Loading...
05-22-89 PC Agenda I � .� GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNTNG C���IS�ION t Golden Valley Fii�e Stat�on ��. 3 3700 Goldec� Valley R�a,d � � Monday, May 22, 1989'' �N , 7:Q0 P.M. AGENDA I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY'8, 1��9 II, PRESENTATION ON CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN - DON TAYLOR, FINANCE DIREGTOR NOTE: (Planning Commissioners - Please remember to bring your `copy ofi the CIP) III. DISCUSSION OF `FOLLOW'-UP MEMO FROM JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING IV. REP4RTS OF APA NATI4NAL CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS V. REPORTS ON CITY COUNCIL AND BZA MEETINGS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * � * *' * * � 'PLANNIN6 COMMISSION ulrlL'ELINES FOF. PUBLIC INPUT The Planning Comnissian 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 Comnission's determination of whether the proposed use is perm�tted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Rlan, and whether the pro- posed use wil�. or wi1T not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. � The Commission holds i�formal pubtic hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to pe►mit you to ask questions and offer coimients. Yaur questions a�d"co�r�ents become part af the record and will be used by the Gounci1. atong with the Commission'� recommendati�a�, in r�aching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your coaments end questions, the Commission will utitize the foilowing procedure: '1. The Comnission Ghair will introduce the proposal and the reeomnendation from staff, Comnission members may ask questions of staff.' 2. The proponent wi11 describe the proposal and answer any questions from the Commission. 3. The Chair witl 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 individuat questions/ccimnents'if a targe number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups'wilt fiave a longer period of time for questions/comnents. 4, Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember, your ques#ionslcannents are for the record. 5. Direct your questions/comnents to tfie Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. � 6. No one will be, given the opportunity to speak a second #iaie until to,speak initially. Ptease limit your second presentation to new inforn�atian, not rebuttejrtunity 7. At the close of the public hearing, the Co�mission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. MI NUTES OF 'IHE Ci�I�EN VALLEY PLANN I NG 0..MVII SS I'ON . � May 8, 1989 A regular meeting of the Planning Carmission was held in the meeting room of the Golden Valley Fire Station #3, 3700 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by t;hair Prazak at 7:05 p.m. Those present were C',orrmissioners Kapsner, Leppik, Lewis , McAleese, Prazak , McCracken-Hunt and Russell . Also present were Mark Grimes, Direetor of Planning and Development, and Beth Knoblauch, City Planner. 1 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 24, 1989 Crnmissioner Lewis wanted a clarification of her statement regarding the removal of the oTd building. Remove the sentence "Will it be unsightly?" It wras moved by Comnissioner Lewis , seconded by Cannissioner Leppik and unani- mously voted to approve the minutes of the regular Apri1 24, 1989, Planning C',onmission Meeting as corrected. - I I . I NF'ORMAI� PUBLIC HEARI NG - MI NOR SUBDI VI S ION APPLICANT: Roger Ulstad L�OCATION: 309 Meander Road � REQtJEST: Approval of a Minor Subdivision to Divide the Lot at 309 Meander Road Into 'l�vo Residential Single-Family Lots Chair Prazak introdueed this item and asked City Planner Knoblaueh for a brief s�urmary. City Planner Knoblauch first apologized to the audience for the cramped conditions and thanked them for their patience. City Planner Knoblauch stated that if this minor subdivision was approved, it would be the sixth since the Tralee Addition was platted. 'I�e lot is two-thirds of an acre with the house on one side of the lot. She stated that the new lot may require some grading. The it�ns that the City Ordinanee says should be con- sidered were then reviewed. 1. Adjacent Land Use -Tfiis is a large lot in a residential area. -There is vacant land at the Golden Valley Lutheran College Property. -Planning has reeeived another inquiry about splitting a lot. 2. Traffic Regulations -'IYiere is expected to be no major impact to the area. � Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Corm�ission May 8, 1989 ' Page 2 � 3. Zoning Regulations � - It does meet the minimun area requirements. - It does meet the minimum frontage requirements . 4. Future Development - It will be limited to single family-detaehed homes. 