Loading...
09-26-94 PC Agenda I i . e e AGE N D A ------ GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers September 26, 1994 7:00 PM I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 12, 1994 II. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Applicant: Thomas Ryan Address: Area North of 1-394 Between Sumter Avenue South and Rhode Island Avenue South Request: Amend Comprehensive Plan Map from low density residential to office use III. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - Rezoning Applicant: Thomas Ryan Address: Area North of 1-394 Between Sumter Avenue South and Rhode Island Avenue South Request: Rezone area from Residential to Business and Professional Office (B&PO) IV. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - Minor Subdivision Applicant: Thomas Ryan Address: Area North of 1-394 Between Sumter Avenue South and Rhode Island Avenue South Request: .1 'I I Consolidation of several existing residential lots and pieces of lots into a single new nonresidential lot V. BRAINSTORMING VI. REPORTS ON MEETINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL AND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ',j VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT :1 :-i I I - _____________ ____J II ! 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 recomnend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Commission's determination of whether the pro- posed 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 recommenda- tion. 1n reaching its decision. 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 recommenda- tion from staff. Commission members may ask questions of staff. 2. The proponent will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the Commission. ,I 3. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by railing 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 pertod of time for. questions/comments. 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 the Chair. The Chair will deter- mine 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 " 'I I I ,I e MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION . September 12, 1994 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chair McAleese at 7:04 PM. Those present were Commissioners Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, and Pentel; absent were Groger and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Elizabeth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - July 25, 1994 MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to approve the July 25, 1994 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment No.1 To Dahlberg Commerce Center, P.U.D. No. 61 Applicant: Grow Biz International Address: 4200 Dahlberg Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota e Request: Amend Dahlberg Commerce Center, P.U.D. No. 61 to allow for more office space and create additional parking due to the growth of the business. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, reviewed his report with the Planning Commission commenting that the permitted use of the building located at 4200 Dahlberg Drive (address of 4101 Dahlberg Drive, which is found on the P.U.D. Permit, is from the application filled out by Dahlberg, Inc.) is office, manufacturing, and warehouse. Grow Biz International is asking to have the per- mit amended so the permitted use for the building could be entirely office which would house their headquarters and training center. Marlys Enger, Director of Administrative Services, was present to answer questions. She talked about the franchise trainees arriving at the training center by taxi or van. Ms. Enger commented on the parking status stating that parking is adequate at this time; the stalls to the west of the building are not being used. She also pointed out on the site plan an area north of the building where additional parking can be created. Mr. Grimes commented that Grow Biz owns the adjacent property to the north of the Grow Biz building. Staff is not requiring Grow Biz to build the parking lot at this time but must show, through the "Proof of Parking" method, that the area meets parking code requirements. Mr. Grimes also stated that the P.U.D. Permit would be amended indicating that parking would have to go in when determined, at e the sole discretion of the City, that it is needed. . e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 12, 1994 Page Two Commissioner Pentel is concerned about the close proximity of the proposed Hennepin County bike trail to the proposed parking lot. Staff and the Commis- sion briefly talked about setbacks for the parking area along the proposed bike trail. Chair McAleese opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one Chair McAleese closed the informal public hearing. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval to amend Dahlberg Commerce Center, P.U.D. No. 61 to allow the building to be used 100% for office use and for the creation of addi- tional parking (at the sole discretion of the City) due to the growth of the business. III. Reports on Meetings of the Housinf and Redevelopment Authority, City .Council and Board of Zoning Appea s Mark Grimes reviewed meetings that he had attended. IV. Other Business No other business was presented. V. Adjournment Chair McAleese adjourned the meeting at 7:45 PM. Jean Lewis, Secretary Page Three ~ Finally, there are a variety of objectives and policies in the housing element of the comprehensive plan that relate to affordable housing. The subject pro- perty is clearly not one of Golden Valley's most choice home sites: there is highway noise, and there are nonresidential uses across the street. On the