Loading...
12-08-08 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2008 A regular meeting ofthe Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, December 8,2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes November 24, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Eck referred to his question on the first page regarding the recycling fund and said he would like Virnig's answer clarified. Grimes suggested the sentence be changed as follows: Eck asked about the recycling fund. Virnig discussed a one-time repair scheduled for the Brookview parking lot that will be funded by the recycling fund. MOVED by Eck, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 24 minutes with the above noted correction. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Property Lot Consolidation -1425 Rhode Island Avenue North - SU15-04 Applicant: Peter Ralph Address: 1425 Rhode Island Avenue North Purpose: To allow three existing lots to be consolidated into one new lot Grimes referred to a survey ofthe property and explained that the applicant is requesting to consolidate three existing lots into one new lot. The size of the proposed new lot will be approximately 23,000 square feet. He stated that the existing home was built on the far west edge of the property and has virtually no rear yard setback area. Because of this, the applicant received a variance to allow for the construction of a garage which is not located completely to the rear of the house as the zoning code requires. He added that the existing garage will remain and will continue to be used for the new house being constructed. Grimes explained that the reason the applicant is required to consolidate these lots is because he wants to build a new house on the property but the City does not want the new house to be constructed over the existing property lines. He added that the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2008 Page 2 applicant will not be issued a certificate of occupancy for the new house until the existing house is demolished. Grimes referred to the City Engineer's staff report and explained that the City requires that street right-of-ways be 60 feet in width. The existing street right-of-way for Rhode Island Avenue is 40 feet wide so the City is requiring a 10-foot roadway easement be dedicated across the subject property in addition to a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement. Grimes stated that this lot consolidation will eliminate the various property lines on this lot. In the future the property owner will have enough room for an additional lot that would meet current zoning code requirements. However, the applicant has stated that he has no plans to subdivide the property into two lots. Waldhauser referred to the 40 feet of existing right-of-way for Rhode Island Avenue and asked if that is measured from the curb or from the center of the street. Grimes explained that the easement will be measured to the center of the street. He added that there will be 20-feet of additional easement for Rhode Island Avenue shown on the applicant's property. In the future, additional easements would be taken from the other side of the street to get the 60 feet of required right-of-way area. Keysser referred to the new home currently being built and questioned why the applicant was allowed to start construction before the approval of this lot consolidation request. He asked what would happen to the new house if this request was not approved. Grimes agreed that the order is out of sync but said he felt that this proposal is a benefit for the area and staff thought there wouldn't be any issues allowing the applicant to start the construction process. Keysser asked if a second lot were created from this property in the future if the newly built home would still meet setback requirements. Grimes said yes, the applicant is meeting all of the setback requirements. Eck noted that he lived in the house across the street from the subject property until 1990. Keysser asked when the existing home was built. Peter Ralph, applicant stated that the house was built in 1928 and that it is his understanding that it was the original farm house in the area. McCarty asked if the north 1/3 of Lot 2 belongs to the property owner to the north. Grimes said yes. Schmidgall referred to the survey of the property and noted that the house to the north is sitting right on a property line. Grimes stated that if and when that property owner to the north wants to do anything to his property that house will have to be brought into conformance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8, 2008 Page 3 Grimes noted that the applicant could legally build three homes on this property because right now there are three legally platted lots of record. Keysser asked the applicant if he is considering possibly splitting this property into two lots in the future. Ralph said he is building the new house in such a way that the lot could be split into two lots in the future, but that is not in his immediate plans. McCarty asked if there is work space above the existing garage. Ralph said there is just storage space above the garage. McCarty asked if the storage space counts in figuring the total amount of accessory structure space. Grimes said no, only the footprint of the accessory structure is counted. Keysser opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Kluchka referred to the survey of the property and asked about a chain link fence that appears to go through the house to north. Keysser noted that the property to the north is not included in this request. Waldhauser stated that this request seems pretty straightforward. Schmidgall said he was a little startled to see that construction on the new house has already started. Grimes reiterated that ideally construction would not be allowed to begin before the proper approvals have been granted but in this case it is very straightforward and almost administrative in nature. Kluchka urged the applicant to recycle the building materials when the existing house is demolished. Ralph said they are planning on recycling and reusing what they can and that the new house will be very "green". MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to allow three existing lots to be consolidated into one new lot at 1425 Rhode Island Avenue North . 