Loading...
08-22-16 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2016 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, August 22, 2016. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka (arrived at 8:18), and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, Planning Intern Chloe McGuire Brigl, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes July 25, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to approve the July 25, 2016, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 26 Paisley Lane — SU12-20 Applicant: GreenWood Design Build, LLC Address: 26 Paisley Lane Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. McGuire Brigl explained the applicant's request to subdivide the property at 26 Paisley Lane into two new lots. The existing single family home would be demolished, and two new single family homes would be constructed. McGuire Brigl referred to a site plan of the property and explained that Lot 1 would be 15,337 square feet in size and Lot 2 would be 16,369 square feet in size and both proposed lots would have approximately 90 feet of width at the front setback line. She added that the minimum lot size requirement for these lots is 15,000 square feet and the minimum required width at the front setback line is 80 feet. She reviewed the conditions for approval or denial outlined in the City Code and said staff is recommending approval of the proposed subdivision as it meets all of the requirements. Waldhauser asked if there is a need for additional sewer and water access or if both new lots will have access. Zimmerman stated that there is already one hook up from the existing house so one additional hook up will be needed as a result of this subdivision. Johnson referred to the tree preservation plan and asked how that is enforced. Zimmerman stated that tree preservation plans have always been required as part of the construction process and reminded the Commission that the Subdivision Code was Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2016 Page 2 recently amended to require a tree survey before subdividing the property in order to establish the number of significant trees, the species, and the location to accurately track the trees before and after a subdivision. Waldhauser noted that there are several ash trees on the property and asked if trees that are likely to die or be removed are counted in the tree survey. Zimmerman stated that the City Forester will review the tree survey and verify that the trees are healthy. Johnson referred to the survey of the property and asked if the encroaching shed located on the property to the south will have to be addressed. Zimmerman said it does not have to be addressed as a part of this proposal, but if a future property owner has an issue with the location of the shed the neighbor to the south will have to move it. Segelbaum referred to the conditions for approval or denial and asked if the City could only deny a subdivision if those conditions are not met. McGuire Brigl said yes. Blum said he noticed that both of the proposed lots are larger than 15,000 square feet in size and asked how the recently amended subdivision regulations affected this proposal. McGuire Brigl explained that if the properties within 250 feet of the subject property are greater than 18,000 square feet on average then the newly subdivided lots have to be 15,000 square feet in size. Baker asked how many lots were within 250 feet. Zimmerman said there were between 12 and 20 lots taken into consideration. Scott Loehrer, GreenWood Design Build, Applicant representing the property owner, said this is the first subdivision they have done, but they've done work in Golden Valley in the past and that these are great lots. Johnson said the City has heard complaints from residents about noise and asked Loehrer if he has any plans to manage the neighbors' concerns. Loehrer said he tries hard to communicate with neighbors. He said he doesn't let his crews start until after 7 am and tries to have work end by 5 or 6 pm. He said the challenge is if he makes the work hours shorter it takes longer to build the houses. Baker stated that this neighborhood has had several homes being built at the same time and the City has heard complaints about obstructions in the road. Loehrer said he or one of his job supervisors is on site every day and they are pretty strict about making sure they are parking on only one side of the street and that they are not blocking mailboxes, etc. Zimmerman noted that the City has a construction agreement that builders sign stating they understand the City's regulations regarding hours, noise, etc. Baker asked Loehrer if they will be constructing both new homes at the same time. Loehrer said yes. Segelbaum asked if these will be custom homes. Loehrer said yes. Segelbaum asked Loehrer if he has any philosophies regarding saving trees. Loehrer said they try to save trees whenever possible but they don't save trees that they know are going to die. He added that trees make the properties look better and there is additional cost to remove them. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2016 Page 3 Segelbaum asked about the size of the proposed homes. Loehrer said they will be two- story homes approximately 3,000 square feet in size or more if they have a basement. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Peggy Newstrom, 6100 Glenwood Avenue, said it makes her sad to lose so much green space and the hawks and bunnies on the property will have a hard time. She noted that there have been three new homes built on Brunswick Ave. recently and two of the neighboring properties have had water damage. She said the foundations of the new homes being so high can cause flooding on other properties and she is concerned about flooding in her home and losing plants in her yard. She submitted a letter addressing her concerns and said she would be happy to meet with the City Engineer. John Segner, 125 Paisley Lane, said he agrees with the previous speaker. He said over the past 3 to 4 years there have been 5 or 6 subdivisions in the area and there have been some water issues and flooding in his back yard. He said he doesn't think the tree survey that was done is anywhere near accurate. He went to the property and did a tree survey and said that they will take down approximately 400 feet of trees. He said they will be taking down close to 10 trees, the diameter of which is close to 20 feet and he doesn't know how they are going to replace as many trees as they are suggesting. He said tonight is the first time he has seen the developers proposal and he has just learned that the homes will be placed as far into the front yards as possible which will be the most intrusive location and will result in the highest number of trees coming down. He said he is highly skeptical of the tree survey and noted that the mailing he received from the applicant had errors. He said the combination of the trees, the flooding, and the amount of development in this neighborhood is disappointing. He said he understands the 15,000 square foot requirement is an attempt to mitigate some of the issues, but it is dramatically changing the neighborhood and the idea of going through another summer of construction is really frustrating. Johnson asked Segner if he has experienced flooding. Segner said yes, there was new construction on the street behind him and the water that was supposed to go toward their front yards is now going into his backyard and flooding it out. Kathy Watkins, 112 Paisley Lane, said she is very saddened by this house being torn down because it was always well maintained. She said from what she can tell all the trees will have to come down to make room for these two new houses. She added that the front of her yard is below the street level and it ponds every spring and it takes a long time for the rain water to soak in. She said she knows from all the construction in the neighborhood that they always raise the foundations up and that means more water in her yard. She said there are several neighbors who get more water in their yards than they used to. She said she is concerned about more drainage coming into her yard and questioned who will take care of it. She said she also doesn't want vacant-looking lots with weeds, tall grass, and big holes like some of the ones that have been sitting for well over a year. Ellen Mickelson, 6140 Glenwood Avenue, said she agrees with what her neighbors have said and noted that her living room will face these two new homes which is disappointing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2016 Page 4 She stated that staff said that this proposal is preserving the character of the neighborhood and questioned how. She said it is not because they are tearing down trees and putting up two-story homes. She said she is concerned about drainage, damage to her foundation and to the drainage system she recently installed. She said she has spent a lot of effort making her yard beautiful and she doesn't want any of the trees to be damaged. She said she is also concerned about noise and asked what happened to the moratorium and if that was done just for fun. She asked if the location of her shed would be grandfathered in and said it is not right that she should have to spend money to move it. Peggy Newstrom, 6100 Glenwood Avenue, said she wants the builder to be aware of how terrible the soils are, and of the natural springs in the area. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Baker said the common theme is the flooding issues and asked about the code requirements in regard to raising the grade of a property. Segelbaum asked about the code requirements relative to water run-off. Zimmerman said the code only allows a one- foot difference in height when a house is removed and a new one is built in its place. He explained that the code allows the City Engineer to establish a new base grade when a home is built in a new location and that some lots need to be raised in order to get the correct drainage. He stated that the amount of water flow off the lot should be no more than what is there today and that more detailed plans for grading and drainage are submitted during the building permit process. He added that the builder is responsible for making sure that the grading matches any approved plans. He said that staff would take a look at the other properties recently constructed on Paisley Lane. Segelbaum asked if the focus is on making sure that run-off is not worsened. Zimmerman said yes. Segelbaum asked what recourse neighbors have. Zimmerman said that staff can hold builders to the plans that were approved by the City. Baker referred to the survey and noted that it shows that the water will flow west toward the street and between the lot lines down to the street. He said he would like to know to what extent the City can ensure the outcome. Zimmerman reiterated that the builder will be held to the approved grading and drainage plans. Baker questioned if rain gardens could be a possibility in this case. Zimmerman said that is a potential way to meet the standards. Waldhauser asked if installing catch basins would be an option. Zimmerman said he didn't know. Segelbaum asked if the tree survey is certified. Zimmerman said yes. He explained that the code requires a survey to