Loading...
10-11-04 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11 , 2004 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, October 11, 2004. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Keysser, Commissioners Eck, Hackett, Rasmussen, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes September 27, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting e Waldhauser referred to the fourth paragraph on page four and asked that the word "requirement" be changed to "limit" regarding fence height. MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Hackett and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 27, 2004 minutes with the above noted change. II. Informal Public Hearing - Z011-11 2520 Douglas Drive North - Rezone property from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Two Family Residential Applicants: James & Kathleen Bell Address: 2520 Douglas Drive North - Purpose: To rezone the property from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Two Family Residential. Grimes explained the applicant's request and stated that they own the two-family dwelling currently located on the property. He reminded the Planning Commissioners that they recently recommended approval to rezone the property just to the north of this one from R-1 to R-2 to allow for the construction of a two-family dwelling. However, this request was withdrawn prior to its public hearing before the City Council. Grimes stated that the applicant's home was built in 1977 when two-family homes were a permitted use in the R-1 zoning district. He said that they received a variance at that time for the width across the front of the lot in order to build the two-family home. He explained that when the code was changed in the 1980's to include an R-2 zoning district all two- family homes in the R-1 zoning district that were not rezoned to R-2 became non- conforming. He stated that the applicants are trying to refinance their property and their financial institution is uncomfortable with the property being labeled "non-conforming". Grimes added that the lot does meet the current R-2 requirements and that rezoning the property would not change the low density character of the neighborhood. Keysser asked if this property is two separate parcels with a zero lot line or if it is one parcel. Grimes said it is one parcel. Minutes of the Planning Commission October 11 , 2004 Page 2 Eck referred to the recent proposal regarding the property to the north at 2548 Douglas and asked if that request has been abandoned since Hennepin County did not like the idea of driveway access on Douglas Drive. Grimes stated that the developer for that proposal did withdraw his application but that there may be a new party interested in the property with a different proposal. Waldhauser asked how large the homes could be if the property were rezoned to R-2. Grimes said that as long as they meet the setback requirements for the R-2 zoning district the homes could be expanded as much as they want. e Waldhauser referred to this home's access off of Douglas Drive and whether it might be moved to access off of Medicine Lake Road when the property to the north is redeveloped. Grimes said that was unlikely. She asked if the lot to the north is redeveloped if both properties could share this same access. Grimes said he thought that would be a reasonable request. Keysser asked if the Planning Commission is going to be looking at future R-2 rezoning requests on a case by case basis or if all of the R-2 properties in the City are going to be looked at as a whole. Grimes said that up until now the City has handled rezoning requests on a case by case because rezoning is generally controversial. Rasmussen asked if the existing duplex could be rebuilt if it were damaged. Grimes explained that if the damage to the home was more than 50% of the home's total value it could not be rebuilt if it remains in the R-1 zoning district. e James and Kathleen Bell, Applicants, stated that the primary reason they are proposing to rezone their property is because they've been told by three financial institutions that they can not refinance with the R-1 zoning designation. He said that they are currently in negotiations with the neighbor to the north to purchase their property because they could share driveway access but it is all contingent on their property being refinanced. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, Keysser closed the public hearing. Eck said he thinks the Planning Commission has discussed this area quite thoroughly with the previous request for rezoning and he sees no reason why this property, which is in character with the neighborhood, couldn't be rezoned. Rasmussen said she agreed with Commissioner Eck. Hackett said that it makes sense in this case to change the zoning to meet the actual use. He said he thinks it would be good for the Commission to look at this whole area on a future agenda. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to rezone the property located at 2520-2522 Douglas Drive North from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Two Family Residential. e e Minutes of the Planning Commission October 11 , 2004 Page 3 III. