06-25-73 PC Minutes ����
MINUTES OF THE (30LDEN VALLEX
PLANNING OUAiMISSION
June 25,, 19?3
A regular meeting of the Go3den Valley Planning Commission was held at 8s30 P.M.
on Monday, June 25, 1973 at the Civic Center, 7800 Galden Va11ey Road,
Golden Va11ey, Minnesota.
Chairman Jahn Sampson presided and the following members were present: Vice
Chairman Mary Anderson, Commissioners Becker, Edstrom, Fierje, Hughes, Leonard,
and Lundsgaard. Also present was Jon Westlake, Recording Secretary.
Members absent: Corr�rnissioner Christiansen.
l. APPROVAL OF MINUTFS: MOVED by Lundsgaard, seconded by Hughes, carried
unanimously, to approve the ma.nutes of the June 11, 1973 meeting as mailed.
2. PUBLT C INFQRMATIaNAL MEE'I`ING (PLANNED UATIT DEVEGOPMEIJT)
P.U.D. #11 {Concept Plan)
Applicant: �3onald M. Erickson
Location: 13�-1)�00 block of Natchez Avenue
Proposal; 18 Townhouse Units
The site is bounded by Natchez Avenue on the east, Kavlis Cedaxdale Addition on
the south, and Highway IOQ service leg to Highway 12 on the west side. The
Chairman of the P3anning Commission asked for a review of the Planning Report,
which is as fallows:
"1. The proposal �,: to develop 18 townhouse units on It.76 acres resulting in
a density of 3.7 dwell.ing units per aere. The units would be for sale
rather than being a single ownership rental project.
2. This neighborhoad of Golden Valley is a Zow density, single fami].y area and
is so designated on the Comprehensive Municipal Development Plan. The
specific site under consideration is currently zoned open development and
proposed to be zoned low-density residential based upon the Vil2age Land
Use Plan.
3• The site in question would be rather difficult ta develop by typical
platting methods for standard sing7e family home lots due to:
a) Irregular shape of land parcel;
b}. �xposure to Highwa,y 100,
c} �rainage problems;
d) Lack of continuity in local, minor residential street system.
!�. It is suggested here that '�1ow-density" residential is the most apprapriate
land use and that commercial, apartments, or other more intensive use
would be "spot" zoning incompatible vnth and detrimental ta the nearby
and neighborhood residential values (economic, social, amenity, traffic
circulation, etc.).
1�7
P3.anning Commission
June 25, 1973 page 2
s. Townhouses are generall.y considered to be a form of single-£amily housing
being attached (si.de-by-side), and "clustered" rather than being detached
with separate open, green spaces (yards). The townhouse form of housing,
however, begins to take on multiple family housing characteristics as project
density i.ncreases over four (1�} units ger acre with the most common den-
sities rang.3�g from 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre although rangi.ng as
high as 12 or mdre units per acre in same areas.
6. The desirabi2ity and acceptability of the proposed townhouse project shoul.d
be judged on the basis of the following considerations:
a) I?enisty. Is the density comparable to that now existing in the vicinity
and. that which would result from "standard" single-family home development?
b� Architectural compatibility. Wi1.1 the architecture of the townhouses
blend well with the existing environment?
c�) Site planning. Axe traffic, open spaces, drainage, and other consider-
ations properly related to site situation needs?
7. Perhaps the mast basic and important cansideration is that of dwelling
unit density. An examination of the surrounding area i.ndicates the
following comparison:
a) Nearby single-family homes have an avera e lot size of approximately
21,000 sq. ft. per home.
b) The proposed townhouse project would have approximately 11,700 sq. ft.
of Iand area per dwelling unit. This density, th�n, is comparable to
the larger existi.ng lot size development in the general vicinity.
The proposed density would resul.t in almost identical. family numbers,
population, traffic, and other '�numbers" to that which would result if
developed for standard sing.Ze family homes comparable to exi.sting deae7.apment.
8. While sub,�ect to later review of more complete and detailed �ite plans, the
followi.ng comments can be made at this time:
a) A11 traffic oriented to Natchez Avenue is a good feature of the plan.
b) Consideration shovld be given to passible improvements to the turn-
around (cul-de-sac� design of Princeton and Ottawa, Avenues which are
dead-end streets and wou].d remain so under the proposed townhouse
site plan.
c} p arainage and grading pZan stmuld be required as there may be drain-
age problems in the vicinity of Ottawa Avenue.
