08-28-78 PC Minutes �'i"�
MINUTES OF THE GOLDfN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 28, 1978
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 7:30 P.M.
on Monday, August 28, 1978 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Vice Chair Forster opened the meeting after which Chair Sehlin presided with the
following memb�rs presentc Commissioners Eastes, Hughes, and Mindess.
Also present was Jon West'lake, staff inember, and Carl Dale, Consultant.
Members absent: Commissioners Edstrom, Nerje, Polachek, and Specktor.
l . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The approval of the minutes was deferred to the end
of the Planning Commission meeting at which time it was MOVED by Mindess, seconded
by Hughes, carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of the August 14, 1978
Planning Commission meeting as mailed.
2. SCATTERED StTE HOUSING
Review Five (5) Recommended Sites for Land Use and Consider Rezoning,
if Necessary:
a) Scott Avenue and Highway 100 - Appropriate Land Use
b) Lindsay Avenue and Highway 100 - Appropriate Land Use; Consider
Rezorring, if chosen for construction of a four-plex
c) Douglas Drive - Appropriate Land Use; Consider Rezoning, if chosen
for construction of a four-plex
d) Plymouth Avenue and Gettysburg Avenue - Appropriate Land Use
e) Plymouth Avenue and Boone Avenue North - Appropriate Land use
Virginia Levy, Chairman of the Housing � Community Development Commission,
informed the Planning Commission that the Housing � Community Development
Commission was asked by the City Council in January T978 to seiect sites for
scattered site housing from which the Council would choose three on which to
house a duplex, four-plex, and six-plex for scattered site housing in Go}den Valley.
Some of the criteria used in selecting the scattered site housing was: 1 ) The
units should not be close to Dover Hi11 , 2) Location of site not to be close to
each other, 3) Size of parcel to be at least a quarter acre with a minimum of
150 feet of frontage for the duplex, 4) Costs should not be prohibitive, includ-
ing site preparation costs, 5) land use to be appropriate.
Th�fHousing & Community Development Commission considered a large number of sites
out�which five sites were chosen. Two of the sites are close to each other;
however, these sites will be alternate to each other. Neighborhood meetings
were held on each of the sites. The units witl cost approximately $55,000 each
or $110,000 for a duplex. Each unit will contain approximately 1 ,250 square feet
and will be designed to fit into the neighborhood. Incomes of those living in
the units for subsidy range from ,$13,950 maximum for a 3 member family to $17,450
for a six member family.
The Housing � Community Development Commission is recommending to the City Council
the fotlowing sites:
�-
���
Planning Commission
August 28, 1978 page 2
a) Duplex on the Scott Avenue Site
b) Two dupl.exes or a four-plex to be constructed on Douglas Drive
c) Cluster of three duptexes to be constructed on the Gettysburg
and Plymouth Avenue site, or a six-plex on the Gettysburg site.
There will be soil tests and an environmental statement on each site for the
Council to consider.
The Commission in discussing scattered site housing with the Ghai-rman of the
Housing � Community Development Commission asked if the sites that were chosen
were available and did the Commission ever consider applying the funds to existing
housing units in the community. Are there statistics available as to how many
low and moderate income families live irr Golden Valley? If no current figures
are available, is there a need for this type of housing? The Planning Gommission
asked if in considering these sites if eoncerns such as transportation, isolation
from residential areas, and closeness to amenities were considered.
Carl Dale reviewed the Planning Analysis on Scattered Site Housing Location as
follows:
"Background
This planning report has been prepared at the .request of City Staff to assist
the Planning Commission in its review of #ive sites selected by the Housing &
Community Development Commission; the Mayoc has requested advice from the
Planning Commission to assist the City Council in selecting three sites from
among the five (5) suggested in his August 9th cornmunication.
The purpose of this report is to provide you with professional planning con-
sultation regarding the various sites with respect to proper and appropriate
land use; only the five (5) sites listed by the Housing � Commurrity Development
Commission have been studied and commented upon herein. Comme:nts and recomend-
ations contained herein are based primarily upan land use considerations and
affects upon the Comprehensive Municipal Plan and implementation of the City
Plan via proper zoning in the general public interest.