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plan Review - PUD-99 - 5222 Minnaqua Drive Applicant: EPIC Development, LLC Address: 5222 Minnaqua Drive Purpose: To allow for the construction of six single family homes Grimes referred to the site map and pointed out the location of the proposed development at the intersection of Minnaqua Drive and Toledo Avenue. He stated that this property is approximately 60,000 square feet in area and that the minimum lot size requirement for a single family home in Golden Valley is 10,000 square feet. Grimes referred to the Comprehensive Plan Map and stated that this property is guided for Low Density residential uses which allows for five units per acre. He referred to the area around this property and said the area to the north is designated high density and that the area to the south is designated low density. He explained that the applicant is requesting a PUD because this type of development wouldn't be allowed through normal zoning because of the proposed private street. He stated that the property would be replatted into six individual lots with an easement located over each driveway for the center street which will be about 240 feet long. He said that the Fire and Inspections Departments are comfortable allowing the private street to serve as access to these homes because each house will be required to have a fire suppression system. He explained that each home will have a footprint of approximately 2,400 square feet, with a three car garage and a driveway area that will have enough room to park three more cars. Grimes stated that there are several people in the neighborhood who are concerned about how this development will affect them. He discussed the issue of flooding in the area and referred to City Engineer Jeff Oliver's memo. He discussed the Scott Avenue Flood Proofing Project and said that the City still needs to obtain all of the necessary easements in the neighborhood before this proposed development could be completed. He added that Oliver recommends, and that staff and the City Attorney agrees, that there should be some kind of declaration put on these six homes so that people who buy these homes understand that their driveways and Minnaqua Drive would still be subject to periodic flooding. He said there could be up to 2.8 feet of water at the intersection of Minnaqua Drive and Toledo Avenue where people would enter the driveway to this development. Grimes reviewed his recommended conditions of approval as stated in his staff report and told Commission that City Engineer Jeff Oliver was present to answer questions. Rasmussen referred to the language in the purpose and intent section of the PUD Ordinance and asked Grimes why standard zoning provisions are too "rigid" in this case because the property could be developed with one or two homes. Grimes said that this is a 1.3 acre parcel of land and that this proposal would be a more efficient use of the land and would be a way to create additional housing without having a negative impact on the area. Minutes of the Planning Commission October 11 , 2004 Page 4 Eck referred to the Scott Avenue Flood Proofing project and asked if it would take the street and some area out of the flood plain. Jeff Oliver, City Engineer, said that the flood plain in this area has been lowered as far as it possibly can be lowered and it has come down approximately a half of a foot as a result of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission and the Army Corp. of Engineers project that took place over the last 30 years. Eck asked if anything built on this parcel would require fill. Oliver said yes, with the exception of a home being built on stilts. He explained that the lowest floor of the home needs to be two feet above the 100 year flood elevation at the regulatory flood elevation. - Rasmussen asked if the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission has approved this project. Oliver said they have not reviewed the project from a subdivision stand point; however, they've looked at the potential impacts to the flood elevation from this project and the Scott Avenue Flood Proofing project and the cumulative impact of these projects. Rasmussen asked about flood mitigation. Oliver referred to the revised flood code and explained that there is flood fringe and flood way and that the floodway can not be altered or filled but there is more flexibility in the flood fringe. He said the area doesn't need flood storage but that conveyance is critical in this area to get the water from point A to point B. Hackett referred to the grade being raised by 30 inches and asked if the water being displaced has the potential of placing other homes further down Unity and Minnaqua in the flood plain and asked where the water would go. e Oliver said that the City asked Barr Engineering to evaluate the proposal. He showed a map of the area and discussed the Scott Avenue Flood Proofing project, the storm water lift station, a levee and a temporary holding pond. He discussed the increased flood impact and said there would be no impacts down stream from the proposal and that there are no projected increases in the flood stage. He said the issue at hand is if the Scott Avenue Flood project proceeds. If it does not, there would be negative impacts downstream of the project so staff's comments are that without the flood proofing project this development should not go forward. Schmidgall referred to the Barr Engineering report and asked if what they refer to as the east side encroachment is the same thing as the Scott Avenue Flood Proofing project. Oliver said yes. Schmidgall asked if the Scott Avenue flood proofing project is actually going to increase the flood elevation upstream of itself. Oliver said yes, the flood elevation would increase upstream of the proposal between Scott Avenue