04-10-72 PC Minutes 36
MII3tiTES OF THE GOLD�T VALLEY
PLANNING CX7MMIuSION
April 10, 1972
A regular mee�i�ng of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 7:30 P.M.
on Monday, April 10, 1972 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Chairman Lundsgaard presided and the following members were present: Vice
Chairman Franzen, Commissioners Anderson, Becker, Christiansen, Sampson, Swanson,
and Van Horn. Also present was Village Consultant Carl Dale and Recordin�
Secretary Jon Westlake.
Members absent: Commissioner Edstrom.
l. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: I�VED by Sampson, seconded by Van Horn, carried
unanimously, to approve the minu.tes of the March 27, 1972 meeting as mailed.
2. PUBLIC IPIFURMATIONAL MEETING - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (.�mended .�pplication)
Concept �pproval (2-A)
townhause proposal - Caswell and Associates
Richarci T�empse;�, owner
Locatior�: South of Winsdale Street, East of Louisiana Avenue, and North
of the Golden Valley Golf Course
Mr. Carl Dale, Village Consultant, explained the location of the amended planned
unit development, described as Lots 11�5-156; 229-2lt0, 2l�1-258, and 318-336 Belmont.
He then referred to the previous planning report as discussed at the A�ril 12, 1971
Planning Commission meeting. Mr. 13a1e then reviewed his report which contained
additional planning considerations on the amended planned unit development as
follows:
"Part II. A.dditional Planning Considerations.
l. A. revised site plan has been submitted; the current request for 52 townhouse
units; the earlier request was for 70 units. The applicant also has apparently
included eight platted lots lying east of Jersey Avenue with the question being
one acceptable land use for this area.
2. The new site plan seems far superior to the earlier submission for a variety
of reasons with the most important being:
a) Reduced density - The current proposal would result in a total of 52 units
as compared to !t8 if single family homes would be da-
veloped. The original density with 70 units would have
been 8 per acre while the revised density would be
approximately 5 per acre.
b) Added Green Space - The new site plan provides additional open space with
the relationship between structural ground caverage
and open space rather good and certainly far superior
to that provided in the earlier plan.
37
Planning Commission
April 10, 1972 page 2
3. The proposed Zoning District Map based upon the Comprehensive Village Plan
as developed to date would place the area in the SFU residential category
which is designed to recognize limited areas of smaller lots platted some
time ago in the Village. While the Village Plan would recognize the
concept of "density zoning" in this area, it would be difficult to justify
approval of multiple family density� in excess of that which would result
from utilization of the SFU �Tistrict for .si.ngle family home construction.
!t. Under the normal application of density zoning principles, a total of not
more than !t8 dwelling units would be considered as meeting the criteria
established by sound planning and zoning application and procedures. The
area does not meet all criteria established for the proper location of
multiple family units of higher density (i.e. density above that which
would result from development of single family homes). The location of
the site in relation to the major street system alone would be a serious
violation of planned traffic patterns.
5. For reasons noted in the earlier report, the project would seem to have
considerable merit and assuming quality construction, good landscaping,
and the like-the project should not be detrimental to the physical, social,
or economic environment. There is even a strong possibility that the
project as planned could be more beneficial to the neighborhood than would
be single fami.ly homes developed under the difficult physical and platting
conditions.
6. The question of proper use for the area lying east of Jersey A.venue has
different conditions and perhaps should be treated in the following manner:
a) Treat as a separate project not part of this planned unit development.
As such it could best be treated as a single fa►nily home site with the
development of four (!�) single family homes. This is a less difficult
site to develop and doss not logically relate in any way to the site
p1an for the area to the west of Jersey. An alternate use would be
to retain this area as public open space although maintenance and
management could be a problem.
b) Use the area as density credit for development to the west and maintain
the area as open green space via one of the following methods:
(1) Maintai.n ownership and maintenance under a home owner association, or
(2) �edicate the land to the Village as part of the open space system
(see policy and goals related to maintenance of open type environment).
