Loading...
11-26-73 PC Minutes ��� � MINUTES OF THE GOLDIId VALI,EY ' PLANNiI3G fl02+Il�ISSIQN November 26, 1973 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 7:30 P.M. on Monday, November 26, 1973 at the Civic Center, 7800 aolden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chairman John Sampson presided and the following members were present: , Commissioners Anderson, Becker, Fdstrom, Herje, Leonard, and Lundsgaard. Jon Westlake, Village staff inerrtber, was also present. Members absent: Commissioners Christiansen and Hughes. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOVED by Edstrom, seconded by Becker, carried un- animously, to approve the minutes of the November 12, I973 meeting with the following changes: Page l, Item #3, sentence 1 change "authorityt' to "authorities" and Page 2, second sentence i.nsert the word "staff" between "Authority" and "with". 2. PUBLIC IRTFO�MATIONAL MEETING (Planned Unit Development) P.U.D. �].1-General Plans Applicant: �onald M. Erickson Location: 13a0-1.LtOQ block of Natchez Avenue South Proposal: 18 Townhouse Units-on 4.76 Acres of Land Mr. John Sampson, Chairman of the Planning Commission, reviewed the procedure of the Planned Unit Development Por the benefit of the residents present. Mr. Westlake then read the ldovember 12, 1973 Environmental Commission minutes in reference to this request. Mr. Westlake also reviewed the Planning Considerations as follows: "1. A public informational meeting was held to discuss the Cc3ncept Plan on June 25, 1973. A previous planning report dated June 18, 1973 was presented at that meeting. 2. The records indicate that the Concept Plan has been approved by both the Planning Commission and the Village Council. In accordance with procedures of the Planned Unit �evelopment Ordinance, the Applicant is now seeking approval of a more complete and detailed plan (general development plan). If approved, a detailed PUD Permit will be drafted by the Village staff containing all conditions for development and occupancy as recommended by the Planning Commission, Village staff, citizens, and other public agencies and as approveci and required by action of the Village Council. 3. The proposal is to develop 1$ townhouse units on 1t.76 acres resulting in a density of 3.7 dwelling units per acre. Nearby single-family homes have an average lot size of approximately 11,000 sq. ft. per home; the proposed townhouses would have approximately 11,700 sq. ft. of land axea per dwelling unit. Townhouse units would be for sale rather than rental. 21� Planni.ng Commission ldovember 26, 1973 `page 2 tt. The current site plan has been revised slightly from that presented for concept approval. Such changes, however, are for the better and refl.ect recommendations made earlier by the Planni.ng Commission, Village staff, and others in the process of Concept Plan approval. As recommended earlier, a cul.-de-sac has been provided for Ottawa Avenue on the site plus indica- tions for preventing a f'dead end" situation on Princeton Avenue. Site plan changes consist primarily of minor shifts in building locations to accomodate Village site plan requirements. It is our conclusion that the revised site plan is superior to the earlier site plan proposal. Structural coverage and open space relationships are good witn an added feature being that orienting garage and parki.ng areas to the center of the project rather than direct exposure to adjacent and nearby homes. 5• It is a matter of judgement for the Planning Commission to determine if the townhouse building ctesign is architecturally compatible with the nearby existing neighborhood structures. 6. The landscape plan seems quite adequate with a good number and variety of plant materials integrated into a good design concept for site treatment. 7. If plan approval is considered, various PU� Permit conditions should be recommended to the Village Council; among others, the following are suggested: a} Requirement of concrete curb and gutter throughout plus any i.mprovements to Natchez Avenue as may be recommended by the Village �hgineer. b) Surface water drainage and utility provisions as directed by the Village Ehgi.neer. c) Construction of the Ottawa Avenue cvl-de-sac as part of th� townhouse project. d) Requirement of a cash in-1ie�u-of land dedication for public open space or recreation purposes should be required. New state law enables the Village to include such a requirement in all planned unit developments. A fee of $100.QQ per unit payable upon issuance of building permits is now rather common practice in suburban areas. Cash fees received are to be used for ponding area, natural open space, and recreation area acqui- sition and/or development and similar related public purposes. e) Grading plan to be as approved by the Village Ehgineer. f) Others as may be recommended during the zoning procedures plus the standard and applieable conditions contai.ned in previous PUD Permits issued (sign controls, illumination, landscape maintenance, trash storage and disposal, use of parking areas, etc.) with each included in the appropriate component (land use, subdivision, services, transportation, etc.) of the PUD Permit. 