Loading...
08-14-00 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 A regular meeting ofthe Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, August 14,2000. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00 P.M. Those present were: Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Hoffman, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer; absent was Groger. Also present were City Planner Dan Olson and Recording Secretary Mary Dold. 1. Approval of Minutes - July 24, 2000 . Moved by McAleese, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approved the July 24, 2000 minutes with the following revisions: Page 3, Paragraph 6 - add the following language to the end ofthis paragraph: "Commissioner McAleese stated he advocated this position not because it is a wise one but rather to be consistent with prior precedent." Page 4, Paragraph 1 - Delete sentence "It is also important to keep in mind that some companies conflict." Replace with "It is also important to understand how companies have overlapping jurisdictions when it comes to media needs." Page 5, Paragraph 3 -- New Heading after second paragraph that reads "Future Business". Pentel added that she was not concerned that there would be a conflict of interest, but that she asked the City Attorney if there was a conflict of interest because she had attended Meadowbrook meetings. II. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning . Applicant: SVK Development Address: 2205-09 Winnetka Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN Request: Rezone the existing duplex, which will be situated on its own lot, from the Single-Family Residential Zoning District to the Ml (Multiple Family) Zoning District in order to allow the existing building to be converted from a duplex to a triplex. City Planner Dan Olson reviewed the staffs report on the rezoning of the subject property. He showed a colored zoning map noting the existing zoning and the proposed zoning from Single-Family residential to Ml (Multiple Dwelling). Olson told the Commission the applicant, SVK Development, LLC wants to convert the existing duplex into a triplex. He added that the applicant is planning to convert this rental property into a condominium and sell the three units. Olson said that the proposed rezoning is in coordination with the City's General Land Use Plan Map in that its use is low density -less than five units per acre. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 2 Olson next talked about the traffic generation from the proposed triplex. He said that according to the City Engineer the triplex would generate 10 additional trips per day onto Winnetka Avenue. He told the Commission that the proposed triplex would not at this time meet the requirements for parking of five enclosed parking spaces and three off-street non-enclosed parking spaces. Olson said there is space on the north side of the existing building to provide for two additional enclosed parking spaces. Olson told the Commission the existing duplex is currently nonconforming, so if it were rezoned to MI, and the building converted to three units, it would then be conforming. Olson also noted that the PUD would need to be approved in order to create the proposed lot. Olson said if the Commission recommends against rezoning the subject property to MI, staff suggest this property be rezoned to R-2, which would make the existing duplex conforming. . Chair Pentel asked Olson the size of the proposed lot. Olson commented that the proposed lot would be approximately 16,632 sq.ft. Pentel asked if 12,500 sq.ft. is required for an R-2 designation. Olson said yes. Pentel said the required lot is 10,000 sq.ft. for single-family residential; Olson concurred. Pentel commented that because this is a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) the applicant does not need to seek variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Olson added the County wants an additional seven feet along Winnetka Avenue. She asked if this building would meet the setback requirements for the MI zoning district. Olson commented that he would address this during the P.U.D. discussion. He said under the proposed zoning district ofMl, it would meet the front setback. Side and rear yard setbacks would meet the requirements in the MI zoning district which is 50 feet. Pentel asked what the setbacks would be. Olson did not have this information available at this time. He said under the R-2 district it would meet all setback requirements. . Commissioner McAleese asked Olson to clarify what is actually being rezoned, as the existing lot is significantly larger than what is being proposed to be rezoned under the P.U .D. He asked ifthe rezoning proposal is to only rezone a portion of the existing lot, which is part of a large outlot. Has this ever been done. Olson said he believed it had been citing the Wesley Commons P.U.D. Pentel also asked Olson to qualify the rezoning in that if the rezoning was approved, but the PUD for Golden Meadows P.U.D. No. 89, was not, would this mean the entire outlot would then be zoned MI. McAleese questioned whether it would be legal to rezone