Planning Gonsiderations
Each site was evaluated on the basis of ixisting use, location, size and shape,
relationship to adjacent uses and the surrounding area, and conformity to the
Comprehensive Municipal Plan and the Land Use Plan portion thereof. Based upon
this analysis, we have listed the five (5) potential sites in rank order of
desirability from a professional planning viewpoint along with appropriate
comments:
�'�
Planning Commission
August 28, 1978 page 3
Rank Order of Suggested
Desirability Site Area in Acres Appropriate Use
1 Hwy. 100 � Scott Ave. 0,76 Duplex
Comments: This site is part of a general larger area nated on the Comprehensive
P]an as having residential "PUD'' potential due to its location and
the presence of vacant land, large lot sizes with irregular shapes,
extra deep building setbacks in some areas; and other conditions which
tend to complicate platting for "typical"single family home lots
without some -coordinated planning effort for the total area. The
specific parcel in question is bordered on the north by an existing
duplex and on the south and east by single family homes all screened
by heavy vegetation. In our opinion, this is an excellent site for a
duplex and located such that its development will not be detrimental
to still needed coordinated planning prior to new development to the
immediate south and southeast of the-subject site. A duplex at this
location is a good and logical extension of the existing use on the
corner with good access via the Highway l00 service/frontage road.
Exposure to traffic and other environmental conditions do not make the
site expecially well suited as a single-family home site investment.
We would consider a duplex on this site to be in conformity to the
Comprehensive Municipal Plan, an asset to the neighborhood, and in
no way detrimental to adjacent or nearby residential amenities,
Coordinated planning is still needed, however, prior to any further
development to the south and southeast of the subject site.
Suggested
Rank -0rder Site Area in Acres Appropriate Use
2 Plymouth � Gettysbury 4. 17 6 Units in a
cluster of
3 duplexes
Camments: At one time, this site was designated as a potential City Public Works
site and is currently designated as "light lndustrial" on the
Comprehensive Municipal Plan; currently zoning- is "Open". In our
opinion, residential use of this site is a far m4re appropriate and
better use of •the parcel than would be light indusfirial due to a high
degree of visual exposure to housing just to the north of Plymouth Avenue.
While not expecially we} 1 suited for single-family home investment,
some form of muitiple housing could be planned for inclusion as part
of the nearby residential neighborhood. The site is bordered on the
east by a wooded natural area so designated on the City Plan and owned
by the City; tQ the west is existing industriat and a railroad is
adjacent to the south.
� The site is of adequate size, shape, and proper location for lower
density multiple housing. Construction of six (6) housing units on
this site ;�rould be a definite asset to the nearby residential area
and most certainly a better use than light fndustrial no matter how
high in quality. The site is ranked: No. 2 due to the direct frontage
on a major road in contrast to the site at Scott Avenue � Highway 100
which has frontage on a service road,
,
e:��=�
Planning Commission
August 28, 1978 page 4
Rank Order Site Area in Acres Appropriate Use
3 Lindsay � Highway 100 1 .29 4-plex
Comments: This site is designated on the Comprehensive Municipal Plan as having
potential for "Limited Business" (B�PO type uses) although it is
currently zoned Residential . This site is somewhat isoTated from
nearby homes to the northwest by the fire station to the north; a
radio station and transmission towers are located to the south and west
with a larger, older home still further to the south (zoned "Open� .
In our opinion, residential use of the parcel in question is both
appropriate and highly desirable to assist in strengthening the nearby
residential neighborhood which is comparatively small , somewhat
isolated, and already highly exposed to non-residential deve}opment;
even "limited business" such as office building on the subjeet parcel
would be a further encroachment and encirclement of this residential
neighborhood and add to the eommercial traffic which now exists.
The subject site is not well suited for single family home investment
due to location and proximity to non-residential uses (radio station,
fire station, traffic) . It is, however, an appropriate site for low
density multiple dwellings which are often considered a suitable
alternative to limited business.
The site is ranked PJo. 3 due to its relative isolation (visual and
distance) from the residential neighborhood to the north and north-
�aest. Multiple dwelling use of the subject site would still lea�✓e
open the option for future "iimited Business" or multiple dwellings
on land zoned "Open" to the south near the railroad; commercial use
(any type) of the subject corner site would probably reduce the options
to only some form of commercial deveJopment on remaining nearby
vacant land.
In �ummary, low density multiple dwelling use of the subject site
should in no way be detrimental to nearby residential amenities;
in fact, quite the contrary should be true. Low density multiple
dwellings on the subject site should be a definite environmental
assett to the general area.
Rank Order Site Area in Acres Appropriate Use
4 2100 Douglas Drive N. 1 .54 still Undetermined
Comments: This site is part of a larger area with mixed land use, vacant areas
of varying size and shapes, and generally in need of coordinated
planning or even a "PUD" approach prior to development of only one
parcel . Development of this one parcel for scattered site housing
could well tend to even further complicate general area land use and
development planning for the future.
The site is highly exposed to commercial uses (adjacent dental offices
and industrial to the west) and has poor access directly onto heavily
traveled Douglas Drive.
��
Planning Commission
August 28, 1g78 page 5
The site, for residential use, is quite isolated from community facil-
ities su�h as parks and playgrounds; in short, this site is commerciaily
oriented due to location in this complex of varying uses and lot sizes
and shapes.