and Highway 100 with no impacts down stream. Oliver clarified that there would be no homes brought into the flood plain and that no homes already in the flood plain would be additionally impacted by either of these projects. Rasmussen asked Oliver if he is familiar with any water problems at the town homes and condominiums to the north. Oliver said he believed most of the homes at Briarwood are slab on grade construction but that he hasn't talked with anyone in that area. He said he is aware that there are some homes in the area that have ground water problems. Minutes of the Planning Commission October 11 , 2004 Page 5 Rasmussen asked how a home is flood proofed. Oliver said there are a number of different ways to flood proof a home including elevating the home or allowing a crawl space to flood or by using berms or levees. Keysser asked if the City wants to do the Scott Avenue Flood project regardless of the Minnaqua project. Oliver said yes. Keysser clarified if only the Scott Avenue project was done, and not the Minnaqua project there would be a very slight impact north and none south of Scott. Oliver said that is correct. Keysser asked what the Scott Avenue project accomplishes. Oliver said that it would remove 11 homes from the flood plain. Keysser asked if the Scott Avenue project and the Minnaqua project would balance each other out. Oliver said there would be no negative impact. e Keysser referred to the intersection where the proposed driveway would be built and asked if this development would have an effect on the 30 inches of water that stands there when it is flooded. Oliver said it would not affect it. Eck asked how many times in the last 10 years the MinnaquafToledo intersection has flooded. Oliver said that the intersection floods substantially below the 1 OO-year flood elevation. He guessed that in the last 3 to 4 years it has flooded maybe 10 to 12 times. Eck asked if the new private street had been there if people would have been denied access to their homes. Oliver said there would be restricted access for a short time. Eck asked if the majority of these instances were drivable for cars. Oliver said the streets are closed when water exceeds 6" due to insurance company requirements. Rasmussen asked if that is tolerable to the City. Oliver said there is no cost effective way to easily remove the road from the floodplain. e Rich Ragatz, Applicant, Epic Development, said that he held a neighborhood meeting some time ago and that obviously the flood issue in this area is much bigger than just this proposed project. He said that this development does meet the Comprehensive Plan designation of 4.3 units per acre and that there is a high demand for this type of housing throughout the metro area. He showed an exterior elevation of what the proposed houses would look like and said the general buyer profile is older people who do not want to go up and down stairs. He said there are not a lot of opportunities in for this type of home in Golden Valley for people who want to stay in Golden Valley. Keysser asked about the price of the homes. Ragatz said they would start at approximately $500,000. Rasmussen asked if these homes would be easily insured for home owners insurance. Ragatz said yes, because they would be above the 100 year flood plain. Keysser asked Ragatz what he thought about the 30 inches of water that sometimes stands at the intersection where the proposed driveways would be. Ragatz said it seems like there are not that many instances where there is that much water. He said it is a challenging site, but it is a good location. Keysser opened the public hearing. e e Minutes of the Planning Commission October 11 , 2004 Page 6 Stacy Hoschka, 2030 Toledo Avenue North, stated that she works at Barr Engineering and understands the flood issues and impacts. She said she is more concerned about water quality and that recently the silt was dug out of Minnaqua pond to improve the conveyance through the pond. She said that with the increase in homes, if best management practices aren't followed, silt could build up again in the creek rapidly. She asked if there is a way to get recommendations from the Bassett Creek Watershed District as far as using rain gardens. She said that even though she understands the water quality issues and that there will be no impact to the flooding issues in the area, she doesn't want the project to happen because the whole neighborhood doesn't want it and there is value in that whether homes are flooded or not. She asked if there is a way to negotiate flood proofing the homes on Toledo and Minnaqua if this project goes through. She suggested that this project also be used to educate people about the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Tanya Bransford, 2150 Toledo Avenue North, stated that she moved to Golden Valley in 1996 and she loves her neighborhood, Golden Valley and the Envision project. She said she is against the proposal to put six homes on this lot because it goes against the themes and purposes listed in the Vision Guide. She said their neighborhood is already diverse culturally, racially, across socio-economicallines and across generations. They have town homes, twin homes, apartments, a group home with disabled people, a triplex and single family homes in their area. She said they already have a mix and she doesn't understand why they need more of the mix. She said this is a young and growing neighborhood with a number of children under the age of eight and she is concerned about the