Loading...
07-24-06 PC Agenda AGENDA Regular Planning Commission Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, July 24,2006 7pm 1. Approval of Minutes July 10, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2006 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting 2. Discussion on July 17, 2006 Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting Regarding Subdivision Ordinance and Infill Housing Subdivision Ordinance - Lot Splits 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment . July 10, 2006 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, June 26, 2006. 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 opment Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission 2. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdi Avenue Applicant: 1. Approval of Minutes June 26, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carrie the June 26, 2006 minutes as submitted. . Address: Purpose: Id crea e two separate lots in order to me and to construct one new home. The relocated request and stated that this property is located on the nwood Avenues, east of Highway 100 and south of current lot is approximately 25,000 square feet in size. . ion Lot 1 would be 13,680 square feet and Lot 2 would be ed that the property is zoned Single Family (R-1) and s n the Comprehensive Plan map and the proposal meets all of he subdivision and zoning codes. to the site plan and explained that the existing garage located on the property ed to be relocated to a conforming location before the final plat is approved. He explained that this proposal is currently being reviewed by Hennepin County and that they will more than likely ask for additional right of way or easement area along Glenwood Avenue. Grimes referred to City Engineer Jeff Oliver's staff report and stated that the City will require a final grading, drainage and erosion control plan. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 2 He explained that according to the preliminary grading plan there will be a substantial amount of fill used on this property and that most of the new home's drainage will go toward the back of the lot which is the current drainage pattern in the area. He said that the proposal does create odd-shaped lots but they do meet all of the requirements for lots in the single family zoning district. Keysser said that the most significant issue is the drainage. He referred to the site plan and noted that there is a 14-foot drop in elevation on this property. He asked if the applicants are requesting any variances. Grimes said no. Kluchka noted that the conditions of approval in Grimes' staff repo dl relocating the existing garage. Grimes said he would add that a con before this proposal goes to the City Council. Kluchka said h garage should have been moved before the city accepted t is made a condition of final approval he is ok with that. Engineer Jeff Oliver's yards. He said that and there is no way water iver's statement. He asked if Eck stated that after looking at the property he ha staff report that says the existing drainage is no the northwest corner of the proposed new lot is can drain uphill toward the north so he doe ' there is a different way to direct the run- . Peter Knaeble, Terra Engineering, ing of the proposed lots. He explained that he has been wor . icants on the proposal and that it is their understanding that it meets the ts for a subdivision. He referred to his tree preservation plan and they will only need to remove two small trees which will be transplante tion on the property. He stated that utilities will be provided off of Ottawa ill meet all of the Engineering Department's requirements. He r e reliminary grading plan and explained that the majority of the drainage will ront of the lot onto Ottawa Ave. and any rear yard drainage will t atershed and Engineering Department requirements using best ma rm ater management techniques. He said he understands the staff' are prepared to lJ1eet all of the city requirements without requiri y will meet all of the drainage and erosion control requirem naeble to give the Commission more details about the drainage plan and w home. Knaeble said they don't have the house plans yet, but it will probably -story home with an approximate footprint of 1,000 square feet. He explained that the majority of drainage can be directed to the front which will then go to a storm water drain further down the street to the north. He added that they don't show a high level of detail on the preliminary drainage plan yet because they don't know the style of the proposed new house. . Keysser suggested using berming. Knaeble said there is already some berming on the property but that they will probably do more. