Loading...
06-28-04 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 28, 2004 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall Manager's Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, June 28, 2004. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Pentel, Commissioners Eck, Hackett, Keysser, Rasmussen, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present were, Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. - I. Approval of Minutes May 24, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to approved the May 24,2004 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - SU09-07 Applicant: Randy Roland Address: 15 Westwood Drive N. and 1 Westwood Drive N. Purpose: To allow the applicant to redraw the existing property line between the two properties. - Grimes stated it was recently discovered that the existing property line between the applicant's property at 15 Westwood Drive North and the property to the south, 1 Westwood Drive North was not where they thought it was actually located. He explained that the proposed property line is the "practiced" property line, or the line that has actually been followed by the owners of the two properties over the years. Grimes stated that the applicant's home located at 15 Westwood Drive N. does not currently meet the current setback requirements from the real property line but with the new property line being proposed it would meet all of the setback requirements. Grimes explained that the front yard setback for the existing home on the south lot (1 Westwood Drive North) does not meet the 35 foot front yard setback requirement and that there is only a 25 foot front yard setback. Therefore, this proposal will require a variance from the Subdivision Code because in order to qualify as a subdivision all of the requirements of the Zoning Code must be met. He added that with the way the new Single Family Residential section of the Code has been rewritten that this subdivision would not have to be done in order for either property to do any additions toward their rear yards in the future, but that the applicant is requesting this subdivision because it is a comfort issue for the property owners to have the property line where it has always been perceived to be. - Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 2 Pentel asked if the Board of Zoning Appeals could approve the variance from the Subdivision Code. Grimes said no and explained that the Board of Zoning Appeals only acts on Chapter 11 of the Zoning Code and that the Subdivision Code is located in Chapter 12. Pentel said this is an awkward situation because according to the Code, the Planning Commission is supposed to deny requests for subdivisions if they don't meet all of the requirements of the Zoning Code. Randy Roland, applicant, stated that they purchased the house at 15 Westwood Drive North in 1986 and although this proposal looks cosmetic the reality is that the builder put the house on the lot differently than they thought. He said that having the property line where it is being proposed is important to the economic value of the home. Keysser stated that there is an obvious visual separation between the two properties and asked if that is where the proposed new property line would be located. Roland said yes. Pentel opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the public hearing. Pentel suggested the Commission make two motions, one for the variance from the Subdivision Code and one for the subdivision request itself. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the variance request needed from the Subdivision Code regarding the properties located at 1 and 15 Westwood Drive North. The variance request is for 10 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 25 feet at the home's _ closest point to the front yard setback along Westwood Drive North. MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Keysser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the applicant's request to redraw the existing property line between 1 and 15 Westwood Drive North. III. Informal Public Hearing - Complete Revision of Section 11.60 of the Zoning Code - Floodplain Management Zoning Overlay District Applicant: The City of Golden Valley Purpose: In order to meet current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, stated that Golden Valley first adopted a floodplain management code in 1981. He explained that the City has been asked by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to update the Flood Code. He stated that the City's current floodplain ordinance was adopted in 1981 and that the Flood Code is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 3 required in order for Golden Valley residents to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program where they are offered reduced rates on their flood insurance. Oliver stated that most of the changes to the Flood Code Ordinance are administrative. However, there are some significant changes. For example the old Flood Code had a single classification for floodplain zones and the new Flood Code has two classifications, the floodway and the flood fringe with varying regulations in each of them. He explained that the floodway is the area that is critical for conveyance of the flood water and that the flood fringe is typically the area from the f100dway out to the limits of the 1 DO-year flood elevation. e Oliver stated that the major operational change is with the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation or "RFPE". Currently the City's requirement is that all structures must be elevated or flood-proofed to one foot above the 1 DO-year floodplain elevation. The new ordinance would require all structures to be built two feet above the floodplain elevation. Oliver stated that the Floodplain Ordinance being proposed also more clearly defines "substantial damage" and "substantial improvement". Certain sections of the State Building Code, aimed at reducing potential flood damage, are added to it as well. Oliver explained that when the original flood control project started there were approximately 70 homes in Golden Valley that were subject to frequent flooding and that there are now only 13 homes in the process of being brought out of the floodplain. Schmidgall asked if the area that now consists of f100dway and the area of flood fringe is less than the area that used to be just floodplain due to the projects that have been done to hold water. Oliver stated that it is not significant, but it is less. e Hackett asked Oliver to explain the homeowners options if they are located in the floodplain. Oliver stated that the structure can be moved, the property can be elevated or that water has to be able to flow through the structure without causing damage. Hackett asked if the homeowners would be required to undergo the expense for the flood proofing. Oliver stated that flood proofing the last 13 homes is a cooperative effort between the City, the watershed district and the homeowners and that they are in the process of obtaining some funding through the ONR. Pentel referred to Subdivision 11 (0) and asked why the Commercial and Industrial loading areas were removed and added to a different section of the Code. Oliver said that the goal is that as those properties redevelop the new structures will be required to comply in entirety so they can be removed from the floodplain. Waldhauser said that she got the impression from the proposed ordinance that homeowners located in the floodplain would be precluded from doing maintenance or repairs to their homes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Page 4 Oliver explained that additions or improvements that don't exceed 50% of the market value (or aren't considered a "substantial improvement") of the structure can be done such as new siding, a new roof or a deck. Pentel asked Oliver to point out on a floodplain map some of the homes that are located in the floodplain. Oliver referred to one of his floodplain maps and showed an. area where the homes are in the floodplain. He said that several of those homes are on the repeat claim list with the National Flood Insurance Program. He explained that a pond is going to be constructed in the open area of the Briarwood Nature Area, a flood control levee is going to be built off of Regent Avenue and that some of the homes will have "mini-lift stations" in their backyards. e Waldhauser asked if landscaping structures such as driveways and patios are prohibited in the floodplain. Oliver said they would be permitted in flood fringe areas because water could pond and collect on those surfaces and they do not obstruct the water. Pentel opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the public hearing. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Keysser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to the City Council to Completely Revise Section 11.60 of the Zoning Code - Floodplain Management Zoning Overlay District. III. -- Short Recess -- Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings e No other meetings were discussed. IV. Other Business A. E-mailing Planning Commission packets Grimes asked the Commissioners if they would prefer their agenda packets be e-mailed to them. The Commissioners agreed that they do not want their agenda packets e-mailed to them. They would still like to have agenda packets mailed or delivered to them. B. Grimes gave the Planning Commission an update on various planning issues. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm.