10-09-73 PC Minutes ���
MIMJTES OF THE GOLIIEI�T VALLEY
�.�xxz�� aar�ssxo�
October 9, 1973
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 8:00 P,M.
on Tuesday, October 9, 1973 at the Civic Center, ?$00 Golden Valley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota. ,
Chairman John Sampson presided and the following members were presents
Commissioners Anderson, Christiansen, Edstrom, Hughes, and Leonard. Jon Westlake,
Village staff inember, was also present.
Members absent: Commissioners Becker, Herje, and Lundsgaard.
l. APPROVAL OF MINUTF,S: 1�VED by Leonard, seconded by Fiughes, carried unanimously
to approve the minutes of the September 21�, 1973 meeting as amended.
2. PLANNID UNIT DEVELOPMN�IT P.U.D. #5-A (General Plans Vallee D'or. ,
Applicants William Lundberg - Town's Fdge Properties, Inc.
Location: South of Harold Avenue and East of Winnetka Avenue
Proposal: 58 additional Townhouse Units south of present townhouses
in Phase I
Mr. Westlake reniewed the previous history of the praperty and also the Phase I
proposal which has been approved. The proposal is for a total of 103 townhouse
units (includes Phasa I) on 27.8 acres of land with a density of 3.7 units per
acre. The proponent has received approval for general plans for !�5 units under
Phase I and is proposing 58 units under Phase II which the developer has receieed
concept approval for. Mr. Westlake then reviewed the Planning Considerations as
follows (which also relate to the present development on the site):
l. The current request is for approval of Phase II construction under the stage
development component af the PUD Permit. One of the many plus factors in
PU3? zoning sh�uld be noted here; the phasing of development and requiri�x�g
public approval of eaeh stage of development enables the Village to require
amended FUD eonditions for later stages of development based upon actual
observation and analysis of the project and developers performance in the
early, completed phase of development. It is for this reason that all members
of the Planning Commission are urged to visit the site and inspect the results
of Stage I construction. Thi� process will better enable you to evaluate
Phase II construction proposals and consider amendments to or additions to
the PUD conditions.
2. Phase II construction does not propose any ma�or changes to the originally
approved general. development plan. Current plans �aerely indicate the specific
details of proposed construction. It is still our belief and opinion that
the over-all project is desirable and an asset to the neighborhood and
community; the most important asset is that of open space preservation on
the total site. It is also obvious that the project, as now developed, is
of very high quality (design and economic value).
3. The PUD Permit requires that I0� of the units be aimed at the "moderate"
income market ($25,000 unit market pric�); such units have not yet been
constructed. It will be most interesting to learn when the developer intends
P
�� �
Planning Commission
4ctober 9, 1973 page 2
to construet the lower cost dwelling units and how he intends to accomplish
this requirement since it is obvious that the existing, constructed units are
considerably above the "moderate" 10� requirement. It is suggested, however,
that if the Village intends to enforce the l0� moderate price requirement, this
issue should be resolved now during Stage � prior to approval of Stage II.
!t. it is obvious from observation of Phase I construction that the dwelling
units are of high quality and of comparativelq large size and height. The
units are so large, in fact, that the entire project may tend to "dominate"
nearby single-family homes. It is suggested that some re-orientation of
the project design for the remaining phases of construction might be appro-
priate and desirable from both the public and private investment viewpoint.
It is recotmr►ended that the taller buildi.ng structures be oriented towards
the interior open spaces of the project and away from adjaeent and nearby
single-fami.ly homes. This will tend to minimize the public i}npact of size
and height and maxi.mize the private view of landscape and retained open
natural space.
5. The landscape plan and development to date seems quite adequate and compares
well with other townhouse projects in the Metropolitan area. Some improve-
ments are still possible, however, and the following is re�ommended:
a) Additional landscaping (trees and/or strubs) should be added to the
"islands" between the parking areas; such areas in Stage I construetion
seem rather t�bare"; it must be noted, however, that Phase I landscape
plans do include the recommended plantings but this 2zas not yet been
installed. It st�uld be determi.ned if this is a requested deviation
from the landscape plans or if the developer intends to add the island
plantings yet this Fa11 or next Spring. Phase II landscape plans also
include such plantings.
b) Current plans indicate that tree planti.ng on the east side berm may be
changed from tree seeding to planting of mature conifers. This is a
desirable feature since the screening effects will be present very
early rather than waiting for tree seeds to grow into maturity. It
should be determined, however, what the specifics are in relation to
the type, size, number, location, and other specifications. The
installation of larger trees is advantageous providing the screening
effect is as great as that earlier proposed by dense planting of tree seeds.
6. Minutes of previous Planning Commission meetings indicate that the Commission
desired further traffic studies of access onto Harold Avenue; such information
has not been received for consideration as of the �rriting of this report.
If this information is still desix ed, Phase II construction should not be
approved until this issue is resolved.
