08-12-74 PC Minutes �
MINUTES OF TH£ GOLDEN VALLEY
PIANNING C�MMISSION
August 12, 197�
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Cortmission was hetd at
8:20 P.M. on Monday, August 12, 1974 at the Civic Center, 7$00 Gotden Vatley
Road, Gotden Valley, Minnesota.
Chairman Ron Edstrcxn presided and the following members were present:
Cornmissioners Herje, Hughes, Leonard, and Lundsgaard. Also present was
Carl fl ale, Piann�r.
Members absent: Cortmissioners Christiansen, Makala, and Sehlin.
1 . APPRUVAL OF MINUTfS: MOVED by Nerje, seconded by Lundsgaard, carried
unanimously, to apprave the minutes of the July 22, 1974 Planning Cornmission
meeting as �nended as fol]ows: Page 3 (to be placed before last paragraph
of Item #2) Moved b Cc�mnissioner Leonard to recammend a roval of the
concept ptan for P.U.D. #1 . Motion died for lack of,asecond to the mation.
The July 22, 1974 Planning Comnission minutes were further changed to read as
follows: It was moved by Lundsgaard, seeonded by Hughes, carried unanimously,
to make the following change in the last paragraph of Page 2: five — 2 bedroom,
13 — 2 bedroom lus den and i7 — 3 bedroom units. (The above change nated
was made toward the end of the August 12, lg7 Ptanning Commission meeting.)
2. PUBLIC INFORMATIaNAL,,MEETiNG — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
P.U.D. #14 Concept Plan
Applicant; Jack 6alant
Location: East—West Service Drive of County Road #18
Proposal : 34 Townhouse Units
Cart Dale, Planner, reviewed the Planning Considerations as foltows:
"1 . This matter was considered at the July 22nd meeting af the Commission and
tabled pending receipt of m�re cocr�lete and detailed information. See
Planning Report dated July 11 , 1974 and minutes of Planning Ccmmission
rneeting of July 22, 1974 for backgrcund.
2. A. new and revised site plan has been submitted. The priar plan called
for seven groups of townMouse units with a total of 35 dwetling units; the
�ew plan ealls for six groups of units with a total of 34 dwelling units.
Concept approval for the original plan was �not reconmended due to serious
questions of design practicality having to do with parking arrangements,
building setbacks, and development intensity (land coverage related to open,
space). The revised concept plan seems proper for the fotlowing reasons:
(a) New building and parking arrangements now seem Hrorkable with the
number of usable parking spaces being in accardance with zoning
requirements.
(b) A better open spaee situation has resulted with building setbacks
seeming adequate (subject to later anatysis of detailed and eomplete
pians).
�
Planning Commission
August 12, 1974 page 2
(c) The major open green space to be retained is desiganted for use as
a Tot Lot and outdoor eating area; this would seem satisfactory
since the project is relatively small and within walking distance of
pubtic recreation space. It is assumed, however, that some cash
payment in—lieu—of public recreation space dedieation will be re—
quired; in our opinion, the ponding area to be retained is not
significant in this respect since it is of littte value for active
recreatian and is already included in the density (dwelling units
per acre) calculations which should not be exceeded with or withc�ut
the pond. ,
3• additionat informatic�n will be presented at the meeting for yaur consideration
including sc�nae type of graphic presentation depicting the potentiat view
from homes located to the east. This should be of special interest to nearby
home awners who have expressed considerabte concern with this subject at
numerous prior meetings of the Comnission.
4. It is our opinion that the revised plan is acceptabie and warrants concept
p1an approval . Final approval for construction would, of course, be subject
to later approval of far more corr�lete and detailed plans (tandscaping, fully
dimen.sioned site plans, pond shoreline, and the like}.
5. Should concept plan approvai be grant�d, it wauid be well to imnediately
begin considering the special conditions that may be desirable and required
in order that they may be ineorporated into the detailed and complete plaas
to be submitted far a review at a later date. Some ar,eas of cancern are:
�� Re�a�io�shipeo��uildings to high water 1eve1
c) Pubiic trail
d) Landscaping (excellence should be required due
to nature of this project)"
Mr. Forest Russelt pf Hanson and Russell and Mr. Gerald Atten of Criteria
Architects were present to review the revis�d plans with the Planning Commission,
noting that the same basic ptan has been condensed into six groups of units
rather than seven. All units front onto an open area or to the side of another
building (i .e. , no unit wili face directly into another unit' s picture window).
There is a separation of at least 30 feet between any two buitdings on the site;
however, one garage is within 25 feet of a building. There is a minimum setback
of 30 feet from the buildings to the shoretine and a rear setback of 34 feet
from a building to the trai1 and a setback of 22 feet from the side of the units
to the trail .
Parking is in a circutar pattern, and tMe totat parking on the site equals
4.1 spaces per unit. Additional guest parking has been added and adequate room
has been provided for snow plows, etc.
The Planning Commission discussed the following in reviewing the proposal : the
shoreline treatment of the pond, relationship of baildings to high water t�vel
(It w�s noted that the bottom of the ponding area has an etevation of 895 feet
normai water level is 899 feet, and the fiood stage elevatian is 9�3 feet for
this development) , emergency access, location af the driveway entrance with
i ts seemi ngl y ''ti ght�� curve.
3
P1 ann�ng Ccmmi ssion
August 12, 1974 page 3
The Planning Ccxnmission also questioned whether the proponent was aware of or
understood the City Ordinance regarding the eash in lieu of land dedication
to open space areas. Atso, the Ptanning Commission discussed the number of
bedrooms in the units. T{�e Architect stated that presentty there are no plans
for one—bedroom units and that the plans had previously replaced one—bedroom
units with three—bedroom.
In sumnarizing the above discussion, it was felt by tMe Planning Commission
that the following concerns should be studied and discussed when the general
plans are presented to the Planning Commission:
1 . excellence in landscaping,
2. moderat� inca� Mousing plan,
3. shoreline treatment,
4. cash in lieu of land dedication for park purposes,
5. trail easement,
6. parking,
7. potential ''tightness" of corners, and
8. entrance into development.
It was moved by Leonard, seconded by Hughes, carried unanimously, to recorr+�end
concept approval`of P.U.D. #14 with the density not to exceed 34 units for
this land use and finai land density to be determined upon more detaited
general plans.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
;
, .._ ,
,. ,,
Ch irman Ron tls rom Sec etary K hryn Ner '