Loading...
01-26-04 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2004 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 January 26, 2004. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Keysser, McAleese and Rasmussen. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes January 12, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting e Groger referred to page 7, paragraph 7 and clarified that he was suggesting utilizing higher density development in areas where the City wants to encourage redevelopment. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes with the above noted change. II. Informal Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments Applicant: City of Golden Valley Address: 200,220,300 and 310 Turners Crossroad Purpose: To redesignate the properties on the Comprehensive Plan Map from Medium Density (5 to 11.9 units per acre) to High Density (12 or more units per acre) - Grimes reminded the Planning Commission that this agenda item was tabled at their December 22 meeting to their January 12 meeting. The Planning Commission requested that the City Attorney be present for the discussion but he wasn't able to attend the January 12 meeting so that is why this issue wasn't able to be discussed until this meeting. He also reminded the Commissioners that they suggested discussing these specific pieces of property now and reviewing the whole Comprehensive Plan Map at a later date. Pentel asked if the proposed development would be coming back to the Planning Commission as a Planned Unit Development. Grimes said no, the property is zoned Multiple Family and the only city board or commission it will have to go before prior to the issuance of a building permit is the Building Board of Review. Pentel asked if the City is presuming the proposed development would meet all of the City's requirements. Grimes said staff is suggesting the applicant change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation just on these parcel to high density which would allow anything over 12 units per acre and that that would solve the conflict between the two documents. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 2 Pentel asked if the City would have any assurances that the development being proposed would be built the way it is being proposed. Grimes explained that the property is zoned M-1 so the highest density he could put on the property is 19.8 units per acre. Rasmussen asked if there could be any way the City could ask the developer to make any changes to the entrance, exits or driveway locations which are the big concerns for the residents acrOss the street. Grimes said that the developer has agreed to put the berm in. He said that a traffic engineer will be looking at the design of the parking lot and that the developer has agreed to put in a right turn only out of the parking lot which would hopefully direct traffic down to Laurel Avenue and over to Xenia Avenue rather than through the neighborhood and staff would hold them to these commitments. e Allen Barnard, City Attorney, said that he wants to emphasize that there is a conflict. The Comprehensive Plan Map is a planning document that guides the decisions the City makes and that the Zoning Code is the law that governs the decisions made by the citizens. He said that the distinction is that Mr. Goldman has been looking at theZoning Map which permits up to 20 units per acre and that the Comprehensive Plan Map indicates the property is medium density which permits less. He said that the point is that if that applicant complies with the Zoning Code what he wants to build is a permitted use. He said in his opinion there is a conflict that needs to be rectified and it seems obvious to change the Comprehensive Plan Map. e Pentel clarified that no other properties would be altered or changed by changing the Comprehensive Plan Map, whereas if the City changed the definition of Medium Density all of the parcels guided that way would be changed. Barnard said that Was correct and that he thinks it makes sense to look at just these parcels first and to study the rest of the Comprehensive Plan Map later. Eck said that what the City is doing now is forcing the two things together by going to the highest density on the Comprehensive Plan Map to match the lowest density in the Zoning Code. He said that isn't the proper fit and that the more proper thing is to change the Comprehensive Plan definition of medium density to "up to 20 units per acre." Barnard stated that after studying the rest of the properties on the Zoning Map the Planning Commission may ultimately decide to create a new zoning category between high, medium and low density on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Rasmussen said that she thought if the two documents weren't in accordance with each other that the Zoning had to match. Barnard explained that in 1997 the law was changed so that when rezoning a parcel it has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This case isn't a rezoning situation, it is a situation of the City discovering an inconsistency. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 3 Pentel stated that this inconsistency should have been caught when the parcel was rezoned from Open Space to M-1 Zoning. Barnard agreed and said technically, in 2000 the City didn't follow the Comprehensive Plan when it should have. Grimes said the area was designated as mid density in 1982 on the Comprehensive Plan Map and in the late 1950's is was shown as a location for higher density housing on the Comprehensive Plan Map so he thinks it was always meant to be high density, it is just a matter of how high. e Groger said it is inconsistent if this property was rezoned in 2000 and the law regarding rezoning was changed in 1997. Barnard stated that is an argument somebody could make, but it has been the City's existing law for three years. Groger said that according to state statute what the City did was illegal. Barnard said that most people didn't take note of the change in 1997 when the legislation flip flopped regarding the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Zoning Map because it used to be that the Zoning Map controlled the property before 1997 and people had that same mindset in 2000. Eck asked if this change is made if the City is following the proper procedure to make this kind of change to the Comprehensive Plan. Barnard said that a Comprehensive Plan Map designation change requires public notice. Eck asked who the public notice is required to go to. Grimes said to property owners within 500 feet of the change. Grimes added that it also requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission and review for consistency by the Met Council. Eck asked what the procedure would be if the text of the Comprehensive Plan was changed. Grimes said the whole City would have to be notified by publishing a notice in the newspaper. e Rasmussen asked if the Planning Commission is discussing changing the zoning on this property. Pentel stated no and that they were looking at changing the Comprehensive Land Map category that these properties would be governed by. Rasmussen asked what the property is currently designated. Grimes explained that the Comprehensive Plan Land Map designation is mid density which allows 6 to 12 units per acre and it is zoned M-1 which allows up to 20 units per acre and that is the conflict. Keysser stated he thought there are three choices. One is to change the zoning of this parcel, one is the change the definition of medium density to allow for higher number of units per acre and the third choice is to change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation of these parcels from medium density to high density. Pentel stated that they are talking about changing the designation for these parcels and thought that Commissioner Keysser was reading an old staff report. Groger said given the number of inconsistencies they will be studying what if the Planning Commission proceeded with this change and it hypothetically made this property inconsistent in the future with what was done now. Barnard explained that the Comprehensive Plan Map can be changed to something Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 4 different than what is on the land and that the Comprehensive Plan can be changed to something different than what the zoning is. He said the Comprehensive Plan is like a wish list and does not have to match the land identically and that it doesn't govern or bind the developer. He said the law says that when a City does a rezoning they have to follow their Comprehensive Plan, but they don't have to change what is on the land. Pentel asked if that is how the Council felt, because she thinks there may be some council members who think the two documents have to be identical. e Rasmussen asked why then is the Planning Commission discussing this issue. Barnard said because the Comprehensive Plan is supposed to be a legitimate document that guides the future plans of the City and it doesn't make sense to build a new building that you know isn't going to match the Comprehensive Plan for the next 50 years. He added that the two documents should be consistent. Pentel explained that changing the Comprehensive Plan Map designation does not change the Zoning Map designation of M-1. Pentel opened the public hearing. John Dibb, 319 Turners Crossroad South, stated that he had heard the abbreviation "PUD" used and asked for a definition. Pentel explained that a PUD is a Planned Unit Development and is a way a project can be built that might not meet the City's zoning requirements, setback requirements, density requirements or use requirements. Developing with a PUD allows more flexibility. She said that this particular property would meet conventional Zoning Code requirements and would not require a PUD. e Dibb asked Barnard to elaborate on the overlap between the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Zoning Map that Commissioner McAleese referred to at the last Planning Meeting. He said that overlap should be considered because when the Zoning Map was made it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map and now the talk is about changing the Comprehensive Plan Map to match the Zoning Map. He said that two wrongs don't make a right and in his opinion, money is to be gained and quality of life is to be lost. Pentel explained that changing this property to a higher density residential designation still matches with the underlying zoning of 5 to 20 units per acre even with the higher comprehensive plan map designation. She asked Barnard to address the issue of the overlap between the Zoning Code allowing a certain amount of dwelling units per acre and the interpretation of that overlap. She said she thinks what occurred between the City and the property owner was an assumption of what was