Loading...
09-08-14 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 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, September 8, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Cera, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes August 25, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the fourth paragraph on page three and asked that it be clarified to state that the subject property clearly starts with two parallel side yard lot lines that eventually bend creating a side yard and a rear yard, whereas the side lot lines on a pie shaped lot would intersect at a sharp angle. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 25, 2014, minutes with the above noted clarification. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 200 Meadow Lane North — Sunnyridge Woods — SU08-12 Applicant: Golden Valley Land Company (Matt Pavek) Address: 200 Meadow Lane North Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into three new single family residential lots. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained the applicanYs request to demolish the existing single family home and subdivide the property into three new single family residential lots, all of which meet the requirements found in City Code. He stated that the applicant has had finro neighborhood meetings and that the neighbor's concerns included: the loss of trees, the size of the lots, the impact of the construction, the impact on the character of the neighborhood, and the impact on surrounding home values. Kluchka asked if there is any component of this proposal that would allow it to be denied. Zimmerman stated that it meets all of the requirements in the City Code so there is really no reason to deny the requested subdivision. Segelbaum asked if the applicant is requesting any variances. Zimmerman said no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 2 Peter Knaeble, representing the applicant, stated that the main concern he heard at the neighborhood meetings was regarding the density of his proposal. He stated that based on economic feasibility he can't split the property into two lots instead of three. He said he also heard concerns about the relationship of the home on proposed Lot 3 to the neighbor immediately to the east at 207 Sunnyridge Lane. He said he would like to propose that Lot 3 be widened by five feet and be allowed to have variances in order to have a 10 foot west side yard setback (instead of 15 feet), and an east side yard setback of 20 feet (instead of 15 feet) so that the new home can be built further away from the existing home at 207 Sunnyridge Lane. He discussed the tree preservation requirements and stated that the majority of the trees on the property would remain. However, because of the neighbor's concerns, he would like to propose a tree conservation easement along Meadow Lane and Sunnyridge Lane to further protect an additional 34 trees. He referred to the neighbor's concerns about the impacts during construction and said he thinks any additional controls regarding noise, parking, working hours, etc. should be enforced at the time of construction. Kluchka questioned the procedure in light of the applicant's proposed new information. He questioned if the Planning Commission should wait to review the proposal until new plans are submitted for review. Zimmerman stated that staff has had some time to review the additional information so he doesn't think the process needs to be stopped. He noted that any variance requests would take place during the building permit process since the variances discussed would be from the Zoning Code requirements, not from the Subdivision Code requirements. He added that the proposed tree conservation easement would need more discussion. Cera stated that traditionally, a variance request coming back to the City after a subdivision request has been frowned upon. Kluchka said the neighbors want the house on Lot 3 moved further toward the west, and he doesn't want to second guess the applicant. Segelbaum asked Knaeble if these will be custom homes and if it is difficult at this point to say which trees will stay and which ones will not. Knaeble said they will be custom homes. He stated that he is required to submit a tree preservation plan with his application and that some additional trees will be removed and some will be saved. Segelbaum questioned if there are other ways, besides a tree conservation easement, to maintain additional trees. Kluchka asked if the applicant could put a covenant on the property regarding the trees. Knaeble said they are proposing an easement that would get filed at the County with the property. Waldhauser added that covenants usually have a fixed life. Baker questioned why they couldn't have a perpetual easement placed on the lot itself so it is attached to the deed and prot�cted. Matt Pavek, Applicant, stated that he is proposing a perpetual easement, the trick is having someone enforce the easement language. Baker referred to the tree preservation plan and noted that virtually all the trees are in the street right-of-way, not on the lots themselves, so the proposed tree conservation easement won't be effective anyway. Pavek said there are trees on the lots and in the right-of-way. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 3 Segelbaum asked Pavek if he has concerns that restrictions would make the lots more difficult to sell. Pavek said it has been his experience that people want to keep as many trees as possible, so having a tree conservation easement would be a win-win situation and a good faith effort to preserve some of the trees. Segelbaum suggested that the City Attorney might be able to suggest another way to protect the trees that would not require the City to have to enforce the easement. Kluchka noted that half of the trees are ash trees will probably be removed anyway. l4luchka referred to the proposed amendment to move the west property line of Lot 3 five feet further to the west and asked if that is the maximum amount it could be moved. Pavek stated that 5 feet is an approximate amount. He said language could be changed to say that the lot line could be shifted to the west, but still maintain the required lot size. Knaeble clarified that the plans they submitted are what they are proposing. He just heard from the neighbors that they would like that property line shifted to the west, so he is willing to do that. Baker asked Pavek to explain the economic reasons why he rejected proposing a two- lot split. Pavek explained that the price is set by how many lots can be created and that the seller in this case is entitled to split this property into three lots. If fewer than three lots are created it decreases the value of the land. Kluchka opened the public hearing. John Wetzel, 120 Meadow Lane North, thanked the applicant for listening to his concerns. He said he is very concerned about the tree coverage and it takes 50 to 100 years to have the kind of tree coverage they have now, which he would like to maintain. He said there will be an awful lot of activity on Sunnyridge Lane in the next 12 to 18 months. He referred to an aerial photo of the subject property and said he doesn't recognize it. He said he walks by this property every day when he walks his dog, and it doesn't look like what is being shown in the photo. He said that moving the center lot line further west makes sense and preserving trees makes sense. He asked if the 15- foot side yard setback is standard on all properties in Golden Valley. Kluchka said each property is different. Wetzel asked the Planning Commission to take into consideration what each neighbor is saying because once something starts, it steamrolls, and it is hard to stop. He said he loves where he lives, and he pays unbetievably high taxes because of the beauty of the neighborhood and the wonderful neighbors he has, and he would like to preserve that. Rick Moore, 214 Sunnyridge Lane, said he thinks the applicant is headed in the right direction and has been listening to the neighbors. He said typical setbacks are really set up for a typical rectangular lot that you might find in a grid situation where there is a front, two small sides and back. He said in the situation of pie shaped lots, there needs to be a different way to analyze these types of properties because there are side yards next to back yards. He said the discussion demands that these types of lots be looked at differently. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 4 Mark Dietz, 207 Sunnyridge Lane, handed out pictures of his house, his back yard, and the trees on the subject property. He said he appreciates the time the applicant has spent with him and the neighbors. He said this proposal affects him a Iot. He said he counted 52 trees on Lot 3, some of which are 85- to 125-feet tall Austrian pines, which are a protected species, and are 125 years old. The trees are a haven for wildlife, and protection for his house. He said he has 20 windows on his house that face the proposed Lat 3. He said he is trying to sell his house and realtors have told him it will be virtually impossible to sell with construction going on, without reducing the price by 15 to 20%. Michael Alexin, 208 Sunnyridge Circle, said the picture the applicants have shown is not drawn to scale and that the proposed new houses are really right on top of each other. He said he moved to this area because of the large lots and trees and this proposal is a tragedy that will ruin the character of the neighborhood. He said even though it meets all of the legal requirements, those requirements go across all of Golden Valley, and this is a very special neighborhood, and a special community in the City with a very high tax base. He said he really believes this should be a two lot development, and with bigger homes on them the economics can work. He said doesn't understand why they need the third lot because it will change the character of the neighborhood, and the homes will be very close together. Mark Dietz, 207 Sunnyridge Lane, referred to the pictures he submitted and noted that his patio goes all the way to the property line. He said there is a major concern that his house will look at the new house on Lot 3 so he suggests the proposed variance should be granted so the new house will be further away from his house. He stated that there are 2 or 3 pine trees that are 45 inches in diameter that will have to be removed which is disturbing. George Landis, 220 Meadow Lane North, said he'd like to offer an appeal for a two-lot subdivision. He said people come to his house and they can't believe there are any neighborhoods like this in the Twin Cities. He asked the Planning Commission if they want to be like Wayzata or Coon Rapids, and asked where they want this community to go. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Knaeble stated that the plans are drawn to scale. Baker asked Knaeble if the aerial photo he showed was an existing photo of the trees or if trees were added to the photo. Knaeble explained that the plan he showed is a color rendering layered over an accurate aerial photo, and that no trees were added to the photo. Kluchka asked Zimmerman to explain the side yard setback requirements. Zimmerman stated that side yard setbacks vary according to the width of the lot and the height of the 'house. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 5 Waldhauser referred to the drainage on these properties and noted that there is going to be a catch basin along the north property line. She asked how that will work if there are trees in the easement area. Pavek said they will work with the City Engineer regarding the placement of that pipe. Kluchka referred to the comment regarding the methods used for odd lot sizes and stated that the City Council will be discussing some proposed changes. Zimmerman stated that the lot width language was addressed and the discussion regarding lot depth is ongoing. Segelbaum noted that any new language being considered wouldn't change the analysis of this proposal. Cera questioned if Austrian pines are a protected species. Baker said they are a viable species, but there is no special protection that he is aware of. He added that he is cognizant of the fact that the City Council will be discussing a moratorium on subdivisions at their next Council/Manager meeting, which he supports, so he is opposed to a motion approving this proposal. Cera noted that the City Council does not take action at their Council/Manager meetings. The Commissioners discussed tabling this proposal until the City Council debates a moratorium on subdivisions. Zimmerman stated that applications already received would continue to go through the process. Segelbaum stated that the applicant has presented a viable proposal. He said he is pleased that some changes were made based on neighborhood concerns, and he doesn't see any basis to deny this request. Blum agreed, and said that this is one of the most beautiful areas in the City, but understanding the law and the Planning Commission's responsibility, there is nothing proposed here to base a denial on. He added that the applicant could sue the City which would require the request be approved anyway, without the changes the neighbor's asked the applicant to consider. Kluchka said he thinks moving the interior lot line five feet to the west is a good idea that he would like to encourage. Cera said he would prefer that option over granting variances in the future. Segelbaum said he would like to leave the tree conservation easement question to the City Attorney. He said he thinks it would be better not to have the City be required to actively maintain that easement, and he does not want it to be added as a condition of approval. Cera suggested adding a condition stating that the easement could be one option, but that further study is necessary. Waldhauser said the proposed subdivision meets or exceeds all of the City's requirements. She said she is not opposed to moving the interior lot line five feet to the west, and she would endorse some sort of tree preservation arrangement. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried 5 to 1 to recommend approval of the Sunnyridge Woods Minor Subdivision subject to the following findings and conditions: Minutes of the Goiden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 6 Findinqs: 1. All three of the 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 west property line of Lot 3 shall be moved 5 feet to the west as proposed by the applicant. 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$4,448.80 shall be paid before Final Plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated September 2, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. The consensus of the Commission was that they have a preference for no future variances, and they would also like the City Attorney to examine ways to provide tree preservation similar to what the applicant has proposed. --Short Recess-- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kluchka reported on the last Community Center Task Force meeting where the group narrowed their recommendation down to two options. 4. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. Kluchka stated that has been a lot of talk on social media about the new Lock Up storage business under construction at the corner of Highway 55 and Douglas. He asked how he would request that a public hearing being held to figure out how the City let this development happen. Waldhauser said she recalls that there was an opportunity for the City Council to rezone that property, however, the utility and access issues with this property would have been very expensive for the City to address. Segelbaum suggested that the Planning Commission review the uses permitted in the various zoning districts. Baker said there needs to be some education done before the next Comprehensive Plan update process. Waldhauser suggested articles be put in the SunPost and the City's newsletter. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 8, 2014 Page 7 Kluchka said people do not understand that decisions regarding that property were made for a reason. He said he is concerned about ideas versus reality and he wants people to understand what led the City to this point. Baker said he would like to the City Council to write an article in order to get ahead of issues like this and to look for ways to get people involved. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried 4 to 2 to recommend that the City Council address the community's concerns about the Lock Up property including the public review of the history, the issues that were involved, a glimpse of what the building will look like when completed, and the opportunities to be involved in the Comprehensive Plan update. Commissioners Segelbaum and Waldhauser voted no. 5. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:50 pm. , , � C arles D. Segelb m, Secretary Li ittman, Administrative Assistant