Loading...
04-11-16 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 A regular meeting of the Ptanning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, April 11, 2016. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Cera was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes February 29, 2016, Joint Planning, Environmental and Open Space and Recreation Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 29, 2016, minutes as submitted. March 14, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Blum referred to the 7th paragraph on page 8 and noted that the word "now" should be changed to the word "not." Johnson referred to the 6th paragraph on page 15 and stated that the word "natural" should be removed from the first sentence. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the March 14, 2016, minutes with the above noted corrections. 2. Informal Public Hearing — General Land Use Plan Map Amendment— Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd) — CPAM-58 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd) Purpose: To change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Right-of-Way to Residential—Low Density. 3. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezoning — Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd) —Z009-03 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 2 Purpose: To rezone the property from Right-of-Way to Single Family Zoning District (R-1). The Informal Public Hearings and discussion for Items 2 and 3 were combined. Goellner referred to a location map of the subject property and explained that it was originally platted to allow for a single-family home, and that there was a single family home on the property until it was demolished in 1970. She stated that MnDOT purchased the property in the 1960s for the Highway 12 project and recently sold it in an auction to the highest bidder. She added that MnDOT sold the property "as is" assuming that the land will be used for a single-family home as it had been in the past. Goellner explained that the lot is buildable for a single-family home because it is over 80 feet in width and more than 10,000 square feet in size. She added that it would not be eligible for a lot split because there is not enough width for two lots and MnDOT has no intention of selling any of the adjacent right-of-way in order to obtain the necessary lot width. Goellner stated that staff is recommending that the property be rezoned and re-guided to Single Family, Low Density Residential, but there are other options. These options include guiding and zoning it as park/open space or leaving the property as right-of-way. The City's Director of Parks and Recreation has stated that this property is not part of the � city-wide comprehensive parks plan, and there are concerns about maintenance costs. The Public Works Department has stated that the City would be open to pursuing a trail or access easement for the existing trail located south of the subject property, but not a path through the subject property. She added that the risk of leaving the property as right-of- way according to the City Attorney is that the new owner could build a home without being subject to R-1 zoning restrictions such as: setbacks, lot coverage, etc. Waldhauser asked Goellner to point out the location of the existing trail south of the subject property. Goetlner referred to an aerial photo of the area and noted where an access easement could be located. Baker questioned why an easement would be needed. Goellner stated that putting an easement in place would maintain the access into Theodore Wirth Park. Baker stated that there is a new trail that crosses the back corner of this property and questioned if the Minneapolis Park Board knows that this property has been sold, or that it is proposed to be rezoned and re-guided. Goellner stated that Minneapolis will review the proposed Land Use Map amendment as part of the Metropolitan Council review process. Blum asked staff if they know the maintenance costs if this parcel were to be a park or open space. Zimmerman said he didn't know the exact costs, but if the City owns the property it would have to be brought up to code with ADA requirements, trash cans, benches, etc. He added that the City would like to have additional park�and further west toward the Good Day cafe, but not in this location. Segelbaum questioned if making this property parkland could be considered a taking. Goellner said that staff did not consider that, but thinks what is being proposed is the best use for the property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 3 Johnson asked how someone could build a house without having to follow any of the zoning requirements if the City were to do nothing with this property. Zimmerman stated that this is a unique case because there is no zoning designation on this property. He said the new owner could take possession of the property and there could either be a freeze to allow for no development until the process is figured out, or the new owners could potentially build whatever they want because there is no zoning in place. The question is if the old zoning designation would carry over. The City Attorney feels there is some risk in not doing anything with the property. Blum asked if the environmental impacts or the effects on the existing habitat have been considered and added that this vacant parcel does provide a barrier for the neighborhood. Zimmerman said he spoke with the staff liaison to the Environmental Commission and he said there are a couple of areas where the City could expand open space in order to preserve environmental features, but the City has been operating under the assumption that this property would go back to being a single-family parcel at some point. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Chuck Malkerson, 1109 Tyrol Trail, said he has lived in Golden Valley for 15 years, he loves Golden Valley, and it has been a wonderful place to raise a family. He stated that Mr. Zimmerman has been very helpful and has spent a lot of time answering his questions, and he has been pleased with the process. He said in his career he's had opportunities to deal with Comprehensive Plans, and land use and environmental issues but that this is a peculiar case. He said the end user has not shown up or discussed anything with the neighborhood and he doesn't know what is going on. He said he can't get any owner information until a deed is filed and this lack of information leads to suspicion and fear because they just don't know anything. They don't know if the buyer knows what he is getting into because this property is a blank slate with no zoning on it. He said he thinks it's fabulous that Golden Valley has been recognized as a "tree city" for 29 years and discussed the various pocket parks and small areas of open space and nature space in the City. He noted that one of the goals in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to pursue and acquire land for open space and trails and said it would be possible to make a decision about this property as part of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan update. He referred to past Planning Commission meetings where the Commission discussed easements and other ways to protect trees, but none of those things have been considered for this property. He asked if a house is built on this lot if there is any way the neighbors can be involved in requiring things above and beyond what is required in the Zoning Code. He stated that past proposals have also required applicants to hold a neighborhood meeting, which has not happened in this case and asked that there be a neighborhood meeting because the City and the neighborhood don't have enough information or details. He stated that this property has been a park for 50 years and that there has been a friendly trail through this lot that has provided everybody access to Theodore Wirth Park. He stated that the owner of the house at 1101 Tyrol Trail, Dr. Leo De Souza passed away and his wife Dolly is now in an assisted living facility and that their family would be interested in hearing and participating in what is going on with this property. He said he had an encounter with the buyer who was amazed that MnDOT had a wooded lot for sale, but that is all the information he got so it is not clear what is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 4 happening. He said Dr. De Souza's family would like this property to be a park and he would contribute $5,000 to help defray the City's costs. He said he would like any decisions regarding this property postponed in order to have a neighborhood meeting to get a handle on who bought this property and what they want to do with it. Tom Lockhart, 909 Parkview Terrace, said this neighborhood has taken their lumps with developers going beyond what they're supposed to do. Those properties are already built so there is nothing they can do about it now, but he is suspicious about what will go on this property. He said he wants there to be a restriction in place that allows only one residential property. Mike Docter, 1122 Tyrol Trail, questioned if something could really be built on this property without permits. He said he can see why the City would want to zone this R-1, but it has been a nice buffer for the neighborhood. He asked if someone owns the property if they have to clean it up or if it can be left as is. He said he would also contribute $5,000 for a park. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Segelbaum asked if the City has the option to wait until the Comprehensive Plan update in 2018 to address this property. Goellner said the City could wait, but there might be litigation from the new property owner. Segelbaum agreed that waiting could create a dispute. Waldhauser referred to the question about tree conservation easements and said her recollection of past discussions is that the City is not in a position to put in place or enforce those types of easements or agreements. Zimmerman agreed and stated that the City typically requires an easement only if there are high quality trees or habitat to protect. Waldhauser asked why a neighborhood meeting wasn't held. Zimmerman stated that hearing notices were sent to properties within 500 for this public hearing. He explained that this proposal didn't trigger the need for a neighborhood meeting according to the recently amended neighborhood meeting policy. He added that this proposal is also unique because there isn't really an applicant to organize a neighborhood meeting. Goellner added that the neighbors were interested in having a neighborhood meeting in order to talk to the new property owner, but the owner of the property won't be known until mid-May when the deed is recorded. Waldhauser stated that a question was asked about opportunities neighbors would have to influence what the new property owner does with the property. She said she doesn't think the neighbors would have any influence because they aren't the property owner. Segelbaum added that there are a number of requirements in the R-1 Zoning District that the new owner would have to follow. He asked Zimmerman about the requirements regarding tree removal. Zimmerman