07-09-73 PC Minutes 1��
MINUTES OF THE GOLD�1 VALL�Y
�LANNTNG OONINiISSION
Jul.y 9, 1973
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 8:00 P.M.
on Monday, July 9� 1973 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden galley Road,
Golc3en Valley, Minnesota.
�ice Chairman Mary Anderson presided and the following members were present:
Corranissioners Beckers Edstrom, Herje, Hughes, Leonard, anfl Lundsgaard. Carl Dale,
Planner, and Jon Westlake, Ftecording Secretary, were also present.
Members absent: ` Chairman Jahn Sampson and Commissioner Christiansen. .
1. APPROVAI, OF MINUTES; 1�OY^r,D by Hughes, seeonded by Becker, carried
unanimously, to approve the minutes of the June 25, 1973 meeting as amended.
2. PUBLIC INFC)r'�+IATIONAL MEETING (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMIIVT)
P.U.D. #i2 (Concept Plan)
.Applicant: Jack Galant
Loca�ion: Caunty Road 18 service drive (east-west)
Proposals 90 Unit (5 story) Apartment Building
Vice Chairman Mary Andarson introduced the members o.f the Planning Commission
and explained to the deve2oper and citizens present the furiction of the Planning
Commisszon. Mrs. Anderson then explained what planned unit development is and
the procedures involved. Mr. Carl Dale then reviewed the following planning
analysis:
"l. The application is for concept plan approval far a 90 uni.t (5 story)
apartment building to be located on the east-west County Raad 18 service
drive approximately l�50 feet south of Medicine Lake Road and approximate2y
lt0� feet east of County Road 18. This lt.95 acre site is presently zoned
'rflpen �3evelopment" as is much of the surrounding area.
2. Strictly as a "land use�' concept, the proposal wou].d be in conformity to
the Comprehensive Munici.pal Plan as adopted and recommended by the Planning
Commission, except the density. The Comprehensive Village PZan calls for
the site in question to be Residentia3. PUII at ��mid-dsnsity" (up to 8 units
per acre) with the land further to the south being designated for "low-
density" (up to � ttnit� per acre) Residential PUD.
3. Some basic questions are as followss
a) Building Height. Is the area appropriate for a 5-story building?
b) Is the proposed density proper at the proposed 18 dwelling units per acre?
c} Site Plan. Is the general site plan satisfactory and does it relate well
to e�S.sting and potential developments i.n the surroundi.ng area?
d) Goncept. Shauld the Planning Commission recorrunend favorable action to
the TTil�.age Council thus encouraging the agplicant to proceed on this
basis with the time and expense involved?
� t �
Planning Commission
��y 9, 1973 Page 2
1t. As a �onrept, it would se�m that the primary consideration is that c�f height
with the question of proposed density also a question. The aesthetics of
building "height" are generally a questian �f personal opinion and taste.
The environm�ntal effeats of building height become "measurable" only when
buildings are close together resulting in obstruction of vie�rs, casting of
shadows, cutting off air circulation, and other such effects upon living and
environmental conditians. In this garticular case, the si�e is rather remote
from other development (existing or potential) ancl it wau7.d be difficult to
find measurable aff�cts that are detrim�ntal to the environment. It is
e�ected, however, that there may be oondiderable interest and opinions ex-
pressed aver the less tangihle affects. It is suggested, however, that the
site in questiorz would seem to be one that lends itself t,o consideration of a
mi.d-rise or high-rise residentia2 structure. The Village Pian calls for
commercia� and institu.tional land use ta the north and public open space to
the east; other residential PUD use� are suggested far land to the west and
south. The site is at a considerable distance from any e�cisting or potential
single-famil,y home.
5. The site does and will contain a ponding area which is part of a larger ponding
area. 1�3hi.le a ponding area may be considered as "open space" it is not
"usable" apen space for residents. A "lake" woul.d be consider� at least
partly usable in terms of normal boating and other water uses. Whil.e the
proposed density is within that required for 5-story buildings� there ma,y be
a question as to how much credit should be given in terms of density for the
ponding area. It is tru�, however' that. �he app2iean� has aff�r�d � donate -
apprc�x.3;r��at.�ly 3e� acres for the ponding area; it is assumed that this is
desired�the Village Engi.neer and that he will suggest conditians regarding
shoreline anr� other treatmerat including anti-si.lting and palluti.on measures.
6. The applieant has been requested to submit an "area" map and his study and
evaluatiorz of the site in relation to surrounding denelo�ment {existing and
potential). This would be a profe�siana2 evaluation as developed by the
applicant's architect; thi.s information can then be related to Village staff
and other e�raluation material. pn the surface, however, it woul.d nat seem
that the site dev�elopment would greatly conflict with or impede future develop-
merzt on adjacent or nearby land. The question of alternate emergency vehicle
access and perhaps a rtroasl tie-a.n with land to the west or south should be
given further study later if concept approval is gi.ven; this is a site plan
detail that can be determined at a later date.
