Loading...
06-23-08 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, June 23, 2008 7 pm 1. Approval of Minutes June 9, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Continued Item - Minor Subdivision - Lots 11 &12, Block 3, Glen Urban Addition - SU09-13 Applicant: DiGiacomo Homes Address: Lots 11 & 12, Block 3, Glen Urban Addition Purpose: The subdivision would create three separate lots to allow for the construction of three new homes ---Short Recess--- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment rmats -8006 (TTY: 763 to make a request. may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 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, June 9, 2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchk McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning an ment Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Li 1. Approval of Minutes May 28, 2008 Regular Planning Commission M Eck referred to page one and noted that Mark Gr" Eck referred to the second sentence in the fourt the word "than" should be the word "then" n page two and stated that Waldhauser referred to the second pa sentence should be changed to re how significant the grade is. five and stated that the last he grade change will be, rather than Waldhauser referred to th that the word "existing" s in the ninth paragraph on page seven and stated efore the words "drainage problems", MOVED by Eck, se May 28, 2008 minut dhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the ve noted changes. 3. ring - Conditional Use Permit - Honeywell - 1985 Douglas 1985 Douglas Drive Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit will allow for the construction of 92' tall communications tower Hogeboom stated that Honeywell is proposing to construct a 92-foot tall communications tower on their property located at 1985 Douglas Drive which is zoned Industrial. He explained that communications towers are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the Industrial zoning district. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9,2008 Page 2 Hogeboom explained that the applicant has stated that the proposed tower will be used for GPS fixed positioning testing and video camera research. The tower will be a lattice design because of the need to climb it for maintenance and research-related tasks. He referred to the City's design and performance standards and noted that these standards require telecommunications towers over 60 feet to be designed to accommodate additional antennas from at least one other user. He added that City Code states that landowners must allow the shared use of telecommunication towers with other comparable uses if an agreement is reached which binds additional users to provisions described in the Code. Cera asked the height of the tow he wasn't sure how tall the buil approximately 120 feet in h posal is II be an ing Hogeboom referred to his staff report and reviewed the ten factors th Commission must use to make findings when reviewing a Conditio a application. He noted that Honeywell has demonstrated a need is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and staff doe el' adverse effect on property values in the area. He added tha approval of the proposal with the conditions listed in his staff Keysser asked if there will be a security fence arou said he wasn't sure and suggested the applicant Keysser asked about illumination of the tow Telecommunications Act of 1996 and no that are 100 feet or taller. erred to the equirements apply to towers the height of the building. Hogeboom said ting water tower on the Honeywell site is Kluchka referred to the s landscaped" means oge landscaping that wo condition num 4 r the tower prob w r .ng landscaping and asked what "adequately ated that it basically means that any current trees or ffer would have to remain. Kluchka questioned if caping really applies. Grimes added that that base of e from the street. g the installation of security fencing as a condition of approval. height of the City's water tower. Grimes said he wasn't sure but 20 feet in height. Leon Tro neywell Project Manager, reiterated that the proposed tower will be used for research and that they will not be broadcasting anything. He explained that Honeywell is moving this function from their Camden location to their Golden Valley location and that the proposed tower needs to be 92 feet in height in order to see the horizon. Keysser asked Mr. Trout how he feels about adding a security fence around the base of the tower. Trout said he feels fine about adding a 10-foot high, lockable security fence around the tower. He explained that the proposed tower will also be camouflaged by the existing building. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 3 Keysser asked about the type of lighting that will be used. Trout said they will not need any lighting on the tower. He added that the cameras on the proposed tower will be watching their own parking lot. McCarty asked how the City can be sure the cameras will only be watching the parking lot. Trout said that Honeywell would be willing to sign an agreement. McCarty questioned the things Honeywell will be doing that they are not willing to talk about. Trout stated that Honeywell will be doing customer research and that they don't want to name their customers. He reiterated that they will only be doing scientific research and testing and no broadcasting. Kluchka asked about the color of the proposed tower. Trout said th painted. It will be a galvanized tri-pod tower. e Keysser asked about the likelihood of interference with cell etc. Trout said he is not aware of any interference issues. Eck asked if the location of the proposed tower wa explained that there are limitations on how far a equipment and the building. Keysser opened the public hearing. Pat Lamon, 1701 Hampshire Lane, Honeywell where they've said th she doesn't feel the City can ap phones, televisions or GPS gone through a lot of things with and ey have not done them. She said I without knowing how it will affect cell Lynn Jacobs, 6500 Ham Honeywell and she . I wa concerned about he also concerne ou urged the Plan ,ed that she lives right across the street from er yard and look up and see this tower. She said she is e and aviation lights lighting up her yard. She said she is and interference with her television and cell phone. She o 0 consider the potential impact to homeowners. hire Place, said he has similar concerns as the previous he uld like to know more about future antennas being located on the he wants to know the exact location and design of the proposed tower. ther tower located on Douglas Drive and questioned the necessity of said he doesn't want to see this tower from his home and it will de-value d he wants to see a limit placed on future height expansion. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Keysser asked the applicant if there will be aviation lights on the tower. Trout said no. Keysser asked the applicant about future expansion of the tower. Trout said there will not be any future expansion of the tower. He showed the Commissioners a drawing of the proposed tower. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 4 Keysser asked about potential interference with other electronics. Trout reiterated that he is confident there will be no interference. Grimes explained that the City's lighting ordinance doesn't allow towers to be lit unless the FAA requires lighting. He referred to the City's telecommunication ordinance and explained that the City wants to make sure that when towers are built they can support additional antennas rather than having to build towers all over the City. Kluchka said he would like to add a condition of security fence. Keysser suggested adding the f conditions of approval. the installation of a number eight in the Trout reiterated that the tower being proposed is not a transmittal tower. it were going to be a cell tower they would have to come back to the because it would be a different use. Kluchka stated that the Planning Commission isn't approving just supposed to be considering the height and the land us regarding interference and said he thinks that would be an F Grimes noted that he has never had a complaint rega in Kluchka said he would also like to add 92 feet in height or a height that do Honeywell wanted a taller tower Grimes agreed that if Honeywel would have to come back f to state that the plans su ower can only be a maximum of :IiQ. Keysser said he thinks that if ,11;' to come back to the City for approval. oposal from what they've submitted they e suggested that a condition of approval be added application shall become a part of the approval. Schmidgall stated t tower 100 feet in he discussed ant structure to be horizonta of the 12-foot whip antenna would make the proposed ferred to the telecommunications ordinance and unting and stated that he would consider the proposed aldhauser noted that the 12-foot whip antenna may be a re ould be an increase in noise as a result of this tower. Trout said noise. is not comfortable with