04-28-75 PC Minutes yt.
�.��
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PIANNING COMMISSION
Apri1 28, 1975
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at
7:30 P.M. on Monday, April 28, 1975 at the Civic Center, 7$00 6olden Valley
Road, Golden Ualley, Minnesota.
Chairman Ron Edstram presided and the following members were present: Commissioners
Christiansen, Hakala, Nerje, Hughes, Leonard, Lundsgaard, Sehtin, and Specktor.
Also present were Carl Daie, Consultant, and Jon Westlake, staff inernber.
Members absent: None. �
1 . APPROVAL OF MINIlTES: MOVED by Hughes, seconded by SehTin, carried un-
animously, to approve the minutes of the April 14, 1975 Planning Comnission
meeting as �nended as follows: add to Page 2, third paragraph, before second to
last sentence: Some members indicated there shouid be diversity in housinp in
each proiect white others indicated... Page 2, last paragraph, last sentence, add
detached after family. Page 3, paragraph two, first sentence, strike ''that r�-
consideration be given to" and replace with to review.
2. WAIVER OF THE PLATTING ORDINANCE
Richard M. Steidl (divide and combine Residential iot)
434-444 Yosemite Avenue
The Planning Commission was i�formed that the purchaser of the property could
not be reached, so this item will be re-scheduted.
3. P.U.O. #16 CONCEPT PLAN - SET P!lBLIC INF�RMATIONAL MEETING
Applicant: Cheyenne Land Cc�mpany
location: 5915 Glenwood Avenue
Proposal : 54 Units (attached in groups of two)
Mr. Jim Hawks of Cheyenne Land Company briefly reviewed the proposal with the
Planning Commission. He stated the project is on 11 .8 acres of land-not 10.2 acres
as indicated in a report that was distributed to the Commission members.
The Planning Cortmission indicated that along with other requirements they witl be
tooking at the 100-foat green belt along Laurel Avenue and percentages of the
totat area regarding the �nount of open space, driveway, structure, ponding, etc.
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Hakala, carried unanimously, to set the
informationai meeting for May 12, 1975.
Because Mr. Hawks was present, the Pianning Cornmission asked questions about
King' s Valley regarding the earth cover on the trees loc�ted on the Southeast
corner of the site.
It was moved by Hakala, seconded by Sehlin, carried u�animously, that the City
contact Centurion Canpany regarding the filt around the trees tocated in the
Southeast corner of the site and to allow Centurion Corr�any no tonger that�
a ten day period to remove the fill , due to the concern that the trees will
be lost.
��
Planning Commission
April 2$, 1975 page 2
4. P.U.O. #14 GENERAL PIANS
Appticant: Jack Galant
Location: East—West Service Drive of County Road 18
Proposal : 34 Townhouse Units
Mr. Carl Date reviewed the Planning Considerations as foliows:
''1 . Various development plans have been submitted for this property in the past.
(See Planning Reports dated 7/3/73, 7/11/74, and 8/1/74.) This current
plan was discussed by the Ptanning Commission 7/22/74 and again on 8/12/74
with concept approval being recorm�ended for not more than 34 dweliing units
but with finai density approval subject to review and approval of rrare
complete and detailed ptans. (Note: More ccxnplete and detailed plans were
sabmitted at the 8/12/74 meeting but nat for complete staff review and
analysis prior to the meeting.)
2. A number of concerns were noted at the meeting of 8/12/74 and the App)icant
has submitted atlditional plans and information in response to requests by
the Cornmission City Staff, and others present and interested. Planning
comne�ts on recently submitted plans and information are as follows:
a} The number of units (34) is the s�ne as welt as the type (bedroan count).
This is a density of just under 7 units per acre which is considerably
less than praposed originally and which appears reasonable and in
accordance with the Municipal Ccxnprehensive Plan.
b) Parking is provided for 132 cars or nearly 4 per dwelling unit which
should be adequate and meet code requirert�nts. Further, site plan
revisions have been made such that atl are usable which was not the
case in the original plans. It is suggested, however, that a condition
of the PUD Permit may include recommendatioros from the Fire Department
for posting "na parking'' signs in order to retain proper fire lanes
during peak hours.
c) Exeellence of landscape design has been requested and a more complete
ptan has been submitted. Actually, a "planting plan" has been submitted
indicating a good variety and nurr�er of plantings; no "structural''
plans are indicated nor plans for non—plant materials other than in
the"comrans" area. Although the intent seems to be one of landscape
excetlence, finat plans for installation shoutd be subject to City
staff approval .
