Loading...
02-13-12 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2012 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, February 13, 2012. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners, Cera, Kisch, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom, City Engineer Jeff Oliver and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes January 23, 2012 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Kisch referred to the ninth paragraph on page four and clarified that he agreed with Commissioner McCarty's concern about the height of Breck's proposal but he did not share McCarty's concern about enrollment. Waldhauser referred to the last paragraph on page seven and clarified that she would like to review the MnAPA Citizen Planner handbook with the Planning Commission at a future meeting. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 23, 2012 minutes with the above noted changes. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Planned Unit Development Amendment— Preliminary Plan — 4900 Triton Drive (Eldridge 3�d Addition) — PU-109 Applicant: A.K.A.R.E. Companies, LLC — Rob Eldridge Lakewest Development Co, LLC — Curt Fretham Addresses: 4900 Triton Drive Purpose: To allow the applicant to divide one single family residential lot into five single family residential lots. Grimes referred to a location map and explained the applicant's proposal to tear down the existing home on a 2.2 acre lot and build five new homes on five new lots. He explained that the properties are zoned Single Family Residential and are guided for low density development on the General Land Use Plan Map in the Comprehensive Plan. Grimes explained that there are two ways to divide this property. One is by standard zoning through the subdivision process and the other is by using the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. The applicant in this case is choosing to do a PUD in order to preserve and protect the steep slopes and trees. Grimes read the purposes in the Intent and Purpose section of the PUD ordinance and said he feels this proposal does meet the intent of the PUD ordinance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2012 Page 2 Grimes stated that the proposed street will be a public street and will be built to City standards. He referred to a site plan of the proposal and noted that the homes would be placed further south (closer to the proposed street) on the lots in order to save a number of trees along the north side of the property. Moving the homes further to south will mean that the homes will not meet the 35-foot front yard setback requirement. He discussed the conditions of approval listed in his staff report and noted that all of the lots will meet the required square footage requirement, however not all of them will meet the 80-foot width requirement or the 12.5-foot side yard setback requirement. Kisch asked how the height of the homes will be measured. Grimes stated that the height of a home is measured to the mid-point of the highest gable at the front of the house. Kluchka asked Grimes to compare and contrast the current lot configuration and the applicant's ability to develop six lots. Grimes explained that the current lot consists of six lots but six homes could not be built because of the slope and the lack of street access. He added that on paper it looks like six homes could be built, but in reality it would be difficult and approximately 90% of the trees would have to be removed. Kluchka asked about the history of the property and asked if the potential to develop six lots has always been there. Grimes said he doesn't know the history of how Lowry Terrace along the north was vacated but the property has been comprised of six lots probably since the 1940s. Oliver explained that when staff first received the first submission of the plans for this proposal it appeared to be a relatively straightforward development of a difficult property. He said it was a well thought out plan that preserved over half the trees on the site. The infrastructure was well planned and it met all the requirements for rate control of stormwater run-off and the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission water quality requirements. However, as Grimes stated, staff felt that the first submittal did not meet one of the primary intents of the PUD ordinance which is to preserve and protect desirable site characteristics such as open space and steep slopes. He explained that staff's recommendation is that the site be developed using a two-phase grading approach to more closely match the intent of the PUD ordinance. The first phase of grading wouid be during the installation of the sewer services, the pond and construction of the street. The second phase of grading would be custom grading of the lots at the time of home construction. The two-phase grading approach would maximize the potential for tree preservation and would allow future homeowners to make design decisions about their individual lots and the types of houses built. He noted that the currently proposed one- phase grading plan includes grinder pumps on some of the lots because the site would be lowered. He explained that the building code allows for grinder pumps however they are only to be used when there are no other viable alternatives so staff is recommending the grade be raised to avoid the use of grinder pumps. l4isch asked if there is concern that the site might not be looked at as a whole if it is done in two phases whereas a single grading approach takes the whole site into consideration from the beginning. Oliver explained that the public improvements (street, sewer systems, utilities, etc.) will take place first and that the lots can't be developed until those public improvements are done. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2012 Page 3 Waldhauser said she assumes that the grading and drainage on this property won't impact the surrounding properties. Oliver said that is correct and stated that the developer will be required to do a stormwater management plan and obtain the proper permits. Schmidgall asked for clarification regarding the stone retaining wall being proposed. Oliver explained that the site is currently fairly level but the proposed grading for the cul- de-sac changes the grade enough to need the retaining wall. He added that the two- phase approach to grading will greatly reduce the height of the proposed retaining wall. Cera asked about the location of the easement for maintenance of the proposed stormwater pond. Oliver referred to the site plan and explained that there is an existing storm sewer in place serving the neighborhood to the north. He said the preferred access would be from the north. He explained that staff will be asking the developer to restore the pond to pre-construction conditions before the City takes it over. He added that pond maintenance typically occurs every ZO to 25 years and the City restores any area disturbed by the maintenance. Waldhauser asked about the elevation of the northern edge of the pond and how pond areas are planted. Oliver said the northern edge of the pond seems to blend in well with the existing contours and that ponds require a native vegetative buffer consistent with City Code requirements. Kluchka asked if a parking plan will be required or if there has been any discussion regarding parking on the street. Oliver stated that the street will be constructed to the standard 26-foot width so staff doesn't anticipate any parking restrictions. McCarty asked if the street will be similar to the street constructed for the development at the southwest corner of Highway 55 and 100 (Maywood). Oliver explained that this proposed cul-de-sac is not the same as the Maywood development because that is a private road, not a public street like the one being proposed. Kisch asked if the turning radius of the cul-de-sac is adequate. Oliver said yes. Segelbaum asked about the trade-offs relating to the proposed setback variances. Grimes explained that the lots the applicant is proposing all exceed the minimum lot size and have a fairly low density at 2.2 units per acre. However, they are proposing to have 25-foot front yard setbacks and 10-foot side yard setbacks rather than the required 35- foot front yard and 12.5-foot side yard setbacks. They are also proposing that the side yard setback will not increase with the height of the building as required. He explained the reason for the requested variances is to preserve more trees and to place the homes further away from the slope along the north side of the property. Waldhauser added that she can see the advantage in this case of having smaller front yard setbacks because it allows for a more compact neighborhood and more space between the new homes and the existing homes to the north. Segelbaum expressed concern about the proposed front yard setbacks and noted that the Board of Zoning Appeals has been vigilant about maintaining 35-foot front yard setbacks. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2012 Page 4 Grimes noted that the front setback for the house on Lot 1 along Triton Drive will be 35 feet. Kisch said all of the houses except for the one on Lot 2 could meet 35-foot front yard setback requirement. He expressed concern about the variance from side yard setback requirements because there could potentially be homes that are 35 to 40 feet tall in the back with only 20 feet befinreen the homes. Peter Knaeble, Terra Engineering, representing the applicant, referred to the questions regarding the front yard setbacks. He stated that most of the lots will have a 30-foot front yard setback and every home will be custom built. He explained the layout of the site and stated that they want to use the flexibility of the PUD process in order to save trees, provide a compact development that has more green space and less impervious surface and also preserve the homes around this development. He stated that the traditional re- platting process would remove approximately 90% of the trees versus approximately 43% using the PUD process. He added that the lot sizes in this proposed development would be larger than the surrounding lots. Waldhauser referred to the diagram showing the lot layout and asked about which trees are existing and which ones would be replacements. Knaeble stated that all of the trees in the back of the houses along the north side of the property are existing trees. Waldhauser asked Knaeble to address the grade of the cul-de-sac. Knaeble explained that their original plans had a 6-foot retaining wall along the east side of the property but they shifted the street further to the west which brought the retaining wall down to 3 feet. He added that if they can save trees by doing the grading in two phases they will. Kluchka asked Knaeble if they have considered developing the property into fewer lots. Knaeble said they did consider dividing the