Loading...
03-15-12 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Gommission March 15, 2012 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the GoCden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Thursday, March 15, 2012. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners, Cera, Kisch, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Alsa present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes February 13, 2012 Regular Planning Commission Meeting McCarty stated that he misunderstood the motion regarding the public hearing for the proposed PUD on Triton Drive. He said that if he had understood it he would have changed his vote. The Commission discussed their understanding of the motion and suggested that McCarty write a letter to the Council explaining his concerns. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to apprave the February 13, 2012 minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Subdivision — 15 Meadow Lane North — SU08-10 Applicant: Golden Valley Land Co. — Matt Pavek Address: 15 Meadow Lane North Purpose: To allow the applicant to divide ane single family residential lot into four single family residential lots (the existing home will remain) Grimes referred to a site plan of the property and explained that the applicant is proposing to keep the existing home and divide the 2.1 acre lot into four single family residential lats. He stated that the applicant is requesting a variance of 5 feet to allow the corner lot (Lat 2) to be 95 feet in width instead of 100 feet as required along Meadow Lane North. (The applicant's original request was far Lot 2 to be 90 feet in width).He stated that all of the proposed lots exceed the minimum lot size requirement and confarm to the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. Waldhauser asked if the variance request will have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Grimes said no and explained that the City Council would grant variances from the Subdivision Code whereas the Board of Zoning Appeals would grant variances from the Zoning Code. Waldhauser referred to the City Engineer's staff report where it states that a buffer around the pond is "encouraged." She questioned if the buffer could be required in order to help Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2012 Page 2 filter the water. Grimes stated that the applicant prefers to keep the existing landscaping that currently exists around the pond. McCarty nated that a buffer would also help keep geese out of the pond. Segelbaum asked where the additional 5 feet came from in order ta make the corner lot 95 feet in width rather than 90 feet as originally proposed. Grimes stated that the applicant shifted the lots in order to make the corner lot be 95 feet in width. Waldhauser asked about the setback from the wetland. Grimes stated that there is a 25- foot setback required from the wetland. Kluchka referred to the Planning staff report where it states that corner lots have to 20 feet greater than interior lots and asked for clarification. Grimes explained that the Subdivision Gode requires interior lots ta be 80 feet in width and corner lots ta be 100 feet width, which is 2Q feet gr�ater. Kisch asked if both property lines along a corner lot have to measure 10Q feet in width. Grimes said both property lines are required to be 100 feet in width and explained that the width of a lot is measured at the front setback line and the narrower side of a lot is considered to be the front. Segelbaum noted that one of the criteria for approval listed in the Planning staff report states that a subdivisian request shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. Grimes stated that the proposed lots can meet the requirements of the Single Family Zoning District; the variance request is from the Subdivisian Code. Segelbaum asked if the City has any authority to deny this proposal. Grimes said, in his opinion, no. Waldhauser clarified that there are two issues. One is the subdivision request and one is the variance request. She suggested they vote on the items separately. McCarty referred to the City Engineer's memo where it states that the builder must "ensure" that each stormwater management plan submitted meets the lowest floor elevation requirements. He said he thinks the word "ensure" is ambiguous and hard to enforce. Grimes explained that the applicant, per ordinance, will have to submit stormwater management plans that meet the City's requirements. Kluchka asked Grimes if he is aware of any covenants on this property that would limit the ability to subdivide it. Grimes said no. Peter Knaeble, Terra Engineering, explained that all of the plans submitted represent conforming lots. He explained that they are asking for a variance on the width of Lot 2 as an optional plan that would allow Lot 3 to be shifted slightly in order to allow the house to be built further away from the pond. He stated that if the City doesn't feel that the variance is justifiable they can still do the project using conforming lot widths. Knaeble referred to a site plan of the property and reiterated that the proposal is to keep the existing home and allow three new homes to be built which he feels is a benefit to Golden Valley. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2012 Page 3 Knaeble stated that each lot will be custom graded and they are estimating 20 out of the 128 trees, or 15% of the trees will be removed. The tree preservation plan allows up to 40% of the trees to be removed. He explained that they've looked at several options and if the existing house were removed there could be six conforming lots on this property. He noted that the lots they are proposing are fairly large and will be bigger than the average lots in the neighborhood. He explained that they have three goals in developing this property. One is to keep the existing house and design large lots around it, the second goal is to maintain the look of the pond view on the corner lot (Lot 4) and third goal is ta maintain the perimeter trees as much as possibte. He shawed the Commission an illustration of other subdivisions done in the area and noted that this is the last of the lots in this area that hasn't been subdivided. Knaeble showed the Commission a picture of the pond and said his goal is to keep it the way it is, without the recommended vegetative buffer. He said he understands the requirements regarding the buffer area but a buffer strip would not be appropriate in this location because of the size of the watershed. Waldhauser asked about the maintenance of the pond. Knaeble stated that three properties will share the maintenance responsibility and will also meet the City and watershed requirements. He added that the City will have a public drainage and utility easement over the pond and an access easement on Meadow Lane which they do not currently have today. McCarty asked Knaeble why he is against having the vegetative buffer strip around the pond. Knaeble said he thinks a 10 to 15-foat un-mown buffer strip will ruin the views and be a detriment to the neighborhood. He added that the existing grass around the pond will provide some filtration. Kluchka asked Knaeble if there is any history of the pand flooding. Knaeble said he wasn't aware of a histary of the pond flooding. Waldhauser asked about the elevation of the house on Lot 3 compared to the elevatian of the pond. Knaeble stated that the pond has an elevation of 859 and the Iowest floor elevation will be 2 feet above that. Waldhauser asked where the 25-foot setback from the pond is measured from. Knaeble stated that the setback is measured from the edge of the delineated wetland edge, not the water. Segelbaum referred to Lot 3 and asked how far away the house would be from the pond if the requested variance is granted. Knaeble said the variance would allow the home on Lot 3 to be shifted five feet to north so the home would then be approximately 30 feet away from the pond. Kisch noted that another 350 square feet of floor space could be added to the house if the variance were granted. Kluchka asked if any consideration was given to subdividing the property into three lots instead of four. Knaeble said no and reiterated that they are looking at subdividing the property into four lots with no variances. He added that they would like to have the 5-foot variance but they don't need it to subdivide the property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2012 Page 4 Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Donald Browne, 4135 Leber Lane, said his immediate concern is the pond and he was pleased to learn that it wan't be filled in. His second concern is regarding the quality of the houses being built and if there were just 3 lots total it would alleviate some his concerns. He added that this neighborhood is more historic than others and he wants to know what kind of protection there will be. Leone Fox, 4125 Leber Lane, said she has a problem with flooding and the entire area was once swampland. She stated that when the original owner of the subject property built the house he was told he had to install the pond, so it is not purely decorative and at various times it overflows. She said the more structures that are built the less room there is for water to seep into the ground. She stated that three years ago the pond overflowed and water went into the existing home's basement. She asked that a special study be done and the DNR be consulted before anything is done. Anna Murray, 12 Meadow Lane North, said there have been 3, 100-year rains since 1979 and water comes gushing down Meadow Lane causing the drains to get filled up with debris and the pond to overflow. She said Lot 4 is very low, will have to be "built up" and will drain toward the pond. She referred to the proposed driveway on Lot 4 and said she would be looking at that long driveway and she doesn't understand why there can't be a shorter driveway onto Glenwood rather than the proposed long driveway onto Meadow Lane. She added that she thought there was a Supreme Court law that says variances can't be granted unless a lot can't be built on at all. Mary Jo Browne, 4135 Leber Lane, said her concern is the way the proposed driveways are configured. She stated that there is a median with a sign on Meadaw Lane and the sign gets knocked down, so the driveways coming onta Meadaw Lane with the concrete median seems to be too much for this lot. She stated that she dvesn't want to have to be watching for cars coming out of the driveways every time she drives down Meadow Lane. She asked if the new houses will be compatible with the neighborhood and questioned why the driveways can't be an Glenwood instead of Meadow Lane. Peter Knaeble explained that the homeowner on Lot 4 could ask to have a driveway on Glenwood but they would need permission from the County to do so. He said he assumes the homeowner would want to have their driveway on a quieter street, would want to have a Meadow Lane address and would not want to cut down trees along Glenwood to install a driveway. He added that three additional driveways on a residential street would not overtax the street. He referred to the comments made about the pond flooding and explained that he doesn't know if the flooding of the basement in the past was caused from the pond overflowing or from water coming off the roof. He added that they will be upgrading the outlet pipe of the pond. Waldhauser asked if the outlet upgrade is based on certain calculations. Knaeble said the calculations are based on the proposed development. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2012 Page 5 Leslie Blessing, 3940 Glenwood Ave, said she would also like the driveway on Lat 4 to be on Glenwood. She stated that she used to live in a low lying area in St. Louis Park and a neighboring property owner changed the grade of their property, following all the regulations, but it significantly changed the drainage on her property. She said she appreciates the view of the subject property and it is impartant not to have the 10-foot buffer around the pond. Carolyn Brunelle, 4211 Glencrest Road, asked if the developer will be required to replace the trees being removed. Waldhauser said no. Brunelle said she wants to see other projects this developer has done and she wants to know the timeframe of this project. She said the proposed long driveway on Lot 4 will create a dangerous left turn into #he driveway. Heather Fraser, 115 Maddaus Lane, said she has lost several vehicles due to flooding. She said she is not sure how the driveways along Leber Lane will fit because there is a 4- foat high retaining wall along Leber Lane. She said she doesn't understand the footprint size of the houses and she likes the pond without the buffer. She referred to the picture shown of the pond and asked which seasan the picture was taken in and how big the pond gets after a big rain. She suggested that the developer check the history of the flooding on the property and how high the pond has been. Eva Jensen, 4Q10 Roanoke Circle, said she is very pleased with the value Golden Valley places on trees and the environment but she is startled to hear that 40% of the trees are allowed to be removed. She asked if that count considers the size, type and age of the trees and stated that there is mostly buckthorn along Glenwood Ave. She asked about fencing codes, the proposed footprint size of the houses and the amount of space between Lots 2 and 3. She added that she is also concerned about the quality of construction and their compatibility with the neighborhood. Harry Pulver, 105 Meadow Lane, said he is not happy abaut this proposal. He stated that Golden Valley is a first ring suburb that doesn't feel like it and he questions if this proposal needs to be four lots. He said the whole neighborhood is built on a swamp and his baekyard gets flooded. He said this is a precarious situation that should be looked at very carefully. Bruce Pappas, 20 Ardmore Drive, said he emailed the developer before this meeting and was told by him that all of the lots were conforming to City Code. Now he is at this meeting hearing that the developer is requesting a variance. He said his plea to the Planning Commission is that they not make it easier on the developer because what he is proposing is a bastardization of this property. He noted that the developer has said he could subdivide this property into six conforming lots and questioned if the fact that he is only proposing three new lots is supposed to make the neighbors feel good. He said it doesn't seem right that the pond can be used when figuring the square footage of these lots and asked the Commission to abide by the codes and not grant the variance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2Q12 Page 6 Emett Carpel, 24 Ardmore Drive, asked if it has been considered to make Lots 2 and 3 into one lot. He said the iconic view of this property will no longer be iconic. He added that he understands how this development will imprave the tax base but questianed how it will improve the neighborhood. Tom Hansen, 4116 Glencrest Raad, referred to the Housing Goals, Objectives and Policies section of the City's Camprehensive Plan and questioned how they would be met if this subdivision is approved. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan states that the housing goals would be met through multi-family developments not infill. He stated that the lot sizes in this area are much larger than the lots in this proposal and questioned what the City is doing to protect the historical value of the neighborhood. Curt Olson, 800 Tyrol Trail, said he agrees with what has been said. He asked if Lot 4 could be split again in the future to allow for another home; if so, that would be a shame. He asked if anything can be done to stop further development. Anna Murray, 12 Meadow Lane North, asked if there has been any consideration given to rain gardens since there has bsen so much talk about flooding. Lisa Morley, 4006 Roanoke Circle, referred to other houses in the area that are for sale or took a long time to sell. She asked if these proposed houses are being built on "spec" and what will happen if they don't sell. She said she doesn't understand where the demand is for these houses. Chis Oldenburg, 240 Meadow Lane North, said he agrees with so many things that have been said. He said he was part of a minor subdivision that occurred at 240 Meadow Lane approximately 10 years ago and his understanding is that there is more standing water on the property now as a result of the grading that was done at that time. Carolyn Brunelle, 4211 Glencrest Road, said it seems prablematic to her to allow three people to own one pond. Vicki McGinty, 4500 Sunset Ridge, said there is a reason she moved to this area but it has not been easy #o stay since the taxes in Golden Valley are horrific and the property values have gone down. She said there is absolutely no benefit to this praject. She said it is not about being selfish or not wanting change, the project just isn't practical and doesn't make sense. She said maybe one additional hause would be ok but not four. She said it miffs her that the neighbars have so little control aver things that impact them. Chris Dowriey, 125 Meadow Lane North, asked if these lots would be able to be split again in the future and agreed that there has been a lot of flooding in the area. Pam Lott, 220 Sunnyridge �ane, said she was assured there would be no water problems when a subdivision was done in her neighborhood approximately 15 years ago and there have been water problems ever since so maybe the city engineers should go back to school. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2012 Page 7 Bruce Monick, 4215 Poplar Drive, said this is a very important piece of the neighborhood. He said the stop sign on the corner of Meadow Lane and Glenwood is run over about s�ix or seven times per year and it is very dangerous. He said it will be difficult for people to get out of the proposed driveways on Meadow Lane and that this proposal does not keep the property as a park-like setting. He said he would like Lot 4 to have the driveway on Glenwood instead of Meadow Lane and asked if the house plans witl have to be approved by a City body. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to camment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Schmidgall grouped the questions together for discussion. His first group of questions is related to the pond, rain gardens, flooding, the proposal that three people own the pond and the vegetative buffer around the pond. Grimes said the City Engineer's memo addresses the issues of the pond. He said some people may nat agree with him, but he is the professional engineer for the City and it his opinion that with the homes built 2 feet above the 1 QO-year flood elevation there should not be problems with flooding in this situation. Kluchka asked who is responsible if the pond doesn't work. Grimes said if there is a 500- year flood, it won't work. Grimes added that the City will have an easement over the pond sa it will be under the control of, and maintained by, the City. Waldhauser reiterated that the pond was built just for the watershed of this property. Knaeble added that the pond will be owned by Lots 1, 3 and 4 and there will be a restrictive cavenant on the deed regarding that ownership. Schmidgall said the next group of issues to be discussed is relating ta traffic and the location of driveways. Grimes explained that as often as possible, the City likes to see driveways located on the streets with the lowest amount of traffic. He said he doesn't think Hennepin County would like to see curb cuts onto Glenwoad Avenue but the owner could apply for a permit through the County. He noted that the locations of the driveways on the site plans are illustrative at this point and could change. Schmidgall said the next questions were regarding the icanic view of the pond and the potential to further subdivide the property. Waldhauser said she did not think Lot 1 could be further split because there wouldn't be street access. She noted that a homeowner could purchase additional property to obtain the correct amount of frontage. She said it seems Lot 4 could potentially be split. McCarty said he doesn't think there would be enough setback area available ta split Lot 4 any further. Grimes explained that every property owner has the right to propose a subdivision if they meet the req�irements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2012 Page 8 Schmidgall referred to the questions regarding the quality of the homes and the size of the homes' footprints. Grimes stated that as long as a house meets the requirements of the Zoning Code and Building Code it can be built. He stated that the City does not have design criteria but based on the value of the homes in this area, he would guess that these proposed homes would also be valuable. Schmidgall agreed that the location of the homes will demand quality. Schmidgall asked about fencing and said his understanding is that homeowners can install 6-foot high fences if they want to. Grimes stated that private deed restrictions regarding fences could be placed on the properties however, deed restrictions are not enforced by the City. He added that the Zoning Code does allow 4-foot high fences in front yards and 6-foot high fences in side and rear yards. Schmidgall asked about the tree preservation concerns. Grimes stated that the City daes have a tree preservatian ordinance that the developer will have to follow. He not�d that there will be a tree plan and a grading plan for each lat. He reiterated that the applicant is proposing to remove 20 trees. He added that he believes trees add value to property and developers don't typically remove more trees than necessary. Schmidgall stated the requested variance seems to be more of an afterthought. He would not be in favor of granting the variance requested because something very nice could be built on this praperty without a variance. Kluchka asked Grirnes to give an update of the Supreme Court ruling regarding variances. Grimes explained that the Supreme Court ruling is in regard to the Zoning Code requirements. The variance being requested for this proposal is a variance from the Subdivision Code. Kluchka asked about the timeframe for the project and if the houses are being built on "spec" and where the demand is coming from. Knaeble said he hopes to have the plat finalized by the end of May or the beginning of June and depending on the market, two or three of the h�omes may start canstruction this summer. Grimes added that if the market is not there, the land will just sit as is. Knaeble agreed and said he would be responsible for maintaining the property. He added that these lots will be sold to families who want to build houses using their own builder; they will not be building "spec" homes. Kisch asked Knaeble if he has thought about covenants or restrictive deeds regarding fences and the pond. Knaeble said they have considered restrictive deeds regarding fences and the pond, but he can't guarantee them. Kluchka asked Knaeble if he knew the possible footprint or size of the new homes. Knaeble said they don't have designs for the houses because it will depend on what the homeowners decide to build. He explained that whatever is built will meet the