7he general area is designated as having medium density multiple housing
development potential ; such a use, however, is not clearly appropriate
without coordinated general area planning for land uses, vehicular
access, pedestrian circulation, and other environmental factors.
Without such an over-all , coordinated plan for development, the subject
site: (along) is probably better suited for "limited business"
(B� PO type uses) .
Rank Order Site Area in acres Appropriate Use
5 Boone � Plymouth 2.35 Still Undetermined
Comments: This is a difficult site as evidenced by prior attemps to gain a con-
census on submitted site development plans. Along with additional
low land (now being filled) to the east, the site is designated for
"residential"PUD" on the Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Alone, and
without direct coordinated residential development use planning for
the larger vacant area in question, it is our opinion that the site
is not suitable for any type of residential uses, and almost totally
isolated from a residential environment. Only in conjunction with
other residential development to the east under a coordinated site
planning PUD arrangement could the subject parcel be considered
appropriate for residential use. Under existing conditions, the most
appropriate use of the subject parcel would, in our opinion, be some
form of limited intensity non-residential use.
In any event, the parcels located at Plymouth � Gettysburg or Lindsay
& Highway 100 should not be given consideration as this would tend to
concentrate units in one part of the community contrary to the intent
and purpose of the "scattered site" housing concept involved here at
this time."
Mrs. Ann Wilson, 1125 Welcome Circle, acted as spokesperson for residents in
Hipp's Addition indicating they are against this type of proposal being considered
for the Lindsay Avenue-Highway 100 site and asked why the City is accepting these
types of funds.
The Planning Commission then discussed the sites and discussed each specifically
as listed below:
l . Scott Avenue � Highway 100 - The Commission felt this was an appropriate land
use because of the residential land use in the neighborhood, transportation is
close, the Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to remain residential , and
there are other double units close to this site. It was moved by Forster,
seconded by Mindess, carried unanimously, that the land use is appropriate.
?�
Planning Commission
August 28, 1978 page 6
2. Lindsay Avenue - Highway 100 - The Planning Commi�sion in discussing this
site indicated a mixed reaction, Some mernbers felt the proposed land use
was good while others did nat consider scattered site housing a good use,
It was noted that this area is isolated further from shopping and public
transportation than it should be. In discussing density the Planning
Commission felt the site could accomodate two duplexes. It was maved by
Forster, seconded by Mindess, to recommend approval of the land use and a
density of two duplexes. Two members voted aye and three members voted nay.
The motion did not carry.
3. 2100 Douglas Drive North - The Commission in reviewing this area noted this
is a transitional area. The propasal would act as a buffer tp the east, and
the Comprehensive Plan indicates a medium density P.U.D. for the area. The
Commission again reviewed the Planning Report regarding this item. (t was
moved by Forster, seconded by Mindess to recommend not accepting this site
because there is no coordinated plan of the area in order to consider the
parcel in question. Three members voted aye and two members voted nay,
The motion carried.
4. Area south of Plymouth at Gettysburg � In discussing this area the Cvmmission
felt the area is isolated from public transportation and shopping areas,
Its location next to the railroad and industrial land use to the west does
not make it conducive for a residential land use. It was moved by Hughes,
seconded by Eastes not to recommend thissite because of the railroad and
land uses to the south and west. Three members voted aye and two members
voted nay. The motion carried.
5. Southeast Quadrant of Plymouth & Boone - It was moved by Eastes, seconded by
Forster, carried unanimously, to recommend not to accept this site, noting the
items as listed in the Planning Report in reference to this parcel of land,
After further discussion it was moved by Mindess, seconded by Forster, carried
unanimously, that in order' to properly assess the Dougla� Drive site, a more
comprehensive area should be studied. With respect to the Plymouth and Boone
Avenue site, even though it was rejected in the manner it was proposed, proper
planning could be done to integrate the site with the development to the east
such as an interior street making it compatible for housing. The Commission
also noted that the building elevation and site plan should be reviewed by the
Building Board of Review.
3• COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - HOUSING
The Planning Commission was informed that a member of the Metropolitan Council ,
Lynn Holmen, was present to discuss housing; however, because of the hour and
type of presentation, it was decided to defer until another Planning Commission
meeting.
Jennie Kim distributed a report containing data summary and analysis on Housing-
including goals, housing policies, and implementation program.
The Planning Commission was informed that Jennie Kim, because of other
responsibilities, has decided to resign from City of Golden Valley employment.
�!�
Planning Commission
August 28, 1g78 page 7
It was moved by Mindess, seconded by Hughes, carried unanimously, to express
continued success to Jennie Kim and thank Jennie for the research and background
that she has done regarding the Comprehensive Plan.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, to adjourn at 10:40 P.M.
Jody Sehlin, Chair Mervyn Mindess, Secretary