property into two lots but it just isn't feasible to develop less than five lots. Cera asked Knaeble if they've had a meeting with the neighborhood. Knaeble said they did have a neighborhood meeting last week where they presented the same plans. He said the concerns they heard from the neighbors included tree removal, the views from the three sides that border this property and how stormwater will be managed. Kluchka asked if any consideration has been given for 4824 Triton Dr. Knaeble said he has tried to contact the property owner but has been unsuccessful. He referred to the plan and stated that they are proposing to plat an outlot that could be redeveloped with 4824 Triton if it ever gets redeveloped. He added that they are also planning on putting in services to the north side of the 4824 Triton Dr. property in case that lot is split into two lots in the future. Segelbaum asked about the average widths of the proposed new lots. Knaeble explained that Lot 1 is 105 feet wide, Lot 2 is 64 feet wide, Lot 3 is 51 feet wide, Lot 4 is 45 feet wide and Lot 5 is 44 feet wide. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2012 Page 5 Rob Eldridge, Ridgecreek Custom Homes, builder for the project, showed pictures of a project he did in St. Louis Park. He explained that when the setbacks are staggered it allows the backyards to have more privacy. Segelbaum asked Eldridge if ineeting the 35-foot front yard setback requirement would prevent him from being able to build or if it would prevent the staggering of the backyards. Eldridge stated that meeting the 35-foot front yard setbacks could prevent the homeowners from having a 3-stall garage. He reiterated that moving the homes forward on the lots allows them more flexibility and allows the new homes to be further away from the existing homes surrounding them. Kisch said he is concerned about the proposed 10-foot side yard setbacks and those setbacks not increasing with the height of the home. He said he would like the buildings designed to the site, not the site designed to the buildings. Eldridge noted that that the lots are pie-shaped as well so the side yard setback area will increase from front to back. Grimes added that any wall over 32 in length must be articulated as well. Kluchka asked Eldridge about his market plan and his thoughts about the developing the property into fewer than five lots. Eldridge said they are currently testing the market and he thinks the homes will be in the $400,000 to $600,000 range. He stated that a three-lot development would not work financially but he is not sure about a 4-lot development. McCarty referred to the neighborhood meeting and asked which of their concerns haven't been addressed. Eldridge said he can't speak to how the neighbors feel but he heard one concern about construction traffic which there is no way to eliminate. He said he thinks the neighbors want a chance to voice their opinions because it is a beautiful property. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Mike Ernst, 4845 Lowry Terrace, said he was speaking on behalf of several residents. He distributed a letter outlining the neighbor's concerns. He stated that the proposed development negatively impacts the land, the surrounding neighborhood and conflicts with the goals in the City's Comprehensive Plan. He expressed the concerns about the woodlands and wildlife that exist on the northern edge of the property and stated that new trees will not compensate for the destruction of the area for decades to come. He referred to the grading and drainage issues and said this area has flooded during heavy rain events and this proposal represents major issues for the properties to the north regarding their views and privacy. To address the grading concerns he suggested that all retaining walls be eliminated and underground detention be used instead of the proposed pond. He also suggested that the existing overhead power lines be buried. He stated that their neighborhood is an established, quiet and well-maintained area and asked that building permits be required to be closed within 1 year of issuance, storage of construction equipment be prohibited, the size of sales/marketing signs be limited, the hours of construction be limited, construction vehicles should be required to park onsite, not on adjacent streets, construction fences on the entire site should be prohibited, security lighting should be prevented befinreen the hours of 10 pm and dawn, and the use of street lights should be minimized and should have dark-sky compliant fixtures. He referred to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2012 Page 6 the City's Comprehensive Plan and said he doesn't believe this proposal meets the goals, objectives and policies listed in the Land Use section of the Plan. He also feels the proposal doesn't meet the Purpose and Intent section of the PUD ordinance in the City Code. He asked that the City provide the neighbors with wetland study information previously gathered and stated that the developer should provide additional research including impact to the local habitat, both short-term and long-term cost analysis, a visual impact study showing views both during and post-construction and the neighbors should be given appropriate time to review the information. He said the neighbors cannot support the development as proposed and asked the Planning Commission to deny the application until further study can take place and a more suitable