Loading...
08-25-97 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 25, 1997 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, August 25, 1997. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Johnson, Kapsner, Martens, McAleese and Prazak; absent was Groger. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary. Approval of Minutes -June 23. 1997 MOVED by Johnson, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the June 23, 1997 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing -- Rezoning Applicant: GBC Partners, LLP (Gary and Connie Larson) Address: East side of Zane Avenue about 400 feet North of TH 55 Frontage Road Purpose: Rezoning of the property from Open Development to the Industrial Zoning District. The applicant is proposing to add this piece of property to the empty at 5828 Olson Memorial Highway in order to construct an office/warehouse on the site. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, gave a summary of the staff report. He said the request is from GBC Partners to rezone approximately 11,000 sq.ft. of property which would allow for the construction of an office/warehouse type of building. Grimes reminded the Commission that the applicants appeared before the City Council earlier this summer with the same rezoning request and a subdivision request. He said that that the rezoning request was denied by the City Council and the subdivision request was tabled to a future City Council meeting. Grimes also added that the Commission had made a favorable recommendation to the City Council when these two requests appeared on its agenda of June 23, 1997. Grimes told the Commission that the applicant did appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals on June 24, 1997 and was granted substantial variances for the building which are still valid. 1 1 1 E2(~? Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 25, 1997 Page Two He also told the Commission that the Zoning Code has no time frame stipulations regarding similar requests to be heard again. Grimes said that GBC Partners believe that they have additional information on its proposal, although essentially the information submitted in the agenda packet is the same as submitted for the June 23 meeting. Commissioner McAleese asked Grimes the reasons for denial by the City Council. Grimes read the minutes from the July 15, 1997 City Council meeting noting Council Members Johnson and Micks' comments. Commissioner McAleese commented that this is an unusual case in that it is coming back to the Planning Commission. He wanted to know if there is anything in the Zoning Code on how the Commission should view the Council's comments. Grimes said that the Council made findings and its concerns dealt with issues of the construction of the building. Grimes also commented that if one is looking at the proposal on a rezoning standpoint, it is a bit more difficult to articulate because it makes sense to rezone the small parcel. Applicant, Connie Larson, co-owner of Golden Valley Supply Company, commented that GBC Partners are requesting the same rezoning of the proposed property which was approved by the Planning Commission on June 23. Ms. Larson reviewed the plans of the building, including a new elevation plan and colored building sketch. She also reviewed the company's operation, and history of the proposed land including the FluiDyne property. Ms. Larson reiterated what had happened at the Planning Commission of June 23 and the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 24. Ms. Larson introduced Brad Moen of Moen Leuer Construction Inc. Commissioner Martens asked if a landscaping and grading plan had been submitted. Grimes said that these plans would be part of the information submitted to the Board of Building Review. Grimes also said that the Inspections Department would be reviewing the grading plan and that the Engineering Department has taken a preliminary look at the site and believes some care will need to be taken when developed. Grimes also said that the City Forester would look at the site to see which trees could be saved and what kind of plantings would be viable. Mr. Moen reviewed for the Commission the newly submitted elevation plan noting that the neighbors would be shielded from the future building by trees or fences. Chair Pentel asked how much of the building is exposed to the most northern residential property owner. Mr. Moen said 12 feet. ~~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 25, 1997 Page Three Commissioner Martens asked if there would be a retaining wall and Mr. Moen commented yes and showed on the plan where it would be located on the northeast side of the building. Chair Pentel asked where the mechanicals would be placed. Mr. Moen said inside the building. Commissioner Martens commented that someone in the future could come along and place mechanicals on the roof of the building. Grimes said that the City requires screening for mechanicals on buildings. Connie Larson noted some of the concerns of the four residents to the east. She talked about the resident closest to the frontage road being concerned about the trees and Ms. Goodwin, the second closest neighbor to the frontage road being concerned about lighting, erosion, sewer capacity and drainage. Mr. Moen said that the building would be low enough that the residents wouldn't see any lights from the building and that the dock lighting would be around the corner from the residential properties; the lighting would be impact. Moen noted that there would be no erosion on the hill because of the slope of the land and that there would be proper drainage, which will be done by a Civil Engineer. The applicant noted that they wish to preserve as many trees as possible. Ms. Larson said that the Edsons, 5804 Olson Memorial Hwy. were concerned about property values. Larson commented that she had talked to some realtors who commented that the neighborhood is surrounded by industrial and office/warehouse and the worst case scenario is not to have anything on the lot. Connie Larson told the Commission that they are planning to construct a very nice and beautiful building on the site. Larson said that the Edson's are also worried about the removal of trees and the applicant has told the Edsons that they would work with them to get the desired affect, if reasonable. Ms. Larson commented that the Trettils are worried about the retaining wall and a south barrier wall. She stated that there is no retaining wall or sound barrier wall at that end of the property. She talked about a concern of noise and smell and told the Commission that her company does not manufacture anything. Larson told the Commission that she and Gary Larson have talked with Council Members Johnson and Micks and have walked the property with Micks. GBC Partners believes that this is a win-win situation for the neighbors, City and the applicant. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. 