8. SUMNIARY It would be our opinion that the plan as presented and subject to modifi- cation as may be recommended by others can be acceptable and an asset to the neighborhood and community as a whole.t� Mr. �onald M. Erickson, Architect from the firm Patch Erickson Madson & Hanson Inc., was present to revipw with the Planning Commission his praposal. The proposal is 18 townhouse units on 4.76 acres of land. The buildings are traditional i.n appearance with a horizontal redwood lap siding. The units will be two stc�'y- 2�Q Planning Commission November 2b, 1973 page 3 with the exception that some of the units on the south end of the site will have walkout basements. The height of the units will be approximately 23 feet from the grade to the peak or approximately 16 feet to the eaves with an additional 8 feet for those units with walkout basements. Each unit has a double garage with a court yard. The price of the units axe in the area of $50,000 to $60,000. The interior of all units are identical with three bedrooms, three baths, fire- place, and central air conditioning. Mr. Erickson then reviewed the landscaping plan and explained how they are tryiny to preserve the natural vegetation and grade as much as possible. The drainage plan was also explained. The setback of the units is s0 fe�t off the south property Iine and 30 feet off the east propert� line (Natchez Avenue). Mr. Erickson also indicated he has discussed his plan with the State Highway Dept. The following comments were concerns of the residents: Mr. Bloom, lt417 Avondale Road, questioned the two roads from the project entering RTatchez Avenue, and the Highway Department may take part of this land for ftight of Way. Also, it is difficult for emergency vehicles to get into this area. Mr. Hamre, 1525 Ottawa Ave. S., questioned drainage and how the storm sewer would be assessed. Mr. Mirviss, 11t35 Natchez, does not feel density as proposed is same as single family homes. Mr. Gills, 1lt�t� I�atchez Ave. S., because of the traffic on Natchez Avenue, could this proposal empty its traffic directly onto the Highway 100 service ramp. Mr. Torbert, 1.li50 Ottawa S., - density is too high and would like some of the area dedicated for a park. Project should not be approved before this is worked out and also how the storm sewer will funetion in the area. Mr. Cox, 1ls10 Fairlawn Way, questioned the aesthetics of the site and the placement of the garages. Other comments from the residents included , noise in the area which is already high because of the highway, and Natchez Avenue is heavily traveled. The Planning Commission discussed the proposal at length and some of the more predominant points of the discussion were the present landscapi.ng on the site and the additional landscaping, the reasons for a cul-de-sac at the north end of Ottawa Avenue, drainage ,on the site, design of the structures, height of the units in relation to the existing ground, density of the site, and the comments the Ilzvironmental Commission had regarding the effect of the highway noise on the residents of the townho.use units if these units were constructed. The Planning Commission also asked the proponent if he had any contact with the residents in the area. It was then moved by Leonard, seconded by Anderson, carried to recommend general plan approval of P.TJ.D. #11, subject to the following conditions: 1. Homeoraners as an association have the right to determine if they wish to have recreation areas if not adequately pro�cided for in the Homeowner�s Association by-laws. 2. Items A, B, C, E, and F as in the planning considerations #7. 3. Require $100.00 per unit payable upon issuance of the building permit for use to develop natural open space and recreation area. 1t. Building Board of Review, when reviewing the landscaping plan, to give special consideration to using more mature and faster growing trees ta provide an adequate buffer for the site from the highway and existing neighborhood. 22� Planning Commission PTovember 26, 1973 page !