d) St�reline treatment appears to consist of trees, sod, and a wood chip
walking path. Conditions of a PUD Permit should include any added
features that may be suggested by the Citp E�gin�er and others plus sod
maintenance, erosio n control , and similar conditions. Nigh water
elevatior►s on the plan raises some dou6t as to the feasibility of wood
chips which may or may not provide a perrnanent watking surface.
e) A public trail ease�nt as requested has been indicated on the ptan.
f) Modifications have been made to turning radii and "tight'' corners
have been eased to better facilitate circulation, parking, and
emergency vehicie acces�.
g) On—site recreational facilities seem adequate and appropriate with due
consideration given to land availab1e. Some arrangement for cash—in—
lieu of public land dedication would seem, however, to be in order
influenced by whatever value may be given to the trail easement,
pondi ng area, and tot lot/swirrrr+i ng pool.
�= a
�"�,
Planni�g Commission
April 2$, t975 page 3
h) It is not totally clear which areas are to have concrete curbing;
�t�is shoutd be clearly indicated on the plans.
i ) Architectural treatment seems quite adequate to present a good view
from existing homes in the area; this has been a major concern
expressed in the past.
j) Apparently, the pond and utilities have been planned as requested by
the City Engiaeer and coordinated with adjace�t and nearby development.
k) Plan indications are that these witl be rather high cost dwetling units;
it is our opinion, however, that the project is not large enoagh to
warrant imposition of housing policy-low and moderate income unit
requirements.
1) The site planner has done a good job of arranging the dwetling units
on the limited land availabTe (due to 21� pond area).
3• In our opinion, this cwrrert development plan is generally satisfactory and
in accordance with the Comprehensive Municipal Plan. If approved, the
P.U.D. Permit shoutd contain, �nong others, the fotlowing conditions:
a) Specifie provisions should be required for �now storage and removal to
avoid wintertime loss of parking and traffic congestion.
b) All exterior storage should be regulated and include boats, trash,
c�er trailers, and the like.
c) 7he entrance to the development should be as approved by the City Engineer.
d) Normai buitding and grounds maintenance requir�nents.
e) Cash-in-lieu of public recreatior� land dedication.
f) Staff approval of finat iandscape plans.
g) Appropriate restrictions on parking (to maintain fire lanes}.
h) Pond maintenance conditions (by City Engineer).
i) Public trail dedication.
j) Staff approval of project signs (identification, for sale, etc.).
k) Staff recommendation on stage development prograrn (grading, erosion
controt , utilities, building sequence, etc.)."
The Planning Commission in reviewing the report asked Mr. Dale about Item #2 (k)
regarding the housing poticy. Mr. Dale indicated that people who m�ve into a
planned unit development such as this probably are not f�niliar with the City� s
housing policy or the reasons for such a policy. Mr. Dale stated they have found
that when they have tried to mix old and youhg faanilies, they do not stay mixed.
The first to leave are the older families. Mr. Dale feels it woutd take a larger
housing development to truly mix different kinds of peop1e. In the planning field
we are seeing a move.rnent toward people in the same social levels wanting to be in
the same neighborhoods. He feels you can have diversity on a large project, but on
a project this smalt , it is difficult to do. In response to this, some rnembers of
the Planning Commission pointed out that the poliey of the Commission is not to
attract differen� kinds of people in a small planned unit devetopment, bat on
diversify the cost of housing. In a planned unit development the Planning Commission
can control the size of some units, which will give a diversity in price.
The Planning Carmission also discussed erosion control which coutd be a problexn
during construction because of the terrain and the pondinq areas in the vicinity
of this planned unit development.
The Pianning Comnission then reviewed the August 12, 197�+ Planning Comnission
mineates, the April 3, 1975 Park and Recreation minutes, and the March 10, 1975
Environmentai Commission minutes regarding this project.
��
Planning Conmission
April 28, 1975 page 4
Messrs. Forrest Russetl of Hanson and Russell and Jerry Allen of Architects
Criteria were present to present the proposal to the Corrmissioa. Mr. Russetl
indicated thatto give a perspective of the site he would refer to elevations
starting at the service drive and entrance to the site-which elevation is 933' •
The normal pond elevation is 899' . The lowest walkout unit will be 910.8' ,
and the highest walkout unit elevation will be 921.8' . The elevation of the
highest roof line (peak) wiil be 956� , which will be 23� higher than the entrance
drive. The walkout side of the units to the peak is 33' . The entrance has been
widened to 16' with a 20-foot exit, which will provide adequate site distance for
safety onto the frontage road. The driveway and internal streets will have a
4� grade.
