Loading...
11-11-02 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 11 , 2002 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 November 11, 2002. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Keysser, McAleese and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, City Planner, Dan Olson and Recording Secretary, Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Groger and Rasmussen were absent. I. Approval of Minutes - October 14, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting . MOVED by Eck, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the October 14, 2002 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (SU10-05) Applicants: John and Barbara Wilson e 4117 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN The applicants would like to subdivide their property into two parcels. A new home would be built on the newly created southern lot. Grimes referred to Section 12.50, Subd. 3 of the Subdivision Code and stated that lots in a minor subdivision must meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district in which they are located. He stated that the existing home would not meet the setback requirements after the proposed lot split but that the new home shown to be built could meet all of the setback requirements with special construction techniques because the lot is very steep. He added that the north lot would be 9,452 square feet in area or about 500 square feet less than the 10,000 square foot lot requirement. The south lot where a new home would be constructed would be less than 8,000 square feet in area. Purpose: Address: Grimes explained that the access to the utilities is somewhat problematical due the steepness of the property and the existing utility connections to the house on Wayzata Boulevard. He said that the primary issue with the City Engineer is revising the sanitary sewer service to the Wayzata Boulevard sewer main and connecting the new home to the existing service on Tyrol Trail. McAleese questioned if this proposal has to go through the preliminary plat and final plat process because it is a minor subdivision. Grimes said yes and he explained that the current plans serve as the preliminary plat. Shaffer clarified that the survey does not show the shed currently located on the property and that it would also require a variance from setback requirements. Grimes stated that the City, as a condition of approval, would have the applicant remove the shed or get a variance to keep the shed. e ~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 11, 2002 Page 2 John Wilson, applicant stated that he bought the property in 1994 from MnDOT and that he had no intention when he bought it to change anything. He stated that the creation of a new lot would be a great place to build a house and that they don't consider the lot their back yard and that it is not very useful to him as it is because the property falls off more that 40 feet from front to back. He explained that he tried to create two conforming lots and thought that his surveyor had made the existing home and the new home conform to the subdivision requirements. Grimes stated that a condition of approval would be to require the highway easement for the frontage road to be dedicated property. At the current time, the frontage road is an easement. McAleese stated that the fundamental problem with this proposal is that the lots don't meet the requirement of the Subdivision Code. He read parts of the Subdivision Code and asked the applicant what the hardship is for a variance to the Subdivision Code. Wilson stated that the hardship is that he can't use this property for its ultimate best use and that the back part of the lot is of no advantage to him and that a new house would bring more property tax money to the City. Pentel opened the public hearing. Aaron Lerner, 1324 Tyrol Trail stated that the proposed new parcel along Tyrol Trail is a wooded area and is part of what has helped drive people to the area. He stated that putting a home in this location would be a detriment to the entire area. Jeanne Gross, 1340 Alpine Pass stated that she agrees with Mr. Lerner and that the wooded area adds to the charm of the neighborhood. She added that she didn't think a house this small would add to the property values. Stephanie Shopa, 1316 Tyrol Trail stated that when people buy into a neighborhood they buy into what they assume is a sort of implied understanding of how the land is going to be used and what is going to be there. She added that she is concerned how the subdivision would impact the proposed new home and the homes around it. Nancy Tronnier, 1370 Alpine Pass stated that she liked the diversity in the area but the property being discussed is too small to build a home on. She added that she appreciates the applicant's effort but not at their expense. Pentel, hearing and seeing no one, closed the public hearing. Shaffer referred to another subdivision recently approved on Alpine Pass where the applicant went to the extreme to make the 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement and to say now that this applicant doesn't have to meet the requirements would not be fair. He added that he doesn't feel that the hardship is appropriate and that he is against this proposal. Eck stated that he couldn't see, in this case, a justification for creating two lots. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 11, 2002 Page 3 Keysser stated he agreed with Commissioner Eck and that the proposal doesn't make sense. McAleese stated he is concerned about being asked for something the City can't do by law. He does not see any genuine hardship and is not in favor of this subdivision. Pentel stated she agreed with the other Commissioners because the Subdivision Code states that minor subdivisions shall be denied if they don't meet the size requirements. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to deny the applicant's request to subdivide the property located at 4117 Wayzata Blvd. e III. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Text Amendment Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: The City would like to revise the Zoning Code to allow drive-in bank facilities as a Conditional Use in the Light Industrial zoning district. Grimes stated that during the process of approving the Central Bank P.U.D. the issue of allowing drive-in banks in the Light Industrial was discussed. Pentel asked if drive-in banks would be allowed as a Conditional Use. Grimes stated yes and that Staff and Council decided that allowing drive-in banks as a Conditional Use would be better than rezoning the underlying zoning of the property. The Commissioners discussed the proposed language in Grimes' memo and decided to change it to "Drive-in bank facilities with frontage on a collector or minor arterial street". . Pentel opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the public hearing. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve revising the Zoning Code to allow drive-in bank facilities as a Conditional Use in the Light Industrial zoning district. -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings McAleese reported on the October 15, 2002 City Council meeting. V. Other Business A. Discuss possible revisions to the Residential zoning district. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 11 , 2002 Page 4 Grimes referred to Olson's memo dated November 6, 2002 and stated that he had looked at other cities requirements regarding side yard setback and that most of them had a 1 a- foot side yard setback requirement and many of them had a maximum lot coverage requirement. Olson stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals very seldom turns down requests for second garage stalls. He suggested making the side yard setback less than the required if the request is for a second garage stall, which would decrease the number of variance requests. e Shaffer stated that he has worked with other cities that figure the setbacks by the volume of the building, so as the building gets higher the side yard setbacks increase. Grimes stated that right now according to the City Code, residents could build a 1,000 sq. ft. garage in their back yard and that he would rather see a third stall garage than a 1,000 sq. ft. accessory building. Pentel stated that she thinks it is reasonable to reduce side yard setbacks but that she is also interested in the volume requirement and the lot coverage requirement in other cities. She stated that it would be good to consider reducing front yard setback requirements for decks or porches that would be required to remain open structures. McAleese stated that the City would need to be careful about the wording of these Code revisions. Pentel suggested possibly reducing the setback requirements on one side if the property is a corner lot. Shaffer stated he would be afraid of changing the front yard setbacks on corner lots because people will always push it to the limit. e Olson discussed the requirement of keeping an accessory building completely behind the house. He stated that the only reason he could think of for this requirement is aesthetics. Shaffer discussed the issue of frost footings for detached garages. McAleese suggested having two standards: those with frost footings could be located next to the home, those without would still have to be located behind the home. Grimes discussed the issue of temporary storage and stated that he has an agreement with the PODS (Portable on Demand Storage) storage company that their containers can only be on a site for seven days. Shaffer stated that he could do some research on various requirements in other cities for single family zoning districts and present this research at the December 9 meeting. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 PM.