could not be created today, would be considered a "grandfathered~ situation for construction purposes and could be developed for use by itself as long as the house meets all setback requirements. She stated that the smaller lot was originally intended to be a street right-of-way in accordance with a master thoroughfare plan dating back to the 1940s. City records show that the street was determined to be unnecessary shortly before the plat of the area was approved in the 1950s. There is no recorded explanation of why the extra footage was not simply incorporated within the limits of the adjacent lot. Knoblauch stated that a 35-foot wide lot is unprecedented for stand-alone I . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 2 e construction purposes in Golden Valley and that the property has value only if used in combination with an adjacent home site. Knoblauch reviewed the considerations for approving or denying minor subdivisions. She indicated that the lot meets all the requirements. She stated that staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision .subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall reflect standard easements along property lines and such additional easements as the City Engineer may find desirable for public purposes. 2. Final platapproval shall be withheld until receipt of comments from Hennepin County and compliance with any applicable conditions listed therein. Commissioner Shaffer stated that there is an overhead electrical line on the north side of the smaller lot. He asked if there is an easement for the line. Knoblauch responded that at the time this addition was platted it would not be unusual if there were no easement. She indicated it is possible the utility company has an easement. She stated that the City would automatically include a six-foot easement but an additional easement would be necessary if the line is outside of the standard easement. Knoblauch indicated she would be certain the proper easement was included. Walter Gregory was present to represent the applicant, Dan Otten. He indicated the e applicant would like to combine the two lots and sell them. He requested the approval of the Commission. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. There were no comments from the public. Pentel closed the informal public hearing. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Martens and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed minor subdivision as requested. III. Informal Public Hearina - Conditional Use Permit - Home OccuDation Applicant: James Lester Address: 1645 North Lilac Drive Purpose: To allow for the operation of an existing engraving business at 1645 North Lilac Drive, as a home occupation with a conditional use permit e e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 3 Grimes stated that Jim and Bev Lester have applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that would allow them to operate a home occupation in a new home that they would be constructing this summer at 1645 North Lilac Drive. He stated that the new home would be located directly to the west of their existing home that would be purchased by MnDOT for the widening of Highway 100. Grimes indicated that the new home would be primarily located on the rear of their existing lot. He said in order to get the required minimum lot size for a new lot, MnDOT has agreed to sell the Lesters a small portion of the property to the south that MnDOT now owns. In order to create this new lot for the Lesters, MnDOT and the Lesters will be coming to the City for a subdivision in the next few months. However, the Lesters wish to build the new home only if they get the CUP for the home occupation. Grimes indicated that the Lesters have operated an engraving business in their home since it was built 43 years ago. He stated that this type of home occupation was not permitted 43 years ago, but somehow the Lesters began their business and have operated it with no complaints from adjoining property owners or the City since 1956. Grimes said that in 1985 the City added a Home Occupation section to the residential section of the Zoning Code. He indicated that this section lists those businesses that are permitted and prohibited. He indicated that the code states that if a home occupation is not specifically permitted or prohibited, persons may apply for a conditional use permit to operate. Grimes referenced the comments in his memorandum in regard to the thirteen requirements for home occupations and his analysis of the ten factors required by the Planning Commission for any CUP. He indicated that the proposed home occupation appears to meet all thirteen requirements outlined in the Zoning Code. He said he had visited the Lester's home and from the outside, you are not aware that the house is used for a business. He indicated a couple of rooms in the basement are used for the business and that the operation is very neat and orderly. He stated that the engraving business does not appear to have any greater impact on the area than any of the other home occupations that are permitted by the code. He indicated that although the use of the existing business is non- conforming, the Lesters have a track record of operating a quiet and safe business that has little or no negative impact on the area. He stated that staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. The conditional use permit shall be valid for only as long as Mr. and Mrs. Lester own the property. 2. Only the occupants of the home shall work in the business. 3. There shall be no signage other than that permitted in the residential zoning district. 4. The home occupation shall not take up more than 600 square feet of floor space on the lower level of the house. There shall be no use of the garage or Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 4 accessory building for the home occupation. There shall be no outside storage related to the home occupation. 5. Any clients coming to the business shall park in the driveway and not on the street. 6. Deliveries and client trips shall be limited to the hours between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 7. No products shall be sold from the house. 