04-14-75 PC Minutes f�(�J �
MINUTES OF THE GOLOEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 14, 1975
A regutar meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Comnission was held at 7:30 P.M.
on Nbnday, Apri1 14, 1975 at the Civic Center, 7$00 Galden Valley Road,
Gotden Valley, Minnesota.
Vice Chairman Dona1d Haghes presided and the following members were present:
Ccxnmissioners Hakala, Herje, Leonard, Lundsgaard, Sehtin, and Specktor. Also
present was Jon Westlake, staff inember.
Members absent: Chairman Edstrom and Comnissioner Christiansen.
1 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOVED by Lundsgaard, seconded by Hakala, carried
unanimausly, to approve the minutes of the March i0, 1975 Planning Comnission
�eting as mailed.
2. PLANNEO UNIT DEVELOPMENT — SET PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETIN6 OATE
P.U.D. #14 General Plans
Applicant: Jack Galant
location: East—West Service Drive of Coanty Road I8
Proposai : 3k 7ownhouse Units
Mr. Forest Russell of Manson and Russell was present to answer questions.
Mr. Russell indicated he was aware of the concerns for P.U.D. #14 as listed in
the August 12, 1974 Planning Cammission minutes and the housing policy of the
Ptanning Commission.
The Pianning Commission set April 28, 1975 for the Pubtic Informationat Meeting
for P.U.D. #T4.
"'�
.�
3• P.U.D. #15 — 5615 Olson Memorial Highway — 20 TOWNHOUSE UNITS
Referred back to the Planning Commission fran the City Councit
regarding the Housing Po1icy of the Planning Commission
Vice Chairman Oonald Mughes, who presented the Planning CoRmission recommendation
for P.U.D. #15 at the Apri1 7, 1975 City Council meeting, informed the Planning
Comnission as to why the Council referred the housing poticy of the Planning
Conmission regarding this P.U.O. back to the Ccunmission.
Council member Mary Anderson was asked to speak to the Commission in reference
to this issue also. Mrs. Anderson presented some thoughts, such as the possibility
of some type of diversity in housing for this project—not necessariiy the formula
that is the guideline for the housing policy—because of the size of the project.
A long discussion followed.
(Commissioner Herje arrived 7:55 P.M.)
Mr. Willi�n Svensson of D.D.G. , Inc. was present. He reviewed his letter, of
which the members of the Planning Comnission had copies. The letter stated
v�hy the proponent would like to continue with the original proposat as pre—
sented to the PTanning Ccxnmission at their February 24, 1975 meeting. However,
the letter also indicated that if the Planning Ccmmission requires a diversity
in housing, they woald request that the density be increased by two units and
' ��
Planning Comnission
April 14, 1975 page 2
and by this, change one four—unit complex to one bedroom with a den setting in
the range of $40,OOU to $50,000. In discussing the letter with Mr. Svensson
the C�r�mission rnembers had severai questions, which included: Does the propon�nt
understand the housing policy of the City of Golden Ualley and what the Planning
Commission means by diversity in housing? Also, the units should reflect their
cost so that the purchaser does not receive rrare for his money than an individaal
purchasing a higher priced unit. In reply to the above Mr. Svensson stated that
they are offering density, open space, natural area, �nenities, and because of
the land cost, they cannot build less expensive units. Atso, because of the
amenities, if these were tow cost units, they would appreeiate instantty.
�he Cc�nnissio� then had a general discussion about the project and directed the
f�llowing questions to Mr. Svensson. 1� Did he have any interest in the abutting
land other than where he is presently living? Mr. Svensson stated he did not.
2) Oid he have a range of the monthly payments that would be charged to the
h�neowners for upkeep? He indicated that at present he did not know. 3) How
many units did tfie proponent feel �ou�d have to be buitt on this land to apply
the Planning Commission housing policy? He indicated the firm had not looked
into this because as developers they felt the proposed density and utilization
of the land as planned is the best use for this area. By adding density you
would destroy the project. 4) Did the proponent consider the housing policy
in the planni�g stage prior to design layout? He stated that because of the
size and location the firm felt this is the best utilization of the land.
The Commission then discussed �nong themselves the housing poticy in relatian
to this particular project. Various comments from Commission members are as
follows: In a larger project the land cost and development cost can be shared
because of the number of units. In a project this si-ze it cannot be done and the
market really determines what the units shoutd sell for. This is not an area
that should support higher density. The project should follow the Cornprehensive
Plan guide lines, which indicate low density for this parcel . The neighbors are
concerned about the buffer between the P.U,D. and the residences if density vdere
increased—.some of the �atural buffer would be lost� Beca�se of the small number
of units and the �nenities offered, it is difficult to lower the price of the
units. Maybe this should be changed so there could be diversity in the units.
