Loading...
04-23-84 PC Minutes24 MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 1984 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chairman Forster called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Forster, Leppik, McAleese, Prazak, Russell and Singer. Commissioner Tubman was absent. Also present was Alda Peikert, Assistant Planner. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1984 It was moved by Commissioner Singer, seconded by Commissioner Leppik and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the April 9, 1984 Planning Commission meeting as recorded. II. SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICANT: City of Golden Valley LOCATION: 4010 Bassett Creek Drive REQUEST: Preliminary Plat Approval of "Mary Hills Park" III. SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICANT: City of Golden Valley LOCATION: 4130 Bassett Creek Drive REQUEST: Preliminary Plat Approval of "Rice Lake Park Reserve" IV. SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICANT: City of Golden Valley LOCATION: 5000 Olson Memorial Highway & 801 Ottawa Avenue No. REQUEST: Preliminary Plat Approval of "Schaper Natural Area" Chairman Forster introduced the first of three agenda items setting informal public hearing dates for platting of City owned property. Chairman Forster called on Assistant Planner Alda Peikert who explained the purposes for platting of the City owned properties. 1 Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1984 Page 2 2s1 It was moved by Commissioner Prazak, seconded by Commissioner Leppik and carried unanimously to set informal public hearing dates of May 14, 1984 for consideration of all three Preliminary Plats of City owned properties including "Mary Hills Park", "Rice Lake Park Reserve", and "Schaper Natural Area". V. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PUD AMENDMENT PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN APPLICANT: Stanley M. Chasney LOCATION: 4959/4969/4979 Olson Memorial Highway REQUEST: Preliminary Design Plan Approval of PUD #28, Pondwood Office Park, Amendment No. 2 Chairman Forster introduced this agenda item and recognized the proponent, Mr. Stanley Chasney, who was present. In response to questions from Commissioners, Assistant Planner Alda Peikert explained why Pondwood Office Park was originally processed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and confirmed that the provisions of the PUD continue with the property through changes in ownership. Chairman Forster called on the proponent, Mr. Stanley Chasney, to present his proposal. Mr. Chasney introduced himself as one of the partners in Pondwood Associates and stated that he leases the third building in Pondwood Office Park. Mr. Chasney presently subleases the third unit in the building which he is proposing for conversion to residential use. Mr. Chasney stated that he and his wife, who are empty nesters with two grown. children, propose to live in the residential unit. In response to questions from Commissioner Leppik, Mr. Chasney stated that the unit proposed for residential use does not have a kitchen at this time and that a kitchen would be installed. Mr. Chasney confirmed that it is his intent to sell the home in which he and his wife now live and to move per- manently into the proposed residential unit. Chairman Forster asked whether the units at Pondwood Office Park are con- dominiums. Mr. Chasney explained that the entire development is owned by the Pondwood Associates partnership and that the individual partners lease units from the partnership. Chairman Forster asked whether the position of the proposed garage requiring a setback variance is the best position the proponent was able to come up with. Mr. Chasney replied that the proposed position of the garage is the result of an effort to maintain a scale proportionate to the existing buildings. Mr. Chasney estimated that the garage could be moved two to three feet to the west closer to the existing office building but no further due to the fact that surface drainage flows between the proposed garage and the building. 1 ~~ Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1984 Page 3 Commissioner Prazak commented that it is aesthetically preferable not to place the proposed garage too close to the existing office building. Chairman Forster opened the informal public hearing for public input. Ms. Helen Ekman, 440 Cloverleaf Drive, stated that her property touches the south end of the pond adjacent to Pondwood Office Park. Ms. Ekman stated that she spends $3 to $5 per week on bird food and cracked corn, that she and her family love the birds, and that they bought their property for that reason. According to Ms. Ekman, the wood ducks, pheasants and mallards come into her yard, and the geese are there on the pond. Ms. Ekman stated that when she thinks of more concrete, she is reminded of tearing up of the land for South Wirth and for the Graco Building, of Breck development of the property next to the railroad, and of construction of the frontage road on the other side of Highway 100 on Highway 55. Ms. Ekman stated that with so much moving in on her neighborhood which is just drastic and horrible, she visited her neighbors Friday, Saturday and Sunday. According to Ms. Ekman, all agreed that they do not want any more building and willingly signed a petition against construc- tion of the proposed three stall garage at Pondwood. Ms. Ekman stated that the consensus of her neighbors is that they are sick and really hurting over the monstrosity built at Breck and over the experience of living next to the driving of pilings for construction. According to Ms. Ekman the people in the neighborhood all feel the same way that they wish to do anything they can to save any of their land, even a few inches, for the ducks who do not live well on concrete but need grass and trees. Ms. Ekman stated that the people who built Pondwood did not replace the trees torn down when they built those nasty buildings there. Ms. Ekman concluded by reading and submitting her petition signed by 34 persons opposed to construction of a three stall garage at Pondwood Office Park. In response to a question from Commissioner Singer, Ms. Ekman clarified that her objection is to the construction of the proposed three stall