be done by a certified professional and reiterated that the City Forester will verify its accuracy. Segelbaum asked how far forward a home could be placed on the lot. Zimmerman stated that the front yard setback is 35 feet, but that the home could be placed anywhere within the buildable area. Baker asked about the height and depth requirements. Zimmerman reviewed the "tent- shaped" setback requirements. Minutes of the Golden Vailey Planning Commission August 22, 2016 Page 5 Segelbaum asked how long a lot can be left unbuilt. Zimmerman said there is no time limit to build, but there are property maintenance requirements in regard to mowing, weeds, etc. Baker asked if a neighborhood meeting is required for subdivisions. Zimmerman said if it is a straightForward request with no variances a meeting with the neighborhood is not required. However, the applicant is required to mail a summary of their proposal to the neighbors. Baker asked Zimmerman to address the question about the recent subdivision moratorium. Zimmerman explained that the moratorium occurred at the end of 2014. The City worked with a consultant and as a result changes were made to lot size, depth, and setback requirements, and several of the definitions. Baker stated that the subdivision study was not an easy process and he believes the outcome was a more restrictive subdivision code. He added that the moratorium was not ineffective but that the City may need another one in the future. He suggested people push the City Council for more review of the subdivision code. Segelbaum asked about the standards used for considering the character of the neighborhood. Zimmerman said that is hard to quantify. Some people think the character of the neighborhood means the trees, some think it is the siZe of the lots, and some think it is the architecture. Segelbaum asked if it is the Planning Commissioner's charge to consider those things. Zimmerman said their charge is to address the quantitative issues, not the qualitative issues. Baker asked for clarification about the shed located on the property to the south. Zimmerman stated that the shed was built across the property line so it would not be grandfathered in. He added that if the new property owner wanted it moved, the neighbor to the south would have to move it to a conforming location. Segelbaum asked Loehrer to address the concerns about drainage. Loehrer said they try really hard to make neighbors happy. He said in this case he can get all of the water to go down the middle of the lots and to the street. He said the property to the north will probably always be wet and that he could install rain gardens, but most water issues occur in the spring when the ground is still frozen so rain gardens don't always work. He added that the City is strict about grading and drainage issues and they won't issue a Certificate of Occupancy if it is done wrong. Johnson said they keep hearing concerns about excessive wetness and that there is more water in this area than there used to be, so it doesn't seem like the drainage plans are working, or the problems are being addressed. Baker agreed and said the lack of recourse is troubling. He said they should really impress upon the City Engineer the issues and the soil conditions and let him know that he should be extra careful to avoid allowing drainage onto other properties. Segelbaum agreed that it would be worthwhile to emphasize the issues in this area. Waldhauser said she doesn't know what goes into the engineers' calculations such as trees and the amount of hardscape. Zimmerman said he would get some clarification from the City Engineer. Waldhauser added that weather Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2016 Page 6 events have been increasingly difficult to deal with and they can't hold homeowners or developers responsible for the weather. Segelbaum said he doesn't see any basis to deny this proposal and noted that the City has made several changes to the subdivision code to hopefully improve the situation. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following findings and conditions: Findin s: 1. Both of the lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. 2. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. The addition of the new lots will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. Conditions: 1. Proposed public easements consistent with the subdivision ordinance must be dedicated and shown on the Final Plat. 2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 3. A park dedication fee of$3,900 shall be paid before release of the Final Plat. 4. A deferred special assessment of $4,900 shall be paid before release of the Final Plat. --Short Recess-- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Zimmerman stated that the City Council will be appointing a new Planning Commission member at their next meeting. Kluchka stated that the West End PUD amendment proposal was approved and that Phil and Linda from the GV Foundation would like to be a part of the group that works on the public art for that project. Kluchka and Johnson both said they would like to volunteer to be a part of the group as well. Segelbaum asked about the status of The Xenia and Hello apartment proposals. Zimmerman said both projects are still moving forward. Goellner reminded the Commissioners of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Open House on September 19 and asked the Commissioners if they would help at the event. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2016 Page 7 4. Other Business • Council Liaison Report Council Member Schmidgall gave an update on a pre-bid construction meeting he attended regarding the Brookview remodel. He also discussed the last Council meeting where they approved changes to the winter parking restrictions. Cars are now allowed to park in the street until 2 am rather than midnight. • Outdoor Storage Discussion McGuire Brigl said staff would like to get the Commissioners feedback on outdoor storage regulations in order to help clarify the language in the Zoning Code regarding outdoor storage in all zoning districts. She reviewed some of the current regulations in several of the zoning districts and noted that the key challenges include: interpreting the screening requirements, the storage of recreational vehicles in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, what issues to address in the Commercial and Business Professional Offices zoning districts, and how to accommodate car dealerships storage of vehicles. McGuire Brigl showed the Commission several pictures of properties that are in violation of the Zoning Code and asked them for their feedback. Waldhauser said thinks it is ok to allow items to be parked on a paved surface, and not necessarily on a driveway. Schmidgall referred to the International Property Maintenance Code and said many regulations regarding outdoor storage might already be in that document. Blum asked if there are regulations regarding the number of vehicles a property owner can park on their driveway. Baker said he thinks the City needs to be cautious about people's use of their private property and that it doesn't seem fair to be too strict. Segelbaum said he would like to see what other cities require and asked if staff has surveyed other cities requirements. McGuire Brigl said yes. She added that one of the main areas staff would like to focus on is screening. It is unclear in the current code language how much screening is required and who items should be screened from such as neighboring properties, or from the street right-of-way. Baker said he thinks it might be helpful to merge some of the zoning district's outdoor storage requirements into one place. Zimmerman stated that there could be one section of code related to outdoor storage similar to the fencing section. Kluchka said he would like help identifying the problems, or the complaints staff receives in order to help address the issues. Baker agreed and said it would be good to prioritize the issues. Blum suggested that on-street parking regulations should be studied in anticipation of the light rail project. Baker stated that he is sympathetic to parking issues because Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2016 Page 8 people have to be able to park their cars someplace. Segelbaum agreed that he doesn't want the City to be too strict. Blum suggested issuing temporary parking permits or a seasonal permit that keeps people from abusing the parking requirements. Baker said he thinks the City can create some functional rules such as time limits, etc. Johnson asked what kind of job staff is doing in enforcing the complaints received. Zimmerman explained the violation and citation process. Blum said that he finds it odd when two fences are next to each other and said it would be good to understand the safety issues involved such as the space needed for safety vehicles and what happens if fences block emergency access. He suggested that there be a slight setback for fences. Waldhauser expressed concern about fence setbacks because there is then the question of who maintains the space between two fences. Segelbaum questioned the importance of screening between two properties in the same district or if the focus should be on screening outdoor storage on properties that are adjacent to residential zoning districts. Goellner stated that for administration purposes all Industrial or Commercial properties should be treated the same, and that it can be burdensome to administer code if we require that certain properties have different requirements. Waldhauser noted that properties have different setback requirements when they are adjacent to residential properties. Zimmerman discussed auto dealership storage. He stated that the City has received complaints and staff has met with dealerships regarding storage of their inventory in parking ramps and in parking lots throughout the City. Baker said he thinks dealerships should be allowed to store their inventory in parking ramps and questioned if the issues could be solved by allowing auto storage lots. Zimmerman said they could change the code to allow parking lots to be used just for auto storage and that language could be added regarding screening and maintenance of storage lots. Baker said he would want to get auto dealers perspective before changes are made to the code. Goellner asked the Commissioners if they would be open to allowing landscaped screening instead of fencing on surface storage lots. The consensus was that the Commission would be ok with landscaping or fencing for screening. Kluchka referred to auto repair businesses and asked if maintenance or the number of cars stored in the parking lot are regulated. Zimmerman said the City does not regulate those issues. Segelbaum said he thinks they would be worth addressing. • Comprehensive Plan Land Use Discussion Zimmerman stated that due to the late hour this item could be postponed to the next Planning Commission meeting. The Commissioners agreed. Zimmerman said he would send the Commissioners a copy of the PowerPoint presentation he prepared. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 22, 2016 Page 9 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:17 pm. � , c�✓� _ - �/�I John Kluchk 'Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant