Loading...
10-25-76 PC Minutes ���. MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION October 25, 1976 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 7:30 P.M. on Monday, October 25, 1976 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Vatley Road, Golden Va11ey, Minnesota. Chairman Ron Edstrom presided and the following members were present: Commissioners Forster, Herje, Hughes, Lundsgaard, Mindess, SeMlin, Specktor, and Wagman. Also present was Jon Westtake, staff m�nber. Chairman Edsta.r�om , introduced newty—appointed Commission Member G. William Forster to the planning Comnission. Members absent: None. 1 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The approval of the minutes was deferred to the end of the meeting at which time it was MOVED by Hughes, seconded by Specktor, carried unanimoasly, to approve the minutes of the September 27, 1976 Planning Ccxnmission meeting as amended as follows: Page 3� last paragraph, remove the f°eet°.W���caWOUSe�o�'this;��. flood storage capacity is increased by 23,818 cubic Page 5, last paragraph, first sentence to read The City Council at their September 20, 1976 meetinq set October 18, 1976 to consider. . . 2. WAIVER OF THE PIATTING ORDINANCE Applicant: Paul Moquist Location: 2405-2435 Xylon Avenue North Request: Adjust Lot line Zoning: Residentiat The proponent is planning an addition to the south of his present house. Because of the 15—foot sideyard setback, additional property will be needed for the addition. Present plans for the addition also indicate the proponent will need a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeats. Lot 6 (2435 Xylon), including the additional land, will contain approximately 19,800 square feet, and Lot 7 (2405 Xylon) approximately 15,500 square feet. The frontage of Lot 7 will not be affected because it is a corner lot with a frontage of 143� off 24th Avenue. Also, the structure on this lot will not be affected by the new lot line in relation to the setback line. Messrs. Maurs and Moquist, property owners, were present. Mr. Moquist stated he is planr�ing to bui}d a family room and add to the garage. A variance will also be needed because no more property than what is shown on the survey can be purchased. The Planning Commission in discussing the request with the proponent asked if the lot line could run in a straight line from a point in the front to a point in the rear rather than having a jog line. It was indicated by Mr. Moquist that the present arrangement as shown on the survey was the only agreement that could be worked out. It was moved by Mindess, seconded by Sehlin, carried unanimously, to recommend approval of the request for a waiver of the Platting Ordinance as described on the survey by Lot Surveys Company dated October 11 , 1976. � ���� 3 3• PRELIMINARY PLAT — CuRRY TIEVA ADOITION Applicant: Richard Tieva�David Curry Location: 2400 block, East side of Douglas Drive Request: Platting of Ten (10) Single Family Lots Zoning: Residential A concept plan of this preliminary plat was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their June 28, 1976 meeting. The motion regarding the concept plat was that the concept plan in the cul de sac area be adjusted so that Lots 1 ,2, and 3 meet the required 12,500 square feet and adjust �ots 4,5, and 6 to more nearly meet the Ordinance with the purchase of additional property (which would a11ow for an adjustment in the North—South rear lot line), and also, the revised ptan is to meet the requirements of the Engineering Departmer�t. It was moved as an amencknent to the motion that as an alternative, the proponent re—design the concept plan for five lots in the cul de sac area. The motion as amended carried with one nay vote. The present ptan submitted by the proponent has a total of ten (10) lots — six of wbich are in the cul de sac area. The six lots in the cul de sac area meet or exceed the 12,500 square—foot requirement. (There is a seventh lot in this area abutting Douglas Drive.) The frontage of the lots at the building setback line is as follows; starting with Lot 4 located in the Southeast corner of the cul de sac: Lot 4 76� 12,500 square feet Lot 8 100' 12,500 square feet Lot 5 70' 12,500 square feet Lot 9 85' 12,700 square feet Lot 6 75� 12,500 square feet Lot 10 85' 13,120 square feet The lot frontage between Lots 4 — 8 can be adjusted; however, the square footage requirement cou1d not be met on some lots. The proponent has in— � dicated that if a lot were lost in the cul de sac area, financially he coutd not develop the ptat. He further indicated that additional property could not be purchased. The three lots off Wynnwood Road have a frontage of 88� and 12,578 square feet in the lots.. The following is noted regarding the plat: 1 . The frontages do not meet the 100' requirement at the 35' setback line, except Lot 7; however, all lots meet or exceed the 12,500 square foot requirement. 