Loading...
07-28-14 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 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, July 28, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Community Development Director Mark Grimes, City Planner Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Boudreau-Landis and Cera were absent. 1. Continued Item — 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. 2. Continued Item — 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) 3. Continued Item — Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan Review— Laurel Ponds, PUD #117 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Address: 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South Purpose: To allow for a 30-unit, detached townhome development Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 2 The Informal Public Hearings for Items 1, 2 and 3 were combined as was the discussion. Zimmerman reminded the Commissioners that these public hearings were tabled at their last Planning Commission meeting. He explained the applicant's proposal to construct 30 detached townhomes on the properties located at 305 and 345 Pennsylvania Avenue South. As a part of the proposal both of the properties need to be re-guided on the General Land Use Plan Map to the Medium Low Residential designation and rezoned to Medium Density (R-3) Residential. Zimmerman reviewed some of the issues discussed at the July 14 Planning Commission meeting including: the installation of a sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue, the inclusion of additional green space, a reduction in the number of driveways accessing Pennsylvania Avenue, the relocation, or clarification of the water and sanitary sewer lines, access to the Workabilities site to the east, and the use of an existing City easement along the south end of the property. He explained that the existing, 55-foot wide easement was established in 1978 as part of the Laurel Avenue Greenbelt, and that it also extends along the Workabilities site. He added that the easement agreement states that no structures or improvements of any type shall be permitted. Zimmerman discussed some of the outstanding concerns and issues including: the reduction in density or the consolidation of some of the units in order to obtain additional green space and some distance between homes, the rear and side yard setbacks for the proposed northernmost homes, the setbacks from the internal roadway for the easternmost homes, the construction of public versus private streets, and the creation of a development schedule and construction phasing plan. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the General Land Use Plan Map Amendment, the Zoning Map Amendment and the Preliminary PUD Plan, subject to the conditions outlined by Planning, Engineering, and Fire. Kluchka asked if parking is allowed on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. Zimmerman said yes, and added that allowing parking on both sides of the street will slow traffic. He said that staff doesn't see a great benefit in having the proposed bump-out parking areas. Waldhauser asked if the bump-out parking spaces would be for the Laurel Ponds use only. Zimmerman said he thinks that is the intent. Zimmerman referred to the proposed access to the Workabilities site and stated that it could be open during construction, and for emergencies, but through traffic and snow storage would not be allowed, and it would need to be maintained year-round. Zimmerman referred to the existing drainage, open space and walkway easement along the south end of the property. He said the applicant is not inclined to take out lots in the center of the project, but is more inclined to create a "beefed-up" green area at the corner of Pennsylvania and Laurel Avenues. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 3 Kluchka referred to the 15-foot setback requirement for the proposed parking spaces on the east side of the site, and asked if that applies to both the Laurel Ponds property and the Workabilities property. Zimmerman said it does apply, however, the Laurel Ponds property could vary from the requirement because it is a PUD. The Workabilities property would need the variance because it is not a part of the PUD. Zimmerman referred to the southern portion of the property and discussed the concerns about the lack of a turnaround area at the Workabilities access site. He stated that anyone using that southernmost roadway would have to use a private driveway in order to turn around. He suggested that with some design changes, or perhaps attaching some of the proposed units, there might be better results in regard to the turnaround area. Zimmerman referred to the proposed private roadways and explained that the PUD ordinance says that streets shall be public unless granted a waiver. He said staff is concerned about allowing private streets unless all the maintenance and access issues are very clear. Kluchka suggested that the language in the condition regarding the sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue be changed from "shall consider" installing a sidewalk to "will install" a sidewalk. He also suggested that the language regarding the prohibiting of fences be changed to state that fences "shall be prohibited." Segelbaum asked how the park dedication fees will be used. Zimmerman stated that park dedication funds go into a general park fund, and aren't earmarked for specific projects. Segelbaum asked how this proposal deviates from the requirements in the R-3 zoning district. Zimmerman stated that the applicant is proposing a smaller setback along Pennsylvania Avenue, and the lot sizes are smaller. He added that the Zoning Code doesn't