other hand, the neighborhood is stable and the existing housing is in the affor- dable range. Within the past year, at least one developer of modest cost homes approached the property owner with an offer to buy the land at its residentially appraised value. It may be necessary for the City to put some time and/or money into any proposal for truly affordable homes (staff worked with the previous developer to obtain a $100,000 grant, and the developer was also hoping to use CDBG funds to get utilities extended to the lots), but there is interest in using sites like this for modest cost single family homes. ~ Potential for Amending to Office Designation The small size of the subject property also played a role in the City Council's 1985 denial of the change to office use. This is not an isolated, improperly designated "pocket" already surrounded by nonresidential uses. It is, as pre- viously noted, part of a clearly defined city block that today is given over entirely to single family residential use. The block, in turn, is part of an established residential neighborhood. Office buildings are often cited as good "buffer uses" between houses and more intensive uses or high traffic areas. Given the dimensions and elevation of the subject property, the scale of office building that could be accommodated there is not likely to serve the intended purpose. One of the abutting house- holds could hope at best to be no worse off than with the existing vacant lot. The other would gain a paved parking lot next door in addition to the highway beyond. . If the existing lots are combined, the subject property does meet the minimum size requirements for office development in Golden Valley, but only barely. With 35-foot street setbacks on three sides and a 50-foot setback from the homes to the north, plus the irregular lot shape, the property can support only a marginally sized building. The 1985 proposal was for about 15,000 sq.ft. of office space, but that required some of the parking to be located underneath the building, which increases construction costs. The current proposal shows a building of just under 10,000 sq. ft. Smaller office buildings like this really depend on access and visibility to be marketable. The subject property does not offer either characteristic to any great extent. The frontage road, as already noted, is only six blocks long and most of it is adjacent to residential uses. To reach the site from either of the nearest 1-394 interchanges takes a certain amount of effort. The grade difference between 1-394 and the subject property plus the clutter of over- passes, highway signage, and adjacent business signage, leaves little opportun- ity for the site to make a significant visual impression on highway motorists. There is ample evidence in Golden Valley of the problems that can go along with small office buildings. Planning Commissioners may recall recently questioning the developability of small, nonresidential parcels. In response, staff arbi- trarily identified two clusters of office and office/industrial sites that Page Four varied from one acre to three acres in size and invited the commissioners to take their own tour. One of the concerns to come out of that exercise was the number of "space available" signs that showed up on the targeted buildings and elsewhere. e Vacant or underused buildings are always a concern to the City in terms of declining appearance and tax base. When the situation involves a nonresidential building adjacent to peoples' homes, it can become a special problem (see Addendum C). Many owners of small office buildings are not financially able to tolerate extended vacancies, so with or without the City's cooperation they start looking for more "creative" alternative uses. the image of the tidy office building acting as a quiet buffer for single family uses can evaporate pretty quickly when the rental car lot opens for business. Having observed that Golden Valley now appears to have more office space than can be easily filled, realizing that small office buildings depend on access and visibility to be marketable, and knowing that vacant offices are a particular source of concern for adjacent homeowners, it is difficult to see much benefit to be gained by Golden Valley if the subject parcel is redesignated for office use on the City's Comprehensive Plan r~ap. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends against the redesignation of the subject parcel from low den- sity residential to office use on the City's Comprehensive land Use Plan Map. ~ Reasons may be summarized as follows: ~ 1. Construction of 1-394 has increased the suitability of the property for residential use and decreased its suitability for small office use. 2. The residential neighborhood of which the property is a part is presently stable and includes existing homes that are similarly situated to the subject property. 3. Accepting the rationale that this property is residentially unsuitable because of highway impacts sets a precedent that could cause a threat to numerous other residentially designated highway frontage locations around the City. 4. Retaining the residential designation of the property is consistent with objectives and policies in the comprehensive plan that relate to affordable housing. 5. The property is too small and lacks the type of access and visibility necessary to ensure the long term viability of an office development. 6. Small office buildings are not always the ideal residential buffer that their stereotype implies. EAK:mkd . Attachments: Area Map Addendum A Addendum B Addendum C .' "()J.JJIf,~." --- I '&"'00 J<V, EW N~TUAE AR~A 3 ~ uJ - "> 'A~ /4 0 I~ 0 u: tn" 11..