STJM�SARY
Observation would indicate that the townhouse project is of very high quality and
that it could be completed and form a desirable part of the ennironment with only
minor changes and new conditions to the PUD Permit. The following is recommended:
1. The issue of t�moderate'� cost housing be resolved now and included as a
specific condition of the Permit.
2. Landseaping plans be explained fully and incorporated in the Permit.
����
Planning Commission
October 9, 1973 page 3
3. The question of traffic improvements (stop signs, etc.) on Harold Avenue
be determi.ned now and incorporated in Permit conditions if warranted.
l�. A re-orientation of building locations should be required i.f possible to
de-emphasize larger buildings at the edge of the project.
5. The Village staff sY�uld be instructed to elaborate upon the Construction
Order Component of the PUD Permit to clearly outline further stage eon-
struetion requirements.
Additional Comments by Staff
The revised plot plan has the same amount of units in Phase II as approved in
the concept plan, but the units are arranged with more imagination. The re-
arrangement of the uni.ts would require a different utility plan to be submitted
which the proponent has not done. The revised general plan does not indicate
which are the A�B,C,D, and �91 units, which would help i.n evaluating the size of
the units adjacent to the residential area. I feel it would be of help to the
Planning Commission to have the proponent furnish a ground elevation next to one
of the lower single family houses and height of the structure and also the same
for one of the higher structures to compare �+rith the proposed townhouses along
the eastern edge of the planned unit development.
I would also see a concern about the amount of traffic using the egress and
i.ngress to Harold Avenue. If Phase I were completed, this could be evaluated
rather simply. You may require a traffic analysis because of the addition of
Phase II. With respect to this I would point out two items: The Village Council
minutes dated September 8, 1972 states in theix motion approval of the P.U.D.
subject to a condition that future development provide for traffic outlets other
than Harold Avenue. The Environmental Cc�mmission March 13, 1972 approved the >
concept plan providing no future walkways to exceed the building area and
limiting vehicle access to Harold Avenue. The Planning Commi.ssion, because of the
changes of the building l�yout (same area of ground) in Phase II may request that
the F�vi.ronmental Commission review the proposal.��
Messrs. William Lundberg of Town�s Edge Properties, Inc., 3�ennis Welsh of Chamberlain
Planners, and William 39o1an of �olan Ehgineering Company, Inc. were present to
discuss the proposal with the Planning Commission. Mr. Dolan discussed traffic
and its effect on Harold Avenue. The proposal still indicates i.ngress and egress
on Harold Aaenue. However, if traffic is a problem when the project is complete,
the developer would provide an alternate ingress or egress. A plan has been
submitted showing the grades of the existing houses and elevations in relation to
the proposed structure and its elevations. The units will be 1 1/2 stories above
an eight foot berm. The elevation of the units on the town house side of the berm
would be 2 1/2 stories or approximately 28 feet to the peak of the structures for
the A units, B uni.ts, C units, and 18 feet for the � units. The townhouse roof
li.nes would range up to 3 feet higher than the roof lines of some of the lwuses
to the east. Mr. Dolan then discussed four points on which the developer will
further work with the Planning Commission: 1) The landscaping on the site-
including the berm on the eastern side of the property. 2) Type of units along
the eastern edge. 3) Traffic. 1�) 10� requirement for the $25,0�0 units.
20�
Planning Commission
October 9, 1973 page b
Mr. Lundberg then explained to the Planning Commission what he would propose on
the moderate priced units-which would be an e�ansion unit containing a bath,
kitchen, dining room� living room, and one bedroom. They would be classified as
Dl units on the site with a walkout to the rear. (Two Bedrooms could be f�.nished
off in the basement area.) The units will contain about 700 square feet and
sell for approximately $30,000. The exterior will have the same design as the
other units. Along �,rith this unit they would offer a double garage. The reasons
are when the area is platted with zero lot lines, it would be difficult to add
, to a structure (such as a single garage).The cost is not that great during,con-
struction between a single and a double garage. The prospective buyers are
looking for a double garage and it helps for re-sale value. It also provi.des
an axea for the owner to store items which is important because of the require-
ment of the home owner's association.
The Chairman of the Planning Commission then asked Mr. Murad, Chairman of the
Safety Council, if the Safety Council has made any recommendations concerning
Harold Avenue. Mr. Murad informed the Planning Commission of what the Safety
Cauncil recommended regarding Harold Avenue and referred to the concerns of
�he Planning Commission i.n the Phase I request.
The folloKing residents eoiced their concerns; Mr. Kelso, 50 Quebee Ave. S.,
review the history of the parcel and referred to the petition signed by the
residents opposed to the Phase I proposal in February 1972. Phase II should be
rejected and residential homes built on the property. Also concerned about .
traffic. Phase I sh4ws us the problem we will have. Mr. �eters, 7710 Harold Aes.
and Mr. Amundson, 7236 Harold Avenue, concerned abou.t traffic. Mr. Pilgram,
7303 Ridgeway Road, concerned about traffic and does not want Phase II traffic
on Harold Avenue. Mr. Hammer, 7350 Half Moon �ive, questioned the height of
the units and also tra�ffic. Correct Phase I before Phase II is approved.
