Loading...
03-26-18 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, March 26, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Brookins, Johnson, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were Physical Development Director Marc Nevinski, and Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman. Commissioners Angell and Black were absent. 1. Approval of Minutes February 26, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 26, 2018, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing – Minor Subdivision – 7040 Glenwood Avenue – Marie Estates – SU17-15 Applicant: Peter Knaeble Address: 7040 Glenwood Avenue Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into three new single family residential lots. Zimmerman referred to a map of the property and explained the applicant’s proposal to subdivide the lot at 7040 Glenwood Avenue into three new lots. The existing single family home would remain and two new lots would be created that could accommodate two new single family homes. He stated that in addition to the subdivision request the applicant is requesting two variances; one from the Subdivision Code and one from the Zoning Code. He clarified that the Planning Commission and City Council can consider the Subdivision Code variance, however the Zoning Code variance would be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals. He added that a neighborhood meeting was held on March 13 and that the City received three letters from residents opposed to the proposed subdivision. Zimmerman referred to the proposed site plan and stated that the proposal shows a shared driveway between Lots 1 and 3 with access on Glenwood Avenue and access on the Olson Memorial Highway frontage road for Lot 2. Zimmerman discussed the standards when considering subdivisions and stated that each of the proposed new lots meet the minimum required lot area size of 10,000 square feet. He referred to the width of the proposed new lots and noted that the applicant is asking for Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 2 a Subdivision Code variance to allow Lot 3 to be 63 feet wide 70 feet into lot rather than the required 80 feet of width. He added that the applicant is also proposing a 10-foot side yard (east) setback rather than the required 15 feet on Lot 3 in order to keep the existing house. He reiterated that this request would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for consideration. Zimmerman referred to an aerial photo of the property and stated that Hennepin County and the City are recommending removing the driveway access on Glenwood Avenue and prefer that all future access be off of the frontage road to the north. He noted that the restriction on the Glenwood access would limit the subdivision to two lots. Zimmerman referred to the requested variance regarding the minimum lot width of Lot 2 and stated that in order to keep the existing home, the applicant would still need this variance even if the subdivision was limited to two lots. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending denial of this proposed subdivision because while there is enough lot area for three lots, access for Lot 1 is not acceptable to the County or the City, there is not enough width for a conforming Lot 2, and the findings necessary for a variance are not met because there is no unusual hardship, and the applicant is not being deprived of reasonable use of the land, the variance requested is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of property rights, and the variance requested could be detrimental to other property in the neighborhood. He added that if the subdivision is approved a condition should be added that requires a variance to be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals in order to keep the existing house, or the existing house should be modified to meet the side yard setback requirements. Waldhauser referred to the driveway access on Glenwood Avenue and asked if the County’s comment about removing the driveway is a request or a requirement. Zimmerman said his understanding is that the County’s recommendation is that the driveway be removed, but they don’t have the ability to require it. Baker asked if there are consequences in ignoring the County’s recommendation. Zimmerman said he doesn’t think there would be legal consequences, but it would be an improved public safety situation if the driveway was removed and staff supports it. Segelbaum said there has been City Council discussion regarding the granting of subdivision variances and that it is his understanding that they rarely if ever grant subdivision variances. Zimmerman said he is aware of a subdivision further south on Glenwood where a subdivision variance was granted in order to keep driveways off of Glenwood Avenue and in that case it didn’t shrink the building envelopes. He added that in general it is hard to make a case for a subdivision variance when it is a matter of choice in order to subdivide and create the conditions that are calling for a variance. Johnson asked if Glenwood Avenue could be considered a special circumstance or be considered differently than the safety concerns of any other road. Zimmerman explained that the variance request is in regard to the proposed width of Lot 2 and that removing the driveway from Glenwood is a County recommendation, but not a variance request. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 3 Blum asked if the previous subdivision south of this proposal mentioned earlier pre-dates any of the recently adopted Code changes regarding lot width requirements. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked what the distance from the Lot 2 building envelope to the house to the east would be. Zimmerman said the existing house to the east is approximately 15 feet from the side yard property line of Lot 2 and that the proposed house on Lot 2 could be approximately 12.5 feet from the same property line so there could be approximately 27.5 feet between the two homes. Baker referred to the hardship requirements and asked if the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Subdivision Code variance if it would create a hardship in regard to the Zoning Code variance. Zimmerman said it would likely have some influence but the two variances would be viewed separately. Baker questioned why the two lot subdivision option includes a sub-standard lot rather than a standard lot. Zimmerman suggested asking the applicant and stated that the property could be split down the middle in order to avoid access problems and would contain two conforming lots without the need for variances. Baker stated that the property could also be split from east to west if the access on Glenwood Avenue remained the same. Peter Knaeble, Applicant, said he’s been involved in 12 small infill developments in the City that have added approximately 20 million dollars in value. He referred to the existing house in this proposal and noted that it is about 2,000 square feet in size with no basement. It was built in 1950 and could use some remodeling, or it could be torn down. He stated that if the house was removed it would be easy to do a two or three lot subdivision depending on the Glenwood Avenue access issue. He noted that the City is looking at affordable housing issues and recently passed an affordable housing policy so he started considering keeping the existing house because it could be maintained as an affordable house. He stated that since the City has a strict policy about affordable housing and strict tree preservation requirements he doesn’t think taking down the existing house is the right thing to do. He said there are 21 significant trees on the site and to remove the house to do the subdivision 8 significant trees would have to be removed. He said keeping the affordable house and the trees is worth the City granting the variances he is requesting. He referred to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and read the goals regarding preserving existing single family homes and encouraging the affordability of the existing housing stock. He reiterated that he designed this project to save the existing home and trees. He said he understands that staff doesn’t support the variances required to save the existing home and he also understands the access issue on Glenwood Avenue, but they would design the driveways with a turnaround so nobody would be backing out onto Glenwood Avenue. He referred to the recommendation in the staff report regarding staff’s preference of having the frontage road dead-end at Glenwood with the construction of a cul-de-sac to facilitate turn arounds. He stated that he understands that plan is in the draft transportation plan but it hasn’t been approved by the City Council and there are approximately 115 homes in this neighborhood that would be affected by a cul-de-sac. He said he agrees with the Engineering Division about the cul-de-sac idea but it brings up the issue of where that cul-de-sac is going to be if Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 4 it is ever built. He said he has come up with an alternative concept and handed out a proposed site plan that shows a two lot subdivision that saves the existing house, moves the driveways to the north instead of having access on Glenwood Avenue, and preserves room for a cul-de-sac in the future. He added that this new proposal would still require the variances for the lot width and the side yard setback requirement. He stated that if there is positive consensus for this new proposal he would come back to the Planning Commission in the future with a new application and set of plans. Waldhauser referred to the proposed new drawing and asked why the proposed cul-de-sac is shown so far to the east of the property. Knaeble said a cul-de-sac wouldn’t fit further to the west without taking down the existing house. Segelbaum asked if the proposed new houses would be built as spec homes. Knaeble said he wouldn’t build any of them, he is just involved in the subdivision of the property and would sell the property to a builder in the future. Baker referred to the originally proposed three lot subdivision and asked why a two lot design splitting the lots from east to west wouldn’t work. Knaeble said it is because the County doesn’t want the driveway access on Glenwood. Baker opened the public hearing. Steve Pesavento, 1701 Valders Avenue North, said he thinks the 2040 Comprehensive Plan needs to be seriously taken into consideration when looking into ordinances. Tom Hegblom, 6501 Olson Memorial Highway, said his biggest concern is the cul-de-sac and he can guarantee that residents from Windsor Woods and Westchester will fight it because diverting traffic to Douglas Drive would really impact a lot of people. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said she went through the tree preservation list and it looks like neither of the proposals would remove very many important trees. Baker asked for clarification about the cul-de-sac issue. Zimmerman said the cul-de-sac hasn’t been put on any plans, but it is a known concern and a situation that needs to be addressed. He added that when this property is re-platted there is an opportunity for the City to get some of the required land needed to address the concerns rather than trying to purchase property for a cul-de-sac in the future. Waldhauser agreed that this intersection has been a problem for years so closing the frontage seems logical. She questioned why the City is being “wishy-washy’ if there is a strong reason to do it. Baker said it isn’t the City’s call so he is reluctant to base his decision on the cul-de-sac issue. Baker referred to the issue of removing the driveway on Glenwood. He said he knows of a subdivision that was required to have a long narrow driveway parallel to Glenwood rather Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 5 than a driveway directly on Glenwood so that suggests the County is trying to avoid adding driveways on Glenwood where they can. Segelbaum asked how the location of the driveway is germane to the subdivision variance request. Baker said he doesn’t see how the location of the driveway on Glenwood has any bearing on the requested variances so the driveway issue should be left up to the County. Zimmerman stated that the County relies on the City’s approval of subdivisions so if the only option for access is on Glenwood they would allow it. Baker asked if it would be possible to create a flag lot that would retain the existing driveway on Glenwood and create new access for the other lots on the frontage road. Zimmerman said the Zoning Code does not allow flag lots and requires the entire front of a lot to abut street right-of-way and have access to and from the street from that lot. Segelbaum stated that the City has been very hesitant to grant subdivision variances