Loading...
09-09-15 Joint PC-CC Minutes Joint Meeting of the Golden Valley City Council and Planning Commission February 9, 2015 A joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, February 9, 2015. Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 8:20 pm. Those present were Mayor Shep Harris; Council Members Joanie Clausen, Larry Fonnest, Steve Schmidgall, Andy Snope; Planning Commissioners Rich Baker, Ron Blum, David Cera, Andy Johnson, John Kluchka, Chuck Segelbaum, Cathy Waldhauser; Physical Development Director Marc Nevinski, Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner; Jeff Miller and Rita Trapp, HKGi cansultants 1. Subdivision Study's Recommendations for Potential Subdivision/Zoning Ordinance Amendments Miller introduced the topics to be discussed and pointed to the six areas in which recommendations for change would be made: tree preservation, minimum lot size, irregular lots, lot line definitions, house to lot relationships, and PUDs. A) Tree Preservation Miller reviewed the concerns of residents and outlined the proposed changes. Cera asked if the percentage of trees allowed for removal was currently 40% and if it was proposed to be changed to 20%. Miller said yes. Kluchka asked if there was no subdivision then no tree preservation requirement would be necessary? Miller said yes. Baker asked why a tree survey was being required. Miller stated that it gave visibility to the trees on a site and provided a way to initiate conversation on tree preservation as part of subdivision review, which is not now the case. Kluchka asked if this created a gap in reviewing tree preservation. Zimmerman responded that it filled a gap by bringing it to the public eye early. Waldhauser stated that it provides more information and help with public understanding but doesn't require the Planning Commission or City Council to act on it. Baker pointed out that trees that might be cut down later would be captured on the record. Clausen asked for an explanation of the 40% vs. 20% reduction. Miller indicated it had to do with the initial vs. individual lot improvement. Minutes of the Joint City Council/Planning Commission February 9, 2015 Page 2 Kluchka asked if the applicant could conduct the tree survey or if an independent third party would be required. The group agreed that a certified tree inspector should be required. Harris asked why not review tree preservation during subdivision? Kluchka replied that no trees are removed during the subdivision process, but later as part of permitting. Cera indicated that control is needed during the subdivision process. Snope replied that a preservation plan shouldn't be necessary during the subdivision pracess. Baker commented that it is too easy to cut down large trees and that other cities manage to preserve them and that the priority should be on large trees so that they are harder to remove. Snope asked if changes were being recommended to the subdivision code or the tree preservation code. Miller replied both. Baker said that we need to limit the removal of large trees. Snope commented that we are looking at subdivisions. Baker stated that it is about development. Miller indicated that the task was to address subdivisions. Baker asked that his concerns be captured for future discussion. Zimmerman stated that staff would like to add landscaping and other changes to the tree preservation code and wants to make those changes separately with more study. Harris indicated the need to look at the bigger picture. Baker stated he wants the City to be innovative and have a strong tree preservation code. Kluchka asked about mitigation. Zimmerman replied that the requirements are laid out in the code. Kluchka said more public education is needed. Johnson asked if significant trees could be cut down before subdivision. Miller said yes, which is why a tree survey would be helpful. Cera said it moves the starting line back from the permitting process. B) Minimum Lot Size Trapp reviewed the concerns of residents and outlined the proposed changes. She indicated the changes are proposed to be made in the subdivision eode in order to avoid creating non-conformities. Snope asked for clarification on the 10,000 vs. 15,000 square foot minimums. Clausen asked if 250 feet or 500 feet was the appropriate distance. Trapp said the numbers were run both ways and it didn't make a consistent difference in the results. Clausen indicated 250 feet really captures the immediate neighborhood. Segelbaum asked if the lot to be subdivided would be included in the calculations. Trapp said no. Zimmerman asked for confirmation that it only included R-1 zoned properties. Trapp said yes. Minutes of the Joint City Council/Planning Commission February 9, 2015 Page 3 Kluchka asked if there was precedent for changing the rules for existing owners. Trapp said yes, but it was not something to be taken lightly. Kluchka asked if the City would be able to do the calculations. Zimmerman said yes. Kluchka asked if someone would be able to game the system. Trapp said it would be very difficult to do. Cera expressed his concern that larger lots could have very large homes. Waldhauser stated that we could consider reduced lot coverage for larger lots. Clausen indicated she supported the approach but that we may have to adjust other standards. Kluchka stated he is concerned about the legal risks. Fonnest asked if the League of Minnesota Cities would help if the City were to be sued. Nevinski answered that the City would be responsible for the deductible. C) Irregular Lot Shape Miller reviewed the concerns of residents and outlined the proposed changes. Kluchka asked about the use of the midpoint of the building envelope. Zimmerman replied that the staff supported using 70 feet. Miller stated that there does not seem to be precedent for using 70 feet, but that it was similar to the midpoint of the building envelope in many cases. Segelbaum asked if we might be penalizing deep lots. Segelbaum asked if it would create non-conforming lots. Miller said it could be addressed in the subdivision code to avoid that situation. D) Lot Line Definitions Trapp reviewed the concerns of residents and outlined the proposed changes. Waldhauser asked about using a 10' rear Iot line instead of multiple rear lot lines. Clausen indicated her lot has a strange shape and asked how it would be handled. Zimmerman said that her lot has two front yards but only one rear yard. E) Rear Yard Setback Trapp reviewed the concerns of residents and outlined the proposed changes. Cera asked if 20% or 25 feet would be greater. Kluchka asked if this would create non- conforming lots. Zimmerman said yes and variances would be needed to expand those structures. Johnson asked why make the setback dependent on depth? Cera replied otherwise a larger lot could get a larger building. Segelbaum indicated the other setbacks were set numbers and not percentages. Trapp said 15 to 40 feet were the precedents from other cities. F) PUDs Minutes of the Joint City Council/Planning Commission February 9, 2015 Page 4 Zimmerman reviewed the concerns of City officials and outlined the proposed changes. Clausen asked if these limits would have impacted the Triton Drive PUD. Gera asked about the size of the Sweeney Lake PUD. Zimmerman replied the Triton Drive PUD was more than 2 acres so would not have been effected. The Sweeney Lake PUD was more than 3 acres. Waldhauser asked why developers want PUDs? Zimmerman replied they offer flexibility. Miller commented on the Construction Management Agreement being developed by staff and pointed out other issues that were not being addressed through the study at this time. Harris asked about the conditions of approval for minor subdivisions and if the group was comfortable leaving the determination of impacts on neighborhoods in the hands of the City Engineer. He also wondered how these changes might have impacted past developments. 2. Adjournment Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 10:25 pm. '; � �--. � � Charles D. Seg baum, Secretary J 's`pn Zim e man, Planning Manager l a _1