going to be built on this property. Barnard said there may appear to be an overlap in the two documents, but they are different concepts and the numbers are there for different reasons and to compare them is apples and oranges. Zoning is the law to this parcel and the Comprehensive Plan is the guide plan for City, it is more than just a map. Erik Wibholm, 109 Turners Crossroad South, stated that the two documents are consistent. He said that if the state statute says the zoning must be consistent with the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 5 General Land Use Plan, it is because today it says it is zoned "up to" 19.8 units per acre. He referred to Grimes saying that a berm would be ok with the residents of the entire area and said that is an interpretation and an assumption on his part. A driveway going through the present Goldman property directly to Laurel is what most of the residents would be agreeable to. Pentel said they are not arguing with the zoning, what they are questioning is whether when the Comprehensive Plan revision was done is if this was the correct category to have placed this property in given what was known to be coming as a development proposal. She encouraged the residents to appear at the City Council meeting when this proposal is discussed and said that would be the appropriate place to speak to any specifics with regard to the property. e Grimes said in terms of site design he is committed to watching this and to telling the Building Board of Review about the lighting that has been discussed and about the berm that has been committed to as part of the landscaping. Grimes explained that because this proposal is not a PUDthe City doesn't have the right to require the owner to go through another person's property for access to Laurel Avenue unless the owner is willing to do so. He added that the access for all four of these properties has always been on Turners Crossroad. Tommy Dunne, 201 Turners Crossroad South, said that it is unclear to him if the land was zoned M-1 in 2000 and the Comprehensive Plan was in force since 1997 then it should never have been rezoned because its not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan so that rezoning to M-1 is not valid. e Barnard said that is probably the best argument someone can make from that perspective. He gave an analogy of having a road that has a speed limit of 35 mph and MnDOT has an overall plan for the State that those kinds of roads are going to eventually be 30 mph but the speed limit on the road is still 35 mph so if you drive 35 mph or less on that road you can't get a ticket even though MnDOT has this plan in the works that someday all the speed limits on that kind of road are going to be different. That is what the Comprehensive Plan is saying, that someday these things will all be different. Eck said he's not sure that was a valid analogy because that would say that there was in existence at the time, a statute that said a municipality couldn't make a speed limit that was not consistent with a state plan and therefore the 35 mph speed limit would have been unlawful at the time it was done. Barnard said he was not talking about statutes, he was talking about MnDOT's transportation plan for the entire State. He said he was trying to show what a Comprehensive Plan is and that it is not a superior zoning plan. Eck said that Mr. Dunne's point was that the City couldn't make a zoning change in 2000 that was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that would be in effect unlawful. Barnard said the City did it and did it for three or four years. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 6 Grimes said that the zoning categories go from Single Family to Two Family and then to M-1 there is nothing in between R-2 which is less than 5 units per acre and M-1. He said it was probably just assumed back in 2000 that it was logical to rezone the property to M-1 because it was the next category up and it seemed to fit for a typical three story apartment building. e Pentel said that M..1 density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map designation the property has now and that what is not consistent is the City's discussions with the owner of the property about the development that meets the M-1 designation of up to 19.8 units per acre, but didn't realize that the Comprehensive Plan Map was not in conformance. Barnard said that the Comprehensive Plan doesn't allow things or permit things and that the bottom line is that it is an internal City problem with the Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan. Pentel added that if a development were to come in at 12 units per acre it would still fit within M-1 and it would conform to the Comprehensive Plan Map designation. She added that we have a very specific property owner who has been led to believe that he will be allowed to develop the property in a way they've been planning to develop it. Mark Maida, 637 Turnpike Road, said that this is an internal City problem, but it does affect people's everyday lives and property values. He asked if the Planning Commission has the opportunity to recommend a certain number of units to the City Council. Pentel said that they can recommend to the City Council a change in the Comprehensive Plan Map designation that would bring this proposal, the Zoning Map and the Comprehensive Plan Map into conformance. e Maida, referred to the last Planning