Loading...
09-28-87 PC Agenda � 1 � Golden Valley Planning Commission Manager's Conference Room Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road � ' September 28, 1987 7:00 P.M. - AGENDA I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 II. REPORT ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ; III. APA CONFERENCE REPORTS ' , IV. YEAR 2010 PLANNING PROGRAM � � * �t * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * a� * * * * * * * * * * * * * � i. 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 recort�nend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Coimnission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the pro- posed use will, or will nat, 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 aad offer comments. Your questions and cormnents become � ` part of the record and will be used by the Counc9l, along with the Co�nission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comme�ts and questions, the Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff. Comnission members may ask questions of staff. 2. The proponent will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the Co►mnission. 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. , 4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember, your questions/corrunents are for the record. � 5. Direct your qaestions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who wi1T 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 Cort�nission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate • action. MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY � � PLANNING COMMISSION September 14, 1987 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was he]d in the City Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chairman Prazak called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. Those present were C.ommissioners McAleese, Kapsner, Leppik, McCracken-Hunt, Prazak and Russell . Commissioner Lewis was not present. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Alda Wilkinson, City Planner, and Gloria Anderson, Secretary. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1987 It was moved by Commissioner McCracken-Hunt, seconded by Commissioner Leppik and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the August 24, 1987 meeting. II. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LAZNIARZ ADDITION APPLICANT: Henry and Gina Lazniarz LOCATION: 6935 Glenwood Avenue � REQUEST: Approval of the Preliminary Plat of Lazniarz Addition Which Proposes Division of the Property at 6935 Glenwood Avenue into Three Parcels Creating Two Vacant Single- Family Residential Lots This item was introduced by Chairman Prazak. Director Grimes reviewed the request for a division of this property and stated that all the lots meet the requirements of the Zoning Code for setbacks and square footage. He explained that access to the house at 6935 Glenwood Avenue was by a 15-foot easement off of Glenwood Avenue to the house which fronts on Glenwood Avenue. The proponent would maintain a 20-foot parcel of land fronting on Kentucky as the Subdivision Regulations require that each parcel have frontage on a street. There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding the width of and the need for the 20-foot strip fronting on Kentucky. Director Grimes indicated that the Subdivision Regulations do not specify any particular width for frontage on a street and because the existing house has a legal easement for access off of Glenwood Avenue, the 20-foot width is sufficient. . Mr. Henry Lazniarz, the proponent, was present to answer questions from the ' Commissioners and staff. He indicated that he would keep the easement off of Glenwood and had no plans to create a driveway from Kentucky Avenue to his home. Chairman Prazak opened the informal public hearing. � Y Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 14, 1987 � Page 2 Mr. Stephen Swartz, 220 Kentucky Avenue North, stated he had two concerns. First, he indicated that he would prefer that the access to the existing home remain on Glenwood Avenue. Secondly, he was concerned with the driveway on the easterly lot being to close to other driveways at that corner. Director Grimes noted that Mr. Lazniarz had drawings of houses that could be built on the lot with driveways on the west side of the house, thereby elimin- ating the two driveways next to each other on the east side. Mr. Swartz stated he would like an opportunity to address the driveway situation at the time the lots are developed. Chairman Prazak closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner McAleese felt the proposed parcel for the driveway should be wider than 20 feet although in this case the width would probably be sufficient. He felt it was a bad policy to create a 20-foot strip when in other instances it has been the consensus of the Commission that 30 feet is better. He noted that the new Subdivision Code would require a 30-foot frontage and that if that is what the new Code will require, then 30 feet is probably what this property should be absent of a very good reason for going to a smaller width. He indicated, however, that there may be a good reason in this case. � It was moved by Commissioner Kapsner, seconded by Commissioner Leppik and motion carried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat of Lazniarz Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. A park dedication fee of $400 be assessed at the time of final plat approval. 