Summary
Provided the density of this project is maintained at a low level and quality
site planning and construetion can be obtained, the concept would seem sound
and not be detrimental to the environment. Properly done, it is possible that
this project could actually serve to improve the environment.�'
38
Planning Commission
April 10, 1972 page 3
A.fter Mr. Dale finished reviewing his report, Mr. Frank Berg, representing
Richard Dempsey the property owner who is proposing the amended PUD application,
addressed the Commission. Mr. Berg stated their application is for concept
approval on a proposal of 52 townhouse units on 8.5 acres of land containing a
density of 6 units per acre. Included in the layout plans are eight 50-foot lots
which are to the east of Jersey Avenue and south of Knoll Street. One proposal
for these 8 lots as stated by Mr. Berg would be four (�) residential detached
single family homes on 100-foot lots. Also, he pointed out that the 8 lots are
not included in the $.5 acres.
Mr. Berg then presented a slide presentation including slides of good and bad
soil on the site, area that will remain in a natural state, and the trees they
plan to leave on the site. He stated that the units will be 1600 square feet each
with two bedrooms each. The site contains ponding areas and a trail system.
All units will be for sale.
The Planning Commission asked several questions about the proposal. The more
predominant questions were: l.) Was he familiar with the present concept of a
trail system in Goldsn Valley and had he considered tying in his trail proposal
to that of the Golden Valley concept? Mr. �empsey stated he would be concerned
about the general public using the townhouse trail system, but he would be open
to considering tying in their trail system with the over all proposal.
2.) The garages face the outer perim�ter of the complex, and what thought ha,d
been given to facing the garages away from the surroUnding residences? Mr. Berg
stated they had considered this, but the cost of driveways would be too great
because of the peat. The deepest area of peat they found was 23' deep. (Also,
questions on the natural area and what areas were to be landscaped.)
Mr. Robert Hamilton of 1l�35 Louisiana Avenue North acted as spokesman for the
majority of the residents living in this area. Ntr. Hamilton explained their
concern that under the amended planned unit development application they feel
there is not that much change from th� previous �empsey propasal which he
. received concept approval on 29 units by the Planning Gommission and Village
Council. As far as the proposal is concerned, the main objection is density, and
because there is an opinion that there are !�8 building lots, this should not
dictate a proposal of 52 units. He also spoke of traffic and said the proposed
density would decrease their property value. Mr. Hamilton reminded the Planning
Commission of a petition he presented to them with more than 150 signatures opposed
to the first application by Mr. �3empsey. Other residents opposed to this planned
unit development were Mr. Stanley Horn� 1$55 Hampshire Lane, who wanted the area
left as it is. Mr. Marvin Davis of 6808 Plymouth Avenue and Mrs. Hodgin of
6812 Winsdale Street questioned the Merger of Title Ordinance on 50-foot lots.
Mrs. Ted Fryar, 1231 Hampshire, was concerned about traffic. Mrs. Marlin Finch,
1l�Ol Maryland, Mrs. Robert Gavigan, 71t00 Maryland Avenue, and Gary Olson,
ll��t0 Maryland, were concerned about density. Mrs. Jochander, 6938 Winsdale Street,
was concerned the units would be rented. Mr. Earl Petersen, 1300 Kelly Drive,
and Mr. Dick McDaniels, 1525 Louisiana Ave., were concerned about drainage.
Mrs. Arthur Meyer stated the Village, should buy the land, and Mr. Nick Loscheider,
Il�25 Louisiana Avenue, was concerned that the proposal when constructed would
not look like the presentation. Mr. Phifer of 1886 Hampshire Lane stated he is
in favor of the proposal.
39
Planning Commission
April 10, 1972 page �
Hearing no more comments from the residents, it was moved by Swanson, seconded
by Franzen, carried unanimously, to close the public hearing.