plan is proposed. Fred Reiter, 3146 Quail Ave N, said this is a well settled neighborhood that is turning over to younger families. He stated that there is an extremely unique eco-system in the woods that will be devastated if this proposal goes through. He said he just recently heard about this proposal and hasn't had an equal amount of time as the developer to review all of the relevant facts so he feels, as a matter of fairness and justness, that the Planning Commission should not make a decision without giving the neighbors more time to evaluate the facts. He suggested the developer make a scale-model of the proposal so he can see what the development will look like in relation to the existing homes in the area. He asked how much consideration has been given to low-impact development. He said he recognizes that the property owners have rights to develop their property but it should be done to certain standards. He suggested a study be required to find out if there are any protected species in the area. He expressed concern about the impact of traffic and the impact on property taxes and asked about the time frame of the project. He questioned if this project would set a precedent that any woodland area in Golden Valley is available for giant homes to be built. Ruby Vanhorn, 2901 Perry Ave, said she's lived in the neighborhood for 48 years and she is afraid this project will spoil their beautiful neighborhood. She said there are 15 children living within three blocks and there are no finro-story homes in the area so the proposed homes will not be consistent with the neighborhood. She urged the Planning Commission to really think about this proposal. Ray Anderson, 3142 Quail Ave N, distributed a list of concerns that were collected at the February 4 neighborhood meeting held by the developer. He asked if the City's tree preservation requirements are considered to be a recommendation or if they are a regulation or law. He referred to the tree preservation and asked if the builder is held to the same requirements as a developer. He noted that according to the tree preservation ordinance if this project is defined as a single-phase development the developer is required to protect 60% of the trees but if it is a multi-stage development they are required to protect 75% of the trees. He asked which type of development this will be considered. Barbara Gaasedelen, 3026 Perry Ave N, said this area is a snapshot of post-war suburbia where kids play in the street and people greet each other. She said currently many of the streets are truncated by design so there would not be through traffic and with this proposal the new street will bypass the original intent of what the developers chose to do in the 1940s. She said she has heard the developer say that they want to retain trees for Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2012 Page 7 privacy and they don't like privacy fences, but people did not move to this neighborhood so that they would be cut off from their neighbors. She added that this is a mature, already established neighborhood and suddenly it is changing a lot. Peggy Neibling, 3270 Quail Ave N, stated that the area has a number of homes in the area that have been for sale for a long time which makes her wonder about the justification for adding more homes. Richard Peet, 3245 Noble Ave N, asked if the public is allowed access to the land now that it is a PUD. He stated that there are breeding frogs on the property which to him indicates the property is a wetland. He said the City has said it is not a wetland but he is not convinced and would like to look at the vegetative matter on the property. He added that if this process takes until June he'll be able to document the extent of the breeding frog population. Sheila Bahl, 4815 Culver Road, said she doesn't think seeing flat drawings really show what will be built. She said she assumes the houses will be pseudo arts and crafts style houses that won't fit in with the neighborhood because the existing homes are approximately 1,000 square feet in size. She said if she looks down the proposed cul-de- sac from Triton Drive she will see 15 garage doors and houses which will cause a lot of visual tension because the tall homes being built close together and close to the street will loom over the neighborhood that currently feels so open and airy. She stated that five lots are not a good idea and will not be good for traffic and everyone assumed there would be two lots because of the street frontage the property has. She added that the proposal will be a blight on their neighborhood and she doesn't think people from the outside should be able to come in and make money off of the community they've spent years building. She asked the Planning Commission to ask the builder what he told her at the neighborhood meeting when she asked what would happen if his plans were not approved. Richard Zuraff, 4840 Lowry Terrace, said they have a lot of drainage issues and every spring his back yard floods. He said last year it flooded so bad that water went into his neighbor's garage and during hard rains the manhole covers in the street blow off. He expressed concern over the impact this proposed development will have on drainage. Nancy Husnik, 5205 Triton Drive, said she would like to know the time frame of this development, the appetite in this market for five $500,000 to $600,000 homes and if there will be an assessment for the proposed new street and