stated that a certain percentage of significant trees can be removed before mitigation is required. Goellner added that it is likely the new Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 5 owner would have to do mitigation, but that would be reviewed during the building permit process. Segelbaum asked about Zoning Code changes since the Parkview Terrace subdivisions were approved. Zimmerman explained that in 2008 many changes were made to the Code including larger setbacks, articulation and height requirements. Waldhauser referred to the concern about splitting the property. Zimmerman stated that another 60 feet of width would be required to divide the property into two lots and he doesn't think MnDOT, the Park Board, or the City would be interested in selling property to allow for a subdivision of the land. Waldhauser asked if the new owner will be required to clean up the property even if they don't build on it. Zimmerman said until the new owner builds a house the property can be left as is unless there is a safety issue. Segelbaum asked if the easement area located to the south of this property, used for access to the park, is relevant to this discussion. Zimmerman stated that the property would remain right-of-way and that there could be an opportunity to work with MnDot and the Park Board to pursue a more permanent trail or access point. Segelbaum asked if the Planning Commission could recommend that an easement be placed on the property to the south. Baker stated that they should find out if there is a relationship with the Park Board and MnDOT because there is an existing access area. He added that if a relationship exists, the City wouldn't have to do anything. Goellner stated that if the Commission wants to recommend that the property to the south be used for access she suggests that it be addressed separately and not as a condition of approval or denial for the rezoning/re-guiding of the subject property. Baker said he is sympathetic with the residents who want to have a neighborhood meeting. He suggested that a neighborhood meeting be held to give them an opportunity to voice their concerns, or this proposal should wait until the City knows who the owner is. Zimmerman reiterated that not all planning proposals require a neighborhood meeting. Blum said he thinks there is a legal and statutorily compliant use being proposed. The proposed use is a mirror image of its past use as low density residential and is really a restoration of the lot to its previous use, not a new or different use. He said the existing trail access to the south of the subject property does not seem to be changing as a result of this proposal. He said he does have concerns about keeping the access to the park because it is used by the neighborhood and is a very nice trail head, so he does not want to see that access closed off. He said he is also concerned about the environmental impact on the property and he would like more details about the maintenance costs if the property were to become a park or open space. Baker agreed and said he wants to guarantee that there is a more permanent access to the park and not just currently an access that MnDOT could close. Kluchka agreed and said that access is a real jewel and wants to focus on keeping it. Johnson stated that if the access is kept informal it could be kept as is. If it is formalized there may be more liability. He said it amazes him that the State can thrust an un-zoned property on the City to make the City deal with it. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 6 Kluchka asked if the City could have rezoned the property prior to its sale. Zimmerman said there was a small amount of time that the City knew the property was for sale. He explained that the property hasn't been on the Zoning Map or Land Use Map for many years. It has just been designated as right-of-way. Baker asked if the original zoning on the property was ever formally removed. Goellner stated that there is no evidence that it was ever removed. Baker asked about the risks if the property is not rezoned. Zimmerman stated that if there is no zoning on the property, technically there are no rules or requirements. He added that the City would like to avoid any potential issues by zoning it R-1. Waldhauser said she is inclined to zone the property R-1. It seems to fit in nicely with the neighborhood and meets all of the dimensional requirements. There would also be some certainty as far as what can be built on this property. She said as far as natural habitat the neighborhood still has all of Theodore Wirth Park on the back side of this property. She added that she is also interested in keeping the existing park access/connection located to the south. Baker asked if the excess right-of-way with the existing park access could be incorporated into the subject property. Zimmerman said MnDOT would have to be open to allowing someone else to own and maintain it, so he thinks it makes sense to work with MnDOT and the Park Board on keeping that access. Goellner added that with a noise wall located to the south, it is unlikely MnDOT would sell any of the right-of-way. Segelbaum said the public is concerned about the unknowns in this situation and that he thinks the best route is to rezone the property to R-1 to prevent the unknowns from happening. He said he would also like to let the City Council know that the Planning Commission would like to maintain the trail/park access. Waldhauser added that if the remaining MnDOT right-of-way property were offered for sale, and this property hadn't been developed yet, there is a