~ tt.. t r .9.: . ~; 2 N 'i ; ~, ~;.lfi I~ ....7 ~ · ."w~3 ... .~1~ . ~~ "'. r'c-.z ~. e '. :, B ~ . IU.. !.In. -fi -t'! . I- I' , , ;. .. .. '., ('I\I}(ED 'J:NO. / Or:c,. / CDMf'I\. USE - IN DUST. ON c..OM.P. PL-A N (c.on+ I "",e.:. e.a..ft1-W ~,..L -t) . :: . '. : Il !:: !.',~~fq" "::~~::;I .1 :'. "X ,.,,1 - J:: ~l -, -- - .: . - --- , . .b:~ -4 ~.; 't",""" ID....'''' ~.. ....J: . ~ . _H.....ol .rtf'" \.'.1 ..- U"J.69 U~ . .- S&lJ~~TY . . N AREA MAP ADDENDUM "A" TO RYAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REPORT Failure to Develop: Vacant Land Known as 7700 Wayzata Blvd. When the subject property was last considered for rezoning in 1985, the Planning Commission gave a recommendation in favor of rezoning from Residential to Business and Professional Office. The main line of reasoning, based on the minutes of the hearing, appears to have been that the property was proven to be undevelopable for residential use by the fact that it remained vacant more than seventy years after its platting. It is true that the plat of Confer and Erickson's Boulevard Gardens was legally recorded at the end of 1913, and that no houses are known to have been located on the subject property after that time. However, those are not sufficient grounds for concluding that the land failed to develop solely because it was residentially unsuitable. There were all sorts of different things going on over the years to impact the salability of the lots comprising the subject property. In the first place, for more than 30 years after platting, NONE of the Confer and Erickson's area was generating any construction activity. The City's 1945 aerial photo shows only one house anywhere within the plat, at what appears to be 815 Winnetka Avenue. Erie, Laurel, and Rhode Island Avenues didn't exist at all. Sumter Avenue was a narrow stub of a dirt lane running north from Wayzata Boulevard to terminate at a small building of uncertain usage that sat either on the subject property or on the lots just north of it. The 1956 aerial shows that the post-war building boom made quite an impression on the Confer and Erickson's area: 21 out of an eventual 34 homes were in place by then. About half of Rhode Island Avenue still didn't exist and the westerly block of Laurel Avenue was just a narrow lane, but Sumter Avenue and the east half of Laurel were in place. The westerly block of Erie Avenue, which would later be vacated along with the never-built easterly half, was also in place. The mystery building was gone. The subject property shows signs of earth-moving activity, which supports reports from several sources that fill was being exca- vated from the site for use elsewhere during the late 1940's and early 1950's. It is unlikely that the property owner was interested in selling any of the lots on the subject property while they were being mined for fill. Unsubstan- tiated claims made by neighbors in 1958 stated that there had been interested buyers before the mining took place. Some time in the 1950's, plans were devised by the State Highway Department for a diamond interchange at Winnetka Avenue and T.H. 12. The taking of land necessary to construct the interchange would have reduced the subject property down to roughly a triangle running from the top portion of Lot 8 to the top portion of Lot 20. The 1961 rezoning request reflected the proposed reduction in size. City staff knew about the highway plans, and so did the neighbors. Anyone who might have been interested in building homes on the subject lots in the 1960.s or early 1970's would not have had to do much research to learn that several of the lots were expected to disappear into the right-of-way and the remainder would be looking out at a freeway off-ramp. Given the fact that six of the ten previous rezoning attempts occurred between 1957 and 1967, there pro- bably was not much effort made to market the lots for residential use during that time. . e e . e e Page Two By the late 1970's or early 1980ls the highway upgrading plans had been down- scaled. Given the increasing traffic levels during those years, plus the direct highway access at both Rhode Island and Sumter Avenues, and the lack of any screening or sound barrier, it wouldn1t be surprising to learn that the subject property was not highly desirable for single family development by then. However, it is not at all clear whether the lots were even being actively pro- moted in the residential development market during that time. At the 1985 hearing before the Council, a realtor from Coldwell Banker testified that he had tried to sell the lots as home sites for five years without success. On the other hand, at the earlier hearing before the Planning Commission, the property owner himself testified that, while he had his land up for sale for nine of the previous ten years, he made no attempt to interest residential buyers. It is known that he finally sold the land at office development value. The current owner acquired the subject property at the end of 1985, after the tenth failed rezoning attempt. He held it through the 1-394 construction period, during which the highway corridor overall suffered from a lack of devel- opment interest of any kind. While the actual highway traffic is at a higher level today than ever before, the controlled-access design and the use of concrete barriers offer better protection to the Confer and Erickson residential area than at any time in the past. Because the owner paid office land prices for the subject property, despite its zoning and comprehensive plan designation, he apparently expects any new buyer to pay him at the same rate. At least one developer of modest cost single