Loading...
07-24-95 PC Minutes~ oil Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 24, 1995 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at-the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chair Prazak at 7:00 PM. Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, Pentel and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and Beth Knoblauch, City Planner. Approval of Minutes -July 10. 1995 MOVED by Lewis, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the July 10, 1995 minutes as submitted. Commissioner Pentel requested that the memo written by Mark Grimes to the Planning Commission dated July 19, 1995 entitled "Evaluation of Area B Portion of the Valley Square Redevelopment Plan" be given to the City Council loose in the agenda packets. Informal Public Hearing -Minor Subdivision Applicant: Daniel Otten/Otten Realty Address: 1566 Winnetka Avenue North '(Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Val-Wood Second Addition) Purpose: Consolidate substandard Lots 7 and 8 in order to create one legally-sized lot III. Informal Public Hearing -Rezoning Applicant: Daniel Otten/Otten Realty Address: 1566 Winnetka Avenue North (Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Val-Wood Second Addition) Purpose: Rezone property from Single-Family Residential to two-family Residential for the purpose of constructing atwo-family dwelling on the consolidated parcel It was noted that neither Mr. Otten, nor his representative, were present at the time the Informal Public Hearings were called. After discussion on how to proceed, it was decided by the Commission to proceed because of the large resident turnout. City Planner, Beth Knoblauch gave a report on the consolidation of Lots 7 and 8 commenting that each of the lots legally could be built on for single-family at this time.. Ms. Knoblauch stated that Mr. Otten has not specifically asked for the Minor Subdivision which would allow the 2-family dwelling to be sold as two separate lots. His request is to consolidate two lots in order to construct a 2-family dwelling. Ms. Knoblauch reviewed the Conditions of Approval, talking about the minimum lot size, slopes and wetness of the lots, sewer and water connections, easements and i D ~' Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 24, 1995 Page Two other public agency review. The County Department of Transportation (DOT) has submitted a letter stating that they are not requiring any right-of-way (r-o-w) on Winnetka Avenue for this lot. An earlier conversation with the County DOT revealed that a 7 foot i--o-w would be requested but in reviewing the lot the application would be 28 sq.ft. short of consolidation for the required 12,500 sq.ft. The County, therefore stated that they could get by with only 6.7 feet of r-o-w. This now is not being required. Staff recommendations for the Minor Subdivision are that the applicant submit a final plat called "Val-Wood 3rd Addition" showing the appropriate utility easements along property lines. Commissioner McAleese asked staff if it would be the County's- responsibility to condemn these properties if additional r-o-w was needed for Winnetka Avenue., Staff answered yes. Commissioner Pentel asked how many other properties have a 7 foot dedication. Ms. Knoblauch commented no one on the subject block has a 7 foot dedication, though it has been required on plats farther to the north. Staff commented that it is the applicant's responsibility to notify staff if he does not want to consolidate the two lots if the rezoning is denied. It would not be appropriate for the Commission to recommend denial of the minor subdivision just because of a recommendation against the rezoning; the minor subdivision is suitable for approval under either the existing or the proposed zoning designation. Ms. Knoblauch then reviewed with the Commission her report regarding the rezoning of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Val-Wood Second Addition commenting that Lots 7 and 8 were two undersized single family lots that would need to be consolidated in order for the parcel to be rezoned from single- . family residential to 2-family residential for the intent of placing one double 2-family dwelling on the lot. She discussed various issues. Under state law, cities cannot approve rezoning applications which are in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Golden Valley's comprehensive plan shows this area was intended to be used for low density residential. Both single family and 2-family residential fit this category. The only other significant staff issue was whether the minimum lot size would meet requirements for the R-2 Residential Zoning District. Because the County is not requiring a 7 foot r-o-w for this lot, the minimum lot size will be met. Other potential issues that could be raised are: 1) the small scope of the rezoning; 2) putting two homes where only one could go before; and 3) promoting rental tenancy rather than ownership. Staff's memo briefly addressed each of those potential issues. Ms. Knoblauch commented that staff is not making a recommendation because based on issues commonly addressed by staff in rezoning matters, there is no overwhelming argument pointing to approval or denial of this application. Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Listed below are those people who spoke against the minor subdivision and rezoning applications for Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Val-Wood Second Addition for the following reasons: • A duplex would be esthetically unpleasant • Area has solely single-family homes and is very well kept; a duplex would be disruptive • Traffic is bad on Winnetka Avenue and the addition of two units (probably 4 cars) would add to the traffic problem and possible future accidents • Residents of the area want to maintain the single-family, well-kept look of the area • If a person doesn't own the property, they are not as likely to keep it well-maintained 1 Opp Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 24, 1995 Page Three • The 30-year covenant which allowed for only single-family homes in the Val-Wood area, should not be discarded just because it recently expired -- Mr. Otten had signed this covenant • Original zoning intent was to promote single-family homes -well maintained single-family homes have been built • This rezoning will create a precedent for additional rezonings to 2-family residential "dart board rezoning" • The lot would make for agood-starter home • The residents are concerned about the amount. of concrete in the front yard due. to the required "one" driveway for both units and turn around for each unit • There is also a concern about lack of landscaping and little storage for snow removal • 2-family dwellings are incompatible in this residential area • Resident felt that Mr. Otten has not maintained the empty lots and that these 2-family dwellings will also not be maintained • Resident told when he bought his lot, the three vacant lots would be single-family residential Lowell Peterzen, 1830 Valders Avenue North Sally Sheehan, 7900 Wesley Drive Fred Kickertz, 8000 Duluth. Street John Broadhurst, 1560 Sumter Avenue North Gary Blackmore, 1611 Sumter Avenue North Robert Johnson, 1940 Sumter Avenue North Phyllis Bailey, 1941 Sumter Avenue North Richard Salzer, 1621 Sumter Avenue North Stephanie Enlow, 1560 Winnetka Avenue North Donald Brockel, 1545 Winnetka Avenue North Barbara Brueske, 2000 Sumter Avenue North Patty Bather, 1700, Sumter Avenue North Hoon Ge, 1821 Sumter Avenue North Please note, Ms. Enlow gave the Commission a signed petition by residents objecting to the rezoning of the above mentioned property. Mr. Walter Gregory, surveyor for Merila & Associates, representing Mr. Otten, arrived during the input by residents of the neighborhood. Mr. Gregory commented that Mr. Otten was called away out of town for a funeral. Mr. Gregory showed a picture of a townhome that Mr. Otten has built and what he is proposing to build on the site. He commented that it would be possible to move the building back approximately seven feet to allow for landscaping between the sidewalk and driveway area. 1 Commissioner Pentel asked Mr. Gregory if most of the front yard would be driveway area. Mr. Gregory said yes -- and there would be only one driveway entrance for two units onto Winnetka Avenue. Mr. Gregory submitted a petition which Mr. Otten had taken to several residents in the neighborhood. Commissioner Pentel wanted clarification that it was Mr. Otten's responsibility to apply for the specific minor subdivision if he wished to sell the 2-family dwelling to separate owners. Mr. Gregory commented that he could also accomplish this by amending this subdivision or applying for a new one. 107 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 24, 1995 Page Four Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Gregory if Mr. Otten had considered single-family housing as a use for this property. Mr. Gregory commented that the intent of the application meets the requirements for affordable housing for this area. Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing. It was unanimous by the Planning Commission that there were no objections to the requested minor subjection. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval for the Minor Subdivision to allow for the consolidation of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Val-Wood Second Addition with the conditions that the submitted final plat read Val-Wood Third Addition with all necessary easements. Commissioner Kapsner commented on the rezoning of Lots 7 and 8 by stating that legally the City can rezone to R-2 because it meets all requirements. He noted that the objection of the neighborhood may be overstated -- that a duplex may not affect the neighborhood as much as the residents think. Commissioner Kapsner said he could not vote for this proposal because such a large number of neighboring residents were against it. Commission Pentel is against having more vehicles on Winnetka Avenue which is a potential with two units on one lot. She does not object to duplexes but not at this location because of the poor site lines on Winnetka Avenue it is difficult to get in and out. Commissioner Johnson is against the rezoning because of the original intent of the area to be single-family residential which Mr. Otten agreed to many years ago. Commissioner Lewis: is against the rezoning because of the negative esthetics -- concrete area in the front yard. She would rather see single-family housing. Commissioner Groger also is against the rezoning for all the above reasons stated. He is concerned with putting a duplex in the middle of asingle-family residential block --this makes for a choppy neighborhood and alters the single-family setting. Chair Prazak commented that he sees no reason to upset the nature of the single-family neighborhood. Commissioner McAleese is against the rezoning for the reasons stated above. He feels the rezoning would change the character of the neighborhood and that a covenant should be long standing -- it is more than a legal document. Mr. McAleese also commented that one reason to allow the 2-family rezoning would be to allow for low income. Mr. Otten has commented that these units would not be for low income housing. Commissioner Lewis commented that Mr. Otten should have been a "good neighbor" and met with the surrounding residents to talk about his proposals. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to deny the request for the rezoning of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Val-Wood Second Addition from single-family residential to two-family residential. The findings necessary to justify the rezoning would include those listed by the Commissioners during discussion. 108 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 24, 1995 Page Five Commissioner Kapsner directed a comment to the residents in attendance that the Planning Commission cannot guarantee the attractiveness of dwelling units and cannot dictate which dwellings can be rented out or privately owned and lived in. IV. Informal Public Hearing -Rezoning Applicant: Daniel Otten/Otten Realty Address: 1720, 1800, 1810 Winnetka Avenue North (Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 1, Val-Wood Addition) Purpose: Rezone parcels from single-family residential to two-family residential for the purpose of constructing atwo-family dwelling on each of the parcels City Planner Beth Knoblauch told the Planning Commission that the request before them is exactly the same as the one just discussed with the one difference being three lots involved instead of one and no minor subdivision is necessary. This eliminates the issue of discussing a need for a seven foot r-o-w. The Commission had no questions of staff. Walter Gregory, the representative for Mr. Otten, reviewed the site plan showing the three lots. He again said that the dwellings could be moved more to the rear of the lots to create more landscaping in front. Mr. Gregory also reviewed the driveway which would be shared by two of the dwellings. Commissioner Pentel asked where the snow storage would be. Mr. Gregory pointed the area out on the site plan. Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Laurie and AI Johnson, 1921 Sumter Avenue North. Ms. Johnson talked about a Minneapolis. Tribune article of a couple of years ago, on Golden Valley being the #1 suburb, and is worried about what 2-family dwellings will do to the property values in the area. The Johnsons feel that people who do not take pride in their property are usually those who don't own. They would like to see consistency of single-family homes in the neighborhood. Glen Brueske, 2000 Sumter Avenue North, feels that the 2-family dwellings will create too much concrete along Winnetka, Avenue. He feels these should be single family homes. John Broadhurst, 1560 Sumter Avenue North, would like to know why these lots haven't been sold for single-family homes. Walter Gregory commented that he is unaware why Mr. Otten has not sold these lots for single- family housing. 1 Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing. 1'09 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 24, 1995 Page Six Commissioner Groger commented he is against the rezoning of these three lots for the same reasons stated above for the single rezoning, those being the large number of residents opposed to this request, more vehicles on Winnetka Avenue, the original intent of the property was to be single-family housing, the negative esthetics it may cause and the concern of putting two-family homes in the middle of asingle-family area. Commissioner McAleese wondered what Mr. Otten's opinion is on low income housing on this site. He also said that he is against the rezoning for the same reasons listed above and also feels that rezoning three lots to two-family dwellings was too much of a substantial change to the block -- this would change the character of the neighborhood. Chair Prazak commented that he has neither seen nor heard anything that would benefit the neighborhood by changing its characteristics. Commissioner Pentel concurred about not wanting to change the character of the neighborhood by putting in three two-family dwellings - 6 units. She is also concerned about the amount of concrete that will be found in the front yard of these units. Commissioner Kapsner pointed out that the reduction of one less driveway entrance on Winnetka Avenue is this proposal's only redeeming value. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Lewis and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to deny the request to rezone Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 1, Val-Wood Addition from Single Family Residential to Two-Family Residential for the purpose of constructing atwo-family dwelling on each lot, with the recommended findings being the same as for the earlier-discussed application. V, Discussion -Land Use for Area B The Commissioners commented on Mark Grimes' well written memo to them regarding Area B. Commissioner Pentel passed out a copy of the Valley Square Area C Task Force's summary to the Commission so they can review the comments with regard to applicability for Area B. Mark Grimes asked the Commission to think about what kind of report they would like to send on to the HRA. Mr. Grimes also commented that the Commission should keep in mind that if they are looking at residential use, the Valley Square Plan will have to be amended. Chair Prazak directed staff to carry this topic over to the first Planning Commission meeting in August and the Commission should be prepared to make suggestions and changes. Staff commented that there are no informal public items scheduled for that night so this meeting will be considered a working session. VI. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, Community Standards Task Force Commissioner Groger reported on the Community Standards Task Force meetings. No other reports were given. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 24, 1995 Page Seven VII. Other Business No other business was presented. VIII. Adjournment Chair Prazak adjourned the Golden Valley Planning Commission meeting at 9:20 PM. J an Lewis, Secretary 1 1