a portion of a platted outlot. Olson commented that he assumed that the entire outlot would be rezoned, but could address this matter with the City's attorney. Commissioner Shaffer asked ifthe rezoning could be contingent on the approval of the P.U.D. McAleese said no. He added that a rezoning cannot be contingent on a condition but could on a P.U.D. McAleese said that if the Commission recommends approval of the P.U.D., it could add a condition for additional parking. He iterated if parking were a problem it would have to be addressed during the P.U.D. phase of the informal public hearing. McAleese questioned how a rezoning of a portion of an existing piece of a parcel could occur. Pentel suggested the Commission table the rezoning and review the Preliminary Design Plan for Golden Meadows PUD No. 89. McAleese concurred with this suggestion, but unfortunately there is a difficulty that the P.U.D. cannot be addressed if the rezoning does not match; He said there seems to be a chicken and egg scenario, in that which comes first, to rezone a parcel of land where a lot will be carved out of the larger parcel or create the lot through the P.U.D. process and then rezone. McAleese said that because the Commission is an advisory body, he suggested the Commission go forward on the rezoning request and then review Preliminary Design Plan and forward to the City Council comments concerning the rezoning of a lot that is not yet created. He believes the Council will need to address this issue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 3 Commissioner Eck asked Olson if the building was occupied at this time. Olson said it was not. Eck asked if the units would be rental or owned. Olson said it was his understanding the units would be owner occupied. Eck asked if there are other duplexes in the area and no other triplex units in the area. Olson said there are two-family dwellings directly across the street from the proposed triplex, but there are no triplexes in the area. Eck said the rational for creating another unit in the duplex is a revenue generator. Olson concurred. Dick Curry, representative for SVK Development, said there is 2500 sq.ft. on the upper level of the existing duplex and 2000 sq.ft. on the lower level. He said the outside of the duplex looks bad. He added that the building is huge and that a four-plex could exist in the building with the amount of square footage available. Curry said he would be residing and reroofing the existing dwelling, and if required, would construct a double car garage on the north side of the building. . Pentel asked if the units would be rental to begin with and then sold later. Curry said the units would be rental to begin with. He said eventually a condominium plat would be filed with Hennepin County to allow for the units to be sold. He added that the condominium plat does not require action from the City. Eck questioned how this building would be divided into three units. Curry said with a condo plat. Shaffer commented that the preliminary plat shows the duplex lot as being split into to pieces and questioned whether the lot line is now erroneous because the applicant is planning to make this a triplex. Curry said the lot line is now erroneous. Eck said that it seems there is remodeling occurring at this time and asked whether a third unit was being created. Curry said that if the Council does not approve the rezoning to Ml, then the duplex would remain as is with two units. Pentel asked Curry what materials would be used for the residing of the building. Curry said it would be vinyl. Shaffer said the plan shows two decks. Curry said those decks have been constructed. He added that if the triplex were approved, a patio would be constructed for the third unit and a double car garage would also be constructed. . Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Robert Krause, 8180 23rd Avenue North, said that he has problems with the duplex in that he believes that the residents of the duplex have used 23rd Avenue for off-street parking for many years. He added that this has been a very dangerous situation for other vehicles using 23rd. He questioned whether there was adequate parking on the property at this time. Pentel commented that parking of vehicles on 23rd Avenue may be a safety issue to call out for the City Council to review. She added that this is the time to address issues to call out that parking may be an issue along 23rd Avenue. Commissioner Hoffman asked ifhe lived within the 500.foot notice area. Krause said he did not. He also asked if additional parking was added to the site would that bother him. Krause said that adding parking to the subject property would not bother him and that parking on 23rd is his concern. He also said that a neighbor told him of the meeting because he is not within the 500-foot notice area. Bill Dreier, 2255 Valders Avenue, said his only concern is trying to rezone a portion of a larger parcel to MI. He asked what assurance there is that if the proposal is approved that it would be just for the subject piece of land and not the entire outlot. McAleese commented that the Commission would need