5. Pertinent Criteria - A $450 Park dedication fee for the minor subdivision should help defray any impact on the City's park system, utilities are present in the street , soil appears to be safely buildable, though there is a low spot at the front center of the lot where the City maintains a catch basin. Based on this criteria; she does not feel that the Comnission has sufficient cause to turn down this request . There is no policy that states we can turn down a request just because the lots will be smaller. It was stated that there are some lots in that area that are smaller than these. � Chair Prazak asked if the Catch Basin would have to be moved. It was stated that it would not be moved. Discussion was held on the various lot sizes in this area. Chair Prazak asked the dimension of the two lots if this lot was to be divided. City Planner Knoblauch stated that at the road end they would be both 101 feet . One lot would be 12,800 sq. ft , and the other 15,000 sq. ft. Carm�issioner Lewis asked if the large trees on the lot could be maintained. City Planner Knoblauch stated that there is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance to require them to stay. Chair Prazak asked the proponent if he wished to make a statement . Mr . Roger Ulstad stated that he submitted the application under the Platting Subdivision Ordinance, Section 12.52, Subdivision 1. The subdivision meets all requirements that go back to 1941. . Carmissioner Leppik asked if Mr . Ulstad planned to continue living in his house. Mr. Ulstad stated that he was not planning to live there. His home is not adap- table to their present health needs. � Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Comnission May 8, 1989 ' Page 3 � Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Vern Schneck, 210 Cutacross Road, stated that the proposed lot is low. He has a walkout basement and is concerned about what will happen when the drainage is changed. If the water rises three inches , he will have water in his basement . He is very concerned about how the grading will affect him. Dave Johnson, 220 Cutacross Road, stated that he moved into the neighborhood five years ago because of the size of the lots. He is against the subdivision. Art Flannagan, 316 Meander Road, stated that he bought in 1941. He doesn't think there have been six subdivisions . There were changes in the original Plat to make the lots saleable. The only one he knew about was the recent one before the Council . The subdivision was a complete surprise to him. Mr . Flannagan feels we are hacking away at a beautiful neighborhood. He feels a Planner shouid study the division of lots so it is done properly. Chair Prazak asked what other properties in the area would lend themselves to subdivision. He does not see any that could be readily split . James Sanford, 115 Meander Road, stated that he moved in because of the uni- queness of the neighborhood. He is afraid that this subdivision will lead to others. � William Schroeder, 235 Paisley Lane, stated that they had moved in a year ago and that they chose the area because of the size of the property. He feels that the subdivision would change the entire character of the area. Julie Zuehlke, 217 Cutacross Road, stated that she was concerned about the neighborhood. There is a short ferm financial gain for the Ulstad's , but the long term is fhe value of the neighborhood. They bought their home because of the size of the lots, Dick Keefe, 26 Meander Road, stated that his mother and aunt started the Tralee Addition back in the 1930's. When his mother died in 1973, he was forced to subdivide her lot in order to se11 . He understands the Ulstad's position and also the neighbars coneerns regarding flooding problems because of the grading, Subdividing the lot does not bother him, but the grading problems do. David Moeller, 209 Cutaeross Road, stated that he was surprised to find that his City did not have a policy regarding sesthetics. The City should pick up where the covenants leave off. This area is very unique and he does not want the lots subdivided. He is , also, concerned about loss of trees. LeRoy Hage1 , 200 Cutacross Road, stated that he was surprised to hear about the subdivision. He feels that the subdivision is not in keeping with the neigh- borhood. He is opposed to any change, no matter how small. � Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Carmission May 8, 1989 , Page 4 � Mary Sanford, 115 Meander Road, asked if the issue was that the lot could not be sold without subdividing. Frank Hetman, 124 Paisley Lane, stated that he has been a resident for a n�anber of years and has seen many changes in the City. He is against any division of lots. He feels this leaves probl�s for those left behind and those who will follow. Chair Prazak asked City Planner Knoblauch to outline the drainage on that pro- perty and how it would impact the other properties. City Planner Knoblauch stated that she had not pursued this because the City Engineer did not feel it would be a problem. 'I'here would have to be some grading, but it was not considered to be an envirorgnental problem. She could ask for a longer statement from the Building Department and the City Engineer . Director Grimes stated that any new hane construetion in Golden Valley cannot adversely affeet the drainage situation of another property. The drainage would have to go to the street. Discussion was held on the drainage situation. Gretchen Hetland, 324 Meander Road, stated that she has lived in her home for � 50 years and that she is opposed to the split . She does not want to see the neighborhood ehange. Vern Schneck, 210 Cutacross Road, stated he has lived there for 38 years and is worried about what will happen when it is subdivided. He felt there were bound to be changes in the grading because of the water problems on that lot . He wonders how this will affect him. Julie Zuehlke, 217 Cutacross Road, stated that she had to call the City Engineer out this year because of the water in her basement even with the new storm sewer. The grading in their area is a real problem. . William Schroeder, 235 Paisley Lane, stated that the catch basin is only reliable if it is kept clean. It is not fail safe. Chair Prazak asked what the limitations were on the other factors to be considered in subdividing this lot. City Planner Knoblauch stated that if it is a significant factor , we can use our discretion. Regarding the size of the lot, however , it is not something the Carmission can use discretion on. This area could have extended their covenant or asked the City to do something when the covenant expired. A1vin Stobbe, 125 Paisley Lane, stated that he had split a lot. He is neither for or against this subdivision. He feels that the Planning Cormiission should � make the decision, The neighbors should not be fighting over this issue. Minutes of the Golden Va11ey Planning Caimission May 8, 1989 • Page 5 � Discussion was held on subdivision in other areas . Crnmissioner Leppik felt that the Planning Comnission had no sense of direction from the City Council regarding subdivision of lots. Cam�issioner MeCracken-Hunt stated that the thing that was different in this case was that these were still viable lots. J�nes Sanford, 115 Meander Road, stated that he would like to see the Planning Canmission come out and look at the area. Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing. Carmissioner McAleese stated that there were two issues here. l. Is it possible to decide against the subdivision when it meets the technical requirements. 2. Is this a subdivisian that should occur . In the past , he felt that if it met the technical requirements that we had no choice. He has changed his mind. After reading the zoning code, he feels that the Ccximission can look at other things. This subdivision clearly would destroy � the character of the neighborhood. He stated that Golden Valley would best be served by protecting the mix of neighborhoods we already have. There are reasons for some neighborhoods to change, but not here. Gam�issianer McAleese stated that he felt that the subdivision should not be allowed. Chair Prazak stated that he agrees that his particular proposal should not be approved. Crnmissioner, Leppik stated that she, also, opposes the subdivision. CoRmissioner Russell stated that she felt the Gorm�ission was exhibiting some inconsistency. She would like an examinati on of the present policy. We should look at the items we can consider and how they relate to our legal standing regarding the zoning code. She feels we need more direction from the City Cauncil and the City Attorney. Carmissioner Lewis asked how much weight can be put on the technical aspect . Camnissioner Russell stated that she feels uncomfortable in denying this request . City Planner Knoblauch stated that she also is uncanfortable in denying this request because it is in contrast to past history . � Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Cortmission May 8, 1989 ' Page 6 � Carmissioner Leppik stated that there were other things to be taken into con- sideration when considering a subdivision. The Cortmission should look at the character of the neighborhood when deciding and not just the technical . Carmissioner Kapsner stated that he feels uncomfortable in denying this request because of past actions . 'Ifie C',aimission has usually based its decision on tech- nical aspects. Caimissioner McCracken-Hunt stated that there are some smaller lots in this area. Catmissioner Russell stated that we should let the Council know that we are taking other things into consideration when making a decision regarding subdivisions. Carrmsissioner Leppik moved to deny the application for minor subdivision of 309 Meander Road into two residential single-family lots. Carmissioner McAleese seeonded the motion. Cornnissioner Russell opposed. Motion carried, fi-1. I I I . (�ONTI NUED I NFORMAL PUBL I C HEAR I NG - R�77(70NS I DERAT I ON OF AN�NDt1�NT TD OCIVIPREHENS I VE LAND USE PLAN MAP � APPLICANT: Parker and Associates LOCATION: 1950 , 2000, 2010 , and 2020 Douglas Drive REQUEST: Amendment of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map to Change the Land Use Designation From Medi�n Density Residential and Semi-Public to Commercial Chair Prazak introduced this item and asked Director Grimes to give an update and to pay particular attention to the traffic study. It was suggested at the last Planning Carmission Meeting to wait and examine the traffic study before we would act on this item. Director Grimes gave a brief review of this proposal . He stated that after the last public hearing, it was decided that traffic was one of the areas that should be reviewed. 'I'�ere were two traffic studies done for this corner. One was for the SuperAmerica and the other for the convenience center. � Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning C�mission May8, 1989 ` Page 7 � Director Grimes reviewed the findings for the audience. 