utilities that would affect neighbors outside of the development area. She said she is also concerned about the trees because ultimately the number of trees will be decided by the individual homeowners so the neighborhood could ultimately end up with a hodgepodge of trees. Lisa Jacobson, 2900 Cherokee Place, said Golden Valley is a great place to live and she understands why people want to live here, but she has made sacrifices to stay in Golden Valley. She said the City denied her the ability, because of setbacks, to add a family room to her home and added that she is concerned about aesthetics because these proposed homes will not fit in with the neighborhood. She said she would rather see the property Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2012 Page 8 developed into two lots with the stipulation that the homes have to fit in with the existing environment and keep the same aesthetic. Bob Hagen, 4815 Culver Road, asked if there will be any tax considerations given to the developer for this project. Hearing and seeing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Waldhauser asked Grimes to review the tree preservation requirements for single-phased versus multi-phased developments. Grimes explained that there is a tree preservation ordinance in place however trees can be removed if there is replacement or compensation for the removed trees. He reiterated that the City Engineer is suggesting a finro-phase approach so there can be one preservation plan for the pond, street and utilities and another plan for the homes. Waldhauser asked if the percentage of trees allowed to be removed would apply to the whole development or if there would be a different percentage for each phase. Grimes said yes, the percentage applies to the whole development. Kluchka asked for an explanation of the concern he heard about single-phase developments requiring 60% of the trees be protected but multi-phased developments require 75% of the trees be protected. He asked which type of development this will be considered. Oliver stated that the City Forester is recommending a two-phase grading approach. He explained that the developer and builder will have to comply with the tree preservation ordinance at all times. Kluchka said he is concerned that the finro-phase grading approach is coming from a grading and engineering perspective rather than a tree preservation perspective. Oliver stated that one of the benefits of the finro-phase grading approach is the preservation of the trees. Waldhauser asked Eldridge to address Ms. Bahl's question regarding what was said to her when she asked what he would do if he didn't get approval. Eldridge said he believed that Ms. Bahl asked him if he would build six houses (using the traditional subdivision process) if he did not receive approval to build five houses (using the PUD process) and he told her yes, he would subdivide the property into six lots if the PUD is not approved. Kluchka asked Grimes if he thinks an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be required in this case. Grimes said this is not a large enough project to meet the threshold requirements of an EIS. Grimes referred to Mr. Ernst's comments regarding the goals and objectives of the land use chapter in the Comprehensive Plan and explained that the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map and the Zoning Map both call for this property to be low density residential which is what the developer is proposing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2012 Page 9 Kluchka asked about the definition of open space. Grimes stated that open space is generally land that is preserved as a park or nature area. In this case the "open space" will have an easement over it which gives the City the right to preserve it. Kluchka asked what options the neighbors have to protect this property and if there has been any talk of having an homeowner's association. Grimes said he doesn't think this project will have a homeowner's association. Waldhauser asked if a neighborhood association could have any type of control. Grimes said there are some areas in the City that have covenants, but that is not the case with this property. He added that the neighbors could purchase an easement on the property in order to preserve certain things. Kluchka asked if the City has had any issues regarding retention ponds. Oliver explained that in regard to safety issues the City has been advised by the City Attorney that the design of the pond is key regarding safety and liability for the City. He explained that ponds are designed with a bench, planted with vegetation material, below the normal water level that serves as a safety buffer. He added that the City doesn't encourage fences around ponds because it limits emergency access. Kluchka asked if any thought has been given to underground water retention. Oliver said that using underground water retention systems is a fairly new idea that are more intrusive and require a higher level of maintenance than a pond, but they can be used in the right location and the alternatives to a pond in this case can be evaluated. Kluchka asked about the suggestion of burying the utilities. Oliver said his recommendation is that the utilities along the north side of the property be put underground. Kluchka asked if the City has the ability to control when building permits are closed. Grimes stated that open building permits have to have active construction occurring. Oliver