Loading...
04-11-05 PC Minutes . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2005 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, April 11, 2005. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Commissioners Cera, 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 March 28, 2005 Joint Planning and Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Eck stated that there were some grammatical errors and that he would go over them with Wittman atter the meeting. MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes from the March 28, 2005 Joint Planning and Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. March 28, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Eck stated that McAleese was. listed as present and Cera was not listed in the attendance. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes from the March 29, 2005 Planning Commission meeting with the above noted correction. II. Informal Public Hearing - PUD No. 89 Amendment #1 - Golden Meadows Applicant: SVK Development Address: 2205 Winnetka Avenue North Purpose: The amendment would allow for the existing duplex to be converted to a triplex. Grimes stated that in 2001, atter several proposals, the Golden Meadows PUD was approved by the City Council. He referred to a location map and explained that there are six single-family home lots and the duplex being discussed included in this PUD. Grimes explained that the proposal is to convert the two-family home located on Lots 4 and 5 to three units. He stated that currently the lot line goes right through the middle of the upper unit and that that would have to be amended in order for this proposal to be approved. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 2 . He explained that the applicant is planning to keep the north unit the same as it is now with space on the upper and lower levels and then the south would have one unit on the upper level and the lower level would be made into the third unit and would be approximately 1,100 square feet. . Grimes stated that there is a slight increase in density but that his biggest concern is the amount of parking available for these units. He explained that there is one garage space for each unit and that one car would probably be able to park in the driveway behind each garage stall. He noted the existing turnaround on the property and said that part of it is located on Hennepin County right-of-way and that if the county ever decides to widen the sidewalk in that location the turnaround would need to be moved. He said he is suggesting that if this proposal is approved there should be more parking spaces added and possibly another turnaround on the north side of the driveway, which unfortunately would mean the loss of a fairly significant tree, but cars should not be backing out on Winnetka Avenue. He said that he has looked at the property several times over the last few weeks and there always seems to be a car parked in the turnaround area and he thinks that there should be some kind of restriction placed on this property if this proposal goes forward that there should be no parking allowed in the turnaround area. He said he has talked to the applicant and that they have said that they could put something in the rental agreement regarding the number of cars allowed for each unit. The problem then becomes enforcing the parking. He added that he doesn't think that the added traffic would be an issue because there would only be about nine additional trips per day. Eck referred to the garage and asked if it opens up to be one large garage area which all the tenants would then have access to. Grimes referred to the original building plans and showed each individual garage door opening up to one large garage space that all the tenants use. Keysser asked if all the units are rentals at this point. Grimes said it is his understanding that they are all rentals at this time. Keysser asked if when the PUD was first approved there was discussion about the turnaround area being used for parking as well. Grimes said when it was first discussed it was already a two-family dwelling and there were no changes being proposed so there were really no changes that could be made. Keysser asked if the County is actively talking about taking more land to widen the sidewalk. Grimes explained that the seven feet of area for the sidewalk was dedicated on the plat when the PUD was originally approved. . Eck asked if changing the lot line is an issue they need to be concerned about as part of this discussion or if it is a separate issue having the lot line running through the middle of one of the units. Grimes said he thinks the lot line should be removed and suggested that a condition of approval could be to require the applicant to replat the property to eliminate that lot line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 3 . Rasmussen asked how much it would cost to have the property replatted. Grimes said he is not sure how much it would cost but stated that having that property line exist could complicate things if and when the owners decide to turn the units into condominiums. Waldhauser asked if the building was constructed with the idea that there would be different residents on each level. Grimes said it looks like that was what was originally intended, but that is not what was approved. Waldhauser asked if three units would be permissible under the current zoning district. Grimes said this is a planned unit development but that originally it was rezoned to R-2 because that was the best fit and the most consistent at the time. Waldhauser asked how many parking spaces are provided and if the turnaround and parking are interchangeable or if it is just one big slab of asphalt. Grimes said right now it is just asphalt. Waldhauser asked if there is some way to eliminate some of the pavement with landscaping or something. Keysser