Loading...
09-12-05 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission . September 12, 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, September 12, 2005. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Commissioners Cera, Eck, Hackett, Keysser, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present were, Planning Intern Kristin Gonzalez and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Rasmussen was absent. I. Approval of Minutes August 22, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 22, 2005 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - SU20-04 -1440 June Avenue South Applicant: Dennis & Gloria Dylong Address: 1440 June Avenue South . Purpose: The Subdivision would create two separate lots in order to keep the existing home and to construct one new home. Gonzalez referred to a site map and pointed out the location of the proposed subdivision. She explained that the total square footage of the property is 26,000 square feet and that after it is subdivided one lot would be 12,000 square feet and the other would be 14,000 square feet. She stated that the lot the proposed new home is being built on is lower than the street level and that the applicant has been working with City Engineer Jeff Oliver regarding drainage issues. Schmidgall asked about the way the proposed new property line was drawn. Jon Dwyer, architect for the project, showed the Commissioners a model of the proposal. He explained that the civil engineering for this proposal was done by assuming a 100 year flood event and by determining the 100 year high water mark. He said that the lowest opening of the proposed new home will be above that 100 year high water mark. He added that they are planning to build an eco-friendly home and install a geo thermal heating and cooling system. . Dennis Dylong, applicant, referred to the proposed new property line and stated that they drew it the way they did because they want to keep the atmosphere of the forested area. He stated that June Avenue was reconstructed in June of 2002 but that he is concerned about having to pay for the $2,600 assessment and also having to pay to restore the street when the new services are put in because they should have been put in when the . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 2 street was originally reconstructed. He asked if the City could be flexible regarding this requirement. He added that the street was also damaged by the big machines when street reconstruction was done originally and that he doesn't think he should have to pay for that damage done 3 years ago. Keysser asked where the proposed rain garden would be located. Dwyer referred to the site plan and stated that the rain garden would be located on the lowest part of the property and that it has been engineered for the worst case scenario. Waldhauser asked about the proposed permeable driveway. Dwyer explained that the new driveway would be permeable and would be constructed using four layers of different types of rock. Hackett asked if the proposed new house was going to be on piers or stilts. Dwyer stated that they are still in the development process but that they would either be using concrete walls or piers to make sure that all of the living area will be above the flood elevation. He added that this will also help preserve the trees as well. Keysser asked about the condition of the soils. Dwyer stated that they are surprisingly stable. Keysser asked about the height of the proposed new house. Dwyer stated that the new home will be lower than houses across the street. Keysser opened the public hearing. Jon Yeager, 4325 Sussex Road, said he will have the best view of this property and that he supports this proposal. He said it would be catastrophic for the homeowners to sell this property to a developer to build two new homes. Ella Ramsey, 4335 Sussex Road, said she had some reservations, but after listening to the proposal she supports it. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Schmidgall said it is his understanding that the proposal meets all of the City's requirements. Eck referred to the issue of the cost of reconstructing the street and stated that he thinks that is outside of the Planning Commission's purview and that they don't have a say in that matter. He added that as long as the requirements are being met they have no basis for denial. Cera stated that the key issue with this proposal is the drainage and that it looks like they've resolved those issues. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 3 . MOVED by Hackett, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the subdivision request at 1440 June Avenue South with the following conditions: 1. The final plat of the June Ave Addition will be consistent with the preliminary plat submitted with the subdivision application. 2. The comments in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated September 6, 2005, shall become a part of this approval. 3. A park dedication fee shall be paid in the amount of $1 ,000 prior to approval of the final plat by the City Council. III. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - SU12-1 0 - 209 Cutacross Road Applicant: David Spencer Address: 209 Cutacross Road . Purpose: The Subdivision would create two separate lots in order to remove the existing home and construct two new homes. Commissioner Hackett recused himself from the discussion. Gonzalez referred to a site map and pointed out the location of the proposed subdivision. She stated that the property is approximately 35,000 square feet in size and that after the proposed subdivision one lot would be approximately 18,000 square feet and the other would be approximately 16,000 square feet. She added that the applicant is proposing to remove the existing home and build two new homes on the property. Cera asked who owns the property. Gonzalez stated that the applicant, David Spencer owns the property. . David Spencer, applicant, stated that he has been a Golden Valley resident for 15 years. He said that this is an area of the City that he really loves because there is no highway access, it is nice and quiet and they appreciate the large lots so when he saw the lot for sale he purchased it. He said that the existing home is in disrepair and is placed very far back on the lot and would require a rear yard variance if any work was done to it. He said he questioned what to do with the land and thought about building one big house versus two smaller houses that keep with the character of the neighborhood. He showed elevation drawings of what the two new homes would like and stated that they would be staggered on the lot to preserve the existing views. He said the biggest issue to him is tree preservation so he had an extensive tree survey done and only a couple of the existing trees will have to be removed. He said he is very excited about this project and about the idea of trying to make it fit it with the neighborhood. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 4 . Eck stated that he was confused by the applicant's contradicting statements. Mr. Spencer said that what attracted him to the area are the large lots and then he said he wants to subdivide the property into smaller lots to fit in with the neighborhood. Spencer clarified that this lot in particular is even larger than most. He said he still thinks this proposal maintains the large lot feel and that he doesn't think the lots he is proposing are small lots. Keysser asked Spencer if he plans to live in one of the proposed new homes. Spencer said it is his hope to live in one of the homes if they don't get out of his price range. Keysser asked Spencer if he plans to be involved in building the new homes or if he plans on selling them to a different builder. Spencer said he would be developing both lots. Waldhauser asked if the existing house on this lot is currently the highest point in the neighborhood. Spencer said he didn't think it was the highest. Waldhauser stated that the new homes will visually be three stories with the basements compared to the ramblers that are in the area and they will be different. Spencer agreed that the proposed homes would be different, but the architectural style would fit in. . Keysser asked if the proposed house on the west lot would jut out further than the home next to it. Spencer said that it would be no further forward than the neighboring homes' garage. Cera asked about the price range of the proposed new homes. Spencer said they would be in the $750,000 range. Keysser opened the public hearing. . Jamie Wellik, 31 Meander Road, said he is opposed to this proposed subdivision. He gave the Commission some petitions that the neighbors signed stating that they are against this subdivision proposal. He said that this neighborhood is the original Hughes farm settled in the 1800's and the second owner developed the neighborhood in the 1930s and 1940s. He said he looked at a map of Golden Valley and that this neighborhood is the only one like it in all of Golden Valley because there is not a single lot in this neighborhood under a half an acre or with less than 200 feet of frontage. He said the houses in this "Tralee" division are unique. He said that a lot of people walk through the neighborhood because of the large flowing yards and the historic nature. He said this is the first time in 60 years that this kind of substantial subdivision would be permitted and that the neighbors have fought proposed subdivisions twice before in the past. He said allowing this subdivision would create a domino effect and would allow every lot in the neighborhood to be able to be subdivided. He stated that this proposed subdivision would create the smallest lots in the neighborhood and would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He said he is in real estate and he understands what it takes to makes the proposal profitable but this will fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood and will allow every other neighbor to do the same thing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 5 . He'll have to ask himself why he wouldn't also sell out in order to buy a $750,000 home elsewhere. He said he realizes that this area is prone to investors, but it is unique in all of Golden Valley and it's historic in the way it was developed but this proposal would be incompatible with the neighborhood and once it is done they can't go back. Diane Richard, 217 Paisley Lane, said that her house was the second house in the history of the neighborhood. She said her house was built in 1939 as part of Mrs. Keefe's "Rose of Tralee". She said Mrs. Keefe created the "Tralee" neighborhood based on her Irish decent and many of the neighbors are interested in preserving the historic nature of this piece of land. She said that one of the pieces of the neighborhood that appeals to all of them is the woodsy, bucolic look and after seeing the applicant's drawings she has a hard time believing an investor is interested in keeping the bucolic look when they are cutting the lotinto half of the size of any other lot in the neighborhood. She gave the Commissioners her petition against the proposal. She asked what kind of precedent approving this subdivision would set for future subdivisions in their neighborhood. She said she understands that there was something in their deeds that prohibited subdivisions but it expired after 30 years. She said she would like to know what guarantee she has that if this subdivision goes through it won't happen to the rest of the neighborhood. . Jim Sanford, 115 Meander Road, stated that he was also speaking for Linda Buck who resides at 4924 Glenwood Avenue. He stated that he is opposed to the proposed subdivision for the same reasons as the previous speakers. He said it is absolutely a unique neighborhood and if this is permitted there are a half a dozen homes that will fall. He stated that if this proposal goes through, the entire atmosphere and environment of Tralee Addition is forfeited. Jerry Kassanchuk, 235 Paisley Lane, stated that he used to live in the South Tyrol area but he likes the bigger lots in this neighborhood, He said that if this proposal goes through it would completely change the character of the neighborhood. He said there are three parties affected by this subdivision, Golden Valley, the developer and the neighbors. Golden Valley would gain from having more tax base, the developer would gain and the neighbors would all lose. Patrick Whalen, 216 Paisley Lane, stated that Mr. Spencer has said that he loves the area, and that his design fits in with the neighborhood but most of them have ramblers. He said he thinks it is a conflict of interest that the applicant's architect sits on the Planning Commission and that the applicant needs to be accountable and live in one of the proposed new homes. He added that the neighbors really take pride in having large open spaces. . Luan Rockman, 130 Jersey Avenue North, stated that she is sure that the issue of subdivisions is going to before the Planning Commission many, many times in the next 10 to 20 years. She stated that