Loading...
02-23-15 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 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 23, 2015. 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 February 9, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the third paragraph on page four and asked that discussion regarding access to the west of the Sweeney Lake Woods proposal be clarified. Baker referred to the fifth paragraph on page five and asked that the word "not" be removed from the fourth sentence. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 9, 2015, minutes with the above noted changes. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Final PUD Plan — Struthers Parkinson's Center— 6701 Country Club Drive — PU-39, Amendment#4 Applicant: Park Nicollet Address: 6701 Country Club Drive Purpose: To allow a building addition approximately 2,700 square feet in size and the construction of an outdoor memory care walk/garden. Goellner stated that the Applicant is seeking approval to amend their existing PUD in order to expand the Struthers Parkinson's Center. She explained that the project consists of renovating 5,535 square feet to expand their rehabilitation program services, building a 2,680 square feet addition to create a gathering space and expand their education and training capabilities, and creating an indoor/outdoor movement therapy garden with enhanced landscaping and artwork. Goellner referred to the parking requirements and explained that 160 spaces are required. Currently, there are 182 spaces on the property and the proposed plans show 163 spaces. She added that no proof of parking is required and that an agreement for maintenance, insurance and shared parking is suggested as a condition of approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 2 Goellner stated that Staff is recommending approval of the Final PUD Plan subject to the conditions recommended in the Staff reports. Segelbaum asked about changes between the Preliminary Plan and the Final Plan. Goellner said there was a slight change in the square footage of the proposed addition. Baker asked if the shared parking agreement was discussed during the Preliminary Plan review. Goellner said yes. She stated that the access easement is perpetual but the maintenance and the shared parking agreements have expired and need to be re- established. Rose Wichmann, Manager of the Struthers Parkinson's Center, said she feels that they have met all of the requirements and noted that the shared parking and maintenance agreement is under way. Kluchka asked Wichmann about the timing of their construction. Wichmann said they want to start construction as soon as the frost comes out of the ground. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said this is a good plan that meets the City's requirements and is favorable to the City and the surrounding area. Segelbaum agreed. Goellner added that the Applicant has added a design plan per the Planning Commissions' request. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for Struthers Parkinson's Center PUD No. 39, Amendment No. 4, 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 dev�lopment compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 3 Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by EAPC and Larson Engineering, Inc. submitted with the application dated February 6, 2015, shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated December 1, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated December 1, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. A reciprocal cross easement agreement shall be signed by property owners within PUD. No. 39 and reviewed by the City Attorney at the time of Final PUD approval. The agreement shall be recorded with Hennepin County upon Final PUD approval. 5. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan that meets the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code (Section 11.73). 6. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 8. A final design plan shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments — Moratorium Study of Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments with Single Family Residential Components —ZO00-96 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider adding/amending language in the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code regarding Subdivision requirements. Zimmerman reminded the Gommission of the six-month moratorium placed on subdivisions and PUDs with a single family residential component. He stated that the City Council directed Staff to study the following: increasing the minimum lot area requirement, improving standards for preserving green space, minimizing irregular shaped lots, preserving neighborhood character, and limiting the use of small residential PUDs. He added that the City Council is considering implementing a Construction Management Agreement that will address complaints arising as part of the construction process such as noise, runoff, emergency access, etc. separate from the subdivision study. Zimmerman stated that there are several issues that were discussed as part of the study for which na action is recommended including: building height, housing styles, quality of construction, house spacing, and street/traffic impacts. Some of the issues recommended for further study in the future include: enhanced tree preservation regulations with landscaping requirements, stormwater drainage and flooding, neighborhood character preservation and sustainability. Zimmerman discussed the proposed changes to the Subdivision Code. He explained that the minimum lot area requirement would have two tiers — 10,000 or 15,000 based on the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 4 average size of the lots surrounding the subject property. The threshold for the larger minimum lot area requirement would be an average of 18,000 for all R-1 properties within 250 feet of the subject property and would