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 3 Eck stated that the finished floor of the proposed new home will be lower than the existing home so there is going to be water going toward the new home. Knaeble explained that there will be some sort of drainage technique used to direct the water away from the proposed new home. Eck stated that there is a requirement that there can be no more water leaving the property than there is now. Keysser asked how the City knows the current water flow. Knaeble explained that they had to do drainage calculations to figure that out. Grimes added that at this point in the process, the applicants and Mr. Knaeble have shown the City that this proposal appears to work. McCarty asked if the work being proposed is the work that will actual something else could possibly be done. Knaeble stated that what i what will be done. Grimes added that the work wouldn't be don proposed new lot sells. He explained that Mr. Knaeble is sho proposal will work in order for a new home to be built if the stated that whoever buys the new lot would be subject to the Knaeble added that the grading work won't be done u Waldhauser stated that because of the odd sha envision the homeowners coming back to the C little of the lot is actually usable. ew lots she can . ance request because so Schmidgall stated that there is an inco survey where the existing garage i 897 is should read 867. He also previous noted 14 feet, from th evation contours shown on the ated that instead of the number re is an 8-foot drop in elevation, not the lot to the street. Keysser asked if the soil . clay. clay. Knaeble said he expects it to be sandy Ben Vogel, applican in order to "ca . a oddly shaped rr new lots e wanted to clarify that they are not making this request intend to stay. He said that although the lots may be i ore or less double the size of the lots in the area and the aller than other lots nearby. ants about their plans to sell the proposed new lot. Bar fairly their own either. licant, stated that she thinks they will probably sell the proposed new lot added that they are also concerned about drainage for their area and for e. Mr. Vogel added that they are not interested in building a monstrosity Keysser asked the applicants how much standing water they've had on their property in the past. Mr. Vogel stated that they've had a "pond" develop in their yard that lasts for 3 to 6 days approximately 7 out of the last 9 years they've lived there. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 4 Cera noted that the applicants mentioned adding on to their existing home and asked if they would need a variance to do that. Mrs. Vogel stated that they would just be relocating their existing garage and attaching it to their home and that it is not their intention to request any variances. She added that they want to keep their neighbors as happy as they can. Keysser opened the public hearing. Lewis Seltz, attorney representing Berkeley Nelson, 18 Ottawa Avenue Mr. Nelson is concerned about the style of home that will be built on because most of the homes in the neighborhood are ranch style h home would not fit in. Seltz referred to the tree preservation plan and noted that it Elm trees that are located on the southwest corner of Mr. Ne stated that those trees are not located on the subject removed. Seltz stated that the excavation for the and the fill will reduce oxygen to the trees and t the Commissioners a letter from Davey Tree Ex impacts construction may have on Mr. Nel Chinese eysser dn't be me could destroy them 't survive. He gave y regarding the possible Seltz stated that if the property is filled volume will remain the same. He r the silt fence shown on the plan . permanent solution, He said th project. at the drainage and run-off ary grading plan and stated that ry erosion control measure, not a sons Mr. Nelson is opposed to the Violet Meyer; 35 Natchez than others and th 'th a terrible mosquito of all the water he she is oppose o tated that in some years the water is worse osal there will be more water. She said there has been at they can't have gardens in their back yards because re are several lots in the area that are much larger and his property. Avenue North, stated that her back yard is also very wet and ke how much of the lot is going to be filled. Keysser stated that the cause the house hasn't been designed yet, but the applicant will Ity how they plan to build the proposed new house. Grimes added that o be a foot higher than the street level and that any run-off can't be greater tti IS right now. Epstein said she doesn't feel comfortable with the preliminary grading plan and she doesn't want to see another house on that property. Tim Anderson, 80 Ottawa Avenue North, reiterated that there is a big water issue in this area. He said that two out of the last four springs the whole entire park area was filled with water. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 5 He said he doesn't know where the water from the proposed new house is going to go, the sewers fill up, there are ducks in their backyards and mosquitoes are a problem. He said the water table is where it is and he doesn't know how it's not going to be worse. Thorn Melcher, 4620 Glenwood Avenue, said that the Vogels are ideal neighbors but his concern is for the neighborhood feeling. He said he is anxious about lots being divided and property being filled in. He asked how the City is going to handle it and make sure it fits in with the neighborhood because he doesn't want to start getting "creep" into other areas. He asked about the requirements for a subdivision. Keysser exp' orne of the requirements for subdividing a lot. He said that there are minimum 10 ck requirements, height