05-22-72 PC Minutes ��
MIidtJTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING tJOMMISSION
May 22, 1972
A regular meetin� of the Gol.den Valley Planning Commission was held at 8:00 P.M.
on Monday, May 22, 1972 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley,
Minnesota.
Chairman Lundsgaard presided and the foll.owing members were pr�sent: Vice Chair-
man Franzen, Commissioners Anderson, Becker, Edstrom, Sampson, Swanson, and
Van Horn. Also present was Village Consultant Carl Dale, Lowell Odland, Village
Ilzgineer, and Recording Secretary Jon Westlake.
Memb�r absent: Commissioner Christiansen.
l, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOVED by Anderson, seconded by Franzen, carried
unanimously, to approve the minutes of the May 8, 1972 meeting as mailed.
2. WAIVER OF THE PLATTING ORDIN�IdCE
Claude 0. 7�rury (Residential)
6931 Olson Memorial Highway
It was moved by Franzen, secanded by Sampson, carried unanimously, to tahle the
request because the proponent was not present.
3. 1�RA.INAGE AND UTILITY EA,SEMENT VA.CATION (Lot 5 Block 1 Golden Valley Industrial
Park)
L. R. Development Company
8810 Tenth �.venue North
Mr. Glen Shaw of L. R. Development Company stated he is requesting to vacate a
20-foot drainage and utility easement running north from Decatur Avenue to the
Minnesota TrJestern Railroad on Lot 5 Block 1 of Golden Valley Industrial Park.
The Recording Secretary pointed out that the Village has no objection to vacating
this easement if the proponent will provide a 17-foot easement running east and
west along the Minnesota Western Railroad from Boone Avenue and connecting to the
17-foot easement as platted on the Rauenhorst plat. The proponent has indicated
he has no objection to deeding to the Village of Golden ValleS� the 17-foot easement.
It was moved by Franzen, seconded by Swanson, carried unanimously, to recommend
vacating the 20-foot drainage and utility easement, subject to the proponent
praviding a 17-foot drainage easement running east and west along the north edge
of said property.
l�. PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING-'I'04�iNH0USE PROPOSAL �7 (General Plan)
Centurion Company (Briarwood Planned Unit Development)
Location: 2lt00-2600 block of Unity Avenue North
53
Planning Commission
May 22, 1972 page 2
Messrs. �ichard Knutson of McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc., Richard Braun
of Bar.ton A.schman Assaciates, Inc., and ftichaid Neslund of Centurion Company
were present to review the proposal with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Neslund pointed out that prior to this project he has developed four other �
areas in Golden Valley. The present proposal is to construct 76 patio homes
on 19.75 acres equaling a density of 3.8 units per acre. They have also pur-
chased five apartment buildings which are contiguous to the site. Three of
the preserrt apartment buildings will be completely remodeled, including both
the interior and e�erior. These apartment buildings then will be sold so that
an individual will own his own unit. The patio homes that are before the
Planning Commission for their consideration contain two or four units within
each structure. The area around the structure will be common area. The units
in each structure will be owned individually, selling for approximately
$30,000. Each unit will have a total of approximately 1,53fl square feet with
three bedrooms. The units will all be two stories with two patios for each
unit. Also, each unit will have a double garage with parking for two additional
cars outside the garage. The complex will also have a swimming pool.
Of the 19 3/4 acres on the site, 10 1/2 acres wi11 be left in a natural state
and 9 1/!� acres will be in the development area. The soil conditions on the
site are broken down into four categories ranging from no peat to 5 to 10 feet,
10 to 15 feet, and 20 feet and over of peat. The soil conditions were used
in laying out the plot plan. Mr. Neslund also stated they intend to have a11
underground utilities, including ornamental street lighting. He also explained
the landscape plan, including sidewalks, which was designed by a landscape
architect.
Mr. R.ichard Braun of Bartan Aschman Associates, Inc. discussed his traffic
report with the Planning Commission pointing out, from the many studies that
have been done around the country, that there does not appear to be any �reat
variation in traffic from single family detached residential units or multiple
family attached residential units. He explained how the traffic could be
accomodated to the south and to the north. Also, a study was done with all
traffic going south to be able to check the volume to capacity ratio. The
complete traffic report is part of the brochure distributed to the Commission
at an earlier Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission asked Mr. Lowell Odland, Village Engineer, to explain
the flood plain profile of this area. Mr. Odland pointed out the flood plain
profile is designed under the absolute worst conditions that could oecur.