apply to all R-1 lots created through subdivision after 2014. Lots less than 4,000 square feet would be excluded from the calculation. Zimmerman explained that these proposed changes would be made in the Subdivision section of City Code to prevent the creation of numerous non-conforming lots. Another change proposed in the Subdivision Code would be to require the minimum lot width to remain the same between 35 feet and 70 feet from the front lot line. This would better preserve a sufficient area within a lot at the likely location of the building pad and would limit narrowing in the front portion of a lot where a house would likely be built. Also, the submission of an existing tree survey will be required when applying for a Minor Subdivision. This will help in better understanding the site conditions when reviewing subdivision applications. He added that a final tree preservation plan would remain as an administrative review as part of the stormwater management plan. Other changes to the Tree Preservation Ordinance will happen separately in the future. Zimmerman referred to the proposed changes in the Zoning Code. He explained that new definitions are being proposed for front, side and rear lot lines in order to help clarify setbacks for irregular shaped lots. Also, in order to reduce confusion regarding measuring lot depth, the rear yard setback would change from 20% of the lot depth to 25 feet. This will also provide consistency with other setbacks which are specific numbers and not percentages. He added that these Zoning Code changes may create some non- conformities with respect to existing structures. Zimmerman referred to the proposed changes for the PUD section of the Zoning Code. He explained that residential PUDs must have a minimum area of two acres unless they can demonstrate unusual physical features of the property, are directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way which has been developed previously as a PUD and will function as an extension to an existing PUD, or is located in a transitional area between different land use categories. Kluchka asked about the process for making the proposed changes. Zimmerman stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation will go to the City Council for consideration. He added that the changes in the Zoning Code require one hearing at City Council, and that the changes in the Subdivision Code require two hearings. Segelbaum asked if the second hearing means that there are two hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Zimmerman said no, the two hearings for the Subdivision Code are just at the City Council. Segelbaum asked about significant changes since the last time they reviewed the proposed new language. Zimmerman said the rear lot line language is new. Waldhauser said she thought the shorter side of a corner lot would be the only front. Zimmerman said that City Code currently states that corner lots have two fronts and that the lot line opposite the narrower front is the rear. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 5 Kluchka asked if there is an impact to the lot width definition if there are two fronts. Zimmerman said the lot would have to meet the width requirement on both fronts. Baker asked if the change to the rear lot line is the only one that will result in non- conforming properties. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked why that can't be avoided. Zimmerman stated that the Subdivision Code applies to all of the zoning districts and the new lot line change is for R-1 only. Kluchka asked why the proposed changes aren't being made in all of the zoning districts in order to avoid non-conformance. Zimmerman said he would research the advantages of moving the requirements to the Subdivision Code. Waldhauser asked about the exclusion of parcels under 4,000 square feet when considering the minimum lot area. She questioned why the proposed language doesn't exclude any parcel under 10,000 square feet. Zimmerman stated that there are existing lots that are less than 10,000 square feet in size with homes on them. Baker asked how many lots there are that are less than 4,000 square feet. Zimmerman said there are a few, most are left over right-of-way or remnants that would just bring down the average. Baker noted that someone could acquire a 4,000 square foot lot, add it to their existing lot and then subdivide. Zimmerman agreed. Cera asked if there is anything built on any of the 4,000 square foot lots. Zimmerman said he didn't believe so. Blum asked if by using the formula to determine which lots have to meet the new minimum lot size requirements it is possible that it could become non-canforming over time, or if the lot sizes around that parcel change and become smaller or larger if it would then become non-conforming. Zimmerman said that would be unlikely because as there are more small lots the average comes down so the minimum lot size would be 10,000 square feet. Kluchka asked if the new tree preservation requirements would only affect people proposing a subdivision or if it would apply to everyone. Zimmerman said the current language being proposed would only apply to new subdivision proposals. He reiterated that the tree preservation requirements will be discussed more in the future. Kluchka referred to the owners of property that may be affected by these proposed changes and asked how they have been notified. Zimmerman stated that there has been a lot of publicity in the SunPost newspaper and in the City's newsletter, a post card was sent to every owner of a single family property, the consultants have sent emails to everyone who signed up to receive information, and information has been on the City's Facebook page. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Mae Held, 5001 Colonial Drive, said her property is three acres in size. She said she came to one of the listening meetings to find out that no one cares about the landowner. She said it is not her responsibility as a homeowner to provide green space for her neighbors and she is going to be impacted by the proposed changes because she will be restricted by the same ordinances as someone with a '/4 acre lot. She said the City is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 6 saying maintain your property, pay your taxes, and we'll decide what you can do with it. She said they are taxed on a fully divisible property and if they can only remove 20% of their trees that would mean 2/3 of their property is unbuildable. She said she thinks she needs it reflected in her taxes if her lot is unbuildable and if her property is not developable that reduces the value. She said she really hopes the City cares about the landowner and not just people who want her green space but don't pay her taxes or maintain her property. Randy Anderson, 5645 Lindsay Street, said there has been a subdivision near him that was divided in a way he was not aware of. He referred to the statements made about not being able to dictate the quality of housing, but affordable housing near his house concerns him. He said another thing that concerns him is what could happen with the leftover MnDOT properties from the Highway 100 project. He questioned if new homeowners would be required to put in new trees. He added that he is concerned about the roofs of the new homes near him being on top of the sound wall. Peter Ralph, 1421 Rhode Island Avenue North, said he re-built his house about six years ago with the intent of ineeting the requirements for a future subdivision. He referred to the proposed new requirement regarding the size of lots that are within 250 feet and asked if that measurement would be from the edge of a lot, or the center of a lot. He referred to the proposed language requiring that lots be 80 feet in width for a distance of 70 feet and asked if there will be an option for variances because he thinks he would be off by about three inches. He said he wants to know what he needs to do to pursue a subdivision and said there should be provisions for unique circumstances. Steve Shapiro, 219 Meadow Lane North, said he sent letters to the City talking about subdivisions as being a corn field concept and not something that should be an independent kind of activity that takes place in a built up urban environment like Golden Valley. He said all these projects that they've been talking about, on whatever scale, are really developments and the neighbors and the City should want to know who is going to build fihem, what they are going to look like, how are they going to stage construction, etc. He said the subdivision at Glenwood and Meadow Lane where they took one house and made it into four is a development. He said 200 Meadow Lane is a much smaller site and they are going to stuff three houses on there and they have no idea what it is going to look like, how it is going to be staged, or the quality of construction. He referred to Ms. Held's comments regarding her three acre lot and said even under the most generous reallocation of land site you're talking about 9 or 10 houses, and that is certainly a development and people in the neighborhood would certainly want to know who is going to build it and how it is going to look. He said he urges the City to consider, after it determines the requirements of the Subdivision ordinance, that it is made incidental to construction, and in order to carry out a project they would need curb cuts, subdivision, grading permits, to be considered one of the aspects of development, not just the raw land notion that you are going to carve up a site into however many parcels and pray that it gets done right because the City would be putting too much trust in the people that are splitting up the land because they aren't the ones that are developing it. He referred to the proposal on 200 Meadow Lane and said he contacted the City about the "tree trust" around the perimeter of the property that was promised. Under the current subdivision Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 7 requirements the City can't require anything like that. So even though the applicant said they would do a perimeter easement to protect the trees for the neighbors, the City can't require it, so it won't be done. He said he urges the City to consider subdivisions not as a pure raw activity, but as an incidental to a much more intensive review of developments in the City. Paul Meland, 309 Meander, said he has seen a lot of change. He said he purchased his home because he knew it would be a good place to raise his kids. He said the sales packet when he bought his house showed that there is another lot as part of his. He doesn't have plans to subdivide his property, but the 10 homes being constructed in the neighborhoad are going to have a huge impact. He said putting restrictions on lot size is going to impact him financially. He said the change has already happened and he is in favor of preserving character, but he is not in favor of his investment being impacted. Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, said he supports what Mr. Meland said. He stated that if a property is under 30,000 square feet in size in a neighborhaod with larger lots, under this new proposal it won't be able to be subdivided. He said that, along with the issue of fairness and takings, needs to be taken into consideration. He said another thing that needs to be considered in regard to the average lot size issue is whether the City uses a mean or a median to figure the average lot size. He recommended using the median instead of the mean because it throws out the high ones and the low ones and won't skew the average. He added that the buildable portion of properties should also be considered because some of the larger platted lots have a wetland or something that impacts the buildable area. Matt Pavek, 510 Cloverleaf Drive, said he has attended every meeting on this topic. He said he works a lot with land