� 5. Existing vegetation on perimeter be replaced if it is disturbed. This replacement should be equivalent to existing and provide adequate screening. 6. Shed which is to remain should be restored and maintained. . It was then moved by Edstrom, seconded by Herje, to amend the original motion by adding that two of the units should be constructed for $30,000. Upon roll call vote bein.g taken on the amendment to the motion, the following voted in favor thereof: Fdstrom, Herje, and Leonard. The following voted against the same: ,4nderson, Becker, Sampson, and Lundsgaard. The amendment to the motion did not, carry. Vote being taken on the original motion caxried unanimously. It was moved by Herje, seconded by Lundsgaard, carried unanimously, that an . adoption of a clarification statement on the principles involved in the vote on the amendment to the �tion for approval of P.U.D. #11: "It is not to be construed by anyone that this Planning Commission has waivered i.n the belief that we have an obligation to provide diversification of housing costs in a planned unit development. We are, however, acknowledging the fact that this proposal came to us at a time in which our policy is in the process of being re-examined, and we'_feel that in fairness to the developer we cannot i►npose restrictions at this late date. (The proposal originally came to the Planning Commission on June 25, 1973►)�� 3. G�fitERAL (a) Moderate Income Housing in Planned Unit Developments Mr. Jon Westlake informed the Planning Commission of the information he has received from builders and planners with respect to the P7.anning Commission proposal on Moderate Income Housing in Planned Unit Developments-including correspondence from Mr. �,hgstrom of Robert Engstrom Associates, Inc., a marketing, architecture, and site planning firm, and also Mr. Carl �9ale, Village Consultant after which the ad hoc committee on Moderate Housing, consisting of Commissioners Anderson, Edstrom, and Herje, discussed with the Commission their policy on Housing. The following is the result of the com- bined efforts of the ad hoc committee and the Planning Commission: s,I. Modera�e 3.ncome Housin� in, Planned Unit �evelopments FoZlowing are some suggestions which we feel will better achieve the goal of economic diversity in housing available fn the Village. 1. Require a greater variety or range in the cost of units in a development. Any PUD proppsal should have: At least 10� of units should sell for less than $30,000 At least 30� should sell for less than $�,0,000 At least 50� should sell for less than $50,000 (There are no restrictions on the remaining 50�) This range would be effective January l, 197l�. After that date it would be adjus-ted monthly to reflect changes i.n the housing , component of the consumer�s price index. 2. These various priced units shall be geographically integrated tYiroughout the development. �2� Planning Commission November 26, 1973 page 5 3. Require the units to accurately reflect their worth. Suggestions for achieving this might include: a. less square footage b. fewer amenities such as extra baths c. lower decorating costs d. slab construction e. 1 car garage f. appliances optional g. unfinished expansion areas (units less than $30,000) 1�. Require the developer to se11 the lower priced units to persons within a certain income range. . Gross family adult income of buyers not to exceed $12,000. This would be adjusted monthly to reflect changes in the consumer price .index. . Within the PUD contract a provision should be added which requires the developer to certify to the Village that he will and later that he has fulfilled these requirements." It was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Anderson, carried unanimously, that the Planning Commission adopt the policy on Moderate Income Housing in Planned, Unit Developments and recommend that the Village Council consider adopting the Planning Commission policy. (b) Housing and Redevelopment Authority The subcommittee, after discussing Moderate Income Housing in Planned Unit Developments, briefly discussed a report which was distributed by Commissioner Anderson to the Planning Commission on a Housing Redevelopment Authority. The Planning Commission will further discuss this at the December 10� 1973 Planning Commission meeting. (c) Land Use Law Commissioner Zeonard distributed to the Planning Commission a report entitled "Land Use Law (1): Congress on Verge of a Modest Begi.nning" for the Commission�s information and Village staff. There being no f`urther business to come before the meeting, it was on motion, duly seconded, adjourned at 11:�5 P.M. , � � J , �'� �� : � Y � Ch r an John ampso Secretar on Fdstrom