have language regarding detached townhomes. Waldhauser said she is most concerned about the effects on adjoining residential properties. Segelbaum asked if there is precedent of reducing easements to allow for development. Grimes stated that the City has, in the past, vacated easements that are no longer needed. Blum asked how many properties along Laurel Avenue have this easement. Zimmerman said the 55-foot wide easement is on this property, the Workabilities property to the south, and continues for quite a ways on Laurel Avenue for the green belt. Don Jensen, Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant, referred to the questions regarding the use of the easement area. He stated that the City has done nothing with this area since 1978 and he hasn't been able to find any documents, or plans regarding the use of the easement area. He referred to the discussion about having a green area as part of his proposal, and his conclusion is that there is no need for park space on this site because there are existing connections to other, nearby parks. He showed the Commissioners elevations of the proposed houses and stated that plans could maybe be redesigned to address the lack of a turnaround area on the southern portion of the site. He discussed the use of the easement, and explained how they could design the stormwater pond and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 4 the landscaped corner of Laurel and Pennsylvania Avenues all within a 45-foot area. He discussed the concerns about private roads and stated that the development will not work with public streets instead of private drives. Waldhauser asked if there could be parking on the internal roads. Jensen said parking would be allowed on one side of the road. Waldhauser asked how the surface water would flow through the site. Jensen referred to a grading plan of the site and explained how the water runs off the site. He added that there will be drain tile installed as well. Waldhauser asked if more trees could be planted going east and west on the site. Jensen said yes. Segelbaum asked Jensen why he needs to have private streets to make the development work. Jensen said all medium and high density projects have private drives. He stated that connecting the units with private drives is the proper way to do it, because public streets would wipe out the developable area, and wouldn't connect to anywhere else. Segelbaum referred to the landscaping plan for the southwest corner and asked Jensen if he would be installing the landscaping, or if the City would. Jensen said that they would install the landscaping, but he would like to talk to the Parks Department about the City installing additional items such as signage, kiosks, trellises, or things that might match the City's existing street furniture or theme. He added that he would also be extending the sidewalk along Pennsylvania Avenue from their site to Laurel Avenue, but not over to Western Avenue. Segelbaum said he is concerned about the existing homes directly across the street on Pennsylvania Avenue if the proposed new homes are only set back 13 feet from property line. Jensen stated that the neighbors in attendance at the neighborhood meetings did not express concern about that. He added that the proposed new homes will be 13 feet from the property line, but approximately 20 feet from the curb. Kluchka said he would feel more comfortable with the project if the parking bays on Pennsylvania Avenue were removed. Baker noted that the applicant has said the City could install additional landscape features on the southwest corner. He questioned if the applicant would be willing to install those additional landscape features. Waldhauser said she would like some of the houses to be smaller in size. She referred to the easement area and said she thinks reducing the size of the easement area and installing additional landscaping would be a trade-off for the lack of green space within the development. Segelbaum agreed that what is being proposed might be the best opportunity to get additional green space. Kluchka said he doesn't think "beefing up" the southwest corner is enough of a trade-off, and he would like to see better quality in the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 5 landscape design and maybe a walkway around the pond. Baker said he wants to be sure there is quality landscaping installed as well, and he would like to see a more detailed landscape plan before the Planning Commission recommends approval. Kluchka suggested that a condition stating that the easement reduction request will be considered, pending an enhanced landscaping plan, subject to Planning Commission review and City Council approval, at the time of the Final PUD Plan submittal. Waldhauser suggested a condition be added stating that final approval will be contingent on quality design and materials used. Grimes stated that the homes will be built in stages, so it would be difficult to enforce the design of each home. Waldhauser suggested guidelines. Kluchka suggested that a list of building materials be approved. Kluchka suggested a condition be added stating that the sidewalk shall continue along the east side of the property all the way to Laurel Avenue. Jensen asked that the words "landscaping framework" be used instead of specifying the landscaping materials. Waldhauser reiterated that she would like there to be greater diversity in the size and price of the units in return for consideration of the reduction of the easement area, setbacks, and allowing private streets. Kluchka stated that the market will generate diversity as well. Baker said he wants this kind of discussion when the Comprehensive Plan is next updated because these types of discussions are lacking on this Commission. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning 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) MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of changing 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. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for Laurel Ponds, PUD #117 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. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 6 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 Ptan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by EVS, dated 6/13/14 submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Mark Grimes, Community Development Director, dated July 10, 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 July 7, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan as part of the Final PUD Plan set. 5. All principal buildings shall conform to the rear and side property setbacks when adjacent to a single family zoning district as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd. 3(C)(1). 6. No buildings shall be located less than fifteen feet from the back of the curb line for roads that are part of the internal road system as outlined in Section 11.55, Subd. 3(C)(2). 7. Unless a wavier is granted by the City, any streets constructed within the development shall be public streets as required in Section 11.55, Subd. 6(A)(6). 8. The Applicant shall install sidewalks along Pennsylvania Avenue running the length of the property and on the east side of the property south to Laurel Avenue. 9. The easement reduction request from 55 feet to 45 feet will be considered pending review of an enhanced landscaping plan. 10. The Applicant shall prohibit the installation of fences within the development. 11. The Applicant is encouraged to explore a range of housing types and designs. 12. Building materials shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. 13. Permits to construct parking bays on the property at 7400 Laurel Avenue shall be obtained by that property owner and shall not be located closer than fifteen feet to the side property line, as required in Section 11.47, Subd. 6(B), unless a variance is obtained. 14. Any cross parking agreements that are created shall be submitted to the City for review and shall be recorded with the Final Plat. 15. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 117" in its title. 16. The City Attorney shall determine if a park dedication fee is required for this project prior to Final Plan approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 7 17. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 18. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 4. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 4XXX Harold Avenue — Fretham Twenty-Two — SU22-03 Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC Address: 4XXX Harold Avenue Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained that this proposal is the second part of a three lot subdivision. The first half was at 400 Decatur Avenue North. He stated that both of the lots in this proposal meet the minimum lot requirements in the Single Family R-1 zoning district. Lot 1 would be 10,151 square feet in size, with 81 feet of width at the front setback line, and Lot 2 would be 10,002 square feet, with 80 feet of width at the front setback line. Segelbaum asked if survey's submitted by applicants are verified for accuracy. Zimmerman stated that staff reviews surveys that are submitted, but rely on surveyors to submit accurate numbers. Segelbaum asked if this proposal meets the average width test recently discussed by the Planning Commission. Zimmerman stated that he did not consider the average width of the proposed new lots because the City Council recently amended the Single Family R-1 zoning district to state that lot width is measured at the front setback line. Grimes added that under today's Zoning Code, it meets all the requirements. Don Jensen, Lake West Development, LLC, Applicant, said it was important to show the building envelope on his plans and the practical results. He stated that the pie-shaped lots in this proposal work because the garages fit in the front, and there will still be strong front yard, and back yard space. Grimes added this proposal won't impact neighboring properties. Blum asked what will happen to the berm on the north side of Harold Avenue. Jensen said most of it would be removed for drainage and driveways, but that they will re-work it as much as possible. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Fretham Twenty-Two Minor Subdivision subject to the following findings and conditions. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 8 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. Conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 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. Continued Discussion Regarding Lot Depth and Shape Zimmerman noted that this is part of the on-going discussion about lot width, depth and shape. He explained that the Zoning Code defines lot depth as the mean horizontal distance between the front (street) line and the rear lot line. He stated that lots are not required to be a certain depth; however, the rear yard setback requirement in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts is determined using the lot depth (20% of lot depth). He stated that Golden Valley's Subdivision Code uses the shortest distance between the front and rear lot lines when calculating lot depth. He added that, similar to lot width, lot depth is difficult to calculate for unusually shaped lots. He discussed other communities' lot depth requirements, and noted that approximately half of the