Loading...
02-24-03 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, February 24,2003 7pm I. Approval of Minutes - January 13, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (SU10-06) Applicants: Dolores Commers and David Jorstad Address: 1521 and 1523 Kaltern Lane, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicants would like to redraw the property line between the two lots to correct driveway and fence encroachments. -- Short Recess -- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings IV. Other Business A. Presentation of Capital Improvement Program, 2003 to 2007 - Don Taylor, City Finance Director V. Adjournment ~ . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13, 2003 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was ~eld at the Golden Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, January ,13, 2003. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. , Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, City Planner, Dan Olson and Recording Secretary, Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Keysser was absent. I. Approval of Minutes - December 9, 2002 Planning Co MOVED by Eck, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carrie the December 9, 2002 minutes as submitted. sly to approve II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivisio Applicants: Gregory Newtson Address: Purpose: The applicant woul. A new home wo divide his property into two parcels. on the newly created eastern lot. Chair Pentel removed herself fr of interest. Vice Chair Shaffe n and action due to a potential conflict air position temporarily. proposing to split the property at 407 Turner's I rder to build a new home on the newly created existing home does not currently meet setback pplicant has stated he would meet all setback requirements for the new home. iscussed the lot requirements and stated that the proposed new lot would not meet the requirement of 100 feet of frontage along Woodstock Avenue and that the applicant would be required to pay park dedication fees because a new lot is being created. He discussed the positives and negatives of subdividing this property into two parcels. McAleese asked Olson about the rationale of why a variance should be granted for this subdivision or if there were any strong feelings one way or the other. Olson stated there were no strong feelings one way or the other. Eck stated thaUhe variance for the existing home along the north side of the lot should be added to Olson's memo. Olson agreed and stated that that variance request should be added on page 2, section number 1 of his memo. . . . Minutes of the City of Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13. 2003 Page 2 Rasmussen asked about the total number of variances being requested. Olson clarified that the newly created parcel B would not have 100 feet of frontage on the north side, and that a person can not create a non-conforming lot. He added that the applicant would like to reorient the existing home to face Woodstock Avenue. Groger asked if the proposed new home would have frontage on Woodstock Avenue or Turner's Crossroad. Olson stated he wasn't sure but that the north side of the lot would be considered the front for zoning purposes. Groger asked if the 11.5-foot side yard setback on the west side of the proposed new lot would also need a variance. Olson stated no because the side yard setback in this case was based on the current width of the lot. Greg Newtson, applicant stated that he didn't have a lot to add t but that the lot is large and that having two homes there would b neighborhood. He stated that he would like to have two mediu new home would be a moderately sized home. hat Olson explained advantage to the ts and that the Shaffer explained that with any variance request the Cit hardships of the property are and that hardships do derstand what the mancial reasons. Newtson stated that to have two houses there both homes and that the existing home nee meet all of the subdivision and Zoning C have had to zigzag and the City did no nature would be a benefit for rk. He stated that in order to irements the new property line would Groger asked if the footprint of th though the front entrance to th stated that the garage would footprint would remain as . e was going to remain the same even o g to face Woodstock Avenue. Newtson the west side of the property and that the ding another house would enhance the existing home. omes would be similar and that he feels the lot is too big. s owner said that it took four hours to mow the lawn. Shaffer opened the public hearing. Irene Steinbrueck , 5536 Loring Lane. stated that the existing house is not a shack by any means and that it took one and a half hours to mow the lawn. Sharon Bourne, 401 Turner's Crossroad, showed the Planning Commission a petition that had 27 signatures against the proposal. She then read a letter she wrote and sent to the Planning Commission earlier. Joan Peters, 5605 Woodstock Avenue, stated that she moved to Golden Valley from Richfield and with so many requests for variances in order to squeeze this in, it really won't fit in and it would look different from the rest of the neighborhood and would end up being a detriment to property values. . Minutes of the City of Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 3 John Dolan, 5615 Woodstock Avenue, stated that he is a new resident and that one of the reasons he moved to the area is because of the large size of the lots. He said that he believes approving this subdivision would be a mistake and that this would change the neighborhood. Jim Peters, 5605 Woodstock Avenue, asked if there were two or three variances being requested. Grimes stated that there are three instances where this proposal doesn't meet the Subdivision Code. Peters stated that in no way would this proposal be beneficial and that he is not in approval of this request. Lauren Newtson, 1250 Angelo Drive, stated that one concern she is hearing from the neighbors is that splitting the lot and building another house wo 't enhance the neighborhood. She said that her husband has been in the contr business for 25 years and that they have had a lot of success in making homeo ppy. She stated that if the neighbors are concerned about them buil . g that doesn't fit in with the neighborhood that it is not true, they love G I ey and would like to enhancement the neighborhood. . Irene Steinbrueck, 5536 Loring Lane, asked if th variance requests like this or if they are grante as a profit motivator. Grimes read the three Code. Steinbrueck stated that the lot has that using the lot this same way would criteria regarding granting g to a specific need other than riances from the Subdivision asonably used for many years and e hardship. Tim Parsons, 5550 Woodstock A Ave. where there is a house t from the street is the