Loading...
03-05-01 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 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, March 5, 2001. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Commissioner Hoffman was absent. Also present were Director of Planning Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman I. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - Lions Park P .U.D. No. 92 Applicant: Lions Park Development, LLC Address: 7001 Harold Avenue, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The P.U.D. would allow for the construction of 6 single family homes on new lots City Planner Dan Olson presented the applicant's request. He showed the general location and the proposed site plan. Olson explained that the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing church building and create 6 lots to construct 6 new single family homes. He showed the proposed home locations and the proposed driveway locations on Louisiana, Kentucky and Harold. Olson stated the area is approximately 56,000 square feet or approximately 1.2 acres. As requested by the City Engineer, the developer dedicated an additional 20 feet of right-of-way along Louisiana. The City Engineer reviewed his request further and is now only requesting an additional 1 0 feet of right-of-way. Pentel asked if because of this change, the front yards would now be 40 feet in depth or if the developer would shift the houses forward. Olson explained that many of the variances requested by the developer won't change due to this additional ten feet, but the applicant would prefer to add the additional 10 feet to the back yards of the properties, which already meet the setback requirements. Olson stated the developer would be willing to dedicate five feet of that to the front yards which would increase them to 35 feet which is standard for single family homes and they would then meet the front yard setbacks. The additional 5 feet would go in the back yards. However, the two corner lots on Harold and Kentucky would not meet the corner yard setback requirements. Another thing that would change in result of reducing the dedication is that the two corner lots would meet the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet; they would be 10,534 square feet. The four interior lots would be increased, but still would not meet the 10,000 square feet minimum. Olson stated that the overall density of this development would be less than 5 units per acre. He explained that the six homes would be a traditional 2-story design with full basements and would be priced from $450,000 to $600,000. Olson noted that the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on January 24, 2001, and originally had proposed 10 single Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 Page 2 family homes on this site, but after meeting with the neighbors, the feedback he received was to reduce the number of homes and build more expensive homes. Olson referred to the variances the applicant is requesting. For corner lots, the zoning code requires a minimum of a 100-feet width. The proposed lots would be 93 % feet wide. None of the interior lots meet the width requirement of 80 feet. They are approximately 77 feet wide. The rear setbacks are met. The side yard setbacks for these lots would have to be 15% of the lot width. The interior lots have proposed side yards of 11 % feet wide and the two corner lots have 14 feet side yard setbacks. These setbacks do not meet the residential zoning district requirements. Olson referred to the Livable Communities Act. He said that only one Livable Communities Act would be met regarding homeownership. Olson then stated that the recommendation of staff is that the Commission approve this PUD. Eck asked if it would be accurate to say if this land were platted in five lots instead of six, the variances requested would not be required. Olson stated that was correct. Eck continued by stating that we're proposing to put up six, half million dollar homes and we're only meeting one of the livable communities goals here and asked how the City will benefit from this. Olson stated the benefit is that we are getting six single family homes. People are looking for vacant lots to build homes on, and the applicant stated the neighbors had expressed a desire for higher priced homes in their neighborhood. McAleese asked if the property is now zoned Institutional and if we are doing anything about the zoning at this meeting. Olson stated the City Attorney thought it would be more appropriate if it were rezoned to Residential at the general plan stage. Applicant, Marshall Kieffer, Kieffer Companies, 8815 W. 34th Street, St. Louis Park stated that originally his proposal was for cluster housing which was more compact with heavier density and less value. He had a neighborhood meeting where the neighbors said they would like to see something more in the traditional single family design. They felt that less housing with higher value would be more appropriate for their neighborhood. He stated that they are looking at designs where the master bedroom is on the first floor level, which would help meet the life-cycle housing goals of the City. He stated that to go with five homes, only the four inner lots would benefit and essentially instead of 80 feet they would have 100 feet, and in the interest of the shortage of housing, trying to get 3 feet from the inner lots and six from the end lots allows for the sixth house. Shaffer asked what the homes are going to look like. Kieffer stated they would have a maintenance free exterior of stucco, or vinyl siding, half-high brick, open, atrium types of entries, a more modern, contemporary style of building. He stated that the two corner lots will face frontage out onto Louisiana and that these new homes should bring approximately $40,000 per year to the tax roles. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 Page 3 Pentel stated if he went to 5 lots instead of 6, a 54-foot wide house does not seem to be extraordinarily generous. Kieffer stated that a two level, 54 x 45 house, taking out the square footage for the garage, gives you approximately a 4,000 square foot home. Pentel asked if these homes would have 2 or 3 car garages. Kieffer stated that all can be two car garages, but there should be enough room for 3 car garages on the corner lots. He stated he does not believe it would be appropriate to have 3 car garages on the center lots. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing Marnie Bumsted, 245 Kentucky Avenue, stated that saying the neighborhood wanted less housing is correct, but they didn't settle at 6 houses. She doesn't agree with 6 houses going in there, she would like 5 or less because it won't look like the rest of the neighborhood, it will be changing the tone of the neighborhood, it will be changing the lot size, it will look more like town homes than single family homes and she feels it will be too dense. She also stated concerns about a 3-car garage facing Kentucky. Right now she faces an empty lot and would prefer 2-car garages with landscaping. She also stated concern about the side setbacks remaining the same as the houses that are currently on that block. Grimes stated if the proposal goes to 5 homes, the City has no control over 3-car garages being built. This is allowable in the City and is at the discretion of the builder. Helene Johnson, 240 Kentucky Avenue, stated the church hasn't been the best neighbor, and that nice homes would be an improvement. However, she has concerns about how much concrete there will be, and where it will be. She also has concerns about a fence going up in the back. She stated that there is a neighborhood agreement that there would be common land and there would be no fencing between the houses. She also has concerns about the landscaping in the back of these proposed homes. Mark Friederichs, 7501 Western Avenue, stated that every time a piece of property comes up we have to somehow, through the City Council, stop the speculation in the land. We're here tonight glad he only wants to put six units on there instead of 10 or 12 and we feel a sigh of relief about that. We shouldn't have to do that. He then read from the PUD Ordinance and asked if it would be reasonable if the zoning laws that are applicable across the street should be applicable here. A PUD to put one extra house in just doesn't seem right. He stated at the neighborhood meeting they said they didn't want more expensive houses, just fewer houses. He stated the City Council might do something crazy and we have to stop the speculation, that's what the zoning laws are . for. Otherwise, it will just go on and on and every time a parcel of land comes up everybody just says "what can I do here, how much can I stuff on there, what can I put on there, how many houses can I get in here". There are laws that tell you exactly what can be put there and we just have to take the speculation out of it. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 Page 4 Joey Wagenheim, 7182 Harold Avenue, stated she was taken aback by how expensive and how huge they want to make these houses. She stated she would like the proposed homes to be more in tune with the rest of the houses that are there now. Sharon Ruble, 7156 Harold Avenue, stated that last year they tried to build a garage in front of their house within the front setback area. This was denied by the BZA. She stated she doesn't understand how the proposal can be construed as being ok when she asked for the same thing last year (building in the front setback). Steve Swartz, 220 Kentucky Avenue, stated he is concerned about the appropriateness of using the PUD vehicle to grant variances where the development is going to be a single use development, residential homes. He stated what would be appropriate is to ask the question, what variances would the Commission be willing to grant if it was not a PUD request, but rather a straight forward request for variances. He stated that in some respects one can understand why the City might be interested, given the fact that this property is going to be converted from non-taxable property to taxable property. The City would be very interested in maximizing the tax revenue from the property, but that needs to be balanced against the impact on the neighborhood. He recommended a site visit and stated that six very large homes on that property would be quite imposing and it certainly isn't in keeping with how he views the neighborhood. Justin Frys, 6945 Glenwood Avenue, stated he's concerned that the aesthetic beauty of the park would be eliminated once these homes were put in. Pentel asked the applicant about how he intended to treat the whole property in terms of landscaping. Keiffer stated originally he proposed a 6-foot fence, but a natural barrier would be very appropriate as well. He stated that he's never proposed any sort of budget for landscaping to the public or the neighborhood, so if there's an inkling that they are going to short the development on landscaping, that is completely incorrect. Pentel asked Keiffer when individuals buy a home with him, if they also buy a landscaping package as well. Keiffer stated yes they do, there is always a landscaping package, usually in the range of $5,000 or more to cover the grass work in the front and the rear and bushes and shrubs. He noted that they are looking to save approximately 11 out of the 15 trees that are on the site now. Keiffer also clarified that a traditional home on Louisiana or Kentucky is in the vicinity of 1,200 square feet on the main level and if they have a second level it's probably a total of 2,000 to 2,400 square feet. He stated he doesn't consider the homes he's proposing at approximately 2,600 to 2,800 square feet as exorbitantly large for the space. Keiffer clarified that what's on the plans now is what he calls a box plan to fit on the site. They were set up to show that a home of a natural size could fit and still meet the setbacks, so the homes could be built smaller, but not larger. Shaffer asked the applicant how he's going to control it so the houses don't look like townhomes. Keiffer stated that they would work with two different builders so they can have different design styles. He then showed pictures from a different project to give an idea of what he doesn't want the proposed homes to look like. