03-24-14 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
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,
March 24, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Kluchka, Segelbaum and
Waldhauser. Also present was Community Development Director Mark Grimes, City
Planner Jason Zimmerman, Planning Intern Nick Olson, City Engineer Jeff Oliver and
Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Baker, Boudreau-Landis and
McCarty were absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
March 10, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Waldhauser referred to the second paragraph on page four and asked that language be
added to the brewery/taproom discussion stating that the Planning Commission also
wants to take into consideration future plans for Brookview and other local businesses.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve
the March 10, 2014, minutes with the above noted addition.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary Plan Review-- Planned Unit
Development (PUD) — Morrie's Automotive Group PUD #115
Applicant: Morrie's Automotive Group
Address: 7400 Wayzata Blvd.
Purpose: To allow the addition of a new standalone dealership with customer
service support area within the existing parking lot.
Zimmerman referred to a location map and stated that the applicant is proposing to build an
additional, stand-alone, dealership within the existing parking lot. Lot 1 would contain the
current Cadillac dealership and the proposed new Lot 2, located in the southeast corner of
the property, would contain a new Maserati & Bentley dealership. Access to the new lot
would be through an existing shared, private driveway along the south lot line.
Zimmerman explained that the proposed new building will be two stories in height, 19,680
square feet in size, and will consist of showroom space, sales offices, and work spaces. He
referred to the parking on the site and stated that the Zoning Code requires this
development to have 216 parking spaces. The Cadillac dealership will have 283 parking
spaces and the Maserati/Bentley dealership would have 27 parking spaces.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 2
Zimmerman stated that the applicant is proposing to install foundation plantings around the
perimeter of the building, shade trees in the northeast corner and a hedge to the east of the
customer parking area to provide screening. He added that the overall the amount of
impervious surface will be reduced. Segelbaum asked if the numbers on the comparison
chart in the staff report represent the entire property within the PUD or just the proposed
new lot. Zimmerman said the numbers on the chart in his staff report are specific to the
proposed new lot.
Segelbaum asked if the proposed new lot would cause the existing Cadillac building to
become non-conforming. Zimmerman said the proposed new building will have no impact
on the existing building or the setbacks.
Waldhauser asked if there have been discussions with the applicant regarding ways to do
more to improve water retention or infiltration on the site. Zimmerman stated that the
proposal meets the minimum requirements but they will be encouraged to do more in regard
to water quatity.
Kluchka asked why this proposal is considered to be a single use rather than a dual use
because it is car sales and service which could be considered to be two uses. Zimmerman
stated that the proposed uses are considered to be a single use because they are both
commercial in nature.
Kluchka asked if there is a private street agreement between all of the parties that use it to
access their properties. He also asked if there are any plans by the City to make the private
street a public street. Zimmerman stated that there is an agreement regarding the use of the
private street and that the City has no plans to make it a public street.
Kluchka asked if the City is requiring the applicant to plant additional trees. Zimmerman said
there are trees proposed to be installed behind the new building, but there are no trees
planned for the landscaped frontage as required in the I-394 Mixed Use zoning district.
Waldhauser said she's not sure there is enough room for additional trees along the front.
Peter Coyle, Attorney representing the applicant, stated that Morrie's currently has a high
end dealership in Minnetonka that they would move to this Golden Valley site if the
requested PUD is approved. He stated that they hope, in the future, to accommodate an
additional brand as well. He explained that they want to service their high-end clients and
that the dealership being proposed is not equivalent to other types/brands of dealerships.
He said that they are not objectionable to any of the conditions listed in the staff reports and
that they understand there will be more conversations regarding drainage, sidewalk, and
landscape issues.
Waldhauser asked if the east and west sides of the proposed new building could
accommodate some windows or something to visually break up the brick fa�ade.
Darwin Lindahl, Architect for the proposal, stated that there will be some windows on the
west side of the building, however, they don't want their customers seeing their competitors
to the east when they are in the showrooms. He added that there are also very specific
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 3
designs that they have to follow per the manufacturer. Kluchka said the Planning
Commission has to consider the design and wants high quality design. He stated that the
glass and aluminum proposed in the front is in such contrast with the brick on the other
sides and asked if the building could be more consistent on three sides. Lindahl stated that
he would talk to the manufacturer and try to accommodate the City's wishes. He added that
this proposed design has already been reviewed and approved by the two manufacturers
but there may be some different design options they would consider.