as the price of gas goes up, people will no longer desire to commute and that as a first ring suburb of Minneapolis, Golden Valley is susceptible to things like this happening. She said she previously lived in Housto(l, Texas, in a first ring suburb that had historic homes built between 1890 and 1925. She said developers came in and knocked down cute, little Victorian cottages, and small, affordable craftsmen style Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 6 . homes and put up huge homes that filled up the entire parcel of property and towered over the smaller houses. She said maybe Mr. Spencer hasn't drawn up the perfect proposal but the Planning Commission needs to start thinking about issues like this because she doesn't want to see what happened in her old neighborhood happen in Golden Valley, but she happens to think this proposal is a good compromise and that it sets a good precedent. Kathy Watkins, 112 Paisley Lane, stated that they have lived in their home for 16 years, they love the area and they plan on staying quite a while. She said she thinks the division of this lot will jeopardize the integrity of the neighborhood and will open the door for future development. She said that it is a beautiful neighborhood but it has not been quiet for a couple of years because neighbors have been building and remodeling and plan on staying. She said she feels bad for people with small children because trucks barrel through the area all day. She said she realizes that someday these houses may be torn down and other single family homes built, but Mr. Spencer is just dividing these lots, and not guaranteeing that he will live in one of the homes which is just him getting his foot in the door for another builder to come in the future. . Lois Hagel, 200 Cutacross Road, stated that she and her husband built their home 51 years ago and that Grandma Keefe at the time reviewed everyone's building plans. She said they've had a strong background in the village and the reason they bought a lot in this neighborhood is because of the large lots and because there wasn't any through traffic. She said with growth comes lots of problems and she can understand why people who have small children are concerned about more homes and more traffic. She said Grandma Keefe was a strong Irish woman who had very strong opinions about what was going to be built on her property. Paul Tolzmann, 220 Cutacross Road, stated that he has concerns about the sincerity of Mr. Spencer's comments regarding him wanting to preserve the character of the neighborhood. He said a division of this lot into two lots would be a very big change from the current character of the neighborhood and he very much opposes the proposal. He said that Mr. Spencer said in his presentation that his partner and he would see this proposal as a stepping stone to a greater vision for the future of the neighborhood. He said he finds it puzzling that a Planning Commissioner might be in partnership with someone for a development in Golden Valley prior to it coming to a hearing and he believes that is a conflict of interest. Paul Meland, 309 Meander Road, stated that what brought him to his house in Golden Valley is the character of the neighborhood, the large flowing lots and the peacefulness. He said that Roger Ulstad, the previous owner of his home, proposed subdividing this lot several years ago which was approved by the City but ultimately not carried through because of the emotion of the neighborhood. He said it saddens him that the character of this neighborhood could go away with this proposed subdivision and he opposes these plans. . Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment. Chair Keysser closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 7 . Keysser said that he would like to address the allegations that have been made regarding a conflict of interest. He explained that the Planning Commission members are volunteers, serve for no pay and are all residents of Golden Valley. He said it is hard to be active politically in a city like Golden Valley and not occasionally have a conflict develop. He said the policy is straightforward, if someone is an elected or appointed official and there is a conflict of interest they are expected to recuse themselves from the discussion and from the vote and Commissioner Hackett has done that. Keysser said another issue he would like address is that the City is caught in the dilemma of public good versus private right. He said the City has attempted to guide development by a number of ordinances including a minimum lot size, setback requirements, a maximum lot coverage ratio and height restrictions. He said that these types of developments are going to happen and there are going to be more and more of them and as long as they are permissible under current city law it is difficult to find reason to deny these requests. . Eck said that if he lived in this neighborhood he would feel exactly the same way as these neighbors do and he would want to see his large lot maintained. However, the subdivision code does not discriminate by saying that a minimum lot size in one part of Golden Valley is different from another lot size in another part of Golden Valley and therefore the City does not legally have the authority to say that simply because there is a nice character to be preserved that a subdivision should be denied. Keysser added that the Metropolitan Council is projecting an additional 900,000 to one million people coming to this region in the next 25 years. He said there is going to be increasing pressure from the Metropolitan Council to make lots available and it is going to make it very difficult to change the subdivision requirements. Cera said that he thinks part of their responsibility as Planning Commissioners is to look at the look and feel of the City and to try to keep that within certain standards and constraints. He said that approving this proposal would set a precedent and there will be construction in this neighborhood for the next 15 years if this snowballs. He said he would like to make a recommendation that the City Council develop some sort of in-fill policy before things are done haphazardly around the City. He said he would like to hold off on their decision until they get some more guidance. He added that $700,000 homes in this neighborhood would definitely go against the look and feel of the character of this neighborhood that they are responsible for keeping. . Waldhauser stated that she would like more time to think about it as well. She said she understands what is different about this neighborhood than some other areas in Golden Valley. She said she wants to be responsive to the pressure upon the City regarding higher density housing and more efficient land use but she understands that there are some things worth saving even though they may not be economically efficient. She would like time to look back at the deed restriction that was on these properties at one time although under the current zoning requirements they don't have the basis to decline a subdivision of this sort. She said she thinks there may be other ways that other communities have handled these types of zoning issues that they maybe have not . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 8 explored yet. She added that even if one new single family home were to be built on this lot it would be huge and it would still change the character of the neighborhood. Keysser said that he doesn't think they have the grounds to table this request because normally they only table requests when they need more information from a developer. Waldhauser said she would like to see some information on the deed restriction that was mentioned earlier. Spencer said that the deed restrictions have unquestionably expired. Keysser said he agreed with Cera that there is a broader city wide issue that the City Council needs to address. Schmidgall said that all of the requirements of the City's ordinances are satisfied. He said this is a beautiful neighborhood and he wishes there was some mechanism to preserve neighborhoods like this if it's the wishes of the majority of the neighbors, but in this case, he doesn't think there is much they can do. Cera said he thinks there could be something in future zoning ordinances that would address the look and feel of neighborhoods. Keysser said the term "look and feel" is fairly subjective. Jamie Wellik, 31 Meander Road asked to speak again. Keysser allowed him to speak. Wellik stated that what the applicant is proposing has clearly been designed to maximize the investment and the setbacks are following the new 12.5 foot requirement. He stated that once the City starts to allow incompatible development in neighborhoods, the horse is let out of the barn and in the future there won't be much to stand on to deny subdivisions, even if new design guidelines are in place because this would have already been permitted. He said once this is done in this neighborhood it will, overnight, create lots that are all able to be subdivided and there is no economic reason for people not to subdivide their lots. Keysser explained that they are not changing the laws; this is what current laws state. Wellik said there is what the law says they can do and then there is what the Planning Commission is asked to do which is to determine if this is in the interest of the City. Keysser said the problem is that the term look and feel is subjective and they really need to follow what the law says. Cera noted that looking at the petitions about a third of the neighborhood opposes this proposal. Waldhauser said apparently a subdivision was declined in the past and it would be helpful to know why. Paul Meland, 309 Meander Road, stated that he knows that the previous owner of his home attempted to subdivide his property but he never followed through on his subdivision application. Keysser asked Mr. Meland to talk to Director of Planning, Mark Grimes about this previous subdivision. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 9 . Spencer stated that he did look into that previous subdivision attempt and he knows for a fact that the subdivision was approved by the City but the applicant just chose not to do it. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Eck and motion carried 4 to 1 (Commissioner Cera voted no) to approve the subdivision request at 209 Cutacross Road with the following conditions: 1. The final plat of the Cutacross Addition will be consistent with the preliminary plat submitted with the subdivision application. 2. The comments in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated August 22, 2005, shall become a part of this approval. 3. A park dedication fee shall be paid in the amount of $1 ,000 prior to approval of the final plat by the City Council. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - CU-111 - 2225 Zenith Avenue North . Applicant: LoveWorks Early Childhood Academy Address: 2225 Zenith Avenue North Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit would allow a child daycare facility to operate in an 1-1 Institutional zoning district at St. Margaret Mary's Catholic Church. Gonzalez referred to a site map and pointed out the location of the proposed daycare facility. She explained that LoveWorks Early Childhood Academy is applying for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a daycare facility in a portion of St. Margaret Mary's Catholic Church. She stated that another portion of the building will house a charter school with the same name but that they are not affiliated with each other. Gonzalez stated that overall, this is a good location for a daycare facility and that there is more than adequate parking. Keysser noted that the applicant was not in attendance and stated that he thought the proposal should be tabled. Keysser opened the public hearing. Rhonda Hammonds, 1949 Xerxes Avenue North, stated that she came to this meeting just to learn more information about the school. . Hearing and seeing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 12, 2005 Page 10 Schmidgall stated that this looks like a good location for a daycare facility. Hackett agreed and said that he would like to vote on the proposal even though the applicant wasn't present. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for LoveWorks Early Childhood Academy to operate a daycare facility at 2225 Zenith Avenue North, St. Margaret Mary's Church. -Short Recess- V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Waldhauser and Schmidgall gave a report on a Sensible Land Use Coalition seminar that they attended regarding the recent Supreme Court decision on Eminent Domain. (Kelo vs. City of New London) VI. Other Business Waldhauser said that she would like to the Planning Commission to explore different options with neighborhoods that have different lot sizes and maybe try to come up with ways to control future development. Cera invited the Commissioners to attend a Green Building Seminar that his office was holding on Wednesday, September 14. VII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 pm.