With a 100 year storm the water would reach an elevation of 8Ltlt feet. But
the 8It1�-foot elevation is not a realistic number now because of ponds that
have been constructed upstream and the establishment of the Bassetts Creek
Flood Control Commission. Commissioner Anderson stated her concern is not
water elevation but one of authority as to Bassetts Creek Flood Control
Commission adopting the management plan as to whether this proposal would
have to go before that Commission. Mr. Odland stated this proposal could go
to the Bassetts Creek Flood Control Commission for their review. Approximately
two years ago the Bassetts Creek Flood Control Commission was asked to review
the multiple zoning request for this area.
��
Planning Commission
May 22, 1972 page 3
Mr. Odland pointed out that the developer of this particular project is
pronosing to provide a ponding area for holding action to discharge at
a later time to Bassetts Creek, which will provide the same runoff the site
now has; thus, it will not increase the flooding potential with direct
runoff to Bassetts Creek. What we do not want to do is reduce the volume
of storage that is available now, but to try to increase it.
Mr. George Bonniwell of s126 Minnaqua 'Drive, acting as spokesman for the
residents, pointed out the following in opposition to the proposal: the area
arou.nd the pro�osal is residential, the area contains a lot of wild life
(the Village should preserve by purchasing this area), buffer to Highway 100,
area has a history of flooding, and he feels alI traffic will go south
th�ough the residential arza. Other residents voiced their concern as
follows: Mr. Frank Conner of 1920 Toledo Ave. traffic and fire protection,
Mr. Y3illits of 5120 Minnaqua L�rive, articles from newspaper on flooding and
referred. to the Goals and Policy Study Committee Report. Mr. Lowell P].00ster
of 251�5 Regent A.venu� was concerned about flooding and traffic.
Gary Bickel, Chairman of the Environmental Corrmission, revie�aed the minutes
of a special meeting of the Environmental Commission held on May 18, 1972
with respect to this request.
P�Ir. Carl Dale, Village Consul..tant, reviewed his report with the Planning
Commissi�n. The report is as follows:
"Planning Considerations
l. The request is to construct 76 patio homes on 19.?5 acres of which
2.Q2 acres ar� presently zoned multiple and 17.7Lt acres are zoned open.
The site is located east of Highway No. 100 and north of Minnaqua A.venue;
site features include an existing park to the North and Bassetts Creek
running through a portion of the property.
2. There have been various proposals for the use of this property in the past
and a substantial file of material exists based upon these earlier proposals
and reviews by the Yillage. In October of 1967 a portion of the praperty
was proposed institutional development and the Planning Commission recom-
mended denial. �.lso in 1967, M-2 zoning was requested and this received
Planning Commissian approval but was denied by action of the Village Council.
On February 23, 1970, another multiple zoning request was considered and
this was approved by the Plann�.ng Commission with the following conditions
r ecorrmended:
a) Nleet requirements of Bassetts Creek Flood Control Commission.
b) Submit grading plan.
c} Provide 50 ft. drainage and utility easement adjacent to west side of
Creek.
d) No building to be permitted below 8lt1.5 contour.
ApparEntZy this request was abandoned later following considerable
neighborhood on�osition.
55
Planning Commission
May 22, 1972 page �
3. The current request i� for "patio homes" which are new to the Twin Cities
area and currently being developed in various suburban cammunities through-
out the Metropolitan Area. This is a form of clustered single family
homes having many of the advantages of home ownership such as a pxivate
outdoor living area but with much of the open green space being commonly
owned under a homeowners association. Sales to date indicate that this
housing is especially attractive to "smpty nesters" (childZess couples
and older persons) who would normally be located in rental apartment units.
�. The applicant has prepared rather detailed pl�,ns which go beyond that
required for mere concept review and approval. Apparently, the request
is now for approval of the General Plan of Dev�lopment as called for under
the PUD requirements and procedur�s. If approved, such additional detailed
plans as requested would be submitted and detailed PUD permit drafted for
action by the Vil�age Council.
s. The current version of the Comprehensive Village (Municipal} Plan calls
for a planned unit devslopment approach to this property for several
reasons including but not necessarily limited to the following:
a) Proximity to the existing apartment buildings and physical conditions
which do not suggest a desirability for singly-family development.
b) Potential traffic problems in the general vicir.ity.
c) Flood plain problems and a desire to protect Bassetts Creek.
d} The potential for preserving natural green space in the area to relieve
the monotony of urban congestion and density.
e} A variety of complicating factors which makes it desirable to
maximize Communit� control over development in the area.
