Loading...
06-23-08 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 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 23, 2008. Vice Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom, Environmental Coordinator AI Lundstrom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Chair Keysser was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes June 9, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Eck noted several typographical errors. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the June 9,2008 minutes with the corrections noted by Eck. 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 Waldhauser reminded the Commission that this subdivision request was tabled at their May 28, 2008 meeting in order to obtain further information regarding the City's tree preservation requirements and to get an update on a drainage study that was done in the area in the past. Grimes stated that the City's Environmental Coordinator, AI Lundstrom is available to talk to the Planning Commission about the City's tree preservation requirements. He referred to the updated drainage study done by SEH Consulting and stated that they don't feel that the proposed development would cause any significant changes to the existing storm water issues however, they do recommend that best management practices are followed. He suggested that a condition of approval be added regarding the requirement of a rain garden, infiltration basin or some sort of water retention system. Eck stated that he was disappointed that Lundstrom's memo regarding tree preservation requirements didn't address the interconnected root issue and how oak wilt could spread from tree to tree. He said he spoke with Mr. Lundstrom about oak wilt and was told that it could be an issue in April, Mayor June but that the beetle that causes oak wilt is dormant Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2008 Page 2 after June. He stated that at their previous meeting for this proposal there was concern for the large, old oak trees in this area. He added that those oak trees were there before the houses that exist there now were built so it has to be possible to build houses without wiping out all the oak trees. Waldhauser said she would like more information regarding the tree inventory. Lundstrom explained that there is no requirement for the applicant to do a tree inventory for this type of development. He stated that the applicant has provided a very preliminary, informal tree inventory, but more detailed information will be required when the applicant applies for building permits. Waldhauser asked Lundstrom if he could comment on the oak trees in the area and how many could possibly be removed or damaged with this development. Lundstrom explained that the amount of trees removed or damaged depends on the footprint and location of the proposed houses on the lots. He stated that he has had discussions with the applicant about the potential development and he feels it is feasible to build under the current tree preservation requirements. There will be impacts, but they can be minimized. He explained that oak wilt is always a concern in development and redevelopment. He explained that if a tree is wounded in April, Mayor June it should be treated with wound dressing to help prevent oak wilt. He added that oak wilt can only spread to like species for example red oak to red oak or white oak to white oak and that Golden Valley is an urban forest with a mix of trees. He explained that if the oak trees are close enough together or their roots are grafted together then the fungus could possibly move up to 50 to 100 feet in a year or two. Cera asked how the City ensures that tree preservation plans are followed. Lundstrom explained that a building permit is not issued until the tree preservation permit is approved. Waldhauser asked how a tree is a determined to be a "significant tree". Lundstrom stated that for hardwoods a significant tree is 6 inches in diameter at the base and for softwoods a significant tree is 12 inches in diameter at the base. He added that for this particular development the allowable maximum removal of trees before mitigation is required is 20%. Kluchka asked Lundstrom to discuss his findings regarding the preliminary tree preservation plan. Lundstrom said it is feasible to build on these proposed lots without significant mitigation or no mitigation depending of the type of homes built and the location of the homes on the lots. McCarty asked Lundstrom if he could estimate the average age ofthe trees in this area. Lundstrom said no and that it varies quite a bit. There is a large variety of trees including some old oaks and some new due to more recent developments. Kluchka asked if removing trees would affect the surface water drainage issues. Lundstrom stated that there is no information available regarding trees effect on surface Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2008 Page 3 water drainage. He said his inclination is that the removal of 20% of the trees would have minimal to no affect on storm water issues. Schmidgall stated that if a developer can remove 20% of the trees and there were 30 trees on these lots the developer could remove 6 trees over the course of developing these 3 lots. Lundstrom clarified that the threshold for mitigation is 20%. If less than 20% of the significant trees are removed, the applicant does not have to mitigate. If more than 20% of the significant trees are removed, the applicant would have to mitigate. Grimes suggested that Waldhauser read aloud the memo from SEH regarding the requested updated drainage study. Waldhauser read the memo and summarized that SEH concludes that the proposed changes and development will be insignificant but that some sort of storm water reduction practice such rain garden or bio-retention basin would fit nicely in this proposal. Grimes suggested adding a condition of approval stating that the developer should work with the Public Works Department regarding SEH's recommendations. Kluchka referred to the pond in the area and asked how the City could help mitigate the drainage issues