traffic impact this proposal will have. She said she was not aware that these proposed homes would each have a three car garage which would mean a potential of an additional 12 cars going back and forth impacting local streets. She said her primary concern is regarding the flooding and because she is located inches away from a flood reaching her home, adding another inch of water is kind of scary. She said the lot on Minnaqua is a very beautiful property with a lot of trees. She is concerned about nature and where the deer will go. She referred to the environment section of the Vision Guide and said Golden Valley has enough developed urban spaces in her immediate neighborhood and she thinks the nature and beauty need to be preserved. Tom Swatosh, 2408 Unity Avenue North, said that in the 12 or 14 years he's lived there he's watched the water come and go and the creek is aesthetically pleasing. He said they are happy to have the creek and the trail that was put in and if this proposed development puts in another trail along the creek, he is in favor of the project for that reason alone. He said he doesn't see how there could be a water impact if these homes will be 50 feet away from the creek. He said that in the time he's lived here he's had to take a different route due the water maybe six times and he doesn't think the homeowners have ever been marooned in their home. He added that it would be an asset to have this type of housing stock available in Golden Valley and he strongly recommends approving this proposal. Harold Serumgard, 2100 Toledo Avenue North, said he wanted to address four things: traffic, density, water quality of the creek and another proposal on what to do with this property. He said that there has been a series of streets that have been closed in the area during periods of high water, forcing traffic to go down Toledo in front of his house and he e e Minutes of the Planning Commission October 11 , 2004 Page 7 is not looking forward to another ninety cars going past his house. He referred to a map he brought with him. He discussed all of the entrances and exits that have been closed in the area showed how they are sandwiched in between higher density properties. He said he thinks this is probably a good project but not here. He said this is a unique piece of property and that this project would take down every tree on the lot which helps with some of the water run-off and it would be a terrible mistake to disrupt that. He referred to the Metropolitan Council's 2030 Development Framework and said he doesn't think this project fits with their plans regarding water quality, utilization, land use and natural resources. He referred to the environment section of the Vision Guide which says we are leaders in surface water protection and enhancement and asked where else the City would have the opportunity to provide river walks other than this property. He said instead of expanding the flood plain this proposal will constrict it and we will be working against what our own Envision Golden Valley is proposing to rectify. He said he would like to propose that the City purchase this property and use it as a great big beautiful rain water garden with lots of trees, amenities, connections to existing trails and a place to have a picnic. He added that he thinks the neighborhood would support that more than the addition of six homes. Barbara Braun, 2141 Scott Avenue North, said that she is not located in the proposed flood plain project area but nevertheless she suffers from the water problems from Bassett Creek. She said in 1987 her neighbors were driving across her yard for about a week because they didn't have access to their own driveways. She said she is quite skeptical that there would be no impact on her or her neighbors as a result of this proposal. She asked for an explanation as to why the flooding is not going to increase at her end of the pond. Dave Warren, 2442 Unity Avenue North, said he shares the prior speaker's skepticism when it comes to what is going to happen to the water when you are trying to get more water through less space. He said even if the Scott Avenue project fulfills its promise and protects the people on the east side of the Creek, what will happen to the west side of the Creek. There has been no mention about the impact to the Briarwood town homes and what additional protection they are going to get. He said that they haven't had any problems yet, but that is not to say that a development happening immediately in front of them is not going to dramatically change the way things flow. He said the character of the neighborhood is a concern and the trees and space make it beautiful and he doesn't see the proposal fitting in and he disagrees with the proposal. He loves the idea of a rain garden and remembered a couple of years ago when a path was put in running right down Unity. There had been a suggestion of running an easement along the edge Bassett Creek for a trail and Mr. Oliver said it would not be feasible because the soil quality is so poor that it would erode the trail every year when the Creek would flood. He said doesn't know what has changed in the last two years, but that section is paved now and it doesn't make any sense to him. He asked if they would still need the path on Unity if this project goes through with the trail along the Creek. He said when cars are parked on both sides of Unity in the Briarwood area they can't pass each other and maybe that trail going right through the middle of their development