8. No more than eight client trips shall be generated in a day. No more than two clients shall be on the property at one time. 9. The required City platting process must create a new lot for the house. . . Chair Pentel asked if the first condition should indicate that the CUP would be valid for as long as Mr. and Mrs. Lester own and occupy the property. Grimes responded that the wording would be reviewed by the City Attorney. . Commissioner Martens asked if there would be a sound wall bordering Highway 100 where there are residential properties. Grimes stated that current plans include a sound wall where there are residential properties, but it has not been determined if there will be a sound wall in front of businesses. Commissioner Martens asked if the seventh condition was appropriate. He asked if it should refer specifically to conducting a retail type business from the home. Grimes responded that this condition was taken directly from the Zoning Code. He indicated he would review the wording with the City Attorney.. Commissioner Shaffer asked if the new house would have a 51. Croix address. Grimes stated the Lesters would have to deal with the City Inspection Department to determine their new address. Chair Pentel asked if the proposed lot would be conforming. Grimes responded that the lot is proposed to be conforming. He indicated that the house would face St. Croix which would generally mean it would have a St. Croix address. He indicated that the address is mainly a concern in regard to public safety issues. e e James and Beverly Lester, 1645 Lilac Drive were present. They stated that they have a service business. Mr. Lester indicated that they receive most of their jobs via fax, have approximately one or two UPS-type deliveries per week and have less traffic generated by clients than a typical two-car family. The Lesters provided Commission members with samples of their work. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 5 Commissioner Groger asked the Lesters if they had any concerns with the approval conditions suggested by staff. Mrs. Lester responded that they had no concerns with the conditions. She indicated that they plan to retire, but would like to continue working for approximately five more years. Mrs. Lester also stated that when the business was started they had checked with the City to see if there were any requirements regarding home occupations. She stated that the City had informed them that they could not have any signage for the business. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Wernes Gibson of 5615 St. Croix Avenue stated that the Lester's business has been no problem in the neighborhood and that he would like to see it approved to allow them to continue their livelihood. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a home occupation at the Lester's proposed home as requested. e IV. Informal Public Hearino - Preliminary Desion Plan - General Mills Addition. P.U.D. No. 83 Applicant: General Mills, Inc. Address: 9000 Plymouth Avenue North Purpose: Review of the Preliminary Design Plan for P.U.D. No. 83 - that would allow for more than one building on a lot. This would allow General Mills to construct an addition onto the east side of the existing main campus building. Grimes stated that General Mills (GM) has applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to allow an expansion of the main office/research building on their James Ford Bell (JFB) Technical Center Campus. He indicated the construction would consist of a 50-70,000 square foot three- or four-story building addition which will include both office and conference space. He added that GM is also planning to add about 490 parking spaces of which 400 are to be "proof of parking" spaces. Grimes stated that the Zoning Code permits only one principal structure on each lot. He indicated that the only way that the addition may be permitted is to go through the PUD procedure that permits more than one prinCipal structure on a lot. He stated that previous City staff had interpreted the code differently, since additions have been e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 6 constructed on this site in the past without going through the PUD process. Grimes stated that it qualifies as a PUD and the information submitted by GM is adequate. Grimes stated that the City had received some calls from residents when they received notice from the City regarding the GM proposal. He indicated that most of the callers were concerned that development was to occur on the northern portion of the site. He said a second notice was sent to clarify the proposal. He stated that the north half of the 11 O-acre site is undeveloped with the exception of a system of walking trails and some limited storage material by GM. Grimes commented that this portion of the site would remain undeveloped. He told the commission the City has an agreement with GM which permits public use of the trails, and, in return, the City maintains the trails. Grimes stated that there are several issues which the Commission should address in consideration of the PUD. He said the proposed site plan indicates that the parking area along the west side is to be extended to Olympia Street, maintaining the same setback as the existing parking area (25 feet). The current front yard setback requirement for industrial areas across from a residential zoning district is 75 feet. Grimes stated that if the City would permit the extension of the parking to within 25 feet from Flag Avenue, staff would suggest that ~ six-foot high opaque fence, landscape screen or combination of berm and landscape screen be constructed along Flag Avenue south of Olympia where it does not now exist. Grimes also stated that there is a traffic issue to be considered. He indicated that the primary access to the site is from Plymouth Road, but there is a second access to the site from Boone Avenue, near Mandan. Grimes indicated that GM has done some monitoring of the access and concluded that it currently averages two to three trips per hour using this access point. Grimes indicated that the access point must remain for emergency vehicles. He stated that some neighbors have indicated that they do not feel the access point is a problem in regard to traffic. Grimes said there is currently no storm water ponding on this site. He added that as part of the PUD, GM would be required to create a storm water pond. He said the site plan includes two potential locations for ponds on the site which would cover storm water retention for the entire site. Grimes stated that there is also concern regarding the visual effect on the area. He indicated that GM has not determined if the addition would be three or four stories. Grimes stated that due to the location of the addition, in relation to the existing building and the tree cover along Boone Avenue, the addition should not have a significant visual impact on the surrounding residential area. . e e Martens asked if the additional parking was required by th$ City. Grimes stated that GM is planning to add approximately 30 spaces for visitor parking. and another 70 e. e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 7 spaces north of the