owners and it is interesting that three people in this public hearing have talked about how these proposed changes will impact them economically because they won't be able to subdivide their lot when they could before. He stated that the rules requiring 10,000 square feet with 80 feet of width have been in place for 35 years and that is something people have planned their entire lives around. He said that lots sell from $150,000 to $350,000. So, if someone can't subdivide a lot that they thought could, they could lose a life changing amount of money because their home will go down in value. He said this needs to be weighed against the concerns of trying to blend in with the neighborhood and it hasn't really been discussed in all of the meetings he's attended. He said the concerns are valid, but they can't possibly trump a person's retirement account, college fund or nest egg. He added that it might not legally be considered a taking, but it would feel like a taking so maybe the City and its residents should pay these people who can no longer subdivide their property. Bob Lang, 401 Meadow Lane North, said he is a proponent of larger lot sizes in particular areas. He said it doesn't make it right that lot sizes have been the same since the 1980s and what has been recommended is a move in the right direction and the right thing. He said maybe the people who think they can subdivide need to come forward and see what can be done. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 8 Le�oy Hagel, 200 Cutacross Road, said he has written many letters to the City Council and he is anti-subdivision in Tralee. He said standing before an impressive tribunal ready to pounce on their prey is intimidating, but the stakes are high so he wants to state his view. He said he received a letter from the property owner across the street when they subdivided their property and he wishes to avoid hard feelings, but there are just different goals and divergent views of the situation at hand. He said he is a dissenter who is open to ridicule in a very public way as opposed to a developer, speculator, or promoter. When they want something it is a rosy picture subject to accolades. He said he is opposed to any subdivision of any lots in Tralee because Tralee is a heritage, is different, it stands out, and is a tax generator. He said in the future, the discerning buyer will raze the old house on their property to build high end houses matching the real estates' character and value netting tax revenue to rival the tax take from subdividing now if the City would just wait longer. He said the City will have saved what is left of Tralee, a unique heritage worth saving with less hassle over new lots, etc. He said the City can expect plenty of disgruntled owners to deal with when subdividing, and he would expect more expense to the City also. He referred to the siting of two new houses across the street from him and said they appear to be the result of some clever, ingenious surveying similar to fitting a puzzle piece in a puzzle game; they sit forward and do not line up with existing houses next door. He said he had family come to visit and the first words out of their mouths were what's with the houses on the road and what did he think about them. He said he was taken aback by their comments and said trouble is inherent in subdividing. He invited the City to do it right and judge for themselves their first impression. He said he remains hopeful that subdivisions will be halted in Tralee. Diane Richard, 217 Paisley Lane, said she would like to preserve the larger lots in her neighborhood where the average lot size is about 30,000 square feet. She said she knows this is a politically charged topic with people for and against. She said she hasn't heard a lot about the Comprehensive Plan and the vision for Golden Valley and said her discussions, decisions, and beliefs come from the Comprehensive Plan. She said if the sustainability discussion is being postponed this might be putting the cart before the horse. She said she loves her neighborhood and it is unique to any other area in Golden Valley. She stated that the property next door to her is removing 20 oak trees, but there has been no mention of removing any buckthorn. She questioned why that isn't being addressed. She reiterated that they have a unique neighborhood and that the concept of having different neighborhoods is okay. Mark Dietz, 207 Sunnyridge Lane, said there are two sides and it's a very difficult decision to listen to all the arguments in terms of the impacts to the people who have larger lots and the impact to the surrounding neighbors and why they moved there. He said it is not urban planning here and what he wants to see Golden Valley really be like. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka referred to the questions about tree preservation and taxable property and asked if that issue has been discussed. Zimmerman said he has spoken with the County Assessor regarding Ms. Held's property. He explained that the taxes assessed are not just based on the property's ability to be subdivided, there are other issues as well, such Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 9 as size, terrain, wooded areas, etc. but there aren°t any additional taxes levied because it may be subdivided. He said there are assessments based on whether the property can be subdivided, but those are always deferred until a subdivision actually takes place. Zimmerman referred to Ms. Held's question about this proposal limiting the number of trees that could be removed or make her land undevelopable. He said the answer is no, 20% of the trees can be removed. If more trees than that are removed there is a mitigation process and it doesn't mean that the land can't be subdivided. Cera said Ms. Held's property is beautiful and he doesn't see any issues with it being able to be subdivided. Blum asked if the nature of the ability to subdivide a particular lot changes if the