2. The parcels of land that abut Oouglas Orive which have a portion of land in the ptat should also become part of the plat. 3• The street design contains a 50' Right of Way and a 100' cul de sac. 4. Orainage as indicated on the preliminary plat will flow to Manchester Circle and Wynnwood Road. Lot 7 will drain to Douglas Orive. 5. The rear elevation of the homes off Heritage Circle are 904' - 906' . The present high point on Manchester Circle is 911.8' . If the preliminary plat is approved, the proponent should design a grading plan to include proposed street grades and utitities prior to the Councit setting the hearing on the plat, which would allow the City Engineering Department time for review of the plat. �_�e�► Planning Comnission October 25, 197b page 3 Present for the request were Messrs. David Curry and Richard Tieva, developers, and Bruce Pankonin, Planner representing the developers. Mr. Pankonin explained that the economics of the plat was such that the number of lots in the cul de sac area could not be reduced. The design of the plat is felt to be the best lay— out because of the following factors: 1 ) The homes east of Douglas Orive, 2) The purchase of additional property could not be accomplished except for a small area to the west of �ot 4, 3) Terrain of this property in relation to the property to the east. The homes constructed on these lots will be in keeping with the homes to the East:: ..Mr. Pankonin also indicated that the developer has met with some of the residents. The following residents were present to express their concerns as follows: Mr. Bresven, 6107 Heritage Circle, also representing Dr. Schwartz, 6117 Heritage Circle, and Dr. Hiller, 6127 Heritage Circle, stated they have no objection to the plat. They v�rould tike to see the open area corr�leted in reference to its land use. Mr. Winslow, 6140 Wynnwood Road, presented a plat with the road running through the center of the property which would atlow rear access for homes off Douglas Orive, grading of property would not be as severe, and lots would be more valuable. Mr. Nielsen, 6150 Wynnwood Road, questioned the front— age of the lots. Will homes be custom built or spec homes and how will these homes corr�are to homes to the East? Mrs. Murray, 2401 Brunswick Avenue Piorth, expressed concern about drainage. The Planning Comnission in discussing the plat reviewed with the proponent five lots vs six lots in the cul de sac area, drainage of the plat, how the terrain would tie in with the property to the East and South, and the possibility of the loss of some vegetation because of the grading. The Planning Cc>mmission also discussed that if the plat were approved, variances for structures should not be requested because of narrow lot widths. The developer indicated that the structures could be designed for the lots without variances. It was moved by Herje, seconded by Lundsgaard, carried unanimously, to recomnend approval of the plat, subject to: 1 . No variances to be granted for the proposed structures. 2. The ptat as presented to the Planning Commission wilt be the sa�ne as presented to the City Council . 3• The grading plan which would include street grades and utilities to meet the standards of the City Engineering Department prior to the City Council setting the public hearing date on the plat. 4. Requirements of the Engineering Department. 5• Alt properties related to the plat to become part of the plat. 6. Atl costs to be borne by the new lots. 7. 10� dedication or cash in lieu of. The Planning Commission pointed out that the reasons they did not adhere to standard frontages in approving the plat was terrain, location of existing structures, costs, and configuration of land to work with. 1 1a� ;'� t;.1 .. Planning Comnission October 25, 197b page 4 4. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT — GENERAL PLAN APPROVAL . P.tJ.D. #14—A Proponent: Jack Galant Location: 2400 Hillsboro Avenue North Request: Construct 28 Remaining Townhouse Units At the time of general plan approval for the six units in April 1975, the proponent submitted a plan showing the corr�lete layout of the site which included a City trail easement, interior trail , pond, and the location of the remaining 28 units. The design and elevation of the remaining units to be constructed will be the same as the six—unit structure now under construction on the site. Although the landscaping, grading, etc. is not corr�teted, the feel for the site can be determined by a field inspection of the present structure. In reviewing the plan, the following is noted: 1 . The site contains an identity sign location, but the size of fihe sign has - not be�n decided. 