existing parking area. He said GM needed some additional spaces due to the conference facilities that would be included in the addition. He indicated that GM does not anticipate that the number of employees at the site would be increasing. Grimes stated that the area of 70 parking spaces is the lot that does not comply with the existing setback requirement along Flag Avenue. Pentel stated that the additional 70 parking spaces could be moved and constructed in the proposed proof of parking area to eliminate the creation of additional spaces in the setback along Flag Avenue. Pentel asked about the staff recommendation regarding park dedication. Grimes responded that he would like to discuss this issue with the City Attorney before making a recommendation. e Todd Messerli of HGA Architects, architect for the General Mills project, was present. He stated that the main building on the site was built in 1960 as a research facility and office space. He indicated that the last addition was built in 1984. He stated that in the last few years office space has taken over lab space. Messerli indicated that the proposed addition would include 20-40,000 square feet of office space and other public space. He stated that the new east entrance would be primarily a visitor entrance. He indicated that the goal is to separate visitor traffic from the rest of the facility. In regard to parking, Messerli stated that GM does not want to eliminate trees to build parking that they do not need. He said there are currently approximately 800 employees at this site. He added that approximately 60 employees from this site would be moving to the new buiiding on General Mills Boulevard when it is complete. He stated that employee traffic should be focused on the west side. Messerli told the commission the design of the addition is intended to fill in the existing wings. He said the proposed structure would be brick and glass and similar in appearance to the rest of the building. Messerli stated that GM held a neighborhood meeting on April 8th to discuss the proposed plan. He said the main issues raised by neighbors were traffic, screening and elimination of parking on Mandan by some GM vendors. He stated that GM would be addressing these issues and considering additional landscaping to improve screening. He added that much of the discussion centered on the trails on the north end of the site. He stated that, other than storm water pond development, no development is being proposed for the north end of the property. Pentel asked if the landscape plan for this project would go before the Building Board of Review. Grimes responded that the Board would be reviewing this project.. e Groger asked about the size of the conference facilities proposed for the site and the number of visitors GM anticipates will be using the conference facilities. Messerli Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 8 responded that the conference facilities will primarily serve the on site population. He stated that he would estimate 20 to 30 employees from other sites coming to the conference facilities at anyone time. He indicated that there would be some smaller conference facilities and one larger facility that will seat 500. e Messerli stated that the north building would be used as swing space during the construction. After completion of the new addition it may be turned into warehouse space or possibly razed. Martens asked if GM feels it needs the additional 70 parking spaces. Messerli responded that the additional parking spaces were added to ensure that there is never any parking on the street. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Jill Clark, 2005 Aquila Avenue North, asked about the construction of storm water ponds in the north end of the property. Messerli identified the proposed locations for storm water ponds. Clark asked if the entire property is owned by GM. Messerli said it was. Clark asked if it includes any federally protected wetlands. Messerli responded that there is an area of federally protected wetland on the north end of the site. Clark also stated that the first mailing was unclear in regard to GM's proposal and that she e had not received a second mailing. John Orndorf, 1346 Boone Avenue North, indicated that his home would be directly affected by this project. He stated that he was very concerned with the parking area proposed for the east side and the additional traffic it will generate. He stated that at the neighborhood meeting it was indicated that the addition was to include a fitness center that had not been mentioned by Mr. Messerli in his presentation. He stated that the neighbors had requested that GM construct a sound barrier. He also stated that he felt the proposal was somewhat vague and that he would like to see it better developed before it was approved. Pentel asked Mr. Orndorf if he would like to see additional landscaping. Mr. Orndorf responded that he would like to have a sound barrier constructed and possibly fewer parking spaces included in the final plan. He requested that the Commission not recommend approval of the plan as proposed. Pentel asked if the 30 parking spaces on the east side meet minimum setback requirements. . Grimes responded that the parking spaces on the east side are set back more than 75 feet. He stated that the 75-foot setback was created by City Council to deal with industrial areas located adjacent to residential areas. e e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 9 William Birnow, 1355 Mandan Avenue North, stated that he had attended the neighborhood meeting on April 8th. He indicated that he was concerned with the potential for additional employees at the site and the increased traffic and use of the access off Boone Avenue that this may generate. He stated that after hearing Mr. Messerli's presentation he was less concerned with the potential for increased traffic created by additional employees. However, he stated that GM is building a new facility on General Mills Boulevard that is to house 300 employees. He expressed concern regarding potential traffic between the two buildings and asked if the City had considered the possible impact on traffic between 394 and 55, as well as the area north of 55, that this building may create. Grimes responded that the proJ:lerty on General Mills Boulevard was zoned correctly for the GM project and that it was not necessary for GM to obtain City approval to construct this building. He stated that some improvements have been made north of 55, including a signal at Boone and 10th to improve safety and alleviate congestion. Birnow stated that GM is expanding a commercial building in a residential area. He indicated that he is concerned