�r. Hakala, 75Q0 Western Ave., ,in fanor of less units and they should be p2aced
further from the property line and less height. 9�r. Yablonsky, 73Z5 Ridge�ay Rd.,
concerned about traPfic, crime, pollution, screening, and is i.n favor of single
family homes. Mr. and Mrs. 5t. Marie, 71�l�0 Ridgeway Road, in favor of planned
unit development beeause of open area and should have one entrance onto Harold
Avenue. Traffic wou3d be no greater than single family homeg. Mr. Newman,
7350 Ridgeway Road, stated planting that has been done on the site is not
effective. In favor of single family homes. George Murad, 7l�50 Ridgeway Road,
spoke of traffic, height of units and question on the present units. Also,
a resident asked about a rnember of the Planning Commission livi.ng in this area
and voting on the projact.
: The Plann3ng Commission in discussing the proposal questioned when the planting
will be done in Phase I and asked Mr. Lundberg if any units had been sold.
Mr. Lundberg gave the following statistics: Twelv� nnits have been sold, but
none axe occupied. The average buyer is in his early 50�s and semi-retired.
The units are averaging 1/2 child per unit. The Planning Commission discussed
the units being 60 feet from the property line and the concept plan indicated
90 feet. Also, the mass and height of the uni.ts are a concern to the Planning
Commission. The first proposal had the service road and parking area between
the uni.ts and the residents. The present proposal does not contain this. The
Commission was concerned about traffic, landscaping, height of the berm, and
should the berm be larger. Also, the drainage was of concern to the Commission.
Some members of the Commission discussed the possibility of single family
detached homes adjacent to the homes to the east.
���
Planning Commission
October 9, 19?3 Page 5
It was moved by Anderson, seconded by Fdstrom, to table the request because
of the following:
1. The proponent has not diseussed the project with the neighbors.
2. The proponent was informed of the Planni.ng Co�nission's concerns at the
time the heari.ng was scheduled� including the concerns of the units on the
eastern side of the site.
3. A traffie study-which should also speak to an alternate i.ngress or egress
which may require review by the �hvironmental Commission.
l�. Traffic on Harold Avenue (recommendation of Safety Council shou2d be considered).
5. Landscaping should be reviewed by the Building Board of Review prior to the
Planning Commissi.on reviewing the proposal again.
6. The berm on the east side should be designed so the drainage will function.
7. A more detailed proposal by the proponent with respect to the $2�,000 units.
8. The proposed structures should be further from the east property line
(perhaps by the sacrifice of a few units).
9. The complex of units should be designed so as not to create a "block�� effect.
10. Concern about planting on the berm and should the berm be Y�i.gher or extended
further south?
11. Meeting the requirements of the Ehgineering �7epartment on the utilities.
Upon vote being taken by ro�.i call, the following voted i.n favor of the motion:
Anderson, Ghristiansen, Edstrom, Hughes. Commi.ssioner Leonard abstained.
3. t3ENERAL
(a) Discussion on Moderate Housing Report in Planned Unit Development
Commissioner �cistrom discussed with the Planning Commission the Yillage Attorney�s
letter regarding his comments on moderate housing in planned unit developments�
which was requested by the Planning Commission. Mr. Edstrom indicated that the
second step of the commit�ee wi11 be to contact builders, preferably those who
are not working in the communit9 or do not intend to, for a review of the pro-
posed requirements for moderate housing in plar�ned unit development. Mr. Edstrom
further asked that other Planning Commission members a,nd members of the staff help
in this matter because of the limited number of builders the ad hoc committee is
familiar with. The Planning Commission will further discuss this report at the
November 12, 1973 Planning Commission meeting.
(b) Meeting Time Change
Because of the forthcoming ehange from Daylight Savings Time to Standard Ti.me,
the Planning Commission will begin their regularly scheduled meetings at 7:30 P,M.
starting November 12, 1g73.
(c} Commi�ttee to 1liscuss Winnetka Avenue at Highway 55
2�.i
Planni.ng Commission
October 9, 1973 page 6
Chairman John Sampson informed the Planning �ommission that the Village Cou�cil
has requested a member of the Planning Commi.ssion to serve on a committee to
study the area north of T.H. 55 and Winnetka Avenue. Mr. Sampson indicated
that Commissioner Christiansen is interested in servi.ng en this committee,
which the Planning Commission unanimously accepted.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 11;05 P.M.
� �—
� , � J
�`� �s-°-�._--- � •
Cha Johr� Sampson Sec etary on Fd om
,