so he doesn’t feel comfortable supporting this proposal unless the City Council is comfortable doing so. Blum referred to the Zoning Code variance request and said he is hesitant to say that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood. He referred to the County’s recommendation regarding the driveway access on Glenwood and said he values the County’s opinion in regards to public safety, etc. He added that it seems like there has been a lot of discussion on how to make this proposal work and suggested that this might be more of a PUD type of discussion rather than the subdivision process. Zimmerman stated that PUDs do allow flexibility but this property does not meet the minimum size to do a PUD proposal. Waldhauser said there are some conforming options if the Glenwood access issue is set aside and if this property is divided into two lots, not three. Baker agreed and said he thinks the rationale for keeping the existing house has been overstated and he is not convinced it will be retained as an affordable house. Zimmerman agreed that there is nothing to stop a buyer from removing the house and building a new one. Baker stated that when the City has had discussions about affordable housing it isn’t about retaining one house it is about developing affordable housing in the City at a much larger scale. Waldhauser added that the City has supported retaining single family homes, but she doesn’t think this particular property is a good fit. Blum referred to the affordable housing policy plan and asked if that is a statute. Zimmerman stated that there is a mixed-income housing policy and that he thinks the applicant was referring to the draft housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan which represents the City’s view on affordable housing. Blum asked if the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is in place right now. Zimmerman said no. Blum referred to recently approved Zoning Code text amendments regarding affordable housing and asked if any of those amendments were related specifically to granting variances for lot subdivision. Zimmerman said no, the amendments were to support the mixed-income housing policy and this proposal is not to a scale that triggers that policy. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 6 Johnson said there are some unintended consequences here. He said the homeowner could cut down every tree on the lot if they want to and then subdivide the property. He referred to the requested variances and said the applicant makes some good points about maintaining the character of the area, following the tree preservation plan, and adding another home to the tax base which are all good things. Baker referred to the subdivision variance request and the requirements that must be met in order to grant a variance. He said he doesn’t think the applicant is meeting the requirements and he doesn’t think they’ve heard a hardship in this case. The variance isn’t required to preserve the property rights of the applicant, and the variance could be considered to be injurious to other property in the neighborhood. Segelbaum agreed that the hardship requirements have not been met. He added that he is concerned about setting a precedent with granting subdivision variances. Johnson said he would argue the special circumstance in this case is that the City has put things in place that make it difficult such as observing the tree preservation plan, observing the safety concerns of the County, and trying to maintain the nature of the original home. Baker said he thinks there are more unintended consequences with approving the subdivision variance. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Waldhauser to recommend approval of a variance from Section 12.50, Subd. 3(A)(2) Minimum Dimension Requirements to allow proposed Lot 2 to be 17 feet off of the required 80 feet to a width of 63 feet and the motion failed 5 to 1. Commissioners Baker, Blum, Brookins, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser voted no. Commissioner Johnson voted yes. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of the subdivision request for the property located at 7040 Glenwood Avenue. 3. Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area Plan Expansion Nevinski gave some background information about the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area Plan and stated that the plan’s purpose is to outline existing conditions along Douglas Drive and identify a vision to help guide the Housing and Redevelopment Authority’s activities. Nevinski showed a map of the original plan that was done in 2009-2010 that identified three areas along the east side of Douglas Drive as potential redevelopment/reinvestment areas. He then showed a map of proposed modifications that were done in 2017 in order to expand the areas in the Corridor Plan to include the area south of Golden Valley Road and the Tennant campus. Nevinski stated that the current proposed revised plan puts the Tennant campus in its own area (A-6). He said the vision hasn’t changed and that it is expected to remain an industrial area with corporate office. He noted that area A-4 would be an 8-acre, mixed use site that would allow residential and commercial uses. He added that area A-5 would Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 7 include light industrial and mixed uses consistent with the goal of maintaining and adding jobs. Nevinski explained that the HRA statute requires that the Planning Commission consider this modified plan and provide comment and feedback. He stated that there is no tax increment being discussed and that there doesn’t need to be any findings made. Blum stated that the Planning Commission is often times provided these proposals to comment on and he feels sometimes there isn’t a lot of direction as to how critically they should be looking at the proposed modifications. Nevinski explained that this plan is reflective of the work that has been done through the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update and it’s reflective of previous discussions with the Planning Commission and City Council. He said this is fairly a high level plan and that the focus should be on whether it is consistent with where the City is going and if the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is aligning with this proposed modified plan. Johnson referred to area A-4 and noted that the objective is to