this proposal because the use is not clearly defined. ted that no one wants to have to look at towers, but they are everywhere. He said he doesn't want to discount people's concerns but there are so many towers and poles and wires around that people get accustomed to seeing them. Cera suggesting adding a condition of approval that states that the tower will only be for receiving and not transmitting. Grimes stated that Honeywell could sell or lease their facility in the future and if the tower is there they might as well use it. He stated that if the concern is about the cameras, there could be a condition added that states that they can only be Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 5 aimed at Honeywell's property. He noted that the residential properties are 800 feet or further away from Honeywell. Keysser clarified that the additional conditions discussed have been as follows: add language regarding a 10-foot high, locking fence around the tower to condition number 8, add a condition number 11 that states all camera angles will be on Honeywell property and add a condition number 12 that states that the plans submitted with the application shall become a part of the Conditional Use Permit. t allow shared use of the tower if an additional user nable terms and conditions for shared use and sign the eing to requirements set therein. permitted on the tower. easures must be provided for the tower. A 10-foot high, lockable in led around the base of the tower. be approved by a licensed professional structural engineer. It must City's Building Code. 10. plicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times. 11. All c as mounted on the tower must be aimed on Honeywell's property. 12. The plans for the tower submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application prepared by Radian and dated April 16, 2008 shall become a part of this approval. 1. No signage may be located on the tower 0 provide necessary information as req 2. The tower or any attached antenna law or the Federal Aviation Admin 3. Adequate access to the tower 4. The tower must be adequa lessen its visual impact. T and landscaping plans 5. The placement, des' Telecommunication Commission. 6. The owners of agrees in Condition 7. No 8. R fe Thet nfor to co- en it McCarty stated that condition number 6 regarding the shared use of reasonable" seems to conflict with City Code which states that tow locate. Keysser stated that if another antenna is installed on this becomes a part to this conditional use permit. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Cera and motion carried u approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 92-foo lee located at 1985 Douglas Drive - Honeywell, subjec commend s tower to be ditions: ant nna, except those that state laws. Ily illuminated, unless required om a public right of way. and screened with natural vegetation to 'on on the site must be documented on site the City. eration of the tower must comply with the the rules of the Federal Communications Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 6 4. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit Amendment #1 - HLM Sports, LLC - CU-105 Applicant: HLM Sports, LLC Address: 8300 10th Avenue North Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit Amendment will allow for the construction of an outdoor sports court Grimes stated that the applican proposed sports court but h engineering information o~doorsportscourt.He sports court in the f re h permit amendment. t 8300 ant to Grimes noted that this is a request by HLM Sports doing business 10th Avenue North. He stated that the conditional use permit wo construct a sports court to the rear of the building. Grimes explained that when the original conditional use per Hitters the use was more baseball oriented. The new ers proposed outdoor sports court for basketball trainin when the original conditional use permit was iss building. Home Run t nd and have the t the e was a concern be done inside the Grimes referred to a site plan and discu noted that the proposal meets the setb they would like to add some Iightin e proposed sports court. He d the applicant has stated that to place a tent structure over the ided s aff with the necessary structural e conditional use permit request is only for the pplicant intends to put the tent structure over the ed to come back to the City for another conditional use n k there will be any parking issues as a result of the aid there may be some concern about noise issues so staff is no music, speaker systems or whistles allowed on the sports at owners of the neighboring property to the west have some security is also some concern about what happens when the court is closed and e property has cameras or a locked fence. He stated that staff feels orts court will be ok if there is no lighting after 9 pm and the security ddressed. McCarty asked for information regarding the proposed retaining wall. Grimes stated that a grading permit will be required. McCarty said he is more concerned about a child potentially falling off of a 5-foot high retaining wall. Kluchka asked about the current parking situation. Grimes stated that there are other tenants in the building but the applicant's business mostly occurs off-hours on weekends or after 5 pm so parking should not be a problem. He stated that the property owners to the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 7 west are concerned about cars parking in their lot rather than in the parking lot on the applicant's property. He added that many of the customers are kids who are dropped off and picked up by their parents. Andrew Atkin, Owner of Hey Coach, applicant, stated that he purchased Home Run Hitters in January and that customers are supportive of the baseball use part of the year but the only viable business option is to have a multi-season, full year-round business. He stated that he has partnered with Minnesota Developmental Basketball who will provide coaches and training. He added that they've also added a teen fitness center an ge area for teens. Keysser asked about the tent structur 55 feet and is barn-like shape in sh t the tent structure is 45 feet by Keysser asked about the teen fitness center. Atkin explained th combination of traditional weightlifting with "excergaming" whi training system. Keysser asked if the center is membership offers both member and non-member rates. Keysser asked the applicant how he felt about inst proposed sports court. Atkin said installing a 10- court might not be aesthetically pleasing and w tent structure over the sports court the fenc Waldhauser suggested the hoo hoops that retract or fold uR Grimes stated that there' n after hours. Atkin said he would consider at they are quite a distance from residential areas. rea to the north. Grimes asked if the approximately a "ha can give three . t at the same ti ill be a "half-court". Atkin the sports court is ated that there will be three basketball standards so they e same time but they won't have three basketball games of the hours of operation. Atkin stated that his longest hours r a they would be 9 am to 9 pm on weekdays, 10 am to 5 pm on m to 5 pm on Sundays. Grimes added that the original conditional use rty had different hours. He explained that in his recommendation listed he said the business could be open until 10 pm in order to give the flexibility. He added that the City doesn't typically restrict businesses hours. Waldhauser asked the applicant if he needs to be open until 10 pm. Atkin said no, they don't work past 9 pm. Cera asked the applicant why he isn't proposing the tent structure now with this request. Atkin said he hasn't made a decision about the tent structure yet but he wants to get the basketball program up and running this summer. Cera referred to the fence suggestion and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 8 asked if it would be taken down in six months or whenever the tent structure is installed. Atkin said that he would consider having a fabric type fence or retractable hoops. McCarty asked the applicant to address the retaining wall. Atkin said it is more of a landscape wall than a concrete retaining wall. He said it will be a bolder wall and will "grade down" and into the berm. McCarty asked if the proposed court will be at the grade of the parking lot. Atkin said no, it will be at the grade of the building. McCarty questioned if there will be a guard rail installed. Atkin said he would address that. Keysser opened the public hearing. option McCarty referred to condition number six in the staff report regarding how that would work. Atkin said the referees would just say "foul". Keysser asked if there would be basketball leagues. Atkin sai but the use will be mainly training and having fun. McCarty asked about the interior building height dime 14 feet in height inside the building which is too sh Walter Sellman, 1290 Yukon Court, stat he was concerned about noise. He sai notice he received because he tho wants there to be security fencin want the sports court open duri about