could be taken out so the street would be the correct width again. e e Minutes of the Planning Commission October 11, 2004 Page 8 Chris Rahill, 5222 Minnaqua Drive, owner of the property, stated that he concedes that the vast majority of the people at this meeting are not in favor this project but there are some neighbors that support it strongly. He showed a map he brought in with him and said he has spoken with the town home owners to the north and they are either for it or they are neutral. He said they have been at this home for three years and in that time there is entire area in the back yard that has never gotten wet and there has only been one time when they could not access their home. He said that the house does not lose access during every flood, only in extreme flood conditions and only for a brief period of time. He said if the City would like to buy the property it is for sale, but he is assuming the City doesn't necessarily have money to go around buying property to turn into parks. He said the traffic would be 30 to 35 incremental trips per day, not 90 as a previous speaker said. He stated that if this project doesn't happen he will build a ring berm around the entire perimeter of the property and push water off the property. He said if he builds a ring berm it would come much closer to the Creek than the developers proposed 50 feet which would provide the green space and drainage that some of the neighbors are looking for. He said he would not work with the 50 foot setback and would push the berm as far as he can toward the Creek so one way or another this property will be flood proofed. He said he really feels that this is the best approach for this neighborhood and that these homes by Dave Alan, who has an impeccable reputation, would increase the home values in the neighborhood and that it is not a stretch to sell these homes for $500,000 to $700,000. He added that the proposal conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan, and it's ok with the City Engineer, Fire Marshal and Police Department. He said he doesn't think he could come up with a better solution for this property and it will be a beautiful transition. Lottie Matkovits, 2400 Unity Avenue North, stated that she knows that most of the town home owners to the north are not neutral and she knows for a fact that two other homeowners have concerns about the flooding. She just doesn't see guarantees that the project won't impact the area. She said she sees the water to the south of her rise every spring and she is> scared and always wonders how high it will go. She said she wonders how the City Engineer would feel if he was living in her house and asked the Planning Commission to consider the flooding issue carefully. Bruce Backstrom, 2209 Toledo Avenue North, stated that he understands that there are a lot of variances being requested for this project. He that the subject property is 1.3 acres and the builder said he would deed some of it to the City which would bring that acreage number down and the street would bring that number down too so it would be awfully tight housing for that lot. He said that the average lot size on Toledo is a half an acre with large setbacks and this is not the type of situation that should be going in and it will be an eyesore at the end of the street. He said if that lot is filled it will affect him across the street, he doesn't see how it possibly can't. He added that children play at the site of the proposed driveway and he doesn't want more cars driving through there. Janice Paulson, 2045 Unity Avenue North, stated that the flooding doesn't affect her because she is on high ground but every time there is a half-inch to an inch of rain Minnaqua Drive and Toledo flood, and anybody that would normally take that route comes down her hill and goes by her house. She said that when she bought her house back in the 1970's before Briarwood was put in the neighborhood asked where the water would go if all of these town homes were built. She said the civil engineers told them that Minutes of the Planning Commission October 11, 2004 Page 9 it wouldn't flood but once in 500 years and the very next year, after those town homes were put in they had three 500 year floods. She said they decided the problem was the bridge so it was taken out, the Creek was not widened or dug out and they still had floods. She said she doesn't know about the Corps of Engineers because she is just a 6th grade teacher but she can figure out that when six houses and driveways are put in on this site there is going to be a problem and the flooding will go right back onto Toledo and Minnaqua a couple of times a year, not once in 100 years. Eduard Budilovskiy, 2121 Toledo Avenue North, said he bought his property six years ago and was told by the previous owner that the property had never been flooded but it happened several times. He said that the flooding and traffic concern him and this project would create a bottle neck of water on Toledo. He said it is not funny when he is trying to get to work and has to go over his lawn and jump over the curb. He said he is concerned about the flooding and does not want this project to exist. e Kathy Vesley, 5525 Phoenix Street, stated that a few years ago people at Briarwood have partnered with the City regarding the path through their property and she has noticed that as a result of that project the large green lawn space now stays wet longer. She said she doesn't think that can technically be called flooding because flooding