11-10-14 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Gommission
Navember 10, 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,
November 10, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Cera, Johnson, Kluchka,
Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman,
Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa
Wittman.
1. Approval of Minutes
October 13, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Blum referred to the ninth paragraph on page four and said the word "duplicitous" should
be replaced with the word "duplicative."
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to
approve the October 13, 2014, minutes with the above noted correction.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan — Sweeney Lake Woods —
1801 Noble Drive — PU-120
Applicant: The Lecy Group
Address: 1$01 Nable Drive
Purpose: To allow for the reconfiguration of the one existing single family
property into a new three-lot single family development
Zimmerman referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's request to reconfigure
the existing vacant parcel at 1801 Noble Drive and the existing driveway parcel into three
single family lots with access via a shared driveway. He stated that Lot 1 will be 37,494
square feet, Lot 2 will be 26,632 square feet, and Lot 3 will be 24,834 square feet, all of
which are greater than the minimum required lot size of 10,000 square feet. He added
that if not for the lack of adequate frontage on a public street, this proposal could be
reviewed as a minor subdivision rather than a PUD.
Zimmerman discussed several of the staff's concerns including: the installation of utilities
in a narrow right�af-way, fire and emergency access, the insufficient lot width at the front
setback line, and the challenges with shared driveways. He stated that the proposed 16
foot wide driveway is not acceptable and that 18 feet of width is the absolute minimum
width allowed. He referred to the PUD language in the City Code and explained that
public streets are required unless waived by the City. He added that staff is
recommending denial of the Preliminary PUD Plan as it does not meet all six of the
necessary PUD findings.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 2
Kluchka asked about the vacant tracts H & B shown on the plans. He also asked how
many lots would be appropriate for a shared driveway. Zimmerman stated that tract B is
the Wessin property that was recently approved for subdivision. He noted that the
driveways for that subdivision will have access on Noble, not on the proposed driveway
for this current proposal. He added that tract H is a vacant landlocked parcel. Kluchka
asked if the owners of these proposed new lots would have to agree to future access.
Zimmerman said yes.
Segelbaum asked about the distinctions regarding public versus private streets.
Zimmerman stated that streets, whether public or private have to be constructed
sufficiently to get fire vehicles in and out. He added that another issue is city versus
private maintenance of the street. Segelbaum noted that a homeowner may prefer
private streets so they can control access and don't have to give up ownership.
Zimmerman agreed and added that public streets require more land for utilities and
emergency access.
Cera asked if the applicant has agreed to the 18 foot wide driveway requirement.
�immerman said yes. Cera asked if the owners of the property to the west have been
approached. Zimmerman stated that Mr. Wessin owns the property to the east and west
of the driveway parcel and that he is not interested in selling it. Cera asked if a private
street would be a unique situation. Zimmerman said there are few developments in the
City with private streets. Baker asked if a 20 foot wide driveway would be allawed if this
were a subdivision proposal rather than a PUD proposal. Zimmerman said no, a 20 foot
wide street would not be allowed in a subdivision proposal. Baker said there is a risk of
encroaching on the neighboring properties if they pave 18 feet in 20 feet of right-of-way.
Waldhauser noted that if the area is considered a driveway the setback requirement is 3
feet, but if it is considered a street the setback requirement is 2 feet.
Baker asked about the nature of the proposed conservation easement. Zimmerman
referred to the City Engineer's staff report and explained that the applicant will be
required to dedicate conservation easements over a portion af the shoreline adjacent to
Sweeney Lake which is consistent with recent subdivisions on Sweeney Lake. Baker
asked if the easements cauld be removed in the future. Zimmerman said no, they are
permanent easements to create a buffer for the lake, preserve trees, and protect water
quality.
Blum referred to the comments about the proposed driveway being 18 feet in width and
said he did not notice that written in the Fire Chief's staff report. Zimmerman stated that
in conversations, the Fire Chief has said that 16 feet in width is too narrow, but that 18
feet, although not ideal, would be acceptable.
