Loading...
02-09-15 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 9, 2015 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, February 9, 2015. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Cera, Johnson (arrived at 7:23), Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval af Minutes January 26, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Baker referred to the sixth paragraph on page 2 and asked that the first sentence be changed to read "Baker asked how the status of the covenant would affect the rezoning." Baker referred to fifth paragraph on page 3 and noted that the word "will" should be changed to the word "willing." MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 26, 2015, minutes with the above noted corrections. Kluchka abstained from voting. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Final PUD Plan — Sweeney Lake Woods — 1801 Noble Drive — PU-120 Applicant: The Lecy Group Addresses: 1801 Noble Drive Purpose: To allow for the reconfiguration of the one existing single family property into a new three-lot single family development Zimmerman stated that the Applicant is seeking approval of a PUD to create three single family lots with access via a shared driveway. He explained that the project consists of two parcels, a vacant lot 3.27 acres in size, and a 20-foot wide parcel containing a 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 how the Final PUD plans differ from the Preliminary PUD plans including: the expanded width of the shared private driveway from 16' to 18', the increased diameter of the cul-de-sac from 60' to 70', and relocating the stormwater filtration basin to the rear of Lot 3 which addresses concerns about co-location with the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 9, 2015 Page 2 snow storage area. He discussed how this proposed PUD compares with the underlying zoning district and explained that an outlot will contain the driveway, the cul-de-sac and the snow storage area. Zimmerman referred to the utility plans and explained that typically 10 feet of separation between water and sanitary sewer is required. However, the limited width of the driveway parcel and the presence of an existing sanitary sewer line makes that impossible. He stated that the Applicant has received special exceptions regarding construction techniques which will allow the utilities to be installed legally. Zimmerman referred to a plan showing the wetland buffer area and stated that the PUD standards adopted in 2004 require a 25-foot buffer around wetlands. However, the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission now recommends a more fine- grained approach based on the type and condition of wetland being buffered. In this case, a 10-foot buffer is the recommendation. Zimmerman referred to a site plan and reminded the Commission that at their review of the Preliminary PUD Plan the condition of limiting utilities and further access to the shared driveway was adopted. However, the recently subdivided properties to the east will result in a long utility line and a long driveway running roughly parallel with the existing shared driveway which is not ideal. One option, if the parties agree, is to allow access to the shared driveway in order to have a shorter and less redundant driveway system. Currently, the only way access would be allowed to the shared driveway is through a PUD Amendment. He added that allowing future access from the cul-de-sac to the parcel to the west would be prohibited because the current PUD has the restriction of not allowing any further access to the shared driveway. He stated that he is recommending that the condition regarding access to the private driveway be amended to state that no additional driveway or utility access shall be allowed without a PUD amendment. Segelbaum asked if there is a third property that also accesses the existing shared driveway. Zimmerman said yes, the property at 1807 Noble Drive accesses the shared driveway, however, it also has frontage on Noble Drive that could be used for a driveway. Segelbaum asked if the language regarding additional access to the driveway should state that what is being proposed in this PUD plan would be permitted, but anything proposed after this PUD would not. Zimmerman stated that all of the conditions will be spelled out in the PUD Permit. Cera asked if the Applicant has had any discussions with the owner of Lot 2 (the recently subdivided property to the east) regarding his driveway accessing the existing private driveway. Zimmerman said he is not sure if discussions have occurred between the property owners, but Mr. Lecy has expressed interest in exploring the possibilities. He added that the City would like to see consolidation of the driveways and utilities or additional width added to the private driveway. Minutes of the Golden Valley Pianning Commission February 9, 2015 Page 3 Baker noted that the City Council voted 4 to 1 to approve the Preliminary Plan for this proposal and asked for information on the dissenting vote. Zimmerman said there was concern about three homes being in an area where the access was somewhat restricted. Blum said he is concerned about access for the landlocked parcel to west. Zimmerman stated that the area he was referring to for future access to the west is slightly south of the landlocked parcel. He added that if access were granted for the property to the west, the snow storage area would have to be relocated. Waldhauser asked if the new landowner to the east agreed to give some of their land in order to widen the driveway, how close that would come to making the driveway a street. Zimmerman said he thinks the potential is there, if the parties want to work together. Baker asked Zimmerman to review what led to the City Engineer to propose a reduction in the wetland buffer. Zimmerman stated that the City Engineer and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission are recommending a 10-foot buffer and that Planning Staff is deferring to their recommendation. He reiterated that it is the PUD ordinance that differs from the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission's standards. He added that there is some latitude in this case regarding the size of the wetland buffer. Baker asked if the buffer area shown in the Preliminary PUD plans was 25 feet. Zimmerman stated that the original plans showed a 25-foot buffer before they went to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission for review. Waldhauser said she would guess that the 25-foot buffer requirement in the PUD ordinance was probably meant for a higher density project, since that is typically when PUDs are used. Roy Lecy, Applicant, said he has never heard of requiring an additional 15 feet of wetland buffer. He said his plans have always shown a 10-foot buffer