Loading...
05-08-89 PC Minutes MINUTES OF THE CiDLDEN VALLEY PLANNING OQVMISSION May 8, 1989 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the meeting roan of the Golden Valley Fire Station #3, 3700 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chair Prazak at 7:05 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Kapsner, Leppik, Lewis, McAleese, Prazak, McCracken-Hunt and Russell. Also present were Nark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, and Beth Knoblauch, City Planner. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -.APRIL 24, 1989 Cannissioner Lewis wanted a clarification of her statement regarding the removal of the old building. Remove the sentence "Will it be unsightly?" It was moved by Carrnissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Leppik and unani- mously voted to approve the minutes of the regular April 24, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting as corrected. II. INFOF~VIAL PUBLIC HEARING - MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: Roger Ulstad LOCATION: 309 Meander Road REQUEST: Approval of a Minor Subdivision to Divide the Lot at 309 Meander Road Into Two Residential Single-Family Lots Chair Prazak introduced this item and asked City Planner Knoblauch for a brief summary. 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. The 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 items that the City Ordinance says should be con- sidered were then reviewed. 1. Adjacent Land Use -This is a large lot in a residential area. -There is vacant land at the Golden Valley Lutheran College Property. -Planning has received another inquiry about splitting a lot. 2. Traffic Regulations -There is expected to be no major impact to the area. 1 Rte. _inutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 2 3. Zoning Regulations - It does meet the minimum area requirements. - It does meet the minimum frontage requirements. 4. Future Development - It will be limited to single family-detached 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 Commission 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. Lt 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. Commissioner 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. Commissioner 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. 1 -~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission 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 should 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 term financial gain for the Ulstad's, but the long term is the 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 sell. He understands the Ulstad's position and also the neighbors concerns regarding flooding problems because of the grading. Subdividing the lot does not bother him, but the grading problems do. David Moeller, 209 Cutacross Road, stated that he was surprised to find that his City did not have a policy regarding aesthetics. 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 Hagel, 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. 1 1 1 ~~ ~J Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission 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 number of years and has seen many changes in the City. He is against any division of lots. He feels this leaves problems 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. There would have to be some grading, but it was not considered to be an environmental problem. She could ask for a longer statement from the Building Department and the City Engineer. Director Grimes stated that any new home construction in Golden Valley cannot adversely affect 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 change. 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 Commission can use discretion on. This area could have extended their covenant or asked the City to do something when the covenant expired. Alvin Stobbe, 125 Paisley Lane, stated that he had split a iot. He is neither for or against this subdivision. He feels that the Planning Commission should make the decision. The neighbors should not be fighting over this issue. .~ _. <. ~>~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 5 Discussion was held on subdivision in other areas. Commissioner Leppik felt that the Planning Commission had no sense of direction from the City Council regarding subdivision of lots. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt stated that the thing that was different in this case was that these were still viable lots. James Sanford, 115 Meander Road, stated that he would like to see the Planning Commission come out and look at the area. Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner McAleese stated that there were two issues here. 1. Is it possible to decide against the subdivision when it meets the technical requirements. 2. Is this a subdivision 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 language of the code requires the Planning Commission to look at other things. This subdivision clearly would destroy the character of the neighbor- hood. He stated that Golden Valley would best be served by protecting the mix of neighborhoods we already have. There are reasons for some neighbor- hoods to change, but not here. Commissioner 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. Commissioner Leppik stated that she, also, opposes the subdivision. Commissioner Russell stated that she felt the Commission 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 Council and the City Attorney. Commissioner Lewis asked how much weight can be put on the technical aspect. Commissioner Russell stated that she feels uncomfortable in denying this request. City Planner Knoblauch stated that she also is uncomfortable in denying this request because it is in contrast to past history. 1 ~: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 6 Commissioner Leppik stated that there were other things to be taken into con- sideration when considering a subdivision. The Commission should look at the character of the neighborhood when deciding and not just the technical. Commissioner Kapsner stated that he feels uncomfortable in denying this request because of past actions. The Commission has usually based its decision on tech- nical aspects. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt stated that there are some smaller lots in this area. Commissioner Russell stated that we should let the Council know that we are taking other things into consideration when making a decision regarding subdivisions. Commsissioner Leppik moved to deny the application for minor subdivision of 309 Meander Road into two residential single-family lots. Commissioner McAleese seconded the motion. Commissioner Russell opposed. Motion carried, 6-1. III . CONTI NUID _I NFORMAI, PUBLIC HEAR I NG - RDC70NS I DERATI ON OF AMENDMENT 'll7 - --- OQVIPREHENSIVE 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 Medium 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 Commission 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. There were two traffic studies done for this corner. One was for the SuperAmerica'and the other for the convenience center. 