Commission meeting and said there was talk of how there was a key phrase of "up to" 19.8 units per acre which led him to believe there was an opportunity to influence the number of units approved per acre. Pentel explained that the zoning will still stand at 19.8 units per acre and that the Comprehensive Plan Map needs to be changed to high density to allow that many units per acre. Grimes said the City can not determine things like where the driveways will be Or what the building will look like and that the property is zoned Multiple Family. He said if it meets the requirements of the Zoning Code and the Building Code they can build the building. He added that the owner has committed to go above and beyond what he needed to do in agreeing with what the City and the residents have asked. Maida asked if all of the neighbors concerns are a moot point because of the zoning that is in place. Grimes said that the residents concerns are protected by the Codes of the City. Maida said that as far as the number of units, exits and entrances, berms, direction and flow of traffic the neighbors can't have any influence at all. Grimes said the neighbors can ask for anything and that the City and developers do listen and that because of the neighbors input the berm was added to this development. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 7 Maida said his concern is not only with the number of units and traffic going into the neighborhood, but entrances and exits would obviously impact the traffic as well. He said that a house on a lake is valued more than the same exact house on a cul-de-sac which in turn is valued more than the same exact house on a busy street. These are just facts. Maida stated that the Church has a daycare center and there are lots of children in the area. He added that at the last Planning Commission meeting there was talk about Xenia Avenue being built right through the wetland and said that what is basically left of the wetland is a 5 by 20 foot strip and he didn't know if that counts as conserving wetland. Pentel explained that the wetland areas were engineered as part of the building of Xenia Avenue so that they are now interconnected to flow together. e Maida asked what the proposed rents for the apartments would be. Grimes said the would be market rate. Pentel said the City does not know about the design of the building but it is their understanding that the building is geared toward seniors and homes without children, a similar demographic to what is in the area already. Maida gave the Commissioners inforrnation about apartment vacancies and the rental market. Pentel stated that whether the applicant has rental units or for sale units in not the concern at this rneeting. Maida agreed but said what is a concern is that the number of units and the number of vacancies add to devaluation. Grimes told Maida that he could call or write to him with any of his wishes or concerns. e George Peters, 209 Turners Crossroad South, said that they are all working under the assumption that this proposed apartment building is going to be occupied by seniors. He said that he thinks it is perfect for young professionals because Allianz and The Colonnade are both in the area. He said there is no guarantee this building is for seniors and that when Laurel Estates was built Allianz and Colonnade weren't there so the demographics were very different. He said he really questions the whole concept of this being a senior property and doesn't think people should be calling it a senior apartment building. Pentel said she agrees and that the City can't know what the market is going to suggest. Grimes also agreed and said that it will be market rate apartrnents and there would probably be a mix of singles, families and seniors. Peters said he doesn't think parallels can be drawn between Laurel Estates and this proposed new building because the neighborhood characteristics have changed drastically since Laurel Estates was built. Gary Gandrud, Faegre & Benson, 90 S. 2nd Street, Minneapolis, Attorney representing the applicant, stated that this is the City's application. He said that they are good neighbors, they have been good neighbors and that they have no intention of being anything less. He said they will be extremely sensitive to the neighbors and added that they have 100% occupancy and a waiting list for the new building. Pentel clbsed the public hearing. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 8 Pentel clarified that the matter before the Planning Commission is whether to change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation on these four properties to high density. Eck stated that it is the City Attorney's opinion that Mr. Goldman has every legal right under the zoning ordinance to proceed with this project and that the zoning prevails and that basically what it comes down to is that this is an exercise in making two things conform and there isn't a lot to be gained by undermining that. McAleese said he disagreed with Barnard. He said it isn't clear what the legislative intent was when they passed the law. He said even though he disagrees with Barnard they end up at the same point on different grounds. He said the problem is that the Zoning Code has to trump in this situation. He said we do have the problem of the conflict that existed when the Zoning Code got passed which would mean the City acted unlawfully at that time and he doesn't