requirements and lot coverage ratio require ded that the City Council and the Planning Commission will be disc ment to see if something can be done about the types of homes th stated that the applicants could have as a condition of the sale of t some say about what gets built on the new lot. Seeing and hearin on his lot. There are a o e source of additional t this subdivision could be a he condition of adding a rain e City Engineer has said . Waldhauser said the water where the storm system drains Natchez Pond and eventually to r problems are common and that some bably would have been built differently today to . Mr. Vogel said he wants to make it clear that rain lot of existing problems right now and that it is n drainage problems. Keysser added that it is als solution to help fix some of the drainage is garden could be added to this proposal. that a rain garden would not be appro table may be too high for a rain gar to. Grimes said he thinks the sto Sweeney Lake. He added that of the homes that are in thi reduce drainage proble ishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. mmission should address the issue of the two Chinese r rty. (18 Ottawa Ave. N.) Grimes said he will make the aware of the trees. He said he doesn't know how he will nother property but he'd have it reviewed prior to the the ity Council. Keysser asked Kluchka if he wanted the protection a condition of approval. Kluchka said yes. . the subdivision code and stated that if a subdivision adversely affects neighbor! operties the Planning Commission does not have to recommend approval. He said he is not convinced that there won't be any adverse affects on the neighboring properties until he sees a more detailed drainage plan. Keysser said that even if the City Council approves this subdivision request the ultimate buyer of the lot will have to submit a drainage plan to the City and that all that the City would be doing now is permitting the subdivision. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 6 Cera said another issue is the triangular shape of the proposed new lots. He said he is concerned about the properties being viable. Keysser said that is not an issue for the Planning Commission. Waldhauser said she thinks the City should have some concern about the shape of the lots and that there are a lot of ways to get the required street frontage without having these triangular shapes. Grimes explained that since these proposed lots would be corner lots, each side needs to have 100 feet of frontage. He said that staff did review these plans with Mr. Knaeble and this was really the only way to make it work with all the requirements. Waldhauser said she would rather grant a variance regarding the street frontage than to ese triangular shaped lots. Eck said that although he thinks the Planning Commission doe denying this subdivision, it is a very strange lot and he is not proposal isn't going to exacerbate the drainage problem. Gr in time the applicants have submitted a plan that according t work. He reiterated that the proposal is subject to a fi ai plan. is for s a his point appears to ion control Kluchka stated that it looks like the applicants h asked what mechanisms are in place to pr once everything is done and what recou explained that the Building Official and He added that the City can also re assessments to make sure any i rything they need to do. He ge was not made worse ve if it is worse. Grimes III have to approve the plans. maintenance agreements and levy Keysser asked if the City c that the City has a big b measurements are taken ormance bonds. Grimes said yes and explained and the watershed district to make sure hat drainage structures and plans work. staff is dedicated but questioned the mechanisms in rainage plan works. Grimes said that the Planning on of approval regarding some kind of agreement as Works Department that will make sure that the proposed erly and be maintained. t three conditions will be added to the existing six from Grimes' staff s that the existing garage will be relocated to a conforming location prior oval; the second is that the tree preservation plan shall include the two Chinese ees located on the southwest corner of 18 Ottawa Ave. N. and the third is that an agreement or plan as recommended by the Public Works Department regarding the maintenance of a drainage plan is implemented. Barb Vogel stated that she is also concerned about an oak tree on the southeast corner of 18 Ottawa Ave. N. She added that if they were able to vacate part of Ottawa Avenue she thinks that the lots could be shaped differently. Grimes stated that the City Engineer has not recommended vacating the easement as requested on Ottawa Ave. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 7 MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by McCarty and motion carried 6 to 1 to recommend approval of the subdivision request at 4736 Glenwood with the following conditions. Commissioner Cera voted no. 1. The three plans prepared by Terra Engineering and dated 6/9/06 shall become a part of the approval (Preliminary Plat/Preliminary Utility Plan, Existing Conditions Plan and Preliminary Grading Plan/Erosion Control Plan. 8. 