9. Architectural design is largely a matter of personaZ taste and opinion; a
determinatian af architectural �'compatibility", however, can be made based
upon drawings submitted for consideration at the meeting. A calored drawing
showing style, co2or, and te�ure would be most helpful.
10. As a "cancept", the proposed development would be consistent with sound
princa.ples of planning and housing policy and s�andards. Should consider-
ation be given to approval of the "eoncept►� as presented, final approval
should be subject to further review of additional and more detailed site
���
Planning Commission
June 25, 1973 Pa�� 3
and building pZans. A detailed Planned Unit Development Permit stating
conditions should then be prepared based upon all aspects of the p1an
review process.
I1. As presented, it would be our opinion that the plan "concept" is in con-
formity to the intent and purpose o� the Comprehensive Municipal Plan and
propose� neighborhood zoning. Progerly designed and developed, the project
shoul.d nat produce any adverse affects upon adjacent or nearby residential
values."
Mr. Donald M. Erickson, arch�tect from the firm of Patch Erickson Madson, was
present to revie�a the plan. He statefl the proposal is for 18 quality townhouse
units with ingress and egress on Natchez Avenus. The units wi.11 be approximately
5 to 10 feet higher than the surrounding homes. They wi71 offer an excP�.lent
buffer between the highway and the residential houses. He pointed out how the
traffic would function if Highway 100 and Highway 12 were upgraded. He has also
met �rith the State Fiighway �epartment with respect to the interchange if I-39�
were constructed.
The style of the townhouses is somewhat traditional, which is in iceeping with the
area. The present plan contains no amenities such as a s�rri.mming poo1. The
structures are q00 square feet on the first floor and the same on the second f'loor
and will contain tVro or three bedraoms or a study. Some of the units will have
basements. The front of the structure will face south with balconies. The
perimeter trees and soms interior plantings will be saved beeause the o ound �
elevation wi11 remain as it is now. The un�.ts will range between $50,000 and
�60,000,
The following comments were coneerns of the residents: Mr. Feikema, lt�lt$
Fairla�m Way, cancerned about the dead end watermain and how emergency vehicles
would enter the site, Mr. Torbert, 1l��0 Ottawa Ave. S., had questions on water,
drainage, and storm sewer. Ho�rard Cox, 1l�10 Fairlawn Way, one of the proposals
on I-3��t indicat�s the taking of some of the subject property. Also, many of
tY�e trees an the site are not desirable� qu�stioned open development zoning of
1and. Mr. Gilles, 11�l�5 Natchez Ave,, doss not want restriction of cost placerl
on a percentage of the units. Mr. Bloom, �1�17 Avandale Road, easements for road
and I-391� plans may take some of the property. Mr. Stenborg, 1536 Frinceton Ave.,
felt the projeet was good. Two of the residents were also concerned about the
density.
The Planning Commi.ssion in discussing the proposal talked of lower cost units
being constructed with the mare expensive units. The Planning Commission a1.sa
felt the developer should mest with the residents to inform them of: what trees
would be removed, the planting pl�ns, exterior mataria3, for the units, and
location of the �roposed structure. Further requirements for the general plan
include a drainage p2an, demonstrating the price range of the proposed units in
the �eneral. price range of the homes in the area, and adequate visitor parking.
In concept apgraval the Planning Commission is looking at the density and the
general land use of townhouses, noting that the density is compatible with the
neighborhood. The general plans will be reviewed by other degartments af the
Village for such items as emergency vehicle access.
l��
Planning Commission
June 25, 1973 page 1� -
It was moved by Anderson,, seconded by Lundsgaard, carried unanimously, to
recommend concept approval for P.U.D. #1� with a density of 18 units.
It was then moved by �undsgaard, seconded by �dstrom, carried unanimously, that
irregardless of the acti.on taken by the Village Counci.l on P.U.D. �11, the
Planning Commission recominends rezoning this property from open development to
residential as indicated on the Comprehensive P].ar�.
2. PLANNEII UiVIT DLVELOPM�IT SET PUBLTC IN�RMATIONAL MEETING
P.U.D, #1 Amended (Genera3 Plan)
A�plicant: Benson-Orth Associates, Inc.
