Loading...
06-23-14 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 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, June 23, 2014. Ghair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Boudreau-Landis, Cera, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Community Development Director Mark Grimes, City Planner Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes May 28, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Cera, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 28, 2014, minutes as submitted. 2. Continued Item — 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 reminded the Commissioners that this item was tabled at the March 24 Planning Commission meeting because it was discovered that the language regarding lot width in the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code did not match. Since then, the applicant has revised his plans to meet the requirements of both codes. He explained that the applicant is proposing to divide his property into two separate lots. The existing home would remain and a new home would be built on the proposed lot to the north. Both lots will have 80 feet of width at the front yard setback line per the Zoning Code requirements and 80 feet of inean lot width per the Subdivision Code requirements. Lot 1 would be 10,467 square feet in size with a mean width of 109.8 feet and Lot 2 would be 11,038 square feet in size with a mean lot width of 84.2 feet. He stated that he was contacted about some concerns regarding water run-off and stated that those types of issues will be addressed when there are specific building and grading plans submitted for review. He added that he met with some of the neighbors in the area and they expressed concern about tree preservation and the orientation of the proposed new house. He stated that because the proposed subdivision meets the requirements outlined in the City Code, staff is recommending approval. Kluchka asked if there are private covenants on this property. Zimmerman said no. Segelbaum referred to Section 12.50 of the Subdivision Code regarding conditions for approval or denial and asked if this request meets these conditions. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 2 Zimmerman stated that all of the requirements have been met. However, there is some concern by the neighbors that the second point in that section regarding the lot being buildable due to excessive wetness is not being met. Cera asked if there can be conditions placed on the Commission's recommendation. Zimmerman stated that conditions can be attached on non-residential property; however, it is less clear if conditions can be placed on residential property. Kluchka stated that many of the issues are addressed during the building permit process. Kluchka asked if there is anything leading staff to believe that there is a problem with water on this property. Zimmerman stated this proposal might help make the water situation better than the existing conditions. Baker asked Zimmerman if he did the width calculations. Zimmerman said he understands conceptually how the calculations were done, but suggested that the applicant could more clearly address the specifics. Baker referred to Section 12.50, Subdivision 3(G) which states that subdivisions may be denied if they adversely affect adjacent land uses. Zimmerman explained that that language only applies to nonresidential property. Boudreau-Landis asked if the current property owner subdivided the property to create the current 207 Sunnyridge Lane property. Zimmerman said no. David Knaeble, Applicant, stated that the Minor Subdivision he is proposing meets all of the City's requirements and that the Planning and Engineering staff is recommending approval. He stated that the median lot size on this street is 10,200 square feet and that approximately 70% of the lots are less than 11,000 square feet in size, so what he is proposing will fit in nicely with this part of the neighborhood. He stated that they will be removing 24% of the trees on the property which is fewer trees than the 40% allowed by City ordinance. He stated that they will be reducing the water run-off to the adjoining property to the north and making the existing situation better. He stated that he did not do the original subdivision of this property, but he bought his house knowing he could split it in the future. He said he preferred the original plans he submitted, but that this proposed layout will also work and he is open to suggestions. He added that he grew up in this area and has lived here most of his life and wants his kids to grow up here too. Baker asked Knaeble if he currently occupies the existing house. Knaeble said yes. Segelbaum asked Knaeble to explain the handouts he gave to the Commissioners. Knaeble explained that one of the maps illustrates several other subdivisions done in the area in the past and that what he is proposing doesn't break from what has been done in the past and won't drastically impact the neighborhood. He referred to the other maps he handed out and discussed the distances between the houses. Between his existing home and the home to the south there is 28 feet, between his existing home and the proposed new house to the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 3 north there will be 33 feet and befinreen the proposed new home to the existing home to the north there will be 66 feet. Cera asked about the dimension of the narrowest point of proposed new lot. Knaeble said it is 65 feet at that point. Baker referred to the lot width calculations and asked Knaeble to help him understand those calculations. Knaeble stated that width can be a length weighted average or an area weighted average. He said he felt an area weighted average is a better way to review the property because it is closer to the true width. Waldhauser asked Knaeble if he would prefer not to have so much frontage and the severe angles that are necessary to make the lot meet the width requirements. Knaeble said he doesn't have a preference. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Angelique Struyk, 235 Sunnyridge Lane, said there is a vision of low density for this area and she proposes that by making these smaller and smaller lots we're getting away from that vision. She said David Knaeble mentioned that the lots in this area range between 10,000 and 11,000 square feet, but he is only looking at one street when the actual block has lots that are at least twice that size and there is one lot that is three times that size that she fears will be subdivided in the future. She said she is not happy that the width of the lot where the actual house is being proposed to be built is only 62 or 63 feet wide. She said there has been a lot of fine tuning and manipulation to try to make this an 80-foot wide lot and she doesn't think the Code was designed for this and there needs to be a way for the Planning Commission to say this is ridiculous. She said the Code that we have allows for reasonable development and that this proposal may meet the requirements as it stands, but it is not responsible. She referred to the discussion about this proposal making their drainage better and said her sump pump runs all the time because they have the lowest property on the block and they have run-off from three or more adjoining properties. Putting a new house and a driveway will add more impermeable surface, and water runs downhill to her property. She said she has not had any water in her basement in the 10 or 11 years she has lived in her house and she wants some assurance from the City Engineer, in a concrete form, that she will not be adversely impacted by the building on this property, because she can guarantee they will have more run off and that does not make her happy. She said this property is a very heavily forested piece of land with a lot of tamarack trees and mature trees and the plans she reviewed said they will be removing approximately 40 trees just where the driveway and house would go. She referred to the tree preservation requirements and asked where any required new trees would even fit on this lot. She discussed the erosion potential when the existing trees with their root systems are taken away and added that there is a severe slope on the property, contrary to what staff has said. She said she doesn't know where kids are going to play on this proposed new lot so the vision the applicant has of raising a family in this new house isn't going to work. She said the applicant is probably not going to live in the proposed new house in the future, and there is going to be erosion issues and foundation damage and she is going to be left to look at it from her Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 4 back yard. She added that the proposed new house will also be perched above her, and overlooking her house. Joanie Clausen, 2516 Lee Avenue North, said she is coming before the Planning Commission with great concern as a citizen of Golden Valley. She asked if the City is just going allow houses to be put wherever they can find a spot. She said this proposal may, on paper, look like it will fit fine, but you have to look at the terrain. She said Mr. Knaeble lives up on a hill and the water is not going to run up to his house, it is going to affect the neighbor down below and she feels the City needs to protect that neighbor that already takes the water run- off from two other neighbors. She said she is concerned about the person that buys the new house in this wet area, and about creating problems for existing home owners in the area as well because they have had drainage problems. She said when the trees and roots are taken off of the huge hill there will be problems. She said it might meet the lot requirements, but we owe it to the current property owners and the neighborhood, because the whole look of the neighborhood is changing. She asked the Planning Commission to seriously consider not approving this proposal. Tammy Pulver, 105 Meadow Lane North, said nobody likes change. She asked why there is an 80-foot lot width requirement, how narrow is too narrow and what shape of lot can be built on. She said it might be premature to talk about this proposal before the upcoming lot width and depth discussion. She said this proposed lot is too narrow and the City should make a commitment to put in any needed drainage. John Wetzel, 120 Meadow Lane North, said it is his understanding that the applicant is going to build a new house and sell the existing house. He said he is concerned about 24% of the trees being removed. He said he pays a lot of taxes and questioned if the taxes will be divided between the two new property owners. He asked what percentage of the properties are land and what percentage is structure because many of them bought their properties because of the lot size, the convenience and the schools and they are going to lose a lot because of this proposal. Mark Dietz, 207 Sunnyridge Lane, said the house behind his had a lot of water in their back yard, so they got a pump and started to drain all of the water toward Angelique and Damon Struyk's house and flooded their shed so they had to stop. He said when he purchased