2. The preliminary tree preservation mitigation plan shall become a with the understanding that additional information may be requ. approval. 3. The recommendations found in the memo from City Eng July 3, 2006 to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and De part of this approval. 4. At the time of final plat approval, the subdivis. fee. The amount of the fee shall be determin approval. of a park dedication Council at time of final plat 5. The City Attorney shall determine i cost of the title review shall be d for this subdivision. If so, the 6. If requested by Hennepin C shall be made and sho ad dedication or easement dedication 7. The existing garage I location prior to. I perty shall be relocated to a conforming shall include the two Chinese elms located on the a a Avenue North. 9. mended by the Public Works Department regarding the rlnage plan shall be implemented. --Short Recess-- 3. R on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 10, 2006 Page 8 4. Other Business The Commissioners discussed performance bonds and maintenance agreements and the leverage the City has to enforce them. The Commissioners asked if the City Engineer could attend their meetings. Grimes stated that they would have to make a request to the City Manager. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm. . . . . . Joint Meeting of the Golden Valley City Council and Planning Commission Discussion on Subdivision Ordinance and Infill Housing July 17, 2006 A joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, July 17, 2006. Mayor Loomis called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Those present were Mayor Loomis, Council Members, Freiberg, Pentel Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Sch Waldhauser. Also present was City Manager, Tom Burt, Director 0 a Development, Mark Grimes, City Attorney, Allen Barnard and A istr Wittman. nt, Lisa 1. Subdivision Ordinance - Lot Splits Shaffer stated that five or six years ago the Planni code changes to take it from a two dimensional c with the volume of structures. He stated that the because it doesn't affect how big a house Zoning Code as the direction to look to Ordinance is subjective and the Zoning changes are made they need to ke new properties and they need to rted working on zoning dl sional code dealing rdinance was never changed a house. He said he sees the cause the Subdivision re specific. He added that as affect existing properties as well as Freiberg said he agrees th "McMansions" and that th setback changes, but he t affect the character ne. in Golden Valley and things relevant i ion Ordinance by itself isn't responsible for o better addressed by design limitations or the S division Ordinance and the Zoning Code can hood. He said there are a lot of different neighborhoods -wide limits might be good because it could make ods and not others. I of this meeting. He said he would like to talk about the Council goals and what they are trying to accomplish. Loomis said she ncil knows yet if they are to the point of knowing what they want to e goals are. She said that this meeting is to look at several of the hat the goal at this point is to give staff some direction. Pentel state hat she was on the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals for many years and that she has also worked on changing the Zoning Code. She said she is not sure that the City can have different subdivision codes for different parts of the City. She said that people in Golden Valley who own double and triple lots are not ignorant to that fact and she feels very strongly about maintaining people's rights to subdivide their property. She added that tweaking the Zoning Code may address some of the issues and have some effect. Minutes of the Golden Valley Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2006 ' Page 2 . Barnard stated that he thinks it is possible that Golden Valley could have different Subdivision Ordinances for different neighborhood but it is already a fully developed City so that would be difficult. Pentel asked Barnard if there would be taking issues involved if people aren't allowed to subdivide their private property. Barnard said probably not, but he didn't know for sure. Loomis stated that there are some existing vacant, buildable lots. Pentel added that with today's engineering any lot is buildable. Eck stated that the City is facin subdivisions because it cha "McMansion" issue. He s shall not be less than the properties within 50 subdivisions that hav apparently what 'n and II ow operty . hands Ission can Cera agreed that tweaking the Zoning Code is the key. He referred to s subdivision requests the Planning Commission has seen over the pas stated that there are definitely some points in the Subdivision Ordi c t wo them to be denied such as the language regarding adverse effe su ro He added that it is difficult to have public hearings and then t ha are tied. He asked if they could look at what types of things th Co address. . Loomis asked Barnard to address why subdivision when they seem administrative. Barnard explain hearings for subdivision requests so that everyon concerned about changing the subdivision that the public hearing process gives the can be helpful when placing conditions are brought forward at public heari have a public hearing Sta w to hold public irly. He stated that he's f the game. Loomis added r neighbors concerns and it Sha er added that sometimes issues ware of. e st is the neighbors objecting to cter of their neighborhood and the second is the d by Edina's zoning code where is says that lots area the neighborhood and neighborhood means that if Golden Valley had that provision several ned wouldn't have been allowed. He added that and it does preserve the character of the neighborhood. 