Chairman Warren Lundsgaard then reviewed the proposal and the comments made
by the residents, after which a general discussion was held by the Planning
Commission. One of the points discussed at considerable length by the
Commission was':;the number of units to be allowed on the site.
It was then moved by Franzen, seconded by Sampson, to recommend approval of
the concept plan subject to:
l.) The units to be sold as stated by the proponent (controlled by separate
utilities, services, and building code).
2.) Allowing a density range between 29 and 35 units with the ultimate density
approved in the general plan and should contain a provision for 10� of
the units to be in a moderate cost range blended in by a homogenous type
architectux e-having a concern about people with lower income or r�tired
people who want to stay in Golden Valley, giving them a life style similar
to what they are used to.
3.) Lots 253-256 and 321-32l� Belmont contain four (1�) single family detached
houses on 100-foot lots.
It was moved by Christiansen, seconded by Swanson, to amend the motion as
stated in Number 2, rEmovirig the following language: "the general plan should
contain a provision for 10� of the units to be in a moderate cost range".
Upon vote being taken by roll call, the following voted in favor thereof:
Christiansen and Swanson. The following voted against the same: Franzen,
Anderson, Sampson, Van Horn, and Becker. The motion for amendment did not carry.
�t was then moved by Anderson, seconded by Becker, to amend the maximum density
to !�0 units in numb�r 2 of the original motion above. Upon vote being taken
by ro11 ca11., the following voted in favor th�reof: Anderson, Sampson, Van Horn,
and Becker. The following voted against the same: Franzen, Christiansen,
and Swanson. The Chairman declarsd the motion carried.
Upon vote being taken by roll call on the amended motion, the following
voted in favor thereof: Franzen, Anderson, Sampson, Van Horn, and Becker.
The following voted against the same: Christiansen and Swanson. The Chair-
man declared the motion carried.
3. PRII,INIINARY RESTDIIVTIAL PLAT
Russel.l's Wirth Park Addition
Robert L. Russell, owner
Seven (7) residential lots approximately 300' East of Meadow Lane,
360� North of Glenwood Avenue, and West of Theodore �nlirth Park
The Chairman referred the Planning Commission to the March 27, 1972 Planning
Commission minutes with respect to this plat. Carl Dale, Consultant, reviewed
the proposed plat with the Commission and the planning considerations and
recommendations as stated i.n the March 27, 1972 Planning Commission minutes.
���
Planning Commission
April 10, 1972 page 5
Mr. Robert L. Russell, the pr�pert�r owner, Was present. He stated he had ex-
plored the possibility of planned uni� development for this area, as requested
by the Planning Commission, and *�aas advised by a site developer that due to the
size and location of the �arcel, the most logical method for development of the
property location of the parceZ, the most logical method for development of the
property would be platting. Because of this, he has chosen to continue his
procedure for a Residential plat. Mr. Arthur Ostland of Egan Field and Tdowak
was present to answer questions on drainage, utilities, and the pro�osed extension
of Roanoke Circle.
Mr. Shelr�on Tremblatt of !tQ10 Roanoke Circle was present and asked how they
proposed to han�ie the c�raina�e an the new plat.
The Planning Commission noted that the prog�osal is for seven (7) resiciential lots.
All lots exceed the 12,��0 square foot minimum. Lots 1, 2, and 3, of Block 2
are 9� feet in width, but all other parcels are I00 feet or more in frontage.
The Planning Commission also rsquested that before the developer appears before
the Commission for preliminary plat approval, notices should be sent to abutting
property ownErs.
It was moved by Swanson, seconded by Chrisfi,iansen, carried unanimously, to approve
the concept of a residential plat contain�ng seven (7) single famil� lots, noting
the following requirements:
1. an easement should be provided to the Feriss property
2. removal of two small structures on this parcel.