family homes has been turned away just this year because the owner would not sell at what a residential appraiser determined to be a fair market value. EAK:mkd ADDENDUM IIBII TO RYAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REPORT Examples of Properties Similarly Situated as The Vacant land Known as 7700 Wayzata Blvd. . Staff have stated that there are many parcels of land, in the general area of the subject property and elsewhere in Golden Valley, that are similarly situated as the subject property and are also designated for long term residential use. Some examples have been selected to illustrate that point. They are discussed in the following paragraphs. Planning Commissioners are encouraged to get out and judge the similarities for themselves. In the General Area of the Subject Property Within walking distance of the subject property, on both sides of 1-394, are several homes (see exhibit) on parcels of land that share characteristics which supposedly make the subject parcel unsuitable for residential development. All of the properties indicated have fairly standard setbacks from the street. All experience the same level of traffic on 1-394, which in all cases lies similarly below grade from the properties themselves. All of the properties are imme- diately adjacent to a frontage road, beyond which lies 1-394 itself. There are also a few differences among the properties. to the west of Winnetka Avenue, both north and south of 1-394, a six foot high wooden parapet has been added to the concrete noise barrier. This parapet still does not completely block the homes from 1-394, but it may add an extra increment of sound protec- tion; other than when standing right in the shadow of the parapet, staff1s ears ~ did not detect any significant difference in the noise level. Of course, on the south side of 1-394 the frontage road is continuous from Ridgedale almost all the way to Xenia Avenue and any extra protection that the parapet might provide for those homes is offset by the considerably higher frontage road traffic. Right at the northeast corner of Winnetka and the frontage road sits a house that has no 1-394 noise protection at all other than the planted earth embankment. None of these homes is sitting vacant. They show every indication of being as well-kept as other homes in the neighborhood. Staff do not know if any of the homes have been on the market in the past few years. Elsewhere on 1-394 On the east side of Golden Valley the residential neighborhoods abutting 1-394 are more extensive than in the area of the subject property. They also contain more expensive homes. On the south frontage road between June Avenue and France Avenue sits a row of seven homes that MnDOT bought and kept vacant during the 1-394 construction process because of the adverse impacts expected from the construction work. As soon as the bulk of the work was completed, the City started getting regular calls from people wanting to know how they could buy those homes. MnDOT recently sold all but one of them. . . e . Page Two Again these are residential properties facing a frontage road with a noise barrier containing the highway beyond, which is at a lower level than the homes. The setbacks in front of the homes are less than standard due to right- of-way taking. The most noticeable difference is that the wooden parapet is considerably higher than any of the noise barriers in the neighborhood of the subject property, with a minimum height of about nine (9) feet above the front- age road at the east end and a maximum of nearly 20 feet where the road itself hits a low spot. The reason for this is to maintain a constant height above the highway, which does not have the extreme topography of the frontage road and neighborhood. The average daily 1-394 traffic volume at that location is 101,000 vehicles. Hwy. 169/Mendelssohn Avenue It may be somewhat unrealistic to compare the subject property with anything in South Tyrol, simply because the character of the neighborhood (1-394 excluded) is not the same. Getting away from 1-394 then, staff have identified a neigh- borhood along Hwy. 169 that is quite similar to the neighborhood in which the subject property is located. All of the houses on Mendelssohn Avenue are simi- larly situated. Two new homes have been built and sold just south of Naper Street, one last year and one this year. The first house sat on the market for a very long time but it was also IIfor sale by ownerll during that time; the house sold a few weeks after being listed with a realtor. The second home sold promptly. As in the neighborhood of the subject property, the homes here have a fairly standard front setback. They face a frontage road with the highway beyond. Hwy. 169 carries a mere 76,000 vehicles per day on average, with an additional 3,000 on the east frontage road (including weekday commuter buses). The homes and the highway here are at approximately the same grade and there is no attempt to buffer the noise or other highway impacts unless a few scrub trees are counted. The lack of buffering tends to offset the lower traffic volume. Hwy. lOa/Lilac Drive Staff did not select any specific examples along Hwy. 100, which has an average daily traffic volume of 60,000 vehicles or less on all stretches north of 1-394. Here again, though, no buffering exists and the highway is often at a grade close to that of the adjacent homes. Some of the homes are on older, deep lots, but there are also several locations with more standard property dimensions. It is worth remembering that one of the alternatives being considered by MnDOT for improving Hwy. 100 would widen it to six lanes from the current four. If that alternative is selected, traffic volumes will increase and the highway will come closer to many homes. EAK:mkd EXHIBIT: Similarly Situated Parcels Near Subject Property cr ~,o . . " . " ". .