said that part of the problem with parking front to back is that cars always have to be shuffled around. Grimes said that when it was built, it was a duplex and it hasn't been a problem, but that because it is a fairly large building and the lower area isn't really being used applicants have said it makes sense for them to create another unit. . Rasmussen asked if a provision could be put in the PUD permit that says that one car could be parked in the driveway and nothing could be parked in the turnaround. Grimes said that something could be put in their permit, but the question is enforcing it. Rasmussen asked if the permit could say something about not allowing trailers. Grimes said the PUD permit can say virtually anything as long as it's reasonable. Keysser stated that if a boat or RV is parked in the driveway that would make the situation even worse. Grimes stated that there really are no other alternatives. Keysser asked about the vacant lot to the north. Grimes said that lot has been for sale off and on over the years but that the soil conditions there are very poor. Cera asked if two turnarounds would be necessary if the existing turnaround had the no parking provision. Grimes said he thinks there needs to be one dedicated turnaround that all units can access. Waldhauser asked if the turnaround and parking area could be used for parking and then the driveway could be used for turning around. Keysser said the parking spaces are very narrow. Grimes agreed that it would be tight. . Hackett asked about the driveway between Lots 5 and 6. Grimes stated that is a pedestrian walkway to get to the sidewalk on Winnetka Avenue from Valders Court. Hackett suggested some parking area may be installed on that side of the property. Grimes said the County would not allow another curb cut on Winnetka. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 4 . Waldhauser noted that the grade goes down from the street level to the lower level of the building and asked if there have been any issues with water in the lower level. Grimes said he wasn't aware of any water issues. Scott Kevitt, SVK Development, Applicant, stated that since they have owned the building they have thought the lower level would be a good living space for a separate living unit. He discussed the floor plan of the proposed third unit. He said he would be agreeable to taking out the tree and creating a new turnaround on the north side. Keysser asked if the lower unit is part of the upper tenants space. Kevitt said it is. Grimes asked if it would be a problem for SVK to restrict the number of vehicles that their tenants own. Kevitt said he wouldn't have a problem with that. Keysser said it would also help to mark the turnaround space as no parking. Kevitt agreed with that as well. Keysser said another issue is that if cars don't pull all the way up close to the garages it is still difficult to use the turnaround space. Kevitt agreed that it is not the most idyllic situation but said that he has fixed up the building a lot and when he took it over it was an eyesore. . Eck said that the impetus for trying to provide some kind of solution for the parking and the turnaround has come from Mr. Grimes and he didn't see the applicant come forward with anything with regard to alleviating the parking and turnaround problems and that concerns him. Kevitt said he assumed they would have to do something regarding parking on the site. Eck asked why he would assume that and then not bring anything forward. Keysser stated there are two families there now and asked how many total vehicles are on the property. Kevitt said he's not sure. Keysser said another issue would be parking spaces for guests. Kevitt said that would be the same for a lot of the homes on Winnetka and that guests park on the side streets. Keysser opened the public hearing. John Blythe, 2140 Valders Avenue North, stated that right now, the tenants park their van and pick up on Valders Court. He said he is also concerned about parking and asked if the property needs to be rezoned. Grimes explained that because this is a PUD it doesn't need to be rezoned, but amending a PUD still requires Council approval. Blythe asked if this proposal will affect any of the other homes being built on Valders Ct. Keysser said that as those houses sell, parking along the court will become an issue. Blythe said people will then start parking in front of his house. Blythe said he heard a rumor that a garage was going to be built behind this property on Valders Court. Grimes said he hasn't heard anything like that from the applicant and explained that there is a dedicated trail and steep slope so it wouldn't work. . Keysser closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 5 . Waldhauser said she is still concerned about parking. She said there could be a potential of seven adults living there and parking is going to be tight with seven or more vehicles. Grimes said if there isn't an objection regarding the land use he would suggest tabling the applicants request and asking the applicant to come back with a parking plan. Keysser said there are only a couple of options available. Eck said there may only be a couple of options, but he is disappointed that the applicant didn't have any suggestions to solve the problem. Keysser said his inclination is to not approve the proposal because it is just too crowded. Hackett said he agreed and didn't think he could support the proposal either. He said he didn't think they wanted to encourage paving all the front yards on Winnetka and particularly on this property because there is a lot there already. He said the three units is not the issue, it is an aesthetic issue of adding more pavement. Waldhauser said maybe there is a solution for the parking issues that they haven't thought about. She said that she would be ok with tabling the request to see if the applicant can come