has to do with homes not property. She said she thinks the Scott Avenue Flood project will be a good one, but she is speaking against this proposal. She is concerned about the time and concentration of the water and how water will run much faster and not be able to soak in to the trees and grass like it does now. e Michael Tobak, 2519 Unity Avenue North, said he has lived here since 1997 and he has seen houses flooded. He said this is not the right property for children to be in and he is concerned about flooding issues because he has seen water coming into the yards. He said that if something is changed with the Creek and the ground is raised up, the water will probably go to Briarwood because there is no where else for it to go. He said this project is not suitable for housing and is just another way to channel water right to Briarwood. He said good people would move out of the area and questioned who may move in. He added that putting six houses in will create extra traffic and pollution and that area is to be preserved, not developed because Golden Valley is developed enough. Janet Hannaford, 2110 Toledo Avenue North, said that they already have a traffic bottle neck at the end of Toledo because of the group home and she worries about more cars coming in. She referred to the Envision project and said they have quite a few density options in the area already and she doesn't know that they need more of that. She said there are concerns for the young children and putting in $500,000 high buck units is not going to be attractive to young families. She said it is good to consider the community and the cohesiveness and these proposed six units aren't going to create cohesiveness because they won't see those people because they'll be too busy working to support their lifestyles. She said it is not in line with the Vision Guide and is something that is not a good project and totally discourages it. Kelly Buttler, 2107 Toledo Avenue North, said her home is not directly affected but her street is definitely affected. She said they welcome when the traffic is affected on Unity because they get a break from the traffic for a little bit during the flooding. She said she Minutes of the Planning Commission October 11 , 2004 Page 10 bought her home because of the large lot and six homes on one lot will destroy the look of their neighborhood. She said she disagrees with this proposal of six single family homes on a one acre lot. Tanya Bransford, 2150 Toledo Avenue North, asked if it is true that all of the trees will be taken down. Keysser said no and explained that 21 trees would be removed, 26 trees would be preserved and 24 new trees would be planted so it would be a net gain of trees. Bransford asked why there needs to be six homes on this property, not one or two so it would be similar to the lot sizes in the neighborhood. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak Keysser closed the public hearing. e Rasmussen asked Oliver to explain why the water won't increase in the area if there is fill added and homes built. Waldhauser asked Oliver to also address the flooding of the property and driveways as well as homes. Oliver explained that according to FEMA water in a yard is not considered a flood problem. Flooding in yards and non-structural areas is acceptable Flooding in homes and structures and property damage is not acceptable. Waldhauser said she would like to know the impact of the water regardless of what FEMA says. Oliver compared the water restriction to a funnel and said the water would back up at the top of the funnel or where the water is coming from. He said it is not as dramatic as a funnel but there will be a minimal impact if the two projects proceed. He added that no additional structures will be brought into the flood plain and it will not result in additional e flooding in the 100 year flood condition. Keysser said instead of there being one house, one roof and a large green lawn there would be six roofs, six driveways and not much lawn and asked where the water would go. Oliver said there will be somewhat of an increase in run off, but that most of the water will directed into lawns and make its way toward the creek and storm sewer system. He explained that the developer will be required to implement best management practices during construction. A grading and erosion control permit will be required as well as an MCPA permit for general storm water because it exceeds an acre. He added that Golden Valley is very serious about drainage and erosion and makes every effort to minimize the impacts. Eck stated that the property owner has said that if this project doesn't proceed he will surround the property with a berm to keep the water out. He asked if the property owner would be allowed to do that given that the property is in the flood plain. Oliver explained that this home has been identified as one of the homes in the flood proofing project and that not only would he be allowed to surround the property with a berm, there is funding available to work with the homeowner to flood proof the property. Minutes of the Planning Commission October 11 , 2004 Page 11 Eck asked about the impact of surrounding the property with a berm. Oliver said it would be similar or less than the proposed development. e Hackett asked if the City bought the property if it could mitigate the current flooding situation. Oliver said if they were to excavate the property three feet there would be a very, very minimal decrease in flood elevation. He said part of