and he doesn't feel he should be held to a higher standard than any other proposal. He referred to the discussion regarding the owner of the property to the east accessing the private driveway and said he thinks it makes sense, but he would like to keep the process simple. Kluchka said this is a complicated PUD and he thinks it would be appropriate to go through the PUD amendment process. Segelbaum asked Lecy if he would build the driveway and utilities differently if he knew the property to the east might access it. Lecy said no, but he would make provisions for the trees. Blum asked Lecy what the hardship would be if the wetland buffer was 25 feet. Lecy said the soil conditions really deteriorate past where the buffer is located. He said he may need the 15 feet for the construction of the house because it is as close to the cul-de-sac as it can be. He added that it could also affect the grading of the properties. Waldhauser asked if the infiltration basin is intended to drain all three of the proposed lots. Lecy said no, it is for a portion of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3. Lot 1 will have natural filtration where it always has. He stated that the proposed 10-foot wetland buffer will increase the water quality over what is there now. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 9, 2015 Page 4 Kluchka opened the public hearing. Jeff Haines, 1550 St. Croix Circle, requested that the original driveway and access easement across Lot 1 be left as an easement and not incorporated in an outlot with the driveway, cul-de-sac and snow storage area. Zimmerman said he understands Mr. Haines's concern about future access to his property, but he doesn't think anything will be allowed to be built in the proposed outlot, just like in an easement, but that he would confirm that with the City Engineer and the City Attorney. Cera asked if Mr. Haines and the Applicant have talked about allowing future access. Zimmerman stated that the future homeowner's association would need to be involved in discussions as well especially when there is potential for broader development in the future. He added that the City would not have the authority to require an access point to the west. Cera asked if the land to west is subdividable. Zimmerman said yes, there are three parcels that could be replatted a number of ways. Cera stated that the private driveway could potentially have several more homes accessing it. Zimmerman agreed and stated that the PUD Permit would need to be amended for any changes to the driveway access. Christopher Gise, 1485 Island Drive, said he is confused because it has been said that the proposed 10-foot wetland buffer is consistent with Hidden Lakes, but the shoreland buffer on his property is 50 feet. He asked if this proposed PUD plan defines the building pads or the building envelope area because Hidden Lakes properties had defined building pads. He asked if anything goes as long as they are not in the buffer area. Seeing and hearing no one else wising to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked if the proposal defines the building footprint or a buildable area. Zimmerman said in this case, the plans define the building envelope because the homes will custom fit to each lot. Kluchka asked if that is right for this development, and if it is consistent with what is across the lake. Zimmerman said these are generous sized lots and having a building envelope allows some flexibility in where the homes can be built. Kluchka asked the Commissioners if they have thoughts about Mr. Haines' request for the access easement. Cera said they might want to have a wider street to handle more traffic if and when development occurs to the west. He said it would be nice if discussion could occur between Mr. Lecy, Mr. Haines and the new property owner of Lot 2 to the east before this proposal goes to City Council, so that the street can be built appropriately now, rather than being made wider in the future. Kluchka suggested leaving the easement out of this recommendation. Cera said he would not put the easement in the proposal now, but wait until the PUD needs to be amended. Baker agreed. He added that there is an opportunity now with new property owners and he's hearing about the likely potential of future access to this road so he thinks the Commission needs to seriously consider requiring a public street. Blum asked if the road is being designed to handle the weight of a large fire truck. Zimmerman said yes, it is required that a street be able to handle the weight of the largest Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 9, 2015 Page 5 truck needed. Blum asked if that is one of the things the City considers when differentiating between a public or private street. Zimmerman said that is one concern along with ownership and long-term maintenance. Blum asked if private streets aren't being maintained or kept safe, if the City can do the maintenance and assess the property owner. Zimmerman said he assumes the City can require maintenance to be done or assess the property owner. He added that maintenance agreements will also be required as part of the Development Agreement process. Baker asked to what extent the City is compromising the normal standards of utility construction with the proposed design. Zimmerman explained that the typical requirement is 10 feet of separation between the sewer and water lines. He stated that the Applicant is proposing an alternate design that is approved by the Department of Health. Kluchka added that the intent from the engineering perspective was to use a different construction method that would ensure the safety of the utilities. Baker said he is trying to put the entire project into context of where the City is giving and taking. Segelbaum questioned if the proposed utilities are sufficient to support potential future development because he doesn't think that will be an easy thing to change. He encouraged the neighbors ta get together and discuss future development and access. He said he would support changing condition #4 to state that no additional driveway or utility access shall be allowed along the private driveway without a PUD Amendment. Baker said he is anticipating future problems with access issues. Blum asked about trends in street widths. Zimmerman said 24 to 26 feet is typical but when possible, narrower streets are built. Kluchka asked the Commissioners their thoughts about the wetland buffer issue. Segelbaum said he thinks they need clarification about the standards for wetland buffers before this proposal goes to the City Council. Baker said that the standards are changing as they speak. He said there is recognition of the importance of buffers in protecting water quality and he would argue strongly for not accepting a 10-foot, or a 25-foot buffer. Blum