Loading...
05-28-14 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 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, May 28, 2014. Vice Chair Cera called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Cera, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Community Development Director Mark Grimes, City Planner Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Boudreau-Landis and Kluchka were absent. 1. Approval of Minutes April 28, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 28, 2014, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Final PUD Plan — Morrie's Automotive — 7400 Wayzata Blvd. — PU-115 Applicant: Morrie's Automotive Group Address: 7400 Wayzata Blvd. Purpose: To allow for the addition of a new standalone dealership with customer service support area within the existing parking lot. Zimmerman explained that this is the Final PUD plan for the Morrie's Automotive Group proposal to build a new dealership building within their existing parking lot. He stated that Lot 1 will contain the current Cadillac dealership and will be 4.6 acres in size. Lot 2 will be located in the southeast corner of the property, will contain the new Maserati & Bentley dealership and will be 1 acre in size. He added that access to the proposed new lot would be through an existing private, shared driveway along the south lot line. Segelbaum referred to the comments in the staff report about the applicant's request for a third pylon sign on the property. Zimmerman stated that the City sign ordinance allows one pylon sign per lot so this proposal would be allowed to have two pylon signs. Zimmerman discussed how the Final PUD proposal has changed since the Preliminary PUD stage. He noted that the proposed building will be slightly larger, the proposed car elevator has been relocated to the interior of the building, a covered service drive has been added on the north side of the proposed building, windows have been added to the east and west facades to match the front facade, additional trees have been added along Pennsylvania Avenue and a bicycle rack has been added to the front of the building. He referred to the parking requirements and stated that the City Code requires 217 parking spaces for this use. The applicant is proposing 255 spaces for the Cadillac building and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 2 28 spaces for the Maserati and Bentley building for a total of 283 parking spaces. Cera asked if the parking requirements apply to each lot or to the overall property. Zimmerman said the parking requirements are considered for the entire PUD, not individual lots. Peter Coyle, �arkin Hoffman, representing the Applicant, stated that they were happy they could make the changes the Planning Commission recommended during the Preliminary Plan review because they feel they now have a better plan. He said they will review the Sign Code requirements with staff during the building permit phase. He referred to the City Engineer's memo regarding sidewalks and said he is concerned about the language requiring a sidewalk connection south to the pedestrian bridge. He asked if part of the required park dedication fees could be used to pay for that connection. Segelbaum asked Coyle if he thinks there is the ability to find a compromise regarding the signage and asked if they need to have three pylon signs. Coyle said they do need to have three pylon signs and he could argue that the existing two pylon signs should be "grandfathered-in." Cera opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Cera closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said she is pleased with the changes the applicant has made to their plans. She added that the landscaping, stormwater improvements and sidewalk are all good assets and she will defer to staff to negotiate the signage issues. Baker said he is curious about the sidewalk connection issue and asked staff if they know the costs involved. Grimes said he would have the City Engineer address that issue in further detail before this proposal goes to the City Council. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for PUD #115 Morrie's Automotive Group subject to the following findings and conditions: Findinqs 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 of 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. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 3 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 4/25/14 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 May 19, 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 May 19, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. Access to the newly created Lot 2 shall be maintained via a driveway easement. 5. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 115" in its title. 6. A park dedication fee of$80,640, or 2% of the land value, shall be paid before Final Plat approval. 7. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Final PUD Plan —Tennant Company — 701 Lilac Drive North — PU-114 Applicant: Tennant Company Address: 701 Lilac Drive North Purpose: To allow for the consolidation of multiple properties into one parcel to enable inter-campus connections. Due to the lack of a quorum, this item was tabled to the June 9, 2014, Planning Commission meeting. 4. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan — Marie's Woods — 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue — PU-116 Applicant: Peter Knaeble Address: 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue Purpose: To allow for the reconfiguration of the existing two single family properties into a new six-lot, single family development Zimmerman explained the applicant's request to develop six single family homes on two existing single family lots at 7200 and 7218 Harold Avenue. He referred to a site plan of the properties and noted that two of the proposed homes would have direct access onto Harold Avenue and the other four homes would share two driveways. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 4 He stated that the applicant held a neighborhood meeting as required and four neighbors attended, however, the applicant did not meet the 10-day notice requirement. He referred to the staff reports and discussed some of the concerns including the length and maintenance of sewer services, the confirmation of the high water level of the wetland and the inadequate width of the driveways with no turn around areas. Segelbaum referred the Fire Chief's staff report which states that Lots 3, 4 and 5 do not meet the requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code and asked how the Planning Commission can review the proposal if it doesn't meet the Fire Code requirements. Zimme�man stated that there are things the applicant can do in order to meet the requirements. He added that the plan would not go forward until the Fire Code issues are addressed. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposal but thinks there are some improvements that can be made. Segelbaum asked if analysis was done on the possibility of having a cul-de-sac instead of all of the proposed driveways. Zimmerman said he thinks it is possible to have a cul- de-sac, but it is a question of how many lots the applicant would then have. Baker referred to sheet 8 in the plan set which shows a conforming lot layout and asked Zimmerman to explain the purpose behind it being included. Zimmerman stated that the conforming layout shown in the plans would still be a PUD it would just consist of finrin homes instead of single family homes and was included to provide a comparison. Segelbaum stated Golden Valley has several existing flag lots and asked if they were allowed before current City Code requirements. Zimmerman stated that flag lots were allowed at one time. Grimes added that the City Code was amended in the early 1990s to not allow flag lots because of negative feedback received from residents. Baker questioned who would own the driveways. Zimmerman said they would be shared driveways with an easement over them. Baker asked how the width of Lot 5 is measured since there is no street frontage. Zimmerman stated that the front of Lot 5 is the east property line along the proposed driveway and it measures 40.6 feet in width. Segelbaum asked about the distance between the houses on Lots 4 and 5. Zimmerman said there would be 15 feet between the houses on Lots 4 and 5. Baker questioned why the plans show a berm being built on the lot to the west when that lot is not part of this proposal. Zimmerman said he thinks the plan is illustrating what the area could look like in the future. He added that a similar proposal with a cul-de-sac could possibly be replicated to the west but another proposal like this current proposal would more difficult to replicate. Baker asked if this proposal would constrain future development. Zimmerman said it's hard to tell without knowing a proposed layout. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 5 Peter Knaeble, Applicant, reminded the Commissioners that his previous plan only included the 7218 Harold Avenue property. Since then, the 7200 Harold Avenue property became available and he feels this proposal has a more creative layout, and creates a larger development with higher density, which is what staff and the Planning Commission wanted. He referred to the questions regarding a cul-de-sac and said there are a number of reasons that a cul-de-sac would not be a good fit. He stated that the site is 1.6 acres in size and the average lot size he is proposing is 11,800 square feet. The minimum required lot size is 10,000 square feet. He referred to the recently built homes on Rhode Island Avenue near this proposal and stated that the lots in that development are 50 feet wide and have a 5-foot setback on one side and a 10-foot setback on the other side and no less than 15 feet befinreen any of the homes, which is what he is also proposing. He referred to the proposed berm and said he included it on the plans to show how it would fit with future development. He stated that the Engineering and Planning Departments have recommended approval and he is working with the Fire Chief regarding his comments including the installation of sprinkler systems on any of the homes not fronting on Harold Avenue. He showed the Planning Commission a proposed layout that had a cul-de-sac in the center with three lots on one side and five on the other. He stated that when he showed the neighbors this plan they did not like it as much because the houses would be closer to their side yard property line. He added that a cul-de-sac would also add more impervious surface. Waldhauser asked Knaeble if he considered a 6-lot, cul-de-sac option. Knaeble said no because the relationship to the neighbors on the east and west would be the same and he is trying to maximize the density. Baker asked Knaeble if staff required that the density be maximized. Knaeble said no, staff asked him to look at a range of densities and to consider options that would increase the density. Grimes agreed and stated that the properties are zoned R-2 and that the previous proposal for this property was almost the same density as the R-1 Single Family zoning district. Cera asked about the width of Harold