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 Page 5 Ron Wilson, from the Church at 7001 Harold Avenue, stated that selling this church has taken almost a year and before the project began they spoke with the City regarding what they would like to see put on the site. He stated the developer has worked with them very well and he hopes to see the plans go through. Mamie Bumstead, 245 Kentucky Avenue, stated she wanted clarification on the side setbacks on Kentucky and Harold and if there is going to be a variance granted for those, or if the developer will have to meet with the houses that are already existing on Kentucky. Grimes stated the developer is proposing 30-foot setbacks along Kentucky and Harold rather than the required 35 feet, so it's five feet closer than the code would require if it were zoned straight single family. Helene Johnson, 240 Kentucky Avenue, stated she was concerned about how the proposal would look and where on the corner lot the home would sit. Pentel stated the home that is being proposed would be closer by five feet to Kentucky than her house is. Ms. Johnson then questioned why it needs to be different from the current zoning code. Grimes replied by saying right now the property is zoned institutional and we can't say that it will become single family residential. If it is rezoned to single family residential, 5 lots could be built there and all the Planning Commission would be seeing is a subdivision. All of those lots would meet the requirements of the zoning code and it would just be administrative at that point. Regarding the corner lots on this plan, the Commission could say, if they chose to allow six homes, that they have to meet the 35-foot setback and not quite as big of a house would get built, the footprint would just be smaller. Keiffer stated if he went to a 12-foot side yard setback it would come down to just a variance on the width of the lots and the Jot size. Chair Pentel closed the public hearing. Eck stated the logical use for this land is residential. However, whether there are five homes or six homes here is a relatively minor difference in the overall scheme of things in terms of the housing in Golden Valley. He stated he sees no reason, other than the economic benefit to the developer, to make a PUD out of this and have these variances that are being asked for, when five lots can be done without requiring variances. He stated he would support five lots here, but would not support six. Groger agreed with Eck and stated Mr. Friederichs did a good job of speaking to the issue regarding PUD's. He doesn't think this is an appropriate situation to use a PUD and thought it would be out of character with the rest of the neighborhood, especially on Louisiana Avenue where the lots are very uniform. He stated this is a rectangular lot and a very simple layout for single family homes. He doesn't see the benefit to the City in creating a PUD just to squeeze in one more home, when it is not in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. He stated he would be opposed to this proposal as well. Pentel stated she would also have a hard time invoking a PUD in this case. It seems that 5 lots would work and could bring very nice housing to this neighborhood. Pentel Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 Page 6 asked staff if a PUD would still be necessary if there were five homes being built. Grimes stated that if it were because of the depth of the lots, he would have the right to ask for variances because of that. We have situations in Golden Valley where we have blanket variances for blocks, which would mean all the homes would have 30 feet setback rather than 35 feet that's something that would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Rasmussen asked if this property is eligible to be a PUD. Pentel stated that under our current ordinance it is because of the size of the lot. Grimes clarified that if the proposal is more than one building, on more than one lot and it's over an acre in size it can be considered a PUD. Shaffer stated that under the PUD ordinance they can put 5 lots there too. The PUD does give the City some control over the property that a subdivision doesn't. Conceivably, in the PUD we could define how much landscaping we feel is needed to make the development fit into the neighborhood, we could allow fencing or not, we could tell them what kind of driveways they could have. There is still some value to the PUD. McAleese stated he tends to look at the ordinance and think of it as a 3-step process. The first one is that the developer has to meet the minimum threshold requirement and it's clearly met here. The next step is to ask if there something else about the plan that qualifies it as a PUD. The third part is reviewing the plan and deciding if it meets the basic requirements for our community. McAleese referred to the ordinance and listed a number of reasons for the purpose of PUD's. One purpose is to encourage the use of contemporary land planning principles and coordinated community design. He stated he doesn't see anything in this proposal that is different than you might find in a standard subdivision. He stated the PUD ordinance also pays tribute to the advantages of creating large community type developments. This proposal doesn't have that sort of scale or mix in uses. The procedure is intended to be used where the designation of the single zoning district or the strict application of zoning provisions is too rigid for practical application. The only reason that the R-1 zoning code wouldn't work here is because of the extra house. He stated that Staff noted the PUD is intended to provide some design flexibility by granting variances. He stated staff takes the position that if the developer wants this design flexibility that's a sufficient reason for a PUD, when in fact, all that does is to describe the way the ordinance is supposed to work, it really isn't the basis for making something a PUD. If a proposal qualifies as a PUD then we will grant design flexibility. On the other hand, just because someone wants design flexibility isn't sufficient basis for making something a PUD. McAleese referred to Subdivision 6 of the PUD ordinance where it states the most appropriate place for a PUD is as a buffer in a transition area to protect residential neighborhoods from inappropriately highly developed areas on the other side as in town homes and apartments. Here