Waldhauser asked about the brick veneer shown on the plans. Lindahl stated that the brick
veneer being proposed is just a regular, buff colored brick that will complement the Infiniti
and Cadillac dealerships. Kluchka suggested they submit color illustrations before their next
review.
Segelbaum referred to the site plan and stated that the proposed new Lot 2 seems much
more densely built and he is concerned about the traffic flow and patterns being too tight.
Coyle said they don't have any concerns about the traffic patterns and added that the site
has been designed to be able to move the vehicles in and out.
Waldhauser stated that there is a desire for sidewalk along the west side of the property
and asked if it is possible to add a pedestrian throughway on the south side of the property.
Coyle said he didn't think a sidewalk along the south would be possible because of the
private easement and a MnDOT easement along that side of the property. He added that he
also thinks a sidewalk along the south would be unsafe and would not take pedestrians
anywhere other than into another dealership.
Kluchka asked if the Cadillac dealership has plans to screen their HVAC equipment and
tank located in the back corner of the property. Coyle said he is not aware of any plans, but
they would respond to requests regarding the screening of their equipment.
Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Waldhauser said she would like to see more green space on the property and suggested
more trees be included in the sidewalk plans along Pennsylvania Avenue.
Kluchka asked about the City's landscaping goals along Pennsylvania Avenue. Grimes said
he is not aware of any landscaping plans as part of the sidewalk plan for Pennsylvania
Avenue and added that additional landscaping along Pennsylvania Avenue could be added
as a condition of approval. Kluchka asked if it would be appropriate to enforce the language
in the Code requiring 1 tree per 50' of landscaped frontage.
Segelbaum said this PUD seems to focus on Lot 2. He said would like to see improvements
on Lot 1 as well. He added that he agrees with Commissioner Waldhauser that the
proposed brick sides of the building look very stark in contrast to the loud front and would
encourage that the west side especially be dressed up with windows.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 4
Kluchka suggested adding a condition that requires the applicant to plant 1 tree per 50' of
landscaped frontage along Pennsylvania Avenue as required in the I-394 Mixed Use zoning
district. Cera said he would like a condition added that encourages the applicant to consider
ways to increase the amount of pervious surface on Lot 1 as well.
Kluchka suggested adding a condition stating that the fa�ade design shall be reviewed for
ways to improve the consistency of the fa�ade from the front, west, and east.
Waldhauser referred to water retention and water treatment on the site and asked if the
water from all the parking lots drain to the road in the front or if any of it is retained or
treated on the site. Brady Busselman, mfra, Engineer for the project, said currently the
water from the site does drain toward Wayzata Blvd. Waldhauser asked if any on-site water
retention or water treatment was considered during the review process of this proposal.
Grimes stated those issues were reviewed and that applicants are encouraged to do on-site
water retention and treatment, but because of its size, this project is exempt from some of
the requirements. Oliver stated that he has had conversations with the applicant and that
they have submitted new plans that will be addressed during the Final PUD review process.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for PUD #115 Morrie's Automotive
Group subject to the following findings and conditions:
Findin s
1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a
higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional
provisions ofi the ordinance.
2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's
characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep
slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters.
3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the
land.
4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals.
5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety
and general welfare of the people of the City.
6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance
provisions.
Conditions:
1. The plans prepared by mfra, dated 2/21/14 submitted with the application shall
become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Public
Works Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated March
17, 2014, shall become a part of this approval.
3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire
Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated March 14,
2014, shall become a part of this approval.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 5
4. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan.
5. A bicycle rack shall be added to the property.
6. Access to the newly created Lot 2 must be maintained via a driveway easement.
7. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 115" in its title.
8. The City Attorney shall determine if a park dedication fee is required for this project
prior to Final Plan approval.
9. The final design shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval.
10. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20).
11. The design shall be reviewed for ways to improve the consistency of the fa�ade from
the front, west, and east.
12. Trees shall be planted at a minimum of 1 tree per 50' of landscaped frontage along
Pennsylvania Avenue.
13. The applicant shall consider ways to increase the amount of pervious surface on the
property.
14. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
3. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 125 Cutacross Road — Olson
Tralee — SU12-14
Applicant: Peter Knaeble
Addresses: 125 Cutacross Road
Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new
single family residential lots.
Olson explained the applicant's request to subdivide the property at 125 Cutacross Road
into finro new lots. He referred to a site plan and noted that Lot 1 would be 15,548 square
feet in size and 99 feet wide at the front setback line and Lot 2 would be 14,561 square feet
in size and 114 feet wide at the front setback line.
Cera asked if variances are required to make these buildable lots. Olson stated no,
variances are not being requested as a part of this proposal.
Kluchka asked if the existing home would be demolished. Olson said yes. Kluchka asked if
the existing home would have to be removed before the subdivision is approved. Olson said
the existing house would have to be removed before building permits are issued for the
proposed new homes.
Segelbaum asked about the building envelope area. Olson referred to the site plan and
pointed out the building envelope on each new lot.
Peter Knaeble, Terra Engineering, Applicant, stated that his family will be selling the
property this summer and that he concurs with the conditions listed the staff reports. He
gave the Commissioners a colored rendering of the site and a copy the original plat for the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 6
area which showed several lots that have been subdivided in the past. He added that the
homes he is proposing will be custom built for each site.
Kluchka asked if a builder is developing the properties of if private families would build their
own homes. Knaeble stated that families would design their own homes and work with their
own builders.
Segelbaum referred to the plat of the area that Knaeble handed out and asked when each
lot was subdivided. Knaeble talked about several of the subdivisions and when they
occurred.
Kluchka opened the public hearing.
John Wetzel, 120 Meadow Lane North, said he is more concerned about the next item on
the agenda. He asked about the City's policies regarding subdivisions and asked what
subdividing property does to other properties around it.
Jim Fredkove, 26 Paisley Lane, said he is concerned that he will be put in the same position
and will have to subdivide his property in order to recover his investment. He said that one
reason he bought his property was the large lot size. He asked if the City's plan is to allow
everyone to subdivide their properties.
David Spencer, 211 Cutacross Road, said the existing house faces Meander Road and is
welcoming to the neighborhood. He said he is concerned that people will be looking at the
side of the proposed new house and he wants to make sure that the new house is
positioned toward Meander Road. He stated that he subdivided his lot in 2005 and thinks
subdivisions will increase the overall values of the properties in the neighborhood and
added that no one will be required to subdivide their lots.
Grimes explained that this property is guided on the City's Comprehensive Plan for low
density residential development up to 5 units per acre and is zoned Single Family
Residential. So the plan for the City is to allow lots that are 10,000 square feet or greater in
size. He said people are not required to subdivide their lots, but they have the opportunity to
do so if their property is large enough. He added that neighbors could get together and
enter into a covenant agreement regarding lot sizes. Kluchka added that subdividing is a
property owner's opportunity to maximize their investment as long as they do so within the
City's rules and ordinances. Grimes agreed and added that the proposed new lots will be
1'/2 times larger than the City Code requires.
Segelbaum asked how neighboring property owners are protected. Grimes stated that there
are height requirements, setback requirements, and articulation requirements among others
in the City Code to protect neighborhoods. He added that the proposed homes will be
quality-built homes that will benefit Golden Valley as a whole.
Segelbaum referred to the comment regarding the orientation of the houses on the lots and
said he didn't think the City could control the location of the house. Kluchka agreed that the
house could be built as the owner sees fit.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 7
Zimmerman noted that the park dedication fees should be $1,400 for one new lot, not
$2,800 as listed in his staff report.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the proposed minor subdivision at 125 Cutacross Road subject to the following
conditions:
1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final
plat.
2. A park dedication fee of$1,400 shall be paid before final plat approval.
3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated March 17, 2014, shall become part of this
approval.
4. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that
will include issues found in the City Engineer's memorandum.
5. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots.
4. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 221 Sunnyridge Lane — Kate's
Woods — SU08-11
Applicant: David Knaeble
Addresses: 221 Sunnyridge Lane
Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new
single family residential lots.
Zimmerman stated that staff and the applicant prefer to table this public hearing in order to
allow more time to discuss a zoning interpretation issue that has come up and needs to be
taken care of first.
MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to table this
public to the next Planning Commission meeting.
5. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 7218 Harold Avenue — Marie's
Woods — SU17-11
Applicant: Peter Knaeble
Addresses: 7218 Harold Avenue
Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new
single family residential lots. Variances from the Subdivision Code are
also being requested for this Minor Subdivision.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 8
Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's request fo subdivide the
property at 7218 Harold Avenue. He stated that the property is currently zoned R-2
Moderate Density Residential and that the applicant is proposing to tear down the existing
single family home and construct two new, detached single family homes. The R-2 zoning
district does permit single family homes, however, it encourages the construction of twin
homes and townhomes. He explained that the minimum lot size in the R-2 zoning district is
11,000 square feet with 100 feet of width at the front setback line. Both lots in this proposal
would be 15,725 square feet in size, however, the applicant is requesting a variance to
allow the lots to be 54.5 feet wide, and the side yard setbacks to 7.5 feet rather than the
required 15 feet. He stated that staff doesn't feel that the necessary criteria for variances
has been met and is therefore, recommending denial of this proposal.
Kluchka asked if there could be a condition placed on the approval of a subdivision requiring
that there has to be a finrin home built on the property. Zimmerman stated that there would
need to be declarations of covenants/restrictions reviewed at the same time as this
subdivision proposal and that is not what is being proposed at this time. Cera asked if there
is any precedent allowing variances when subdividing R-2 property. Grimes stated that in
the past, twin homes were only allowed by doing a Planned Unit Development. He
explained that when the City rezoned this area to R-2 zoning the vision was to see higher
density and generational housing. He said he is concerned how the proposed two single
family homes would impact this area.
Segelbaum stated that granting variances in a subdivision has been frowned upon in the
past. Cera agreed and added that the Planning Commission has been told that subdivisions
with variances cannot be approved. Zimmerman stated that there is a provision in the
Subdivision Code, separate from the Zoning Code that allows for variances.
Peter Knaeble, Terra Engineering, Applicant, stated that this is a neighborhood of 14 homes
where only one is for sale and it is not feasible to acquire them all before they become
available. He stated that the townhouse market is not very viable and that the small single
family home market is the most viable. He said he understands the need, but the market is
not there for townhouses and they would not be the highest and best use for this property.
He said he could build a twin home on the property but it would be the same density he is
proposing with single family homes which is a product people want. He stated that many
cities are coming up with different types of zoning regulations to accommodate small lot,
single family homes. He said a good example would be the homes built just down the street
from this proposal on Rhode Island Avenue where the homes were built on 50-foot wide
lots. He said the City is asking for higher density and he thinks the best way to do that is to
build small, single family homes because waiting for all 14 parcels to become available isn't
feasible.
Waldhauser asked why there is an objection to town homes or twin homes. Knaeble said he
didn't know but if people have a choice, 9 out of 10 of them will pick a single family home
over a townhouse and he thinks his proposal is a good start and makes sense for this area.
Kluchka opened the public hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 9
Larry Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, said there is still a for sale sign on the property. He
stated that a few years ago the Planning Commission and City Council decided this area
would be zoned R-2 and now someone wants to change what everyone has accepted. He
said he is blown away by this proposal because it will set a precedent for all of the 14 lots to
have a 7.5 foot setback so this proposal is a no.
Richard Fischer, 7330 Harold Avenue, asked if this proposal were approved if he would also
be able to divide his property into two skinny lots with 2-foot or 5-foot setbacks. He said he
is really opposed to this proposal.
Knaeble noted that the neighbor to the west of the subject property is not opposed to this
proposal.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Cera said this proposal is attempting to change the Zoning Code with a subdivision. There
is no hardship for variances is the proposal and he agrees with staff that it should be
denied. Segelbaum said he agrees that this proposal is outside the intent of the City Code.
He said the City can't rewrite the Zoning Code just for this proposal. He commended the
applicant for considering this type of development but said the Planning Commission isn't in
the position to accept this proposal without much more review.
Kluchka asked how the houses down the street on Rhode Island Avenue were developed.
Grimes stated that the properties on Rhode Island Avenue were existing platted lots of
record and were not subdivided in order to construct the new homes.