!t. WAIVE.R OF TH�' PLATTING O.�tDINAI�CE
(a) R.obert �. Welty & Sons Construction Company (Residential)
1012 and 1016 Winn�tka Avenue North
Because the proponent was not present, it was moved by Franzen, sec�nded by
Christiansen, carriec3 unanimously, to defer actian on this request.
(b) Premier Realty, Inc. (light Industrial
8621 Tenth .Avenue North
This request is to divide Lot 9 into two (2) parcels. Mr. John Smuda was present
from Premier Realty, Inc. to answer questions regarding the proposed division.
The Planning ;ommission in discussing the proposal was concerned about a 25-foot
jog on the Southeast corner of Parcel A, where the south line of the adjoining
parcel to �the east is further to the north. The Plannin� Commisszon pointed otzt
that in Industrial parks these areas usually become unkempt or unsightly. If
screening, green area, or building setback are adjacent to an irregular lot line
such as this, the proponent may ask for a waiver basing it on the irregular lot
line. The Planning Commission also noted the proponent did not have a plot plan
showing the proposed layout of Lot A� to determine if it met the Village
requirements.
It was moved by Franzen, seconded by Anderson, to approv� the waiver of the
Platting Ordinance. Upon vote being taken by roll call, the following voted i.n
favor thereaf: Frdnzen, �nderson, and Van Horn. The following voted against
��
Planning Commission
April 10, 1972 page 6
the same: Christiansen, Sampson, Swanson, and Becker. The mo�ion did not carry.
(c) Centurion Company (Multiple)
21t00-2lt20 Lilac Drive Idorth
The request is to divide off the east portion of the parcel and add that exact
square footage to the north of the parcel. The reason for the request is
that the proponent plans to build an additional section of garages for the
apartment complex.
The Planning Commission noted that this proposed property line change will not
violate the building setback, green area, or the units per acre as required
under the M-1 zoning. The proponent is in the process of completely remodeling
-the interior and the e�rterior of the apartment building and garages.
It was moved by Christiansen, seconded by Sampson, carried unanimously, to
approve the waiver of the Platting Ordinance.
5• STREET VACATION (portion of Golden Valley Road)
The r�ecording 8ecretary informed the Planning Commission of the location of the
proposed street vacation and also pointed out that the Engineering Department
is oppased to this vacation because of underground utilities. The staff,
recognizing the problem, feels one solution without vacating the street would
be the installation of curb and gutter with "No Parking'� signs.
Mr. Duane Ferguson, 6306 Golden Valley Road, and Mrs. Brandenberg, 6320 Golden
Valley Road, were present as petitioners requesting the vacation. Mr. Ferguson
stated the reason for the request is that vehicles turn around in this area
making it difficult to maintain his lawn, and cars park in this area also.
It was moved by Franzen, seconded by Swanson, carried unanimously, to defer
action on this reqnest to the April 2)�, 1972 Planning Commission meeting,
allowing the IIzgineering �3epartment timE to make a sketch of the location of
the utilities and present travelway of Golden Valley Road.
6. ACCEPTANCE OF APFLICATION FOR PUD #6
For a general plan of a proposed plat lrnown as Hidden Village Townhouses
located at 6100 Golden Valley Road
Chairman Warren Lundsgaard informed the Commission they have received a petition
for a general plan to plat Hidden Village Townhouses. The townhouses are
already constructed and by platting the parcel the proponent will be able to
sell the i.ndividual units.
The Planning Commission was in agreement to set May 8, 1972 as the publi.c
information meeting date for PUD �#6 for a plat of Hidden Village Townhouses.
7. GENERAL
(a) Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce
Transportation Cornmittee I�eeting
4�
Planning Cominission
April 10, 1972 page 7
Commissioner Christiansen informed the Planning Commission of a mee�ing he
attended on March 29, 1972 with respect to tr�.nsit, pointing out that the
Federal government won't pgrticipate in further funding on the transportation
plan of this area until a decision is reached on a system. Mr. Christiansen
also explained five possible roles that could be played by public transit.