their analysis of the flood proofing project as a whole looked at the storage that would be necessary in order to lower the flood plain significantly through this area. In order to take all of the homes out of the flood plain they would need 100 acre feet of ponding which is 100 acres of land one foot deep and there is not enough room in this area to excavate to provide for that so the 1.3 acres in this site would not significantly impact any flood levels for the positive. Hackett asked if it would begin to reduce the impact to some of the houses that are currently under the flood mitigation project. Oliver explained that without running the models and looking at all of the variables he couldn't say for sure, but he thought that the decrease would not remove any of the homes from the flood plain. Schmidgall asked Oliver if when he says "flood plain" if he is talking about the "flood fringe". Oliver said that is correct. The flood way and flood fringe make up the flood plain. Keysser referred to the run off from the Minnaqua site and asked how it would affect the Minnaqua and Toledo intersection. Oliver said that there is no projected increase south of the property and that the water would split and some of it would go down the driveway to the east and west. e Hackett clarified that the property is currently zoned Single Family and if it were to be subdivided it would need 80 feet of frontage on the street for each parcel so with no variance they could divide it into two parcels and build two homes. Grimes agreed and added that the lot could also be rezoned to R-2 then there could be two lots with a total of four units if twin homes were built. Rasmussen asked if the property would still have to be raised out of the flood plain. Grimes said yes, and explained that the lowest floor in the house would have to be two feet above the flood elevation no matter what was built. Hackett said the spirit of the new law requiring houses to be built above the flood plain is to discourage development in flood plains and to allow current homeowners the ability to get flood insurance. Grimes said that it is a federal government requirement to get new developments above the flood elevation and if that requires filling that is fine. He referred to the neighbors concerns about traffic and said that with 8 to 10 trips per unit, on the high side that would be 50 to 60 trips in and out per day or about 3 to 4 trips per hour and there is enough capacity on the streets to accommodate that number of trips. Rasmussen asked about the neighbor's comment regarding the Unity Avenue being too narrow for two cars to pass. Oliver said he doesn't recall the exact width of Unity but that he has not been made aware of any problems but it can be evaluated. Grimes added that streets have been narrowed in a number of circumstances at the request of neighborhoods to discourage traffic from going fast. Oliver said that is correct. Minutes of the Planning Commission October 11 , 2004 Page 12 Keysser asked Ragatz if they would be marketing these proposed homes primarily to independently living elderly people. Ragatz said not necessarily, but that is the niche when homes are single-level. Keysser asked Ragatz why he is proposing three stall garages if they are marketed toward elderly. Ragatz said that generally one of the stalls is used for storage. Keysser asked about having a home association and the by-laws. Ragatz said the association by-laws are pretty standard and that everything on site such as snow plowing and lawn care would be taken care of. e Schmidgall asked what the driving force is behind this development. Ragatz said Mr. Rahill wants to increase his value like anyone else and get some return on his investment. Mr. Rahill said the motivation is to receive market value of the house at the time of sale and they are not making an exorbitant amount of money with the proposed sale to EPIC. Hackett said he can't vote in favor of this proposal because he fails to see the benefit to the City or to the immediate neighborhood and he fails to see where increased density is a benefit here. He said there are many places in the City where increased density would be encouraged and makes sense he just doesn't think it is here. He said he is concerned about the flooding and asked how they, as a Planning Commission, can encourage development in a flood plain in an area that is already problematic. He said that water quality is also a concern and that there would be six more lawn mowers and six more lots adding chemicals to the environment which is a continuing problem with Bassett Creek. He said it seems there is a problem with the house there now and maybe having nothing there is the best use for the property and a greater benefit to the City and the neighborhood e Rasmussen said she agrees and thinks a PUD is designed for an area where the City wants to have more dense development that a flood fringe is not an area where she would encourage more dense development. She said it is foolhardy to build in that area and she is not comfortable with any increase in the flood amount so she will be voting against the proposal. Schmidgall said he is inclined to support the project. He said he doesn't like change in his neighborhood either and he is afraid when someone new moves in that they won't be as decent as the people who are moving out. He said he wants to keep in mind property owner's rights but he is a little concerned about building additional homes in the flood fringe even though technically the homes