the lighting. un Hitters originally opened e lack of detail in the hearing for outdoor baseball. He said he oposed sports court and he would only . He said he also wants to know more res I tat Midco AN, 8360 10th Avenue, stated that he o the west of the applicant's property. He said there have mers parking in his lot and they have been t sometimes their customers also use his parking lot as o the cars. He said he is concerned about people loitering ted that a privacy fence be installed along the property line s. He asked if there have been any studies done on other eg Ing the impacts in demographics or impacts on properties. He said . opposed to the proposal he is just concerned about having to chase rty. Terry St 49 Orkla Drive, stated that he also thought the hearing notice meant that there was going to be baseball batting cages outside. He said he can hear baseball games from Wesley Park a mile away so he will be impacted if people are closer. He said he is concerned about lighting, noise, whistles and people loitering. He stated that he is also speaking for his neighbors located at 1286 Yukon Court and 1288 Yukon Court who are not in favor of any change in use for this property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9,2008 Page 9 Bruce Russell, 1145 Orkla Drive, said he also thought the proposal was for outdoor batting cages. He said if the sports court is enclosed it will be more private and he is open to the idea if over the long-term he is assured that the noise will be limited. Nancy Wagner, Midco AN, 8350 10th Avenue, stated that their building been defaced and their trucks have been broken into and have had the gas siphoned out of them so there is an element in the area. She stated that a lot of trucks come in and out of their parking lot so she concerned about the children's safety. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing tated that it will be Keysser asked about the location of Midco AN's loading docks. Nan their loading docks are located on the east side of their building an r very dangerous if children are there during the day. John Lindblom, 1293 Yukon Court, said he has a three-sea wants to keep it that way. He said he is concerned about Iigh baseball. Grimes reiterated that one of the conditions of a whistles or loud speakers outside. r closed the public hearing. Keysser asked the applicant to disc stanchions, one on each end of aimed down, not toward the res lighting ordinance would pr that the conditional use throughout most of the s in stated that there would be two . He said that the light fixtures would be ood. Schmidgall added that the City's from s ining on other properties. Grimes stated ify that lights have to be turned off at 9 pm, but ably won't even need to use the lights. Keysser asked the out that this pr on the court th dress security. Atkin said he thinks it is important to point 's not a playground. He stated that anytime someone is ach or a referee. ople using the parking lot of the property to the west and the n an out and people being disrespectful. Atkin said the best way for the . h those types of issues is the make him aware of the problems. He ppy to install "no parking" signs so his customers are aware thatthey king in the next door neighbor's lot. McCarty asked about the age of the customers. Atkin said most of the program participants are 8 to 16 years old. Cera asked the applicant how he felt about installing a fence along the property line between this property and the property to the west. Atkin stated that it would be redundant and expensive if he has to install fencing around the sports court and along the property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 10 Eck asked the applicant if he was planning to construct the tent structure as soon as possible and if the tent structure would extend the use of the sports court throughout the winter months. Atkin said yes, his plan is to construct the tent structure as soon as possible so he can have year-round business. Eck asked if the tent structure will be heated. Atkin said yes. Eck asked if the tent is considered a permanent structure. Atkin said no, because it can be taken down. Grimes explained that staff hasn't yet determined if it will be considered a permanent structure because they haven't received any structural engineering information about the tent as of yet. He added that typically if a structure is up for less than 180 days it is considered temporary and if it is up for more 80 days it is considered permanent. Kluchka referred to reco should be changed to re to other properties. Idh being turned off at cerned about security ops I accessible after hours condition of approval that the Grimes suggesting adding conditions of approval that state ligh . after hours and that the applicant should work with the prope regarding the parking of Hey Coach customers in their lot. A learn that his customers were parking in the neighbors' parki , is never full. Hogeboom added that most of the residents he after hours. Waldhauser stated that making the will help with the security issues. Kluchka s sports court will not be usable after busi Cera said he would like to change t that the closing time would be 9 use after 9 pm. . n listed in the staff report to state 10 pm. Grimes suggested saying no outside ber eight in the staff report and stated that it hall be shielded to minimize lighting spillover on ded that that the language about the sports court lighting o be added to recommendation number eight. tion number eleven in the staff report and stated that the be taken out. He said he is concerned about people parking at he thinks a fence between the two properties is appropriate to om g g on the property next door. Grimes reiterated that he would like to the property owners next door to try and resolve the issues. is not inclined to require a fence between the two properties because it will be redun nce the applicant comes back to the City for approvals for the tent structure. Kluchka said he would be voting no on this proposal until he sees a fence between the two properties. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Eck and motion carried 6 to 1 to recommend approval of an amended Conditional Use Permit at 8300 10th Avenue North which would allow Hey Coach to construct an outdoor sports court with the following conditions. Commissioner Kluchka voted no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 11 1. The site plan of the 8300 10th Ave. N. building prepared by HTG Architects and dated June 8,2001 shall become a part of this approval. This plan indicates parking spaces on the site. 2. A revised site plan prepared by HTG Architects and dated May 14, 2008 shall become a part of this approval. This plan indicates the location of the sports court. 3. The interior plan for the 8300 10th Ave. N. building prepared by WCL Associates and dated September 26, 2003 shall become a part of this approval. This indicates the 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. layout of the interior of the space. Changes to the interior can be does not increase the size of the space for Hey Coach and the with the Hey Coach use. 4. A drainage and erosion control permit must be issued for t court. 5. When the outdoor sports court is in use, a staff membe 6. The outdoor sports court shall be closed outside of busi hoops shall be retractable or be made unusable r bu 7. Doors are to remain closed at all times. 8. All outdoor lighting shall meet the requirem shall be shielded so as to minimize lighting lighting shall be turned off at 9 pm. All signs shall meet the requiremen A bike rack for at least 10 bikes s No loud speakers, public addr At least 30 parking spaces Operating hours shall be a Hey Coach shall work prohibiting custome 15. All other state, loca , 16. Failure to com wit revocation of t e sport hting code. All lights to other properties. All outdoor e front door. les shall be used outside. Ie. 9pm. rty owners at 8360 10th Avenue North regarding laying in their parking lot. a r irements shall be met. more of the above conditions shall be grounds for 5. ring - Rezoning - Rezoning the Properties in the 1-394 se Zoning District To rezone the properties in the 1-394 Corridor study area from their current zoning district to the Mixed Use zoning district Hogeboom reminded the Commission that at their August 13, 2007 meeting they tabled the public hearing regarding rezoning the properties in the 1-394 Corridor study area from their current zoning district to the Mixed Use zoning district. Kluchka asked why the item was tabled. Keysser said he thought it was tabled because of non-conforming land use issues and property owner issues. He asked for clarification regarding existing land uses becoming non-conforming once the properties are rezoned. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 12 Hogeboom stated that some existing land uses will become non-conforming uses but they can continue to operate in their current capacity. Grimes added that non-conforming uses can be improved and maintained, they just can't be expanded. Waldhauser questioned if an exception should be made for properties that could potentially expand if they have the space. Grimes explained that rezoning the properties isn't saying that a property can't be a particular use, it is just saying that is has to be mixed use. 3. nd. Grimes pproved ply. Cera asked if a property owner could ask for a variance if they wanted t explained that the 1-394 Corridor Mixed Use zoning ordinance has air and that this public hearing is just about where the Mixed Use zoni Cera asked if the Speak the Word church property will be incl district. Hogeboom said no and stated that it provides a goo the north and it is consistent with the General Land Use Plan Institutional. Waldhauser noted that the zoning can b ked Keysser asked if the Zoning Map will be in comp . Map. Hogeboom said yes. eral Land Use Plan Keysser opened the public hearing. See' Keysser closed the public hearing. ne wishing to comment, MOVED by Eck, seconded by KI approval of rezoning the prope zoning district to the Mixed 'on carried unanimously to recommend orridor study area from their current ---Short Recess--- he Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City oning Appeals and other Meetings mission that there will be a Douglas Drive Corridor Study on June 10 at 7:30 am at Brookview. 4. Waldhauser asked if there was an update on the proposed subdivision on Janalyn Circle that was tabled at their last meeting. Grimes stated that staff is still working on getting the updated drainage study. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm. Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: June 12, 2008 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Continued Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Minor Subdivision of Lots 11 and 12, Glen Urban 2nd Addition - DiGiacomo Homes, Applicant On May 28, 2008, DiGiacomo Homes appeared before the Golden Valley Planning Commission to request approval of a preliminary plan for a minor subdivision of lots 11 and 12 in the Glen Urban, 2nd Addition Subdivision, located in North Tyrol Hills. At that meeting, Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes recommend approval of this request based on criteria set forth in Section 12.50 of City Code. As conditions of his approval, Director Grimes recommended the following: 1. The final plat of this proposed minor subdivision (yet to be named) will be consistent with the preliminary plan submitted with the minor subdivision application. 2. The recommendations in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated May 19, 2008, shall become a part of this approval. 3. A park dedication fee shall be paid in an amount approved by the City Council at the time of final plat approval. 4. Individual Tree Preservation Plans shall be submitted for the development of each of the proposed lots at time of building permit application. 5. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that includes issues found in the City Engineer's memo dated May 19, 2008. Following concern from neighbors regarding drainage control and tree preservation in the area, the Planning Commission tabled this request to a future date. AI Lundstrom, City Environmental Coordinator, has submitted a memorandum to the Planning Department that outlines the tree preservation process in the Glen Urban Subdivision proposal. Mr. Lundstrom states that the Glen Urban subdivision proposal has been classified as a 'single phase development.' As such, individual tree preservation permits will be required for each subdivided lot. A preliminary tree inventory that identifies significant trees is also required of the developer. Mr. Lundstrom's memo (attached) also outlines specific requirements of single- lot tree preservation permits and an explanation of tree preservation and mitigation process. Following the May 28 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Department also received a report from SEH Inc., outlining considerations on drainage control on Janalyn Circle. The report states that a water runoff model was prepared in 2006 to evaluate the pond on Janalyn Circle and address concerns regarding flooding in the area. Sue Mason, P.E. and Jeremy Walgrave, P.E. have determined that proposed impervious surfaces in the DiGiacomo development do not create a significant change to the findings of the 2006 runoff model. However, due to localized drainage and flooding concerns in the area, SEH Inc. recommends that local storm water reduction practices, such as rain gardens and bio-retention basins, be implemented. Per the above findings, I propose to add the following condition to staff recommendation for the minor subdivision proposal: . The developer shall work with the Public Works Department to develop an on-site runoff retention system, consistent with recommendations made in the memo from Water Resource Engineers Sue Mason and Jeremy Walgrave dated June 16, 2008. On June 3, 2008, staff met with Rocky DiGiacomo of DiGiacomo Homes to discuss concerns raised at the Planning Commission meeting. At that time, staff and Mr. DiGiacomo discussed tree preservation requirements as well as possible runoff mitigation techniques. Mr. DiGiacomo has indicated his willingness to work with the City to ensure all of the appropriate environmental protection measures are met. Staff retains its original recommendation for approval of this request, with the addition of the above-stated condition. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Aerial Photo (1 page) Minutes of Golden Valley Planning Commission dated May 28, 2008 (8 pages) Memo from Environmental Coordinator AI Lundstrom dated June 13, 2008 (1 page) Memo from SEH Water Resource Engineers Sue Mason and Jeremy Walgrave dated June 16, 2008 ( 1 page) Memo from Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes dated May 22,2008 (3 pages) Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated February 28, 2008 (2 pages) Site Plans (1 oversized page) 2DS III 221 211 2U 209 5 208 I ::5 310 ::Ii: 4300 4224 4212 4116 4108 GLENCREST RD 4)01 4223 4211 4201 4US 515 523 sa m JANAlVN Of( 512 516 sa S28 532 536 600 24 216 212 4535 20 15 4240 8 4270 4600 4520 4260 4250 1 4300 GLENWOOD AVE 4SOS 15 4313 43lI9 4301 4263 4253 4409 4333 13 4115 4243 100 105 104 208 204 125 t Subject prop,rtiesl44 120 213 308 4540 4520 30lI 4510 401 400 4541 4521 4511 409 408 400 4520 4510 50S 453ll 700 TYl:IOt. TRL N 641 109 108 15 J: 1'1'1 i 'i % 12 16 100 700 Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Co mission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, t cil Chambers, 7800 Golden Val y Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Wed ay, May 28,2008. Chair Ke ser called the meeting to ord rat 7 pm. 1. ioners Cera, Eck, sser, Kluchka, McCarty nt was Director of Planning ssistant Lisa Wittman. Those prese (left at 7:50 pm), idgall and Wal and Development Mar McCarty referred t to be removed e second parag the first sentence. MOVED Eck, seconded by McCa Apr" , 2008 minutes with the above nd motion carried unanimously to ted correction. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - Lots 11 &12, Block 3, Glen Urban Addition - SU09-13 Applicant: DiGiacomo Homes Address: Lots 11 & 12, Block 3, Glen Urban Addition Purpose: The subdivision would create three separate lots to allow for the construction of three new homes Grimes stated that the applicant is requesting to do a minor subdivision of Lots 11 and 12, Glen Urban 2nd Addition. The minor subdivision would re-subdivide the existing two lots into three new lots to allow for the construction of three single-family homes. He stated that the proposed three lots will each exceed the minimum lot size requirements of 10,000 square feet. Lot "A" will be 13,914 square feet, Lot "B" will be 1 0,260 square feet and Lot "C" will be 11,569 square feet. Grimes stated that he has had discussions with the applicant about the recently adopted single-family zoning code changes regarding iflfill development so the applicant is aware of the new requirements. Grimes referred to his memo dated May 22, 2008 and discussed the nine factors for consideration and approval. He explained that the City Engineer has stated in his staff report that the owner of the lots will be required to submit a grading and erosion control plan for each of the lots prior to construction. Grimes added that there has also been a Minutes of Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2008 Page 2 suggestion by Public Works staff that a drainage study done for this area in the past be updated to include these proposed new lots to make sure that there is adequate storm water capacity. Keysser stated that he has been told by people in the neighborhood that the area does flood a couple times a year. Grimes said that it is his understanding that on occasion water has had to have been pumped out of the area. He stated that staff feels with proper grading plans there should be enough capacity in the system for these proposed new lots. Keysser asked about installing rain gardens. Grimes said the developer could address the issue of rain gardens. He added that rain gardens would probably be considered as a part of the individual grading and drainage plans for the homes. He noted that there was a large house removed from Lot 13 that also had a swimming pool so the overall hard surface area probably won't be significantly changed after these proposed new homes are built. Eck referred to proposed Lot "B", the middle lot, and asked if the 12.5 foot setback meets the requirements. Grimes said that it depends on the height of the house. If the house is more than 15 feet in height then the side yard setbacks will need to be increased. Eck said he is concerned about the homes being able to meet the setback requirements. Grimes explained that the Planning Commission is not approving the homes as a part of this subdivision proposal. The plans just show the building envelope and the possible size and scale of the proposed homes. He added that he wants to make it clear that the style and character of the potential homes could change from those shown on plans submitted by the developer with the minor subdivision application Cera asked if the grade of the lots will be set as a part of the subdivision agreement. Grimes said yes. The grade of the lots will be set in the subdivision agreement approved by the City Council at the time of final plat approval. Kluchka asked about the impact the proposed new houses will have on the existing pond. Grimes stated that based on the information submitted there will not be an adverse effect on the pond but staff is requiring that the existing drainage study be updated just to be certain. Kluchka asked if the run-off from these homes will go into the pond or if the drainage issues are a street issue. Grimes stated that the drainage study will show if there is enough capacity in the pond. Rocky DiGiacomo, Applicant, stated that the former home located at 229 Janalyn Circle straddled the property line between proposed Lot "A" and Lot 13. He explained that the impervious surface area of the proposed new homes on the three new lots will be fairly similar in comparison to the former house at 229 Janalyn Circle and the existing home at 4108 Glencrest. He added that the run-off from the new homes will be more evenly distributed than before and he would like to create a rain garden in the low point on Lot "A" to help with water in the low area. Keysser asked if the existing newly built home on Lot 13 just to the east of Lot "A" is sold. DiGiacomo said yes. Keysser asked the applicant if he has buyers for the proposed three new homes. DiGiacomo said no. He stated that there is a strong resurgence of people Minutes of Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2008 Page 3 who want to move back to this area and that these lots will be developed by him or by someone else. He added that he is working hard not to diminish the quality or character of the neighborhood. Keysser asked about the style of the proposed new homes. DiGiacomo said he is most comfortable building the arts and crafts style of home. Keysser asked the applicant if he will be the builder of the homes on the three proposed lots. DiGiacomo said yes. Keysser opened the public hearing. Jeff Nordstrom, 232 Janalyn Circle, stated that there has been a lot of talk about the pond being an issue or not and there is clearly an issue of how much more water the pond can hold. He stated that water comes back through the pipes and backs-up on people's property and the City has to pump it out. He said the issue needs to be addressed because it is not getting better. Marcia Cushmore, 4300 Glencrest Road, read a letter from Mike Schock and Leslie Baken at 4316 Glencrest Road. The letter stated that they are concerned about Mr. DiGiacomo's claims that he is committed to ecologically influenced home construction yet his web page is void of references to the floral ecological footprint created by his construction. They stated that one of the preeminent ecological elements of North Tyrol is the healthy and long lived oak forest. They stated that they do not argue with the right of private developers to create upgraded living space in their neighborhood however they believe that the evidence strongly suggests that the current developer thinks of ecology on a single dimension, that of the building he constructs. They attached photos of the applicant's recent work and noted that is void of any pre existing trees and the landscaping is young and offers little shade and water uptake. They noted that many of the trees on or near the property at 301 Janalyn Circle are nearly a century old and any plan to build multiple new homes on and around the oak forest is na"ive. They stated they . are concerned about destroying many of the adjacent trees and added that the ecological and economic costs of losing a dozen centenarian oak trees far outweighs the gain from even the most energy efficient construction possible. They said they understand that the Planning Commission must be fair to both the developer and neighborhood and urged the City to require significant guarantees that the developer would build without harming both the conifer stand and the oak grove surrounding 301 Janalyn Circle. Gene Hollister, 240 Janalyn Circle, said his main concerns are the pond and the run-off because there are water problems during heavy rains. He said during a heavy rain his neighbor's back yard becomes a pond and the water goes onto his driveway and he's had to put in "speed bumps" at the end of his driveway to help divert the water. He said he believes there is going to be a lot of trees lost and there is not enough slope on the street to direct the water to the pond. Ryan Urness, 308 Janalyn Circle, said the corner of Glencrest Road and Janalyn Circle is a relatively high point. He said his biggest concern is that he is not sure these proposed new lots will be saleable given their size and elevation. He added that he does not want a dirt pile sitting across the street from him waiting for a home to be built. Minutes of Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2008 Page 4 Judy Stinson, 4308 Glencrest, said her neighborhood is in the "old forest" section of Golden Valley with dozens of mature oaks, maples, elms and numerous other trees and shrubs. She said most families in her neighborhood are long-term residents who live there because of the exceptional beauty and environment. She stated that it is important to consider that a heavily wooded old forest environment is very different from a typical city or single home area that has widely spaced trees. She stated that oaks are the most vulnerable to construction related damage and most of the neighborhood oaks stand 50- 70 feet tall with 20-30 inch diameter trunks. Their canopies typically span 60 to 80 feet and are all root connected to a distance of 150 to 200 feet. She stated that the proposed subdivision and construction threatens the health of their oak trees and exposes them to oak wilt and other insect and disease problems. She referred to a University of Minnesota publication regarding protecting trees from construction damage and explained that it describes the prevention of damage to root systems by providing a formula for arriving at the protected root zone as well as the impact of construction activities. She added that the guide also states that the occurrence of oak wilt is four times more likely within 160 feet of a construction site. She referred to Lot "C", the eastern most lot in the subdivision proposal, and said she is concerned about the proposed new location of the driveway because within a few feet of that driveway there are six mature oaks, two pine trees and others. These trees would likely not be able to survive the excavation and soil compaction associated with new construction and any tree removal would cause extensive damage and risks to the root systems of the neighboring root-connected trees. She suggested the proposed new home on this lot be built in the same footprint as the existing home with the driveway remaining in its current location so that no new excavation would be done. She referred to Lot "B", the middle lot, and said it has the added complication of being even more heavily wooded and of being positioned on a steep grade. She stated that construction on this lot would involve considerable leveling of the site and changes in site grade increasing the risks associated with soil compaction and changes to water run-off and sunlight. She said that her comments are not intended as criticism against any particular developer because it would not be possible for any developer to undertake the proposed development without cutting into the root systems of the neighborhood's oak trees. She said she understands that a property owner has the right within certain guidelines to do what they want with their property but the guidelines for redevelopment of "virgin forest" land should be very different from those established for development of city land where deforestation is not an issue. She