about the impact on peak hour traffic now and in the future. Grimes stated that the memo from the City Engineer expressed concern regarding the eastern access point and that the Commission should review this issue. Birnow indicated that when they purchased their home they were told that the access was for . emergency use. He stated that he is concerned it will become more heavily used in the future and expressed concern in general regarding the potential for increased traffic between GM facilities. Knoblauch stated that Mr. Birnow's comments regarding traffic in the City could be considered further when the Commission reviews the City's long range transportation plan in the next few months. Messerli stated that there is currently a fitness center at the facility. He indicated that the proposed development does not include the addition of any functions or facilities that are not currently on the premises. Pentel asked if employees from other sites would be coming to use the facilities at this site. Messerli responded that all of these facilities are available at each site so employees use the facilities at the site where they work. Pentel asked about official directions to the facmty. Messerli responded that official directions would direct people to the main entrance. Martens asked if the emergency access could be closed off or gated so that it could not be used by general traffic. Messerli responded that this would not be a problem for GM. Grimes stated that the access is necessary for emergency vehicles, but certain conditions regarding the access could be included in the PUD. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 10 e Pentel asked if construction could be limited to certain hours to avoid potential noise problems for the residential area. Grimes responded that the normal limits for construction are between 7a.m. and 10p.m. Groger asked if a decision had been made as to whether the building would be three or four stories. Messerli responded that the existing building is a three-story building with a mechanical penthouse on top. He stated that the relative size of the building is not . expected to change but a final determination regarding the number of stories had not been made. Messerli said if there is a fourth story it would' be a mechanical penthouse. Bob Wingness, 2140 Aquila Avenue North, stated that as a real estate appraiser he views the potential increased traffic on Mandan as having a negative impact on property values. However, he said that the negative impact is somewhat offset by the positive impact of the presence of the wild life area with trails located on the north end of the GM site. Knoblauch stated that the City has an agreement with GM which allows public use of the trails on the north end of their property. She added that this agreement has been in place for at least fifteen to twenty years, but GM can terminate it with a 30-day notice. Grimes stated that there are wetland areas on the property and that it may be difficult to develop. However, he indicated that it is zoned industrial which would permit GM to build on this property. e Richard Simmons, 1508 Boone Avenue North, asked about the timeframe for the project and where the construction traffic will be routed. He stated the count of two to three cars per hour using the access off Boone may be correct if averaged throughout the day, but usage is concentrated during rush hour. In reference to consideration of additional landscaping, Mr. Simmons suggested that the barbed wire fence be removed and some additional landscaping be done around accessory structures. He also stated that the second letter he had received from the City regarding the project referenced an agreement between the City and GM. He asked about the specifics of the agreement. Grimes responded that the agreement is for the use and maintenance of the trails. Messerli stated that construction is anticipated to start in June or July and last for approximately twelve months in total. He stated that after November most of the construction would occur inside. He indicated that construction traffic would be directed to use the main entrance. Pentel asked if GM would be open to additional landscaping around accessory structures. Messerli responded that GM would be willing to work with the City. Andrew Geier, 1800 Independence Avenue North, expressed concern over the additional traffic that may be generated. He questioned the need for 100 additional parking spaces if there will be no additional employees at the site. He also stated that e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 11 the trail area contains large piles of branches and other organic materials. Grimes responded that the trail area is the property of GM and they can use it as they wish. He stated that the City would probably not take any action regarding piles of branches unless they were visible from the street. He stated there would be limits prohibiting dumping of hazardous materials. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel stated that she would prefer to see the additional parking built in the north area rather than along Flag Avenue. Groger agreed that there is no need to build additional parking in the setback when there is so much space available on the property. Groger asked about the distance between the eastern edge of the property and the building. Grimes responded that it is approximately 200 feet. Groger stated that this side of the property is fairly heavily wooded. He said he did not have a problem with the thirty parking spaces proposed for the east side. Grimes stated that the Commission could recommend that the PUD include a condition that if traffic becomes a problem they will work with the City to limit use of the access off Boone Avenue. Pentel suggested that the permit include the condition that additional coniferous e screening be added along the buildings on the east side. Pentel suggested that extension of the parking lot along Flag Avenue be eliminated. She suggested the 70 parking spaces be attached to the northeast corner of the additional parking. Messerli asked if they could move the parking closer due to the possibility of razing the north wing. Pentel responded that they should locate the parking area so it does not go into the setback. It was also suggested that staff resolve the park dedication issue prior to the general plan approval. Pentel asked if the PUD should require additional signage directing people to the main entrance. Grimes responded that GM has done a good job with signage in the past. He indicated that internally they could include "authorized vehicles only" signage at the Boone Avenue access point to discourage people from using it as an exit. Chair Pentel commended General Mills for conducting neighborhood meetings. Groger stated that some of the issues that were raised by the neighbors, such as landscaping around outbuildings and dumping of branches, are areas outside the control of the Planning Commission. He stated that GM should be made aware that these issues were raised. e ... ,~. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 12 . McAleese stated that there is a large number of parking spaces that are proof of parking. He asked if staff feels this would be adequate if the building was entirely office space. Grimes responded that if, at some point in the future, the building were converted to entirely office spaces, 1200 parking spaces would not be adequate. He stated that the buildings are approximately 500,000 square feet which, under current code, would require 2000 parking spaces. However, Grimes stated that this is a PUD so any changes require approval by the City Council, ensuring City input on future modifications. Martens asked what would happen if GM sold the building. Knoblauch responded that if the buyer met all the terms of the existing permit they would not have to come back to the City. However, she indicated that if they started converting space they would be required to comeback to the City for approval. McAleese expressed concern regarding the access point off Boone Avenue and the long term ramifications on traffic. He stated that the agreement should include something more concise regarding the level of traffic at which the City has a right to impose a change. Grimes responded that he would discuss the specific language with the City Attorney. Martens suggested that this access be designated for emergency purposes only. He indicated that it could be enforced at the discretion of the City. Pentel asked if there would be any benefit for GM to plat the property in three lots, with _ one lot consisting of the northerly trail area. Knoblauch responded that since the long . term -use is so uncertain they may end up re-platting. Grimes stated that there would also be a problem with public access if this area were a separate lot. McAleese also concurred with the resident who had stated that the plan was too vague and should be further developed before it is recommended for approval. He stated that the general plan will be approved later and that it is much more well-defined by the time it reaches this point. He indicated that generally the plan improves as it goes through the process so that the final product is better than the preliminary proposal reviewed by the Commission. McAleese stated that there should be some sort of park dedication and that he would like to see a memorandum in the record. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for the General Mills Addition, PUD No 83 subject to the follpwing conditions: 1. All recommendations of the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, to Director Grimes, dated April 6, 1999 become a part of the approval. e . e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 13 2. The access point from Boone Avenue be designated for emergency vehicles only and be enforced at the discretion of the City. 3. The parking lot along Flag Avenue will not be extended to contain an additional 70 spaces. The additional 70 spaces will be moved to another location within the setback. 4. Up to 400 parking spaces may be "proof-of-parking". These parking spaces shall be constructed when the Director of Planning and Development deems they are necessary to meet increased parking demand on the site. 5. The vacant area of the site north of Olympia Street may be used for City trails as per the agreement between the City and GM. A civil defense siren is also permitted on this property as per the agreement between the City and GM. Future development of the north area shall be limited to those uses permitted in the Light Industrial zoning district. All future development is subject to an amended PUD. 6. After the General Plan of development is approved, GM will be required to submit a plat of the property, which shall show all necessary street dedications and easements as required by the City Engineer. 7. The office addition of 50-70,000 sq.ft. may be either three- or four-stories excluding any mechanical space on the roof. 8. Additional coniferous screening will be added along the buildings on the east side. 9. Staff will resolve the park dedication issue prior to general plan approval. v. ReDorts on Meetinas of the Housina and RedeveloDment Authority. City Council and Board of Zonina ADDeals McAleese reported on the public hearing for the tree preservation ordinance and the erosion control ordinance. He indicated that the erosion control ordinance had been re- written to include the recommendations of the Commission. He stated that there were not a lot. of changes to the tree preservation ordinance but it was presented with the . recommendation of the Commission that it be implemented administratively rather than as an ordinance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 12, 1999 Page 14 Pentel reported on meeting with school officials for preliminary discussions on potential uses for the building/addition to be constructed on the newly acquired property next to Meadowbrook. VI. Other Business Knoblauch reported that the official City Web site would be operational in June. Grimes stated that the agenda for May 10 would include an informal public hearing on the surface water management plan and an informal public hearing on the land use plan. VII. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:15pm. Emilie Johnson, Secretary . . . ';"", ~ . ~ , ~ .- e Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 19, 1999 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, April 19, 1999. The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Johnson at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Martens and McAleese. Absent were Chair Pentel and Commissioner Shaffer. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Tammi Hall, Recording Secretary. Lester Eck was also in attendance. I. Approval of Minutes - April 12, 1999 The minutes of April 12, 1999 had not yet been distributed to the Commission for review. They will be considered for approval at the next meeting. II. Informal Public Hearing - Draft - Surface Water Manaaement Plan e Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works, AI Lundstrom, Environmental Technician, and Dave Nyberg of HR Green Consulting Engineers were present for the informal public hearing on the draft Surface Water Management Plan. Public Works Director Clancy provided brief background information on the draft plan. She stated that the City has been working with HR Green Consulting Engineers to develop the plan. She indicated that there has been a great deal of citizen input through a citizens group that was formed particularly to review Chapter Three of the plan. She stated that the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, the Metropolitan Council, school districts and surrounding communities have all received copies of the plan. She requested the Commission recommend that the plan be approved by the City Council with the stipulations set forth by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission and the Metropolitan Council in their review letters. Dave Nyberg of HR Green Consulting Engineers provided a brief overview of the plan and summarized the revisions requested by the Planning Commission. He stated that the plan contains two sections. The first section deals with policy and the second contains the technical data. He stated that most of the changes requested by the Commission were in Chapter Three. He added that the majority of the recommendations of the SWAMP Committee and the input from City staff was also in e regard to Chapter Three. -, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 19, 1999 Page 2 . Nyberg briefly reviewed some of the specific changes made in response to the Commission's comments. He indicated that, in Chapter Two under existing programs, the shoreland zone was added to the exhibit. He stated that some of the priorities were changed in the implementation plan, including changing the public education program to a first year priority to reflect that this program will be implemented this year. Nyberg indicated that the changes recommended in the review letters from the Metropolitan Council and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission have not yet been incorporated into the plan but they will be included before the plan is reviewed by the City Council. Nyberg stated that the only municipal response to the plan that may result in possible minor change has been from the City of St. Louis Park. He indicated that they would like to review the peak flows that go across the corporate boundary to make sure our plan is in agreement with the City of St. Louis Park plan. Nyberg indicated that, at this point, the City plan is not required to meet the standards defined for second generation plans by the Metropolitan Council. However, he stated that once the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission does a second generation plan, the City will be required to meet these standards. He indicated that, since the second generation plan will probably be done by the Bassett Creek e Watershed District in the next few years, it would be best to adhere to these standards now rather than having to revise the plan again in a short time. Nyberg stated that the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission highlighted some issues in regard to permitting, level three vs. level two for the stream, floodplain management, and some better referencing of the Surface Water Management Committee report. Nyberg indicated that the exhibits have also been updated to reflect recent development. Commissioner Kapsner asked what is done with the sediment that is removed from storm water ponds during maintenance. Lundstrom indicated that the sediment is temporarily stored on City property and is eventually used for fill on construction sites. He stated that it is not considered a contaminated material. Commissioner Martens asked how many storm water ponds are publicly owned versus privately owned. He questioned if there is any process for enforcing maintenance on privately owned ponds. Clancy responded that the Bassett Creek Watershed District requires the City to have easements and maintenance agreements on privately owned storm water retention ponds. Martens questioned how the retrofitting program e ~ e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 19, 1999 Page 3 discussed on page 3.4 will be implemented in regard to privately owned ponds. Nyberg stated that the Capital Improvement Program outlines specific storm water ponds that are targeted for the retrofitting program. He indicated that those targeted for the program tend to be regional-type ponds. Nyberg stated that private ponds in older developments do not have maintenance agreements. Lundstrom stated that the maintenance agreement requires an annual inspection by the City. Grimes stated that if the inspection indicates that maintenance is needed, the maintenance agreements require the property owner to complete the necessary maintenance. Grimes added that there are also many City-owned ponds which are maintained by the City. Commissioner Johnson opened the informal public hearing. There were no comments from the public. Johnson closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner McAleese noted that in Section 5.D-lmplementation Priorities, page 5-1 under section 5.1 refers to a tree preservation ordinance. He stated that, since the Commission did not recommend approval of the tree preservation ordinance, this item should refer to a tree preservation program. Commissioner Groger added that this would also apply to the table under 5.2. Commissioner Groger asked about the changes that were made to the erosion control ordinance as a result of the comments by the Planning Commission. Lundstrom stated that the scope of the ordinance was changed to address activities requiring a building permit that would cause an adjustment in the foundation of a structure. Grimes stated that there may be some activities within this criteria that still would not need an erosion control plan. He stated that this will be left to the discretion of the City Engineer. Groger indicated that he felt this flexibility in the ordinance was beneficial. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the Surface Water Management Plan subject to the changes recommended by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission and the Metropolitan Council and the change in reference to the tree preservation program as discussed above. III. Informal Public Hearina - Draft - General Land Use Plan Update and Related Technical Backaround Document Knoblauch provided brief background on the General Land Use Plan. She indicated that the last land use plan was adopted in 1982. She stated that the core of the plan is an existing land use map, a long-term land use plan map, and a set of goal, policy, and objective statements outlining how the City will approach land use and development matters over time. She stated that the plan includes five goals which must be \ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 19, 1999 Page 4 . considered in light of potentially conflicting interests on several fronts. She reviewed the areas where the City must seek a balance between these conflicting interests: balancing different uses, balancing quality and diversity, balancing existing development and redevelopment, balancing natural and man-made environments, and balancing local and regional interests. Knoblauch stated that the land use objectives included in the plan provide a list of specific tasks that the City will undertake. She stated that the policies section provides direction for future decision-making. Knoblauch then reviewed the proposed land use plan map. She stated that the proposed map is larger and uses more colors than the previous map. She indicated that the final map will be computer generated. It will also reflect separate color codes for open water and wetlands. She indicated that this will result in some alteration of the colors used on this draft. The following land use categories are used: residential-low density, residential-medium density, residential-high density, office, commercial, light industrial, industrial, open space-public and private, schools and religious facilities, public facilities-miscellaneous, and semi-public facilities-miscellaneous. Knoblauch reviewed the areas that have been revised on the map. She indicated that the changes fall into five categories. She stated that the majority of the changes fall into the first three categories which are basic administrative changes, as follows: A · individual property changes that have been approved but were not recorded . on the old map · reclassification of all institutional properties since they were grouped differently in 1982 · incorrect classification of some institutional properties due to the combination of color and pattern screens used in the previous map Knoblauch indicated that the fourth category includes changes in the three redevelopment areas: Valley Square, North Wirth and Golden Hills. Knoblauch stated that the fifth category covers the miscellaneous properties that have been changed on the new map. She indicated that the majority of these are City- owned properties. She also indicated that some of the properties included in this category had zoning changes that were never reflected in the comprehensive plan. Johnson indicated it would be helpful if a broader range of colors could be used on the map since some of the colors are very difficult to differentiate. Knoblauch responded that the colors will be altered for the final version. Commissioner Johnson opened the informal public hearing. There were no comments from the public. Johnson closed the informal public hearing. e e e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 19, 1999 Page 5 McAleese stated, that for those who may be watching the hearing on cable, the lack of discussion by Commission members should not be interpreted as a lack of interest in these documents. He stated that both of these plans are important items for the City and that the Commission has been reviewing and discussing them over the past y.ear. Martens indicated that the plan referred to the possibility of separating zoning changes from comprehensive plan changes. Knoblauch responded that the plan does not recommend that this be changed, but recommends that the City will review the issue to see if it should be changed. Martens stated that he felt they should not be separated since this may tend to lengthen the process for zoning changes. MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the general land use plan update and the related technical background document. Grimes commended Knoblauch for her efforts on this plan. IV. Reports on Meetinas of the Housina and RedeveloDment Authority. City Council and Board of Zonina ADDeals McAleese indicated that the City Council will be reviewing the erosion control ordinance and the tree preservation program at their meeting on April 20. Grimes stated that there will be a meeting next week regarding the Area B redevelopment plan. Grimes also stated that there will be a meeting on April 27th to review the City's progress in meeting the goals of the housing plan. He indicated there will be future meetings of the Planning Commission and the Human Rights Commission to address the housing plan. V. Other Business There was no other business. VI. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Emilie Johnson, Secretary e MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: MAY 6,1999 Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing on Minor Subdivision of Two Parcels -- 6909 Olympia and 1525 Jersey (Legally described as Lots 59 and 60 and the easterly 25 ft. of Lot 58, Belmont Addition; and the northerly 23 ft. of Lots 133 and 134, Belmont Addition) -- Howard Gilbert, applicant e Description and History Howard Gilbert has requested a minor subdivision of the two subject parcels at the comer of Jersey and Olympia. The purpose of the minor subdivision is to move the property line between the two parcels 10 feet to the south. The owner of the south lot has agreed to the minor subdivision to create this new property line. A waiver of the platting created these two parcels in 1978. Prior to that time, there was one house on the properties that are legally described in the subject heading. That house was located at 1535 Jersey Avenue. This house was tom down in 1986 and replaced with a new house the same year which is addressed 1525 Jersey. (In 1986, Mr.. Gilbert purchased the property from the owner after the house was tom down and built a new house for his mother and sister. In 1998, Mr. Gilbert sold this house to Mr. and Mrs. Cams.) The existing north lot was created in 1978 in order that Mr. Gilbert could build his home at 6909 Olympia. The City approved the creation of these two lots by a waiver of the platting code. This waiver allowed the Gilbert (north) lot to have less than the required width of 80 feet and less than the required area of 10,000 sq.ft. (The lot is 74 feet wide along Jersey and only 9,400 sq.ft. in area.) The south lot has 91 feet of frontage on Jersey and is 10,800 sq.ft. in area. In .1986, the house on the south lot was in poor condition and was demolished by the owner, Rudy Marti. Mr. Marti must have reached an agreement with Mr. Gilbert to sell the south lot to him in order that the existing house at 1525 Jersey could be built. This house was completed in 1987. When Mr. Gilbert built the house in 1987, he discussed with the Building Department his desire to move the property line between the two lots 10 feet to the south. This would have increased the width of the north lot to 84 feet and decreased the width of the south lot to 81 feet. It would have