1 ~. ~H Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 7 Director Grimes reviewed the findings for the audience. The traffic report stated the traffic in front of the Convenience Center would be as follows: - There would be 4600 trips on an average weekday (2300 in and 2300 out). - Of these, 280 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 roadways (140 in the A.M. peak hour and 280 in the P.M. peak .hour). - The major impact will be the left turns going north. - Traffic impact will be slight. It is expect to be about 3% for this area. - Area streets will be only minimally affected on a daily basis. Director Grimes then gave a summary of the traffic report in regards to the SuperAmerica Station. It is estimated that SuperAmerica Station trips to the area. There will be 800 mo to SuperAmerica. Of It was felt that the there will be a total of 1600 total trips by the on an average weekday. Of these, 820 will be new re trips because of the change from the Mobil Station these, 430 will be new to the area roadways. 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. Commissioner Russell questioned the statement that the Convenience Center would add only about 3% more traffic. Commissioner McAleese asked if Mr. Van Wormer was present to answer questions from the Commissioners. 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. Commissioner McAleese questioned how the numbers were generated. He stated that he was uncomfortable accepting these reports on faith. He would have preferred Mr. Van Wormer be present so that the Commission could have asked him questions. Commissioner Russell stated that any left turns at this intersection are very difficult. 1 ~` Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 8 Commissioner Leppik stated that in the future, she would like the traffic stu- dies done in a more useful format. Commissioner McCracken-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 project would take advantage of the fact that at Duluth and Douglas approximately 30,000 cars pass through this intersection daily. They feel this is a prime commercial development. He stated that this plan reflects a 21,000 sq, ft. Convenience Center. .The Center would house the following: - Tom Thumb (with 3 gas Islands) - Day Care - Small tenants -video, beauty, dry cleaners, etc. The design of the center is consistent with the characteristics of the neigh- borhood. There would be a fence around the entire area. Also, there would be no exposed units. The 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. Loucks gave an overview of the existing land use in .the bordering neighborhoods. He also reviewed the Comprehensive Plan regarding commercial use in Golden Valley. He felt that Golden Valley's policy was to create commer- cial developments at major intersections and along arterial streets. In his judgement, this Convenience Center meets that criteria. They have tried to comply 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 space in the shopping strips around this area. What will happen to these centers when a new center goes in? He would like the Commissioners to come through the area and see what the residents want to preserve. He would urge the Commission not to change the zoning. Commissioner Lewis asked what Mr. Clifford would like to do with this property. He stated that he would like to 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. ~i S Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission 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 traffic numbers sound terrible. A Day Care Center with 85 kids, and parents dropping them off and picking them up at peak hours, would cause slot 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 dump 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 since she moved in, it is no longer a residential neighborhood. Jim Burch, a member of the church, 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. Commissioner McCracken-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. Commissioner McAleese stated that this intersection currently is operating at maximum. 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 intersection in the least, traffic will start going on residential streets. Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing. Further discussion was held regarding the church property. Commissioner 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 should be strongly considered. He would recommend that we deny this rezoning request and in the future he would look favorably on rezoning this property institutional. Commissioner Leppik stated that she feels we should look at the whole parcel and not just the church. She does not feel a commercial 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 Institutional. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 10 Director Grimes stated that traffic from other uses can be just as bad. What we have been considering has been commercial use. It was his recommendation that before the Commission change it to something else, further study be done. Commissioner Lewis stated that anything on that site would create traffic. She is also concerned about the pedestrian crossings. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt agrees that there is a traffic problem at this intersection. If there wasn't a traffic problem there, she would have no objec- tion to a commercial 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. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt stated that she would like some recommendation on how to improve the intersection. Commissioner Russell stated that she was uncomfortable with another shopping center. She felt the whole parcel needed to be looked at. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt stated 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. Commissioner Leppik moved to recommend a change in the Comprehensive Plan to Institutional for all the properties. Commissioner Russell seconded. Commissioners Prazak, Kapsner, McCracken-Hunt, McAleese, and Lewis opposed. Motion not carried, 2-5. Commissioner Kapsner moved to recommend that we do not amend the Comprehensive Plan at this time. Commissioner McAleese seconded. Carried unanimously. Director Grimes will prepare a resolution regarding the recommendation. IV. REPORT ON MAY 2, 1989 CITY (JOUNCIL MEETING Commissioner McCracken-Hunt stated that she had nothing to report. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. 1