06-12-72 PC Minutes ��
MINUTFS OF TH� GOLDEPd VALLEY
PLAiJNITdG OOMMISSION
June 12, 197�
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Flanning Commission was held at 8:00 P.M.
on Monday, June 12, 1972 at the Czvic Center, 7800 Golden Va11ey Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Chairman Lundsgaard presided and the following members were present: Vice
Chairman Franzen, Commissioners Anderson, Becker, Christiansen, Edstrom, Sampson,
Swanson, and Van Horn. Also present was Village Consultant Car1 17a1e and
Recording Secretary Jon Westlake.
Members absent: none.
1. APP�VAL OF MI�TUTr.�"S.. : MOVED by Anderson, seconded b�r Franzen, carried
unanimously, to approve the minutes of the May 22, 1972 meeting as mailed.
2. WAIVER OF THE PLATTING ORDIN.4NCE
(a) Claude O. Drury (Residential)
6931 Olson Memorial Highway
Mr. Carl i�ale, Village Cansultant, reviewed his report - a portion of which follows:
"l. The request is to divide off approximately the South 285 feet of the
East 100 feet of Lot 30. This matter was discussed at the May 22nd
meeting of the Commission with the following points being noted:
a) 11�)hile the lot does have frontage on Harold Avenue, an extension of
Harold Ave. to the west would, in effect, create three buildable
lots and this would affect the proper placement of a home on the
lot currently requested.
b) A, street extension and lot plan for the adjacent and surrounding land
is needed to assure proper future development on land remaining vacant.
c) Ideas and opinions of surrounding property owners should be considered
as this item is more compl�:cated than is normal with a simple lot split.
2. The proposed sibdivision would seem proper and desirable only under
certain conditions:
a) Land fill is being conducted under proper direction of the Village
Engineer.
b) An easement of 50 feet should be provided for the future extension
of Harold Ave. with the alignment of said easement approved by the
Village Engineer for its most suitable future extension to properly
intersect with County r�oad No. l�0.
c) The extension of Harold Ave, into Lot 3Q should be considered for
access with recommendations from the Village �gineer concernin�
proper turn-around provisions (tempora,r� or �ermanent cul-de-sac?),
surfacing, curb and gutter, and the like.
d) If a house is constructed, it should be located and oriented so as
to recognize the eventual extension of Harold A�e. thru to the west.
�. It is strongly rECOmmended that final approval not be given for this
subdivision until all questionable items have been resolved and some
agreem�nt among property owners is reached concerning the development
��
Planning Commission
June 12, 1972 p�ge 2
of remaining vacant land to the west and relationships to existing develop-
ment to the east are clarifi�d. Preferrabl_�", this would be a joint agreement
among the affected property owners with Vil:i.age �gineer approval of the
street; (Harold Ave. ) alignment."
Dr. Lowe11 H. Kleven af b860 Harold Avenue stated he is planning to purchase
the land and is �rilli.n� to give an easement of 54 feet for street purposes.
After further discussion, it was moved by Franzen, seconded by Anderson,
carried unanimously, to defer action and request the Village Engineering Depart-
ment to establish the location of the T�ight of Way, which eventually will connect
witt�. Glenwood Avenu�, and other considerations a� listed in Item 3 in the
Village Consultant' s report. The Planning Commission also askEd that notices
be again mailed out on t.his lot division.
(b) Robert Lovering (t2esidential)
6523 Glenwood Avenue
The request is to divide a large parcel lying between Glenwood Avenue and
WeLtern Avenue inta four (1�) residential lots. A portion of two of the lots
are in the Glenwood pond area. The Planning Comr�ission noteci that Mr. Lowering,
the owner of the parcel, was not present.
Mr. i3ale, Planning Consul.tant, discussed the following items with the Commission:
1. The area in question has all the appearances of a substantial pond or lake
and the current water level is up near the pavemsnt at U�Testern and Hampshire.
It is suggested that this water area and the one to the northeast might best
be. retained as such in order to help preserve the "open" environment of the
� � cor�munity.