3. Consideration of Resolution No. 08-01 Finding that the Redevelopment Plan for the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Project Area Conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan Grimes explained that the Planning Commission considering the Douglas Drive Redevelopment project area is one of the implementation tools in the Douglas Drive Corridor Study process. He added that the HRA has drafted the Plan and now the Planning Commission and the City Council need to review it. Keysser stated that adopting this redevelopment plan opens the door to various types of assistance such as tax increment financing or tax abatement for example. Grimes agreed. He referred to the Applewood Pointe senior housing proposal at the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8,2008 Page 4 corner of Golden Valley Road and Douglas which is in this proposed redevelopment area and stated that at this point that proposal is on hold per the applicant's request. He explained that one of the ways United Properties (Applewood Pointe) is hoping to finance their project is through Tax Increment Financing and in order to do that this redevelopment plan has to be established. Cera referred to the map of the proposed redevelopment area and asked why it did not go all the way south to Highway 55. Hogeboom stated that the redevelopment area map focused on the most likely areas of redevelopment. Keysser noted that including the area all the way to Highway 55 in the redevelopment plan would then include the former Homesteader restaurant property at the corner of Highway 55 and Douglas. Kluchka asked if the Douglas Drive Corridor Study Committee picked the proposed area. Grimes said that the HRA defined the proposed redevelopment area. He explained that the plan started with the Applewood Pointe project but the City did not limit the plan to just that specific area because there are other opportunities in the Douglas Drive Corridor. He added that the City Council could amend the boundaries of the redevelopment area in the future. McCarty questioned if the proposed redevelopment area should also be expanded further to the north. Kluchka said he would like to see the entire Douglas Drive Corridor Study area included in this redevelopment plan because the goals and principles listed in the redevelopment plan are appropriate for the entire corridor. He asked how TIF districts are defined and if the area was larger if TIF could still be used. Grimes stated that TIF areas have to be in a redevelopment area. Kluchka said he thinks it would be in the City's best interest to include as much of the Douglas Drive Corridor as possible. Cera said it seems like the redevelopment plan was written in reaction to the Applewood Pointe proposal and it makes it look like that project already has all the necessary approvals it needs from the City when it doesn't. He said he agrees that the redevelopment plan map should include the entire Douglas Drive Corridor area. Grimes said it sounds like the Planning Commission agrees with the redevelopment plan, but not the map and that they would like the HRA to consider changing the map to include the entire Douglas Drive Corridor study area. McCarty said he is not comfortable having language regarding Applewood Pointe in the redevelopment plan at all. Grimes explained that the Planning Commission's options are to table the redevelopment plan review and ask for more information from the HRA or recommend approval of the redevelopment plan noting the issues that have been discussed regarding expanding the boundaries of the map and removing the language regarding the Applewood Pointe proposal. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 8,2008 Page 5 Keysser said he would like to recommend approval of the redevelopment plan with the items they've discussed noted. Schmidgall stated that the items they've discussed are significant changes and he would rather vote to table the redevelopment plan review. ~cCarty agreed and said he would like to see the plan again with the proposed charilges. Kluchka agreed that it would send a stronger message to say no to this plan and review it again with the proposed changes. Waldhauser questioned if adding more properties to the redevelopment map would mean that more properties would be eligible for TIF and it might affect the property values. Grimes suggested the Planning Commission table the redevelopment plan review in order to understand better why it was done the way it was. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to table consideration of Resolution No. 08-01 finding that the Redevelopment Plan for the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Project Area conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission would like the language regarding the Applewood Pointe proposal removed and the redevelopment area be expanded to include the full Douglas Drive Corridor Study area. --Short Recess-- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Schmidgall stated that he attended the December 2 City Council meeting. He reported that the rezoning request for the property at 3335 Scott Avenue North was tabled to the December 16 City Council meeting because the applicant was not in attendance. 6. Other Business No other business was discussed. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8 pm. ~11< ~ ester Ec . Se retary