Loading...
09-26-94 PC MinutesMINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION September 26, 1994 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chair McAleese at 7:05 PM. Those present were Commissioners Groger, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, and Pentel; absent were Johnson and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Elizabeth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - September 12, 1994 MOVED by Lewis, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 12, 1994 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Applicant: Thomas Ryan Address: Area North of I-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 I-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 I-394 Between Sumter Avenue South and Rhode Island Avenue South Request: Consolidation of Several Existing Residential Lots and Pieces of Lots into a Single New Non-Residential Lot It was the consensus of the Chair and Commission to have staff review all three staff reports before receiving comments from the Commission, the applicant and audience. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 26, 1994 Page Two Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, summarized her report of the Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Map for the Commission. She stated three levels of con- cern: 1) the parcel, 2) the neighborhood, and 3) the City. Ms. Knoblauch talked about the small size of the parcel, that the parcel is located at the end of an established residential neighborhood and the impact an office building could have on the neighborhood. She talked about maintaining the Comprehensive Plan in a residential neighborhood, the traffic counts on I-394, there being no access to the subject property from the freeway, and the buffering of noise from I-394. She also talked about residential/non-residential areas coming together and about spot zoning, which can occur when similarly situated properties are not treated in a similar manner. PAs. Knoblauch reported on Comprehensive Plan objectives relating to affordable housing and interest in modest cost single-family housing for this site. An interested developer applied, through the City, for a grant of $100,000 to pur- chase this property and for utility work. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, did make Mr. Ryan an offer but was refused. A letter was written to MHFA declining the grant money. Ms. Knoblauch talked about the area being on one side and residential on the other. to the north would be affected by a paved office building was placed on the largest sit 10 feet lower than the neighboring ho access and visibility. in a transitional area with businesses She added that the neighbors directly parking area and that if the proposed portion of the lot, the building would use. She also expressed concern for Ms. Knoblauch reviewed the staff recommendations and summarized the following Addenda: 1) Addendum A - Failure to Develop: Vacant Land Known as 7700 Wayzata Blvd., 2) Addendum B - Examples of Properties Similarly Situated as The Vacant Land Known as 7700 Wayzata Blvd., and 3) Addendum C - Examples of Small Office Buildings with Big Problems. Ms. Knoblauch continued with reviewing the staff report on rezoning the proposed parcel from Residential to Business and Professional Office. She briefly talked about the 10 previous rezoning attempts, what constitutes spot zoning, construc- tion of I-394 and the conflict with the Comprehensive Plan (key to rezoning is amending the Comprehensive Plan Use Map). Ms. Knoblauch then reviewed her report on the the Minor Subdivision request including the conditions and staff recommendations for approval of the Minor Subdivision. Commissioner Lewis asked for clarification of the property lot size. Ms. Knoblauch reviewed the required setbacks and stated that the lot would meet code requirements. Commissioner Groger asked about height restrictions. Ms. Knoblauch commented that the building could be three stories; any taller would need a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Pentel was concerned with the 10 foot height difference at the northeast corner where a building would most likely be situated, and how it might impact the home to the north. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 26, 1994 Page Three Commissioner Groger asked if there would be only one driveway on the site. Ms. Knoblauch commented that the Engineering Department would give the permits for driveways. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, commented that another driveway could go in but may cut parking. The applicant, Thomas Ryan, #2 Maclynn Road, Minnetonka, took issue with staff's claim that an offer had been made to buy the lots for residential use; he told the Commission there was no purchase agreement and no earnest money was received. He also commented on how the pictures from the staff report only showed residential lots -- Mr. Ryan showed the Commission pictures he had taken and they were returned to him at the end of the meeting. Mr. Ryan commented on the last ten years that he has owned the property saying the Planning Commission in 1985 approved an office structure but the City Council denied because of the I-394 impact. He also talked about meeting with City staff and neighbors and the neighbors asked him to market the site for single-family residential, which he said he had for two years. Mr. Ryan stated that he contacted other professionals who said the land was not suitable for single-family, and MnDOT who said that freeways and neighborhoods are. not compatible. Commissioner Pentel asked Mr. Ryan if he would lease out the proposed office building. Mr. Ryan said that he would sell the property to someone else who was maybe looking for a small office headquarter site. He would not build on the