6. While not part of the PUD request, the applicant a,pparently has also pur-
chased the three apartment buildings between the site in question and
Highway No. 100 and has plans for up-grading or re-habilitating these
units an� the site; this should be considered a very welcome improvement
by the Village. The apartment site and the patio home area would be
related in that the site plan indicates a common landscaped area with an
inter-related driveway system. Also, there would be a common pond area.
This relationship should be noted in the PUD permit if granted, and it
may even be desirable to include the apartments in the PUD.
7. The applicant has submitted considerable information and apparently an
indepth planning effort has been made by a design team consisting of
developers, planners, architects, landscape architects, and traffic con-
sultants. A planning-informational report has been submitted which contains
the following exhibits:
1. Location Map
2. Vicinity Map
3. Proposed Site Plan
�. Preliminary Plat Plan
5. Proposed Landscape and Sidewalk Plan
6. Proposed Lighting Plan
7. Proposed Grading Plan
8. Proposed Utilities Plan
�V
Planning Commission
May 22, 1972 page 5
9. Poolside Perspective
10. Patio Home Perspective
11. Proposed Elevation Plan
12. Proposed Floor Plan
13. Traffic Component (Letter)
8. The gross density of the project (excluding the existing apartments) is
3.8 units per acre which is comparable to average urban �ensity single-
family home areas developed under conventional platting methods. Land
coverage is rather good T.�i.th the proposal being to "cllzster" the housing
which permits re�tention of a large open, green space. A�praximately one-
half of the project would be left as undeveloped open space.
9, At this time, there are apparentl�r no plans by the Bassetts Creek Commission
calling for public acquisition of property in this area and earlier rec-
ommendations stated only that adequate water storage area be retained.
Grading plans and relationships to the Creek flow and water level needs
should be evaluated and commented upon by the Village Engineer.
10. The affect of traffic produced by development in this area is a concern and
various reports are availabl� for review. The concern is with the future,
fc�llo�ring planr�ed irr�pr�v�zner�t� ta Hi�kaway No. 100. Reports by two firms
(Barton-�.schman A.ssociates, Inc. as�c� Agneberg-Sankstone and Associates, Inc. )
conclude that residential development of the density and type proposed
will not create any serious probl�ms for either the existing or proposed
traffic circulation system in the general area. Obviously, the current
development proposal would create no more nor less traffic proble�ms than
would be created by conventional single-family usage of the land.
11. It is quite true, also, that no change from the current situation would
result if the land remains vacant. For the land to remain vacant, however,
requires public acquisition ana there are no current plans nor demonstrated
need for such public a�quisition. An alternative, of course, is for any
private citizens so interested to purchase the property to leave it in an
undeveloped state.
12. The current pl�.n proposal would seem to offer the community several advantages:
a�.;. .�, rather good "buffer" between intense uses (Hi�hway No. 100 and apartments)
an� single family homes with said buffer consisting of both well designed
homes and quite adequate open, green space.
b) Ways and means to retain the main portion of Bassetts Creek in a natural
state with such land being dedicated for public use and preservation.
c) Provision of a new form of housing as an addition to the diversity of
housing types in Golden Valley.
d) A quality housing project that would seem to meet public needs while
sti11 being subject to the maximum possible public controls under pro-
visions of a PUD permit.
13. If the project is recommended for approval the following should be considered:
a) More detailed plans should be submitted as may be requested based upon
analysis of the project by Village Staff, Commissions, and individual
citizens.
57
Planning Commission
May 22, 1972 page 6
b) The site plan should be modified to expand the project construction
and hom�oV�ner�s association control to �0 ft, beyond the easterly
buildings or 75 ft. west of Bassetts Creek. Proposed landscaping
shauld be limited to this private area. Future landscaping or other
changes in the dedicated open space area should be a Village responsibility.
c) A detailed PUb permit should be drafted noting all required specific
conditions.
l�. It would appear that a wide range of both public and private objectives
could be attained by this plan proposal with little or no public e�ense.
ls. At this time, it would appear that public ownership of the Bassetts Creek
open space area would be preferrable to that of control by the homeowners
association since this will provide maximum public control and use with
no possibilities later negotiating difficulties with a private group.