Location; 585i Duluth Street (south end of site)
Proposals 3 story Office Building
Mr. Ken Benson of Benson-Orth Associates, Inc. reviswed with the Planning
Commission a proposal for a three story office building containing 38,000 sq. feet.
Because Mr. Benson is requesting a hearing for genera7. plans with the Planning
Commission as soon as possible, the Commission asked Mr. Benson that copies of
the plan be mai.led to each Commission rnember. The Cornmission will also be
2ooking for such items as a current traffic study, a general site landscaping
plan for the remaining open land, and indication of the trees to be removed for
this proposal and how the guywires supporting the radio tower in this vicinity
will b,� h���• Other Bosrds or Cammissians in"volv�i which Mr..BQnsc� wa�
requirea� ore will be the Trails Committee, Building Board of Review, and
Bassetts Creek Flood and '�?rainage Commission.
The P.I.arming Commission set Ju3y 23, 1973 for the general p2an informal hearing
for Flanned Unit �evelopment #1,-A amended.
3. GENIIZAI.
(a) Continued 1?iscussion-Moderate Housing in Planned Unit Dsvelopment
Commissioners Anderson, Edstrom, and Herje, members of the subcommittee� have
met with the Village Attorney with resgect to moderate housing in planned unit
development. The Village Attorney is present at this meeting to discuss certain
questions raised by the subcommittee. I�. Skare first of a11 reviswed the
history and the problems the Planning Commission is facing by the selling of
�derate l�usi.ng in planned unit developments. In answer to the subcommittee�s
question of whether the Village shauld go one step further and place a condition
that the buyer of XX� of the units could have no larger an income than XX dollars
or less for the moderate priced units. In answer to this Mr. Skare fseZs at
this tima such a condition cou3d be imposed in a planned unit development.
Mr. Skare then reviewed the problems of enforcement stating that the Village
cannot be invalved in who or who cannot purchase these units. The Village can
onl.y set policies and guidelines for dealing with this. A1.so, the Commission
can place different requirements on different p2anned unxt devslopments. The
Planning Commission then discussed with Mr. Skare other types o£ procedures for
enfarcement.
� ���
, � �.S
P'lanning Corimissian
�'unP 2S, 1973 page 5
The subcommittee members then infarmed the Commission members of what outside
research they have done, such as: agencies they have contacted, thou�hts as to
dealing with each planned unit development separatel�, establish a graduated
scale in prices of the units' looking into constructian cost being similar to
the s�lling price of the units, and investigate Housing Redevelopment Autharity.
Ths Flanning Commission after further discussion asked the subcommittee if by
august �.3, i973 they coul.d receive a recommendatian for the full Commi.ssion
to study.
(b) Open Space Committee
Mrs. Syrile �].lison and Mxx�s. Mary Bowman, members of the ad hac committee on
flpen Space, were present �a review with the Planni.ng Commi.ssion a sugge�tian
from the Open Space Cammi-Gtee that an Environmental Impact Statement be part of
the Planned Una.t Development Ordinance and the Land Reclamation Ordinance so as
to aid the various Boards and Commissions when they are reviewing a praposal.
It was the general consensus of the Plannzng Cammissian that they have a recapti-
vity for what the Open Space Committee is concerned about and asked the Village
staff for research on this request in reference to an Ehvironmental Impact Statement.
{c} Pedes�rian Ramps - Sidewalks
It was moved by Herje, seconded by $ecker, that the Planning Commission recommend
ta the Engineeri.ng I)epartment that pedestrian ram�s be installed where the side-
walks meet a grade change for the ease in movement of such pedestrian carriers
as wheelchairs and bicycles.
(d) Comprehensive Plan - Metropolitan Council
Mr. �on Westlake informed the Planni.ng Commission that on June 7� 1973 thP
Physical �eve�opment �ammittee of the Metropolitan Council approved the Golden
Valley Comprehensive Plan and that on June 11t, 1973 the Metropolitan Council
approved the Golden Va11ey Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Westlake then reviewed with
the Commission the com�nents the Metropolitan Council made on the Plan.
fihere being no further business to come before the meeting� it was an mation,
duly saconded' adjourned at 11:3� P.M.
' � �/ �
;� �-�,�. �,,`��. ���_ . ` �
rman John Sampson Secr tary Ron st om