1 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 25, 1997 Page Four Georgia Goodwin, 5806 Olson Memorial Highway, said that she has now put up a fence because she believed that something would be built on the proposed lot. She said that her concern is about the small forest of deciduous trees that cleans the air. Goodwin said that this proposal is unfortunate because of the required variances that were huge. She said that she did not want to see a warehouse in her backyard but believes that this proposal is the lesser of several evils. Don Edson, 5804 Olson Memorial Highway, commented that he doesn't want to see anything on those lots; it is the woods that make the neighborhood. He said his main concern is property values and that the residential properties will be devalued. He would like GBC Partners to hire a realtor to do an assessment of what the value of the homes would be with and without a building on the proposed lots. Edson also told the Commission that the Zoning Code states a 100 foot setback from residential lots and there must be some good reason for it and now the applicant has received a variance for 72 feet and believes this is encroachment onto his property. He questioned whether the elevation drawing presented at tonight's meeting was to scale. He said that he was looking for some kind of compensation spread across the neighborhood. Jim Trettil, 5802 Olson Memorial Hwy., believes that the residential property values will go down. He questioned whether there would be a retaining wall or fence along the back property line. Trettil said he was upset with the number of variances granted. He commented that Leonard Frame bought it for a parking lot and believes that's all it is. He doesn't believe that anyone cares about the residents east of the proposed property and is against the rezoning request. Commissioner Kapsner told Mr. Trettil that the proposed back yard would gradually slope back to the building and that a portion of the building would be underground. Kapsner also said that there would be no retaining wall. Brad Moen explained to the Commission the 3 to 1 slope that would be built and would be easily moveable. He told the Commission that the elevation plan is drawn to scale. He said there was no retaining wall and there would be a pine tree backdrop for the residents to look at. Commissioner Marten would like the City Council to have a formal landscape plan for review and would like to have this in the motion. Moen said that a formal plan could be prepared for City Council review. 1 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 25, 1997 Page Five Gary Larson commented that the majority of trees to the rear of the residential properties is on the proposed lots. He said that GBC Partners do not want to push anyone out and does not want to see property values go down. He believes that once his business is in place he becomes a neighbor. As stated earlier, GBC Partners believes that this is a win-win situation. Gary Larson commented that this is a very difficult piece of property to work with. He also wanted to clarify that Mr. Edson did give a verbal approval (noting that he would stay neutral on the proposal) when he and Connie Larson visited with him. Grimes commented to the Commission that if the four homes and street were vacated, the area would be approximately 200 x 600 feet (approximately 3 acres). He said he has calculated that a 40,000 sq.ft. building could be placed on the site with adequate parking. Grimes said that there are three businesses to the east of the residential lots that are smaller than the residential lots and driveway. Grimes said that the four lots and driveway are developable on its own. Commissioner Martens agreed with Grimes that the residential homes and driveway could be developed for a small user. 1 Mr. Edson came forward to comment on his conversation with Mr. Larson on giving his approval to the proposal. He said that the Larsons showed him a document noting that they would replace trees but did not want to sign the document because the document was too vague. He said that he has talked with Council Members Micks and Johnson and told them that this proposal would be the less of two evils. Edson would still like to have a realtor do a before and after assessment of the area to determine market values. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Prazak commented that it is difficult to sort out the building plan from the rezoning and supports the rezoning. He said he was pleased to see the additional information, i.e. the elevation plan. Prazak said that this is an awkward lot to build on. He said he reassured by Grimes' comment that the four homes and driveway would be large enough to develop on its own. Commissioner Johnson said she supports the rezoning and that it makes sense to make the lots buildable. She believes that the Larsons have done a good job of listening to the neighbors and have accommodated everyone with their concerns. Johnson noted Commissioner Martens comment that there are not a lot of small lots left in Golden Valley to build on and she believes that this a good proposal for the amount of space available. Johnson does not believe it is fair to hold the applicants to what was submitted by Mr. Frame. _'e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 25, 1997 Page Six Commissioner Martens said that he supports the application and believes that it is a good design, good use of the area and is sensitive to the land and neighborhood. He commented on the variances granted and believed they were appropriate in this case noting the site coverage. Martens said his biggest concern would be the landscaping and its affect on the neighborhood. He said that the neighbors are being impacted by the removal of the trees and he would like to see a landscape plan before he voted if the final decision were up to this Commission and encourages the applicant to have a formal plan for Council review. Chair Pentel commented on Mr. Frame in 1989 getting his lot rezoned from Open Development to Industrial for a parking lot and used it as a wedge, used by Mr. Frame to get variances for a very large building. She said she sees the rezoning as a way to further isolate the residential area and views this rezoning as a way to increase the size of the variances -- the proposed building is very long and 28 feet from the east property line. She opposes the rezoning of the proposed property. Commissioner Kapsner said that he had a number of concerns. He believes that the proposal is not encroaching on the residential area to the east and sees no future residential use for the proposed property. Kapsner said he sees the long term use of this area as industrial or office and is the future of the proposed piece of property, whether it is constructed now or later. He said that the applicants have submitted a use that is workable, it is not the number one choice, but it is better use than other choices. Is in favor of the proposal. Commissioner McAleese commented on the narrow issue of the rezoning and believes it is appropriate. McAleese said that he attended the City Council meeting of July 15 and had originally agreed with the City Council's decision but has reconsidered. He said that he would vote against the rezoning at this time, that looking at the simple planning standpoint of rezoning makes sense, but believes there are other development issues. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Prazak and motion carried by a vote of 4-2 (one commissioner absent) to recommend approval of the request to rezone the proposed property from Open Development to Industrial 1 ,~' ~, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 25, 1997 Page Seven III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals Chair Pentel gave a report on a BZA meeting. Grimes reported on the Special Meeting of the HRA regarding a motion for the HRA to acquire properties in the Golden Hills West Area. IV. Other Business A. Attendance Review Chair Pentel reviewed attendance. B. State Planning Conference in Rochester, MN Chair Pentel and Commissioner Martens will be attending the conference. V. Adjournment Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8:30pm 1 1 1