~. -;"!.IC ___ __Hl.4---- . 76'!O --- , I I .. I I . I I I :1 Itw.,. Soc.rr,., 51 Oil FItONTA"S "'DAD CCNT'NUOU$ BeTWEEN R I f)~6I:)Al..E AN b Xli N , A. . e ,- ...... . ns NOATH ~IDe ~AONT"Aue E J( T'E! N t) ~ F a:\o Ii F- , E L 0 PeN N~'f'-'VAN fA 1=\0""," tt.. .""'0 ONC.'(. .e ... ~ .~~ .7 '. '0 ... ,~ I I I I 1'__ .'11' _ -f... rp~ t~ IJJ.,4 '.. ',', I,. ,~ , 1 . =;,. '.\\ 1~OO lor. \\ ,., -.' --_. I : \ '" '6.1"41' J. : : 0,' I' \0' L I If ...1.1\0 . ~i.~l. . I". 1 ... ," ." : -. " .. I. e ADDENDUM "C" TO RYAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REPORT . Examples of Small Office Buildings with Big Problems Staff have indicated that vacant or underused small office buildings adjacent to residential neighborhoods can constitute special problems. Several case histories are presented here (location map attached). To be eligible for con- sideration, sites generally had to be three acres or less in size, share one or more common property lines with residential uses, and be on the edge of a size- able residential neighborhood. Staff also concentrated only on the big issues; smaller concerns, such as the overflowing parking lots that tend to accompany "gray area" permitted uses like clinics or training programs, or the poor prop- erty maintenance that often goes along with unused or underused buildings, have been ignored. What's left here is admittedly the worst that staff could find. If it appears to represent an acceptable level of risk, then some of staff's arguments against amending the Comprehensive Plan for the subject property may be discounted accordingly. 8100 Wayzata Blvd. (Built in 1956) Site size: 1.5 acres . This building has had intermittent problems with vacancies. Staff are not aware of any particular neighbor conflicts prior to 1988. At that time, however, a potential buyer requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a ren- tal car headquarters at the site. They applied under a catchall clause in City Code that allows consideration of miscellaneous "other uses". The building had been sitting vacant for an unclear length of time before the application came in. The neighbors were very unhappy with the proposed use, which the Council finally turned down. in 1992, the building's owner leased space to another rental car headquarters without bothering to ask permission from the City. Staff first heard about it from the neighbors, and the building inspector had to threaten legal action to get the rental car company out. Things have been quiet since then, and the building appears to be fully leased at present. . 345 Pennsylvania Ave. So. (Built in 1957) Site Size 3 acres (not all useable) For some 30 years this building was owned and occupied by the company for which it was built: Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc. In 1982 the company applied for rezoning of a residential lot lying to the north of its land, with the intent of expanding. The neighbors formed an association and hired an attorney to oppose the request. The company moved to Maple Grove in 1989 or 1990, and the building sat entirely vacant from that time until now. The City Council recently approved a Conditional Use Permit for a pharmaceutical packaging business to occupy the property, with little opposition from the neighbors. The company has not yet moved in. During the years of the building's vacancy, staff heard periodically from neighbors concerned about what might happen to the site. Staff also heard a variety of building reuse proposals that included several small manufacturing operations, a church, and a TV station. Luckily, none of these made it to the public hearing stage. Due to its long period of vacancy, a tax abatement petition was filed with Hennepin County, another matter of concern to the City. Page Two 6100 Golden Valley Road (Build in 1946) Site Size 1 acre . Staff only became aware of problems at this property in 1990. At that time, the building had experienced only token occupancy for well over a year. Both build- ing and site were in a state of disrepair. The owner had a deal to sell the property if the City would approve a Conditional Use Permit -- again under the vague, "other uses" clause -- for a residential lock-up facility to house chemi- cally dependent teenagers. Although the residential uses immediately adjacent to the property were apartments and townhouses rather than the single family homes that are usually thought of in terms of "neighborhoods", they showed exactly the same level of concern as single family homeowners. The request was denied. The building now appears to be fully leased. 1710 Douglas Drive (Building age variable -- started in 1958) Site size variable -- started at 1 acre Here is a small office building success story, of a sort. In 1977, the City approved a "use variance agreement" (currently illegal under State Statutes) to allow the tenant of this existing building to establish a food research labora- tory inside. The agreement was to terminate in 1980. In 1981, there was an attempt to rezone the property to light industrial so that the expensive labora- tory setup could continue to be used. Neighbors petitioned against the rezoning and appeared at the hearings. The request was withdrawn, but after some legal pressure involving the legitimacy of the original agreement and the City's knowledge of the permanent nature of the improvements, the City agreed to allow continued laboratory usage. Pace Labs bought the building in 