Waldhauser stated that if this property were developed differently, or if just one new
house was built, the applicant wauld not need any approvals and all of the safety issues
would remain, so she thinks the City loses a lot of things without a PUD.
Kluchka asked if the applieant held a neighborhood meeting. Zimmerman said yes.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 3
Segelbaum asked if the applicant has seen the staff reports and if there have been any
objections to any of the conditions in the staff reports. Zimmerman said the applicant has
received the staff reports and that he has not heard any objections.
Johnson noted that the state fire code requires a minimum of 20 feet in width for a
private driveway and questioned why the City would entertain anything narrower. He
referred to the size of the proposed cul-de-sac and asked if the diameter of that cul-de-
sac will be wider as discussed in the Fire Chief's staff report. Zimmerman stated that the
Fire Chief has said he is comfortable with an 18 foot wide driveway and that applicant is
willing to widen the diameter of the proposed cul-de-sac.
Patrick Sarver, Civil Site Group, showed a rendering of the site. He stated that Mr. Lecy
purchased the property in June of 2013 and has experience building high quality
developments. He said beeause of the PUD process they have an opportunity to save a
significant number of trees and improve the water quality. He stated that the only non-
conforming issue is that their property doesn't adjoin a public street. He referred to two
other recent developments in this same area and showed the Commissioners a table
that compared the amount of hard cover, shoreline buffer and water quality of all three
proposals and said theirs is the best of the three.
Waldhauser asked if they would be able to construct an 18 foot wide road on 20 feet of
right-af-way. Sarver said yes, they can build an 18 foot wide road to a safe level and they
would like to work with the Fire Chief regarding the issue of turning emergency vehicle
araund in the proposed cul-de-sac space.
Baker asked Sarver to point out the filtration basin on the plans. Sarver noted that the
proposed filtration basin is to the west of Lot 1. Baker asked if the filtration basin would
provide for the run-off from lawns and driveways. Sarver said yes. Blum noted that the
snow storage area is also shown in the same area as the filtration basin and asked if that
would impact filtration. Sarver stated that the snow storage area would be adjacent to the
filtration basin area. Waldhauser said that snow storage would affect filtration over time.
Segelbaum asked how the applicant could say which trees will stay and that the lake
buffer won't be removed when these proposed homes will be custom built. Sarver stated
that the lake buffer will be easement that can't be moved, built in, or removed. He stated
that the applicant will go to great extent to keep every tree possible and that
homeowners will be guided through the process.
Ruth Lecy, The Lecy Group, Applicant, said she doesn't want to offend the prior owner of
this property but she feels the City has received grossly inaccurate information regarding
the condition of the house. She explained that the property was bank-owned, neglected,
and was on the market for over 600 days. She discussed several of the needed repairs
including: a leaky roof, replacement of 1927 single pane windows, new appliances,
replacement of light fixtures, replaeement of original bathrooms, replacement of
carpeting, replacement of front steps, and repair of a leaking well in the basement. She
added that many of the materials from the home have been salvaged and have not been
sold, as they will be used in the construction of the proposed new homes. She discussed
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 4
the history of Lecy Bros. Construction and several of the awards they have received. She
showed the Commissioners similar projects they've done in other cities. She reiterated
that they will not be selling the lots to another builder. They will be custom building,
upper-bracket homes and protecting as many trees as possible.
Cera said he appreciates the re-use of the salvaged materials.
Kluchka opened the public hearing.
George Wessin, 1152 Hamel Road, Hamel, stated the Planning Commission brought up
the feasibility of building a public street and said the answer is yes. He added that the
property he owns adjacent to this proposal is for sale and has been for a lang time. He
confirmed that parcel H shown on the plans is a landlocked piece of property.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Waldhauser said it would be good to see some development that can be done without
damage to Sweeney Lake or to other properties in the area. She said it seems that there
is a group of property owners in the area who do not want this land developed except as
one single family home, which in this market would not work. She said there isn't going
to be another proposal like this and the alternative is to leave it sit vacant, which is
maybe the goal of the neighborhood. She stated that it was her understanding that the
homeowner to the southwest would also like to develop a portion of their property which
would also require access. She added that this proposal looks reasonable except for the
18 foot wide driveway, but this is a step in the right direction.