to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 4 proceed as if rezoning the entire parcel. Pentel suggested not voting on the rezoning until after the Preliminary Design Plan for the PUD was discussed. McAleese said that these are two distinct processes. He said the Commission would need to make a decision, but give guidance to the Council so they understand that the Commission is in favor of rezoning only the small parcel of the larger outlot. Ed Muszynski, 7925 23rd A venue North, said that he has lived in his house for many years and remembers when there was a hearing for a rezoning of the lot for a duplex that it was turned down. He said then the subject duplex was constructed without a hearing. He questioned how a triplex would fit in this building. He suggested that another garage be added to the basement. He believes the building is an eye sore to the entire neighborhood. David Gaatz, representing the owner of 2200 Orkla Drive, suggested that the triplex is only a revenue generator and does not add anything to the area. He believes the higher density use will add traffic and people to the neighborhood. He is concerned about adequate parking on the subject property. . Shirley Van Waes-Berg, 8140 23rd Ave. No., said she was confused on how a third unit could be added to the existing building. Curry explained that there are three parking spaces on the lower level at this time. There is one unit totally on the upper level and the second unit uses part of the upper level and a portion of the lower level. If a two-stall garage is added to the building on the north side, it would be dedicated totally to the lower third unit. Pentel asked how long the applicant had owned the property. Curry said approximately three months. He said that without City help the duplex could not be torn down; and therefore, the applicant decided to fix it up by residing and reroofing. Mike Jorgenson, 2200 Valders Avenue, asked if the new garage is built would the driveway be out to the proposed cul-de-sac to the west and would cars be parked on this cul-de-sac. Curry commented that parking is relatively easy to add to the property. He said he has never heard of the parking issue on 23rd Avenue and doesn't know where the vehicles are coming from. . Mark Kay Jorgenson, 22 Valders Avenue, asked if another garage is added to the lot would vehicles enter/exist from Winnetka Avenue. Ed Muszynski, 7925 23rd Avenue No., asked if there was enough footage on the north side of the lot to meet the City's side yard setback requirements. City Planner Olson said the garage could be constructed in a conforming location. Muszynski believes if garages are added to the north side of the subject building it would make the site look terrible. Commissioner Rasmussen commented that it sounds as though the applicant is trying to improve the looks of the existing property. She suggested the Commission review the Preliminary Design Plan to bring everything together. Pentel said that the rezoning would have to be addressed separately from the P.U.D. and if you look at the lot, it does sit alone. She commented the site plan allows the proposed single-family homes to enter/exist from Valders and the existing site to use Winnetka Avenue. She said the P.U.D. would determine lot lines and the size of lots. Pentel believes the rezoning and P.U .D. need to be reviewed separately in order to see if the rezoning is compatible to the neighborhood. Rasmussen asked with the subject property being in the P.U.D. is there an effort to tie all the homes together? Pentel said she does not believe that this is true in this case because the seven new single family homes would be new and the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 5 duplex is existing. McAleese said the single benefit with this lot is to attach conditions onto the P.D.D. He added that zoning is something totally unrelated to the P.D.D. and something that lasts forever because it goes with the land. So if the building were to bum down, any appropriate use could be constructed. Pentel noted that the proposed rezoning, at this time, would rezone the entire outlot to Ml (Multiple Dwelling). She asked Olson how high ofa density could be in Ml. Olson responded 15-27 units per acre. McAleese said Ml includes three-stories. Bill Dreier, 2255 Valders Avenue, said the rezoning is confusing. He is concerned that if the rezoning to Ml is approved and the P.D.D. denied, then the entire parcel would be Ml. He also asked if the garages on the lower level had their own space. Curry commented that they were contiguous. . Robert Krause, 8180 23rd Ave. No., commented that before he moved to this area he inquired about the zoning of the properties and added that he does not understand how the duplex was allowed. He added that he is not within the 500-foot notice area. He questioned why the residents in the area would pay the cost of having the property rezoned and why the developer should make money and ruin the neighborhood. Pauline Siepka, 2200 Orkla Drive, believes that some of the properties along Winnetka Avenue have deteriorated over the years and is concerned that a rezoning