said she believed that the long-term interests of the existing homeowners should outweigh the short-term interests of developers and that developers do not have the right to damage her trees or place them at risk. Paul Denecke, 228 Janalyn Circle, stated that up until 5 or 6 years ago the neighborhood had a constant water problem and after a heavy rain he would have water on his lawn and the water would back-up on the streets. He said he is concerned about having enough storm sewers to handle the water. Bobbie Connor, 244 Janalyn Circle, showed the Commissioners a list of addresses in the area that have multiple oak trees. She said she counted 85 oak trees in yards of just 12 properties on Janalyn Circle so she hopes that there will be a great effort to protect these trees. She referred to a Penn State study regarding reducing the life of trees and stated Minutes of Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2008 Page 5 that three poor decisions and misconceptions are: 1) trees are elastic enough to adapt to abrupt changes, 2) our actions in and around trees do not obviously and immediately impact the trees and 3) the trees have been there for years so nothing will affect them. She discussed how changes in grade and soil compaction affect the trees. She added that the grade for the new home that was recently built by the applicant was changed considerably and she thinks it is important to measure the grade where the new houses are being proposed to see how significant the grade change will be. Rich Baker, 224 Janalyn Circle, commended the applicant's efforts to build "green" houses. He referred to the drainage issues and stated that the design of the pond is built to hold water well above the low point in the road. He said the City put a siphon in the pond in order to hook up a fire truck and pump the water into Wirth Lake. He said there are significant problems that aren't going to be solved with a rain garden and he is going to be looking for significant on-site storage if this subdivision is approved. He added that there are going to be changes in permeability, compaction, erosion and nutrient run-off with the addition of these proposed houses. He stated that he agrees with the applicant's desire to preserve architectural style diversity but the three homes the applicant has built in their neighborhood all look very similar with big roofs that face the road and he does not want to see four of these same houses in a row. He said he hopes the applicant does a better job of trash control than he has done with the current home being constructed. He added that the tree preservation is important and the City's tree preservation ordinance is inadequate and should be improved upon because it is the large oak trees that make this neighborhood unique. Rachel Rosen, 401 Janalyn Circle, stated that the selling point of their house was the gorgeous trees. She said the thought of losing or damaging the trees is heartbreaking and asked that the tree issues be taken seriously. Helga Theilen, 400 Janalyn Circle, said she supports the ideas that have been presented by her neighbors. She said her concern is not only the loss of trees but the loss of space by the proposed lot sizes. She stated that the proposed lots only slightly exceed the minimum lot size requirements and she'd prefer this subdivision not go through because it will cause significant changes to their neighborhood. Bridget Burke, 4223 Glencrest, said that one reason she was attracted to this neighborhood is the character of the homes, the trees and the lot sizes. She said she is renovating her home and has worked hard to keep the architectural character of the neighborhood. She supports the concern over the oak trees and said she doesn't agree that the proposed homes are in character with the Tyrol Hills style of homes. Mary Adair, 505 Janalyn Circle, said she wonders how the applicant is going to build on the proposed lots without changing everything. She stated that there is a large red or white pine on one of the lots that she is concerned about losing. She said she would support not building on the middle lot but just building on the two end lots. Ralph Jacobson, 516 Parkview Terrace, said a couple of years ago Dave Allen put up two houses next to his. Trees were taken down and he was assured new trees would be put Minutes of Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2008 Page 6 in and of course they weren't. He said he is concerned that the developer for this project won't be sensitive to the tree issues. Hazel Belvo, 4300 Glencrest, said aesthetics are her main concern. She said they are a neighborhood of distinctly different homes and designs which gives a distinct character. She said the new house recently built at 4108 Glencrest is out of character and out of scale for the neighborhood. She referred to the applicant's brochure and noted that it shows a image of a very warm home but what was actually built is nothing like the image in the brochure. Marcia Cushmore, 4300 Glencrest, said that the neighborhood is a wonderful place to raise kids and the Planning Commission has heard how much they love their trees. She said when she saw the new house being built at 4108 GJencrest she was in a state of shock and sick. She said she thinks it's cold, unaesthetic and doesn't respect the neighbors or the surroundings. She said she is concerned about vacant lots being in the neighborhood for long periods of time. She said that the builder may be a "green" builder but "green" builders build around existing trees. She noted that the applicant has stated that he doesn't want to diminish their neighborhood but he has and she hopes the City understands how deeply she cares about the ecology of the world today. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. DiGiacomo said he respects the fact that so many people have come forward and care about their neighborhood. He reiterated that the total hard cover of the proposed new lots is not that dissimilar to what was previously there and a drainage plan for every lot will probably help the existing drainage issues. He addressed the concerns about the trees and noted that there are four oak trees on Lot "C" and none of them will be impacted. He explained that the proposed new home on Lot "C" will sit roughly in the same place as the home sitting there currently. He said the existing home is non-conforming because it is too close to the front yard property line and the home he is proposing will meet the setback requirements. Keysser asked the applicant if it would work for him to build the new home on Lot "C" in the exact same location as the existing home. DiGiacomo said he would prefer to build the new home in the same location as the existing house but he would require a variance to do so. Grimes stated that the location of the homes is not dealt with as a part of the subdivision proposal. The applicant would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals if he needed a variance and he is not sure what the hardship would be. DiGiacomo explained that Lot "B" is the most heavily wooded lot. It has two large elm trees which will survive, but it is mostly buckthorn and boxelder that should be removed. He added that no large trees on Lot "A" will be impacted. Grimes reiterated that each lot will be required to have a tree preservation plan and the City's Environmental Coordinator will suggest protection measures for the trees at the time of construction. Minutes of Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2008 Page 7 Cera asked about the repercussions if the trees are removed before the lots are sold. Grimes said it would be a violation of City Code. He explained that once an applicant has gone through the subdivision process only a certain percentage of the trees can be removed without there being a large penalty. He added that most developers are interested in preserving good trees because they are valuable to the lots. Keysser asked if there is an escrow account required in case the tree preservations plans are not followed through. Grimes stated that there is an inventory done and reiterated that only a certain percentage of the trees can be removed. DiGiacomo stated that there is an escrow account required. He said that he appreciates the oak trees as much as anybody and they are valuable. Eck questioned one of the neighbors comments regarding a large red or white pine located on one of the lots. DiGiacomo said he thinks the tree referred to is located on Lot "A" and stated that the larger pines will remain. Cera asked if the City owns the pond on Janalyn Circle. Grimes said yes and explained that the updated drainage study will hopefully show that there is enough capacity in the pond. Keysser asked if the Planning Commission can recommend that additional storm water capacity be required if needed. Grimes said yes and reiterated that the City Engineer thinks there will be enough capacity for these new homes because the amount of hard surface area will not be substantially increased. He added that staff believes