also made the north lot about 10,650 sq.ft. in area and the south lot about 9,550 sq.ft. in area. Mr. Gilbert wanted to move the property line to the south because he had very little e e yard space to the south of his home. (Mr. Gilbert did receive a variance for the south (rear) setback to build the 6909 Olympia house to within about 11.6 feet of the property line. In 1983, the BZA granted a second variance to Mr. Gilbert to expand the garage to within 11.6 feet of the west or side property line.) Mr. Gilbert did not go through the proper procedure to change the property line in 1987. He only presented a survey to the Building Department showing the proposed property line. Since the new home proposed by Mr. Gilbert met the setback requirement forthe way the existing lots are configured, the City did not require any property line changes. Mr. Gilbert is now ready to move from his existing home at 6909 Olympia. His new buyer (who happens to be a real estate attorney) noticed that the legal description of the 6909 Olympia property is only 74 feet wide since proper action was not taken to move the property line to the south in 1987. Mr. Gilbert now wants to go through the proper minor subdivision procedure to move the property line. The Cams family that purchased the 1525 Jersey property in 1998 from Mr. Gilbert understood in 1998 that the lot they were purchasing from Mr. Gilbert was intended to be 81 feet wide and 9,500 sq.ft. in area. Therefore, the Cams family is agreeing to be a part of the minor subdivision. Qualification as a Minor Subdivision e This two-lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property is part of an existing recorded plat, creates fewer than four lots and does not create the need for any additional public improvements. Mr. Gilbert has submitted the required information to the City, which allows for the subdivision to be evaluated as a minor subdivision. Conditions for Approval or Denial There are several conditions that the City must consider when evaluating the proposed minor subdivision. Those that are pertinent to this subdivision are listed below with staff comments: 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the existing zoning district. In this case, each of the lots does not meet the requirements for lots in the Residential zoning districts. Therefore, a variance from these conditions will have to be approved by the City Council. The proposed north lot does not meet the current requirement that comer lot be at least 100 ft. in width. (The requirement for additional width for comer lots was added to the Code in the mid-1980's. The Zoning Code requires that alll.ots be at least 80 ft. wide and that comer lots be 100 ft. wide.) The north lot as proposed by Mr. Gilbert will exceed the 10,OOO-sq. ft. minimum lot size. The proposed south lot meets the required 80-ft. lot width but is only 9,550 sq.ft. in area. e 2 e The change that is proposed by this minor subdivision is fairly neutral when taking the Zoning Code into consideration. The north lot does become wider and closer to the required lot width of 100 ft. This lot would also now exceed the 10,000 sq.ft. lot minimum. However, it does reduce the size of the south lot to slightly less than the required 10,000 sq. ft. The lot line change would make the existing 6909 Olympia house conforming as to the side or south setback. The house is currently 11.6 feet from the south property line when 15 feet is required. A variance for this setback was approved prior to the construction of the house in 1978. The house at 1525 Jersey Avenue will meet the setback requirement from the proposed new lot line. Because the City did approve the waiver of the platting for the creation of the two existing lots in 1978 and this property line change is neutral in its effect on the requirements in the Zoning Code; a variance does seem in order. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not buildable. In this case the lots are already built upon so this would not be a reason for denial. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there is not sewer and water connections available. In this case the houses are both served by City sewer and water. e 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the City. The final plat would show all necessary easements as required by the City Engineer. 5. If public agencies other than the City have juriSdiction in the minor subdivision, the agencies will be given an opportunity to comment. In this case, no other agencies have any jurisdiction. 6. This City may ask for a review of title if required by the City Attorney due to dedication of certain easements. 7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication. The policy of the City has been that there will be no park dedication required if the new subdivision does not create any new lots for development. Variance request As stated above, the approval of this minor subdivision shall require a variance to the Subdivision Code. The Subdivision Code states that the Council may grant variances as long as there is a finding that the following conditions are met: e 1. There are special circumstances for conditions affecting said property so that the strict application of the provision of the Subdivision Code would create an 3 . unusual hardship and deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Economic difficulty or inconvenience shall not constitute a hardship situation for the purpose of this Code. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 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. Recommended Action e The staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision and the variances needed to permit the two non-standard lots. In effect, this is an existing situation and the proposed minor subdivision only makes the existing situation legal. As stated in the memo, the two lots that are created are both non-conforming. However, the new lots area now more equal in area and width. The comer lot will become 84 feet wide rather than the existing 74 feet, which is quite narrow for a comer lot. The additional width for the north or comer lot will also nullify the existing variance the existing house has from the south property line. (The existing variance allows the house to be 11.6 feet from the property line, which is less than the required 15 feet. The new lot line will make the house conforming to the south lot line because it will be over 21 feet.) Attachments: . Location Map . Survey . Preliminary Plat e 4 .. ... Of Of.! o \'I 'lll' ,'.41 'Or/. :t: . c ,ff 3~ 6'( V~t.-'" ".:. ":: G~~O(fI ~ p,.p.K .. ~ .... ~ I:) -.j . I:) ... Subject Properties 6909 Olympia St. & 1525 Jersey Ave. H. Gilbert, Applicant ~