16. Properly done, this project could be an excell�nt example of private and
public interest working together to attain mutually beneficial objecti�es."
It was then moved by Sampson, seconded by Edstrom, to recommend approval of
the General Plan, subject to the following;
1. That 10� of the three-bedroom units be constructed at a cost not
greater than $25,000 blending in homogenously to the architecture of
the surrounding units.
2. Section 13 of the Planning Considerations including deeding the area
east of Bassetts Creek to the Village of Golden Valley including a
75-foot easement on the west side contiguous to Bassetts Creek.
3. T3evelop a detailed plan showing how traffic will be handled to the
south of the project - to be reviewed by the Village �ngineering Dept.
1�. Proposal to be reviewed by the Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission
for their approval.
It was then moved by Van Horn, seconded by Franzen, to amend the original motion
as stated in Number 1 above by removing all the language in Number 1 of the
motion above because the units will sell for approximately $30,000. Upon vote
being taken by roll call, the following voted in favor thereof: Franzen, and
Van Horn. The follawing voted against the same: Anderson, Becker, Fdstrom,
Sampson and Swanson. The motion for amendment did not carry.
It was then moved by Van Horn, seconded by Franzen, to amend the original
motion to include in the PUD the five apartment buildings owned by the
developer known as 2300 and 2301 Unity Avenue and 2l�00, 2lt10, and 2lt20 Lilac
Drive Atorth (does not necessarily include such thing as one home owner�s
association). Upon vote being taken by roll call, the following voted in
faeor thereof: Anderson, Becker, Fdstrom, Franzen, Sampson, and Van Horn.
The following voted agsinst the same: Swanson. The motion for amendment carried.
It was then moved by Franzen, seconded by Swanson, to defer action on the request
until the Bassetts Creek Flood Control Commission has reviewed the proposal.
Upon vote being taken by roll call, the following voted in favor thereof:
Franzen and Swanson. The following voted against the same: Anderson, Becker,
Edstrom, Sampson, and Van Horn. The motion did not carry.
Upon vote being taken by roll call on the amended motion, the following voted in
favor thereof: Anderson, Becker, Edstrom, Sampson, and Van Horn. The following
voted against the same: Franzen and Swanson. The Chairman declared the motion
carried.
�8
Planning Commission
May 22, 1972 page 7
5. G�tERAL
(a) Valley Club condominium - 10-story apa�t�m�nt building
South of Highway 55, West of France Avenue, East of Meadow Lane,
and North of Woodstock Avenue
Lots 212-222, 281-289, 320-328, 395-�03
The Village Council at their April 17, 1972 meeting considered an appeal of
denial from the Baard of Zoning Appeals on the Va11ey Club condominium. The
Village Council deferred ruling on the appeal until the June 5, 1972 Village
Council meeting, allowing the proponent time to review his proposal with the
Planning Commissian for their recommendations.
Because of the failure of the developer to submit material for staff review,
and not giving the Planning Corimission an opportunity to look at the over all
development, and not being present at this meeting, it was moved by Edstrom,
seconded by Franzen, carried unanimously, to take no action on the proposal.
(b) �i.scussion - Recreational V�hicles in Front Yard Areas
The Village Council at their May l, 19'�2 meeting asked the Planning Commission
to consider preliminary ordinance material with respect to Recreational
Equipment Storage and d�t�rmine from this if some guide line or ordinance
should be established. The Planning Commission asked the staff for a pre-
liminary report on Recreational Vehicle Storage.
(c) League of Ulomen Voters meeting - Housing and Redevelopment
The Planning Commission was informed of a meeting sponsored by the League of
Women Voters with Mr. Harold Moriarty, former chairman of the St. Paul Housing
and Redevelopment Authority, to be held at 4925 Dawnview Terrace on May 25, 1972
at 8:00 P.M.
(d) Infarmal Meeting - Comments at T�eighborhood Meetings
The Planning Commission met informally at Commissioner Becker�s residence on
May l�, 1972 at 7:30 P.M. with all Planning Commission members present, including
Larry Geisler of Midwest Planning and Research, Inc., to continue discussion on
comments relating to Planning issues raised at the neighborhood meetings.
There being no forther business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at at 12:I�5 A..M.
Chairman Warren Lundsgaard Lowell Swanson, Secretary