Cera questioned if a PUD is the appropriate mechanism to develop this property. He said
two lots might fit better than three. Kluchka said he thinks this is a creative and
appropriate use of a PUD because it gives the City a way to make improvements.
Segelbaum stated that staff has recommended denial, but he gets the sense there is
some potential for flexibility. He said it is not feasible to extend the public right-of-way so
it seems appropriate to use the PUD process. He said three lots doesn't seem excessive
and suggested adding a condition that there be no additional access off of the driveway
because he would not want the City to lack control over the safety issues. Kluchka
suggested adding a condition regarding additional utilities as well. Segelbaum said he is
more concerned about driveways than utilities because the existing driveway is
undersized and he doesn't want to see it overused by adding more driveways to it.
Blum asked if there is any potential of obtaining more land to the west. Segelbaum
stated that the property owner hasn't been willing to sell that land. Cera said maybe the
property owners could come to some sort of agreements for a public road. Baker said he
doesn't think restricting the number of access drives is a good idea. Kluchka noted that
the applicant would have to come back to the City for a PUD amendment, then the City
would have a say in how the property is further developed. Segelbaum stated that a
future homeowner might work with the property owner to the west to make the private
drive become a public street.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 5
Johnson said that if Staff can work out the issues regarding the width of the driveway
then he would be comfortable recommending approval of this proposal because the
primary goal is the best use of the property.
Kluchka suggested conditions/findings as follows: 1) the proposal as revised meets the
City's requirements for the driveway width, cul-de-sac diameter, and water and sewer
special construction techniques, 2) there would be a conservation easement, 3) there will
be an infiltration basin and snow storage, and 4) there will be no additional driveway or
utility access along the private driveway. Cera stated that the Engineering staff report
cavers many of conditions/findings discussed. Kluchka stated number one above could
say as noted in the City Engineer's staff memo.
Waldhauser asked if adding a sprinkler system to the proposed new homes was a
condition listed in any of the staff reports. Kluchka said he thinks the applicant is
planning on installing sprinkler systems. Lecy clarified that is an option they are
considering. Waldhauser said she doesn't see a reason why the Planning Commission
should add that as a condition. Segelbaum said the memo they received from the Fire
Chief said the access was inadequate. He suggested that a condition be included that
requires an updated memo from the Fire Chief stating that the revised access is
adequate.
Blum suggested a condition be added stating that the snow storage area and the
infiltration basin area cannot be overlapping. The Commissioners agreed.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan for Sweeney Lake Woods, PUD #120
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 pravisions 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 th� PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD
ordinance provisions.
7. There is sufficient information to waive the requirement of a public street in order to
permit a private street to be constructed.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 6
Conditions:
1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire
Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated November 3, 2014, shall
became a part of this approval. An updated memo from the Fire Chief stating that the
access is adequate is also requested.
2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering
Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated November 5, 2014, shall
become a part of this approval.
3. There will be no additional driveway or utility access allowed along the private
driveway.
4. The snow storage area and the infiltration basin area shall not overlap.
Zimmerman questioned if the words "private street" should be used or if the words
"private driveway" should be used. Kluchka said he thinks private driveway is more
flexible. Waldhauser said they've been talking about it as a private street so the words
"private street" should be used. Segelbaum agreed that it has to meet the standards of a
street so the words "private street" should be used.
