Loading...
05-14-79 PC Minutes :�. :Ti;� ° MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 1979 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 6:30 P.M. on Monday, May 14, 1979 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Vall.ey Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Pro-Tem Edstrom presided and the following members were present: Commissioners DeSautels, Eastes, Forster, Herje, Hughes, Polachek, Specktor and Thompson. A1so present were Jon Westlake and Jeff Christensen from the City staff. Members absent: Commissioners Levy and Sehlin. 1. CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMISSION The City Council and Planning Commission met between 6:30 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. and discussed the ordinance that established the newly formed Planning Commission, list of duties of the Planning Gommission which the Commission is to respond back to the Council on. Also discussed was the political process versus planning, seminars, procedures used for public hearing, Planning Gommission responsibility, and receiving petitions from residents. The Council and Gommission then discussed the Gomprehensive Plan and the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The approval of minutes was deferred to the end of the meeting, at which time it was moved by Hughes, seconded by Polachek, carried unanimously to approve the April 2�_, 1979 Planning Commission minutes as mailed. It was then moved by Herje, seconded by Thompson, carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the special rneeting held on April 30, 1979 as mailed. '� 3. WAIVER OF PLATTING ORDINANCE Applicant: Mr. Willison and Northern Conference of Seventh Day Adventists Location: 5301-5341 Woodstock Avenue Request: Divide Center Parcel and Add to East and West Parcels Zoning: Residential Because no representative was present, no action was taken on the request. 4. WAIVER OF PLATTING ORDINANCE Applicant: Mr. Moquist and Mr. Boyle Location: 2435-2466 Xy1on Avenue Request: Rearrange Lot Line Zoning: Residential The request is to rearrange the lot line between Lots 4 and 5 of Block 2, Richland Hills Addition, because of the placement of the house on the lot. Mr. Moquist was present to answer questions concerning the request. After a review of the request by the Commission, it was moved by Herje, seconded by Polachek, carried unanimously to recommend approval of the request as submitted. �_�_� Planning Commission May 14, 1979 page 2 5. WAIVER OF PLATTING ORDINANCE Applicant: Mr. Hogan and Mr. Johnson Location: 4505-4521 Culver Road Request: Divide Parcel Into Two Lots Zoning: Residential The proponent is requesting to divide a large parcel into two lots as follows: Parcel A Contains a single family home Lot size 142 x 134 feet Square footage - 19,028 sq. ft. Parcel B Contains a garage Lot size 142 x 134 feet Square footage - 19,028 sq. ft. Present to discuss the request was Mr. Hogan. The Commission, in reviewing the request, noted both parcels exceed the City requirements for frontage and square footage. The location of a future garage for Parcel A was reviewed as to its placement on the lot. It was moved by Forster, seconded by Thompson, carried unanimously to recommend approval for the waiver of platting ordinance as defined on the survey by Lot Surveyor's Company dated December 5, 1978, subject to cash or land dedication. 6. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - INFORMATIONAL HEARING A. P.U.D. 4�16-B Concept Plan Proponent: Cheyenne Land Company Location: 5615 Glenwood Avenue Request: 11 Single Family and 15 Townhouses (41 Units) The Commission decided to hear this proposal and Item B as a unit because of their importance to each other. However, the motion for approval or denial will be separate for each request. The Planning report regarding Item A appears in the April 23, 1979 Planning Commission minutes. The report was reviewed with the Planning Commission. Mr. Ran Bastier of McCombs-Knutson and Associates reviewed the revised plan with the Commission. The proposal is for 11 single family units and 15 townhouse units for a total of 41 units on 11.6 acres of land. The plan also provides for a separate off-street parking area for 6 vehicles. B. P.U.D. 4�23 Concept Plan Proponent: Gittleman Corporation Location: South of 6001 Glenwood Avenue Request: 7 Single Family and 14 Double (35 Units) Present zoning of the 10.3 acre parcel is Residential. The proposal is for concept approval under the P.U.D. Ordinance for 7 single family units and 14 double cluster living units. ��� Planning Commission May 14, 1979 page 3 Background 1) Proponent's initial proposal indicated 18 single family lots. (Informal Hearing - Planning Commission - Apri1 23, 1979) 2) Gittleman Corporation and the owner of the adjoining property (Cheyenne Land Company - Neslund) have coordinated a shared road and drainage pattern which has served to blend the two proposed developments into two compatible land use projects. 3) At the April 23, 1979 Planning Commission meeting Mr. Gittleman requested that the preliminary plat (depicting 18 single family lots) be tabled in order that the development proposal be modified to include a density and housing type similar to that planned for the Neslund property to the East (P.U.D. ��16-B) . 4) The Spokesman for the Neslund property responded to the Gittleman withdrawal request by requesting that the Neslund proposal be detained until the Gittleman proposal is revised. This request was based on the changes that might occur on the Gittleman property. 