surrounding communities he researched use the average depth, and the other half use the shortest distance between the front and rear lot lines. He stated that for cities using the average depth calculation, they define the rear yard setback as a set distance, typically 25 feet, rather than a percentage. Using this method removes the complication of calculating the average depth. Zimmerman next discussed lot shape. He showed the Commissioners several examples of past subdivision proposals, and explained four different tests he did on each of the examples. The first the test requires the minimum lot width to be maintained for a distance of 30% of the lot, the second test removes lot area from the total square footage that doesn't have the minimum required width, the third test requires a minimum width at the midpoint of the lot, and the fourth test is to use an "irregularity test" of Pz/A = X with a cutoff of 22 being too irregular. Segelbaum asked if the current Subdivision Code permits variances. Grimes said the Subdivision Code states that the requirements of the Zoning Code need to be met when subdividing property. Kluchka asked if a recommendation can be made stating that the Planning Commission woutd like to have discretion, and not just rely on math, when reviewing subdivision Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 9 proposals. Baker said it would be hard to make a decision if there aren't any requirements. Kluchka said he wants good math to use as a guideline, but he wants the ability to have discretion. Zimmerman said he doesn't think state statutes allow for discretion, but additional requirements could be put in the Zoning Code. Waldhauser added that the more flexibility in the requirements, the more uncertainty property owners have about what they own, and if they are able to subdivide their property. She said she would prefer to use a set number, rather than the lot depth, to determine the rear yard setback. Baker said he also likes the idea of a fixed number for the rear yard setback requirement. Baker said he would like to see more analysis of properties that required the minimum lot width to be maintained for a distance of 30% of the lot. He said he also likes the requirement that removes lot area from the total square footage that doesn't have the minimum required width. Kluchka questioned if that would limit the buildable area. He said he would like an opinion from the City Attorney about allowing the Planning Commission to have more discretion when reviewing subdivision applications, or possibly not having a public hearing if the Planning Commission doesn't have a choice about recommending approval or denial. Grimes stated that state statute requires cities to have the public hearing process. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to recommend that new lots not only meet the minimum width (80 feet) at the front setback line (35 feet in the R-1 zoning district), but maintain that width continuously to a point 70 feet into the lot. Also, to modify the way in which rear yard setbacks are calculated in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts so that they are a set distance of 25 feet instead of a percentage of the total lot depth. --Short Recess-- 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Waldhauser gave an update on a Bottineau meeting she attended. Kluchka gave an update on the recent Community Center Task Force meeting that he attended. 7. Other Business • Discussion Regarding Recycling Centers Zimmerman stated that the SIFCO site on Winnetka Avenue was being considered as a possible location for a recycling center use. Staff realized that the Zoning Code definition of a recycling center includes crushing, shredding, baling or compacting Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission July 28, 2014 Page 10 materials such as auto bodies and scrap metal. The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to discuss the need to update both the definition of recycling centers, and the appropriateness of recycling centers as a permitted use in the Light Industrial and Industrial Zoning Districts. Kluchka asked if the Council is considering redeveloping that area. Zimmerman said redeveloping that area is a discussion the Council wants to have. They also want to determine what types of recycling centers to allow. Grimes added that he is concerned about industrial properties that are Iocated close to Single Family Residential properties. Baker said he is convinced that there should be more than one category for recycling. He said he also wants to be clear about what the City wants, and doesn't want. He asked if the Council's mostly concerned about noise. Zimmerman said the concern is noise, storage and the increased number of large trucks. Waldhauser agreed it would be helpful to have defined categories. Grimes suggested requiring there to be a minimum distance from Single Family residential properties. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to create at least two categories for recycling centers, one for low intensity typical household recyclable items, and one for high intensity for more commercial or industrial items. The less intense uses could potentially be allowed in the Light Industrial zoning district and the more intense uses could be allowed in the Industrial zoning district. The Commission also recommended defining a minimum distance that a recycling center must be from Single Family residential properties, and to consider the possibility of allowing recycling centers with a Conditional Use Permit. • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 pm. , � � � __.. l� i Charles D. Segelbaum, ecretary Lisa ittman, Administrative Assistant