deferred assessment would also change to reflect that. Zimmerman said yes, it would. Deferred assessments would be payable if the property is subdivided. Kluckha referred to the questions regarding quality construction and asked how that can be controlled. Zimmerman said it comes down to the Building Code. He said the City doesn't dictate the style of houses, or what p�ice they are sold at. The City controls safety and code compliance. Kluchka referred to the questions of state-owned remnant lots counting in the square footage when figuring lot area. Zimmerman said they would not count because they are not zoned R-1 Single Family residential, they are considered right-of-way. Kluchka asked if property owners will have to plant trees with the new subdivision requirements. Zimmerman said they won't have to, and that the requirements are considering trees that are removed. If there are new landscaping requirements approved in the future that will likely be discussed. Kluchka asked how the 250 radius around a proposed subdivision is drawn. Zimmerman said it would be drawn from the edge of the subject property and would follow the perimeter of the lot. Cera asked if the subject property itself counts in the average lot size determination. Zimmerman said no, the 250 foot radius would be considering the context of the lots around it. Cera stated that counting the subject parcel would raise the average. Kluchka asked what a homeowner will need to do to follow these proposed rules. Zimmerman said the average homeowner won't know the average lot size within 250 feet of their property, but it will be fairly simple for staff to provide that information. Kluchka asked Zimmerman to review the front yard setback changes. Zimmerman explained that the current Subdivision Code requires lots to be 80 feet wide at the front yard setback line. The proposed new language states that the width of the lot has to remain 80 feet wide for a distance of 70 feet back from the front setback line. Kluchka asked what kinds of variances are available. Zimmerman said variances aren't allowed from the Subdivision Code, but applicants may be able to round up to the next whole foot as stated in the Zoning Code. Segelbaum said he thinks there is some confusion Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 10 regarding variances being allowed or not in subdivision proposals. He asked for some clarification regarding variances when this item goes to the City Council. Kluchka asked about the differences between median, mean, and average. Zimmerman said he couldn't recall why the consultants recommended using the mean to figure the minimum lot size. He said he would follow up with them and get some clarification. Baker said he would like to see illustrated examples analyzed using mean and median, Kluchka asked if non-buildable land, or wetland areas are being excluded in the calculations. Zimmerman stated that everything on a lot would count toward the lot area and that wetland delineation would need to be done in some cases. Baker asked if this is really an issue and if there are large areas of unbuildable property. Waldhauser said there have been cases where parts of lots were unbuildable. Kluchka said that could be a cause for a variance. Cera noted that a wetland is a positive amenity for a property. Baker stated that in terms of calculating using mean or average, if the goal is to preserve similar sized lots, they need to consider how those types of lots affect that. Kluchka questioned if new subdivision rules should be considered for people who already own subdividable lots, or if those lots should be grandfathered. Waldhauser asked about people who bought lots before the 1980s when the requirement was for larger sized lots and noted that those properties weren't grandfathered. Kluchka referred to the question about buckthorn. Zimmerman said that could be addressed in the larger tree preservation/landscaping discussions. Segelbaum asked how the proposed new language meets what is stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Baker said that is a rhetorical question because the City is in the midst of a subdivision study and the issues have to be addressed now. Waldhauser added that this study, and some of the recommendations that have been made are in response to the Comprehensive Plan already in place. Baker said they've engaged the community as a result of this study and hopefully, people will be engaged in the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Kluchka asked if the Commission should look at the results of inedian vs. mean. Johnson said they need discuss the pros and cons and not just look at the results of the two. Johnson said the median accommodates outliers better. Cera said that median seems to be a better reflection because one large lot could change the average. Johnson said that is not true, and it depends on what they want to accomplish. Kluchka questioned if the issue needs to be better researched. Zimmerman noted that 90% of the lots estimated to be subdividable are under 50,000 square feet. Segelbaum stated that the consultants gave a reason why they went with mean and not median. He said if the average lot size is 18,000 square feet, then the new lots have to be 15,000 square feet in size, so there is a balance. He said he thinks they would get the same result in many instances using median or mean. Baker said his preference would be to recommend that both options are brought to the City Council with some analysis and background information. Cera questioned what would be a better reflection of a neighborhood, the mean or median. Waldhauser said if the City is trying to preserve the look or feel of a neighborhood she Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 11 thinks the median would reflect that better. Segelbaum said if they use median instead of mean it could potentially allow many more subdivisions. Kluchka said the intent is not clear, but it sounds like using