2. All easements required by the City Engineer be indicated on the final plat. 3. Before the final plat is approved, the subdividers shall submit their abstract for review by the City Attorney. The cost of the review will be paid by the subdividers. III. WAIVER OF THE PLATTING ORDINANCE APPLICANT: Harvey Glorvick LOCATION: 7001 Olson Memorial Highway REQUEST: Waiver of the Platting Ordinance to Allow Division of the Property Located at 7001 Olson Memorial Highway � a • Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 14, 1987 � Page 3 IV. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VANMAN ADDITION APPLICANT: Richard Vanman LOCATION: East of Glenwood Avenue at Intersection with Harold Avenue REQUEST: Approval of the Preliminary Plat of Vanman Addition Which Proposes Creation of Two Single-Family Residential Lots These items were introduced by Chairman Prazak. Director Grimes gave a review of the staff report on both items. He explained that the Waiver of the Platting Ordinance for the Glorvick property would be dependent on the approval of the Preliminary Plat of Vanman Addition. The south portion of Mr. Glorvick's property would be combined with the Vanman property to create two single-family residential lots. Director Grimes stated that if this plat were approved it would preclude any opportunity for Harold Avenue to be connected to Glenwood Avenue; therefore, staff felt that a cul-de-sac should be created at the west end of Harold Avenue to provide for traffic turn around, particularly emergency vehicles. Director Grimes explained several alternatives for creating the cul-de-sac. � Dr. Lowell Kleven, 6860 Harold Avenue, stated he would be willing to donate part of his property for this cul-de-sac rather than have Harold Avenue go through to Glenwood Avenue, but did not feel that he should then have to pay for its construction. Chairman Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Mr. Robert Latz, 6850 Harold Avenue, agrees that neither he nor other neighbors want Harold Avenue to go through. He wanted to know who would be responsible for the cost of the cul-de-sac and what that cost would be. He felt that the neighborhood should not be pushed into paying the cost of the cul-de-sac as it would be of no significant benefit to them. Mr. Henry Balfour, 6820 Harold Avenue, stated that if it were not for the Vanman property being platted, there would probably not be talk of a cul-de-sac at this time. He felt that although the legal issue as to whom you assess probably goes back to Dr. Kleven, it was ridiculous to assess somebody for donating something he doesn't even need. Mr. Balfour stated that even though - . it would be desirable to turn the vehicles around at the end of Harold Avenue . on a cul-de-sac, the vehicles are turning around now without the cul-de-sac and � have been doing so for 21 years. � Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 14, 1987 Page 4 � Chairman Prazak closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Kapsner felt that technically Harold Avenue should have been put through to Glenwood Avenue or a cul-de-sac created at the time this area was developed and the cost assessed to everyone. . Commissioner McAleese stated that it was not the job of the Planning Commission to decide who should be assessed for this cul-de,sac. It is the Planning Commission's responsibility to look at it from a planning perspective -- is the cul-de-sac necessary, and if so, where it should be. It should be up to the City Council to decide how it should be paid for. Commissioners questioned whether or not the cul-de-sac would have to, be built just because property was donated for that purpose. Director Grimes stated it wouldn't necessarily have to be built but felt that the City Engineer would recommend its construction to the City Council . It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner McAleese and carried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the request for a waiver of the Platting Ordinance for the property at 7001 Olson Memorial � Highway conditioned on approval of the Preliminary Plat of Vanman Addition. It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner McAleese and � carried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat of Vanman Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. The obtaining of an easement for a cul-de-sac at the west end of � Harold Avenue. The staff is suggesting that the City Council not consider the Prelimina�^y Plat of Vanman until an easement has been obtained. The cul-de-sac easement may be in any of the three forms suggested by Planning staff. 2. A drainage and utility plan be submitted to the City Engineer for approval . 