?. The idea of ramp or underground parking is a plus fact,or and tends to off-set
the negative aspects of "unusable" open space in ponding by adding to the
amount of open or green land area that would normally be covered by a paved
parking surface. While considered a plus factor in reducing ground covered
by structu�es and parking, the parking plan details are not totally clear and
the applicant should be asked to explain in some detail the proposed parking
arrangement. An idea for future consideration would be to require some form
of landscaping on the top level of parking area.
17�
P'1.anning Commission
�Tuly 9, 19?3 Pag� �
8. From a professional planning viewpaint the "concept" as proposed would seem
to fiave merit. The uss of a multi-story building on this site certainly
adds to the open space of the general area. This opinion may be altered
based upon receipt of factual and sound reasons to the contrary that ma;y
be presented by others. -
If the concept is approved, however, additional study and review woul.d be
required of'additional and mare detail.ed pl�ns that would be require� Iater.
A detailed PUD Permit could then be drafter outlining the mar�y conditions
that sYbould be involved; such conditions would involve landscaping' treat-
ment of the pond, emergency vehicle aceess� and the like.'�
Messrs. Jack Galant, property owner, and Sheldon Bernstein, Architect from the
firm of Bernstein and Assoc., were present for the pre5entation. Mr. Bernstein
explained the surrounding land use and that the proponent is planning to dedicate
l.� acres of ponding area on the site-which has an elevation of approximately
904' . The service road on the north end of the site has an elevation of approxi-
mately 935' . The elevation at the top of the strueture wil7. be approxirnately
980� , and the first floor elevation is 937. The proposed elevation of the
grotand on the front of the building is apgroximately 93b�, and the rear of the
building (south) is approximately 933' • 2he soil is marginal� so sub structure
may have to be con.structed to support any building. The building covers
appro�3.mately 10� of the site and contains five stories with 90 units. The
proposal is for 67 one-b�room units and 23 two-bedroom units wi.th two levels
of underground parking for a total of 102 spaces. There wi.l1 be 90 surface
parking spaces and a tennis court and an enc2osed swimming pool. The rent
structure wi11 be $19a for one bedroom and $2�a for a two bedrrom-which dass
not include the garage rental.
Mr. Bernstein further pointed out that 52� of the site wil2 be landscaped and
that T8� of the site wi.11 be blacktopped. The proponent has also contacted the
chairman of the Trails Commi.ttee with respect to a trail on the north end of
the site tieing into the adjoining park.
The folloiai.ng opinions were expressed by the residents. Mr. Gunderson� owner
of the property immediately west of the proposal, stated he was nat opposed or
in �avor of this project, but would like to see the property developed.
Mrs. Fischer, 2013 Gettysburg Ave. N.� agreed with A�r. Gunderson. Mrs, Mindess�
222Q Cave11 Ave., stated' she is not for or agains� development. Spok� of
height of New Ho�e water tower. Stan Herje, 8805 Elgin Place� questioned the
depth of the pond for recreation and s�orm sewer run off and asked if consider-
a�ion had been given to low and mi.ddle class housing in this project. Mr. Mandis�
8930 Medley Lane, stated fish will not survive in the pond ir� winter months,, and
also spoke of dr ainage inta the pond. Because of this project more apartments
may be considered for this area. Mrs. Nudeek, 22t30 Ensign Ave, N., was concerned
about spread of apartments i.n this area. Mr. Anderson, 2233 Ensign Ave. N.,
mentioned the size of the structure and density is too high. . Mr. and Mrs. Gaulrapp?
2016 Independence Ave. N.� stated this type of use wi11 spread if allowed, and
all apartments to the north are three stories in height. Mrs, l�osemary Thorsen,,
Chairman of the Trails Committee, stated they would like an. eight-foot wide lane
on the north end of the parcel for a trail and a buffer zone of landscaping
���
Planni.ng Commission
July 9, 1973 page �
exclusive of the eight feet. Mr. Book, 2009 Hillsboro Ave. N., was cancerned
about the pond on the adjoining land. Mrs. 3A.iebner, 2It20 Cavell Ave., said Iand
should be developed but not with a heavy apartment density. Mr. �3ohnson,
8920 Elgin Place, i� for an attractive development but not apartments.
Mrs. Bardell, 2a09 Gettysburg Ave. N., questianed number of children expected
to live in the apartments. Mrs. Pavlock, 2Q12 Gettysburg Ave. N., pointec3 out
that if the underground parking is not rented with each uni.t, all cars will be
parked in tne parking lot. Mr. Nardhaus, 2340 E�sign Ave, N., is opgosed to
apartments-will reduce the value of his property.