5) The City Council on April 4, 1977 granted concept approval for the Neslund development eontingent upon the request that the property to the west of the northern portion of Neslund property be used for single family units. The property subject to this condition is the northern portion of the Hamman/Bennett property proposed to be developed by the Gittleman Corp. Revised Concept Plan The proponent has prepared a revised plan under the P.U.D. Ordinance. Changed to the original plat include a higher density development and revised site location of the single family and double cluster units on the proposed development, for a total of 35 units. The roadway and drainage pattern in the proponent's revised concept plan is identical to the proposed patterns originally delineated on the initial pxe- liminary plat. Although the two proposed developments have attempted to revise the general concerns and conditions imposed by the City, there still remains the problem of land use conformity and density harmonization. It is imperative that the two developers reach an agreement on blending housing types and densities to ensure that all impending land use impacts are minimized. The proponent's proposed site location (lots) for the single family and double cluster units are as follows: (See concept plan map) 1) The seven single family lots 1ie adjaeent to the existing single family unit neighborhood along Brunswick Avenue South and West of the proposed public street. (The lots are appro�imately 80 feet in width.) ��� Planning Commission May 14, 1979 page 4 2) Eight doubte cluster units are located on the Southeast section of the property North of the Laurel Avenue green belt and directly West of the Neslund property where five single family lots are proposed. 3) Six additional double cTuster units are planned to be located on the North and South lots of the proposed cul-de-sac extending off the proposed public street. Again, these units abut the Neslund property. Staff Recommendations 1) It is suggested that the double cluster units proposed on land lying North of the drainage channel and adjacent to the proposed cul-de-sac be developed as detached single family. A lower density residential land use would complete the continuous single family unit development pattern North of the natural drainage channel barrier. Furfihermore, the recommended low density for this land noted in the Comprehensive Plan would be attained. 2) The proponent's proposed double cluster lots lying adjacent to the taurel Avenue green belt` (100') are consistent with the density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. 3) The critical aspect of both PUD's in question is the coordination and cooperation each proponent must reach to blend and develop two similar developmenfs under separate ownership. The coordination of housing types and densities is essential if wise pianning practices are to be preserved. 4) Because of the small lot width for the doubles and large driveway approaches, the Engineering Department has developed a formula to follow if the P.U.D. is to have a public street; which is: a) No more than 25i of the total length of curb can be driveway in a lot, or b) No more than 25i of the lot at the building setback can be driveway. Mr. Gittleman pointed out he is not in favor of the proposal he is presenting to the Commission. But because of the development of the Neslund parcel which he feels their plan could be improved upon, this is the only logical way to develop the property he owns. He stated that he still favors the previous plan showing single family detached on his property and double as indicated on that plan on the Neslund property. He feels the present proposal of the property, especially the Neslund property, is too crowded and that a more spacious plan could be developed. The following observations were voiced about the proposal . Mr. Eiden of 345 Brunswick Avenue South referred to pages 11 , 12, 13 and 14 of the current Comprehensive Plan, and feels that Gittleman's prior proposal is the best plan for the area. He feels that the density is too high and questioned the accuracy of acreage indicated by the developer. Mr. LeBlanc of 225 Brunswick Avenue South 1 -7�� Planning Commission ��1ay 14, 1979 page 5 expressed concerns about the flood plain, density and traffic. Mr. Robert Asproth of 340 Dakota Avenue South would like single family detached homes. Mr. Hamman of 6001 Glenwood Avenue felt that density is too strong. Mr. David Gillham of 325 Dakota Avenue South liked Gittleman's previous proposal for the area, and felt the density is too high on the two sites under the current plans. Mr. Gittleman felt the approach for this area shouTd be platting, not P.U.D. The Planning Commission, in discussing Items A and B, asked that because of the confusion about the acreage in relation to density, that the following information is to be provided to the staff. The Commission further requested this information be checked by the staff: 1) Total acreage of each site 2) Acreage of streets 3) Acreage of dedicated green area 4) Density based on each of the above Some Commission members felt because of the lndustrial area to the South, railroad track, green belt North af Laurel Avenue and green area for trail East of the railroad, terrain of property, street pattern 'and flood plain, the properties should be developed under a P.U.D. The Commission discussed how the property was ear- marked as a P.U.D. on the Comprehensive Plan. The Comrrrission then discussed the housing policy. Some Commissioners felt that the average frontage of the double units, which is approximately 75 feet, was not wide enough in relation to the 40 foot driveways and 150 feet required for standard platting. It also caused problems for snow plowing. The amount of biacktop in relation to the green area is not aesthetically pleasing. Some of the Commissioners noted these questions would have to be answered in the general plan, and that under concept, land use and density are the major concerns. The Commission then moved to specifically recommend approval or denial of P.U.D. #16-B for Cheyenne Land Company which is for 11 single family and 15 townhouse units. It was moved by Palachek, seconded by Thompson to deny the request for P.U.D. #16-B because the area north of the flood plain should be single family where the double units are. The driveways are too wide for the