that the proposed development can occur with no negative impacts to adjoining properties. Waldhauser said she gets the sense that some mitigation has been done by the City regarding drainage and that the drainage issues in this area are pre-existing and not being caused by these proposed new homes; the neighbors just want the City to fix the problems. Keysser said he thinks there might be a minor exacerbation in the drainage issues as a result of this proposed subdivision. He suggested they install a pond on Lot "A". Waldhauser said they can't expect this development to solve the existing drainage problems. Schmidgall questioned an earlier comment about there being four homes where there are currently two. Grimes explained that this subdivision proposal takes two existing lots and divides it into three but there is an adjacent property that the applicant has also built a home on so there will be four new homes in the immediate area. Cera said he likes the idea of requiring a pond or rain garden on Lot "A". Grimes said the Planning Commission could add a recommendation about maintaining the oak trees and making sure the roots aren't damaged. Keysser clarified the possible conditions of approval they've discussed as follows: 1) requiring an update of the existing drainage study, 2) requiring a drainage pond or rain garden, 3) requiring special effort to maintain the oak trees and if possible move the . , . ' Minutes of Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2008 Page 8 location of the proposed new house on Lot "C" to be in the same location of the existing house on Lot "C". Grimes stated that the Planning Commission could also suggest that the Board of Zoning Appeals consider the trees as a hardship in this case in order to keep the location of the proposed new house in the same spot on Lot "C". Kluchka said that part of the value of the trees is the fact that they are probably already acting as a rain garden and that removing the existing trees will have an impact on the drainage as well. He said he is concerned enough to deny the application because he feels there is not adequate capacity and drainage as the subdivision regulations require. Grimes suggested submitting the tree preservation plans to the engineer that will be updating the drainage study to determine if the removal of the trees will impact the drainage. Kluchka asked if the City would be able to address the capacity issue in the pond. Grimes stated that if the study indicates that the storm water capacity in the pond needs to be increased it would likely be done through a City project. He explained that the City's systems are built to certain standards but they can not be built to accommodate 100 year flood events. Kluchka said he doesn't have reason to believe that a rain garden will help with the capacity issues. Schmidgall asked how often water is pumped out of the area. Grimes guessed a couple times per year. Rich Baker, 224 Janayn Circle, stated that in the 10 years he's lived in this neighborhood the City has had to pump water out twice. Veryle Logan, 301 Janalyn Circle, stated that the City's Environmental Coordinator has told her that the buckthorn and boxelder should be removed from these lots. Eck said he is disappointed that the Planning Commission doesn't have a report from the Environmental Coordinator regarding the trees in the area. Keysser suggested tabling this subdivision request in order to review the updated drainage study and to also get a report from the Environmental Coordinator. Kluchka stated that the Planning Commission's guidelines are to look at the subdivision and the drainage. He questioned if the trees are something the Planning Commission can consider as part of a subdivision request. Eck said he thinks the trees are a significant enough matter that they should be addressed by the Environmental Coordinator. Keysser suggested again that they table this request in order to get an update on the drainage report and a report from the Environmental Coordinator regarding the trees. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to table this subdivision request to the June 9, 2008 Planning Commission meeting in order to get an updated drainage study and tree preservation report. ---Short Recess--- Hey Memorandum Public Works 763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax) Date: June 13, 2008 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Through: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works From: AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator ~ Subject: Glen Urban Subdivision Proposal (Tree Preservation Process) Golden Valley's tree preservation permit classified the Glen Urban subdivision proposal as a "single phase development". This classification will require individual tree preservation permits for each subdivided lot. In addition to the individual permit requirement, staff met with the developer prior to the subdivision process. Staff requested a preliminary tree inventory of the proposed development site to identify significant trees. Staff made this request to determine on a preliminary basis the total impacts to the site and to assess the removal and mitigation options. This process is helpful for staff and the developer to determine if the project is feasible and to determine the potential construction layout possibilities with the goal of saving significant trees. Prior to receiving the draft development proposal for the Glen Urban subdivision, staff met with the developer to discuss specific tree preservation requirements. A preliminary tree inventory has been received and a field inspection has been made to verify the submittal. A single-lot tree preservation permit allows for removal of 20% of the existing significant trees prior to mitigation requirements. For every tree removed above 20%, several options are available for mitigation. The most common option is to replace two 2 %" diameter balled in burlap trees for every tree above the 20% allowable. In addition to mitigation, the tree preservation permit requires a tree protection plan for the trees to remain on site throughout the construction process. G:\AI Lundstrom\BBR MEMO'S\2008 Plan Review\Glenurban subdivision.doc ~ SEH MEMORANDUM TO: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Jeff Oliver, City Engineer FROM: Sue Mason, P.E. Jeremy Walgrave, P.E. Water Resource Engineer DATE: June 16, 2008 RE: Janalyn Circle SEH No. AGOLDV0602.00 As requested, we reviewed the lot subdivision proposed for Janalyn Circle for the proposed minor subdivision oflots 11 and 12, Block 3, Glenurban Subdivision 2nd Addition, into 3 lots by owners Beryle Hudson (lot 11) and Rocky DiGiacomo (lot 12). In 2006, SEH prepared a surface water runoff model to evaluate the pond and review concerns for localized flooding in the sub watershed. We reviewed the proposed subdivision as it relates to surface water. The XP-SWMM model was reviewed given the new information. The original model assumed 30% impervious coverage for the residential neighborhood. The impervious coverage of the proposed lots ranged from 29% to 32%. The proposed changes are in line with what was originally assumed. The change is insignificant, requiring no change to the model or the original recommendations of the study. However, since the pond does not have a gravity outlet, and there have been other localized drainage and flooding concerns in the neighborhood, we recommend that the proposed lots provide some sort of storm water reduction practice like a rain garden or bio-retention basin. It appears that this sort of approach would fit nicely with their approach to sustainability. The high-water elevation in the original drainage study was reported at elevation 866.9 for a snow melt condition, which is the condition recommended in the case of a pond with no outlet. The information on the plan shows the garage elevation at 869, but does not show the lowest floor or window opening. The property owner will want to be sure the lowest building elevations are protected from the snow melt condition elevation. smm Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, SI. Paul, MN 5511 0-519E> SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehlnc.com I 651.490.2000 I 800.325..2055 I 651.490.2150 fax Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: May 22, 2008 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Minor Subdivision of Lots 11 and 12, Glen Urban 2nd Addition-DiGiacomo Homes, Applicant Rocky DiGiacomo of DiGiacomo Homes has applied for a minor subdivision of Lots 11 and 12, Glen Urban 2nd Addition. The minor subdivision would re-subdivide the existing two lots into three lots for single-family homes. The property is located in the North Tyrol area on Janalyn Circle and Glencrest Dr. Mr. DiGiacomo is the current owner of Lot 12 and Veryle Logan Hudson is the owner of Lot 11. Mr. DiGiacomo has a purchase agreement on Lot 11. The total area in the subdivision is 35,743 sq. ft. or .82 acre. The proposed three lots will each exceed the minimum lot size requirement