would be brought out of the flood fringe. He said he thinks the Planning Commission needs to take Mr. Oliver's report and professional judgment and experience very seriously and he is going to accept the information that was provided regarding the Scott Avenue Flood Project and this proposal. He said he is prepared to let the market place decide if six $500,000 homes are something that is desirable for this site. He told the neighbors that this might be an opportunity for them to make five or six new friends. Minutes of the Planning Commission October 11 , 2004 Page 13 Waldhauser said she doesn't feel comfortable approving the project at this point but she is not dead set against it and would like more time to review it. She said she agrees that the property owner has rights and it is a beautiful spot, and she is sympathetic to that but it is not her property and the City doesn't own it. She said she does think that the property can support some type of reasonable development but that six homes seem tight on this site. Eck said he is not in favor of the present proposal but would be in favor of something less dense, perhaps two twin homes. He said he would not be against the owner subdividing his lot. e Keysser said the increased tax base and increased housing choices are advantages for the City. He said he doesn't think the traffic will be a big issue but that the flooding and density are of concern. He said he would support the proposal contingent on the Scott Avenue Flood Proofing Project being completed and he agrees that they need to trust the professional opinions of Mr. Oliver and the assessment of Barr Engineering. Hackett said he thinks an increase in the tax base is a good thing, but that there are good places and bad places for higher density. He referred to the Vision Guide and said that it identifies the downtown area as the area where density should be increasing. He said that adding more houses and cars will make the problems in that area worse. He said the projects that will allow the City to increase density responsibly are going to come and they should just wait for them to come and not give just anyone a PUD. e Keysser said he thinks the reality is that there are very few places in this City where there can be a higher density development be within walking distance of shopping. This is just not that type of community. There is minimal mass transit and people end up driving their cars everywhere. Hackett said he disagrees with that and that there are several areas in this City where there is a great deal of potential for increase in density. Keysser said he thinks the City will welcome those types of higher density projects when they come but he doesn't think it is their job to guide that development or mold that development. Hackett said he disagrees and that is the job and responsibility of the Planning Commission. Keysser said the Planning Commission can't be the developer, they will always be responding to developer's requests. Hackett said that with zoning and rezoning they can encourage development in appropriate locations. Waldhauser clarified that she wasn't objecting to an increase in density of housing in this area because this is already a dense area. She said the development being proposed is attractive and she does not have an objection to multiple housing but she does not agree with six homes on this particular site. Grimes said that Planning Commission could suggest that the developer revise his plans and bring them back to the Commission, or they could vote on the proposal as it was submitted and it will go on to the Council. Keysser asked Mr. Rahill if it would be an option for him to table this request and come back with revised plans. Rahill said yes and he is sensitive to the feelings of the people in the neighborhood. He said understands that the neighbors are hesitant to change but he Minutes of the Planning Commission October 11 , 2004 Page 14 honestly feels that a development of this type is appropriate and it will fix a problem property. Keysser asked the Commissioners if they wanted to table the proposal. Hackett said he is not clear on what the advantage would be to waiting. Keysser said it would give the applicant a chance to revise his plans and think about his options. Rasmussen asked if the Planning Commission voted not to approve the request if the applicant would have the opportunity to present a different kind of proposal to the Council or if they would have to represent this exact request. Grimes said they would go to the Council with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and he thinks if the applicant presented a different plan the Council would probably refer it back to the Planning Commission. e Waldhauser said she would prefer tabling it to give the homeowner and developer a chance to think about their options. MOVED by Waldhauser and seconded by Eck to table the request for a PUD at 5222 Minnaqua Drive to allow the applicants to come back with a less dense development for that site. Commissioners Eck, Keysser, Rasmussen, Schmidgall and Waldha.user voted to approve the motion to table the request. Commissioner Hackett voted against the motion to table the request. -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings e There were no reports given. V. Other Business Hackett asked the Commissioners about the role of the Planning Commission. The Commissioners discussed their role and what the City Council expects from them. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 pm.