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend
denial of the proposed subdivision of the property at 7218 Harold Avenue finding that it
doesn't meet any of the conditions of City Code and requires variances.
6. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — Intersection of Noble Drive
and Major Drive — Hanson Wood Shores — SU06-06
Applicant: George Wessin
Address: Intersection of Noble Drive and Major Drive
Purpose: The proposed subdivision would reconfigure the existing single
family residential lot into two new single family residential lots.
Zimmerman referred to a location map and explained the applicanYs request to subdivide
the existing vacant lot located south of Major/Noble Drives and west of Sweeney Lake into
two separate single family residential lots. He noted that Lot 1 would be 80,344 square feet
with 80 feet of width at the front setback and Lot 2 would be 97,433 square feet with 87 feet
of width at the front setback. He reminded the Commissioners that an application for a
subdivision to allow three lots was made last summer but that application was withdrawn.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 10
Zimmerman stated that the property owner to the south at 1801 Noble Drive has
approached the City with concept plans for subdividing his property as well. He explained
that when a new subdivision adjoins unsubdivided land, City Code requires that new streets
be provided in order to access the property. Therefore, staff is recommending that the
applicant be required to dedicate an additional 30 feet of right-of-way along the western
edge of his property to accommodate a new street in the future in order for 1801 Noble
Drive to gain access.
Kluchka asked for clarification on why a new street is being required as a part of this
proposal. Zimmerman referred to the section of City Code that states "...Where adjoining
areas are not subdivided, the arrangement of streets in new subdivisions shall make
provision for the proper projection of streets. When a new subdivision adjoins unsubdivided
land susceptible to being subdivided, then the new streets shall be carried to the boundaries
of the tract proposed to be subdivided." Kluchka asked about the definition of the word
"unsubdivided" and stated that there are probably a hundred lots in the City that have the
potential to be subdivided and questioned if that is really the intent of the Code. He said to
him "unsubdivided" means unimproved. Zimmerman stated that Code does not define
"unsubdivided." He explained that the City Attorney has stated that providing access does
apply to this proposal so staff is suggesting that 50 feet of right-of-way be designated as a
part of this subdivision.
Waldhauser asked if the City has an obligation to provide access and asked why the
property owner has to bear the costs associated with providing access. Zimmerman stated
that all the benefitting parties would be assessed the costs, not just the applicant.
Zimmerman referred to the Fire Departments comments regarding this proposal and stated
that they have concerns about lengthy driveways, the distance to a water supply, and the
ability to turn their vehicles around.
Cera asked if the City could build a cul-de-sac in order to eliminate the long driveways and
to set the stage for future development. Zimmerman said that without cooperation by the
three current landowners, the only option is to plan for the first stage by preserving right-of-
way now and then accommodate additional stages of development as future proposals are
made.
Kluchka said he is uncomfortable with recommending approval on the presupposition that
the recommended street will be built when that is not what is being proposed by the
applicant.
George Wessin, Applicant, stated that his family has lived in Golden Valley for 80 years and
discussed his family's history in Golden Valley. He explained that his grandparents owned
much of the land in this area and sold some of it for the development of Heathbrooke
Addition. He said he has been an active member of the Sweeney Lake Association and the
Historical Society and has donated to the Golden Valley Human Services Fund, the
Courage Center, the Fire Association, and his wife has donated plants to the Arboretum. He
said he allowed the City to have an easement over the property for water and storm sewer
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 11
at no cost and added that he is a steward of the land and his proposal is fair and is the best
option for the neighborhood, his friends, the lake, and the environment.
Kluchka asked Mr. Wessin if he has had any conversations with the City regarding the
street proposal staff is recommending. Wessin said he has, in the past, had conversations
with the City regarding the proposed street but not during this particular proposal.
Kluchka opened the public hearing.
