05-12-75 PC Minutes ��
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 12, 1975
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Pla�ning Cortmission was held at 7:30 P.M.
on Nbnday, May 12, 1975 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valtey Road, Golden Valley,
Minnesota.
Vice Chairman Oonald Hughes presided and the following members were present:
Commissioners Hakala, Nerje, Hughes, Leonard, Sehlin, and Specktor. (Chairman
Ron Edstrom arrived at 8:15 P.M. and presided for the remainder of the meeting.)
Atso present were Carl Dale, Consultant, and Jon Westlake, staff inember.
Members absent: Comnissioners Christiansen and lundsgaard.
1 . APPROVA� OF MINUTES: MOVED by Sehlin, seconded by Herje, carried
unanimously, to approve the minutes of the April 28, 1975 Planning Commission
as mailed.
2. WAIVER OF THE PLA7TIN6 ORDINANCE
Richard M. Steidl (divide and combine Residential lot)
43�+-4�+4 Yosemi te Avenue North
7he request is to divide and combine two parcels located to the east of the
properties at 434 and �44 Yosemite Avenue North. Presentiy the property is
combined with 444 Yosemite Avenue North. The property owner at 434 Yosemite
Avenue is requesting to corr�ine the parcel to his property.
Dr. Lawrence J. Schut, resident at 434 Yosemite Avenue North and the purchaser
of the property, was present to answer questions. He indicated he has no plans
for the property except to corr�ine it to his present parcel of land. The parcet
is wooded and he indicated he plans to leave it naturai .
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Specktor, carried unanimously, to recomrnend
approval of the waiver of the Platting Ordinance, subject to the property being
combined with the parcel at 434 Yosemite Avenue North so that it will not be
landlocked.
3• P.U.O. #14 — REZONING CHANGE
Open Development to Residential
(Jack Galant — County Road 18 East—West Service Orive)
The Planning Corrmission at their April 28, 1975 meeting granted general plan
approval for P.U.D. #14. The property is presently zoned ,Open Development and
the Ccxnprehensive Plan indicates a Residentiat P.U.D. for the property.
Mr. Jon Westlake indicated that he had informed Mr. Jack Galant, property owner,
of the rezoning change for the property.
It was moved by Sehlin, seconded by Herje, carried unanimously, to recommend
rezoning this pareel of ground knoam as P.U.D. #14 from Open Developrr�nt to
Residential .
,�
�,
;��
Ptanning Commission
May 12, 1975 page 2
4. (a) P.U.D. #16 CONCEPT PLAN — KING CREEK
Applicant: Cheyenne Land Company
tocation: 5915 Glenwood Avenue
Proposal : 52 Units (26 structures)
Mr. Carl Dale reviewed the Pianning Considerations as follaws:
"l . The proposal is to construct 52 dwelling units on an 11 .8 acre tract of land
which would result in a gross density of 4.6 units per acre. The property
is located west of the Minnesota Northfield � Southern Railroad, south of
Glenwood Avenue, north of laurel Avenue, and east of the Hamman Property.
2. The site in question, plus land to the west, is designated as having resi—
dential PUD potential on the current Comprehensive Municipal Plan. The
current zoning is ''Residential''. The proposed gross dwelling unit density
is located between that which would result from ''standard" single—f�nily home
platting and "rnid—density" devetopments such as townhouses. Based upon our
understanding of the current City Plan proposals, the current PUO request falls
near and conforms to the density potential outlined by the Planning Commission.
3. While considerable information has been submitted for review pertaining to site
plan elements, there appears to be some general neighborhaod planning questions
which should be considered prior to forming a proper basis and foundations
for a critique of more detailed, on-site ptan elements:
a) In January, the Planning Comnission reviewed plans for subdividing
approximateiy 13.5 acres located at 6001 Glenwaod �venue which is
adjacent to and west of the current PUD proposal . At that time, it
was recommended that cor�lete ptans are needed for all remaining vacant
land in this vicinity and att such plans should be coordi�ated such
that the "corr�letion" of development in this neighborhood would be
planned in the best manner possible. Neither the prior subdivision
request for adjacent property nor the current PUO proposal indicate any
atte�t at coordination of developrr�nt between the two major parcels
involved.
b) Public ptans call for the potential expansion of laurel Avenue along the
south of this area and also a 100 foot "green belt" along the south side
of the property. A potential open green sp�ce link is also indicated
extending diagonally through the area from southwest to northeast inter—
secting with Glenwood Avenus near the Railroad. Glenwood Avenue is
indicated on the City Plan as a Minor Arterial in fihe Comrruanity road
system.
