Loading...
09-22-03 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2003 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, September 22, 2003. Vice Chair Shaffer called the meeting to order at 6 pm. Those present were Commissioners Eck, Groger, Keysser, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. Chair Pentel was absent. I. Discussion of the Housing Policy and developing criteria for higher e density housing. Grimes stated that he and Chair Pentel recently met and they thought that rather than locating specific areas for higher density developments it would be better to come up with criteria for these types of developments so when someone wanted to do a Comprehensive Plan amendment or high density housing development the City would have some criteria for them to follow. Shaffer suggested higher density developments should be located on collector and arterial streets. Rasmussen stated that more than just street access needs to be looked at when planning for higher density developments, the traffic volume also needs to be considered. - Eck asked if there are underdeveloped or undeveloped sites, with poor soil that a developer could remediate. He referred to the original location for the Breck ice arena and stated that the location turned out to be unsuitable for Breck because of the soil conditions, but that it may be suitable for apartments to be located on that site. Grimes suggested mixed-use developments with residential and commercial properties being together. Shaffer suggested looking at buffer sites between residential areas and commercial or industrial areas. Groger suggested looking at the condition and value of properties as criteria when properties are being redeveloped. McAleese referred to the PUD list of items to consider and stated that all of those items would apply to higher density type of redevelopments. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 2 Grimes suggested considering the type of housing as a criteria. McAleese said that that criteria would apply more to the City's housing goals. Shaffer asked if the City could tell developers that there is a preference for a certain type of housing. McAleese said he thinks that is good for a policy but if developers are not providing affordable housing they need to explain why. Grimes stated that utilities and ponding should be looked at because these are typically large scale developments. He stated that having green space or a place for kids to play is a concern to him on developments that are family oriented. e Rasmussen stated that it isn't a matter of where the housing is it's that the neighbors don't want high density developments near them. Grimes said that is always one of the issues with these types of developments. Grimes asked the Commission if they thought there were any locations where the City might not want high density developments. Keysser referred to the area by Lupient Automotive. Groger stated that areas near Industrial sites that are noisy or dirty wouldn't be appropriate. McAleese stated that safety is one issue but that noise next to a shopping center should not be a criterion and that developers need to be more honest with potential homeowners. Rasmussen asked if the idea of the list of criteria is to help the developers. Grimes stated that if would be easier if there were some criteria then the City could at least have something to judge a development on. e II. Approval of Minutes - September 8, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 8, 2003 minutes as submitted. III. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - SU12-09 Applicant: Edward Soppa Address: Purpose: 1135 Welcome Circle To allow an existing lot to be divided into two lots. Grimes explained that the applicant is requesting to divide his property located at the northwest corner of Welcome Avenue and Welcome Circle into two lots. He stated that the property is 30,438 square feet in area and that, when done, both lots would greatly Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 3 exceed the 10,000 square foot area requirement. He added that all of the setback requirements are being met on both lots. He stated that one of the biggest concerns of the neighborhood is drainage and how the new property would affect the drainage issues that already exist in that area. Grimes said that he spoke with the City Engineer and the City's Environmental Coordinator and it is their opinion that a new home on this property would not have a negative impact to the adjoining properties. He explained that part of the building permit process would include obtaining a grading, drainage and erosion control permit. Grimes stated that the proposed new lot already has stubs in place for sewer and water and that they were probably put there in anticipation of this subdivision. Grimes explained that there will be a park dedication fee of $1 ,000 required at the time the final plat is approved. e Grimes stated that staff is recommending approval of this minor subdivision as per the sketch submitted by the applicant. Eck asked if the applicant would be required to replace the trees that would need to be removed as a result of this subdivision. Grimes stated that this lot will not be subject to the tree preservation plan. Shaffer asked if all of the conditions for approving a subdivision are being met. Grimes said yes. Keysser referred to the elevations listed on the survey and asked for clarification about the drainage issue because there is only a four foot difference from the new lot to the e neighbor's yard. Grimes stated that his understanding is that there is a low spot in a neighboring back yard where water gathers during times of a lot of rain. He explained again that the City Engineer has said that drainage issues would be looked at when the new house is developed as part of the grading, drainage and erosion control permit process. Shaffer asked the applicant if he had anything further to add to Grimes' report. Soppa said he had nothing further to add. Shaffer opened the public hearing. James Heigl, 1129 Welcome Circle stated that his only issue is with the drainage. He showed the Commissioners pictures of his backyard play structure with water covering the bottom portion. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22,2003 Page 4 Groger asked where the water drains to eventually. Heigl stated that the water drains into the ground or he pumps it into the street. Groger explained that the grading, drainage and erosion control permit could help minimize the drainage problems. Ann Bennion, 1125 Welcome Circle stated that there is a drainage issue and at one juncture she talked to the City about putting in a storm sewer and the answer she got back was that everyone has to be responsible for their own property. She stated that the trees that are on the lot now are soaking up some of the water and that taking them out could compound the problem. Her concern is that a new home would make the drainage situation worse. e John Hunter, 1255 Welcome Avenue North stated he has a shed in the corner of his back yard and there has been water there many times so high that he can't get to the shed. He said he doesn't see how raising the newly created lot would help the drainage problem because if something is raised the water has to go somewhere. He suggested putting in a drain so that all three properties affected could drain to it. Grimes said that is something to talk to the City Engineer about. He explained that if a drain were to be put in it would be assessed to the benefiting properties. Grimes stated that there could be ways to improve the drainage situation in the area and that the City doesn't want to make any situation worse and hopefully it will be better after the construction of the house. Seeing and hearing no one, Shaffer closed the public hearing. Eck stated that everything from a technical standpoint seemed to be in order. He said he feels for the neighbors and that the City needs to ensure that the drainage problem would not be exacerbated. Grimes agreed and stated that as part of the grading, e drainage and erosion control permit that wouldn't happen. Shaffer asked if the City Engineer should require a utility easement. Grimes stated that if the staff needs to get an easement they can get it. Groger asked if a condition regarding the drainage could be added to the recommendation for approval. McAleese said that there can't be conditions placed on this subdivision because the law basically says the City can't deny a subdivision if it meets all of the requirements. He said the City can guarantee that the situation won't get worse. McAleese asked if the issue of title review should be listed as a condition. Grimes said it is usually left up to the City Attorney if title review is necessary or not. McAleese agreed as long as the applicant understood that the City Attorney could do a title search in the future. Shaffer asked if the Commission could make two motions, one for the subdivision request and one to recommend to the City Council to direct staff to look at the drainage issues. Grimes said that two motions could be made. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 5 MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the requested subdivision with the following conditions. 1. The final plat of Soppa Addition will be consistent with the sketch plan for the Soppa Addition submitted with the minor subdivision application. The sketch plan was prepared by Pioneer Engineering and dated 7/21/03. 2. The comments in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated August 8, 2003 shall become a part of this approval. e 3. A park dedication fee shall be paid in the amount of $1000 prior to approval of the final plat by the City Council. MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to direct City Staff to review the drainage issues adjacent to this property for potential solutions that the City could take to improve the situation. -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Keysser reported on the September 16, 2003 City Council meeting. He stated that the preliminary plans for the Calvary Church PUD amendment were approved. V. Other Business e A.) Discuss Draft #6 of the Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1)- Section 11.21 of the City Code. Grimes explained that this version of the Single Family Residential Zoning District is still a draft because it will be going to a Council/Manager meeting so that the Council can have a chance to review it before there is a public hearing. Groger referred to Subdivision 13(C) and stated that it was supposed to be changed to the Subdivision 14 regarding recreational vehicles. Eck stated that there are some home occupations that aren't really home occupations in that the business is not conducted on the premises and employees just go to the home and leave their cars there and then go work someplace else. Grimes said that his interpretation of the Code is that that would not be an allowed use. Eck referred to Subdivision 17(A)(3) regarding home occupations and that nothing is supposed to be stored or displayed on site. He asked Grimes if he felt that this subdivision is adequate. Grimes stated that the City does allow a certain size e ~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 2003 Page 6 commercial vehicle in residential areas. Shaffer added that Subdivision 17(A)(12) covers that issue because only one employee is allowed. McAleese asked if Subdivision 13 regarding temporary storage included PODS storage systems. Grimes stated yes and that the City is trying to limit how long PODS units can be stored on a property to 7 days and that they can't be put on the street. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Keysser and motion carried unanimously to approve Draft #6 of the Single Family Residential Zoning District (R-1) Section 11.21 of the City Code with the additional language being provided by Shaffer. VI. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:45 pm