formula developed by the Engineering Department, also the density should be lower. Upon vote being taken by roll call the following voted in favor of the motion: Thompson, Polachek, Hughes and DeSautels, and the following voted against the said: Specktor, Herje, Forster, Edstrom and Eastes. The motion did not carry. It was then moved by Herje, seconded by Eastes, to recommend approval of P.U.D. #16-B subject to: 1) Allowing up to 41 units 2) The area shown as open space to remain as such 3) Proponent to improve the driveways in the general plan � ��_ Planning Commission May i4, 1979 page b 4) Develop a workable plan for snow plowing 5) Developer to be made aware of the City housing potiey 6) Meeting the requirements of the different governmental bodies on the flood plain and relocating of the ditch 7) Providing the City staff with the breakdown of acreage and density Upon vote being taken by roll call the following voted in favor of the motion: Specktor, Herje, Forster, Edstrom and Eastes. The foltowing voted against the same: Thompson, Polachek, Hughes and DeSautels. The motion carried. The Commission moved to consider P.U.D. #23 for 7 single family and fourteen doubie units for a total of 35 units. It was moved by Herje, seconded by Thompson, to recommend approval of P.U.D. #23 subject to the fol }owing: 1) Redesigning the area adjacent to GJenway Slopes by developing 6 single family lots to match with the Glenway Slopes plat. 2) Redisign the cul-de-sac area. Al1ow up to eight living units. 3) Allow a site density of 30 units. 4) Proponent to improve the driveway for the general plan. 5) Develop a workable plan for snow plowing. 6) Meet the requirements of the different governmental bodies on the flood plan and relocating the ditch. 7) Developer to be made aware of the housing policy of the City. 8) Provide the City staff with the breakdown of acreage and density. Upon vote being taken by roll call , the following voted in favor of the motion: Thompson, Specktor, Herje, Forster, Polachek, Hughes, Eastes and DeSautels. The following voted against the same: None. The motion carried. Commissioner Forster left the meeting at 11 :20 P.M. 7. FILL PERMIT Applicant: John W. Adams Location: 5050 Colonial Drive Request: Raise the Depth of Property Approx. 8 feet The request is to fill an area of land located in the Southeast quadrant of Hwy. #100 and Glenwood Avenue. The Open Space Commission, which no longer exists, earmarked this area as an area to consider �or future preservation. In order to further evaluate the request the following should be supplied by the developers: 1) Area to be filled on the parcel . 2) Plan for cvntrol of fill operation. 3) Specification for the maintenance of site during the fill operation. 4) Type of ground cover to be used when fill operation is completed. 5) Effect of draining on adjacent property. It was moved by Polachek, seconded by Hughes, to recommend the request should be reviewed by the Park and Reereation Commission prior to being considered by the Council . The proponent should supply the five items as listed above prior to the Council considering the request. �,4�� Planning Commission May 14, 1979 Pa9e 7 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Planning Commission developed the fallowing arganizational format to review the three elements of the Land Use Plan section of the Comprehensive Plan, after which these recommendations on each of the elements will be reviewed by the full Commission. A. Land Use - This Element to Consist of 3 Members 1) Forster 2) Thompson 3) �� B. Environmental Resource - This Element to Consist of 3 Members 1) DeSautels 2) Polachek 3) �� C. Housing - This Element to Consist of 5 Members l) Nerje 2) Hughes 3) Edstrom 4) Specktor 5) Eastes �The Chair will contact Commissioners Sehlin and Levy to see which element they would prefer. Each of the three groups will elect their own Chairperson. 9. SCHEDULED MEETIN6 CNANGES Because the next regularly scheduled meeting falls on Memorial Day, the Commission will meet on Wednesday, May 30 at 7:30 P.M. 10. REPORT FROM NOMINATING COMMITTEE - PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS (a) Elecfiion of Officers Commissioner Specktor, Chairperson of the Nominating Committee, stated that the Committee consisting of Commissioners Forster, Levy and Specktor contacted all members of the Planning Commission with respect to their feelings about becoming an officer of the Planning Commission. The Committee then met this evening at 6: 15 P.M. to formulate the Committee's recommendations for the Planning Commission officers for 1979 as foliows: Commissioner Specktor stated that the Nominating Committee recommend Sue Eastes for Chairperson. Chair Edstrom called for norr,inations three times and hearing none, it was moved by Polachek, seconded by Thompson, that nominations be closed an� that a unanimous ballot be cast for Sue Eastes as Chairpersor�. 1�r� Planning Commission May 14, 1979 page 8 Gommissioner Specktor stated that: the Naminating Committee recommended G. Wm. Forster for Vice Chairperson. Chair Edstrom called for nominations three times and, hearing none, it was moved by Her}e, seconded by Hughes that nominations be closed and that a unanimous ballot be cast for G. Wm. Forster as Vice Chairperson. Commissioner Specktor stated that the Nominating Committee recommended Aibert DeSauteis as Secretary. Chair Edstrom called for nominations three times and hearing none, it was moved by Thompson, seconded by Hughes that nominations be closed and that a unanimous ballot be cast. for Albert DeSautels as Secretary. (b) Alternates to Board of Zoning Appeals The Commission unanimously recommended the following to serve as alternates to the Board of Zoning Appeals: First Alternate - Polachek Second Alternate- Hughes Third Alternate - Herje There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion, duly seconded, adjourned at 11 :50 P.M. Ronald Edstrom, Chair Pro-Tem Jon Westlake, Recording Secretary