we have a park. He stated he likes the development, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 Page 7 and the variances being asked for are very minor, but it doesn't qualify and shouldn't qualify as a PUD under our ordinance. Pentel asked in terms of framing the motion should they first have a motion to deny this PUD and then have a motion that would speak to a lower density. Grimes stated if there are only going to be 5 homes in this proposal, he would prefer it not to be a PUD, that the zoning code works well in single family districts and there isn't a need to have a PUD. Shaffer commented that the developer approached the neighborhood in good faith and should be well commended. He stated that the neighbors had concerns about the houses being too big if there were 6 lots, but with 5 lots they will be able to have even bigger houses on them. Pentel stated the houses would then have to meet the normal setback requirements under the subdivision ordinance versus the PUD ordinance. Pentel said the concerns she heard weren't so much about the size of the homes, but the number of homes. McAleese asked if the Commission should address the issues that were in the Engineer's report, just in case the Council does not agree with the decision. Grimes stated the Engineer's main recommendation is the reduction and the width of the street, which would still be appropriate to review in a subdivision. Pentel referred to the proponent's letter in which he wrote that there would be a $7,500 paid directly to the City for a park dedication fee. McAleese referred to the posting of the $14,400 escrow account for street reconstruction. Grimes stated these things would also be covered in a subdivision proposal. MOVED by Eck, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to deny the Preliminary Design Plan for the Lion's Park P.U.D 92 for the following reasons: the purpose doesn't deviate from contemporary land planning, a subdivision ordinance would work here, the proposed density would be out of character with the surrounding neig hborhood. II. Informal Public Hearing - Property Rezoning (Z020-01) Applicant: Susan Gonyea Address: Lots 9, 10 & 11, Block 8 of Lakeview Heights located at 9120 Plymouth Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of a portion of the property from Residential to Two-Family (R-2) Residential Grimes reviewed his staff report regarding the rezoning of a portion of the property located at 9120 Plymouth Avenue North. He stated this was reviewed at the last planning commission meeting as a subdivision of the property and one of the requirements of the subdivision code is that all lots that are created by a subdivision or Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 Page 8 consolidation must meet the requirements of the zoning code. It was determined that the duplex home that exists on the new west lot is zoned single family residential and therefore, does not meet the requirements of the residential zoning code. In order for this plat to go forward, the west lot will have to be rezoned R-2 as a two family designation. Grimes referred to the zoning code map and stated that when the duplex was built it met the zoning code requirements at that time. Grimes referred to the general land use plan and stated the existing duplex and the proposed new home wouldn't change the overall land use or density in that area and would be consistent with the overall land use for that area. Grimes stated he sees no issues with rezoning this to two family. McAleese asked if the rezoning is not approved what effect that would have on the subdivision. Grimes stated that the subdivision code specifically states that all lots have to meet the requirements of zoning code and right now it's a nonconforming use in the residential zoning district and without the rezoning the plat can't be approved according to the City Attorney. Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Gerald Hatling, 1308 Gettysburg, asked when the property gets subdivided into two lots, if there's anything to stop applicant from putting a duplex on the other lot. Pentel stated the lot wouldn't be large enough, and the duplex that is there now is an existing condition and this rezoning is just to bring it into conformance and the other lot is zoned single family. Grimes stated that the lot would be large enough, but it's not wide enough at the front setback line and the only way it could go through is to get variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals and it's unlikely that would happen. McAleese asked if the Council denies the subdivision request, does everything just stop at that point and if the existing duplex would remain nonconforming would there be no rezoning. Grimes stated no, because the recommendation from the Planning Commission would be to rezone a future parcel that's being created and right now this duplex is on all of the parcel, which is considered one parcel by Hennepin County. Pentel closed the informal public hearing. MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Shaffer, and motion carried unanimously to approve the rezoning of a portion of the subject property from single family residential to two family residential. -- Short Recess -- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Shaffer stated there are a number of things that need to be redone to the zoning ordinance because the BZA has been getting a lot of side setback variance requests. Shaffer discussed the fact that currently, we have no ordinance regarding fences. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 5, 2001 Page 9 Rasmussen stated the Sheriff's Site committee is going to present their proposal for single family homes to the HRA next week. IV. Other Business A. Discuss new Commission Guidelines The new Commission Guidelines will be discussed, along with a presentation by the Mayor, at 6 pm., at the March 26 Planning Commission meeting. B. Discuss GTS Land Use Planning Workshops Pentel discussed the various GTS (Government Training Service) workshops that are being offered in March, April and May. She also stated that these workshops would probably be offered again at the next state planning conference in September v. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9: 15 pm.