Zoning Code requirements and he would expect that the quality of the new homes to mest or exceed the homes in the area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2012 Page 9 Waldhauser asked how much space there would be between the homes on Lots 2 and 3. Knaeble said there would be a minimum of 25 feet between the homes on Lots 2 and 3. Waldhauser asked if there will be enough room to allow for a larger setback if the homes are taller than 15 feet in height as required. Grimes said yes, if the homes are taller than 15 feet the side yard setback requirements witl increase. Segelbaum asked Knaeble to comment on the lot sizes. Knaeble said the average lot size for the whole development is approximately one-half acre which exceeds the neighborhood average. He added that he would not expect that it would be feasible to further split these lots in the future. Kluchka referred to the residents' comments about the goals and objectives in the Camprehensive Plan. Waldhauser said she thinks any paragraph or sentence in the Comprehensive Plan could be interpreted a number of ways. Kisch agreed and said the Comprehensive Ptan guides decisions and has vision statements that the City hopes to attain, but the City still has to follow its ordinances and codes. Waldhauser stated that many homeowners are not interested in having large lots. They want nice homes on smaller lots. Schmidgall agreed that the Comprehensive Plan is intended to guide or inform. He said he wants these proposed new homes to be attractive to families wanting to move into Golden Valley and they provide opportunity for the kinds of goals and objectives mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan. He said he is in favor of supporting this proposal. Kisch stated that the City really can't deny subdivisions that conform to the requirements. He said he doesn't think the requested variance is needed because the homes can be of great quality and conform to the requirements without the need for a variance. He also said he would like to strongly encourage restrictions on fences. Segelbaum said he agrees that the City doesn't have much right to deny this proposaL He said he thinks it would be difficult to further subdivide Lot 4 in the future. He added that he would be in favor of granting the requested variance because moving the house on Lot 3 further away from the pond would create a safer environment and would make it less prone to flooding. Grimes agreed that these lots would be very difficult ta subdivide any further. Waldhauser stated that compliance with the normal lot regulations in this case isn't an issue. She said she doesn't have concerns about granting the requested variance because there will be net improvements as a result, but she would like to separate the issues into two votes. She said she feels confident there will be beautiful homes built on the property. She referred to a question regarding how many more infill opportunities there are in the area and said she doesn't think there are a lot of opportunities left. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2012 Page 10 MOVED by Cera, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the subdivision request with the following conditions: 1. No variances from the lot size requirements shall be granted. 2. Deed restrictions regarding fences will be strongly encouraged. 3. Covenants regarding the ownership and maintenance of the pond will be strongly encouraged. 4. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 5. A park dedication fee of$4,885.90 shall be paid before final plat approval. 6. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated March 7, 2012 shall become part af this approvaL 7. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that will include issues found in the City Engineer's memorandum. 8. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Knaeble asked if he could also get a reeommendation regarding the buffer strip around the pond. Kluchka said he doesn't feel the buffer strip issue is within the Planning Commission's purview. Grimes stated that staff will have further discussian with the applicant regarding best management practices for buffer strips around ponds. Cera suggested that the setback requirement from the wetland area be 30 feet rather than 25 feet on Lot 3. Kisch asked the applicant if he would be open to the idea of a larger setback from the wetland area. Knaeble said he would not be open to that idea, but he would be open to shifting Lot 3, in its entirety 5 feet further north. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried 5 ta 2 to recommend approval of the subdivision request with the following conditions: 4. A variance allowing Lat 2 to be 95 feet (rather than 100 feet) in width along Meadow Lane shall be granted. 5. Deed restrictions regarding fences will be strongly encouraged. 6. The setback requirement from the wetland area on all lots shall be 30 feet. 7. Covenants regarding the pond will be strongly encouraged. 4. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 5. A park dedication fee of $4,885.90 shall be paid before final plat approval. 6. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated March 7, 2012 shall become part of this approvaL 7. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that will include issues found in the City Engineer's memorandum. 8. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. --Short Recess-- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 15, 2012 Page 11 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Segelbaum reported on the March 6, 2012 City Council meeting where the Council approved the Preliminary PUD plan for the Eldridge 3rd Addition (Triton Drive) proposal. 4. Other Business No other business was discussed. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm. � � � � David A. Cera, Secretary