2. In addition to the natural environment aspects of the situation, the storage '
of storm water, natural drainage, access to Western A.ve. and other �r�gineering
matters are of concern.
3. Prior to any action on this subdivision requsst, it is euggested that the
matter be referred to the Villags Engineer for a complete report. Further,
the site should be referred to the �hvironmental Commission, State �ept. of
Natural Resources, and perhaps others having an interest in environmental
protection.
!t. It later, the subdivision should be approved in some fashion, responsibility
for setting water levels, maintenance of water quality under multiple owner- '
ship, removal of silt, shoreland protection, filling, and other matters
should be established. Public easements for maintenance access may also
be required.
5. If thi� development is not permitted, a decision should be reached concerning
the long ��rm st�.tus of Western Ave. and access to existing homes in this
general vicirzity.
Mr. Jim McBride of 1l�0 Hampshire Ave. N. was present as an interested resident.
��:
Planning Commission
June 12, 1972 page 3
3t was moved by Christiansen, seconded by Edstrom, carried unanimously, to refer
the request to the �hvironmental Commission for their review prior to further
consideration by the Planning Commission, suggesting the�y include the State
�epartment of Vatural r�esources and the Village of Golden Valley Engineering
I3epartment in their review of the site.
3. PUBLIC INF'ORMATI0�IAL MEETING - TOWNHdUSE PRQPOSAL (GF�tERAI, PLAi�t)
Town's Edge Construction Company
(Vall�e D'or) P.U.D. #5
Location: East of Winnetka Avenue, South of Harold Avenue, and
approximately 300' North of ?�Testern Av�nue
Mr. 13a1e reviewed the following Planning Considerations on the proposed project:
"I. The proposal is to develop 103 townhouse units under conditions of a
Planned Unit �evelopment. This matter has been considered at previous
meetings of the Planning Commission. A prior planning report was presented
by Otto Schmid. for the meeting of February 1l�, 1972; that planning report
recommended concept approval subject to later approval of certain details
and recommended changes in the general plan of development.
2. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the concept with the
condition that the suggested density range from 80 to 120 units and that at
least 10� of the units be in the moderate cost range ($25,000). Following
meetings with the Village staff, more detailed plans have been submitted
for consideration.
3. The proposed density of 3.43 units per acre with a total of 103 would
seem to fall well within the suggested guidelines for project planning.
The preservation of open green space is a desirable feature of the plan
with the total planned population being similar to that which would
result from total development of the area for single family homes. The
objectives stated in the proposed Comprehensive Municipal Plan would,
therefore, seem to have been met.
!t. Proposed access via Harold Avenue would seem adequate and in keeping with
area-wide ecology and traffic considerations voiced in the past by
various groups and public agencies.
5. The proposed building architecture seems quite adequate althou�h this is
a matter of personal taste and design opinion.
6. Details concerning the proposed Vallee D'or or Village Assaciation have
been submitted and reviewed; these are generally acceptable but some
minor changes are recommended:
a) Add the provision that the common property cannot be utilized,
char ged for admissions use, transferred in ownership, or otherwise
utilized except as specifically authorized by terms of the PUD permit.
b) Provisions for the maintenance of utilities shall be as required by
the Village.
7. While the general plan seems adequate and additional details have been
provided as per Village staff requests, full and complete details are
still lacking for final evaluation of the plan specifics. Unless sub-
mitted within the past �tery few days, the following is still lacking:
��
Planning Commission
June 12, 1972 page �
a) Completely detailed landscaping plans with changes requested by Village staff.
b) A. detailed and complete dimension plan.
c) Compl�te information concerning the yard treatment along Harold Avenue.
d) Plans for revised screening along the east side of the property.
e) Others as may be noted at the meeting.
8. Assuming the plan meets general approval, it is suggested that a detailed and
complete PU� permit be drafted for consideration by the Village Council similar
t� that developed for Hidden Village Homes and other similar PUD requests.
qm �n general, the development plan would seem to be in conformity to the proposed
Comprehensiv� Municipal Plan and be satisfactory except for a relatively �ew
minor details yet to be resolved and incorporated into the PUD perMit form.