1982 after it had 4It stood completely vacant for more than a year. The building was initially shared by an outpatient drug treatment center, which had to apply for a Conditional Use Permit under the "other uses" clause. There was considerable neighborhood concern about the treatment center, but the Council approved it based on the problem-free history of the facility at its previous Valley Square location. Pace expanded to fill the whole building in 1984. In 1985, Pace took over an adjacent B&PO zoned parcel to the north. In 1988, Pace requested rezoning of a parcel to the south which had an older house on it; the company needed to expand again. The request was approved. Most recently, in 1990, Pace requested rezoning of a small apartment parcel on St. Croix in order to provide much needed additional parking space. The rezoning was approved. The total site size is now approximately four (4) acres. Pace officials say that they're done expanding. 2445 Winnetka Avenue North (Built in 1974) Site size .9 acre This property was initially platted and zoned residential in 1962. Twelve years -- and one prior failed rezoning attempt -- later, the owner convinced the City Council to approve rezoning to B&PO on the grounds that nobody would ever build houses at that location. The residential neighbors agreed. In 1984, when the drug treatment center applied for a Conditional Use Permit to move here from 1710 Douglas, it was revealed that 1/2 of the building's lower level -- 25% of total building space -- had never had a tenant in all the years of the building's existence. Only one neighbor appeared to be concerned about the drug . treatment center. The center is now gone and the building continues to experience problems with vacancies, but it is fully leased at the moment. EAK:mkd Attachment: Map of Locations of Selected Small Office Buildings o ..J '" "'C VI QJ ~ +l...... U "'C QJ..... .. r--.~ QJ ~ (/) CO 4- QJ o U .r- VI 4- 1:4- 00 .r- .l-J ..... "' ..... U CO o E -l (/) :z: '" . i '" ... a. ca == . j a; .. W ~ us Q ~ U ;i 55 "C ID - 0 C-' - 0 N '" ~ ... '" CD ... CD '" N ... .. ... = SI'Od';iNNI.. ,e A J. J , z w ~CI) OOI~- ;a oon- o 0 o 0 = 0 I - g 0 3''f'OSNIS80tf .e ... 11' .. o ~ . j ,; ~ o I I I I I "... ~~~~__!!8111 J II 1I !! ~ ~ g 8 - .. . ! NJ.nCIIU:W ~o .uJ) .. ... . .. o . CD = '" !!:! '" '" CD '" -ClClll9 -CCl6. -CCClI. -00'" -00" -ccu to- en c:: :Ii ..J or .. '" .. " o ... :z: -OO.l ,. -O<KI. .. (!'J -00.. -celt -ccs. -006t -ceoa -00'8 ... -cora -00'" -"""a -co.. -001,8 -00.8 - CCl6a -C006 -oo.a -..... -cor. -COM ..... ID c !!! e e e M E M 0 RAN DUM --~------- DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 20, 1994 Golden Valley Planning Commission Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning - Area North of 1-394 Between Sumter Avenue South and Rhode Island Avenue South - Thomas Ryan, Applicant The request is to rezone from Residential to Business and Professional Office (B&PO) a parcel of vacant land just over an acre in size, located on the north frontage road of 1-394 between Rhode Island and Sumter Avenues (location map attached). The applicant submitted an accompanying request for an amendment to the City.s Comprehensive Plan Map after being advised by staff that the rezoning request is not in conformance with the long term use of the subject property as designated on the Plan Map. There is also an application for minor subdivision, which is necessary in order to consolidate the several residential lots that make up the property into a single lot large enough to meet the minimum one acre size requirement for B&PO sites. The subject property has been zoned Residential since that district was first created in 1955. Staff have documented ten nonresidential rezoning attempts (summary attached) dating back to 1957. Some of those were terminated by the various applicants over time without having completed the hearing process. Those that made it as far as the Planning Commission got a mixed reception, sometimes favorable and sometimes not. Any that reached the City Council were denied, despite the changing composition of the Council over the years. The tenth and most recent rezoning attempt was in 1985. In denying the request, the Council made the following findings: 1. In view of the residential character of the property to the North and West it would be spot zoning to rezone only this particular parcel, out of all of the contiguous residential area lying West of Rhode Island Avenue, South of laurel Avenue and North of Wayzata Boulevard, to business and professional office zoning district. 2. In view of the uncertainty of the impact of the construction of the new Interstate Highway 1-394 on this area, which particular area is still very much residential in character as well as in zoning, it would be premature to at this time rezone the parcel when the effects and results that will follow the Highway reconstruction are still unknown. 