Jacqueline Day, 1334 Spring Valley Road, said she is a member of the Sweeney Lake
Homeowner's Association, a long-time resident, a Golden Valley realtor for 34 years and
has been instrumental in improving the City's housing stock and implementing the City's
Inflow and Infiltration sewer requirements. Segelbaum asked Ms. Day if she is representing
any of the parties involved in this proposal or if she is speaking as a resident. Day said she
was speaking as a longtime friend and neighbor of George and Sue Wessin and that she
has represented them at length as their realtor. She referred to a location map and
discussed the density of Heathbrooke Addition and the Hidden Lakes development. She
said George, Sue, all the residents of Heathbrooke and all of the Sweeney Lake
Homeowner's Association members want a low density, neighborhood friendly,
environmentally responsible use of Mr. Wessin's property. She said she knows the City has
been bombarded by developers regarding Mr. Wessin's property, none of whom own the
land or are in a purchase agreement to buy the land. She showed the Planning Commission
several of the proposed concept plans she has seen and said these plans remove most of
the woods and the towering oak trees and pack in the maximum density. She showed
pictures of the house at 1801 Noble Drive and stated that shortly after Mr. Lecy bought the
property he started demolishing it, the City stopped the demolition and it has sat vacant
ever since. She showed the Commissioners a drawing by Mr. Lecy showing his intent to
buy Mr. Wessin's property to redevelop it and added that Mr. Lecy has an active MLS listing
for three lots stating that two of them would ready by the end of the summer even though
there has been no application submitted to the City and the property has no road frontage to
qualify for subdividing. She stated that the Haines, owners of the property at 1550 St. Croix
Circle support Mr. Wessin fully and that they do not want the street proposed by the City so
Mr. Lecy is the one property owner instigating the construction of the street. She stated that
Mr. Wessin is requesting a simple lot split that meets every requirement and that the
subdivision ordinance is not being applied properly by staff. She stated that Mr. Wessin
doesn't want or need the proposed street. She said she attended a meeting last summer
with staff to discuss the possibility of Mr. Wessin dividing his property into three lots and
they were told that would not be possible without dedicating land for a street and working
with the other property owners potentially involved. They asked about the cost of the street
and were given a three page report detailing the costs for the engineering, the road and the
cul-de-sac would be $550,000 which does not include the soil preparation, tree removal,
and all the other costs for a development that no one wants. She said also at that meeting,
and other meetings where Mr. Wessin's attorney was present, staff told them that if Mr.
Wessin wanted to divide the property without a new street, his only option was to split his
property into two lots which is what they are proposing because that would meet all City
Code requirements. She stated that staff has said they've met with Mr. Lecy many times
regarding plans to subdivide and that there are staff reports stating other properties may
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 12
also be developable and benefit from the required street. Those parties would be Jeff and
Heidi Haines, George and Sue Wessin, and Amar Alshash, none of whom want the street.
She showed the Commissioners a plan of the Goldenview subdivision that she was a part of
creating. She noted that one of the driveways in that subdivision is 280 feet in length and
there were no objections about its length when it was subdivided. She added that Mr.
Wessin's attorney was present at this meeting and as a concerned citizen she also hired an
attorney. She read a letter from her attorney which states that Mr. Wessin's proposal must
be approved without conditions. She said she's talked with other neighbors and that nobody
has understood that this is really about bringing a continuation of a street from Heathbrooke
and all the traffic it entails into this development, they think it is just about Mr. Wessin
wanting to split his property into two lots and that the City Council will be amazed by how
many people will attend the Council meeting regarding this proposal. She read a letter from
Sandy Lee, a property owner in the area, stating they do not object to Mr. Wessin dividing
his parcel into two lots, however, they are unclear about the rest of parcel and how Mr. Lecy
can advertise three lakeshore lots adjacent to a paved street and a cul-de-sac and want to
know how this is possible without notifying the neighborhood. They said there is no doubt in
their minds that the people in the Heathbrooke neighborhood would object to a paved road
and the possible density and traffic that may attract. This would dramatically affect the
safety and property owners of Heathbrooke homeowners as well as the safety, water
quality, and usage for lakeshore homeowners.
Segelbaum asked Ms. Day if she is representing the homeowner's association. Day said
she has spoken to a large number of people who are her friends and neighbors but they
have not had a formal association meeting.
Amar Alshash, 1807 Noble Drive, showed the Commission pictures of his property and said
he feels like he has been in the dark regarding this proposal. He said he supports Mr.
Wessin's plan to split his property into finro lots but putting in a street will encourage a
developer to tear down the existing mansion. He questioned if he would have to pay for the
proposed street and said he is not in favor of having a street go through.