Mr. Bill Tblan of 1�olan Engineering Company, Inc., and Mr. William Lundberg of
Tos,m's �'�dge Construction Company presented th� general plan for Vallee D'or to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Dolan reviewed the topography of the site and the granting
of street Right of tiday for Harold Avenue. In explaining the general layout plan,
the closest unit will be 115 feet away from the east property line and 90 feet away
from the north property line. The site has been divided into two (2) Phases with
Phase I developm�nt to begin immediately if they receive appraval. The proponent
is requesting I�3 units, which is 3.43 units per acre with 1�.5 parking spaces per
unit. Mr. Dolan referred to four (J�) types of townhouse units they plan to construct
on the site. For definition they are referred to as A, B, C, and D. There will
be 32 unit A's which have a detached garage with a patio located between �he house
and garage. There will be a total of 28 B units which will be walk out and 23 C
uri�s'._having a tuck under garage. There will be 20 unit D which will contain a
split entry with attached garages. Mr. Dolan also discussed landscaping, the plan
for one entrance onto Harold Avenue, and traffic on Harold and Winnetka Avenues.
Mr, �olan pointed out that Phase I wi11 contain !�7 units (eight A units, twelve
B i�nits, fifteen C units, and twelv� D units). The D units will sell for �29,900
and will contain 1,200 square feet with one bath. These units will be in the moderate
cost range. Units A, B, and C will contain between 1,1�00 and 1,700 square feet
� with two or three haths and doubl� garages. The units will have double wall con-
struction between units with a 52 decimal sound rating. There will also be sidewalks
on the garage side.
The following residents voiced their opposition to the proposed planned unit
development: Mrs. Paul St. Marie, 7�.tl.10 Ridgeway Road, is concerned. about the
placement of the recreational area on the southeast corner of the parcel.
Mr. Joseph Kelso, 50 �uebec Avenue South, stated the proponent has not m�t the
$25,000 moderate cast range for 10� of the units. He was also concerned about
drainage. Glen A.mundson, 7236 Harold Avenue, was concerned about traffic.
�r. Hakala of 7500 Ulestern Avenue stated the units should be placed more toward the
center of the sitE; and he is opposed to a street from the proposal to Western A.ve.
It was moved by Franzen, seconded by Christiansen, carried unanimously, to defer
action on the �e�eral plan until final plans are more complete, including recrea-
tional area plans, sidewalk plans, and plans indicating the proposed specific
placement of the units on the parcel, and further study by the proponent on ingress
and egress.
63
Planning Commission
June 12, 1972 page 5
Member Edstrom moved to add the following stipulations to the above motion,
seconded by Sampson, carried unanimously: l. That the Planning Commission re-
affirm its previous decision that 10� of the units be in a moderate cost range
of $25,000, 2. The more detailed plans as required in the motion above are
turned into the Village for staff and Consultant's review prior to calling a
public hearing by the Planning Commission, 3. Noting the Commission will be
extremely critical of landscaping of areas that face the residential areas.
1t. REFERRAL FROM VILLAGE OOUNCIL (VALLEY CLUB CJ�NDOMI�TIUM)
75-unit high rise apartment building
south of Olson Memorial Highway and west of France Avenue
Mr. Westlake reviewed the history of the site and the reasons the Village Council
referred the appeal to the Planning Commission. The Planning thoughts as listed
by the Consultant were also reviewed as follows:
'�1. The proposal is to develop a nine (9) story apartment (ValZey C1ub Condominium)
with a height limit variance being the major question ra-ther than the
proposed dwelling unit density.
2. The proposed Comprehensive Municipal Plan and Zoning 17istrict Map indicate
the site selected as having potential for single-family homes on compara-
tively small lots. This was done because of the small existing platted
lots and multiple ownership pattern. The current request, however, seems
to have negated previous assumptions by assembly of some 37 separate
parcels into one buildable tract of land which presents a different set
of planning considerations.
3. The site is law and heavi.ly wooded. Nearby homes are comparatively small
and some streets are not paved. It is suggested here that development of
the site for single family homes on small lots would result in considerable
tree loss and add little, if anything to the desirability of the environment.
To retain the site in its present condition would, of course, require
public acquisition which is not called for in the proposed Village Plan.
!�. The proposed development would seem to meet nearly all the criteria
established for the proper location of mul.tiple family structures including
the following:
a) Located at the edge of rather than within single�-family neighborhoods.
b) Located near major roads rather than being on minor residential streets
only.
e} I,ocation near public open space and/or provide adequate on-site open,
green space (both conditions would seem to apply and be met).
5. The question of height and its effect upon the visual environment is one
of u:rban design opinion and related to specific site and locational
considerations; as one professional opinion, however, it is suggested
that the visual aspects of the building in the immediate vicinity would
be extremely minimal due to topographical and tree conditions. Overall,
the community "sky-line" view might be enhanced especially due to the
location near a large park area. No doubt, there wi11 be additional
high-rise structures in and near Golden Valley; a new and perhaps more
interesting sky-line view may emerge.
6. The question af fire protection is a valzd one and fire and security
requirements should be made conditions of any waiver of height limit
restrictions.
64
Planning Commission
June 12, 1972 page 6
7. One isolated lot remains at the corner (T.H. 55 Service Road and Meadow
Lane); apparantely, this lot is not part of the proposed development.
The future of this lot should not be left un-resolved. If the current
development is appro�red, the single lot becomes quite isolated and remote
for reasonable devElopmen�.
8. The relationship between open, green space and Iand covered by structures
is q�xite good. Maximum use of existing elevations, tree cover, and
building setbacks is being made to minimize the visual impact of the
building from existing development.
9• Underground parking is a good f eature of the project which enables addi-
tional open space. Further, the parking is located such that it should
not be visible to any surrounding homes.
10. The proposed access seems good and should have no detrimental effects
upon minor residential street traffic.
1�.. Based upon current information, it is assumed that the development does
not confli.ct with any plans for major street up-grading.
12. Plans for grading, utilities, and similar technical matters should be
commented upon by appropriate Villa�e I3epartments.
13. The proposed dwelling unit density a� nearly 3,000 sq. ft. of land area
per unit is extremely favorabls and more than me�ts normal �and proposed
standards for high-rise construction. (Under such conditions, the total
number of persons residi�z� at the site would not likely be much larger
than if the site were to be developed for single-family homes.)
116. Unless valid and serious objections can be raised against the proposal,
it would seem to be a reasonable request and could produce an urban
environment superior to that currently envisioned by the Comprehensive
rlunicipal Plan."
Present to review the proposal with the Planning Commission were Messrs.
Charles Coulter, a partner of the Valley Club Condominium, and William Rova,
Architect from Reese-Rova Associates. Mr. Rova in£ormed the Planning Commission
that the clients have purchased a11 the land except Lot 222 of Glenwood Addition.
In explaining the site plan he pointed out all interior parking is below grade
and the building is placed as far to the North and East of the project as possible,
keeping the structure away from the residences and preserving most of the trees
toward tre residential area. All traffic is funneled in the direction of
Highway 55. The height of the building will be 85 feet with a total of 75 units,
�.t5 of which will be two-bedroom and 35 will be three-bedroom. The units will
range between 900 square feet ±0 1600 square feet with individual owners for
each unit. Mr. Rova continued by stating they would also conform to the r�quire-
ments of the Village for fire and safety.
Th� Commissior. discussed with the proponent the waivers that were denied by the
Board of Zoning Appeals and appealed to the Vill.age Council. The waiver requests
are: l. for a nine-story building (present zoning allows four stories),
2. a setback to the south of 115 feet (present code requires 135 feet), 3. a
setback to the nort;l of 1�> feet (present code requires 90 fest) . In discussing
the =�raiver, Commissianer Franzen, who is also a member of the Board of Zoning
Appeais, revie��ed T,�hy the Board of Lonin� l�ppeals denied the request, noting
the proponent was also asking for five extra units and ten stories at the Board
of Zoning A.ppeals meeting.