up with a specific proposal that shows how the parking and garage space would be laid out and the limitations being imposed. . Hackett said tabling this proposal isn't the solution, the application should be rejected and if the applicant wants to come back with a new proposal then he can come back. Rasmussen said she is in favor of the land use. There are already three cars in the driveway and they are already pulling out on to Winnetka. She said she realizes there will be more people living there but in terms of the situation it is not really going to be that much worse. She said she thinks it would be a mistake to remove any of the existing landscaping and that if there is some kind of enforceable solution they could come up for the parking she would vote for it. She said that she doesn't see that adding one more person would be very much more difficult than it is now. She said she doesn't see that there are a lot of other options and she doesn't want to see the trees taken out and more pavement added. She said people do back out on to Winnetka all of the time or they walk a block or so to visit someone. She said it would be nice to come up with a way to use this under utilized building. She added that she is concerned about not being able to enforce any kind of parking agreement. Grimes said language regarding the parking could be put into the PUD Permit and staff could tell Mr. Kevitt that there has to be language in their leases that tenants must pull all the way up to the garages and that the turnaround has to be left open but the issue still is who is going to enforce this. . Keysser disagreed that the building is under utilized; it was planned as duplex and built as a duplex. Rasmussen said it is nice to have this type of house with these smaller units in Golden Valley because they are affordable and don't increase density as much. Keysser said people are already parking on Valders Court and with a third family moving in the pressure will be greater for people to park there and it adds to the issue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 6 . Kevitt said that is possible but that it is not illegal for people to park on the street. Keysser agreed and said that people aren't going to want cars parked in front of their houses. Rasmussen suggested tabling the request so he could come back with another plan. Keysser said they could also reject this plan and he could come back. Cera said if this plan is rejected if they could give the applicant some guidelines as to what they might like to see. Keysser said he feels like they've boxed applicant in because they've said add more parking, but don't take any trees out. He added that he feels it is a two-unit building and it just doesn't have the capacity for a third unit. Grimes said he thinks it makes more sense to table the request because it still has to go to the City Council even it the Planning Commission rejects it. He said the Commission is looking at a plan they would like to see revised and if they want to see it revised they should table it, otherwise vote against it. . Hackett said a PUD was applied for and approved a number of years ago. He asked why the City didn't go through the process to create more units then. He said it has already been discussed once before, it was approved as a nine unit development and now they are trying to squeeze another unit out of it and he doesn't know why they are even talking about it now and it is a waste of their time to be revisiting old information. Grimes said the applicant had talked about this same proposal when the PUD was approved and he had the same concerns about parking as he does now. He said he told Mr. Kevitt that converting the duplex at that time would complicate the PUD process and recommended he come back in the future with this proposal. Keysser said maybe if it had been addressed back then there could have been a way to put a driveway in with the construction of the other homes on Valders Court. Grimes said he didn't think it would have worked to put a driveway in on Valders Court. MOVED by Rasmussen to table the request in order to come back to the Planning Commission with a revised plan for the parking and turnaround areas. Seconded by Eck and motion carried 4 to 3 to table the request. Cera, Eck, Rasmussen and Waldhauser voted in favor of tabling the request. Hackett, Keysser and Schmidgall voted against tabling the request. -Short Recess- V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings A) 1-394 Corridor Study - Involvement by City Council and Planning Commission . Grimes discussed various dates that he wanted the Commissioners to save for the 1-394 Corridor study meetings and events. He stated that April 25 is the kick-off meeting with the consultant and the City Council. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2005 Page 7 . May 2 there will be a tour with the consultant to look at other similar highway developments in other communities. He discussed the visual preference survey and the idea of giving disposable cameras to the Council and Planning Commissioners to take pictures of good and bad design ideas. He talked about the business survey of all the businesses in the 1-394 Corridor and the input being received as well as input from citizens. He stated that there will also be some training for the Planning Commission to help with discussion with community groups B) Appoint 2 Planning Commissioners to the 4-member advisory group Grimes stated that the City Council would like two Planning Commissioners to be part of a four member advisory group for the 1-394 Corridor Study. Keysser asked if any of the Commissioners would like to volunteer. Hackett and Keysser volunteered. Cera and Waldhauser volunteered to be alternates. VI. Other Business No other business was discussed. VII. Adjournment . The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 pm. .