property himself. Commissioner Kapsner asked which years Per. Ryan marketed the site for single- family. Mr. Ryan commented 1992-93. Marc A. Brickman, realtor for Burnett, 2818 Haskell Point Road, Orono, talked about marketing the site for five single-family residential lots and that he had several inquiries. He talked about office building space improving, the location of the proposed site and the City being able to collect taxes on a structure vs. vacant land. Commissioner Kapsner asked Mr. Brickman about the price of the land and what would a lot sell for three blocks from I-394. Mr. Brickman said the lots were marketed for about $30,000, and that there is very little raw land left in the Hopkins School District. He felt-lots three blocks from I-394 would sell for approximately $49,900. The problem with the proposed parcel is noise from I-394. Commissioner Pentel asked staff that if the hearing items were approved, would the Planning Commission see any building applications for this lot. Staff com- mented that a conforming .building proposal on this site would not come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Groger asked about the number of homes that could go on the lot. Ms. Knoblauch commented that the parcel is platted for five lots which are con- sidered legally buildable under City Code even though they don't meet the current 10,000 sq.ft. per lot requirement. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 26, 1994 Page Four Rick Rosow, attorney for Mr. Ryan, 19835 Waterford Place, Shorewood, commented on his client's awareness that the public has concerns, and at a site plan review the neighbors and Mr. Ryan could get together and work things out. Mr. Rosow commended the work that went into the staff reports, but wanted to point out some inconsistencies. He showed a short tape of the area talking about the I-394 noise, businesses in area and their business signs, and the proposed site not being a good residential parcel. He showed on the monitor a card quoting from the Comprehensive Plan Amendment report "The subject property is clearly not one of Golden Valley's most choice homes sites", and asked how staff could then go on to recommend in favor of continuing the property's residential designation. He showed a second card, quoting "The grade difference between I-394 and the subject property plus the clutter of overpasses, highway signage, and adjacent business signage, leaves little opportunity for the site to make a significant visual impression on highway motorists" and asked why the second half of the quote couldn't as easily be replaced by "leaves the property unsuitable for residential use." Mr. Rosow read a paragraph from the Metro Council's Housing Development Guide, of 1985, which said that subsidized housing should not be built where not desirable, and compared it to the staff recommen- dation. He also passed out to the Commission a document from C.R. Pelton, Realtor, who wrote the best use for the parcel would be commercial use. Mr. Rosow read selected sentences from some of the scenarios in Addendum C (regarding problem office buildings), and said that he could see no problem other than that staff had to put some effort into doing their job. Commissioner Pentel asked the applicant if he had been paying taxes on the pro- posed property and Mr. Ryan stated yes. Chair McAleese opened the Informal Public Hearing. Paul McEnroe, 815 Sumter Avenue South, spoke on behalf of 42 neighboring resi- dents who .oppose the rezoning and gave the Chair a statement with their signatures. Mr. McEnroe talked about the closeness of the neighborhood, the long-term residents of the neighborhood, and children being able to play in the neighborhood without fear. He commented on his meeting with MnDOT, the City of Golden and Representative Leppik regarding putting the neighborhood on a prior- ity list fora noise barrier along I-394, even though all-day readings, recently taken by MnDOT from the Stillwell's yard, indicate that the noise level in the area is currently below the point where standards would require such a wall. Alvin Winkels, 914 Sumter Avenue South, said that he represents eight long-term residents. He has been through all of the past attempts to rezone this parcel and he asked the Planning Commission to give the neighborhood a break. In response to the staff report's reference to a "mystery building" on the subject property in the 1940's, Mr. Winkels told the Commission that a Mr. James Mercier owned and lived there until the mid-1950's. He also talked about dirt being excavated from this parcel. (Mr. Winkels presented a memorandum, to the Commission, with .signatures of the neighbors). Karen Oman, 843 Sumter Avenue South, commented that she was at the 1985 rezoning meeting and thought I-394 would destroy the neighborhood, but it has actually made the area more secluded because there is no access directly from I-394. She said the neighborhood is very close-knit and people who move there stay a long time. She talked about very little traffic on the frontage road and pointed out that Mr. Rosow's video tape showed one truck passing by the proposed site. Ms. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 26, 1994 Page Five Oman talked about a letter she received from a realtor commenting that the pro- posed lots on the parcel should sell for approximately $18,000 and that $29,900 was too much for each lot. Scott Thuleen, 855 Hanley Road, commented that he lived through the construction of I-394, has done extensive remodeling to his home and plans to stay a resident of Golden Valley. He opposes the plan to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Map and Rezoning. He talked about living next to the previously cited office build- ing where an unapproved .business leased out vehicles, and he watched as they drove down the road at 60 miles an hour, which he did consider to be a problem for the neighborhood. Craig Stillwell, 1033 Sumter Avenue South, said that as an eight year resident, he was the new kid on the block. He commented that the proposed parcel was bought and sold many years ago for gravel. He said, in 1985, there was a site sketch for an office building on this site but Mr. Ryan has not brought in a site current sketch showing where a building would be placed. Dorraine Bailey, 950 Rhode Island Avenue South, commented that her parents adjoin the proposed parcel and are very uncomfortable with having an office building located directly next to them. She stated that the homes along Hwy. 100/I-394 are now selling and feels this proposed site is more attractive. Edmund Noren, 840 Sumter Avenue South, identified himself as another long-term resident. He commented about his good neighbors and opposes the rezoning of this property. Chair McAleese closed the Informal Public Hearing. Commissioner Pentel commented that the neighborhood has suffered with the I-394 construction and doesn't like the idea of an office building encroaching on the site. She also stated her opposition to spot zoning and stated that this prop- erty is appropriate for residential use and would be equally appropriate if left vacant; she does not see the necessity of having every single parcel of land in Golden Valley be developed. Commissioner Kapsner commented that he was on the Planning Commission in 1985 and circumstances are completely different -- I-394 was an issue at that time. Mr. Kapsner felt that some of the neighborhood residents were a bit hard on Mr. Ryan, that there is nothing wrong with buying a piece of property and hoping to make a profit by selling it. Mr. Kapsner commented that he does not support changing the Comprehensive Plan Use Map and bringing one more office building into a residential block. Commissioner Groger stated that he was originally considering recommending in favor of the applicant's request, but then he stated that he had visited the site and commented that noise is a fact of life. He was on the property during rush hour and did not find the noise to be intolerable. Mr. Groger commented that the proposed parcel is not an ideal place for residential homes, but he cannot support an office building next to residential homes. Commissioner Lewis concurred with what other Commissioners had to say and would like to see the neighborhood stay the same. She opposed the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Use Map. She also complimented staff on the thorough and well written reports. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 26, 1994 Page Six Chair McAleese commented that the completion of I-394 has made the neighborhood improved for residential use and opposes a change to the Comprehensive Plan Use Map. Mr. Ryan asked Commissioner Pentel to restate her comment about the proposed site remaining vacant. Commissioner Pentel stated that she thought the land could be viable zoned residential though currently vacant. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Lewis and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council denial to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Map from low density residential to office use for the following reasons taken from the staff report: 1. Construction of I-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 afford- able housing. *(The original 5. has been deleted by consensus of Planning Commission.) 5. Small office buildings are not always the ideal residential buffer that their stereotype implies. Commissioner Groger recommended to replace the original reason No. 5, from the staff memo, by instead stating that because there is no access from I-394 to this area, any kind of use would now need to use the neighboring streets to access the proposed lot. The consensus of the Commission was to agree with Commissioner Groger that this neighborhood did not need more intense traffic on its residential streets, but no formal vote was taken on the recommendation and the motion stood with original reason No. 5 deleted and replaced by No. 6. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Lewis and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council denial to rezone the property from Residential to Business and Professional Office on 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 busi- ness and professional office zoning district. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 26, 1994 Page Seven 2. In view of the now completed I-394 corridor, which is no longer at grade level pertaining to this parcel of land, the proposed property is suitable for residential use. 3. The parcel for which rezoning is sought is residential on the City's comprehensive 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 residen- tial 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. MOVED by Lewis, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council denial of a Minor Subdivision for consolidation of several existing lots into a single new non-residential lot. There was some debate as to whether the intended use of the proposed lot was relevant to this particular item, but the applicant stated that he wanted the term "non-residential" left in the motion. Recommendation to deny was based on that factor. V. Brainstorming It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the brainstorming session to the next Planning Commission meeting (October 10, 1994). VI. orts on Meetin s of the Housin and Redevel unci and Board of Zoning aaea s Mark Grimes briefly reviewed the meetings he attended. VII. Other Business No other business was discussed. VIII. Adjournment nt Authority, Ci Chair McAleese adjourned the Planning Commission meeting of September 26, 1994 at 9:55 PM. Jean Lewis, Secretary