3. The parcel for which rezoning is sought is residential on the City's compre- hensive municipal plan and it would therefore be inconsistent with and a failure to follow the previously studied and established plan to at this time rezone just this specific parcel to business and professional office zoning district. In situations of this type the entire residential area should be considered as a whole and with particular reference to the comprehensive plan, and there should be no rezoning of only a part of such a residential area to a heavier use. Page Two Today's Planning Commission and Council are not necessarily bound by those findings. Staff1s assessment is that they are still sound guidelines, and this report will be structured accordingly. The subject property was purchased by the current applicant about four months after the 1985 decision. The buyer had been in contact with Planning Director, Mark Grimes, before closing the deal and was aware of the rezoning denial. He has continued to contact staff periodically over the years with the stated goal of applying again for rezoning when lithe effects and resultsll of the highway construction could finally be evaluated. e The applicant has made it known to staff, both orally and in writing, that in his opinion the City must approve the rezoning now that 1-394 is complete, and that he expects to file a lawsuit if the Council does not follow through. He has noted correctly that the Planning Commission recommended in favor of the 1985 request. He has not explained why he disregards the formal findings of the Council. Spot Zoning With regard to the first finding of 1985, the subject property is no larger today than it was before. The claim of spot zoning is as valid now as it was then. The primary characteristic of spot zoning is that it involves rezoning a property in a way that does not conform to a Comprehensive Plan. That aspect will be discussed more fully below. A secondary characteristic of spot zoning ;s that it fails to treat similarly e situated properties in similar fashion. The Council pointed out that failure in 1985 and staff finds it still to be the case today: there are similarly situated parcels in the area of the subject property and elsewhere in the City that are designated for long term residential use, so why should this one be changed? There sometimes arise zoning situations in which properties maybe treated unequally if there is an overriding common good to be served. Such situations generally work to preserve less-intensive zoning rather than promote greater intensity. An example would be limiting the extent of neighborhood commercial uses so as not to overwhelm the neighborhood itself. Staff have identified no such situation at work in this case. 1-394 In the matter of the Council's second finding of 1985, there was no guarantee that a rezoning would be approved after the completion of 1-394. The Council merely said that it would be premature to consider the long-term future of the area in general while the impact of 1-394 was still unknown. With the highway construction complete, it is possible to evaluate its impact. Staff have included such an evaluation in the report discussing the Comprehen- sive Plan amendment request. To summarize, it appears that the Council of 1985 was wise to wait: 1-394 seems to have made the subject property more suitable for residential use and less suitable for small office development than it was before the highway upgrading. e Page Three 4It Conformance With the Comprehensive Plan Finally, there is the Council's third finding of 1985. The current applicant, as indicated earlier, did add a request for a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment after being told that his rezoning request could not otherwise be approved. The sitting Council in 1985, however, also stated that any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must look beyond the simple limits of the subject property. Staff would agree that such broader considerations are inherent to the concept of a "Comprehensive" Plan. The resulting staff asses~ment, as discussed at much greater length in the report regarding the Plan amendment request, is that the Plan Map should not be amended because to do so would not be in the best interest of the neighborhood or of the City as a whole. The requested amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map is the key factor in all three of the current requests regarding the subject property. The applicant is not interested in completing the minor subdivision if the rezoning is denied. The rezoning cannot be approved if the Plan Map amendment is denied. Staff Recommendation 4It Staff recommends that the requested rezoning from Residential to B&PO be denied on the grounds that it is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the subject property is better suited for residential use than for small office use, and it would be inappropriate to treat the subject property in a different manner than similarly situated properties. Attachment: Location Map Summary of prior Rezoning Attempts 4It Summary of Prior Rezoning Attempts: Vacant land Known as 7700 Wayzata Boulevard e At some time in the early or mid 1950.s, the property owner excavated large quantities of fill from the property for use elsewhere. This lowered the eleva- tion of the site, which originally sat as much as ten feet above the adjacent highway. 1957 Proposed 2-story home improvement center and offices. Planning Commission unanimously recommended against. Never went to Council. 1958 Proposed apartments, apparently downscaled from an original three buildings to one building with eleven units. Planning Commission unanimously recommended in favor of the downscaled proposal, citing altered topography as a major factor. Council hearing included comments by neighbors about how the property owner.s actions had "ruined" the property, which had been quite desirable in the past. Reference also to neighborhood petition (no longer in file) opposing the proposal. Council denied by unanimous vote. During the 1960.s, there were plans for a full highway interchange at Winnetka and T.H. 12. The proposed ramp would have reduced the parcel of vacant land almost down to a triangle. e 1961 Proposed office building of unspecified height. Planning Commission recommended in favor by a vote of 8-3, noting that the removal of fill by the previous owner had caused problems for devel- opment of the site and that the proposal appeared to be a practical solution. Out of 29 residential neighbors east of Winnetka and south of Laurel, 22 signed a petition opposing the proposal. Several spoke at the Council hearing. Council denied. 