to Ml could further deteriorate the area. She said she is not in favor of a duplex in this area and of rental property. Dave Parks, 8200 23rd Ave. No., asked the applicant if the garages go all the way to the west end of the garage. Curry said yes and explained the configuration of the existing duplex. Joy Gerber, 2135 Valders Avenue, commented that the duplex looks like a monster now and by adding another garage it would make it look even bigger. She said another concern is the true intent ofthe building - will it be rental or owner occupied. She said there is a difference if it is to be turned over from rental to owner occupied . Pentel closed the informal public hearing. McAleese asked the City Planner what density is allowed in Ml (Multiple Family) zoning district. Pentel responded 15-27 units per acre. Rasmussen asked what the zoning was on the east side ofthe Winnetka A venue. Olson noted there are duplexes (zoned R-2) across Winnetka from the subject property. Eck commented there are no other triplexes in the area. He said taking this into consideration and that the lots within the PUD are small, and contributing to the housing density in the area, he could not recommend in favor of the rezoning. He said he could support a rezoning of the subject property to R-2. McAleese said that he is opposed to the rezoning to Ml because the General Land Dse Plan notes this has low density thlilt would support up to 5 units. He does not believe the rezoning issue can be reviewed as part of the P.D.D. He agrees with Pentel that because the existing property is a nonconforming use, the Commissioner does not need to take action on a rezoning ofR-2 at this time. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14,2000 Page 6 Pentel said she could not support the rezoning of the subject property. She added that it is not up to the City to assist in the demolition of the duplex. Pentel also commented she is pleased the developer is trying to make the subject property aesthetically pleasing and that the applicant would market the units if the P.U.D. were approved. Rasmussen said she could not support the rezoning given legal ramifications. She believed she could look more favorably upon it if she could see plans that showed it was part of the development instead of standing alone. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Hoffman and motion carried by a vote of 6-0 (one commissioner absent) to recommend to the City Council denial of the proposed rezoning 2205-09 Winnetka Avenue from Single-Family Residential to Ml. III. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - Golden Meadows Planned Unit Development (p.U.D.) No. 89 . Applicant: SVK Development Address: 2125 Winnetka Avenue North and 2205-09 Winnetka Avenue, which is part of the Outlot 1 of Anderson's Addition and Outlot 1 of the Marimac Addition Purpose: The P.U.D. would allow for the construction of seven single-family homes on the subject vacant land and include the existing single-family home, situated on its own lot along Winnetka A venue, and a proposed triplex where the existing duplex is now located. The duplex would be converted into a triplex and be situated on its own lot. . City Planner Olson reminded the Commission that a PUD was presented to them in April of2000. This proposal included the existing duplex, existing single-family home on Winnetka and 10 proposed townhomes. The Commission at that time recommended denial of the PUD for the development of townhomes. He said the applicant has reworked the plans and is now submitting a plan that shows the existing duplex (that he would like to turn into a triplex), the single- family home on Winnetka, and seven proposed single family homes, each on their own lots. Olson said the developer is proposing to sell the homes for $200,000 to $300,000. Pentel noted that the two existing homes on Valders that are situated on the proposed entrance into the development actually front the proposed street. Olson told the Commission that the City's Engineer has made many comments regarding the proposed development. He said he would review some of these items. Olson also commented that many of the Engineer's comments are carried over from the original memo he submitted with the townhome proposal, and added that these comments have not yet been addressed. Olson pointed out that the Engineer is suggesting that the developer buy the vacant lot at the comer of 23rd Avenue and Winnetka Avenue forponding purposes. Pentel said this is a PUD that can include variance requests. She asked Olson to note what variances are being requested for this proposed development. Olson referred to his staff memo noting that the lots do Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14,2000 Page 7 not meet the width requirement and 35-foot front yard setback requirement. He said the rear yard setbacks are being met on all the lots. He added that the side yard setbacks vary from lot to lot. Olson also commented that Hennepin County is requiring an additional seven (7) feet of right.of-way along Winnetka Avenue. Hoffman questioned where water from the site would drain. Olson said water