3. Informal Public Hearing — General Land Use Plan Map Amendment— 7751-7775
Medicine Lake Road, 2430 and 2480 Winnetka Avenue North, and 2485 Rhode
Island Avenue North — CPAM-55
Applieant: City of Golden Valley
Addresses: 7751-7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2430 and 2480 Winnetka Avenue
North and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North
Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from
Commercial to High Density Residential for the properties at 7751-
7775 Medicine Lake Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North and 2485
Rhode Island Avenue North and from Light Industrial to High Density
Residential for the property at 2430 Winnetka Avenue North
Zimmerman stated that staff met with the City Council in June to do long range planning
for different areas within the City. He explained that a developer has come forward with a
potential praposal for an apartment and townhomes on the southeast quadrant of the
Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road intersection. These uses would be
inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning of the
properties. He stated that the Council's vision for this quadrant is for a mixed use area,
however the current Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan designation and the established
I-394 Mixed Use zoning district do not translate well to this area, so staff is recommending
that the four properties be reguided and rezoned to High Density Residential.
Baker asked haw many units have been discussed. Zimmerman said approximately 300.
Cera said he still intrigued by the Mixed Use option and making the whole corner Mixed
Use would be more creative. He suggested modifying the existing Mixed Use definition to
fit this propvsal. Zimmerman stated that the developer has not been able to obtain the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 7
corner property. He added that the I-394 Corridor hasn't had any vertically mixed uses
proposed and thinks more horizontally mixed uses next to each other might work.
Johnson asked if this would be the largest high density area in the City. Zimmerman said
he wasn't sure.
Segelbaum asked if the City thinks it is appropriate to include the corner in the proposal
even if they are not interested in this particular development. Zimmerman stated that the
Council wants to get things started with this proposal and they don't want to reguide or
rezone the corner property without their consent. Kluchka suggested that the corner
property could maybe be changed in the future.
Baker questianed accommodating a developer who is applying for something right now,
as oppased to slowing down and looking at the whole area. He said the City should be
looking at the long view and he doesn't see the benefit of accommodating what may not
be a viable project. Zimmerman stated that ereating a new land use category is a very
long process.
Cera questioned why there isn't a rezoning request along with the Comprehensive Plan
amendment request. Zimmerman stated that the rezoning request will happen along with
the development application.
Waldhauser said this is a good location for higher density housing.
Kluchka opened the public hearing.
Tadd Schachtman, Intuitive Investments, 9905 St. Johns Road, Minnetonka, said he grew
up in this area and wants it to be vibrant and energetic again, so when the opportunity
came up to look at the VFW parcel it struck him that this could be something much better
for the City. He said there is an opportunity with his proposal to help fix the flooding
issues in the area and he is at a point where this is a formative development and he is
ready to go with this first step in the process. He said his proposal will have an everlasting
impact on the narthern gateway to the City and he is planning for apartments and
townhomes to provide choices for a wide variety of demographics. He stated that what
the VFW has meant to the area is very important so he is considering call the project
Liberty Crossing to pay homage. The VFW will also be able to use a community room in
the apartment building and hopefully this will be a project people are proud of. He said
that he ideally wants the corner property as well, but it just didn't happen.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing.
Kluchka asked about underground parking and if it would be compatible with the soils in
this area. Zimmerman said he knows that soil borings have been done and if the soils
work, underground parking could be a possibility.
Baker stated that he noticed nothing has been mentioned about a commercial component
with this project. He said he wants to see more mixed use development and wants to
continue to explore the idea of Mixed Use zoning.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 10, 2014
Page 8
Schachtman stated mixed use projects in general are tough to finance, and to find lasting
tenants. He said he'd love to incorporate a commercial use and he is still considering the
corner property because it would be the best option for retail, but Walgreens is an
obstacle because a new retail use would not be contiguous. He said he will continue to
look at all the options however, he thinks the definition of mixed use, and the definition of
retail will change in the future.
Kluchka asked if the High Density designation prevents the applicant from doing any
other types of uses. Zimmerman said no, and added that the dominant use would be High
Density residential. Baker asked if re-designating the property would restrict in any way
the future use of the property. Zimmerman said no, the properties can be reguided or
rezoned in the future.
Johnson asked what "dominant use" means, He said that this looks like it would be the
largest high density area in the City and questioned why they wouldn't want to try to
segment it. Zimmerman stated that zoning allows one land use but a PUD would allow
variation from that.
Kluchka questioned if High Density residential is the right thing for this space. Baker said
he thinks this is an excellent place for High Density development.