17�e traffie report stated the traffic in front of the Convenience Center would be as follows: - 'IY�ere would be 4600 trips on an average weekday (2300 in and 2300 out) . - Of these, 2$0 would be in the A.M. peak hour and 460 in the P.M. peak hour . - Approximately 40% of the trips will be traffic that is already in the area. - It is estimated that there will be 2760 new trips added to the area raadways (140 in the A.M. peak hour and 280 in the P.M. peak hour) . - Tf�e major impact will be the left turns going north. - Traffic impact wi11 be slight . It is expeet to be about 3% for this area. - Area streets will be only minimally affected on a daily basis. Director Grimes then gave a sunmary of the traffic report in regards to the SuperAmerica Station. - It is estimated that there will be a total of 1600 total trips by the SuperAmerica Station on an average weekday. Of these, 820 wi11 be new trips to the area. - There will be 800 more trips because of the change from the Mobil Station � to SuperAmerica. Of these, 430 wi11 be new to the area roadways. - It was felt that the effects to the area roadways would be minimal . The City Engineer reviewed the report and felt that the two together would impact the area streets only minimally. Carmissioner Russell questioned the statement that the Convenience Center would add only about 3% more traffic. Carmissioner McAleese asked if Mr . Van Wormer was present to answer questions from the Cotrmissioners. Director Grimes stated that he was not at the meeting. City Planner KnobLauch questioned what the peak hours were at this intersection. Director Grimes felt that the peak hours would coincide with Honeywell 's hours. C,ormiissioner McAleese questioned how the n�anbers were generated. He stated that he was uncamfortable aecepting these reports on faith. He would have preferred Mr. Van Wormer be present so that the Cam�ission could have asked him questions . Corrmissioner Russell stated that any left turns at this intersection are very difficult. � Minutes af the Golden Valley Planning Conmission May 8 , 1989 ' Page 8 � Cam�►issioner Leppik stated that in the future, she would like the traffic stu- dies done in a more useful format . Co�m�issioner MeCracken-Hunt asked what level of service that intersection was presently at . Director Grimes stated that he thought it was probably at a "F" at peak hours. Further discussion was held on the traffic study. Daniel Parker, Welsh Company, gave an overview of the proposed project. He stated that this praject would take advantage of the fact that at Duluth and Douglas approximately 30,000 cars pass through this intersection daily. 'I�ey feel this is a prime eomnercial development. He stated that this plan reflects a 21,000 sq, ft . Convenience Center . 'Ifie Center would house the following: - Tan Thi.mb (wi th 3 gas Islands) - Day Care - Small tenants - video, beauty, dry cleaners, etc. The design of the center is consistent with the characteristies of the neigh- borhood. There would be a fence around the entire area. Also, there would be no exposed units. T'he lighting would be special down lighting so there will be � no spillover. He feels that the character of the corner is a viable location for this project . Mr. Loueks gave an overview of the existing iand use in the bordering neighborhoods. He also reviewed the Canprehensive Plan regarding eommercial use in Golden Valley. He felt that Golden Valley's policy was to create cam►er- cial developments at major intersections and along arterial streets. In his judgement , this Convenience Center meets that criteria. 'Ifiey have tried to eomply with the City's Zoning Policy and he does agree that there will be little traffic impact. Discussion was held on traffic flow in and out of the Convenience Center . Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Bill Clifford, 6020 Wolfberry Lane, stated that there is open spaee in the shopping strips around this area. What will happen to these centers when a new center gees in? He would like the Carmissioners to come through the area and see what the residents want to preserve. He would urge the C.onmission not to ehange the zoning. Camiissioner Lewis asked what Mr. Clifford would like to do with this property. , He stated fhat he would like ta see it stay a church or an office building. Bob Parzyck, 2005 Brunswick, felt that the property around the church should be � sold for what it is worth. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Canmission May 8, 1989 ' Page 9 � Bob Olbey, 1511 Constance Drive, stated that he cannot believe there will be three gas stations at this intersection. He asked if the deliveries were taken into consideration. Karen Clifford, 6022 Wolfberry Lane, stated that the traffie numbers sound terrible. A Day Care Center with 85 kids , and parents dropping them off and pieking them up at peak hours , would cause alot of problems . Don Holzer , 6035 Brunsick, stated there will be congestion with delivery trucks coming and going into the Day Care Center . Charlie Whitaker , 5900 Wolfberry Lane, stated he bought in this area because it was a quiet neighborhood. He feels everyone wants to d�anp more traffic on them. Bert Putnam, 6015 Duluth Lane, stated he feels traffic is already too heavy. As far as Convenience Centers , he feels the neighborhood is well served now. Helen Brown, 2000 Douglas Drive, stated the traffic has gotten worse sinee she moved in, it is no longer a residential neighborhood. Jim Burch, a member of the ehurch, stated that they have outgrown the church building. The building is not hooked up to City water and it is not insulated well , therefore, it is hard to sell . Bringing it up to code would be a problem � in selling to another church group. Carmissioner MeCraeken-Hunt asked if the church had considered buying the adja- cent properties to expand. Mr. Burch explained that this would not be financially in their best interest . Comnissioner McAleese stated that this intersection eurrently is operating at maximun. We should not be talking about adding more traffic. We should be looking at what would have the least impact on this area. If we slow down the traffic at this interseetion in the least, traffic will start going on residential streets. Chair Prazak elosed the informal public hearing. Further discussion was held regarding the church property. Comnissioner _Kapsner stated that he would like a reason to rezone. Is there a need for a new shopping center? He sees no need to rezone. The traffic problem shauld be strongly considered. He would reeormiend that we deny this rezoning request and in the future he would look favorably on rezoning this property institutional . CoRmissioner Leppik stated that she feels we should look at the whole parcel and not just the church. She does not feel a corm�ercial business would work at this � intersection. She stated that she is in favor of changing the Comprehensive Plan to either Business or Professional or leaving it at InsCitutional . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Gorrmission May 8, 1989 ' Page 10 � Director Grimes stated that traffie from other uses can be just as bad. What we have been considering has been caimercial use. It was his recarmendation that before the Gonmission change it to sanething else, further study be done. Carmissioner Lewis stated that anything on that site would create traffic. She is also concerned about the pedestrian crossings. Carmissioner McCracken-Hunt agrees that there is a traffic problem at this interseetion. If there wasn't a traffic problem there, she would have no objec- tion to a carmercial use. She does, however, feel that a business or office use could also create more traffic. City Planner Knoblauch stated that perhaps we are back to what can be done to improve the level of service at the intersection. Cases have gone to court where traffic is used to turn down development . Basically the court says that if that is your only reason for denial , it is not good enough. Carmissioner McCracken-Hunt stated that she would like s ane recomnendation on how to improve the intersection. CaYmissioner Russell stated that she was uncomfortable with another shopping center. She felt the whole parcel needed to be looked at. � Cam�issioner McCraeken-Hunt sfated she was not sure what the parcel should be designated. Director Grimes felt that a vote should be taken on what was on the table now and then vote on the best land use. Carmissioner Leppik moved to reea►mend a change in the Comprehensive Plan to Institutional for all the properties. Cam�issioner Russell seconded. Corm�issioners Prazak, Kapsner , McCracken-Hunt , McAleese, and Lewis opposed. Motion not carried, 2-5. Corm�issioner Kapsner moved to reearmend that we do not amend the Comprehensive Plan at this time. Cam�issioner McAleese seconded. Carried unanimously. Director Grimes will prepare a resolution regarding the recomnendation. I V. REPORT ON M�Y 2, 19 89 CI TY (70UNCI L 1V�ETI NG Ca�missioner NkCracken-Hunt stated that she had nothing to report . The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. � ' MEMORANDUM DATE: May 10, 1989 . � T0: Chair Gary Prazak and Members of the Planning Commission FROt�I: Mary E. Anderson, Mayor RE: Summary of Iter�s Discussed at May 9, 1989 Meeting with Council Direction to the Planninq Commission Thank you all for your dedication of time, effort, and talent as you serve on the Planning Co��ssion. We do appreciate your commitment and contribution to the Council , our decision-making and the City. 1. It was agreed that when the Council refers an item to the Planning com- mission or makes a request for information, that it be in a written com- munication from the Mayor to the Chair of the Commission. The Council should be specific in its request and give background information on the rationale for referral and consideration of the issue. There should be a statement of priority for Planning Commission response and/or a time certain for the response, 2. The Council requests the Planning Commission to review the platting and sub- division regulations with special attention to: a) the provision for twenty foot frontage to give access to "back° lots and, � b) the impact of the current requirements for lot size and frontage on areas af the community with "extra" large lots. The Commission should review as much information as staff is able to gather. If the Commission concludes that some changes should be made in the ordinance, they should prepare recort�nendations to be sent to the Council . The Commission can decide whether to ask for a joint meeting or send a written recommendation only. We ask that a recomr�endation be developed by August 1. 3. The Council requests the Planning Commission review the current zoning along the I394 corridor. If a conclusion is reached that changes should be made in the zoning, a recommendation for new zoning should be developed. The Council also requests the P�anning Commission review the development density options (with their primary/secondary impacts) in the Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch report and prepare corranents and/or recommendations for discussion with the Council . We ask that the comments and/or recommendations be developed by November 1, 1989. 4. Mark Grimes and I reviewed the "hot spots" he and Beth had identified. I have asked Mark to prepare a �eport on these for Council information. The Council can then decide on a process and timeframe to review these. Mark will have the report to the Council by August 1. � If there are any questions or further suggestions, please contact the Council through staff, or directly.