Avenue. Knaeble said that Harold Avenue is 26 feet wide. Knaeble said he has considered other options but he thinks this proposal is the best. He handed out an illustration of a proposed layout that addresses the comments in the staff reports and reiterated that the neighbors were supportive of the shared driveway concept instead of a cul-de-sac. Segelbaum asked if staff had reviewed the plan Knaeble handed out. Zimmerman said no. Baker asked about the distance between the houses on this new plan. Knaeble said the setbacks are the same as his other proposal, 5 feet on one side, and 10 feet on the other per Zoning Code requirements. Segelbaum asked about the trees shown on the new plan. Knaeble stated that it is just a rendering showing some existing trees and some proposed new trees, but it is not an actual landscape plan. Grimes stated that each lot will require a tree preservation plan. Cera opened the public hearing. Mary Jane Pappas, 20 Ardmore Drive, said her lot size is half an acre so when she sees this kind of development with 6 homes on 1.6 acres it upsets her a lot. She said it would Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 6 be fair to allow 4 houses but not 6 or 8. She said Golden Valley is losing its natural landscaping, privacy and appeal every time something like this is built. She said the proposed houses are clearly too small and this is a big departure that she is not comfortable with. She said the applicant should be asked to use geothermal energy because the future is in front of us and we need to make these types of changes to benefit everyone. Larry Kueny, 7303 Ridgeway Road, said he received a notice from the applicant regarding the neighborhood meeting four days before the meeting. He said he knows that the neighborhood meeting is nothing official but something is not right. He said at that meeting the neighbors thought they approved the first plan that the Planning Commissioners discussed and that they haven't seen the new plan handed out at this meeting. He stated that the first plan showed two driveways on Harold Avenue and the second plan shows four, which is a lot. He said he originally didn't like the idea of a cul- de-sac but that sounds better than this new plan the Applicant showed. He questioned which plan the Commission would be voting on if approval is recommended. Susan Kelly, 7324 Harold Avenue, said she is not opposed to change. She said the hearing notice for the neighborhood came in an envelope with no return address. She said she was told that the first plan discussed is what would be approved. Now there is a new plan that would change the neighborhood dramatically and she is opposed. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Cera closed the public hearing. Knaeble stated that the properties in question are zoned R-2 not R-1 which allows 8 units per acre so the proposed density is appropriate. He stated that geothermal energy is a good idea and if the families purchasing the properties want to do that there will be no restrictions against it, but he would be against geothermal being a requirement. Baker asked Knaeble if the homes will be "spec" homes. Knaeble said they will be custom built homes. He added that he has finro or three families interested in building houses similar to the ones down the street on Rhode Island. Waldhauser asked about the price of the homes. Knaeble said they will be in the $450,000 to $500,000 range. Segelbaum asked Knaeble which plan he is asking the Planning Commission to approve. Knaeble said he is asking for the plan originally submitted to be approved. The one he showed the Commission at this meeting was just another concept. Baker asked Knaeble if he would be pursuing that second alternative plan. Knaeble said he wants to hear the staff's response on the second plan. He stated that staff was concerned about the proposed shared driveway and his newer plan addresses that concern. Baker asked Knaeble how this plan would affect parking at Lion's Park. Knaeble said it won't affect it all and noted that parking isn't currently allowed on the north side of the street. He added that the spacing of the driveways would not be unlike the homes on Rhode Island Avenue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 7 Cera referred to the 16-foot private driveway on the project Knaeble did on Turners Crossroad and asked how that is different than a public road. Knaeble stated that the Turners Crossroad property has 4 homes that share a driveway whereas this proposal would have 2 homes sharing a driveway. He added that in his experience there have been no issues with cars being on the driveway at the same time. He said he feels it is more appropriate to have less impervious surface. Segelbaum asked if the Planning Commission can require that geothermal energy be used. Waldhauser said doesn't think they can address that at all. Cera asked if the City Council will see the same plans the Planning Commission received. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked for clarification on the density issue. Grimes stated that the applicant originally submitted a proposal for two smaller single family homes. He explained that the City Council designated this area R-2 to encourage higher density and different types of housing. Baker said $500,000 houses won't achieve higher density or more affordable housing. Grimes stated there are other reasons the area was zoned R-2 such as the desire for single level living, smaller lots, and properties with less maintenance. Waldhauser added that people really want big houses on small lots. She added that she would like to see a private road up the center of the property rather than private driveways along the sides of the property. She stated that a 16-foot with road won't change the amount of impervious surFace that much. Cera said he doesn't like the idea of allowing flag lots and a cul-de-sac would make the project look like a more cohesive development and not like homes were just "shoe horned" in. Segelbaum agreed with Cera. He said he appreciates that the applicant is trying to meet the requirements, but the City would be compromising in so many areas to get more density. He said the proposal seems far afield from things that have been granted in the past and that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Baker also agreed and said he is not confident that the purpose of the R-2 zoning is to put more expensive houses in that space. He said he thinks the purpose was to create diversity in the costs of homes and questioned if this is the correct use of the R-2 zoning designation. He said if the City is going to fit homes in the R-2 zoning district, more affordable homes should be encouraged. Grimes suggested giving the applicant some further direction or asking him if he would like to table or withdraw his request. Knaeble said he may proceed with this plan or he may come back with different plans. He said the question of affordability is a relative term and that it is up the families who purchase the homes how much they want to spend. Segelbaum said he would like the proposed new homes to be commensurate with the existing homes in the neighborhood. Cera asked about the square footage of the proposed homes. Knaeble stated that the homes would be approximately 2,200 to 2,400 square feet. He said that $450,000 is relatively affordable for a new home in Golden Valley. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 8 MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of the proposed PUD plan because the access and safety issues were not adequately addressed and because of the impact this development would have on future development of the finro adjoining lots. Segelbaum asked that the motion be amended to add that the proposed plan compromises many different City Code requirements, flag lots being one example. Waldhauser said she does not want to add that language to the motion because she appreciates that it was brought to the Planning Commission as a PUD and she would expect deviations from City Code requirements with a PUD. 5. Informal Public Hearing —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Definition of Lot Width and Lot Depth —ZO00-94 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider amending the definition of Lot Width and Lot Depth in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. Zimmerman explained that staff received an application for a subdivision and a neighbor pointed out that there is an inconsistency in how lot width and lot depth is determined in the Zoning Code versus the Subdivision Code. He stated that staff is now looking for direction on how to interpret and apply the language. He stated that the Zoning Code defines lot depth as the mean (average) depth between front and rear lot lines and lot width as the mean (average) width measured at right angles to the mean depth. The Subdivision code defines lot depth as the shortest distance between the front and rear lot lines measured at right angles to the street right of way and lot width as the minimum distance between side lot lines measured at right angles to lot depth at the minimum building setback line. He discussed several other cities' requirements and showed several examples of various lot shapes and how width and depth are calculated. He stated that the options are to: 1.) keep the Zoning and Subdivision Codes unchanged (new lots must meet minimum width at front yard setback and maintain the minimum average width throughout the lot). 2.) Modify the Subdivision Code to define width as average width throughout the lot (to match Zoning Code). 3.) Modify the Zoning Code to define width as width at front yard setback (to match Subdivision Code) or 4.) Other options the Planning Commission would like to see. He stated that staff is suggesting, based on past precedent, ease of interpretation and administration, and conformity with neighboring communities, that the definition of lot width within the Zoning Code be revised to define lot width as the width of the lot at the front yard setback line to be consistent with the Subdivision Code. Segelbaum wanted to clarify that staff is not recommending the elimination of lot width requirements; they are recommending that the Zoning Code be revised to be the same as the Subdivision Code which requires 80 feet of width as measured at the front setback line. Zimmerman said yes, that is staff's recommendation. Segelbaum stated that this is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 9 the way the City has been determining lot width for a long time and won't make any lots become non-conforming. Baker stated that there is a Zoning Code and Subdivision Code for a reason and asked Zimmerman to compare and contrast the two. Zimmerman explained that the Zoning Code deals with setbacks and the Subdivision Code deals with the creation of new lots. Cera opened the public hearing. Mary Jane Pappas, 20 Ardmore Drive, said she did not understand that this discussion was to clarify the definitions in the City Code. She thought it was to discuss eliminating lot width requirements. She said there is more to the "buildability" of a property such as overall square footage and the terrain. She said she gets freaked out when the word subdivision is used because she has seen some subdivisions that she doesn't get, and as a neighbor, she wants to know how the subdivision on Glenwood was allowed to happen. She said she wants the integrity of her neighborhood maintained and that this isn't a money making operation, or maybe it is, and if so that should be said. She said she doesn't want every single lot to have finro or more houses on it. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, said he concurs with staff's recommendation. He said he has been doing infill developments in Golden Valley and in several other cities and he is encouraged by people wanting to build houses to look for properties that are "close-in." He said he sees this issue more as a housekeeping item than a big change in the zoning and subdivision ordinances. He said the requirements have been consistently applied for 27 years and in his experience for the last 10 to 12 years. He said he thinks it would be grossly unfair to try and change the definitions now, especially with finro or three proposals pending. Ralph Jacobson, 516 Parkview Terrace, said he has watched his neighborhood dramatically change over something that looks to him to be arbitrary and not very good practice. He said this is a very important topic that warrants greater discussion. He said his neighborhood is very concerned about the travesty that is happening and how the things that attracted them to Golden Valley are slowly being eroded. He said he thinks there are very difficult decisions to be made with a little more seriousness and a little more consistency. Harry Pulver, 105 Meadow Lane North, said he would like to concur with what others have said. He said there seems to be an explosion of development in eastern Golden Valley. He said he understands that people can divide their lots if they'd like and that there is great demand in Golden Valley but he gets concerned when comparisons are made between Golden Valley and St. Louis Park and New Hope because they are very different communities. Richard Hockney, Attorney representing the Knaeble family, said he has been working with Peter Knaeble for approximately 25 years and has made hundreds of appearances in dozens of communities throughout the area. He said he appreciates the effort that staff has made in looking at neighboring communities to see what their ordinances say on this Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 10 subject. He said the Golden Valley's ordinances are consistent with many other cities that measure the width of a lot at the front yard setback line and that standard is overwhelmingly the standard used. David Knaeble, 221 Sunnyridge Lane, said he is in favor of the proposed Zoning code amendment for a number of reasons. He said Golden Valley is a desirable city to live in and the proposed text amendment is just a formal change that doesn't impact or change the status Golden Valley has as being a great City to live in. He said the proposed amendment ensures that the Code is aligned with a development strategy and it clarifies the Code for the City and for residents. He said the proposed amendment supports what has been used to guide development in the past, and how it should guide development into the future. The Code has been used consistently for over 20 years and the proposed amendment does not represent any significant change to the City's intent. He said he and his wife are landowners in Golden Valley and this amendment change directly impacts their ability to use their land in a manner they choose. He said their property is large enough to divide into two separate parcels based on the City's current subdivision and zoning regulations. The amendment to the Zoning code would allow him to subdivide his property without the need to remove the existing home or apply for a variance to allow the existing home to stay. He said if this amendment is not approved there are many other property owners in the City who will lose their right to subdivide their property if they so choose, so he is in favor of the proposed amendment. Pam Lott, 220 Sunnyridge Lane, said she was under the impression that the purpose of zoning is to keep people from inappropriately "shoe horning" houses in to areas where they do not fit and any change that makes development that much easier will have an oversized impact on her immediate neighborhood. She said she believes the Tyrol Hills neighborhood is one of the finest parts of Golden Valley so she would hate to see the one really unique area being subdivided into Brooklyn Center, and that is what staff seems to want to do with smaller and smaller lots and more density. She said higher density is not necessarily the highest and best use. Perry Thom, 320 Louisiana Avenue North, said he appreciates the effort to combine the finro definitions and he feels for the folks who are concerned about high density in their neighborhood. He cautioned them to think about high density befinreen single family homes and multi-family homes which may fit the criteria of an individual home, and would be less desirable than a single family home on a slightly modified lot. Mary Jane Pappas, 20 Ardmore Drive, said the definition of density is all relative. If the common lots are half an acre, putting two houses on half an acre is high density from her perspective. She said the landscape, animals and trees have to be considered as well. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Cera closed the public hearing. Cera clarified that the proposed Zoning code text amendment will just make the current Subdivision code and Zoning code language match each other. There will not be any impact on density and it won't change how anything is done regarding the subdivision of property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 11 Baker said this may be an opportunity to visit and broaden the issue. He said the Planning Commission's action could be to ask staff to give them more options on how to calculate lot width and depth. He stated that if they go with staff's first option, subdivisions would slow down. Grimes noted that every neighborhood has the option of putting covenants on their properties to not allow for subdividing. Waldhauser stated the City could also be carved up into different zoning districts with different requirements. Segelbaum stated that there is more than just this one requirement when considering subdivisions. Zimmerman agreed that there are many more requirements in the Zoning code and the Subdivision code that need to be met in order to subdivide a property. Segelbaum questioned if Golden Valley is encouraging subdividing. Grimes stated that Golden Valley is almost 100% developed so most new development is going to be through the tear-down process and subdividing larger lots. Segelbaum asked about the impact on development if the Zoning code text amendment is adopted as recommended by staff. Zimmerman stated that if applicants have to meet both the Zoning code requirements and the Subdivision code requirements, as they are currently written, there will be a small subset that won't be able to divide their property. Segelbaum asked if the proposed Zoning code text change is made, if the requirements would be the same as they were a month ago, and the required lot width wouldn't be expanding or contracting, it would be the same as it has been for many years. Zimmerman said that is correct. Segelbaum asked if the idea is to create more of a "front yard" community. Waldhauser said she thinks most people would rather have a larger back yard. Grimes stated that generally a 35-foot front yard setback is slightly larger than other communities. Cera asked when the 10,000 square foot lot size requirement went into effect. Grimes said that in the 1970s the minimum lot size was 12,500 square feet. That requirement was lowered to 10,000 square feet to increase affordability and encourage people to stay in Golden Valley. Baker said he is not buying that it is difficult for staff to implement an average lot width requirement. Zimmerman said it is possible, and wouldn't be insurmountable, but it would be more difficult. Baker questioned if the information regarding other cities requirements was comparable to Golden Valley's single family zoning district. Zimmerman explained that the width requirement is located in the definition section of the Zoning code and applies to all zoning districts, not just the Single Family zoning district. Waldhauser said she doesn't like the Subdivision code definition even though it is what the City has used for 27 years, and it is the common definition. She said it works great when most of the lots are rectangular. She said she appreciates the difficulty of measuring the averages, and thought maybe requiring that a lot maintain a certain width for half of the depth or something like that might work. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 12 Baker said he would like this item sent back to staff for more analysis. He said he is struck that a standard based on the width of the front may have made sense in the past, but he is not sure that applies today. He said that Tyrol has very unique characteristics and the rate of infill there is quite dramatic, and he wants to moderate that trend. Segelbaum said this is a sensitive topic, and he understands the neighbors' concerns about over-development, but he would prefer to go with the staff's recommendation and maintain the status quo in how the width of a lot is measured, and maybe examine it the future. Cera said there are several pending developments waiting for resolution on this item. He said making the two different definitions match won't change anything regarding how lot width has been measured for many years. He also agreed that the Planning Commission might want to study the issue in a broad context in the future. Baker suggested that subdivision applicants be required to follow both definitions for the next month, and then staff can report back on how it is going. Cera said there is an obligation to address the applications that are pending. Grimes suggested bringing this item back to Planning Commission next month when the full Commission is present. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried 3 to 1 to table this item to the June 23, 2014, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners Baker, Cera and Waldhauser voted yes. Commissioner Segelbaum voted no. --Short Recess-- 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 7. Other Business • Election of Officers and BZA Liaison This item was tabled to the June 9 Planning Commission meeting. Segelbaum suggested the Commissioners consider rotating their attendance to the BZA meetings instead of having one Commissioner be the designated Liaison. • Council Liaison Report Council Member Snope updated the Commissioners on the May 20, 2014, City Council meeting. He stated that the Council approved the subdivision request at 400 Decatur Avenue North. The Council also approved a resolution supporting J-HAP's TIF application. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 28, 2014 Page 13 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 pm. . _ __ '� I arles D. Segelba m, Secretary L a Wittman, Administrative Assistant