added that the developer will be required to post a letter of credit for the total cost of the utilities so the City can ensure that the public improvement portion of the project will be done to City standards. He stated that doing the work as a public improvement project would also allow the City to have more control over the construction traffic and added that there will be no costs or assessment to the neighbors. Kluchka asked about the cost of maintaining the proposed cul-de-sac. Oliver noted that the proposed street is approximately 175 feet in length and the total impact of increased maintenance will be minimal and will be part of the City's general operating fund. He explained that the developer will be responsible for paying for the installation of the pond however the City will maintain it using stormwater fees that everyone pays because additional properties will drain to the pond, not just the properties in this development. Kluchka asked how property taxes will be affected by this proposal. Grimes said the property values in the area may change slightly. He assumes that each proposed new property would pay approximately $5,000 in taxes which is a benefit to the City, but isn't really a consideration of approval of this proposal. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2012 Page 10 Kluchka asked about this proposal setting a precedent and asked if this type of proposal has been done before. Grimes explained that there have been many proposals similar to this throughout the City. Kluchka asked if people would be allowed to go on the property because it is a PUD. Knaeble said typically homeowners are not insured to have neighbors walking on their property. Kluchka asked if the PUD process allows for design controls. Grimes said the City doesn't have ordinances regarding aesthetics. He noted that the applicant is essentially asking for single family homes in a single family neighborhood with some setback variations. Waldhauser added that the City has not wanted to restrict the design of houses and any lot can be sold and bought by someone else who then builds a new home on it. Grimes referred to the question regarding traffic. He stated that the five proposed homes will create approximately 50 to 60 extra trips per day. There is capacity in the system to handle that amount of traffic. Grimes referred to the question regarding street lighting. Oliver stated that the necessity of street lights will probably be decided at a staff level. Grimes noted that there are ordinances regarding street lighting in single family residential neighborhoods. Grimes asked Oliver if the wetland study looks at species of animals. Oliver stated that wetland delineation does not look into animal species. He said to his knowledge there are no protected species in Golden Valley with the exception of peregrine falcons at the Colonnade building. Waldhauser asked about requiring the developer to create a 3D model of the proposal. Kisch said he would recommend that the developer show sectional cuts rather than a 3D model. Waldhauser added that the developer is proposing finro-story homes which are fairly standard and what most homeowners want. Oliver referred to the concern regarding construction noise and stated that the City's noise ordinance allows construction from 7 am to 10 pm. Kisch asked about the issue of marketing and real estate signs. Grimes explained that each development is allowed a certain square footage of signage and that the developer would have to follow the City's sign ordinance. Kluchka asked if there will be any tax subsidies for this project. Grimes said no. Segelbaum asked about limiting construction fencing. Oliver said there will be tree preservation fencing, fencing around areas to be protected and silt fencing around the site but that he has never seen chain link fencing around an entire building site. Kluchka asked about low-impact development. Grimes said that the proposed homes will meet today's energy standards. Also the developer is doing a good job regarding low- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2012 Page 11 impact development by trying to minimize impact to the slopes and sensitive areas. Cera added that clustering the homes and having less setback area and smaller Iots as proposed is also moving in the direction of low-impact development. Waldhauser asked if the time period for review can be changed as requested by a resident. Grimes explained that there are four public hearings required for this proposal, two for the preliminary plan and two for the final plan. He added that cities are required by state statute to review proposals within a 60-day time period. Kluchka asked if neighbors have until April 20 to make comments. Grimes explained that the City's 60-day review period requires a decision within 60- days, not comments. He stated that staff has worked with the developer to come up with plans that they believe meets the City's ordinances. Waldhauser said she understands the neighbor°s concerns and agrees that it is a fabulous neighborhood. She said she also realized that individual property owners can do what they want with their property within the rules and she doesn't think the City has the ability to control that. She said she thinks it could be a lovely development and not the imposition people are thinking. She said she is leaning toward recommending approval of the proposal subject to the conditions listed in the staff reports. Cera