Loading...
12-22-03 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 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 December 22, 2003. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Keysser, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes December 8, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting - Pentel referred to paragraph five on page six and stated that the wording should be changed to say that she liked the way the draft PUD makes it able for the Planning Commission to consider all issues when reviewing a PUD. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes from December 8,2003 with the above noted change. II. Informal Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: 1. To change the definition of Medium Density on the Comprehensive Plan Map from 5.5 to 11.9 units per acre to 5-20 units per acre. - 2. To change the definition of High Density on the Comprehensive Plan Map from 12 or more units per acre to 20 or more units per acre. 3. Redesignate certain parcels due to the definition changes. Grimes reminded the Planning Commission that a public hearing for a minor subdivision was held on December 8,2003 to allow for a consolidation of four lots located at the corner of Laurel and Turners Crossroad, north of Fire Station Number 2 to allow for a 3- story apartment building to be constructed. He stated that the owner of this property is also the owner of Laurel Estates located to the west and that he has been in the process of planning for this type of development in this location for several years. Grimes said that it was brought to staff's attention that there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan Map designation and the Zoning Map designation in the area along Turners Crossroad where the new apartment building is being proposed. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan Map allows up to 11.9 units per acre to be built, however, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 2 the Zoning Map allows 19.8 units per acre. He added that in 1997, new State legislation requires that the Zoning Map be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Map. Grimes stated that when staff looked at this area in 1999 the intent was to allow something similar to the Laurel Estates apartments and that Mr. Goldman, the property owner, would like to build up to the maximum number of units allowed per acre in the M-1 zoning district. He referred to his staff report and said that there is more than this one location in Golden Valley where there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Zoning Map. Pentel referred to Laurel Estates and stated that it is a PUD and that the PUD ordinance gives an exception for making the General Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map match. Grimes said that PUD for Laurel Estates was created in 1979 and at that time it was designated medium density housing but that somehow it was allowed higher density than that. e Pentel asked if PUDs create exceptions to the Zoning Map. Grimes said yes, but not to the Comprehensive Plan. PUDs should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but prior to 1997 it was the reverse, the Zoning ordinance took precedence over the Comprehensive Plan. Pentel stated that in this case the last time the General Land Use Plan Map was updated it should have been changed to high density. Grimes agreed and said in 1999 the Laurel Estates area should have been changed to high density and the property around it should have most logically also have been changed to high density on the General Land Use Plan Map. He suggested that alternative would be to just change the designation for the proposed Goldman apartment area at this meeting. It may be best to have more time to study the entire City to be sure all conflicts are resolved. e Pentel said she agreed that there are so many issues that are inherent in making a wholesale change to the General Land Use Plan Map that they need to take more time to study it. She asked why they have to work on changing the designation on this proposed property now when the subdivision is going through the approval process and the City has a pretty good idea of what the proposed development will look like. Grimes stated that in talking to the City Attorney he feels the conflict should really be addressed now. Pentel clarified that changing the designation for these specific properties would allow for up to 20 units per acre but that the zoning for the properties would not change. Grimes said that is correct, the zoning would not be changing. Rasmussen asked what kind of assumptions the applicant made about the use of the land when the streets were reconfigured during the Meadowbrook reconstruction. Grimes said the applicants looked at it the same way as staff did, as a 3-story apartment building. He added that street capacity is not an issue with this property. Grimes stated that in doing research he also became aware of some properties that need to be re-designated the other way and are not appropriate for high density housing. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 3 Rasmussen asked why these maps weren't checked during the Comprehensive Plan update process the last time it was updated. Grimes said that the Laurel Estates area should have been designated high density at that time because it is high density and that fact that it wasn't is because it was missed by himself or other planners. Pentel opened the public hearing. Catherine Mcintire, 625 Turnpike Rd., stated that the neighborhood heard nothing of this meeting before the previous Saturday. Grimes stated that notices were sent out to all property owners that are within 500 feet of the subject property even though it is not a requirement to sehd out hearing notices for Comprehensive Plan changes. Gary Gandrud, Faegre & Benson, 90 S. 7th Street, Minneapolis, Attorney representing applicant, stated they also notified everyone within 500 feet when they had their neighborhood meeting on the minor subdivision. Pentel asked when they had their meeting. Gandrud said it was in November. Pentel asked if it was prior to the re-platting of the lots. Gandrud said yes. Gandrud stated that they have been talking with the City on and off for 17 years about combining these lots. He said the property was priced as M-1 property, they planned it as M-1 property and they have proceeded in good faith under M-1 requirements. He said he agrees that this one property should be addressed and that the properties in the rest of the City should be studied further and added that this isn't a hearing for their plans but that they are available to answer questions. Mary Zilinski, 633 Turnpike Road, asked if the public notice was given before or after the conflict between the General Land Use Plan Map and the Zoning Map was identified. She said that she would like to know more about the appropriate procedure to amend the Comprehensive Plan. She said it strikes her as odd to say the City only has to give notice for any changes to property owners within 500 feet if we're talking about the Comprehensive Plan because she envisions it to be more like the constitution whereas talking about zoning is a little more like a statute, so if the overall plan for Golden Valley is going to be amended she thinks the citizens that are anywhere near a subject property have the right to know what's going on. She added that the notice she received the previous Saturday is the first she has heard about this application. Pentel asked Grimes if a public hearing notice was sent out for this meeting and what it said. Grimes said yes, a notice was sent out to those property owners within 500 feet of the property where this proposed apartment building is being proposed, not to the other areas where other changes to the General Land Use Plan Map were in conflict with the Zoning Code. He said that in 1999 when the entire Comprehensive Plan Map was updated a notice was not sent to every homeowner. Notice was given by an article in the newspaper or newsletter. Formal public hearings before the City Council require an official hearing notice in the SunPost. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 4 Pentel stated that in the past properties and re-development proposals have come before the Planning Commission where there is a Zoning Map change and a Land Map change. She asked if in those situations for those individual properties if the only notice that's gone out for Planning Commission meetings is to property owners within 500 feet. She asked if PUD get noticed separately in the newspaper. Grimes stated that only notices for formal public hearings where the decision is made by the City Council are published in the newspaper. McAleese stated that part of the confusion with this application is that the applicant had a separate meeting in November that had nothing to do with the minor subdivision. Grimes added that in effect if an applicant meets the zoning requirements they don't need Planning Commission or City Council approval. Jon Dibb, representing his mother, Mildred Olson, who lives at 319 Turners Crossroad, presented a petition to the Commissioners. It expresses that the people in the area want to maintain the current density on the Comprehensive Plan despite what the property is zoned. He said in this situation there is more to be concerned about. The neighbors don't want to worry about more traffic and any other safety issues. He said one thing that concerned him is that he heard the Planning Commission won't listen and that it is already a done deal. He stated that he has the signature of the minister of Golden Valley Lutheran Church who said he feels comfortable signing the petition for all 800 people in the congregation and that they don't approve changing the Comprehensive Plan Map just to get it in line with the Zoning Map. Dibb said in general he realizes there is going to be more density than what is there now and that 51 units would be allowed under the current zoning. He discussed the access to the site and stated that they never had seen traffic on the back streets such as Lawn Terrace, Radisson, and Turnpike trying to get to Highway 100 prior to the closing of Turners Crossroad south of Glenwood. He said he is concerned about a double driveway right across from single family homes where kids play and people walk their dogs. He stated that this is going to be a huge change and that the people have adjusted to the closing of Turners Crossroad and to reverse the clock and throw a bunch of people back in the area is concerning. He said there are other apartments in the area but not are coming right off into a residential area. Pentel asked Mr. Dibb if the neighborhood would support keeping the apartment proposal to 51 units which would comply with M-1 even though the zoning is for 19 units per acre, recognizing that there would still be a conflict with the Laurel Estates property. Dibb stated yes, and added that property values are a concern and traffic and safety are a big concern also. He said that the proposed apartments would be a change of 35 units compared to Laurel Estates which is 40 to 50 units so the new apartments would be one and half times the size of Laurel Estates. Charles Reynolds, 200 Turnpike Road, stated that he did receive two notices regarding this property, one from Mr. Goldman and one from the City. He said he realizes his neighbors concerns and agrees that they don't want to revert to the way Turners Crossroad was but that he doesn't think that is the intent. He said he certainly would not want to see headlights coming into his house and understands that concern. He stated that he attended the meeting that the applicant held in November and that he found them Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 5 to be very workable, high quality people to work with. He said that he does not see this proposed development devaluing the property values in the area at all and that the applicant is not a short term developer which he appreciates. He said he drives by Laurel Estates 3 to 4 times a day and it is a very attractive building. He added that this property has been zoned for apartments, there is nothing they can do about it, and it's going to be apartments. The building is not going to be junk, the applicant maintains his properties and he appreciates it. He stated that he does want to make sure that the entrance isn't a problem for the houses across the street and that the berm is high enough so that the cars in the parking lot won't be seen. Carol Gohman, 621 Turners Crossroad, stated that there are a lot of uncontrolled intersections on Turnpike Road and Lawn Terrace and she gets nervous about people walking their dogs and playing. She said that there would be a 68% increase between 51 units and 86 units and that there will be a lot of extra cars. e Pentel suggested a right turn out of the proposed apartment building which would direct traffic back to Xenia. Grimes stated that as part of the traffic study the traffic engineer will review the internal circulation on the site plan and make suggestions on how traffic should be routed. Pentel said that traffic isn't an issue the Planning Commission can handle at this meeting but she is glad it will be in the minutes and that calling out these issues is good. Shaffer clarified that the issue is that if the proposal complied with the Zoning Code the proposal would not have to come before the Planning Commission or City Council at all. e Pentel stated that if the proposal were for 12 units an acre which is what the General Land Use Plan Map allows for M-1 there would be no issue. Grirnes agreed and said that generally speaking the way zoning is looked at is that people have the right to build up to the maximum density that is allowed in the Zoning Code. McAleese said that if state law says that the Comprehensive Plan governs then people don't have a right, even if there is an error on the Zoning Map, to build up to 20 units because the Zoning Code says a person can build to "a maximum of' which means there really isn't a conflict in complete terms because an M-1 type of development could still be built. It would just be limited to the density per acre based on what the Comprehensive Plan Map says. Gandrud clarified that Laurel Estates has 65 units and that they are planning a right in right out on Turners Crossroad. He stated that there is a condition on the final approval of the subdivision that a berm must be put in. Gretchen Meyer, 201 Turners Crossroad asked whose responsibility, before pen was ever put to paper, in developing these plans to determine what the size of this building should be. Was it Mr. Goldman's responsibility, his architect, or his hired attorney to have contacted the City to make sure their ducks were in a row? Grimes stated that it is all public information. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 6 Pentel asked if the applicants have brought in any actual plans of the proposed building with an actual number of units. Grimes reminded the Commissioners that the applicant did show plans of the proposed building at the last Planning Commission meeting. He added that the applicants have gone above and beyond what they have needed to do and that Staff held their public hearing off an agenda so the public could see what the proposed building was going to look like. Tommy Dunne, 201 Turners Crossroad stated that he is one of the people who canvassed the neighborhood to get signatures for the petition. He said that all of the houses he went to with the exception of two thought the General Land Use Plan Map should stay medium density. He added that every time he opens his door and looks out his front window he's going to be staring straight at this and he wants it to be a maximum of 51 units. e Mildred Olson, 319 Turners Crossroad stated that she wanted to clarify that the applicants did not have the neighborhood meeting until one of the neighbors saw a truck boring soil samples. She said that she stopped by the City and talked to Mark Grimes and he gave her Mr. Goldman's name so she called him and asked if he could have a meeting with the neighborhood. He said yes he would in two weeks, they didn't hear anything from Mr. Goldman for over a month. She added that it was upon her insistence that the neighborhood finally found out what was going to happen. Grimes explained that he asked Mr. Goldman to have a neighborhood meeting far before his discussion with Ms. Olson. He said it was always Mr. Goldman's intent to have a meeting and that it was delayed somewhat in getting drawings done. He said it is Staff's policy to encourage developers to meet with communities first before they hear it from the City because then people think the proposal is a done deal. e McAleese said that the point in fact is that the subdivision code doesn't require that the applicant have a neighborhood meeting and that he should be commended for having a meeting and the fact that it was delayed for drawings seems reasonable. Eric Wibholm, 109 Turners Crossroad said that he lives directly across the street from the site. He said it is a family area and there are lots of children on that street. He stated that there is a lot of opposition and that everyone he has spoken to does not want the Comprehensive Plan changes. He suggested getting the traffic to exit onto Laurel or Xenia as a solution to the traffic problem and said he thinks that would alleviate a lot of the opposition to the proposed apartment building. Pentel said that was discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting and that the City can't always tell people where to access their property. Grimes explained that Xenia goes to a wetland area and having traffic go on to Laurel would encumber Mr. Goldman's other property and that it is up to him whether he wants to look at that option or not. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 7 Mary Zilinski, 633 Turnpike Road, asked what the next steps are procedurally to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Pentel said the next step is a public hearing at the City Council. She added that there will be a notice published in Sun Post Newspaper before that meeting. McAleese explained that the Planning Commission's job is to make a recommendation to the City Council and that the Council makes the final decision on the issue. Zilinski said that the Planning Commission is talking about amending the entire plan and that she is puzzled with the notion of only providing notice within 500 feet of anyone affected by the Plan in all of those areas affected by the discrepancies between the two documents and it seems that there would be more than just a few people within 500 feet of each of those areas that should be notified. e Pentel explained that making all of the changes to the General Land Use Plan Map at this meeting is beyond the scope of what the Planning Commission wants to tackle at this meeting so ultimately what they are discussing is this particular property and the Laurel Estates PUD. She explained that if the City were to make changes globally to the General Land Use Plan Map that the Planning Commission is not required to send out notices. Tommy Dunne, 201 Turners Crossroad, referred to a Commissioner saying earlier that if the traffic was to spill out across the owners other property (Laurel Estates) it would cause an encumbrance to the property owner. He said that their property is already encumbered by this proposal and their property values have plummeted. He said he spoke to one neighbor who said he won't even have time to sell his house. e Pentel stated that this property has been zoned M-1 which allows multiple unit dwellings and has been designated medium density and that people have had the fortune of not having a building in this location but it is allowable for the proposed apartment build to be build according to the existing Land Use Plan and Zoning Code. Grimes said that the City has not shown a devaluation of property throughout the City where multiple dwelling units have gone in. John Dibb thanked Grimes for quick response to his email. He said that there are no sidewalks for people to walk and asked which comes first the General Land Use Plan or the Zoning Map. To him the General Land Use Plan comes first then the Zoning Map. Steve Feigin, 25 Turnpike Road, asked how the disruption to their daily lives could be minimized once the construction starts on Turners Crossroad. Pentel said that normally construction can occur from 7 am to 10 pm and that no one is allowed to store materials on the street without a permit from the City. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22,2003 Page 8 Feigin asked about big trucks parked on both sides of the street. Pentel said that the Public Safety Department takes that very seriously and would try to make sure that would not occur. Feigin said there are rules, and things that people aren't required to do, but there are also people's lives and there has to be understanding, leeway and communication because it is not going to affect the Commissioners lives, it's going to affect their lives dramatically. Seeing and hearing no one further wanting to speak. Pentel closed the public hearing. Grimes reiterated that the City tries to keep the construction disruption to a minimum. Groger stated that he agrees that the Planning Commission should limit their discussion to these two specific properties. He said that there are too many other issues city wide to discuss at this meeting without having more publicity. He asked what liability the City has because the proponent has said they bought the property with a certain understanding, however, the General Land Use Plan is a public document available to all. He asked if there was a time frame or deadline for action for the City to do something in order to allow or not allow construction to take place. Grimes said that once the final plat is approved he assumes the applicants are going to want to start building. He said that the City Attorney has said that the property owner has made decisions based on the Zoning Map information and that there has been dependency on that information as well, but he hasn't made his definitive statement on this issue yet. McAleese stated that they are talking about reliance and that the idea of reliance has to be reasonable. What they have is a state statute that says two things have to be in compliance with each other. He said there is a conflict because the Zoning Code says here is the maximum number of units allowed under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan says here is the maximum number of units allowed under the Comprehensive Plan, which is a smaller number. He said he thinks that the two documents can be construed together and that a reasonable person understanding that the Comprehensive Plan governs should have understood that the lower number is the maximum number of units that's available. He said he doesn't know how a person can argue reliance when the Comprehensive Plan, which is a public document, and the Zoning Code say different things and state law says the Comprehensive Plan is the top document. Pentel said she agrees with Commissioner McAleese. She said when she looks at PUD number 18A (Laurel Estates) and this proposal she doesn't have a problem with recommending the General Land Use Plan be changed to high density because that is what is accurate. She said she has a greater problem changing the other properties. McAleese said that reliance on the Zoning Code doesn't make sense and the single question should be is if changing the Comprehensive Plan is appropriate. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22,2003 Page 9 Rasmussen said she is not inclined to separate the properties and feels it would be setting some kind of precedent. She said she is not comfortable without an opinion from the City Attorney and she is not in favor of changing this piece of property. She added that this is a good example of how a public hearing can be conducted. She said the developer has been cooperative and the citizens have been respectful. Pentel said the applicants re-platting can go ahead as planned and agreed that an opinion of the City Attorney would be helpful. Eck stated that he can understand how the developer would rely on the zoning when determining the density he could build there without comparing the Zoning Map to the General Land Use Plan Map and asked how the density numbers that are specified in the General Land Use Plan came about. e Grimes said that the density numbers have been on the General Land Use Plan Map since 1981 and were copied over to the 1999 version. A planning consultant who wrote the first Comprehensive Plan in the 1970's probably came up with the density numbers. He explained that up until 1999, there used to be a single family category on the General Land Use Plan Map but it was changed to low density in order to include lower density town home and 2-family homes. He said he thinks the Planning Commission and the City Council have seen a need to have a variety of housing as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and there are very few locations where we have even a chance for having some diversity and density in housing. He thinks the Planning Commission and the City Council saw this area as one of those areas where they would have the chance to have some diversity in housing and higher density. e Eck said he wonders if the designation on the Plan Map or the numbering system should be changed. Pentel referred to Vallee D'or and said that it is another case where the underlying zoning doesn't match the General Land Use Plan. Shaffer said that earlier it was said that the General Land Use Plan Map had low, medium and high density categories and that at some point Open Development was eliminated from the Zoning Map. He asked when the Zoning Map was changed. Grimes said in 2002 the subject property was rezoned from Open Development to M-1. Shaffer said it was changed at that point to the higher density and now it seems like the Planning Commission is saying that's not what we want. He added that it seems like the density should have been changed on the General Land Use Plan Map in 2002 as well. Eck asked when the State changed the law that requires the General Land Use Plan Map to be the ruling document. Grimes said 1997. Eck said that the City probably wasn't allowed to do what was done in 2002. Grimes said probably not. McAleese said that isn't necessarily the case. He said you have to assume that when you are talking about the lower density number in the Comprehensive Plan that it is inconsistent with the language of the Zoning Code and it isn't. The Zoning Code says you Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 10 can build "up to a maximum" of, you can build "up to" this amount it doesn't say you get this completely or that your entitled fully to it. Shaffer said that the Planning Commission changed the Zoning Code in 2002 to M-1 thinking it could go up to 20 acres, the maximum it could go. Pentel disagreed and said that the Zoning Code was changed to M-1 because R-1 and R-2 did not seem rational and M-1 is the first category above R-2. Keysser said he thinks it is incumbent on the developer to check both the Zoning Map and the Land Use Map. e Gandrud said that they came to this meeting on the recommendation of staff and that he did not make the point on reliance, the Planning Commission mentioned that. He added that Golden Valley is the applicant and Golden Valley is trying to correct an error. McAleese said the Commission is saying that they are trying to make their decision not based upon the issue of if there was reliance because they don't think that is a real issue for them to consider. Keysser said he thinks the two properties can be looked at separately from the rest of the City. He said he doesn't think 86 units would be inappropriate for this site. He asked the Commissioners if they think this request should be tabled until they can get a legal opinion. Shaffer said he thought that would be wise. Keysser said he is concerned about traffic dumping onto Turnpike Road and the traffic going further onto Lawn Terrace. He added that there has been a jump in the amount of tr9ffic after Turnpike was closed. Groger asked if there is a deadline to make this decision on this issue. e McAleese asked the Commissioners if they only want to make a motion at this meeting regarding the proposed Oak Park Acres site and Laurel Estates. Rasmussen said she would like some history of when changes were made to this property and to the General Land Use Plan Map. Grimes said he would do some research and clarify the questions the Planning Commission has with the City Attorney. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to table the following requests relating only to the proposed Oak Park Acres site and the Laurel Estates property until the January 12, 2004 meeting. 1. To change the definition of Medium Density on the Comprehensive Plan Map from 5.5 to 11.9 units per acre to 5-20 units per acre. 2. To change the definition of High Density on the Comprehensive Plan Map from 12 or more units per acre to 20 or more units per acre. -- Short Recess -- e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 22, 2003 Page 11 II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 pm.