possibility the two could be put together and then subdivided so rezoning this property now would end that. � MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the request to change the designation on the General Land Use Plan Map from Right-of-Way to Residential-Low Density for Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd). MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the request to rezone Lot 11, Block 8, West Tyrol Hills (formerly 3900 Wayzata Blvd) from Right-of-Way to Single Family Residential (R-1). --Short Recess-- 4. Discussion Item —Zoning Code Text Amendment— Amending Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District—ZO00-104 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 7 Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To discuss modifying the language regarding setbacks, lot size, and lot width and adding other missing regulations to the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District. Goellner stated that staff is proposing amendments to the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District because the dimensional standards were not addressed in 2008 when major amendments were made to all Residential Zoning Districts. Demographics and housing demands are changing, and duplexes are not a common product in this market. Goellner stated that the suggested modifications can clarify the purpose for the R-2 Zoning District, they can accommodate new construction that meets market demand and a variety of housing needs, and they can provide regulations that are currently only in the R-1 Zoning District. She explained that small-lot, single-family residential development is a common tool for encouraging a variety of housing options and discussed several other cities' requirements for this type of housing. Goellner summarized the staff recommendations including: requiring a lot size of 6,000 square feet for single-family homes, a minimum lot width of 50 feet for single-family homes, the same height requirements, side yard setbacks, side wall articulation, structure width, paved area coverage and setbacks, outdoor storage, deck requirements, and home occupation requirements as lots in the R-1 Zoning District, and also the consideration of a maximum garage width. She noted that there are 27 properties in the City affected by this proposal and all of them would meet the lot width and size recommendations being proposed. Goellner referred to the densities allowed in each residential zoning district and explained that the stated purpose of the R-1 Zoning District is to allow for up to 5 units per acre, however due to the lot size requirements it really only allows 2-4 units per acres. The stated purpose of the R-2 Zoning District is to allow for up to 8 units per acre, but the lot size requirements for two-family dwellings really allows 6 units per acre and 3 units per acre for single-family dwellings. The stated purpose of the R-3 Zoning District is to allow up to 10-12 units per acre, and the stated purpose of the R-4 Zoning District is to allow for over 12 units per acre. She stated that staff is recommending 10,000 square feet for a minimum lot size for two-family dwellings to provide up to 8 units per acre, and 6,000 square feet for a minimum lot size for single-family dwellings which provides up to 7 units per acre. Staff is also recommending that the lot width be 100 feet minimum for two-family dwellings, and 50 feet minimum for single-family dwellings. Goellner discussed the idea of a maximum garage width and noted that there are currently no regulations in any residential zoning district regarding garage width. She stated there are anticipated issues if lots are allowed to be narrower and said staff is proposing that garages be limited to a maximum of 22 feet in width for single-family dwellings in the R-2 Zoning District. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 8 Goellner summarized the proposed modifications and stated that they could position the R-2 Zoning District more appropriately with the regulations of all residential zoning districts, they could provide opportunity to build single-family homes at the same density as two-family homes, and they would add regulations that are missing, but assumed to be applicable to the R-2 Zoning District. Segelbaum asked if the City is required to have a certain amount of R-2 zoned properties. Goellner stated that 5 units per acre is what the Metropolitan Council requires, but the current Zoning Code only allows 2 to 3 units per acre. Zimmerman added that the Metropolitan Council will review the City's Comprehensive Plan in order to determine if Golden Valley can meet its population growth. Baker asked if the City adopts the proposed R-2 amendments if it will then cause pressure to create more R-2 properties, or if the City is covered with the use of the R-4 Zoning District. Zimmerman explained that the proposed amendments are less about density and more about housing demand and offering a variety in housing styles. Baker noted that the only block of R-2 zoned properties is on Harold Avenue and he knows how hard it has been to develop those properties. Goellner stated that she noticed the requirements in the R-2 Zoning District need to be aligned with the density allowed in that district. Zimmerman added that the City Council wants to accommodate some more density in the appropriate places but the tools the City has don't really work so the R-2 Zoning District needs some updating and clarifying. Waldhauser stated that the proposed changes would allow more single-family, small lot developments without requiring a