Loading...
07-14-14 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 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, July 9, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, 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 June 9, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to page three of the June 9 minutes and clarified that her concern regarding the Tennant proposal going to the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission is that the different phases of development will be scaled back and will be too small to be required to go to the Commission. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the June 9, 2014, and June 23, 2014, minutes with the above noted clarification. 2. Continued Item — 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 explained that the applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing, vacant lot located south of Major/Noble Drives and west of Sweeney Lake into two separate lots. He reminded the Commission that this item was tabled at their March 24, 2014, meeting to allow for negotiations between the applicant and other landowners in the area regarding future development. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and stated that both lots exceed the minimum requirements. 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. Zimmerman stated that staff has concerns about the lengthy driveways, the distance to a water supply, the ability to turn around, and the water and sanitary sewer services. He Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 2 said that ultimately, the City would like to see orderly and coordinated development, adequately served by sewer and water, but without cooperation, the only option to preserve right-of-way now, and to accommodate future development, is to require 30 feet of right-of-way be dedicated to allow for the possibility of a future street. He stated that the applicant does not feel that dedicating land is necessary or appropriate. However, it is clearly in the City's interest to avoid an expensive taking in the future by requiring land for access now. He stated that without the dedication of right-of-way staff is recommending denial of this proposal. Cera asked about the landowner to south (1801 Noble Ave.) and his offer at the last Planning Commission meeting to pay for a new street. Zimmerman said he believes that offer has been pulled back and that discussions between the property owners didn't get that far. Segelbaum asked if the owner of 1801 Noble Ave. did not want to subdivide his property if the dedication of land would still be necessary. Zimmerman said yes, dedications happen as development occurs and opportunities arise. Segelbaum asked if the applicant would still be required to pay for a new street even though he is not required to build it. Zimmerman said there are a number of ways to finance the construction of the street. Segelbaum noted that the Fire Chief's memo was worded more strongly than Zimmerman stated in his presentation. Zimmerman explained that the memo in the agenda packet was written by the former Fire Chief. Since then, the applicant has changed his plans slightly and the current Fire Chief feels a little more comfortable with the new location of the proposed homes. Boudreau-Landis asked if the dedication of right-of-way takes away the viability of Lot 2 in regard to lot width. Zimmerman said yes, however, Lot 2 would gain frontage along the new street. Jacqueline Day, 1334 Spring Valley Road, representing the applicant, stated that Roy Lecy (owner of 1801 Noble Drive) offered to pay for the new road, but when all the neighboring property owners met, he said he would not pay for the road, he would front the money for it, but whoever uses the road was going to have to pay for it. She said that is when Mr. Wessin backed out of conversations with Mr. Lecy. She stated that in order to build a road the existing sanitary sewer will have to be removed, and football fields of dirt would have to be moved. Kluchka stated that the City isn't asking that the road be constructed at this time. Day said the plan the applicant has submitted makes sense for the neighborhood. She said doing the things the City is requiring would go against everything Mr. Wessin believes in, and what the neighborhood wants. She referred to the City's Comprehensive Plan and stated that a goal listed in that plan is to protect and respect traditional neighborhoods. She said Mr. Wessin will have to come back with a higher density plan to make his proposal work with the required road. She stated that Mr. Lecy has no hardships with his property at 1801 Noble which was marketed as one home, not for a development, because there is no frontage. She said there were other offers made for the purchase of Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 3 the home at 1801 Noble and if those offers were accepted they would not be here right now. She stated that Sweeney Lake is listed as impaired, and now there is blue-green algae in the lake, which they've never had before which is terribly concerning to all the lake owners. She said what the Planning Commission doesn't understand is that this is not 12 acres of beautiful land, ready to develop. It is a low, natural prairie doing its job of filtering the lake. She wants to keep it natural and let it do its job. She said Mr. Wessin is much more interested in doing what was done on the peninsula at Hidden Lakes. She showed the Commission several pictures of properties in the area that have turned their yards into natural areas. Segelbaum asked Ms. Day if the applicant is against dedicating 30 feet of right-of-way, paying for the new road, or both. Day said there is no legal reason for the applicant to dedicate right-of-way. She stated that the applicant would like to build two