2. There is exterior lighting on the units and there will be free standing exterior lighting. 3• City housing policy to be apptied. Units should be identified. 4. Item #3A of the April 28, 1975 Planning Comnission minutes reads as follows: "Specific provisions should be required for snow storage and removal". Now that the site is corr�lete, the site plan should indicate the area where snow will be stored. The concern is that in some planned unit developments the snow is stored in the overflow parking areas. Items from previous minutes which the Planning Commission may want to review with the proponent: 1 . Environmental Commission — provision for wildlife food plants and sedimen— tation trap for catch basins. 2. Park and Recreation Commission - screening of City trail on the property in the form of fence, trees, or shrubs. 3. Planning Commission — require recreational facilities to be built with the first block of units. (The City this week received approved plans from the State in reference to the swimming pool .) Carl Dale, Planner, reviewed the remaining stage of construction and commented as follows: "1 . The detailed plans appear to be in conformity with previously approved general ptans and conditions i�osed by the PUD Permit. 2. Landscaping details are excellent as to species, placement, and size of materials to be planted. It is assumed that landscaping wilt be implaced under time requirements as irr�osed and construction will be adequately inspected by the City both during and after development. 3• Other plan details such as the trail (path) , pond shoreline treatment, recreation area, and the like seem quite good. 4. There are no changes that we could recomnend at this time. In our opinion, submitted ptans indicate that this wilt be a very high quality residential development and a very desirable addition to the comnunity' s environment." � �� Planninq Commission October 2�, 1976 page 5 Messrs. Jack Galant, owner, Jerry Allen, Architect, and Forest Russell , Landscape Architect, were present for the request. Mr. Russell reviewed the proposat with the Planning Commission indicating that the totat number of units planned for the site is 34. Previously they were granted approval for six of the 34 units. The request is for the remaining 28 units, making a density of just under seven units per acre. The plans are identical to the previous plans, except for the floor plans of the interior of the units which have been slightly adjusted. Mr. Russell then reviewed the landscaping ar�d l-ocation of snow storage area. Jerry Allen, Architect, stated they witl meet the City Housing Poticy regarding planned unit developments and indieated the units that will be of certain cost levels. The following residents expressed their concerns: Mr. Larsen, 9036 Elgin Place, had several concerns, but the primary concern is the drainage in the area. Mr. Sallberg, 9�11 Medicine Lake Road, was concerned about the aesthetic s of tbe units. Also present were four members of the Board from King' s Valley Home Owner' s Association. They felt the project was an aesthetic blight. In discussing the request the Planning Commission felt there should be more vegetation that would hold its foliage year round and be of sufficient size located East and Southeast on the site and that the snow storage area be identi— fied on the site, and special care of landscaping should be considered in these areas because of salt, ice, smothering, etc. The Planning Commission discussed with Mr. Galant why Item #4 of the April 28, 1975 Planning Cc�mmission minutes was not compteted on the site prior to requesting the consideration of the remaining 28 units. (Recreational facilities area and swimming pool structure to be built with first btock of units) It was moved by Herje, seconded by Sehlin t� table the request until the Recreational building and swimming pool are co�leted and that the landscaping plan be adjusted to add foliage year round on the East and Southeastern area of the site. The ptanting is to be of sufficient size and to be the verticle variety. Upon roll call vote, the following voted in favor of the motion: Specktor, Sehlin, Herje, and Lundsgaard. The following voted against the same: Mindess, Hughes, and Wagman. The motion carried with Commissioner Forster abstaining. 5• GUIOELINES FOR P.U.D. The committee on Guidetines for P.U.O. , consisting of Commissioners Sehlin and Wagman, discussed the v�ro rking copy of the Guidelines with the Planning Commission. The comnittee felt that they �uld have a revised work copy for review at the next Planning Commission meeting. There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion, duly seco , adj r t 10:30 P.M. , ,, �............ .. . Cha rman Ron Eds r Secretary thryn H je � NO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 1976