median is the more appropriate approach. Kluchka asked the Commissioners what they think about the proposed lot size changes. Baker said he thinks the City Council has chosen to undertake this study for a reason and if it was solely to make a few people happy they wouldn't have done it. He said he thinks the consultant's recommendation is a good one. Segelbaum agreed. He added that a few non-conforming properties may be created, but it is a nice compromise. Blum said it seems that there is a legitimate interest in housing diversity in Golden Valley which they've heard from a lot of people, and these changes will serve that interest. He referred to one of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan which is to protect and respect traditional neighborhoods and this change reflects that goal, part of which is making sure properties don't get subdivided down to the smallest lots possible. Cera said there is a law of unintended consequences. He said he thinks in a year or two there will be a different group of people with different problems such as "McMansions" and lots being overbuilt. He said they also need to address the zoning and building issues such as where a house can built, the coverage, the impervious surface, the building pad, etc. because people could potentially build a 12,000 square foot home. He said they are not necessarily addressing the right thing. Baker said this is not a perfect solution, but it is a good one. He said he doesn't think they are going to see 12,000 square foot homes because if someone has the money to build at 12,000 square foot home they are not going to build it a dense residential neighborhood, they are going to build it in Wayzata or Minnetonka, so he is not compelled by that argument. Kluchka said he agrees that the proposed recommendations are an interesting compromise, however he has concerns in three areas. The first is how homeowners were notified, the second is that this is potentially a financial taking. He said he feels strongly that 140 property owners need to be clearly notified that their property's sale value could be reduced. He said the City hasn't been clear and forthcoming with the effect this will have. He said his last concern is, as much as he wants his neighborhood to stay the same, or as much as he wants Golden Valley and traditional neighborhoods to stay the same, staying the same costs everybody more money because asphalt, labor and pipes cost more, as they will see with the sewer crisis. He added that unless they find the right places for density, the costs are going to keep coming to the City and everybody will have to pay more to the City if density isn't allowed to happen. Cera asked if they are going to vote on the recommendations individually or as a group. Kluchka said he would like to separate the recommendations. Baker said they should be careful about throwing around the number of 140 homeowners being affected by this because they won't all be impacted. Kluchka said 50°/a of them will be adversely impacted according to the study. He reiterated that they haven't been forthright in their communicating. Baker referred to the implications made about the tax base and said as long as the City is continuing to do things like what's being done along Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 12 Pennsylvania Avenue, the City is not going to have to grapple with the kind of issues that have been raised because things are being done in other parts of the City to raise the tax base. Blum agreed that there needs to be density and growth in the right places, but he doesn't think these proposed changes will have negative impacts because the changes are narrowly tailored to subdivisions. He added that he doesn't think the City needs to notify people that the value of their land may change over time as the law changes. There are inherent risks in real estate and the City doesn't need to guarantee a return on any investments people make. Johnson said his concern is the tree survey requirement because there is a way around it. It could force people to make decisions about their trees before they choose subdivide their property. He added that it doesn't seem to be in sync with the other proposed requirements. MOVED by Cera to recommend using the median when determining the average lot size. Kluchka said he was looking for a recommendation to approve that, but wanted to discuss the issue of minimum lot size. MOVED by Segelbaum, and seconded by Baker to recommend the suggested change to the definition of minimum lot size, as it is recommended which is based on the average lot size of properties within 250 feet. Cera proposed that the median be used when figuring the average. He stated that he did some math using 6 lots and 7 lots and there could be a big difference between using the average and using the median especially when there is one big lot in the equation. Kluchka asked if anyone would like to second the motion to add median as a recommended metric. Segelbaum said he would prefer it be studied further, Kluchka agreed it should be reviewed further. There was no second. Kluchka said the motion on the table is to recommend that the minimum lot area definition as proposed, be recommended to the Council. The motion carried 5 to 2. Cera and Kluchka voted no. Kluchka referred to the recommendations regarding tree preservation and the idea that there needs to be an existing tree survey created at the time subdivision. He referred to the issue brought up that trees could be cut down before a survey was created in order to get around the requirements. Segelbaum said he thinks it is an investment to cut trees down and speculative of the applicant when they don't know if their subdivision will be approved or not, so he doesn't think is very likely to happen. He added there will be a benefit in having a tree survey when reviewing subdivision proposals. Baker reiterated that there will be more work done in the future regarding tree preservation. Blum added that the tree survey requirement will have a direct relationship towards greater transparency. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of requiring the submittal of an existing tree survey when applying Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 13 for a subdivision. Kluchka added that the Commission strongly supports further study of the tree preservation standards and landscape standards in subsequent ordinance revisions. Kluchka referred to the proposed recommendations regarding PUDs. He said the issue is whether a minimum lot size of 2 acres for residential PUDs should be created. Segelbaum said he's worried that all flexibility is being taken away. Waldhauser said there are three exceptions to allow smaller PUDs listed in the recommended language. Baker questioned if PUDs have been misused in the past. Blum said the City needs to make sure the PUD process isn't being used to circumvent the requirements and he thinks the language is legitimate and has been fairly crafted. Kluchka stated that the City has more control when the PUD process is used and he likes the idea of having input in residential PUD proposals. Waldhauser questioned who makes the decision that a proposal can be considered as a PUD. Zimmerman suggested that language be added stating that the City Manager or his/her designee are allowed to determine when a proposal can be considered as a PUD. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed language regarding PUD standards and guidelines with clarification about how the Applicant demonstrates the need for a PUD. Kluchka suggested the remaining items including lot width, lot line definitions, rear yard setback and the other miscellaneous changes be considered in one motion. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the rest of the proposed language changes as specified in the staff report. Waldhauser added that she was in favor of only having one front lot line on corner lots. She said she thought the consultants gave them the option of choosing one front over the other that would fit best within the context of the neighborhood and then the other front yard would be considered a side. --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 5. Other Business • Land Use Planning for Golden Valley Road/Highway 55 West Redevelopment Area Zimmerman referred to two vacant Commercial properties located in the Golden Valley Road/Highway 55 West Redevelopment Area. He stated that there has been recent interest in auto uses at those properties so the City Council would like the Planning Commission to consider other possible land uses for this area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 14 Waldhauser stated that if the Golden Villas multi-family proposal gets built, they probably wouldn't want auto uses around it. Zimmerman stated that the VFW has expressed interest, or the two parcels in question could be used for housing. He stated that one idea is to consider a pedestrian overlay district to freeze things in place. Waldhauser said she liked the example pedestrian overlay language included in the agenda packet. Segelbaum said it would be nice to be consistent with the dawntown area. Kluchka questioned how far they should go in calling something pedestrian friendly and questioned what the City would get out of it. Johnson asked about the downside of auto uses. Kluchka said he wouldn't want service centers or gas statians that are disruptive to neighborhoods. Zimmerman noted that they would currently be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. Baker stated that these two parcels wouldn't be conducive for a gas station. Waldhauser said she thinks the properties are too narrow to be used for anything real dynamic. Kluchka referred to the highway slip ramp and asked if the plan to do improvements or close it are still in place. Zimmerman said yes. Segelbaum said he is always in favor of walkability. Baker said this area isn't downtown and he doesn't see this as a walkable area. He questioned why this area is being studied and said it feels artificial. Kluchka said that the pedestrian overlay may be the right thing to do and suggested that it be considered during the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Baker agreed that the area should be studied when the Comprehensive Plan is amended. Zimmerman noted that in the meantime another use could go in these properties. Segelbaum asked what else they could do besides the suggested pedestrian overlay district. Zimmerman said they could recommend rezoning the properties. Waldhauser questioned if the Commercial Zoning District could be divided. Kluchka said he thinks a pedestrian overlay district should exist. Baker agreed that he liked the idea, he is just not compelled to use it in this area. The Commissioners agreed. • Planning Commission Annual Report Kluchka referred to the Commission's Annual Report and asked the Commissioners if they had a sense of priority for any of the items listed. Waldhauser asked if the items in the report were for 2014 or 2015. Kluchka said they are pertaining to items in 2014 and that the report is not a work plan for 2015. Blum said he is surprised that they haven't had a lot of discussion about light rail and added that that seems to be one of the hottest issues. He stated that a lot of city attorneys he works with were raising the issue of marijuana production, growing, and Minutes of the Uolden Valley Planning Commission February 23, 2015 Page 15 distributing and creating land use controls around those types of facilities. He said he doesn't want something to slip in where it is not wanted and wants to be prepared for these facilities. Zimmerman stated that the City has been contacted and that those types of used would fit in the Gommercial Zoning District as a pharmacy. • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 pm. � � Charles D. Segelbaum, Secretary L a Wittman, Administrative Assistant