4. The current PUD plan apparently reftects consideration of sort�, but not all ,
neighborhood considerations.
a) No apparent effort has been made to relate development to that which may
occur to the west. A major concern shauld be that of traffic ingress
and egress with only one access drive to serve the e�tire development
off Glenwood Avenue; without some atternate access point to the west or
south, the current PUD has an effective "dead—end" street over twice
the minimum length recommended; fifty—two f�nilies would be trapped ir►
or out of the development area by an accident, road repair work, or
other traffic disruption at the access point and Glenwaod Avenue; the
�ame situation may result for land to the west.
�?�
Planning Commission
May 12, 1975 page 3
b) I�hile some open land has been maintained along the south side of the
property, it does not appear that the 100 foot open green strip has
been provided.
e) The diagonal green strip through the property has been recognized as
well as street right-of-way needs for both Laurel and Gtenwood.
5. Mousing type is referred to as "patio"homes or what may be known as duplexes
or doubte bungalows in the past. They are to be sold to i�dividual occupants
which shall form a home owner' s a s�ciation for ownership and maintenance
of the comnon open space (approximately 40% of total site area). There
shail be eight (8) tvwo bedroom units plus den, 3� three bedroan units, and
10 two bedroom units. It is not elear if response has been made to the
moderate income housing policy of Gotden Valley; this would seem possible,
however, due to the good spread of units about the site even though the
total project is relatively small .
6. On-site active recreation seems limited to one tennis court; apparently
the only public land dedication proposed is that for street right-of-way
(Gienwood and Laurei) and ease�nents for a pr�blic trail along the east and
south sides of the development. It would seem that some cash-in-lieu of
recreation land dedication should be required.
7. Reference is made to requir�ments of the Bassett Creek Watershed District;
it should be ascertained if such requirements have been met in a satis-
factory manner. It should also be determined if the public trail systean
is suitable and wl� should be responsibte for its development.
8. Four parking spaces are provided per home; this may or may not be adequate
for guest parking since sane units are quite remote from other streets and
it is not clear if some on--street parking might be feasible on the internal
private street system.
9. While the e,� neral land use and development ptan seems proper and in general`
conformity to the Comprehensive Municipal Plan, a number of questions remain;
at this tirr�, we would, however, recommend cnncept or sketch plan approval
subject to final approval of certain pian details related to neighborhood
and Corfmunity planning policy. First, it should be ascertained if it is
feasible and practicable for this development to be planned in coordination
with tand to the west perfiaining primarily to green space systems and
circutation patterns.
Secondly, it should be determined if all reasonabte and practicable re-
quirements have been met for street right�f-way, on site recreation,
drainage, utilities, trail system, housing policy, and other eteme�ts of
the plan.
10. If all pubtic requirements have not been fully met, it wouid require sane
site plan revisions; this can be determined by further discussion with the
developer and maximum input from other pubiic bodies and interests invotved
as well as the City Engineer. It is suggested here that an acceptable plan
i� the pubiic interest is quite possible and feasible; any final approval ,
however, should be subject to conditions of a corr�tete PUD permit; items
for consideration are as follows:
�:x�,�
Pianning Corrmission
May 12, 1975 page 4
a) Dedication of public recreation land or cash-in-lieu thereof.
b) Trail system (dedication ar+d devetopment).
c) Drainage, ponding, utitities.
d) Parking and related circulation consideratians.
e) Alternate access ta the project area.
f) Landscape plaro and maintenance.
g) Approved home owner's agreement.
h) Conditions for proper maintenance of flood ptain and drainageway.
i) Green belt along south property line.
j) Building set-backs re1ated to above.
k) Any conditions related to potential development to the west.
