04-29-96 PC Minutesf~'
Minutes of the Golden Valley
Planning Commission
April 29, 1996
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council
Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called
to order by Chair Prazak at 7pm.
Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, McAleese, Pentel and Prazak;
absent was Lewis. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and
Elizabeth Knoblauch, City Planner.
Approval of Minutes -April 8 1996
MOVED by Prazak, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the April
8, 1996 minutes as submitted.
II. Workshop Session• Discussion of Livable Communities Action Plan Requirements
and General Housing Plan Update
Staff began the session with a summary of changes to the Technical Background that have been
proposed thus far, and a renewed invitation for all commissioners to submit information on any
errors in spelling, style, grammar, usage or logic that may have been spotted. Staff then
proceeded to an explanation of materials received at a recent workshop for Livable Communities
participants. The deadline for submitting Livable Communities local action plans to the Metro
Council is June 30. Staff do not feel that this should be a problem, and want to make sure that
Golden Valley meets the deadline, because Director Grimes wants to apply for Livable
Communities grant money in order to do some planning for housing in Valley Square's Area B.
Commissioner Pentel presented her ideas on the existing housing goals,. objectives, and policies.
She recommended using the six principles of the Livable Communities program rather than the
four goal areas identified in the Golden Valley housing plan. She also favored including a
discussion of the rationales behind all goals, and incorporating some of the research and analysis
that staff had recommended having only in the Technical Background.
Commissioner McAleese also preferred retaining some information that staff considered
extraneous to the plan itself, on the grounds that the City Council and other readers might have a
problem with staff's concept for apared-down plan. He also recommended dealing with the
required Livable Communities action plan before moving along to purely local housing matters,
and keeping the action plan separate from the rest of the housing plan. Pentel liked the idea of
dealing with Livable Communities first, in order to allow more time to think about the overall
housing plan without missing the deadline for this year's Livable Communities funding requests.
Commissioner Groger disagreed, stating that he was ready to move on to final recom-
mendations based on past discussions and staff suggestions. Other commissioners agreed that
the available information was clear and complete and they were comfortable about proceeding to
.the recommendation stage. Johnson and others also expressed support for staff's concept of
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
~~~
April 29, 1996
Page Two
keeping the bulk of the background information in a separate document in order to make the plan
easier to follow and maintain. Chair Prazak was concerned about the potential burden on staff if
the overall housing plan update is to meet the Livable Communities time table.
Staff stated that they and the Metro Council contact staff are in full agreement that the best
approach is to have a unified plan update at this time; the Livable Communities action plan must
eventually become a part of the housing plan anyway. Staff do not want to push the Commission
or the City Council into hasty decisions, but do not see the need for any drastic changes to the
existing housing plan other than clarifying some statements and streamlining the content. The
staff proposal for proceeding is to agree on definitions of key terms, review suggested changes to
existing housing goals, objectives, and policies, and decide whether to incorporate any of the
suggested actions contained in the Technical Background. The Livable Communities material will
fit easily into this framework. Consensus of the Commissioners was to proceed along this path
and see how things work out.
Members Groger and Kapsner noted that the lack of attention to preserving and maintaining
existing neighborhoods appears to be a big failing of the Livable Communities initiative. All
members agreed that Golden Valley needs to retain and strengthen its commitment to housing
quality. The commissioners in general were opposed to putting too much emphasis on very high
density residential development. Family-sized units would be preferred, at moderate densities and
with opportunities for owner-occupancy rather than exclusively rental. Commissioners would like
to see the City develop guidelines for siting a variety of housing types as well as for attracting
desirable developments. Commissioners also agreed that there is a need to reconcile-crime
prevention strategies with housing goals. Changes in regulating group homes emerged as another
concern. Housing maintenance codes came up.
The issue of cost was raised. Staff agreed that this is something the Planning Commission and
the City Council need to keep in mind when establishing new policies and objectives. Some of the
suggested actions in the Technical Background will require financial support for consultants, public
participation facilitators, or research assistants. To perform any useful analysis of housing quality,
data on selected characteristics will need to be collected for each individual dwelling unit in Golden
Valley, and then loaded into a computer data base.
The commissioners reviewed the suggested actions in the Technical Background. After some
clarification of intent, it was determined that none of the suggestions was such a bad idea that it
should be deleted entirely. Staff explained that there are far too many suggestions to incorporate
them all into. the plan at this time; rather the intent is to prioritize and select a few that can be
accommodated in a reasonable time frame with the resources available. At Chair Prazak's
recommendation, each Commissioner will do some personal prioritizing before the next workshop
session, with the results forwarded to staff for correlation and additional drafting work on the items
having the highest average ranking.
III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, and
Board of Zoning Appeals
No reports given.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
lv
1
April 29, 1996
Page Three
IV. Other Business
A. Change to Planning Commission By-Laws
Staff, as requested by the commission, brought back the by-laws with the final language change
for approval. The by-law change would allow any commissioner of the Planning Commission to
serve as the representative to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Section 11.90, Subd. 4(A)(1) of the
City Code already has similar language regarding the Planning Commission representative to the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to approve the
amended Planning Commission by-laws as presented.
B. Second Planning Commission Meeting in May
Due to Memorial Day falling on the scheduled second meeting of the Planning Commission, the
meeting has been cancelled. No public hearing items had been scheduled.
C. Update. on 60-Day Rule
1
Director Grimes reported to the commission that the City of Roseville had missed a deadline for a
Conditional Use Permit for a SuperAmerica store. SuperAmerica can go forward with their plans
without obtaining the necessary permit.
V. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10pm by consent.
n Lewis, Secretary
1