Mr. Russell then indicated how the trail system will link with the City trail
system. The trail runs along the north edge of the property and approximately
140' south of the north property line on the east edge of the site. The interior
trail system was then exptained and the developer will provide a lirr� stone trait
rather than the wood chips as designated on the plan.
The landscaping plan, including the tot lot and recreationat area, was described.
The area on the west side will be la�dscaped and then left to grow natural.
(Commissioner Hakala left meeting)
Mr. Rassell indicated they are aware of the housing poticy of the Ptanning
Cammission and will comply with it. They ptan to construct two blocks of 5 units
and four btocks of 6 units. The first biock they pian to construct wiil be modet
units, which wi11 be the first building as you enter the site. These units are
indicated on the site plan as A,B,C,D,E, and F. The four (F) units which have
basements will be the rrbderate priced units and witl be located on the end of
the block of units. The remaining units will be a walkout. The price range of
the units other than those covered by the housing poticy will be from $45,000
to approximately $55,000. All units have garages with exterior parking space
directly to the rear of the garages. The site has 59 enclosed parking spaces
with 73 open spaces. The developer has provided two areas for overflow parking.
The six modeis wili be constructed this year, and the r�nainder of the project
will be completed the fotlowing year.
Mr. Jerry Alten then described a typical D unit (1 ,268 square feet) which
contains two bedrooms with a den and a double garage. All deck areas have a
roof. By building the first block of six units it can be determined which unit
types sell the best and adjust the remainder of the units accordingly.
The project will have an enclosed swimming pool for year aroun d use. The size
of the structure that houses the sw9mming poo) wilt be 48' x 48' .
The Planning Comnission in discussing the project talked aboat the landscaping
ptan and trail system (project contains a City trail and an interior trail
system). The Planning Camnission referred to the Park and Recreation Commission
minutes and the requested 40-foot setback frc�m the structure adjacent to the
City trail . The site ptan indicates 2Po on: the north side from a structure and
27' on the east side from a structure. The developer indicated he woutd change
the trail to timestone and provide more laadscaping. T#ee Planning Cumnission
��
P 1 anni ng Cornmi ssi on
April 28, 1975 page 5
also discussed the interior trail system with regard to its safety in reta—
tionship to the pond which is 4 to 5� deep, and the trail is approximately
12' away from it. The Comnission then reviewed the floor plan of the anit.
In reviewing the exterior parking spaces the Commission was concerned about
the adequacy of it and where more cauld be provided if it were needed. They
asked the developer where he intends to store the snow on the site, leading
the exterior parking spaces open. The Commission also discussed the tocation
of fire lanes, the phasing of the construction of the units, and the housing
poticy, noting the developer wilt comply with it. They then discussed the
identity sign for the project and swimming pool , including the recreation area.
Commissioner Sehlin then reviewed four points which Commissioner Hakala had
questioned on the landscaping plans as fflllaws:
1 . questioned Weeping Willows as located on the plan about hardiness and
susceptibility to frost. Maybe substitute River Birch,
2. questioned if Lilac bushes as listed on the plan coutd not be the French
Nybrids,
3• questioned if Silver Maple eould not replace the Sugar Maple as indicated
on the plan,
4. questioned the use of Tatarian Honeysuckle in the picnic area. Could
something eise be substituted?
The Planning Comnission forwarded these suggestions to the Building Board of
Review.
It was then moved by Herje, seconded by Lundsgaard, carried unanimously, to
recommend approval of P.11.O. #14, subject to the following:
1 . Approvat of six units designated on the site plan as Units A—F. 7he
rernaining 28 units subject to later review.
2. Cash in lieu of tand dedication for park purposes subject to Council discretion
3. Approval of the Building Board of Review.
4. Recreational facilities area and swimming poot structure to be built with
the first block of units.
5. Trail to be li�e stone and be paid for the developer. The trait easement
to be dedicated to the City ar a recorded easement for trail use subject
to Council discretion.
6. No exterior storage of recreational vehicles. This requirement to be part
of the home owner' s agreement.
7. City trail easement to have rr�re strubbery added to screen it, and include
a fence.
8. Item #3 (A through K) of the Planning Considerations including concrete curb
to be included.
9. Price of the structures to conform to the City's housing poticy.
10. Subject to the conditions of the 4�se Permit.
5. GENERAL
The Planning Commission was informed that the City Counci1 at their April 21 , 1975
meeting tabled the request for a residential plan known as Ring's Colonial
Secor►d Addi tion.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
�..C. .
C airman Ronald Edstrom Sec e:tary K hr H je