Johnson said he is concerned about the volume of people in one area and reiterated that
this one area would be two or three times bigger than other High Density areas in the
City.
Cera stated that townhomes would be a better fit in the Medium Density category.
Zimmerman stated that the categories are based on the number of units per acre.
Segelbaum asked why traffic isn't being considered at this point. He said this sounds like
a good project, but he thinks it is premature to consider reguiding the Comprehensive
Plan at this point.
Waldhauser asked why the staff report says the City wants to retain the option to remove
the fourth property from consideration if needed. Zimmerman stated that the car wash site
is being considered, but its purchase has not yet been finalized.
Johnson asked if the rezoning decision is based on more concrete criteria. Zimmerman
said ultimately the Council could decide not to rezone the properties. Kluchka added that
approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment just allows the developer to keep
moving forward.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of changing the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from
Commercial to High Density Residential for the properties at 7751-7775 Medicine Lake
Road, 2480 Winnetka Avenue North and 2485 Rhode Island Avenue North and from Light
Industrial to High Density Residential for the property at 2430 Winnetka Avenue North.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 10, 2Q14
Page 9
4. Discussion Regarding Recycling Centers
Goellner reminded the Commissioners that this is a continuation of their discussion on
recycling centers from their October 13, 2014, meeting. She discussed her previous
recommendations and summarized the previous Planning Commission discussion.
She stated that in response to the previous discussion, staff has revised the
recommendations as follows: create definitions for Drop-Off Facilities and for Recycling
Facilities, allow Drop-Off Facilities as a permitted use and Recycling Facilities as a
conditional use in the Light Industrial zoning district, allow both Drop-Off facilities and
Recycling Facilities as permitted uses in the Industrial zoning district, remove definitions
for Compostable Waste and Yard Waste because they can be found in Section 10.40 of
the City Code, prohibit outdoor storage, and maintain distance requirement currently in
place for Recycling Centers.
Baker asked about the downside to making all of the uses conditional in both zoning
districts. Goellner said that could discourage some applicants' proposals.
Cera said he thinks the City should limit crushing and shredding, or make Recycling
Centers obtain a Conditional Use Permit, and ban crushing and shredding.
Waldhauser asked about the traffic associated with these uses and suggested the City
refer to the State statutes. She said she wants to focus on what these places are doing,
not on what they are recycling.
Baker asked about the future of Recycling Centers. Cera said there won't be any small
recycling centers. Baker asked if Recycling Centers would be more localized or if they
would be centralized. Cera said they would be centralized.
Cera suggested requiring a Conditional Use Permit for Recycling Centers, but not for
Drop-Off Centers.
Johnson questioned why they are being so abstract about this, rather than saying what
the City wants to see or daesn't want to see. Cera agreed that the City doesn't have to
permit or define things, they just have to know what they want or don't want.
Waldhauser said she is concerned about allowing Drop-Off Centers in the Light Industrial
zoning district. Cera stated that there are Drop-Off locations everywhere. Segelbaum
suggested the language apply only if a Drop-Off center is the primary use.
Baker said he wants to support composting and asked where that is expected to occur.
Goellner said that is an outdoor use.
Goellner asked the Commissioners if they want to require a Conditional Use Permit for
Recycling Centers in the Light Industrial zoning district. The Commissioners agreed.
--Short Recess--
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
Navember 10, 2014
Page 10
5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Kluchka gave an update on the last Community Center Task Force meeting he
attended. He said the Council has asked the Task Force to give them a community
center proposal that is between the proposed $9,000,000 and $38,000,000, but the
Task Force is going to say no because they envisioned the $38,000,000 option. He said
he thinks it is unfortunate that the focus has been on money and not on the vision and
he thinks it is premature to talk about price.
6. Other Business
Physical Development Director Marc Nevinski introduced himself to the Commission.
• Council Liaison Report
No report was given.
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 pm.
�.
, �}�
arles D. Seg aum, Secre ary Li ittman, Administrative Assistant