garage and that she has no objection to people living at Pondwood. Ms. Helen Rockler, 516 Cloverleaf Drive, stated that she and her family have lived at their current address since 1950 and are therefore long term resi- dents of Golden Valley. Ms. Rockler stated that she recently received the tax assessment on her property, that the value of her house has increased, and that if her house is that valuable she hates to see it threatened by the building described by her neighbor a few moments ago. Ms. Rockler said that she is not altoyhether sure what is being proposed, but she has learned that the time to .talk is before the building is built. As an illustration she recalled how her neighborhood some years ago agreed to rezoning of property for the Seventh Day Adventist Church Headquarters. Ms. Rockler stated that it never occurred to residents that they would sell that building, but that it is now sold and has developed into a problem due to cars parked up and down the service road. Ms. Rockler concluded that she does not know why a resident would require a three car garage, but that she does not want it if it would threaten her property. She stated that if she is paying so much in taxes on her property, she wants to protect it. 1 27 Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1984 Page 4 Mr. Larry Jackson introduced himself as General Secretary of the American Federation of Grain Millers, located at 4949 Olson Memorial Highway adjacent to Pondwood Office Park on the east. Mr. Jackson stated that he was present to obtain information as well as to express his views. Mr. Jackson questioned whether there is adequate space on the Pondwood site for the proposed three stall garage. Mr. Jackson further stated that the Pondwood development was originally constructed for office use and asked what conversion to residential would do to adjacent property values. Assistant Planner Alda Peikert explained the staff opinion that use of the end unit at Pondwood for han- dicapped residential use would not alter the appearance of the development and would have no effect on neighboring property values. Mr. Jackson stated the opinion that residential use could include the presence of children resulting in littering with bicycles and tricycles and the deterioration typical of residential development. Mr. Jackson stated that this would have a substan- tial effect on the adjacent property. Chairman Forster closed the informal public hearing. Commissioners directed to Mr. Chasney questions concerning the need for the garage at all, the need for a garage as large as three stalls, how much of the proposed garage is on area already paved, whether the garage could be moved to cover only area already paved, whether the garage could be moved to the east edge of the property, and whether the garage might later be converted to office use. Mr. Chasney stated that he feels the garage is a necessity but that he would not go so far as to say that he would withdraw his request for residential use if the garage were denied. Mr. Chasney expressed willingness to reduce the size of the garage to two stalls and to reconsider the location. Mr. Chasney confirmed that location of the garage a greater distance from the proposed residential unit would be an inconvenience for his handicapped wife, but stated that he is willing to be flexible in reconsidering the location. Concerning possible future office use of the garage building, Mr. Chasney stated that the yarage would not be built on pilings as is required for a habitable structure at this location and that it would therefore remain a garage. It was moved by Commissioner Leppik and seconded by Commissioner Singer to request that the proponent submit a revised plan for construction of a two stall garage repositioned to result in minimal impact on landscaped area. Commissioner Leppik clarified that she has no objection to the residential use and views the garage as the only problem. Commissioner Russell asked whether the proponent would be willing to make the investment in the garage and residential conversion of the unit for one time occupancy if reversion to office use is required when the Chasneys no longer occupy the unit. Mr. Chasney stated that he is willing to make the investment for one time residential occupany. A vote was taken, and the motion carried Commissioners Forster, Leppik, McAleese, the motion, and Commissioner Prazak vote Prazak stated that he opposed the motion the size of the garage and repositioning would have minimal positive impact. by a vote of five to one. Russell and Singer voted in favor of i against the motion. Commissioner because he feels that reduction of to avoid removal of eight feet of sod 2$ Planniny Commission Minutes - April 23, 1984 Page 5 Commissioner Prazak asked that staff investigate with the City Attorney options for stipulating in the PUD Permit reversion of the residential unit to office use upon discontinuance of use by the Chasneys. Ms. Peikert confirmed that all property owners within 500 feet of the property would be renotified of the continued public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner McAleese, seconded by Commissioner Sinyer and carried unanimously to include notification of all persons who signed the resident petition. VI. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 18, 1984 Commissioner Singer provided the Planniny Commission with a report on the April 18, 1984 City Council meeting. VII. REPORT ON HRA MEETING - APRIL 10, 1984 Commissioner Leppik provided the Planniny Commission with a report on the April 10, 1984 meetiny of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). VIII. REPORT ON PACAC MEETINGS Commissioner Prazak reported on meetings of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Planniny Area Citizen Advisory Committee (PACAC) for Planning Area One. Commissioner Prazak reported that the PACAC has met twice and has reviewed Year X Program proposals from all communities in Planniny Area One. According to Commissioner Prazak, the PACAC is recommending the proposed City of Golden Valley Year X CDBG Program for approval, which is not necessarily the case for all Planniny Area communities. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, G. William Forster, Chairman Gary Prazak, Secretary 1