(b) �evelopment of Valley Springgate Shopping Area
South of County Road 66 and West of Highway 100
Commissioner Christiansen reviewed with the Planning Commission a draft of a
memorandum the Commission had asked him to write regarding citizen�s concern
over the dsv�lopment of the Vall�y Springgate shopping area. This concern was
brought out in the neighborhood meetings.
It was moved by Van Horn� seconded by Swanson, carried, to forward the memorandum
to the Village Council. Commissioner Franzen abstained. The following is the
memorantium;
nTo the Golden Valley Mayor & Councilmen:
The informational hearings recently held by the Planning Commission to
explain the comprehensive plan for the Village brought out one predoma:nant
area of concern.
In each of the five neighborhood meetings, the citizens were i.nterested and
concerned in knowing what kind of development is taking place at the Byerly Food
Store area adjacent to County Road 66 and Highway 100. Their eomplaints related
to the present traffic conjestion in the area, the dangerous problem which already
exists in getting in and out of the complex, and the anticipated further traffic
and parking problem which will be expected from further construction in the area.
Many people were concerned about whether some of this traffic is going to be
routed to the south onto St. Croix which would further increase traffic in the
residential area.
The Planning Commission has some further concerns about the development in
this area and the possible long range ramification on the Village, the quality of
general environment, movement of traffic and dispensing of commercial areas within
the Village. A.lmost simultaneously taking place but seemin�ly unknown to the
Village's boards and commissions were:
A. upgrading of the Highway 100 and County Road o6 intersection
B. Byerly petition to BZA for a variety of waivers and to enable
construction by Walgreen �rug Store and 7 smaller stores
C. petition by Byerly complex to Council for two additional waivers
Tf. application for PUD for office buildings and apartment houses
just west of Byerly complex
F. the proposed comprehensive plan calling for a village center
area elsewhere in the Village
43
Planning Commission
Apri1 10, 1972 page 8
A great deal of congestion, dangerous ingress and egress to the Byerly
complex and an already full parking lot has been observed at times by Planning
Commission members. Ftizrther development, particularly with high turnover types
of businesses, would seem to have the potential of creating a new problem
similar to the already existing one in the Winnetka and Highway 55 area of
the Village.
The Commission urges a complete review by the Village staff on both traffic
and construction of this potential problem area, including recommendations on
what steps may help rec3uce adverse impact on this area. Perhaps a reduction
or cut-back in construction plans might still be accomplished, if indicated.
Golden Valley Planning Commission"
(c) Report on I-391�
Chairman Warren Lundsgaard reported to the Planning Commission regarding the
meeting heZd by the Village Council on I-39I� whicn he and Commissioner Swanson
attended. Others present at the meeting were Mr. Cur�is Green, Ih�. David Brown,
and members of the Village staff.
(d) Nominating Committee for Election of Officers
Chairman Warren Lundsgaard stated the Council has extended Commissioner Franzen's
and Commissioner Swanson�s terms to October 1, 1972 because of the planning
study. Mr. Lundsgaard pointed out that all appointments axe filled. The
Planning �atnmission can proceed with the annual election of officers for 1972.
The Chairman appointed a nominating committee consisting of Lowe11 Swanson,
13on Franzen, and Glen Christiansen for the election of officers for the remain-
der of 1972. The Committee is to report at the next Planning Commission meeting.
(e) Chamber of Commerce - Presentation on proposed plan
The Planning Commission, noting that the April 3, 1972 Village Council minutes
requested Midwest Planning and Research, Inc. to meet with the Chamber of Commerce
regarding the Comprehensive Development Plan, asked the Recording secretaxy to
contact the individuals involved to set up said meeting. Commissioner Christiansen
stated he would see that a representative of the Lions Club would attend the
meeting.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 12:35 A.M.
Chairman Warren Lundsgaard Secretar;� Lowell 5wanson