drains from the south to the north and added that the middle of the vacant lot is quite wet. Hoffman asked ifthere was sanitary sewer in the area. Olson said the City's Engineer has quite a few items that need to be addressed concerning drainage. He said the Engineer is suggesting some items be addressed before the PUD is taken to the City Council for consideration. Pentel said the plan shows that the developer is proposing a holding pond for water runoff. She asked if the requirement of park dedication is something that is reviewed by the Commission. Olson said the Open Space and Recreation Commission would review the plan and determine the park dedication fee. . McAleese referred to Page 3 of Olson's report identifying item no. 3 which reads "No principal building in the PUD can be located closer than the measurement of its own height to a rear or side property line when such line abuts a single-family use. This criterion was developed for apartment buildings that are much taller than single family homes." McAleese questioned how Olson stated that this criterion adding that the function is that there is a certain amount of greenspace and sunshine. Olson commented that he was told this by Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes. Shaffer referred back to the City Engineers report where it stated that the proposed pond did not meet requirement of the 100-year flood elevation. He questioned how much the pond would increase if it met this requirement. Olson said he did not know and added that the developer is proposing a pond with a 10- year flood elevation. Shaffer suggested that the Engineer's memo is indicating that if the developer supplied the required ponding it would not fit in the area being proposed. McAleese asked about the width ofthe proposed road in that it does not meet the code requirement of 50 feet. Olson referred to the Engineer's report noting the road narrows to 38 feet in one location, which is . unacceptable. Eck asked Olson where the additional required footage would come from. Olson responded it would be logical to take it from Lot 1, but these issues need to be worked out. McAleese referred to Section 12.20 Design Standard of the City Code citing Subd. 2(A) that states "all right of way shall conform to the following minimum dimensions of60 feet". Olson commented that he was not sure how to address this issue and believed that because this is a P.U.D. the road width could be reduced. McAleese said the P.U.D. Ordinance permits variances from Chapter 11 (the Zoning Code) but does not expressly allow variances of Chapter 12 (the Subdivision Code). A variance of street width must proceed under the requirements of S 12.54. Pentel noted that a number of the lots do not meet the required frontage of 80 feet at the front setback line. Olson added that only one lot meets this requirement. Pentel commented that this could be varied as part of the P.U.D. request. She added that the City Engineer, via his memo, seems to be concerned about the amount of frontage being supplied. Hoffman made a motion to table this item until a time when the City Engineer can submit a more concrete report or possible actions on what this development should be. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 8 McAleese said he favors this idea because there are many issues that need to be addressed. He also said that the City has notified neighbors that there would be an informal public hearing. McAleese believes the Commission should take testimony from those present who wish to speak on the proposed preliminary design for PUD No. 89 and from the representative for SVK Development. Hoffman removed his motion. Olson commented that staff believed there were many issues to be addressed and by bringing the PUD proposal forward it would bring out what issues needed to be addressed. Dick Curry, representative for SVK Development, came forward and said that he would like to see the item tabled at this time. He commented that it was the City who would want to see a cul-de-sac in the development. He said he has serious arguments with regards to the City Engineer's memo and would like to meet with him. . Pentel said that she was not sure that Hennepin County would allow a street to go through onto .Winnetka Avenue. Curry believed the County would permit it. Shaffer noted a letter that the City received recently indicating that they would not allow any more entrances/exits onto Winnetka Avenue. Curry reviewed the site plan of the seven single-family dwellings on a cul-de-sac, which he stated the City demanded. He said the townhome proposal would have generated less traffic. Curry showed a sketch of what the single-family homes would look like. Rasmussen did not believe it would be appropriate to let residents speak on the topic because she was not sure what items they would speak to. Pentel said the Commission does have a plan before them and believes the public should be able to speak to the proposed development. McAleese concurred with Pentel. Pentel opened the informal public hearing. . Bill Dreier, 2255 Valders Avenue, was concerned with the ponding regardless of where it was