Some members indicated there should be diversity in housing in each project
while others indicated the idea of the policy is to diversify housing in the
City-it does not have to apply to each development. Also, there are very fiew
areas left in tne e;ty where smatl P.U.D.s of this size wili be considered.
The following residents were present to express their concerns: Mr. and Mrs.
Fiorentino, 5630 Woodstock Avenue, distributed a copy of a petition objecting
to the proposal . The City Council received copies of this petition at fiheir
Aprit 7, 1975 meeting. Also, the Planned Unit Development Ordinance was
referred to. Mr. Sunness, 5620 Woodstock Avenue, expressed concern about
traffic. `Mrs. 5teinbrueck, 5536 Loring Lane, stated that this area is an
established neighborhood containing single f�nily detached Momes, which is
the rEas�n`th� �ajority of home owners purchased homes in this area. The parcel
of tand on which this P.U.D. is planned is the only remaining large parcel in
this area; therefore, why not continue the tradition of the neighborhood with
single f�nity detached homes.
�; (Comnissioner Leonard arrived 9:10 P.M.)
:��
Planning Commission
April 14, 1975 page 3
The residents were informed that the Commission was considering the housing
policy as requested by the City Council and that their concerns, if other than
the housing policy, should be expressed to the City Cou�cil because it is a
continued hearing with the Council .
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Specktor to review the Planning Carrnission
action of February 24, 1975, noting that this project is to be limited to a
density of 20 units (the Canprehensive Plan indicated tow density residential
P.U.D. for this parcel ) , and that 10� of the units shall sell for $30,000 plus
the cost factor, 30% of the units shall sell for less than $40,000 plus tMe cost
factor, and at least 5� of the units shalt setl for less than $50,000 plus the
cost factor with no restrictions for the remaining 5�, which is in accordance with
the housing policy of the Planning Comnission. Upon rolt call vote being taken,
the following voted in favor of the motion: Specktor and Herje; and the fotlowing
voted against the same: Lundsgaard, Sehlin, and Hakala. Commissioner Leonard
abstained. The motion, did not carry.
It was then rrbved by Specktor, seconded by Merje that the Pla�ning Commission
reconsider their action of the February 24, 1975 ►neeting allowing a density of
20 living units and that 20� of the units (4 units) shatt sell for $40,000 to
$50,000. Upon roll calt vote being taken, the fotlowing voted in favor of the
m�tion: Herje, Specktor, and l.eonard; and the fotlowing voted against the same:
Hakala, Sehlin, Lundsgaard, and Hughes. The motion did not carry.
Taking into consideration the February 24, 1975 Planning Camnission minutes
stating approval of 20 units and the discussion about a caretaker unit making
a total of 21 tiving units, it was moved by Herje, seconded by Specktor to
recommend a density for P.U.D. #15 af no more than 20 living units on this parcel
of land. The motion carried with Comnissioner Lundsgaard voting nay.
4. REPORT FROM NOMINATING COMMITTEE — PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS
Commissioner Lundsgaard, acting as spokesman for the nominating committee, stated
that the nominating cc�mmittee consisting of Commissioners Leonard, Sehlin, and
himself submitted to the Planning Comnission the following recommendations. for
officers:
Re—appoint Chairman Ron Edstrom as Chairman of the Ptanning Commission,
Re—appoint Vice Chairman Donald Hughes as Vice Chairma� of the
Planning Commission, and
Re—appoint Secretary Kathryn Herje as Secretary of the Planning
Commi ssi on.
It was moved �y Hakala, seconded by Specktor, carried unanimously, to accept the
report of the r�ominating committee.
Vice Chairman Donald Hughes then asked if there were any other nominations from
the floor for any of the officers of the Planning Commission, and hearing none,
the nominations were closed.
It was moved by Merje , seconded by Specktqr�arried unanimously, to re—appoint
Ronald Edstrom as Chairman of the Planning Cornmission.
��.
Ptanning Commission
Aprii 14, 1975 page 4
It was moved by Specktor, seconded by Hakala, carried unanimously, to re—appoint
�onald Hughes as Vice Chairman of the Planning Comnission.
It was rraved by Landsgaard, seconded by Sehlin, carried unanirrbusty, to �e—
appoint Kathryn Herje as Secretary of the Planning Commission.
Tfiere being no further business to cane before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 10:20 P.M.
,�
- �,
Cha rman Ronald Ed t Secretary Kat ryn erj