of 10,000 sq. ft. in the R-1 zoning district. The proposed lot sizes are as follows: A-13,914 sq. ft., 8-10,260 sq. ft., C-11 ,569 sq. ft. (Existing Lot 12 is about 21,000 sq. ft. in area and Lot 11 is about 15,000 sq. ft. in area.) It is my understanding that new homes will be constructed on Lots A, 8. and C. Therefore, the home at 301 Janalyn Circle will be demolished to make way for a new home. Mr. DiGiacomo has submitted all the information that is required as part of a minor subdivision as outlined in Section 12.50 of the Subdivision Code. Each of the new lots exceed the minimum lot size requirements established for lots within the R-1 zoning district. The properties are located in the R-1 Single-Family zoning district and designated on the General Land Use Plan Map for Low Density development. Factors for Consideration and Approval Section 12.50, Subd. 3 outlines the Conditions for Approval or Denial of a minor subdivision application. There are nine points listed (A. through I.). Staff comments on each of those points are listed below: 1. Proposed lots must meet requirements of the applicable zoning district. As stated above, each of the lots exceed the minimum lot and width size requirements for the R-1 zoning district. Each lot will have full frontage on a public street. Mr. DiGiacomo has been informed of the new requirements recently adopted by the City related to infill development and "McMansions". Mr. DiGiacomo has assured staff that the homes he plans to build on these three lots will meet all City requirements. Mr. DiGiacomo recently 1 completed the house directly to the east of these lots. He states in promotional material that this house is "sized to scale" with other homes in the neighborhood. He said that the homes proposed on the new three lots would also be scaled to the neighborhood. 2. Minor subdivisions may be denied upon the City Engineer's determination that steep slopes or excessive wetness encumbers the buildable portion of the resulting new lots. City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, has written a memo to me dated May 19, 2008 regarding this minor subdivision. The issue of steep slopes or excessive wetness was not addressed in his memo because these concerns are not a significant issue in this subdivision. As stated in his memo, the owner of the lots will be required to submit a grading and erosion control plan for each of the lots prior to construction. 3. Minor subdivisions may be denied if public sewer and water connections are not directly accessible to each proposed lot. As stated in the City Engineer's memo, City services are available to each of the lots. 4. Approval of minor subdivisions shall be conditioned on the applicant's granting of easements for necessary public purposes as determined by the City. As part of the final plat for this three lots subdivision, drainage and utility easements must be shown on the final plat as indicated in the City Engineer's memo. 5. When public agencies other than the City have some form of jurisdiction over an area including or directly affected by a proposed minor subdivision, approval of the minor subdivision may be conditioned on the requirements of the outside agency. There are no requirements from any outside agency in this case. 6. If the applicant is required to submit a review of the property's title, the approval of the minor subdivision shall be conditioned on the applicant's resolution of any title issued raised by the City Attorney. The City Attorney will determine if review of the title is necessary prior to final plat approval. 7. Minor subdivisions of nonresidential properties may be denied if the City Engineer determines that adequate public facilities are not available to serve the site. This is residential property so this provision does not apply. 8. Approval of a residential minor subdivision shall be conditioned on the payment of a park dedication fee in the amount established by the City Council. The City Council has the right to assess a park dedication fee at the time of final plat approval. Staff will recommend a park dedication fee at time of final plat approval by the City Council based on the City's ordinance. 9. Refers to minor subdivision for double bungalows. This is not applicable in this case because not double homes are proposed. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision of Lots 11 and 12, Glen Urban 2nd Addition that would subdivide the two lots into three conforming single-family lots consistent with the zoning code and land use plan. The staff is recommending the following conditions: 2 1. The final plat of this proposed minor subdivision (yet to be named) will be consistent with the preliminary plan submitted with the minor subdivision application. 2. The recommendations in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated May 19, 2008, shall become a part of this approval. 3. A park dedication fee shall be paid in an amount approved by the City Council at time of final plat approval. 4. Individual Tree Preservation Plans shall be submitted for the development of each of the proposed lots at time of building permit application. 5. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that includes issues found in the City Engineer's memo dated May 19, 2008. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes dated May 19, 2008 (2 pages) Photos of property (5 pages) DiGiacomo Advertisement of house for sale to the east of the proposed subdivision (2 pages) Preliminary Plan and Applicant Narrative (aerial plan showing lot lines and potential home locations) (1 oversized page) 3 In Public Works 763.593.8030 /763.593.3988 (fax) Date: May 19, 2008 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineerz!1f) Subject: Review of Proposed Minor Subdivision: Lots 11 and 12, Glen Urban 2nd Addition Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed subdivision of Lots 11 and 12, Glen Urban 2nd Addition. The proposed development, which is located on Janalyn Circle at the intersection of Glencrest Road, proposes subdivision of two existing lots into three lots. Site Plan: The proposed subdivision will require that a final plat be prepared. This final plat must be prepared by a licensed professional land surveyor, and must be consistent with the City's subdivision ordinance. The ordinance requires that a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement be established on the plat boundaries, including the east property line and the street frontages. In addition, the final plat must include a 12-foot wide drainage and utility easement centered (6 feet on each side) on each of the interior lot lines. Utilities: There are existing City sanitary sewer and water mains available to provide service to the proposed development. There is adequate capacity in the City systems to provide service to this development. The existing home on "Lot C" is currently connected to the sewer and water system with services extended into the lot from Glencrest Road and Janalyn Circle. There are no existing sanitary sewer services or water service available to "Lot A" or "Lot B". Therefore, the developer will be required to install new services to these lots when homes are constructed. These services must be installed consistent with the City's standards and specifications for utilities. The developer must obtain the appropriate sewer and water permits at the time of home construction. G:\Developments - Private\Janalyn Circle\Prelim Appv 051908.doc The required sanitary sewer and water service installation, and the installation of driveways for new homes, will require a City of Golden Valley Right-of-Way permit. The developer must apply for these permits at the time of home construction. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control: The developer submitted a conceptual grading plan as part of this proposed subdivision. Based upon the information submitted, it appears that drainage from the new proposed development can occur with no negative impacts to adjoining properties. The developer will be required to comply with the City's Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Ordinance for construction of each of the proposed homes. This includes preparation of a grading plan, prepared in accordance with City standards and specifications, for each lot at the time of application for a building permit. Tree Preservation: The developer has submitted a conceptual Tree Preservation Plan for this development. However, an individual Tree Preservation Plan, specific to each lot, must be obtained at the time of application for building permits. Summary and Recommendation: Based upon the materials submitted for review, the Public Works Department recommends approval of the proposed subdivision of Lots 11 and 12, Glen Urban 2nd Addition, based upon the comments contained in this review. C: Tom Burt, City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Gary Johnson, Building Official Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal G:\Developments - Private\Janalyn Circle\Prelim Appv 051908.doc