in this neighborhood. Grimes explained that in order to mitigate any issues with the pond the neighbors could petition the City for an improvement project to have a pump installed, the cost of which would be assessed to the benefiting property owners. He explained that the drainage study has been done and updated in order to make sure that this proposal won't increase or exacerbate the current issues. Waldhauser added that there are also things homeowners can do themselves to help reduce water problems. Mike Schock, 4316 Glencrest Road, stated that in conjunction with his neighbor, Judy Stinson, they had a tree study done by Rainbow Tree Care. He submitted study for the record. He stated that it would be difficult to replace the old oaks so he is more concerned about preservation. He noted that there is no immediate danger to his trees but the Rainbow Tree Care study suggests that if trees become sick or wounded it can be destructive to the whole forest. He said he wants the City to be very aggressive regarding tree preservation requirements and he wants it to be economically painful for people removing trees. Brant Pallazza, 4101 Glencrest Road, asked the Planning Commission if they have seen the topography on these lots. He said based on the topography he doesn't know how houses could be built there without flattening the lots. He said he is concerned about the preservation of wildlife. He loves the deer that hang out at the pond and migrate through these properties and developing these lots will significantly change the deer's migration paths. He added that he wants to make sure these homes are designed to be aesthetically pleasing because they will be corner lots and will stick out like a sore thumb if they are not. Bobbie Conner, 244 Janalyn Circle, said she's been asked by several neighbors to speak about a report written by Robert Burke (4223 Glencrest Road). She submitted copies of Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2008 Page 4 the report to the Planning Commission. She highlighted the five major points from the report as follows: 1) In the promotional piece done by Mr. DiGiacomo the "front" of the home on proposed Lot C is on Janalyn Circle, not on Glencrest Road which is the narrower side of the lot; 2) The issue of steep slopes occurs in this proposal. The street drops 30 feet over 170 feet in length; 3) The issue of excessive wetness occurs in this proposal. People have had wet basements and yards and she has had to drive around water in the streets to get to her house; 4) A government agency such as the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission has not been included in this review and; 5) There is a question if Mr. DiGiacomo is legally capable of granting easements because he is not, at the present time, the owner of all the lots. She submitted a list of 40 names that support Mr. Burkes' report and asked that the Planning Commission do their job and deny this request. She added that she needs to see much more detailed plans from Mr. DiGiacomo. Gene Hollister, 240 Janalyn Circle, submitted photos of the area and discussed how after it rains there are streams of water two to three feet in width going down the street. He said there are only two drains in the street to service the entire area and these proposed new houses will increase the strain on the sewer system. He stated that these proposed new homes are supposed to be in the style of the neighborhood and there is no evidence of that in this case. He stated that many of people have raised environmental concerns and asked if rain gardens would increase the mosquito population and at what point environmental issues become feasible. He added that creating four homes where there were two also increases the population. Yvonne Fredericks, 300 Janalyn Circle, said she doesn't understand why, when a person buys a lot, there has to be so many people involved. She said she has lived in this area a long time and has not seen any of the water problems people have been talking about. She stated that the applicant has bought a very nice piece of property, full of dead trees that need to be cleaned up. She said the developer has been very nice and she doesn't quite understand why there has been so much discussion in the neighborhood because it is not that big of a deal. She doesn't want this developer blamed for any water problems in the area because that is something the group in the neighborhood should have taken care of a long time ago. She reiterated that she thinks a lot of the trees on these lots need to be taken down and she just wants to see the anxiety in the neighborhood go away. Joe Mucha, 236 Janalyn Circle, said he does not object to the proposed subdivision as long as it meets city requirements. He stated that he and his neighbor, Jeff Nordstrom, have put in about $12,000 worth of water removal equipment at their own expense with the City Engineer's approval. He feels he has done his part and now the City needs to do what it's supposed to do when the water comes. Rich Baker, 224 Janalyn Circle, said that if the comments received are not applied to this project they should be considered for future action. He said that there were a lot of trees removed from these lots by builders that preceded this one. He agreed that there should be a stronger disincentive to remove trees. He referred to the updated drainage study and said it was disappointing in its scope because it only looked at impervious surface Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2008 Page 5 coverage, not compaction, erosion and steep slopes. He said the City is doing a very poor job in assessing the hydrology report. Helga Thielen, 400 Janalyn Circle, said she is asking the City to deny this subdivision request. She said the proposal would increase density and she bought her house because of the large size of the lots. She said the impact from this development would be wide reaching because there are several lots in the area that could be subdivided so it would be wise for the City Council to deny this request. Judy Stinson, 4308 Glencrest Road, said she has encountered in the neighborhood the belief that this subdivision is already a done deal because of the applicant's literature. She said she supports Mr. Burke's report and requested that the items in the report be addressed because many developers can not be trusted to preserve the trees. She asked that going forward "more teeth" be put into the City's tree preservation and mitigation requirements because there is not much of a financial cost involved for people removing trees. Brant Pallazza, 4101 Glencrest Road, stated that several trees have been removed from these properties prior to this developer's request. He asked how those trees are included in the total tree count. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Kluchka said from what he has observed it seems that neighborhood covenants might be a better way to handle issues like density, trees, wildlife and tree mitigation. Grimes stated that the City doesn't require neighborhoods to have covenants but in this case the applicant could have the three new homeowners form an association. He reiterated that there will be a subdivision development agreement to address the issues of grade and tree preservation among other things. Waldhauser said it is possible for the neighbors to form an association but there would have to be 100% buy in with all of the neighbors and in her experience covenants create more burden on city staff. Kluchka asked about environmental impact studies. Grimes stated that this proposal does not meet the threshold to require an environmental impact study. He added that this proposal also doesn't meet the threshold for the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission to review but the City does follow their best management practices. Kluchka asked at what point the grading plans are done. Grimes stated that the grading plans are done during the building permit process. However, in this case the City has asked the applicant to show preliminary grading. He added that the elevation of the foundations will also be set in the subdivision development agreement. Cera clarified that the grade is set in the subdivision development agreement but the grading plan is done during the building permit process. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2008 Page 6 Kluchka asked what excessive wetness means. Grimes stated that there are ways to mitigate wetness on properties. He said excessive wetness is rare unless a property is in a wetland area. Kluchka asked if wetness refers more to protecting the foundation of buildings. Grimes said yes. Waldhauser suggested the Planning Commission take the concerns they have heard and see what additional support the City can give people to help them solve their own drainage problems. She said she agrees with the updated drainage study done by SEH and with staff reports. Eck stated that this is a "who do you believe" type of situation because the neighbors think the grade, the drainage and the build-ability of these lots is going to cause severe problems but there are professional staff and consultants saying these same issues are manageable. He said he has to accept the professional reliability of city staff. Cera asked if certain trees can be singled out not to be removed. Grimes stated that the tree preservation ordinances states that any number of trees can be removed but if more than 20% of the trees are removed then mitigation has to be done. DiGiacomo stated that one of the lots has four oak trees which have significant value and will be saved. He noted that the other lots have elm trees on them that he also wants to save. He stated that he wants to do whatever it takes to make sure the trees survive. McCarty said subdivision requests are always difficult because there is a strong turn out of people against these types of developments but if the proposals meet the City's requirements they are hard to deny. He referred to a comment made about the aesthetics of the proposed new houses and stated that Golden Valley does not have any architectural design standards. However, he thinks that the developer has incentive to keep the houses within the character of the neighborhood even though there is a large diversity of house styles in this area. He said he is in support of this proposal. Schmidgall said he is also inclined to support this proposal. He said he wants to make sure that the significant trees remain but feels that the tree preservation requirements will handle it. He said he feels that if these properties provide their own storm water management they won't add to the existing drainage issues in the area. Grimes reiterated that storm water management will be a part of the subdivision development agreement. Kluchka asked that the report written by Mr. Burke be forwarded to the City Council. Grimes said he and the City Attorney will review the report and forward it to the City Council. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the minor subdivision of Lots 11 & 12, Block 3, Glen Urban Addition in order to create three separate lots to allow for the construction of three new homes subject to the following conditions: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23,2008 Page 7 1) The applicant will work with the Public Works Department regarding a run-off retention system 2) 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. 3) 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. 4) A park dedication fee shall be paid in an amount approved by the City Council at time of final plat approval. 5) Individual Tree Preservation Plans shall be submitted for the development of each of the proposed lots at time of building permit application. 6) 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. Grimes suggested that the neighborhood also work with the Public Works Department and/or the Environmental Commission regarding the City's tree preservation requirements. ---Short Recess--- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No other meetings were discussed. 4. Other Business No other business was discussed. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm. ~ t4L ?;;L Lest rEck, Secretary