09-10-79 PC Minutes � ��
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 1979
A regular meeting of the Golden Va11ey Planning Commission was held at 7:30 PM
on Monday, September 10, 1g79 at the Civic Center, 7800 Goiden Vallev Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Chair Eastes presided and the following members were present: Commissioners
Edstrom, Forster, Herje, Hughes, Levy, Polachek, Sehlin, Specktor and Thompson.
Also present were Mike Miller and Jeff Christensen of the City Staff.
Members absent: Commissioner DeSautels.
l . Approval of Minutes: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Hughes, carried
unanimously to approve the minutes of the August 27, 1g79 Planning Commission
meeting as amended as follows:
Item #21 of the motion to approve P.U.D. #25, change "specifically
not to use a noise abatement wall" to "not necessarily a noise
abatement wa) 1"; and that item 3b) Comprehensive Plan be changed
to include that a motion was made by Herje, seconded and carried
unanimously that a tetter be sent to the City Council with the
Housing Element of the Camprehensive Plan, saying that if the
Planning Commission had not received a response from the Councit
by September 6th, that the Planning Commission 's version of the
Comprehensive Plan would be sent to the Metropolitan Council .
2. Plat Review - "Golden Valley Estates, Plat II"
Applicant: Dennis D. Gon}�ea and Darrel E. Gonyea
Location: Approximately 200 feet east of the intersection of
Boone Avenue and Plymouth Avenue
Request: Replat of Lots 22, 23 and 24, Block 1 and Lots 8,
9 and 10, Block 2, Golden Valley Estates along
with the ad}acent vacted right-of-way of Castle
Court street.
Mike Miller of the City staff reviewed the proposal with the Planning Commission,
noting that the redesign of Golden Valley Estates with a cul-de-sac and rearrange-
ment of lots is a better land utilization than the previous proposal , with de-
finite advantages to the City. He pointed out that there would be less street
maintenance involved, short utility service lines, and that the existing storm
sewer along the westerly boundary of the proposed development would not be
more accessible to the City for possible maintenance and repair by being
located at the rear of the lots rather than in the sideyards, as in the pre-
vious proposal . In response to questions of the Commission members, he stated
that the development of the adjacent property had been postponed indefinitely,
although it would eventually be redesigned to deal with the soil problems which
have been encountered there.
i ��;':�3
Minutes of the Planning Commission
September 10, 1979 Page 2
Mr, Dennis Gonyea, proponent of the proposed development, was present for
the request. He said that he felt all the changes in the redesign were
a plus, including the trees which would be saved. He also said that he
had met with the proposed developers of the adjacent property and had
discussed with them the problem soil conditions encountered, and their
possible future approach to the proposed development.
The Commission, in discussion of the request, was concerned about any pos-
sible -�roblems which might be created for the adjacent property owners
by the redesign of the Golden Valley Estates proposed development. They
were assured that there were no dramatic changes in the proposed develop-
ment, and that the number and size of the lots was the same as in the
prvious request. It was also pointed out that the purpose of the two-
ended street running through the two adjacent devetopments in the previous
proposal was to provide access to Golden Valley Estates, to tie the two
developments together, and to avoid a dead-end street. The Commission
determined that no hardship would be created for the adjacent property
by the proposed redesign of Golden Valley Estates.
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Specktor, carried unanimously to recom-
mend approval of the replatting of Lots 22, 23 and 24, Block l and Lots
8, 9 and 10, Block 2 Golden Valley Estates. Inasmuch as the developer
provided the required land or cash in lieu of with the originat plat,
it would not be necessary to do it again.
3. Discussion and Recommendation - "7he Duties of the Planning Commission"
Chair Eastes reviewed with the Commission, the Councit 's request at their
joint meeting of May 14, 1g79 that the Commission review their proposed
duties and any additions, corrections, changes or deletions and submit
them to the Council by the end of this year.
The Commission members stated after brief discussion of the Proposed Motion
with Duties of the Planninq Commission and the City Ordinance outlining
its duties, that they had no further changes to submit.
In refernce to Item e. l . of the Proposed Motion with Duties of the Plan-
ning Commision, Commission members requested that City staff report to the
Commission of funding as it is available to the community, so that re-
commendations can be made to the City Council on the use of avai }able
funds.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, it was on
motion, duly seconded, adjourned at 8:30 PM.
Sue Eastes, Chair Beth Malmgren, Recording Secretary
� ,