his property he re-designed his house three times in order to maintain the trees, and he is concerned about the integrity of the neighborhood. He said there are beautiful 50-60 year old trees and the City really needs to consider what they are doing to their neighborhood. Jim Kuzzy, 4125 Poplar Drive, said he questions the calculations regarding the lot size. He said it seems that maybe the tail is wagging the dog because the developer is coming up with the numbers, and the City is struggling to figure out how the developer came up with his calculations. He said he doubts that an hourglass shaped lot is what the Code writers had in mind when they put the Code together. He asked that the numbers be re-calculated by the City, not the developer. He said his lot is large in size and he pays a lot in taxes and is disappointed to see the gradual deterioration of the neighborhood, and this is not the quality of neighborhood he bought into 23 years ago. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 5 Eva Jensen, 4010 Roanoke Circle, said she bought in Tyrol because she values the environment which is reinforced and sustained by the lot size. She said she is very concerned about this proposed development because they are a buffer of the park and their neighborhood creates a dark zone, and dark skies. She said the proposal might work to the letter of the law, but she is concerned about the manipulation of the numbers regarding lot sizes in Tyrol. She stated that the average lot size is 17,000 square feet when the smaller lots in North Tyrol are included. She said she is also concerned that the developer is in the position of dictating the numbers. Bob Lang, 401 Meadow Lane North, said he is concerned about the one size fits all subdivisions he's been seeing especially since the Meadow Lane and Glenwood site was broken up into four lots. He said it has only been recently that he's seen it taken to this degree and he doesn't think one does fit alt. He said the City needs to take a step back and not just say yes to subdivisions just because the property can be subdivided. Pam Lott, 220 Sunnyridge Lane, said her issues aren't personal and the proposal won't affect her home per se. She said loves Golden Valley and wants to keep it pastoral. She asked the Planning Commissioners if they have ever seen a lot shape designed the way this one is on purpose, or if there is any reason for the proposed lot to be shaped this way other than to manipulate the City. She said when Sunnyridge Circle was developed the City assured everybody there would be no problem with water drainage and they were wrong because everybody has more water problems than they did before. She asked the Planning Commission to consider if they want Golden Valley to be like Brooklyn Center or Edina and if they want large lots with impressive homes or a neighborhood full of"ticky-tack." Gary Rowland, 4541 Westwood Lane, said Tyrol is really an extension of Wirth Park by design and no two houses were built at the same elevation. He said they have a neighborhood association that is excited to work with the Planning Commission to make sure the Wirth/Tyrol area is protected. He said that South Tyrol has not protected its area and the houses are right on top of each other. He added that he is also concerned about the "magic math" being applied. John Wetzel, 120 Meadow Lane North, asked the Planning Commission to share the requirements listed in the Subdivision Code regarding conditions for approval or denial so he can determine how relevant or not they may be. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, said he has heard several people talk about the deterioration of the neighborhood which he takes umbrage to and thinks is a little over- exaggerated. He said this is a unique neighborhood, and adding a single lot, after a number of past developments, is not going to deteriorate the entire neighborhood, the area will remain unique. He stated that there was no manipulation of the lot measurements and added that the applicant is required, as part of the application process, to do the calculations for the City's review. Henry Pulver, 105 Meadow Lane North, said there has been an explosion of development in their area. He said a standard lot size might work great for the majority of Golden Valley, but Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 6 if North Tyrol is carved into pieces there are going to be some crazy looking lots, and a lot of unhappy neighbors. He told the Commissioners to drive by the Meadow Lane and Glenwood site and see what they think about that development. He said it looked good on paper and fit the requirements of the Code, but he thinks it looks odd and doesn't fit in with, or improve, the neighborhood. He said he knows staff is trying to expedite the developers concerns, but asked that the Planning Commission take into consideration the neighbor's concerns, and what these changes will do to North Tyrol. Mark Dietz, 207 Sunnyridge Lane, referred to the developers looking back in time as to how things were subdivided, but it is nothing like how they are being subdivided in the neighborhood right now. He questioned if it is not the responsibility of the City to protect Damon and Angelique Struyk, and their view, and their million dollar house and asked if there is any responsibility to protect the people that pay taxes. Todd Ereth, 240 Meadow Lane North, said he was the last to subdivide a one acre lot into two lots, not little pieces of land. He said when he first moved into to his house the drainage issue was so bad he had to call mosquito control. He