'na adopted their zoning code and stated that they seem to be a d than Golden Valley is. Shaffer explained that Edina's code ry Club district area and that they have been using it for a long time and d. He stated that another part of Edina's code is median front yard at Golden Valley tends to get soft on existing home requirements and hard on and that it needs to be fair. . Loomis stated that she is getting a sense from the Council that they don't have strong feelings on changing the Subdivision Ordinance. Freiberg said he wouldn't mind looking at doing something like Edina has done. Shaffer clarified that Edina's requirements are through their Zoning Code, not their Subdivision Code. Grimes stated that he believed that Edina's Subdivision Code does state that lots must be 9,000 square feet in size or the median size of the lots in the neighborhood. Loomis stated that Golden Valley's Subdivision Ordinance doesn't state that lots have to be 10,000 square feet. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2006 Page 3 Grimes stated that Golden Valley's Subdivision Ordinance states that lots must meet the requirements of the Zoning Code which specifies 10,000 square feet in area. Pentel referred to page 385, Subdivision A of the Golden Valley Subdivision Ordinance and stated that it will need to be re-written to reflect the proper front yard setbacks for properties in the Multiple- Family Dwelling sections of the Zoning Code. Keysser stated that as the Subdivision Ordinance reads now there are grounds for denial. He said that the Planning Commission has accepted what staff says in their reports. For instance, if the staff said there are drainage issues but they can be address das part of the approval process, the Planning Commission has agreed. He asked how ollows up on the drainage issues and how we know that the drainage plans bein r these subdivisions will work 4 or 5 years from now. Freiberg added that a that there have been drainage issues on a few of the more recent su ision r nd because of that he has voted against the proposals. existing platted em. Denying that cts of this buildable, div process, the City was are definite things that have t could have come to the City , ttached to it whatsoever, ed that she feels that it is very d to call out issues that could have Planning Commission that their hands give the neighbors a way to hear what is Pentel stated that one of the most recent subdivision pro lots of record and that the applicant was just changing subdivision in no way would change any of the pot legal lot of record, but by having these lots go thr able to attach conditions so that once the lot is b to be considered. She stated that the owne and received a building permit without h which could potentially cause adverse a important to be able to put conditio an adverse affect. She added th are tied regarding subdivisions going on in their neighborh ions r arding the approval of subdividing lots. He said gineer that a specific drainage plan will work then it is pie can't build on their lot. He stated that the Council a drainage plan, but not over whether the drainage plan ity to jump to conclusions and say that we don't want e are going to restrict how somebody can subdivide their land so an unfair message especially to residents with small lots and es who want to expand their homes and can't if the zoning code won't . would allow it for someone with a different shaped lot. He said he is ubdivisions that have been approved have made the City less attractive e City has to be sure it's not following trends, but is being fair. that if it is the opinio unfair for the Council Freiberg said he disagreed that his vote to deny the most recent subdivision was subjective. He said the City knows that there is a drainage problem in that area and that building a house and increasing the impervious surface area is only going to make it worse. Kluchka stated that he is keeping a list of goals that he is hearing at this meeting and that one of the goals he has written down would to be sure that conflicts between the Subdivision Code and Zoning Code are identified and mitigated. He said he thinks that it would be . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2006 Page 4 appropriate to direct staff to help the Planning Commission make sure they understand the risks with the various ordinances. Grimes clarified that the City requires a drainage and erosion control permit on every lot that gets developed in Golden Valley, not just on new lots that are created by subdividing. Pentel referred to the Zoning Code and stated that it has a section regarding the percentage of lot coverage allowed on various lot sizes. She said that if we were to change the Subdivision Code to say that a lot couldn't be smaller than the median lot in the neighborhood, in effect there would be a larger lots and it would mean that larger house could be built. 