agreed and said there may be some flexibility on the northeast lot, but he doesn't see a reason to deviate from the 25-faot standard in the PUD requirements. Kluchka questioned if the City is getting enough out of this PUD to deviate from the standards. Segelbaum said he thinks they should stick with the standards. Baker said he would like to know why there is a 50-foot buffer across the lake and said anything they can do to help this impaired lake they should do. Cera referred to the lots recently subdivided to the north and asked what the wetland buffer was in that proposal. Zimmerman said because that was a subdivision and not a PUD, that wetland buffer is 10 feet. He added that the lots recently subdivided to the south also have a 10-foot buffer. Kluchka reiterated that PUDs are usually done for more intense development so that may be why the buffer standards differ. Baker said he wants to emphasize that standards are changing now. Cera said he doesn't disagree with having a larger buffer he just wants to remain consistent with what's been approved in past few years. Waldhauser said this application has been under consideration for a long time. The City has been favorable to having this area redevelop and it has been a Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 9, 2015 Page 6 struggle to get to this point for a lot of people. She said she thinks the 10-foot buffer is the standard that is in place now. She said this project happens to be a PUD because it is complicated, not because it's on Sweeney Lake ar because it has wetland considerations. She said the fact that the standards may or may not be changing shouldn't be an obstacle placed in front of this developer and she believes the standard that applies in this case is the 10-foot buffer. Segelbaum said he doesn't know which standard should be applied. Kluchka said the underlying zoning standard is 10 feet. Segelbaum said the PUD standard is 25 feet and he doesn't know if they can deviate from that. Johnson said when the proposal was submitted it was deemed acceptable. He questioned if the Commission is discussing the difference between 10 and 25 feet, or if they are discussing that the very act of building three houses is decreasing the water quality. He added that there was a house on this property previously that also impacted the water quality. Kluchka said the focus for him is if the City is getting enough value from this proposal. He reiterated that this is only a PUD because of the private street and the lack of frontage. Baker said he is dwelling on the buffer. He said it used to be okay to fill in wetlands and just because there was a standard at the time doesn't mean that standard should be kept. He said he would push for a larger wetland buffer on any project they are reviewing. Kluchka noted that a larger buffer was not discussed on the recently subdivided property to the east. Cera asked if they could recommend that the affected landowners speak to each other before this proposal goes to City Council so that the future driveway access issues could be addressed now and not have to come back for an amendment. Baker said he would also like the owner of Lot 2 to consider widening the driveway parcel. Segelbaum said he is concerned about the condition regarding additional access to the driveway through the Minor PUD Amendment process. Zimmerman stated that the Zoning Code has requirements regarding Minor versus full PUD amendments. Baker said he would like to keep the condition requiring the wetland buffer to be 25 feet wide. Waldhauser said she wauld not support that. Segelbaum said he would like a better understanding of the requirements for wetland buffers. Zimmerman stated that by default, a 25-foot buffer is a condition. He reiterated that the Engineering staff and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission have said that a 10-foot buffer is appropriate and that the plans have always shown a 10-foot buffer. Baker questioned if the Commission voted on a 10-foot buffer during their Preliminary Plan review. Segelbaum said he thinks there is conflicting information. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for Sweeney Lake Woods, PUD #120 subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report. Cera noted that the staff recommendation includes the 25-foot wetland buffer. Zimmerman stated that the discrepancy between the PUD ordinance and the Engineering/Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission was discovered after his staff report was written, so Staff's recommendation is to strike condition number 3 regarding the wetland buffer. Segelbaum said that it seems to him that they are voting on the 25-foot wetland buffer. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 9, 2015 Page 7 Waldhauser said she would like to amend the motion to include Staff's condition with the change in the required wetland buffer to 10 feet. She added that she would also like to amend condition number 4 to state that no additional driveway or utility access shall be allowed along the private driveway without a PUD Amendment. Kluchka said his intent was to require a 10-foot wetland buffer. Zimmerman stated that striking condition number 3 would make the wetland buffer requirement 10 feet. Segelbaum moved to amend Waldhauser's motion to state that the wetland buffer should be set to that which is required by City Code. Baker seconded the amendment and the motion carried 4 to 3 Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson and Segelbaum voted yes, Commissioners Cera, Kluchka and Waldhauser voted no. The Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for Sweeney Lake Woods, PUD #120 as amended 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. 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. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by Civil Site Group, received January 9, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated February 5, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The riparian buffer strip along the delineated wetland shall be that width which is required by City Code. 4. No additional driveway or utility access shall be allowed along the private driveway without a PUD Amendment. 5. A park dedication fee of$13,920, or 2% of the land value with credit for one unit, shall be paid before release of the Final Plat. 6. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 120" in its title. 7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Minutes of the Golden Valley Pianning Commission February 9, 2015 Page 8 --Short Recess-- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 6. Other Business � Council Liaison Report No report was given. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 pm. _ � ( Charles D. Sege aum, Secretary Lis Wittman, Administrative Assistant