07-12-99 PC Minutes
e
e
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 12, 1999
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,
July 12, 1999. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00 p.m.
Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, McAleese and
Shaffer. Commissioner Hoffman was absent. Also present were Beth Knoblauch, City
Planner and Tammi Hall, Recording Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - June 28. 1999
MOVED by Groger, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the
June 28, 1999 minutes as submitted.
II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - Preliminary Plat for: Mills
Jersey Avenue Addition
Applicant:
Mary Jayne Mills
Address:
6835 Glenwood Avenue, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Purpose:
To allow for the creation of two lots. Lot 1 would be vacant and
available for the construction of a single-family dwelling. Lot 2
would contain the existing house and garage.
City Planner Beth Knoblauch stated that the applicant is requesting a minor subdivision
of her property which would create two lots. The lot at the front end of the property
could be sold for residential development. The existing house and garage would
remain on the rear lot. Knoblauch stated that the staff memo prepared by the Director
of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, indicated that a variance would be
required for the existing three-stall garage because the subdivision places the garage
beside the existing house instead of its now conforming location behind the house. He
indicated that the variance request would need to be approved by the Board of Zoning
Appeals. Knoblauch stated that the subdivision chapter of City Code requires that lots
created through the subdivision process and all existing improvements must meet City
code. She indicated that it is possible that the non-conformity will have to be corrected
rather than go through the variance process. Knoblauch indicated that correction of the
non-conformity could involve relocating the garage, demolishing the garage or attaching
the garage to the house. Knoblauch indicated that she would recommend that the
subdivision be approved with the added condition that the issue of the non-conforming
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 12, 1999
Page 2
garage will be resolved prior to City Council review. She stated that this would give her
an opportunity to discuss the situation with Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and
Development.
Knoblauch reviewed the considerations for approval of a minor subdivision outlined in
the staff memorandum. She stated that the proposed lots meet the requirements of the
applicable zoning district, with the exception of the non-conforming existing garage.
She indicated that both lots would front entirely on improved public streets and have a
minimum front setback of 35 feet from the street right-of-way line. She stated that the
newly created corner lot would exceed the minimum width requirement of 100 feet on
both Jersey Avenue and Glenwood Avenue. Knoblauch indicated that, according to
code, corner lots must be 100 feet wide at the front setback line. She indicated that the
rear of the corner lot is only 76 feet wide but because the lot is wider at the front it
meets the code requirement. Knoblauch indicated that the front property line on the e
corner lot would be on Jersey Avenue. She added that Code requires that, on corner
lots, the front is determined by selecting the longer length (front to back vs. side to side)
of the property. She stated that the corner lot is 70 feet from front to back. It is 65 feet
wide at its widest point and 36 feet wide at its narrowest point.
Knoblauch stated that because the lot is bordered by Glenwood Avenue, which is a
county road, Hennepin County has the right to review the subdivision. She stated that
the City has not yet received comments from Hennepin County regarding the
subdivision. She indicated that staff anticipates the county will require an iadditional
seven feet of right-of-way which is now shown on the plat.
Knoblauch briefly reviewed the remaining considerations outlined in the memorandum.
Knoblauch stated that staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision with the e
following conditions including those found in the City Engineer's memo:
1. The final plat shall reflect standard easements along property lines and such
additional easements as the City Engineer may find desirable for public
purposes.
2. The final plat approval shall be withheld until receipt of comments from Hennepin
County and compliance with any applicable conditions listed therein.
3. A park dedication fee in the amount of $500 be received at the time of final plat
approval.
4. Payment received of a deferred special assessment on Lot 1 at the State Aid
assessment rate in effect at the time of final plat approval.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 12, 1999
Page 3
5. A revised address for Lot 2 must be obtained and include "Jersey Avenue".
6. Restoration from the water main right-of-way excavation will be required
consistent with the new street construction and as outlined in City Code.
7. The subdivision will be subject to the Tree Preservation and Grading, Drainage
and Erosion Control Ordinances.
8.
Lot 1 must be brought into permanent compliance with City Code regarding
corner visibility as part of this subdivision. This must be accomplished either with
six months of plat approval or construction of a house on Lot 1 which ever occurs
first.
e
9. All building code requirements must be adhered to.
10. Prior to final approval staff will re-evaluate the City Code provision regarding
existing non-conformities and if necessary the applicant shall be required to
relocate or demolish the existing garage as a condition of plat approval.
Commissioner Groger asked how front and side property lines are determined on a
corner lot. Knoblauch stated that the longer distance is front to back.
Groger asked how the garage could be relocated on the property. Knoblauch
responded that detached garages could be five feet from the property line so it would
be possible to relocate the garage by moving it back, or an attached garage could be
constructed.
e
Groger stated that the corner lot is substantially smaller than the lot which contains the
existing house. He added that it also has the disadvantage of being located on a busy
street. He asked if the size of the corner lot could be increased to make it a more
desirable piece of property. Knoblauch responded that the applicant could voluntarily
increase the size of the corner lot butthe City cannot require him to do so since both
lots meet City Code requirements for size.