3. All necessary drainage and utility easements be indicated on the Final Plat. 4. A park dedication fee of $400 be paid at the time of final plat approval . Dr. Kleven wanted to go on record that he would not be willing to grant an easement for the cul-de-sac if he has to pay the larger share of the cost of � construction. � Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission � September 14, 1987 Page 4 V. REPORT ON BZA, HRA AND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Commissioner Prazak reported on the September 1, 1987 City Council meeting and the September 8, 1987 Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA} meeting. Commissioner McAleese reported on the September 8, 1987 Board of Zoning Appeals� (BZA) meeting. VI. DULUTH/DOUGLAS RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission reviewed the land use recommendation for the Duluth/ Douglas site edited by Planning staff in accordance with direction provided by the Planning Commission. It was moved by Commissioner Russell , seconded by Commissioner McAleese and carried unanimously that the Planning Commission forward its revised land use recommendation for the Duluth/Douglas site to the City Coun�il . . VII. YEAR 2010 PLANNING PROGRAM The Planning Commission provided Planning staff with input for the Year 2010 Vision Narrative on two Year 2010 planning priority items related to housing. � VIII. LAND USE STUDY - EXPANDED NORTH WIRTH AREA The Planning Commission set a time of Thursday, September 24, 1987, at 7:00 A.M. for the next meeting of the subcommittee working on the North Wirth Land Use Study. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P.M. � • . . September 23, 1987 � T0: Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Alda Wilkinson, City Planner SUBJECT: Year 2010 Planning Program Attached are worksheets for use in preparation for discussion of the five remaining Year 2010 priority planning items. The purpose of the discussion is to provide staff with further direction for preparation of the Year 2010 Vision narrative, which will describe how the Planning Commission wants Golden Valley to look and ta be in the Year 2010. In addition to ideas for each of the priority planning items, staff would welcome ideas and suggestions for format and presentation of the narrative. It is anticipated that the narrative will comprise the initial chapter of the Comprehensive Plan Update and will establish themes to be carried forward throughout the various plan elements. � Attachments: Worksheets (5) � � � . 5. Sense of security of people and property � QUESTIONS: What is meant by a sense of security of people and property? How would it feel? How might people act differently with a sense of security from the way they would act without that sense of security. ANSWERS: QUESTIONS: What is the need? Are there perceived security problems at this . time? What causes or contributes to perceived problems? What might be lacking in the Year 2010 without City action? � ANSWERS: � 6. Golden Valley identity � QUESTION: What is meant by identity when applied to the City of Golden Valley? ANSWERS: Definition of identity: Image that comes to mind when people think of Golden Valley QUESTIONS: What identity or image should Golden Valley have? What vision should come to mind when reference is made to Golden Valley? ANSWERS: � QUESTIONS: Who should be aware of Golden Valley's identity? How extensive a population should recognize the Golden Valley image? ANSWERS: QUESTIONS: What is the need? Is Golden Valley lacking in identity at the Present? What is lost due to lack of identity? What would be lost or lacking in the Year 2010 without City action? ANSWERS: � � . . a � 8. Increased citizen participation in government and increased citizen access � QUESTIQN: What is meant by citizen parti,cipation in local government? Examples? ANSWERS: QUESTION: What is meant by citizen access to local government? Examples? ANSWERS: � � QUESTION: What is the need? Is there lack of citizen participation or access . at the present time? What might be lacking in the Year 2010 � without City action? ANSWERS: � � - a � 9. Redevelopment accomplished in accordance with prioritized listing of redevelopment sites , QUESTIONS: What is meant by redevelopment in accordance with a prioritized listing of sites? What is the point or idea to get across in this item? ANSWERS: Redevelopment accomplished as of the Year 2010 should have been done in accordance with priorities established early in the redevelopment process. QUESTTON: What criteria might be considered in establishing priorities among redevelopment sites? � ANSWERS: • QUESTIONS: What is the need? Is there lack of consideration of priorities at present? What might the situation be in the l�ear 2010 without City action? ANSWERS: • y � r 10. Public access to Sweeney and Twin Lakes � QUESTIONS: What is meant by public access to the lakes? What does it include? Visual access from public streets? Lakeshore accessible by car? Lakeshore accessible by trail to pedestrians and bicycles? Boat launch facilities? Boat rentals? Picnic facilities? Swim beach? ANSWERS: QUESTIONS: How many access points are visualized? Separate access to each lake? A number of access points? ANSWERS: � . QUESTIONS: What is the need? What is missing at the present time? What would be lacking in the Year 2010 without City action? ANSWERS: �