PUD. Segelbaum agreed. Baker asked about the cons with the proposed changes. Goellner stated that it will need to be clear in the Comprehensive Plan where the City wants R-2 zoned properties and where it doesn't, which will make it easier to deny inappropriate proposals. Segelbaum questioned if someone with a 100-foot wide lot could rezone it to R-2 and then split it into two lots. Goellner stated that the land would also need to be guided in the Comprehensive Plan for higher density. If the City wants to reduce the number of rezoning applications it could also increase the rezoning application fee. Segelbaum asked the Commissioners if they are in favor of making the R-2 Zoning District more consistent with the R-1 Zoning District and to allow the same density with smaller homes instead of duplexes similar to what has been done in some recent PUDs like Laurel Ponds. Zimmerman stated that currently, a PUD was the only way to get a product like Laurel Ponds. Baker asked if it is likely that instead of applying for a PUD developers would just rezone a property to R-2 instead. Zimmerman said that could potentially happen, but it is up to the City Council to approve a rezoning, whereas with a PUD if a developer meets certain standards it is harder to deny their proposal. Blum stated that changing the side yard setback requirements, articulation requirements, height requirements, etc. in the R-2 Zoning District to match what is in the R-1 Zoning District makes sense and will make it easier and more consistent with the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 9 other residential districts. He stated that limiting the width of garages is also a smart suggestion, but he has some concerns about the proposed lot width and lot size and how it might change the R-1 Zoning District to look more like Minneapolis neighborhoods with blocks and alleys which he isn't sure will be attractive and Golden Valley could lose a competitive advantage. He said he thinks that R-2 properties will likely appear in existing R-1 neighborhoods. He said it also seems that the City's use of R-3 and R-4 have been good in maintaining R-1 areas and help justify mass transit and other uses. Johnson questioned what would stop someone from buying an R-1 property and splitting it into two lots using the proposed R-2 requirements. Zimmerman stated that the property would need to be rezoned in order to do that. He added that with a typical subdivision if the proposal meets the City's requirements, the City has to approve it, however the decision to rezone a property is almost entirely at the Council's discretion. Baker said he is concerned that rezoning properties to R-2 could be a back door way to subdivide R-1 properties. Waldhauser said that wouldn't happen if the proposed rezoning were inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Zimmerman agreed and noted that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map have to match. Segelbaum said he would like the R-2 Zoning District to be consistent with the R-1 Zoning District, but there was opposition to similar changes just months ago with PUDs, so it seems strange to him to recommend approval of the proposed changes now. He stated that an aggregation of more R-2 properties, or a PUD concept seems better to him than a mix of different zoning districts in one area. Kluchka suggested a policy regarding spot zoning be created which would require a grouping together of R-2 properties. Goellner stated that when the City is determining where to put R-2 Zoning Districts, staff can look at a conglomeration of areas. Baker said he likes the idea of accommodating other types of housing, but these changes have got to be about more than just the properties on Harold Avenue. He asked staff if they can think of any areas where people would be amenable to rezoning their neighborhood to R-2. Goellner referred to areas of R-1 zoned properties that already conform to the proposed R-2 regulations. She stated that the City can continue to not have a lot of properties in the R-2 Zoning District. She added that she would do more research and show more examples of a variety of housing types within the same area. Zimmerman suggested some properties along Douglas Drive might be appropriate for R-2 zoning. Segelbaum stated that the Planning Commission has heard from residents in the past that they don't want lot sizes shrunk, and in fact, want them to be larger. Zimmerman stated that there might be areas in the City where this zoning district works. He said staff will look at the bigger picture and where it might be able to be used. Blum said he is concerned about making it too easy to do this anywhere people want to do it. Johnson said if the R-2 Zoning Districts are in the Comprehensive Plan then it's easy to control. Segelbaum agreed, but said he thinks the City will see more rezoning applications. Waldhauser said one benefit would be to allow more re-development in Minutes of the Galden Valley Planning Commission April 11, 2016 Page 10 modest housing and not just high end housing. Baker said he would like to see some examples of where this would work. Goellner said this item will be brought back to a future Planning Commission meeting for a public hearing. 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman stated that a PUD Amendment for the Central Park Office Tower is expected to be submitted soon. Waldhauser discussed an article that was in the SunPost regarding the neighborhood meeting policy. 6. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 pm. n ., � ��� John Klu�ka, Secretary Lis Wittman, Administrative Assistant