homes and that they are in talks with two existing homeowners to buy the property. Kluchka asked Ms. Day if the applicant is interested in continuing with the utility planning. Day stated that the plan is to put in the utilities as shown and there is no necessity to do any more plans because they are done. Day showed the Commission several more pictures of properties in the area. She said that Mr. Wessin is being put in the position where the only way it will make any sense is to do high density and that is not what he wants to do. She stated that there is no reason for future development to come up, so she doesn't understand why they need to put in a road. Scott Lucas, Olson & Lucas, applicant's attorney, said this is a minor subdivision application and Section 12.20 of the Subdivision Code does not apply to minor subdivisions. He said this is going to be a hardship on his client and questioned if the road would be constructed before his client sells the lots. He said when Mr. Lecy bought 1801 Noble Drive, he knew he was purchasing one single family lot with a 20-foot wide driveway. He said that staff telling Mr. Wessin to go work out a deal, or be denied is not fair. He stated that Mr. Wessin lost his home to foreclosure and is of retirement age, and this is unfair to his client. Kluchka said he has two issues that he can look at as findings or conditions. The first is that a utility plan must be completed and the second is that the requested right-of-way must be dedicated. Segelbaum noted that the applicant has made it clear that he is not interested in dedicating any right-of-way. Baker questioned if the Commission would feel differently if the applicant came back to the City with a covenant saying no further subdivisions would occur. Cera said he is considering the whole area and this proposal is a "piece meal" development. He stated that there won't be one property owner paying for the road, it would be paid for by several different owners once the property is subdivided and the road is built. Waldhauser added that there are other property owners in the area that will need access in order to subdivide their property as well. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 4 Segelbaum said that while he is sympathetic to the applicant, he wishes he could work with the staff recommendations. Waldhauser said she would appreciate a more detailed response to the applicant's attorney's points on whether road planning is or is not required. Zimmerman stated that there are provisions in the City Code that allow the requiring of dedication to be done. Waldhauser questioned if the City has discretion of requiring, or not requiring the dedication. Grimes said no, the City has to provide access for future development. He added that if the property to the south (1801 Noble Drive) chooses to subdivide, staff would not recommend keeping the existing 20-foot wide driveway to serve two or three new lots. Cera said there are also fire concerns and utility concerns. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval subject to the following findings and conditions: Findinqs: 1. Both lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the Single Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. 2. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. Conditions: 1. A preliminary utility plan must be provided that better illustrates a feasible extension of sewer and water to the new lots. 2. The City requires the dedication of right-of-way to accommodate the extension of a public street and a cul-de-sac. Additional easements are required as outlined in the July 10, 2014, memo from the Public Works Department. 3. A park dedication fee of $20,800 (2% of estimated land market value) shall be paid by the applicant prior to final plat approval. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 221 Paisley Lane — Paisley Lane Woods — SU12-16 Applicant: LDK Builders, Inc. Address: 221 Paisley Lane Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's request to subdivide the property into two separate lots. He stated that the existing home would be removed, and two new homes would be built. Lot 1 would be 22,958 square feet with 93.4 feet of width at the front setback and Lot 2 would be 24,129 square feet with 90 feet of width at the front setback, both of which exceed the Zoning Code requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 5 He stated that a neighbor has expressed concern regarding the size of the existing cul- de-sac and the ability to maneuver emergency vehicles. The Fire Chief has confirmed that the size of the cul-de-sac is adequate, and that the City is willing to consider restricting parking to one side during construction only, to help alleviate concerns. Zimmerman said that there has also been concern about tree preservation and explained that up to 20% of the trees on each lot (40% total) are allowed to be removed. Matt Pavek, Civil Site Group, engineer for the project said this is a pretty simple, straightforward subdivision request that meets all of the requirements of the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code. Kluchka asked if the proposed new homes would be spec homes or custom homes. Pavek said he doesn't know yet. Segelbaum asked if the applicant would be willing to pay for the widening of the cul-de- sac. Pavek stated that he didn't think so, because the cul-de-sac was just re-built a couple of years ago. Blum asked what will happen to the group of existing trees located at the end of the cul- de-sac. Pavek said he anticipates that the entire grouping of trees won't be disturbed. Baker asked about the price range of the proposed new homes. Pavek said the price range would be between $500,000 and $700,000. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Diane Richard, 217 Paisley Lane, submitted a petition signed by people opposed to the proposed subdivision. She said there are many people in attendance who want to address conflicts with the plans, and how this is destroying the neighborhood. Brian Walvatne, 227 Paisley Lane, said he recorded the fire truck accessing the cul-de- sac and put in on YouTube. He referred to Section 12.20 in the Subdivision Code and noted that it states the design standards call for a closed end turn-around with an outside diameter of 100 feet, and a street right-of-way diameter of 120 feet. He said the existing cul-de-sac has a maximum diameter of 54 feet, as measured by Jeff Oliver, which makes it difficult for commercial vehicles, snow plows and garbage trucks to maneuver. They have to back out because they can't make a loop. He urged the Planning Commission to deny this proposal. He asked how the developer arrived at 80 feet of width, and if they are using part of the radius to measure the width. He read from the June 23 Planning Commission minutes regarding a different item where measuring the width of a lot using a horizontal line was discussed. He said in this case, they are not using a horizontal line they are using the circumference of a circle. Peter McAllister, 210 Edgewood Avenue North, stated that goal number two in the Comprehensive Plan is to protect traditional neighborhoods. He said the plans show an oak tree that might be partially on his property, and he would like to know for sure if it is on his property. He said it is his understanding that many oak trees have died in other Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 6 LDK projects. He said he is also concerned that the applicant doesn't have proposed designs for the houses yet because one could be 19 feet away from his property. He said there is a downhill slope going toward his property, and he wants to know what will happen with run-off because he doesn't want mud to destroy his property. He said he doesn't like the idea that the proposed silt fence will be on his property either. Ann Cooper, 316 Meander Road, said she watched the house being built at 308 Meander Road and how it has changed the land and trees. She said she is concerned about her trees, and that she has a very unusual stand of 300 year old oak trees. She said when long term planning is discussed the importance of trees to the community is often included. She said she grew up in Golden Valley seeing gophers, pheasant, and quail, and has noted 45 different species of birds. She said people walk their children there and people from businesses walk there because it is a special place. She said she is concerned that without trees there will be a lot more run-off and with every additional house that is built, land and trees have changed. She said she doesn't want trees to die and she wants legacy trees taken care of. She said there are many trees on the 221 Paisley Lane property that are already dead and should not count toward ones they are saving. She said she wants the developer to work with neighbors regarding the shared trees, and she wants the developer held accountable. Jim Fredkove, 26 Paisley Lane, said that this property is a high point in the neighborhood and the approval of this proposal will result in changes to the retention of the groundwater, the rainwater, and the melting snow. He asked how the City holds deveiopers financially responsible to ensure existing drainage patterns are maintained without negative impacts to neighboring properties. He said rain gardens will not address the situation. He said that a tree preservation plan or a grading and erosion control plan doesn't atlow for public comment so he has concerns that this will be addressed properly. He said he hopes the City will be proactive and will require the developer to put money an escrow account to mitigate any potential issues to the surrounding areas. He said in the past, promises have been made and promises have been broken, and he doesn't want the City to be sued by homeowners because of this. Robert Kolasa, 117 Paisley Lane, said he is concerned about preserving native vegetation. He referred to the tree preservation plan and discussed the trees that are proposed to be removed. He said some trees that are marked to be saved are already dead, or trees that have a three-trunk system are being counted as three trees. He said he finds it ironic that the developer doesn't have to remove invasives and that buckthorn is not counted as a tree for removal. He added that the prior owner made an effort to remove buckthorn. He showed the Commission several pictures of the trees on the property, and said he wants the forester to take a closer look at what is being counted. Jerry Kassanchuk, 235 Paisley Lane, said he moved here because it is a special area. He said dividing this one large lot into two, and putting in two cookie cutter homes is not going to be good for the neighborhood. He said the three new houses east of his on Meander Road are an indication of how this can hurt the neighborhood. He referred to the Comprehensive Plan and reiterated that one of the goals in the plan is to preserve Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 7 traditional neighborhoods and this is a traditional neighborhood. He said the developer could build a million dollar home, make the same profit, and not hurt anyone. Jean-Philippe Richard, 217 Paisley Lane, said the lot is very hilly, probably the steepest hill in the neighborhood, and is covered with dense woods with a foot of leaves. He said he doesn't know how much of it will be removed, but the water is going to run off the property. He said that even though on paper the property can be subdivided, he is not so sure it is a good idea. He said it would be nice if the Planning Commissioners could walk the neighborhood and actually see the lot. He said if