2. t at first Shaffer referred to a subdivision that was done several years ago wanted nine lots but was approved for five lots. He stated that t concerned because more lots would mean more houses and . the neighborhood, when in fact, they ended up with fewer lots bigger houses on them, so there is always a balance be~een size. Freiberg stated that is why they need to be lookin t and the Zoning Code. racter in in size with the house IS ion Ordinance Pentel stated that the City gets a lot of its operati more than from commercial properties. So sharing their burden across more housin an office building where the incremental shared with other jurisdictions. She realizes that it's our residential pr Golden Valley. residential building permits, keep their taxes a little lower, more helpful than putting up es that the City gets, ends up being es her decision making, but she the burden for operating the City of R-1 Development o Size of Homes a. dations of the Atlanta Infill Development Panel b. St. Louis Park Ordinances ot Coverage (impervious surface) notes from National Association of Home Builders web site Waldhause erred to the St. Louis Park and Atlanta ordinances and stated that they include a broader statement of goals for single family residential districts. She said she thinks Golden Valley has interpreted its own ordinances pretty narrowly. Pentel stated that as Golden Valley is looking at updating the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan it would be interesting to look at the goals there compared to the Zoning Code. Shaffer said that in some ways the concern is really houses that are too big for lots and what that means. It's not necessarily the lot split but what goes on the lots once they are split. Minutes of the Golden Valley Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2006 Page 5 . He reviewed the ways addressing the size of homes such as, floor area ratios, height limits, volume ratios, different types of setbacks and lot coverage. He added that using these types of zoning tools will take care of a lot of the issues people are concerned about. Pentel stated that it is the height of some of these homes and how the height is measured that concerns her. Freiberg agreed and stated that the top of the house should also be looked at in considering height, not just where a house starts at the ground. Loomis referred to the Atlanta ordinance and said she likes that it doesn't allow height to be manipulated by changes to the grade. . Loomis said that Golden Valley is an evolving communi Valley it was a farming community that had just started septic systems, private wells and propane gas tan large lots. She added that these types of subdivis' challenge is how to manage the growth and man people value about Golden Valley. Freiber evolving community, but the monumenta developed inner ring suburb have pass what Golden Valley has now as an maintain without getting in the w o Golden d everyone had eason for many of the ne olution and the es without destroying what t Golden Valley is an ricultural community to a fully portant to look at elements of Ity and which elements it wants to Shaffer stated that in some neighborhoods the tall homes fit in comple Valley is so diverse in it's housing stock, it changes from house to s street to street because back in the 1950's and 1960's builders heir 0 added that it would take a lot of time to try and figure out how n Loomis said the question is but also stay aware that it' is that if Golden Valley en people to them. the growth and write it into some kind of code t existing homes as well. Shaffer said his feeling Ions than it needs to stand by them and hold dian lot size in Edina and wondered if that could be t requirements. about the administration of requirements like the median size houses. Grimes stated that the City would have to require more ing permit process. He said from his perspective, simpler be better for staff and for the community. Loomis stated that she doesn't to become so administratively heavy that they have to look at adding . Barnard stated he is concerned about the median size concepts because the City might end up with much larger lots in an area that already has small lots or much taller homes because in some cases the median would allow something we really don't want. McCarty referred to changing the average height of the neighborhood. He said in his neighborhood several people have added on a second story so now his house, is the only single story in the neighborhood. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2006 Page 6 Keysser said he is not sure how well Edina's Code works but he thinks it wouldn't be very workable in Golden Valley because there is a huge variety of houses and a variety of lot sizes and without measuring every one of them it would be hard to establish the median. He said Golden Valley doesn't have very defined or identified neighborhoods such as Atlanta so it would be very cumbersome and awkward for Golden Valley to have a similar ordinance. Freiberg said he thinks the 500 feet definition for a neighborhood is somewhat arbitrary but it does set a defined objective which would prevent a home from towering er others. Pentel said she thinks talking about building height and how to regulat important but right now the current style of houses are enormously way to define height and make them less intrusive would be goo Freiberg referred to his handout from Marin County, Californi there can consider the median size of the surrounding h mes Shaffer asked if they really want flexibility, because if th or if it is too flexible we may as well not have a cod anners r flexibility. e is no fairness, Grimes said he thinks it's the consensus at this have the right to build a two-story home bu Shaffer cautioned that a height limit won' create an unexpected response. Grime three story houses on lot sizes less yard setbacks. ople feel that residents to measure the height. e houses down and it can . Louis Park allows 30-foot high or and they only have 9-foot side Cera stated that S1. Louis P talk about limiting impervi floor area ratio and Golden Valley could also Freiberg referred to making people pay th efficient it has t . K administer. noted that one strategy some cities are using is wise, so the bigger the home, the more energy at would also be very cumbersome and hard to is not going to fix environmental issues and that cities have to nd. Shaffer reiterated that Golden Valley is a fully developed we had available land he would be in favor of requiring more energy He stated that the State does have an energy code and that Golden Valley is ct about making people follow it. Waldhauser stated that they also don't want to price eople out of Golden Valley. Keysser stated that the two comments the Planning Commission hears the most regarding subdivisions is the change in the character of the neighborhood and the drainage. He said people have genuine concern about potential impacts to their property and in some respects it gives the City an opportunity to address the drainage in the entire neighborhood but he questions what happens after the fact, 3 or 4 years down the road. Loomis suggested that staff give them a step by step process to make sure requirements are followed and issues are addressed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2006 ' Page 7 . Grimes stated that the City does have development agreements and maintenance agreements and if things aren't done properly by the homeowners the City can fix them and assess the property. Burt stated that another issue is that the City has a lot of private ponds that it has no way to deal with. He said when we have the opportunity to correct issues we do, but that involves acquiring easements and there is a cost to that. He said that the City has to start looking at drainage issues on a large scale and it has nothing to do with subdivision requests. meeting is supposed to be Ion to work with staff to come up h regarding height issues, better age issues and setback issues. Burt s of those issues and how they impact Freiberg said impervious surface limits would also be good to look at. Golden Valley does not currently have a permit process for patios r that Golden Valley setbacks are fairly large and we get a lot of ar setbacks alone. Waldhauser stated that there are quite a few setback areas are paved. Shaffer stated that a lot of those iss pavement management program. He said that they sho Id als priority of some of the issues that have been talked ab are really important and some are not. 3. Direct Staff on Approach to Infill Housi . Kluchka asked if they could summarize doing. Loomis said she would like the PI with some ideas. Grimes stated he defining drainage issues, imperv' added that staff will also researc the overall city, not just sin Waldhauser asked about t stated that he knows ay to t stories or feedback from other cities. Grimes communities are working on these same issues. r on research and getting feedback from other cities n will work on writing goals so everyone is on the same path. t aligned on what the goals are. Keysser said they would Ir next Planning Commission meeting. Shaffer reminded the that the codes have to be enforceable by the Board of Zoning have to think beyond the here and now. 4. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm. . . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: July 20, 2006 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Subdivision Ordinance - Lot Splits Discussion A joint meeting with the City Council and Planning Commission was held on July 17, 2006 to discuss the Subdivision Ordinance and lot splits. Chair Keysser wanted the Planning Commission to meet to review the results of that joint meeting. Attachments Minutes from the Joint Council/Planning Commission meeting dated July 17, 2006 Agenda cover sheet from July 17, 2006 joint meeting Recommendations of the Atlanta Infill Development Panel Golden Valley's Single Family (R-1) Ordinance Golden Valley's Subdivision Ordinance St. Louis Park's Residential District Regulations Edina's Single Dwelling Unit District (R-1) Ordinance 4 articles by Christopher Solomon regarding "McMansions" Article from the National Association of Home Builders Web site Golden Valley's Building Code regarding Height