said the run-off exists, and there are health and safety issues, and they are losing so much of what makes Golden Valley a wonderful place to live. Matt Pavek, 510 Cloverleaf Drive, said when people come forth with a subdivision request that meets all of the Code requirements it should be approved. Those are the laws and rules, and everyone lives under the same rules. He said one person getting a group of neighbors together to bash on the person who is trying to subdivide their property is not in the spirit of the ordinances either. He referred to the comments about trees being removed and said that no one, including developers, wants to cut trees down, and he can guarantee that every other home in the area had to remove tress in order to build their houses too. He said that it is not accurate to say that the character of the neighborhood will be ruined by cutting down a couple of trees in order to build one new home. He referred to the slope and drainage of the subject property, and said the City Engineer is an expert who can be trusted more than an amateur who doesn't really understand how things drain. He said he heard David Knaeble state that the drainage will be better after the subdivision because it will be engineered to divert water away from the low spot. He said he can't say the problems will be solved, but he won't be allowed to make it worse. He referred to the shape of the proposed new lot and noted that it looks weird in part, because of the new lot width definition it is required to meet, and the fact that the existing house is there. He said he doesn't think the shape of the lot is relevant or will affect the way people live on their property. He referred to the question that was asked about being like Edina or being like Brooklyn Center, and said he would rather be like Golden Valley. Edina has more has more lot splits and reconstruction right now than any other City in the state, and Brooklyn Center is not getting million dollar homes built. He said the overarching theme is that Tyrol is being ruined by subdivisions which he would agree with if all of the lots could be split. The reality is that there are only a few lots left that can be subdivided under the current rules, so if the concern is that the neighborhood is going to be ruined over a few new lots, in a neighborhood of hundreds of lots, it just doesn't make sense. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 7 Tammy Pulver, 105 Meadow Lane North, said she taken aback by the disrespect, labeling and stereotyping of her neighbors. She said she is not here to bash anybody, and the issue is not just this one lot, it is about what will happen to all the subsequent lots if we don't have standards that the City is making sure developers are following. She said she hopes all developers will want to leave a legacy that protects the heart and soul of Golden Valley. Bob Lang, 401 Meadow Lane North, said that the comment that there are just a couple of lots left in Tyrol that are able to be subdivided is wrong, there are about 35 lots that meet the criteria to shoe-horn in a 10,000 square foot lot. Angelique Struyk, 235 Sunnyridge Lane, referred to the back corner of the proposed new garage and asked the Planning Commission to look closely at the dimensions of that garage and whether or not it meets the rear yard setback requirements. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked if there are any guarantees or accountability if the drainage does get worse. Zimmerman referred to the City Engineer's memo and explained that it is difficult to give guarantees at this point because the applicant hasn't submitted a grading plan, and won't until the building permit process. Grimes reiterated that the applicant will be required to submit a grading and erosion control plan, and the City will not allow drainage to negatively impact the neighboring property. He added that the City' systems are also not designed to the recent levels of rain we've received. Kluchka asked what guarantees, or recourse the neighbors have if the drainage doesn't work. Grimes explained that the plans are done by licensed, registered, professional engineers and surveyors, and that the City Engineer will require modifications if necessary. Kluchka said it is not the Planning Commission's purview to evaluate drainage plans. Baker asked if this is just the way it has always been done, or is this the right way to it. He stated that there is no public opportunity to comment at the decision making point. Kluchka noted that not every property owner needs to come before the Planning Commission and Council with their proposal, but everyone does have to do a drainage plan. Baker said maybe those neighbors aren't as savvy as these neighbors, and said the larger question is if the Planning Commission should look for ways to slow down development. Kluchka said that would be a Council decision. Waldhauser agreed that it would be more appropriate to discuss that at a different meeting. Cera added that the Planning Commission has in the past recommended rain gardens and things to help mitigate drainage issues. Grimes stated that many subdivisions are almost administrative as long as they meet the requirements in City Code. He added that everyone is protected by the same codes. Kluchka referred to the comments about tree removal and stated that a tree preservation plan will be required. Baker stated that he heard a lot about tamarack trees on the property but he didn't see any tamarack trees on the plans, so he is wondering about the legitimacy of the plans submitted. Zimmerman said a tree preservation plan will be required during the building permit process. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 8 Kluchka referred to the question about why lots are required to be 80 feet in width. Grimes said the 80-foot width requirement takes into account the building area, and the setback areas. Kluchka referred to the question regarding if the applicant will build, and sell the proposed new home, or if he will live in it and said that is not the Planning Commission purview. Kluchka stated that regarding property taxes, they are based on an overall value determined by Hennepin County. Grimes added that there is a land value and home value. Kluchka asked who provides the lot dimensions. Zimmerman stated that the applicant is required to provide the calculations, and based on his estimates and reviews what the applicant submitted makes sense. Baker asked if it is really correct that the applicant is required to provide the numbers, or if the City just delegates that the applicant because it's convenient. Grimes stated that applicants are required to show the City that they meet the Code requirements. Waldhauser referred to the rear yard setback requirements and asked if 20% of the lot depth is required across the entire lot. She also asked if the garage on the proposed new home meets the rear yard setback requirement. Zimmerman explained that the applicant's initial application showed the 20% measurement taken at every depth, however the Zoning Code says it should be a consistent number across the lot and this revised plan does show it that way. Baker said an important question to answer is if just because a lot can be subdivided if the City should say yes. Segelbaum stated that the Planning Commission is the finder of fact and to determine if those facts meet what the law requires as dictated by the City's ordinances, as interpreted by the courts, and the City Attorney. Baker asked if there is a question of reasonableness involved. Segelbaum said if the ordinance language says "within reason" then there are judgment calls. Baker said he doesn't like the proposal, but he doesn't find that he has any license to deny it. Cera said this proposal is sort of a gerrymandered lot whereas most other subdivisions have a more reasonable shape. Waldhauser said the doesn't personally like the shape of the proposed new lot, but agreed that part of the reason it is oddly shaped is because the discovery was made of the inconsistencies between the Zoning Code and the Subdivision Code. She said the applicant would like to move forward, and he has come up with a proposal that meets the law in spite of their reservations about it. She said that issues needs to be considered neighborhood-wide or city-wide, not lot by lot, but the City is constrained by what can be approved, and the Planning Commission can't change the code at this meeting. Baker said this one lot stands out as being uniquely weird, and he proposes that this is the last one they approve. Waldhauser stated that the applicant isn't asking to do anything that isn't allowed. Segelbaum agreed, and added that the neighbors can create their own covenants around subdivisions or get organized and suggest an overlay district of some sort. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 9 MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried 4 to 2 to approve the minor subdivision subject to the following findings and conditions. Commissioners Baker and Cera voted no. Findinqs: 1. Both lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. 2. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. The addition of the new lots will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. 4. The drainage and utility easements shown on the preliminary plat are acceptable. 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$2,930 shall be paid before final plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated March 17, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Cera said he voted against this proposal because he doesn't know if this subdivision will adversely impact the neighbors, because of a precedent issue and that this is not a reasonable design for a lot. He said it will encourage more gerrymandering to be done in the future. He added that he has no problem at all with subdividing property in areas when the house fits, but he doesn't want to squeeze houses in just because they can. 3. Continued Discussion Regarding Lot Width and Lot Depth Zimmerman reminded the Commission that they discussed this item at their May 28, 2014, meeting. He said there are two main issues, the first is the differences in definitions of lot width and lot depth between the Zoning Code and the Subdivision Code and the second is the concern regarding "irregular" lots. Zimmerman explained that the Zoning Code defines lot depth as the mean depth between the front and rear lot lines, and the lot width as the mean width measured at right angles to the mean depth. Also, the Zoning Code, in all of the residential zoning districts except for the Single Family R-1 zoning district, measures the lot width at the front setback line. Zimmerman explained that the Subdivision Code defines lot depth as the shortest distance between front and rear lot lines measured at right angles to the street right-of- way, and the lot width as the minimum distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth at the minimum building setback line. Zimmerman stated that when he reviewed the history of the definitions in the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code he realized that as far back as 