1966 Proposed office building of unspecified height. Apparently, applicant withdrew after investigating highway interchange plans. No consideration made by Planning Commission or Council. 122& Proposed one-story Hoover Vacuum Cleaner repair/warehouse facility. Planning Commission unanimously recommended against. Council denied by unanimous vote. e Page Two e 1967 ............ Proposed Hodroff & Sons Funeral Home. Planning Commission recommended in favor, on a vote of 12-4, but with some reservations regarding lack of notice to neighbors and ability to meet Golden Valley code requirements. After twice requesting continuation of the Council hearing in order to investigate the proposed highway interchange plans, applicant apparently withdrew. No consideration by Council. 1975 Proposed office/warehouse facility for Minneapolis Glass Company. Planning Commission unanimously recommended against the proposal, citing inappropriate building size and type of use. Several neighboring residents spoke in opposition at the Council hearing. Council denied. 1978 Proposed one-story office building. e Planning Commission recommended against, by a vote of 4-3. Nonconformance with Comprehensive Plan and uncertainty of plans for Hwy. 12 expansion were cited as reasons. Concerns were raised about the site viability for single-family residential development. Neighbors again submitted a petition in opposition to proposal. Council denied by unanimous vote. By the late 1970's or early 1980's there was a new design proposal for upgrading Hwy. 12. There would still be some land taken from the site for right-of-way, but not as much as in the earlier plan. There was no longer any provision for an interchange at Winnetka. 1983 Proposed two-story office building. Yet another neighborhood petition opposing the proposal was signed by several of the same residents who had been through earlier rezoning attempts. After several delays requested by the applicant in order to try and resolve various issues, the request was finally withdrawn before it was considered by the Planning Commission. 1985 Proposed two-story-over-parking office building. Once again, residential neighbors petitioned against proposal. Planning Commission recommended in favor by unanimous vote, citing several con- cerns but concurring that since the property had not been developed for houses in the first seventy years of its platted existence, it probably never would be. e Page Three Council voted unanimously to deny proposal, citing potential spot zoning, uncertainty of proposed 1-394 impact, and conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The site was purchased by current owner at end of 1985. There was a moratorium along the 1-394 corridor from March of 1988 through March of 1989, which would have prohibited any rezoning during that time. From September of 1989 through July of 1990, staff and the Planning Commission undertook a review of problems and opportunities along the 1-394 corridor, during which time applications for rezoning were discouraged but not refused. The resulting 1-394 corridor report recommended that the existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations in the area, including the subject property, should be maintained for at least two to five years following final completion of all 1-394 construction, at which time the designations should be reviewed again and either altered or endorsed based on any observed impacts from the changed highway system. EAK:mkd e e e --=. ~ :.. !.., _ r. I 'i , " ~- - -< I , f; _ ::. -=- I ,...... I t" l'-, '_'i ::::':"~":;/:"'.- e ----~-~-~~-:.-; -=.:.....--. " :.~~:~~.,;~..;-:::..:::..;.7.'2':~.-:r'?'"".._. _' .:-:~~~:::-.~=_~.~4"'='='.~__~' :-..,..~~-:-.., - ......~,~ e .:.. .;,~ -=- ~ y ~"'..:: I.;' ~ " - ,..... , ~= t'. J ~" :~ ". :;: .1_ r=- F-. -.:: .~ v..j i'l ~'i ~~ ,"', r~ P. \~ ::: I'.i :~ 'i .=..102\ p I"). ~ ..... e -~.'" . ~ \.a' ...._........... ._~...-.':'<r~-_. .,.- ~ ....... , ,. -' . ':: ...;.... ._~:a':J-: -4 -<<,-.:-.-.--r-'';';~-- -~'~'.: "..~::;- .~- ~ -:,;~::...:. r--i --;-- ;.., ; ,..... L , . - e e . . - :.; :: -..;.- AT ,'.... :,;. . - ~ - , ._' t= . 'I := i",\ .....' ~ ','.j iN~ := -:-:, ;~ ~;". ,:, Co. ~ " f:;' .... 'j - .~ "'" :I'..TA r<.. :: A. r.:. :.:: ~ 1('.4 .-.. "I -, f:-:.c. i \ . s 'J.. ~: -- f', ::: ...... :- .'-\ , - ,- , i -: ~ --~ . _. -I f:..... '., e w ,;' ,'4 I ' , , ;::-;- ...-:....':, : .~ (', i '. -~ .- 't"~ r:: ;'::. .:.: ;~~ ).. ,'" ;- f\ " , - ,"~ ..:€~:;~~;~:__~:~;'-=32;t:c;~-::"'::~ ".-:~.'~~ ---.- :'-~'::~~~~,=~,"::-. ;-~~-:~\-"'.- ., - -:~~~5:~~~--'~~:;':':::::-'--'---- ~':.-- . ~ -'~'-' _._-:_L_...__._. ~"u --,:_~~':------ -:: -;;'::=-;-~::1-~~:_'~i~_:5::i:_- e SAM_ ":AR.A,.>=:7 ,', 1"-, D r "- r?; ~ ri j ,...." ,.... 1",f'I~ N'N j::',.l.~M \'i INN ST j<. p." C'Ie.P-. ~ASS e ....4... . . ~' ., k' C. .~~ :.:... M 'f i -. ,- ," --~ .::. . . ;......,~.i~!-__ e ..11 ~' :1 / / / / e ....; '01 . ,.. -;-', ", '-- ... j', i i'. .-1. ,..:: :"'-, .:... ,-: 1/;; L :: ~ 7'" ;;.~ ; ~ :--. I ::: ;;.:\ e I.; _ ( i'~ ...-= '....., - r.: r.... i""" i .: f'o.., ~ - F' 7'i'{ I....C.'...:~~~ ;";.:::c \I _ tJ A ,~, A I'::; ~ , , e !"'." 4.... ;-: ":"'... ,"~ C. __ ,-,'~ ~ r'" ..... .. '" t ~.::.. ,-;. - . ~ e , ~. , -'" I 'l ~... ,..... -I'" r - i~..""': t' . -;- ;-'\ _ -, ,.; ""'-' e '"' ~., '- ,', :l I J,: . !... -" t= F~ .: ,~ t ,.... '=: 1-1 -.-- '- , . j ,...... -i l"i \'-1 e