think it did. He thinks the Zoning Code is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that the "up to" language makes it consistent. He said if this proposal were coming to the Planning Commission anew he would favor changing the designation because the designation that is there is something that was put in place as early as 1982. He said the whole area has changed substantially and the changing circumstances have really made it a better location for a higher density than the Comprehensive Plan currently states so he is in favor of the change for that reason. He said that at a later date he would enjoy having additional conversations with the City Attorney because he understands his point but he knows that courts have viewed it differently and found that comprehensive plans can control zoning. He added that while he disagrees with Barnard he thinks they both end up in the right spot and he will be supporting the Comprehensive Plan Map designation change. Keysser stated from a land use plan the proposal makes sense and he will support it. Rasmussen said she thinks the highest and best use for the property would not be 5 to 12 units per acre. She stated in an area that borders residential she thinks the City should have the opportunity to take a look at some of the variables the Planning Commission has been talking about with this proposal. She said they really need to take a look at the different kinds of zoning they have and to not make any more spot specific decisions until the whole City has been looked at. She added that she is hopeful with this developer that he will do a good job with this project. Groger said he would be voting against this proposal. He said he thinks there can be consistency in stating that the Comprehensive Plan allows up to 12 units per acre and the zoning can allow "up to" 20 units per acre and that the two don't have to be in exact conformance with each other. He said that given there is nothing between R-2 and M-1 it's a very broad category and perhaps what that says is when the City initially determined on the Comprehensive Plan Map is that M-1 should be only 12 units and that's what was really intended for this property. He said given that the property to the south currently has a use which is approximately 12 units per acre to him having a higher density in the location to the north, which is more intrusive on the neighborhood, doesn't make sense. He said even though he thinks the developer is a great developer and he thinks it would be a nice addition he would rather see the issue citywide dealt with rather than Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 9 specifically separating out this property and making a change which he doesn't necessarily believe is the right place to end up. He would rather see a lower density on this property. Pentel asked what the density is at the property to the south (Laurel Estates). Grimes said it is at about 15 units per acre. Rasmussen asked about the process a Comprehensive Plan Map change has to go through. Pentel said the next step is a public hearing at the City Council. Grimes added that the proposal is also sent to the Met Council for review. Rasmussen stated that changing the Comprehensive Plan Map really takes some effort. Grimes stated that the Council has said they thought the Planning was right on by looking at only these four properties now and studying the rest of the City in the future. e Keysser asked what the implications would be if nothing were to change. Barnard said the City would end up in a situation it doesn't want to get tied down to and it would have an internal inconsistency. He said the issuance of a building permit is an administrative act and that an application has to meet the Building Code and Zoning Code, not the Comprehensive Plan. Grimes referred to the purpose statement in the Multiple Family zoning section of the Zoning Code and said that the purpose is to provide for medium to high density housing between 15 and 27 units an acre. e Pentel said she can understand why this is an administrative issue in a sense. However, she agrees with Commissioner Groger in terms of using the Comprehensive Plan Map as a way to mitigate the vastness in the M-1 zoning district. She said she will be voting against this and she thinks a task force needs to get going quickly to study the inconsistencies between the Zoning Map and the Comprehensive Plan Map. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Eck and motion carried 4 to 2 to approve the request to redesignate the properties on the Comprehensive Plan Map from Medium Density (5 to 11.9 units per acre) to High Density (12 or more units per acre) for the properties located at 200,220,300 and 310 Turners Crossroad. Commissioners Groger and Pentel voted against the proposal. -- Short Recess -- II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Pentel stated that she would be attending the BZA meeting on January 27,2004. McAleese reported on the January 20, 2004 City Council meeting and said that the Oak Park Acres subdivision request was approved. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 26, 2004 Page 10 III. Other Business Election of Vice Chair MOVED by Eck, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to nominate Keysser to be the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. Keysser accepted the nomination. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8: 15 pm.