said he is concerned about the proposed retaining walls and grinder pumps and he would like to see some visuals for what the City Engineer is recommending in regard to the grading. Kisch suggested possibly adding more restrictive language regarding tree preservation as a condition of approval since this is a PUD. He said he feels that allowing 25-foot front yard setbacks will save more trees but he is a little hesitant to reduce the side yard setback requirements. He agreed that this development is moving in the right direction for a low-impact development and he thinks it will be a positive development for the neighborhood. He said he would feel fine recommending approval and working out the rest of the details during the final plan review. McCarty said he agrees that the residents brought up good points especially the natural layout of the land. He agreed that new families will revitalize the neighborhood and private residences in this location are a positive thing. He said he is concerned about the setbacks and he doesn't think a lot of trees will be lost if the homes were pushed back further on the lots. He said he doesn't like the proposed 10-foot side yard setbacks and he thinks the builder can still build houses on the lots using the correct setbacks. Kluchka said his biggest negative finding is the smaller side yard setbacks. He can see pros and cons for smaller front setbacks. He said he is inclined to support the proposal without setback variances because ponding and groundwater management are being added to the site. Segelbaum said he is concerned about the proposed front yard setbacks and that seeing garage after garage will have a tunneling affect. He said side and front setbacks work together and it will be up to the individual homeowners where the house is placed on the lots but the goal seems to be that with smaller setbacks they can build bigger houses. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2012 Page 12 McCarty added that requiring 10 more feet of front setback area isn't going to make the lots unbuildable. Cera reiterated that the whole principle of low-impact development is the smaller setbacks and the clustering of homes. He said he is worried that if the front yard setbacks aren't reduced the homes behind the proposed new homes would be destroyed. McCarty said he feels 25-foot front yard and 10-foot side yard setbacks are too close. Cera noted that if the houses were pushed back to meet the 35-foot front setback requirement most of the trees will be gone, the site will be leveled and the applicant will build six houses. Grimes said he would like to save as many trees as possible and he would feel more comfortable seeing a plan that shows what pushing the houses further back on the lots would do to the slope and the trees. Kluchka suggested tabling the request in order to receive more information and to have more of the concerns addressed. Curt Fretham, applicant, said they are not trying to be disrespectful and he understands that neighbors don't like change but they have given up a lot with this proposal and they are hopeful to get a yes or no vote from the Planning Commission and a decision from the Council rather than change their plans two or three more times. Schmidgall said he doesn't think the site is viable as it exists currently and he feels the design is driven to save the woodland area and the pond will be a nice amenity. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Waldhauser to recommend approval of the PUD request as submitted subject to the following conditions: 1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated December 28, 2011, shall become part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated February 8, 2012, shall become a part of this approval. 3. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 4. The Preliminary PUD Design Plan packet for Eldridge 3rd Addition PUD No. 109 prepared for A. Kare Companies LLC by Terra Engineering, Inc., Sheets 1-10 shall become a part of this approval subject to amendments required by the City Engineer as noted in his memo to Mark Grimes dated February 8, 2012. 5. The five lots within the development shall be subject to the setbacks shown on Sheet No. 4. No house shall be higher than 28 ft. as stipulated in the zoning code. However, the side setback noted on the plan shall not increase with the increase of house height. 6. The proposed Eldridge 3�d Addition PUD No. 109 is consistent with the Intent and Purpose provision and other PUD requirements and principles and standards adhered to by the City. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 13, 2012 Page 13 7. If the developer would like to construct a model home and have public access to it prior to completion of the street, it must be done in a manner approved by the Building Official and Director of Inspections. 8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Kisch amended the motion to include further study regarding maintaining the front yard setbacks at 35 feet, maintaining the side yard setbacks at 12.5 feet and exploring how much control the City can have over increasing the tree preservation on the property. Schmidgall and Waldhauser accepted this amendment to the motion. The motion carried 5 to 2 to recommend approval of the PUD with the above noted conditions and further study. Cera and Kluchka voted no. --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 10:40 pm. � �� David A. Cera, Secretary