the neighbors can't do anything about the subdivision it would be very nice if the builder(s) could build something like what was already built before. Brad Gilmore, 208 Paisley Lane, said it is their goal to present a strong and unified voice. He said they do not support this subdivision because it adversely affects the residents by putting strain on the cul-de-sac and the likely erosion and run-off. He said there are water issues in this neighborhood, and he has installed $13,000 of drain tile. He said the subdivision will adversely affect the remarkable wildlife in the area, and these are matters that should be respected and considered as being very important. He said the subdivision doesn't preserve the character of their neighborhood. They have modest houses, every house is different, and what is happening in the neighborhood will change that forever. He said their neighborhood was laid out 60-plus years ago and questioned if anyone has the right to change was set up 60 years ago, and it just seems wrong. He said the subdivision adversely affects the quiet peacefutness of their wide open space. He said many of them who recently bought in to the neighborhood paid a premium to raise their children there because of the way the neighborhood feels, so by developing this neighborhood the way they feel it is being developed will take away from the value of their houses and conflicts with why he bought his house in Golden Valley. He said the real problem that he has with what is going on is the quality of the construction being put in the neighborhood. He said he feels terrible for the people who are buying these $500,000 to $700,000 houses because in 5 to 12 years they are going to be falling into the swamp they are being built on. He said he wants to know who is approving construction that is surrounded by water on three sides and he wants to know that everything is being taken care of. He said when he sees examples of what he is trying to avoid, that is when he raises his hand and says it has to be looked at, at the very least, and stopped at the very best. He said this neighborhood is at a tipping point and this is a unique situation and he doesn't know where else this is happening. They have lots up to one acre in size, and the old houses are at a stage where they could be torn down as a cost effective measure so for $200,000 per lot, a $300,000, 4,000 square foot house at the lowest construction price per square foot could be built. This concerns him because it's temporary, and will change the look of the neighborhood, and the properties will fall into the hands of people who really don't care about their neighborhood. Stacy Hoschka, address not given, stated that she is a Bassett Creek Watershed Commissioner attending the meeting to listen. She stated that the drainage plans will go through a review process and that the Watershed Commission's number one priority is flooding, and the flooding of homes. She said some of the water issues can be Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 8 mitigated. She stated that with respect to silt fences, and storm drains, because this property is on top of a hill, it could be a reasonable concern that the silt fences could fall apart, so she strongly urged the developer to submit a "beefed-up" plan, and to have inspections of the silt fences and storm sewer intakes. She referred to the tree preservation plan and questioned the removal of the trees that are dead and/or fragile, or if they are located in a position where they could be damaged or die, are counted toward the trees that are saved, but could be counted in what is removed. She stated that she lives in a house, on an acre lot that was homesteaded in 1856, and there was a lot of concern when she bought her house about what was going to happen to the birds, etc., but she kept the house the way it is, so it is doable, and it is a very nice way to live. Sean O'Neill, 209 Meander Road, said he is concerned about the practices of the builders, and how they're building the new homes, because when the new houses near him were built it was a mud pit for months while truck after truck brought in dirt. He said another concern is keeping silt off roads and out of the streams and sewers because there is a lot of water in the area. He said he is concerned about the integrity of the neighborhood because the existing homes are set back, and don't look alike. He said he was amazed when the builder of the new homes on Meander built two of the same homes next to each other. He said he wants this new proposal done responsibly, so it blends in with the neighborhood. Kathleen Watkins, 112 Paisley Lane, said she moved here because the lots were big, the houses were in the middle, there were grown trees, and she didn't have to worry about her kids playing in the neighborhood. She said she understands the day has come for subdivisions, but questioned how they will get two houses on this property because of the steep incline. It will change the elevation, and she thinks a more creative architect or builder could address the subdivision better than any LDK homes she has seen. She said there is a drainage issue and this will add to those problems. John Rode, 205 Paisley Lane, asked who is going to take care of the mud slide when it happens. He said the applicants were surveying the property in March and they still don't have plans for the houses. He said his sump pump runs more now than it did before the streets were reconstructed. He said there is not room for these new houses and he is totally against the proposal. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka referred to the cul-de-sac requirements and asked if the Subdivision Code requires the existing cul-de-sac to be expanded. Zimmerman said the requirements in the Subdivision Code would apply if a new cul-de-sac was being proposed. Grimes added that streets and cul-de-sacs are built narrower to reduce impervious surface. He stated that one new home will add approximately 10 trips per day and the cul-de-sac is adequate for this proposal. Waldhauser asked if the neighbors could pay for a wider cul- de-sac. Grimes said the neighbors could petition the City for the cul-de-sac to be widened at their cost. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 9 Kluchka asked about the grading plan. Grimes stated that each lot will have an individual grading plan and tree preservation plan, and that the City Engineer is satisfied the grading will work. Waldhauser asked if impaired or dead trees are excluded from the tree count, and asked about the accuracy of the count. Kluchka said the final count will be confirmed by the City Forester. Grimes added that the City does not require buckthorn to be removed. Segelbaum asked about trees that straddle a property line. Zimmerman said he would defer to the Forester in that situation. Kluchka asked about the City's approach in making sure that drainage plans are appropriate. Zimmerman stated that drainage plans are reviewed during the building permit process and reiterated that the proposed subdivision will not be allowed to make any existing drainage issues worse. Segelbaum asked what assurances there are that drainage plans will work, and if there is any type of post-construction recourse against a builder if there are problems. Baker said he wants to be sure the City Council knows that this is an issue they need to address. He said he is sympathetic to the loss of character, but that can be changed if residents push for it. Boudreau-Landis asked if other cities have separate zoning districts. Grimes said yes. Segelbaum said he does not see a way the Planning Commission can recommend denial of this. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to approve the Paisley Lane Woods minor subdivision subject to the following findings and conditions Findinqs: 1. Both lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the Single Family Residential (R-1) 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. 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$1,540 shall be paid before final plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated July 7, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 5. A neighborhood meeting held by the applicant must be held before City Council consideration. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 10 4. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan Review— Trevilla Complex, PUD #72, Amendment#2 Applicant: Albert Miller Address: 7475 Country Club Drive Purpose: To convert the vacant 60-unit senior living facility into a 114-unit assisted living and memory care facility. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's request to expand the existing vacant senior living facility at 7475 Country Club Drive from 60 units to 114 units consisting of 77 assisted living units and 37 memory care units. He referred to the parking plans and stated that the Zoning Code requires 23 parking spaces and the applicant is proposing 28 parking spaces. He compared the differences between this PUD proposal and the underlying zoning district. Waldhauser asked about the amount of impervious surface. Zimmerman stated that lot coverage is limited to 25% in the Zoning Code and that the applicant is proposing 27% coverage. Link Wilson, Architect for the project, referred to renderings of the proposed building and said that they will be reducing much of the impervious surface by adding pervious pavers. He said they will be working with the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission on best practices and explained that the existing building size is not economically viable. Baker asked how long the building has been vacant. Wilson said he thinks it has been vacant for three years. Segetbaum asked if a market study was done and if it showed a need for this type of proposal. Wilson said a market study has been done and there is certainly a need in this market. Waldhauser asked about the range of prices for this type of use. Wilson said the price ranges haven't been set yet, but they will be below the national average cost for nursing home care of$6,500 per month. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Edward Ratner, 115 Oregon Avenue South, said he has worked in a numer of types of these facilities and the issue is cost. He stated that there isn't an adequate number of affordable units for seniors and asked that a certain number of the units be made affordable to help serve the community better. Kate Hiebert, 7421 Glenwood Avenue, said she would like to commend the applicant for engaging her and being transparent about their plans for the property and addressing Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 11 her issues in their plans. She referred to past requests by Schuller's to construct an outdoor patio and said she wants to be sure that a request by Schuller's is not in front of the Planning Commission or City Council at this time and that the neighbors will be kept informed in that regard. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked if the City can require any of the units to be affordable units. Grimes said if assistance such as Tax Increment Financing, or Community Development Block Grant funds were being used, the City could require that a certain percentage of the units be affordable, but those funds are not being used in this case. Albert Miller, Applicant, said that as a practice, they dedicate 10% of the units as affordable. Segelbaum asked how that compares to other facilities. Miller stated that Sunrise in Golden Valley and The Waters in Plymouth don't accept government funds at all. Baker said Jones-Harrison in Minneapolis accepts government funds. Segelbaum referred to the neighbor's questions about Schuller's and asked how this proposal relates to Schuller's. Grimes said it doesn't, Schuller's has not submitted a proposal for a patio, and if they do, they would have to come before the Planning Commission and the Council for review and approval. Waldhauser said this sounds like a great project and that having a more affordable option for residents is fabulous. She added that the variances aren't an issue in this case to her because of where the existing building is already situated. Baker agreed and said he was impressed that the applicant spoke with the neighbors. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for Trevilla Complex, PUD #72, Amendment #2, subject to 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 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. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 12 Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by kass wilson architects and submitted with the application on June 13, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 6, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Public Works Department to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 8, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan that meets the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code (Section 11.73). 5. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 5. Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Plan Map Amendment— 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South — CPAM-54 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. and from Mixed Use to Medium Low Density Residential for the property at 345 Pennsylvania Ave. S. 6. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South —Z018-04 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Addresses: 305 & 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To rezone the property at 305 Pennsylvania Ave. S. from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-3) and to rezone the property at 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South from I-394 Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (R-3) 7. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan Review — Laurel Ponds, PUD #117 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Address: 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 13 Purpose: To allow for a 30-unit, detached townhome development The Informal Public Hearings for Items 5, 6 and 7 were combined as was the discussion. Zimmerman explained the applicant's request to construct 30 detached townhomes at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. He stated that as part of the PUD proposal, the properties will need to be re-guided on the General Land Use Plan Map to Medium Low Density, and rezoned to Medium Density Residential (R-3). He noted that the R-3 zoning district allows for 5 to 11.9 units per acre, and the proposal is for 9.1 units per acre. Zimmerman referred to the site plan and explained that there will be six rows of homes, each with five single family homes accessed via Pennsylvania Avenue. He stated that one private street to the south would dead end with emergency vehicle access via the Workabilities property, and two other entry points to the north would be connected with a private loop street. He referred to the parking proposal and noted that internal parking will be limited to one side of the street except along the east loop, and there are proposed guest parking bays along Pennsylvania Avenue, or along the east loop connection, with the possibility of an overflow parking agreement with Workabilities. Zimmerman stated that the proposed homes would be approximately 2,500 square feet in size, and would be approximately 10 feet apart from each other. He stated that the applicant is also proposing to reduce the existing 55-foot wide, drainage and open space easement along Laurel Avenue to 30 feet, and would like to construct a new stormwater pond within that easement. Zimmerman stated that there are a number of issues that will require additional discussion with the applicant including: streetlights on Pennsylvania Avenue, setbacks from the single family homes to the north, setbacks from the internal circulation, private versus public streets, access, easements, parking, utility ownership and maintenance, hydrants, watermain and sanitary sewer and the existing retaining wall. He stated that due to the number of issues that need to be addressed, staff is recommending that this public hearing be tabled to a future Planning Commission meeting. Segelbaum noted that detached townhomes are not listed in the R-3 zoning district and questioned if using the PUD process is a vehicle to allow them in that district. Zimmerman stated that detached townhomes aren't addressed as a use in any zoning district. Baker asked who would own the land. Zimmerman stated that there would be dues for maintenance, snow removal, mowing, etc., but the homes would have the feel of a single family property. Grimes added that he thinks there is a desire for this type of product, and that the City wants to provide a variety of housing options. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 14 Boudreau-Landis asked about the setbacks of the proposed homes along Pennsylvania Avenue as opposed to the homes to the north. Zimmerman stated that the proposed new homes along Pennsylvania Avenue would have a 13-foot front yard setback, and that the homes to north have a 35-foot front yard setback. Kluchka referred to the traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue and said he did not see sidewalks, or pedestrian friendly options on the plans. Zimmerman stated that a sidewalk is shown on the east side of the property, and that staff is recommending it be continued to Laurel Avenue. Kluchka said he would like to see that shown on the next set of plans. Don Jensen, Lake West Development, LLC, stated that many of the issues were addressed in the narrative he submitted. He referred to the driveway system and explained how they would be different than private or public streets. He discussed the drainage patterns on the site, and said his drainage plan will accomplish what the City is looking for, and there will only a 2% increase in impervious surFace. He showed the Commissioners renderings of the proposed housing types and discussed how traffic and emergency vehicles would navigate the site. He referred to the park dedication fees and stated that it would be a good idea to use the money to continue a sidewalk to the north. He referred to his tree preservation plan and noted that most of the trees on the corner of Pennsylvania and Laurel Avenues would be preserved. He said he believes he can address all of the staff's concerns, but his most important issue is the easement area, and if that easement can't be reduced, it might be a deal killer. Segelbaum asked the applicant if he has considered any other proposals that show a greater setback along Pennsylvania Avenue. Jensen said he was not discouraged by staff regarding the front setback areas, and he wants to have room for porches and overhangs. He added that rezoning the properties to R-3 only came about when the single family home to north was added to the project. Waldhauser said she is more concerned about the setbacks on the north and east that are supposed to be 30 feet, but will only be 15 feet. She asked if there will be some homes with a smaller footprint. Baker asked about the price range of the houses. Jensen said it depends how many units get approved, but he thinks the homes will be in the $300,000 to $400,000 range which is consistent with the neighboring homes in the vicinity. Edward Ratner, 115 Oregon Avenue South, said he is very much an advocate for adding sidewalks. He said it is hard to picture people walking around this site, and it is not designed for people to walk within the development. He asked how safe the drainage pond would be, and about the risk of it overflowing. He said there is an opportunity to have these homes be accessible, multi-generational homes, and it would be great to add some green space or a playground area. He referred to energy efficiency and stated that it would be a good expectation to have 220 volt service in the garages. Caryl Eschweiler, 420 Pennsylvania Avenue South, said she loves this neighborhood and, this property in principal is a good interFace between the commercial uses. She Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 15 said there are a lot of pedestrians in the area, and she thinks sidewalks are imperative, and should be an important element. She said she is concerned about Quebec Avenue being a shortcut, and the City might want a stop sign at Quebec and Pennsylvania Avenues. She said she is concerned about the amount of rental housing in the area, and said there is getting to be a lot of parking on the streets. She said she is concerned about, and wants a better understanding of, the construction process and what will get built when, because there could be an extended period of construction. She said she wants to see a plan of how interruptions to the neighborhood will be handled. She added that she is impressed with how the applicant has been communicating, and that this proposal is probably a good choice compared to other things that could go on the property. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka said he heard a lot about the importance of sidewalks and about the parking on Pennsylvania Avenue. He asked how different the zoning requirements will be using the PUD process compared to the R-1 single family requirements. He suggested adding a condition about fences, and said he loves the concept of multi-generational housing and a play space, or gathering area because with this much density there is going to be a demand. He said he would also like to see a neighborhood construction agreement. Cera said it seems like there is a lot going on this property without enough parking or any green space. He said if people are paying association fees the will expect more. Baker said that this is so new and precedent setting that he doesn't want to rush the process because there is an opportunity to look forward to how the City uses developments to take advantage of geothermal or other kinds of shared efficiencies. He said those types of things would make him more excited about this project than he is now. He questioned if this project will appeal to people with kids or dogs. Segelbaum said without parking, and without green space, he thinks they are asking for trouble. Boudreau-Landis agreed, and said he strongly agrees about requiring a common green space or shared amenities. Jensen stated that liability insurance is an issue with pools and playgrounds. He added that the sledding hill is an active play space, and the parks nearby helped form some of the decisions in the plans. Waldhauser questioned how much variation the developer could do without losing money. She said $300,000 is low these days, but that is for a house on a standard size lot, so she doesn't consider these homes to be affordable. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table ' these public hearings to the July 28, 2014, Planning Commission agenda. --Short Recess-- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 14, 2014 Page 16 8. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 9. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 10. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:03 pm. , �, � �� �' Charles . Segelb , Secretary Lisa ittman, Administrative Assistant