There was brief discussion regarding the Code requirement that all detached garages
be located wholly behind the house.
Walt Mills was present to represent his mother. He stated that she wants to stay in her
home but there is too much property to maintain so selling a portion of the property
seemed like a reasonable solution.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 12, 1999
Page 4
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing.
Gregg Hackett, 130 Jersey Avenue, was present. He stated that he was in favor of the
subdivision. He said he would not be in favor of demolishing the garage. He indicated
the house was built in the 1940s and the garage blends in with the house. He added
that it is in need of repair, but he felt there were more acceptable alternatives than
demolition. He encouraged the Commission to recommend approval of the minor
subdivision.
Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing.
Pentel stated that she agreed that demolition of the garage should be avoided.
Commissioner McAleese stated that he would not support approval of the subdivision. e
He stated that the issue with the non-conforming garage needs to be resolved before
the subdivision can be approved.
Commissioner Eck asked how far the garage would need to be moved to be in
compliance with Code. Pentel responded that it would need to be moved back 11.6
feet.
Knoblauch stated that when a property is subdivided City Code requires that the lots
and all existing improvements comply with City Code. She stated that in some
situations the non-conformities may be insignificant but there is concern with setting
precedent. She indicated that in situations where the non-conformities have significant
impact it may be difficult to enforce the Code if the City has not been consistent about
enforcing it in the past.
e
Groger stated that he was more concerned with the size of the lot, but that he would
support the subdivision since the lot size meets City requirements.
MOVED by Groger, seconded by Eck, to recommend approval of the minor subdivision
with the conditions recommended by staff including the added condition that the issue
of the garage will be resolved before it goes to City Council. There was discussion as
to the possible outcomes in resolving the garage issue. Shaffer stated that it can be
difficult when these types of situations come before the Board of Zoning Appeals
because the subdivision has already been approved. He indicated that this type of non-
conformity would probably not be allowed in the case of new construction. Knoblauch
stated that Grimes has suggested the variance request be reviewed by the Board of
Zoning Appeals prior to City Council review of the minor subdivision. She indicated that
if this process were followed the minor subdivision would not be approved by Council
until the Board of Zoning Appeals had the opportunity to review the variance request.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 12, 1999
Page 5
e
Knoblauch stated that she felt the Board of Zoning Appeals should review the variance
request after the subdivision was approved by City Council because the Board of
Zoning Appeals reviews only existing conditions and the lot as it exists prior to the
subdivision does not require a variance. McAleese asked for clarification regarding the
procedure if the subdivision is approved by Council and the variance is subsequently
rejected by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Knoblauch responded that the property
owner could appeal to the City Council. McAleese stated that the alternatives would be
to grant a variance or correct the non-conformity. Shaffer stated that the Board of
Zoning Appeals can also leave the existing structure as non-conforming, allowing it to
remain in its current location but ensuring that no future structure can be placed in the
same location once the existing structure reaches the end of its useful life. Shaffer
stated that he would be opposed to demolition of the garage as a solution. The motion
was carried. McAleese was opposed.
III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. City
Council and Board of Zonina Appeals
There were no reports.
IV. Other Business
A. Discussion - Draft Report on 1-394 Corridor Study - Preliminary Design
Recommendations
The Commission reviewed the Preliminary Planning Commission Report on the 1-394
Corridor Land Use Study Design Charge prepared by Knoblauch.
-
Pentel suggested that the first sentence in the third paragraph on the first page refer to
City "involvement" in long term community development activities rather than City
"participation". "Involvement" should also replace "participation" in the second
sentence.
Pentel stated that she was concerned with including the Circle Downs apartments in the
study area due to the possible threat to existing affordable housing. Knoblauch stated
that existing related plans, such as the housing plan, will have to be considered in
relation to the 1-394 corridor study.
Pentel stated that the Commission might benefit from input from design professionals.
She suggested that funding for this be included in the budget.
Groger suggested that the paragraph on data collection make reference to traffic and its
impact on the area.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 12, 1999
Page 6
Pentel expressed concern with conducting a survey via the Internet since not all
residents have access to this technology. Knoblauch responded that the input from the
web site would not be scientific. She stated that it would simply provide an additional
avenue for residents to provide input.
Knoblauch'stated that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) would set a
date for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. She indicated that the
preliminary report would be provided to the HRA prior to the joint meeting.
Pentel suggested that the data collection paragraph should include information
regarding City investment in this area to date. Knoblauch responded that Don Taylor,
City Finance Director, could provide this information at the joint meeting. Pentel stated
that this information should also be available to the public.
v.
Adiournment
e
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
E~C:~
Rieha d Grager. Seere
-