located. He talked about the local water table and the possible water problems to homes in the area David Gaatz, 2200 Orkla Drive, talked about the water problem in the area and believes there is a water issue underground. He asked about the materials to be used on the proposed homes and noted that the proposed homes may be sold for $200,000 to $300,000 in an area where most homes have a value of $125,000. He believes one of the proposed lots should be eliminated. Joy Gerber, 2135 23rd Avenue North, commented that she does like the look of the proposed homes. She questions the rezoning of property and asked if there was a reason that the forefathers set up zoning districts. John Blythe, 2140 Valders Avenue, believes there are too many lots in the proposed development. He lives on the west side of the development and is concerned that the development will limit the amount of sun to his property. Mary Kay Jorgenson, 2200 Valders Avenue, has several concerns that include high density, traffic and the water level in the area. She said there is a pond in the middle of the vacant property in the springtime Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 9 and questions where this water will go. She is concerned also about parking in front of her house. She questioned whether a 50-foot street was wide enough to allow for emergency vehicles. Shirley Van Waes-Berg, 8140 23rd Avenue North, requested to see the site plan. She did not understand where the proposed pond would be located. Olson said on the back portions of Lots 1,2, and 3. She asked if the ponds were then in the back yard of these lots. Pentel said yes. She suggested that five homes be constructed instead of the proposed seven. . Ed Muszynski, 7529 23rd Avenue North, requested to see where the ponds would be placed. He said the pond would come right up to the edge of his property. Olson said there would be a pond easement. Pentel assured Mr. M. that the pond and easement would all be located on the proposed development and would not infringe on his property. Mr. Muszynski inquired who would be responsible for the pond. Olson said the City would eventually take over the maintenance of the pond. Mr. M expressed concern that ifthe City takes over the pond, then it is the taxpayers that are paying for it. He believes the developer should be responsible for the pond. Pentel explained that the City is trying to improve water quality, and by creating ponds the water is filtered before it runs off into the Mississippi River. She said the developer would be required to set aside the land and the City has decided that it is a greater good to maintain the water quality of the City. Mr. M. questioned why the taxpayers should pay for the upkeep of this pond. McAleese said his question is a good one and the City Council could answer this question. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel said there seems to be a number of outstanding issues. Pentel said she would entertain a motion to either table the item or have the Commission recommend approval or denial. Moved by Hoffman to table the Preliminary Design Plan Review for Golden Meadows P.D.D. No. 89. . McAleese said that he could not recommend in favor of the proposal at this time because of the City Engineer's concerns as addressed in his memo. He said the Commission is looking at the general concept and there could be changes to the size ofthe pond and the street design. He is also in favor of tabling this item until some of the issues can be resolved. McAleese seconded the motion to table the Preliminary Design Plan review noting the City Engineer's issues. Curry concurred with the motion of the Commission to table this item. Rasmussen asked if the public would be able to make further comments on this proposal when it is brought back. If there were a new proposal, there would be another public hearing. McAleese suggested this be treated as a temporary withdrawal so the applicant would not be need to submit additional fees. Pentel and McAleese commented that the purpose of tabling the proposal was to receive additional information, that the applicant agreed to provide this information before going forward, and the applicant should not be required to pay additional fees when the proposal is taken off the table for consideration. Pentel called for the motion. By a vote of 6-0 (one commissioner absent) the Commission tabled the item for Preliminary Design Plan review until a future date. . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 10 IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Hoffman said he attended a City Council meeting in August when KFC/Pizza Hut Express was discussed. He said everything went well. He added there was discussion at the City Council meeting concerning sidewalks and the sidewalk committee is very positive in placing sidewalks where there is development. Shaffer said he had attended a BZA meeting. V. Other Business A. Attendance. Chair Pentel reviewed the attendance. B. MnAP A Conference. Pentel, Eck and Shaffer noted that they would be attending. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:00P.M. Richard Groger, Secretary