garage. neighbors on both sides request would be the property well ma to a similar situation on Woodstock in Ith the neighborhood and all that is seen in his opinion that affects the value of the added that to approve this subdivision ong assumptions that new homeowners would keep Barbara Kuenne, odstock Avenue, stated that because of Turner's Crossroad being widened she cerned about safety if there were to be a one and a half story home built on that corner. She said that traffic has increased a lot and asked if there is a safety issue. Hearing and seeing no further speakers on this issue, Shaffer closed .the public hearing. Grimes stated that if a house were built on the corner it would have to meet the corner visibility requirements. . McAleese asked Shaffer for his opinion on the setback requirement on the east side of the existing home. Shaffer stated that it would still be 15 feet. Olson told the Commissioners .that Staff is in the process of drafting new language for side yard setbacks. . . . Minutes of the City of Golden Valley Planning Commission January 13, 2003 Page 4 McAleese asked if it would be possible in this case to redraw the property lines without requiring variances. Olson stated that he didn't think so and that one or the other lots would need variances. Eck stated that he is not convinced that there is an economic hardship and that there is no proper justification and therefore is opposed to the proposal. Groger stated he agreed and that it is not appropriate to create lots that are non- conforming. Rasmussen stated she also agreed mostly because ~he didn't think they should be creating nonconforming lots but that she is not inherently against putting a second home on a large lot. III. McAleese stated he agreed and that he doesn't believe there is ip in this case. Shaffer stated he agreed and that he also sees the potenti subdividing this lot in regard to the Board of Zoning App MOVED by Eck, seconded by Groger and motio subdivide the property at 407 Turner's Crossr home to be built on the newly created easte nimously to deny the request to 'nto two parcels to allow for a new Pentel returned to the council chamber Reports on Meetings Council, Board 0 ing and Redevelopment Authority, City s and other Meetings Shaffer referred to t stated that the ard t Paisley Lane. p with revised plans. r 16,2002 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting and everal variance requests for the property located at 235 nt will come before the before the Board again in January IV. Other Business A. Discuss revision process for Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) ordinance. Olson stated that Staff has retained a consultant to create a draft copy of a new P.U.D. ordinance. He told the Commissioners he would show the draft to them and send it back to the consultant with their comments. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 pm. ~ ':; . . . Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: , Golden Valley Planning Commission Dan Olson, City Planner Informal Public Hearing on Minor Subdivision of the Lots at 1521 and 1523 Kaltern Lane - Dolores Commers and David Jorstad, Applicants From: Subject: Date: February 19, 2003 Background Dolores Commers of 1521 Kaltern Lane and David Jorstad of 1523 Kaltern Lane, are requesting that the property line between their two properties be redrawn to correct driveway and fence encroachments. Qualifications as a Minor Subdivision The two lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the properties are part of an existing, recorded plat, create fewer than four lots, and do not create the need for any additional public improvements. The applicants have submitted the required information to the City that allows for the subdivision to be evaluated as a minor subdivision. Staff Review of the Minor Subdivision Since this minor subdivision is located on an existing platted street with access to utilities, the application is pretty straight forward. The properties do not lie within a floodplain. The City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, PE has reviewed this minor subdivision and has found it to be acceptable. The site plan submitted by the applicants has all of the required information as stated in City Code Section 12.50. The home at 1521 Kaltern was built in 1958 and the home at 1523 Kaltern was built in 1959. Section 12.50, Subd. 3 of the Subdivision Code states that lots in a minor subdivision must meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. In this circumstance, the Residential zoning district requires that all lots must be 10,000 sq. ft. in area, have at least 80 ft. of width at the front setback line, and meet building setback requirements. After the proposed minor subdivision, these lots will meet most of those requirements. The following are the nonconformities for each property: 1521 Kaltern Lane: . The existing home does not meet the front yard building setback requirement of 35 feet (the distance is only 30.5 feet to the home). Also, the existing home is only 7.7 feet to the east side yard property instead of the required 15 feet. No variances have been granted for this property. These distances will remain unchanged if the minor subdivision is approved. 1523 Kaltern Lane: Staff has determined that the side yard setback requirement is 13.8 feet (the lot width at 35 feet from the front property line is 92 feet). The existing home is only 11.2 feet from the west side yard property line. However, variances were granted for the east and west side yard property line in 1983 (see the attached copy of the Board of Zoning Appeals minutes). According to the attached survey for the properties, the applicants are requesting that the new property line be redrawn in such a manner as to just bring driveway and fence encroachments along the common property line completely within the property lines of 1523 Kaltern. . Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision According to Section 12.50 of the City's Subdivision Regulations, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions: 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the reauirements of the appropriate zoninq district. In this case, each of the two proposed lots has nonconforming buildings that do not meet the requirements for lots in the Residential zoning district. However, at 1523 Kaltern, variances were granted in 1983. Therefore, a variance from these conditions must be approved by the City Council in order for the minor subdivision to be approved. The nonconformities are stated above. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Enqineer determines that the lots are not buildable. In this case, there are already homes on each of the two lots. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined bv the City Enqineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utilitv systems bv the addition of new lots. In this case, sewer and water lines are available to provide service for both homes. The existing street system is more than adequate to provide access to both homes. . 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may reauire the QrantinQ of certain easements to the City. The final plat would show all necessary easements as required by the City Engineer. 2 . 5. If public aqencies other than the City have iurisdiction of the streets adiacent to the minor subdivision. the aqencies will be qiven the opportunity to comment. In this case, no other agencies have any jurisdiction. 6. The City may ask for review of title if required bv the City Attornev due to dedication of certain easement. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 7. The minor subdivision may be subiect to park dedication requirements. The policy of the City has been that there will be no park dedication required if the new subdivision does not create any new lots for development. In this case, there will be no new lots created by the minor subdivision. Therefore, no park dedication will be recommended. Variance Criteria from the Subdivision Code As stated above, the approval of this minor subdivision will require variances to the Subdivision Code. The Subdivision Code states that the Council may grant variances as long as there is a finding that the following conditions are met: . 1. There are special circumstances for conditions affecting said property so that the strict application of the provisions of the Subdivision Code would create an unusual hardship and deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Economic difficulty or inconvenience shall not constitute a hardship situation for the purpose of this Code. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which said property is situated. The Code states that the City shall consider the nature of the proposed use of the land, the existing use of land in the vicinity, and the number of people who will reside in the subdivision, and how traffic conditions will be affected by the additional development in the subdivision. The City may prescribe conditions to the variance. The Planning Commission is expected to make a recommendation on the variance request. Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision and the variances needed to permit the non-standard lots. It would seem to be in the best interest of the City to allow this minor subdivision to eliminate the driveway and fence encroachment. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision and Subdivision Code variances with the following conditions: . 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. The Certificate of Survey submitted by the applicants, dated January 30, 2003 shall become a part of this approval. 3 . . . 3. The recommendations of City Engineer Jeff Oliver as found in his memo dated February 18, 2003 become a part of this approval. Attachments: . Location Map · Copy of Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes dated November 10, 1983 · Memo from Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer, to Mark Grimes, dated February 18, 2003 · Photographs of the two properties · Certificate of Survey for both properties 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . . ~ . . . Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 November 10, 1983 83-11-30 (Map 10) Residential );;~nK~~~~~n Lane The Petition is for waiver of Section 3A.06(3) side setback for 4.4 feet off the required 15 feet from the west lot line to the house as it now exists and for 0.5 feet off the required 15 feet side setback from the west line to a distance of 14.5 feet from west lot line toa proposed addition. The petition was in order and consent obtained from all adjacent properties. Mrs. frank was present to explain their proposed addition. ; t The house, as it exists, is located 10.6 feet from the east lot line at its closest point. The house is set on the lot on an angle and as you measure toward the rear, after several feet, it conforms. The proposed addition is located to the rear and toward the west lot line. Because the house is on an angle, one corner of the proposed addition is approximately si x inches into the 15 foot requi red setback from the west lot 1 i ne . Mrs. Frank explained there is nothing they can do about the existing condition along the east lot line short of picking up the house and moving it. She said on the west side there is a screen porch addition and they had considered cutting off and constructing the corner on an angle, however, it abuts an empty wooded area and she said they would rather have the waiver, if possible. This is a very large lot set on a cul-de-sac. It is a steep hill to the rear and the lot is 460 feet deep. The side the waiver of six inches is requested on abuts vacated France Avenue and is adjacent to a wooded area that is owned by the City of Mi nneapol is. Glen Christiansen, in viewing the survey, called Mrs. Frank's attention to her driveway which appears at one point to cross a corner of their neighbors to the east property. Mrs. Frank said she had been unaware of this but would contact the surveyor again. Mike Sell suggested a permanent stake be set and measured in to insure that the lot line could be permanently identified. The Board noted that if the adjacent neighbor ever constructed a fence, the Frank's would have a problem. After further discussion, Mrs. Frank said she would contact the surveyor the next day and make sure they dfd not have a problem with the neighbor. Larry Smith moved to approve the waivers as requested and in doing so noted the topography to the rear. Smi th a1 so call ed attention that the property abuts vacated France Avenue and the Prudential Insurance Company parking lot where the proposed 'addition is located, and there apears to be no effect on adjacent properties. Second by Mike Sell and upon vote carried unanimously. . . . Memorandum Public Works 763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax) Date: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer ~ Minor Subdivision at 1523 Kal~ne , February 18, 2003 To: From: Subject: Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed minor subdivision at 1523 Kaltern Lane. It is our understanding that this proposed subdivision is a minor rearrangement of the existing property line to accommodate an existing fence on the west property line of the subject property. There is no building proposed as part of this subdivision. The easements shown on the preliminary plat are acceptable as shown. Public Works staff recommends approval of this proposed minor subdivision. C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Ron Christenson, Engineering Technician G:\Developments.Private\ 1523 Kaltem Lane\Review 021803.doc . . . . . . .