Roy Lecy, 1801 Noble Drive, stated that the MLS listing he has for the property is subject to
future subdivision and there is nothing wrong with marketing the property that way. If a
subdivision doesn't happen, then three lots won't be created. He stated that the existing
driveway providing access to 1801 Noble Drive is 20 feet in width so the proposed new
street will only be 4 feet wider. He said he is supportive of Mr. Wessin putting in two new
lots and he can understand why Mr. Wessin would not want to pay to build a city street. He
said he would pick up the assessments because he is trying to provide access. He said he
sees no negative impact to Mr. Wessin if he pays the assessment. That way, Mr. Wessin
will end up with two lots, maybe four, he would have two lots and the Haines could
potentially get one more lot.
Andrew Gellman, 1810 Noble Drive, said he supports Mr. Wessin's subdivision request. He
said he has sat on a number of boards and urged the City not to cut off the conversation,
but urge it to go forward because the property is neglected and this proposal needs to keep
moving forward.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 13
Christopher Gise, 1485 Island Drive, said he doesn't have a problem with this proposed
subdivision and he is glad to hear concern about Sweeney Lake. He said that the lots on
the peninsula in the Hidden Lakes development all have 50-foot conservation easements
and he thinks that would be a good idea in this proposal as well.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Kluchka asked about the effects on the lake, how these subdivisions are reviewed in regard
to the lake and how conservation rules are created. Grimes said there will be a 10 to 20 foot
buffer strip required and there will also be a conservation easement. Oliver stated that
review is based on the size and number of lots. For this proposal there are no water quality
improvements required by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission or the
City. He noted that the Hidden Lakes development had different best management
practices and trade-offs because it was a PUD.
Kluchka asked who pays for streets and what the impacts are to other property owners.
Oliver said there are numerous ways to assess the street costs. He said he agrees with the
resident about not stopping the dialogue and said that this development can be done in an
environmentally sound way and that staff has been encouraging all along for all the property
owners involved to work together.
Segelbaum asked if the width of the proposed street could be 20 feet. Oliver said he would
be comfortable with a 20-foot wide street. Waldhauser asked if that width would cause
problems with parking. Oliver said there are miles and miles of 24-foot wide streets with no
parking restrictions and there have very rarely been any problems.
Cera said he sees a proposal that is piecemeal and incomplete. There are competing
proposals, it is not the Planning Commissions role to judge, and there needs to be dialogue
befinreen the property owners. He said this is not proper planning and it might be
appropriate to table this proposal. Segelbaum agreed that there are several different ideas
but that the applicant probably wants to go forward with his application to the City Council.
He noted that the Fire Chief has said that the length of the driveways violate the Fire Code.
Kluchka said the Fire Chief's memo didn't clearly state that there is a violation.
Waldhauser said it would be nice to resolve the development in this area. She said she is
sympathetic to the neighbors wanting to preserve the character, but eventually that will
change. She added that she doesn't want to lock in a proposal that precludes or prevents
development by future landowners.
Kluchka said it seems to be a question of if the proposed lots are buildable. If the lots are
buildable and utilities can be provided then he thinks the Fire Chief's comments are too
harsh. Oliver stated that Fire staff is concerned about the ability to respond to a fire at these
properties and that sprinklering the homes could be a solution and the water pressure can
be dealt with. His concern is the length of the sewer services and the long term
maintenance of the services. He added that a builder is going to have to show that it can be
done taking into account the direction changes and the grade changes on the property.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 24, 2014
Page 14
Kluchka said the proposal is a mess and should never have been presented to the Planning
Commission the way they were. He said he would consider tabling the request in order to
get the documentation cleaned up. Waldhauser said the alternative is to recommend
approval with several conditions. Kluchka said staff added conditions to things the applicant
didn't request. Grimes stated that the process is a mess because it is a messy situation. He
stated that staff has worked hard to get all the parties together and he thinks some progress
has been made.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to table the
applicant's request to allow time for the property owners to meet to discuss their options.
--Short Recess--
7. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No reports were given.
8. Other Business
• Planning Commission Representative on the Community Center Task Force
Kluchka volunteered to be the Planning Commission representative on the Community
Center Task Force.
• Council Liaison Report
No report was given.
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 pm.
��
\ _
;
�
Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary ' a Wittman, Administrative Assistant