prevent blight. He asked what kind of growth strategy that is. Nevinski said it isn’t necessarily a growth strategy it is something the City wants to avoid and that a mix of uses is probably the most likely reuse of that site. Johnson asked why the word isn’t used in area A-5. He said he strongly encourages the HRA and City Council to remember that Golden Valley is a fully developed suburb, land value is at an all-time high, the economy is booming, and this is not the time to consider TIF candidates. He said to let the market determine what can be here because if the City leads with a discount, it can never go back. Waldhauser referred to areas A-1 and A-2 and questioned how access points on Douglas Drive could be reduced as stated in the goals. Nevinski agreed that in certain areas having access points on Douglas is going to the case, but in other locations there could be some parcel consolidations that reduce access points. Waldhauser said it seems that area A-4 is a much better candidate for low-rise, multifamily or senior housing and that mixed use should be moved up to Highway 55 where it is being carved out for industrial. Baker referred to the land use chapter in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and said the Planning Commission looked at a larger area that included Duluth Street. He asked why that larger area isn’t included in this proposal in order to reflect the Comp Plan. Nevinski stated that historically, the City hasn’t seen a lot of market interest in developing that area along Duluth Street. Segelbaum agreed. Blum asked is there is benefit in focusing development on a smaller area that will be more immediately benefited by the recent development on Douglas Drive. Nevinski said that is a point of consideration. Blum asked to what extent they can hold themselves to the goals and values outlined in the plans if there isn’t a mechanism for enforceability. He added that he is concerned about losing momentum and specific desire in the future and it will be become something that doesn’t get done. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 8 Johnson asked if there are any other redevelopment plans in Golden Valley. Nevinski said there are four broad areas where the City sees the most opportunity: Douglas Drive, the I- 394 Corridor, the 55 West District, and the LRT Corridor. Blum referred to the goal regarding underground utilities and asked if the utilities are underground in the Douglas Drive corridor. Nevinski said the utilities are underground in the Douglas Drive corridor. Blum said he thinks that is a great goal and he likes hearing that it is achievable. Waldhauser asked what housing is blighted in the area east of Douglas Drive. Nevinski said some of the information in the plan was written before the Douglas Drive apartment rehabilitation took place. He noted that there are some homes and a duplex that are dated and approaching blight. Baker said when he reviewed the plan he was looking for dates or struck language and said it was hard to understand. He said he thinks the plan needs to be updated. Nevinski said the plan was originally written in 2009 and some conditions have changed. Blum said he really likes the language in the plan that protects the environment. He said he also thinks the co-location of uses that reduce the amount of auto travel is a really great goal. Johnson asked when this plan is being considered by the City Council. Nevinski said it will be on the April 17 Council agenda. Segelbaum said he thinks the changes are positive and it makes sense to split area A-4 as proposed and to maintain area A-5 as job oriented. 4. Discussion of 2017 Planning Commission Annual Report Zimmerman stated that every year a summary of the Planning Commission’s work get reviewed by the City Council. He referred to the report and stated that the number of planning applications was down compared to past years but that the large Tennant proposal and the work on the Comprehensive Plan Update took a lot of time. Baker said he would prefer that the first sentence of the report be changed to state that 2017 reflected the end of a planning cycle so the emphasis was more on the Comprehensive Plan rather than saying it was a quiet year. Zimmerman reviewed a map of the City and highlighted some of the areas of change. Segelbaum stated that he feels the sentiments from the Planning Commission is that they want to see more retail base and small neighborhood commercial areas in the City and for people to stay here, not just work here. Blum agreed that tracks with some of the Comp Plan survey comments along with better transportation options. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 9 Waldhauser referred to the duties of the Planning Commission listed in the bylaws and said they are good to review. Baker stated they should be thinking about what kinds of special studies they may want. Waldhauser stated that the recommendations regarding the use of state and federal funds is only considered when there is a particular development to review and recommendations regarding the environment have been incorporated in most of their reviews, but not very proactively. Baker asked if there is room in the report to discuss aspirations for the future. Blum suggested allowing more time to discuss and plan for the LRT station areas. Zimmerman stated that some of these issues are addressed in the implementation section of the Comprehensive Plan. Johnson asked if the draft chapters of the Comprehensive Plan have been circulated to anybody else, besides the Planning Commission. Zimmerman said that draft chapters have gone to the Environmental Commission, the Open Space Recreation Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and the City Council and that the Planning Commission will see a full draft of the plan in May. 5. Discussion of 2017 Board of Zoning Appeals Annual Report Zimmerman referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals annual report and stated that there were many fewer variances in 2017. He stated that staff has been cleaning up some of the inconsistencies in the code and has been working with applicants up front to help decrease the amount of variance requests. --Short Recess-- 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 7. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 8. Adjournment The me ting was adjourned at 9:15 pm. � � Ro Blu , S retary Lisa ittman, Administrative Assistant