��
Planning Commisszon
June 12, 1972 page 7
The following residents spoke in opposition to the proposal: Mr. Gartner,
220 Meadow Lane North, asked wh� the proponent did not follow the Planned Unit
�evelopment procedure for this proposal. T�r. Gartner spoke also against
traffic and the height of the proposal. .*4rs, uorlin a�ked why the proponent
did not choose the Planned Unit Deveiopment procedure. Other residents also
spoke against the proposal but did not give their names. Also, one resident
stated he would rather see the 9-story apartment building rather than a Lt-story
building spread out on the land (which would be allotiaed by present zoning).
It was moved by Swanson, seconded by Christiansen, to recommend approval of the
concept for a waiver on a nine (9) story condominium high-rise apartment
building - including a setback on the South of 115 feet (135 f�et required) and
a setback on the North of 1�5 feet (90 feet required), subject to:
1. Requirements of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, Sections
15.05 (2) General Plans Requirements, 15.06 General, and 15.07 Site
Plan and Building Plan.
2. Height of structure not to exceed 85 feet from existing ground elevation.
3. A�prove this particular site location of the bui.lding on the site,
keeping in mind this does not establish a precetlent for other sites
in Golden Valley.
!t. Further rest:ictions as listed by the staf£.
Upon vote being taken by roll call, the following voted in favor thereof:
Franzen, Christiansen, Sampson, Swanson, and Van Horn. The following voted
against the same: Anderson, Becker, and Edstrom. The Chairman declared the
motion carried.
It was then moved by Franzen, seconded by Becker, carried unanimously, to
recommend that if the Village Council approves the waiver request, the request
be referred back to the Planning Commission for the following review, which the
proponent will have to do in more detail:
l. Site plan
2. Drainage and grading
3. Landscaping
L�. Traffic
5. Possible easements
6. Parking
7. Recreational
8. Fire and Safety
9. Notification of residents
10. Building plans to be reviewed by the Building Board of Review.
5. GENERAL
(a) Set Public Informational Meeting for General Plan
Bassetts Creek Plaza (Business and Professional Office proposal)
P,U.D. ri� east of Bassetts Cr�ek, south of County Road 6b, and
north of St. Croix.
Mr. Ken Benson of Benson-Orth Associates was present and asked that the Planning
Commission set June 26, 1972 for review of general plans for Bassetts Creek Plaza.
Mr. Benson assured the Planning Commission he has all information as required
and will turn it into the Village staff for their review as soon as possible,
�U
Planning Commission
June 12, 1972 page 8
The Planning Commission set June 26, 1972 as the public informational meeting
date for the general plan for P.U.D. �l.
(b) Western .4venue - Comprehensive Plan
The Chairman of the Planning Commission read a letter from the Village Manager,
part of which is requesting the Planning Commission to set an informal heari�g
date on Western Avenue. The communication further stated that some members of
the Co�.zncil will be present to enter into the discussion on Western Avenue
at this meeting.
Because the Planning Commission meets on the second and fourth Monday of each
month and the Village Council meets on the first and third Monday of each month,
the Planning CoMmission felt July 31, 1972 would be the most convenient time
to hold the informal meeting. The meeting w5.11 be held in the Village Council
chambers at 8:00 P.M.
(c) �iscussion on Housing - Shelter �evelopment Corporation
The Planning Commission discussed the meeting held jointly with the Village
Council �nd other commissions on housing, which was presented by Shelter
�evelopment Cor�oration. The Village Council at that meeting asked the
Commissions to furth�r consider the proposal for 236 housing and indicate
their feelings to the Village Council. The Planning Commission felt they
would individually consider the matter further and would have a statement
by the July 10, 1972 Planning Commission meeting.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 12:55 A.M.
�hairman Warren Lundsgaard Secretary Lowell Swanson