The Commissifln diseussed the slevation of the proposed structure at length with
the proponent. The Commission also asked if the proponent had considered selling
the units as condomini.ums rather than renting them. Lower density ar�d less
height was discussed� including a lighter residential atmosphere for the parcel
and also traffic. A major concern is the effect the proposal wiLl. have on the
undeveloped property surrounding this parcel.
It was then moved by Herje, seconded t5y Hughes to deny the request for concept
plan approval for P.U.D. �2 for the follawing reasans:
l. The denisty is over 18 units per acre which is more than a Multiple zoning
would a31ow or the Planning Commissions Comprehensive Plan would allow.
2. The height of the building is undesirable for this location.
3. The development should be in accordance with surrounding property development
and the Planning Commission should. help facilitate this.
The proponent at this time requested that the Planning Commission table this
motion so that they may re-�valuate their �.ans ar�d meet with the neighbors
prior to re-appearing before the Planni.ng Commission.
It was then maved by Edstrom, seconded by Lundsgaard, carried unanimously, to
table the motion so that the proponent and the neighbors can meet an� discuss
a modified plan for this parcel of ground.
It was then moved by Herje, seconded by Edstrom, carrie�d unanimously, to invite
a11 the property awners of all remaining open property in the Northwest quadrant
of Section 28,, Townsh:ip 11_8y Range 21 to an informal discussion of this area to be
held at the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The Planning
Commi:ssion asked the staff to make the necessary arrnagaments for this meeti.n�.
3• WAIV�;�. OF THE PLATTIidG ORDINANCE
(a) 3ames C. Widholm (3 Rasidential lots}
2120 Douglas Drive and 2115-2129 Brunswick Avenue
The reqnest is to divide a portion of Zot 1?� Yarnall�s Golden Valley Qutlots into
three {3) lats. The lot off �ouglas 13rive would be approximately lt13' x 165�,
and each of the two lots off Brunswiek Avenue wauld be 82.5' x I90� and contai.n
15,675 square feet.
Mr. Ted Ko�llen explained he has contacted the property owners about purchasing
mare property in the area to add to this property, but was unable to do so.
175
Plannxng Comm:ission
�3�.-y 9, 1973 page 5
�he P3anning Commission in discussing this area noted the Camprehensive P1an
indicates a mid-density residential atmosghere for this area. Some members of
the Planning Commission were a�so concerned about blocking future access to
this area because o� the deep lots as praposed.
After further discussion it was moved by Fdstrom, seconded by Becker to recommend
approval of ths waiver of the Platting Ordinance, subject to the dedication of
` 10 feet of street right-of-way on Brunswick Avenue and a grading plan. The
motion carried with 1 nay.
(b) Kent H. Lysne t2 Residential lots)
1229-1231 Hampshire Avenue North
This request is to add '15 faet to the south parcel (1229 Hampshire Avenue North}
from the north parcel (1231 Hampshire Avenue North). Both Zots contain more
than 30,000 square feet and 100 feet of frontage west of Belmont Addition.
Thers is a SO foot easement an the lat aff Hamgshire Avenue I�arth. A detached
screened porch on the north property, being the closest building after the �
division, will be 1�+ feet away from the newly established property line.
Mr. Lysne was present for questions from the P2annin� Commission.
It was moved by I,undsgaard, seconded by Herje, carried unanimously, to recommend
approval of the waiver of the �Iatting Ordinance to add 15 feet to the south parcel,
�t. GEAIERA,L
{a) Discussion on Proposed Motion for Planning Open Land
Commissioner Leonard introduced a motion in reference to an approach of coordinate
planni.ng for open areas� that contains different property owners on the some-
what larger remaining open parcels of Golden Va11ey so that the property owners
and the Village wi11 better understand the problems. After further discussion
it was suggested by the Planning Commission that the proposed motion be �ailed
with their agenda for review at the next regularly scheduled mesting.
(b) �,7iscussion on an Environmental Impact Statement
Mr. Carl Da1e distributed material to the Planning Commission and a3so some
pamphlets to the Vice Chairman for review in reference to an r'�vironmental
Impact Statement.
It was then maved by Herje, seconded by Edstr�m, earried unana,mously, that the
Planning Cammission request the Open Space Commi.ttee to submit to the Planning
Commission a list of criteria that they would like to have used in developing an
�vironmental Impact Statement for the Planni�g Commission meeting on August 13, 1973.
(c) Trail Commi.ttes - June lI, 1973 Planning Cvmmission Meeting.
The Planning Commission reviewsd the mznutes of June 11, 1973 w�..th respect to the
Trail Committee, nating their report will be coming before the Village Council on
July I6, 1973. The Planni.ng Commission will. send to the Village Gouncil a copy
of their minutes under separate cover.
There being no further bus�ness to come before the meeting, it was on motion,,
dul seco ded, ad'ourned at 11:l�� P.M.
i
r
' �' n ��-�--__ ` _.
an o ampson ecre ary on rom