1960, the definitions in both codes included language stating that the width of the lot is measured at the minimum Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 10 front yard setback. He discovered that in 2004, the phrase "at the minimum front yard setback" was inadvertently struck from the Zoning Code when an unrelated ordinance was approved. Zimmerman said that based on past precedent, ease of interpretation and administration, conformity with neighboring communities, and review of homes built under the current application of lot width as defined by the Subdivision Code, Staff suggests a revision of the definition of lot width within the Zoning Code in order to continue to review subdivision requests in a consistent manner. The specific changes in the Zoning Code would be as follows: The definition of width would be "The minimum required horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth at the minimum front yard setback line." The language regarding buildable lots would be amended to read as follows: "...In the R-1 zoning district a platted lot of a minimum area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet and a minimum width of eighty (80) feet at the front setback line shall be required for one (1) single family dwelling," and the definition of lot depth would be clarified to read as follows: "The mean horizontal distance between the front (street) line and the rear lot line measured at a ninety (90°� degree anqle from the street right-of-way. Zimmerman discussed several other possible requirements that could be considered in order to regulate the width and/or shape of proposed lots in subdivisions including: requiring the lot width to be maintained for a certain percentage of the lot depth, portions of lot width less than the minimum required width would not count towards the total required lot area, finding the depth by measuring from the front midpoint to the rear midpoint. At the midpoint of the depth a minimum lot width must be met, or requiring an irregular lot test where the formula P2/A = X is used to determine if a lot is "too irregular." Segelbaum said he would like the City to be able to have some certainty when reviewing subdivision requests, and questioned if new software is needed. Waldhauser said she is comfortable with developers providing the information and calculations. Baker said he would like to know how many subdivision requests the City receives per year, and the costs involved, including staff time. Segelbaum referred to the "irregular lot" test and said he is concerned that the focus will just be about not allowing irregularly shaped lots. Cera said the "irregular lot" test could just be one more consideration in the process. Zimmerman showed the Commissioners a map of lots in the Tyrol area that could possibly be subdivided. Cera noted that all of the lots have homes on them. Segelbaum asked if the lots shown on the map would meet the mean width test. Zimmerman said it would depend on how lot lines were drawn. Kluchka questioned how many of the lots shown on the map would not be able to subdivide even if small changes are made. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 11 Cera said he thinks a combination of the requirements that Zimmerman suggested might work to eliminate irregular lot shapes. Waldhauser questioned if irregular lot shapes is an issue. Cera said that requiring an average lot width negatively impacted the lot they discussed earlier, and that he is hearing a consensus among the Planning Commission to make the lot width definition in the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code match, but to also research ways to address the problem with irregular lots. Boudreau-Landis asked if a formula of some sort would supersede the existing conditions for approval or denial in the Subdivision Code. Segelbaum said he thinks a formula would be in the Zoning Code, not the Subdivision Code. Cera questioned if any of the requirements are state statutes. Waldhauser said she would be in favor of keeping the language in both codes requiring lots to be 80 feet in width at the front setback, and requiring that that width be kept for 50% of the depth of the lot. MOVED by Cera, and seconded by Waldhauser to recommend approval to amend the Zoning Code to state that a minimum width of eighty (80) feet at the front setback line shall be required. Also, staff will research additional opportunities to address irregularly shaped lots. Segelbaum asked if the motion should also include staff's recommendation regarding lot depth. Cera agreed to add language to the motion stating that the average depth shoutd be measured perpendicular to the street right-of-way line. Segelbaum said he would like to see examples of Golden Valley properties. Kluchka said he would like to see some historical examples. Baker said he would like to see further research regarding lot depth. Kluchka clarified that the motion is to recommend approval to amend the Zoning Code to state that a minimum width of eighty (80) feet be required at the front setback line, and to have staff bring back language defining average lot depth, and to do additional research on lot width and irregularly shaped lots. The vote was unanimous. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kluchka reported on the tour of community centers that the Community Center Task Force took at their last meeting. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 23, 2014 Page 12 5. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10 pm. , ~ �� � ' C arles D. Segelbau , Secretary Lis Wittman, Administrative Assistant