1 ) Architectural design.
m) Snow storage and removal ; ali external storage.
n) Project signs (identification, for sale, etc.).
o) Others as may be recommended during the plan review and a�►inistrative
process.
il . SUMMARY
As a concept plan at this time, the proposal seems quite satisfactory and in
general conformity ta the Comprehensive Municipat Plan. Finai , detailed,
and corr�lete development plans may, however, be subject to certain compara-
tiveiy minor revisions depending upon resutts of further discussion and
review by the Ptanning Commission and other interested and affected parties.''
Mr. Jim Hawks of Centurion �cxr�any was present to make the request. He stated
that Cheyenne Land Cc�any is the owner of the tand and Centruian Company would
be the builder on the property. We spoke of the optior► they had on the Harrman
property approximately one year ago which is the open parcel to the west of this
site. The Comprehensive Plan indicates a density division line on the site which
appraximatety fo]lows the Creek. The proposal is far 38 living units, which is
7.4 units per acre, on the area south of this tine, and 14 living units, which is
4.4 units per acre, on the property narth of the line. The units will be sold as
si�gle f�nily units. •�� They are attached in units of two. Because of some of "the
concerns pointed out by the Planning Comrnission at the time the informational
hearing was set, some of the buildings have been re-tocated on the site. The pro-
ponent is proposing the following variation af units, whict� are identified on the
plan as A-i , B, B-1 , B-2, C-1 and D for a total af 52 units. The B-1 and � units
will qualify for the City Housing Policy. Each unit will have a double garage
with two outside parking spaces, and there could be overflow parking on one side
of fihe 26-foot wide street which is 1 ,800 feet long. Mr. Hawks further explained
they will be dedicating 7 feet (2,275 sq ft) for Glenwood Avenue and 35 feet
(13,000 sq ft) for Laurel Avenue. Other elements of the site are: the 100-foot
green way will be 38,000 feet, flood plain 9,40d feet, and the trail 8-feet
(1 ,200 sq ft). Ail of the above elements will total 31� of the tand. The
interior road way takes about 1 .1 acres of land and the driveway about 1�2 acre
of land. The street occupies about 1 1�2 acres of land.
Mr. Hawks stated that the project will generate about 250 to 300 car trips per
day and then indicated how this street in the project could tie into the Hamman
property. The proponent is providing up to a SQ-foot corridor of space far an
8 foot public trail to meander through it. Mr. Hawks then pointed out how they
ptan to adjust the flood plain on the property. The a�aunt of adjustment would
-� (Chairman Edstrom arrived at 8a15 R.M.)
��
P1 anni ng Corrrni ssion
May 12, 1975 page 5
be approximateiy up to 2 feet in depth. In response to the 100-foot greenway
along Laarel Avenue, the plan has been adjusted to provide for it, except for a
tennis court which protrudes into the greenway.
The following residents indicated their concerns as follows:
Mr. Milton Bix, 125 Brunswick Avenue South, stated his neighbor, Mr. 6ordon
McDonatd, 105 B�unswick Avenue South, asked him to inform the Planning Commission
that he is opposed to the project. Mr. McOonald also sent a letter to the
Plar�ning Commission, which the Chairman summarized: The letter iadicates he is
against the project because of the density, units are identicat in appearance,
l�using project, apartment type bui)dings, more traffic congestion, and addi—
tional load for schools and City,servfces. Mr. Bix then expressed his concerns
as follows: opposed to this particular project, density too high, I�mes in
this area are single fa�nily, height of the structures, traffic generated by the
project, floodi�g of Glenwood Avenue would affect access to property, flood plain,
if this project is approved, the Namman property would have pressure for the same
type of development, Harrman property and this property should be developed
together. Mr. Leo Smiler, representing the Minneapolis Northfield � Southern
Raitroad, indicated there are six trains/day that use the tracks adjacent to the
tracks adjacent to the site. There woutd be a vibration and noise probtem. They
would be a vibration and noise problem. They would request that the developer
build a chain link fence adjaeent to the tracks because of tbe children that
would live in the project. Mr. Gten Eiden, 345 Brunswick Avenue South, was con—
cerr�ed about the drainage and storage of water on the site, de�sity too high,
area should be developed with Hamman prope�ty, project wi1T affect the property
values of hc>mes in the ar�a. Mr. Leland LeBlanc, 225 Brunswick l�venue Soutla,
stated it is the responsibility of the City to protect the fiood piain in this
area. Development will add more flooding to Glenwood Avenue and eisewhere.
Safety factor because of the children and the railroad should be considered and
also vibration from the trains. Mr. Brian Bennett, representing the A. H. Bennett
Corr�any Errp�loyees Profit Sharing Plan stated they have a contract for deed on the
Ha�nman Property and indicated they had been before the City approximately two
years ago to divide the property and the City would not divide it. At present
they have no plans for the property.
The Planning Commission in discussing the project was concerned about the close—
ness of the units to the property lines, the open parcel to the west, the long
single road access for this parcel , questioned the density, how this proposat
including the interior street could function with the parcel to the west, location
of the proposed trait , flood plain, and access to Laurel Avenue. Commissioner
Hakala then indicated she felt the total density was toa strong. There could be
higher density on the south portion with access to Laurel Avenue. The north
portion should have less density with nc� road connection between the north and
south portions of the site. She had contacted the Metropolitan Council and
discussed with them the possibility of a major trail corridor along the south
fork of Bassetts Creek, which would include this property. The trait would be
a major corridor connecting Minneapotis and Medicine lake. The trait corridor
should be 100 feet in width and meander through the property as indicated on the
Comprehensive Plan—not as the developer has designed it. Commissioner Hakaia
further sfiated the concern about the closeness of some of the units to the
exterior property line, and that some of these units which are close to the
property line are two stories in height. Only one access to the site is a
concern because of emergencies. The attractiven�ess of the valiey portion of the
�
�' ,�
Planning Commission
May 12, 1975 page 6
site should be preserved. Because of the valley, the site has a natural
resource which shoutd be available to the public for use such as a trail . The
purchaser of the property should be aware when they purchase property such as
this parcel it may not be suitable far total development.
Because of the aforesaid it was moved by Hakala, seconded by Sehtin to deny the
request. Discussion fotlowed.
Tt was then moved by Herje to table the request pending further study. Motion
died for lack of a secand.
Comnissioner Leonard then indicated he was considering a coc�romising motion
regarding the two motions above considering such items as the policy of the
Ptanning Commission to meet informally with the land ov�mer of targe parcets of
apen land, and also the Council will be holding an informal hearing May 19, 197S
on the Transportation Plan which may have a� effect in this area. Atso, there
are other elements in this area such as the flood plain which need to be studied.
It was then moved by Herje, seconded by Leonard to table concept approval for
P.U.D. #16 untit a later date. Upon roll calt vote being taken, the following
voted in favor of the motio�: Herje, Edstrom, Leonard, and Specktor; and the
fottowing voted against the s�nes Sehtim, Hughes and Hakala. The motion carried.
It was moved by Leonard, seconded by Herje, carried unanimously, that the
Planning Commission, City Council , property owner of targe parcel of open land
and the staff ineet within the next four week period to study the area bounded by
7urners Crossroad on the east, Pennsylvania Avenue on the west, Glenwood-Western
Avenue on the north, and Laurel Avenue on the south. The study shauld include
the following items: flood plain, thoroughfare plan, sanitary sewer, emergency
vehicte problem, amount of drainage that comes fram the area south of Laurel
Avenue, and if available, soil tests of the area.
4. (b) REQUEST A CHANGE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN REGAROING ITEM (a) ABOVE
Because of the action taken on Item 4. (a) above, the Planning Cornmission did
not discuss this request,
5• P.U.D. #14 — FILL PERMIT
County Road 18 East—West Service Drive
Mr. Jack Galant was present to request a permit for fill on his parcel of land.
Mr. Galant indicated the fill is available to him, and he would tike to stockpite
it on his land even though he has »ot received final approval of his P.U.D.
Jon Westlake reviewed a drawing of the property with contours indicating the
placement of the fill and a berm to the south to catch the runoff from the filt
area, Mr. Westlake atso indicated to the Planning Commission the probtems the
City has had with fill areas.
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Hughes, carried unanimously, to grant the
fill permit, subject to the following requirements: 1) The City Fitl Ordinance
requirerr�nts 2) that Mr. Gatlant's landscape architect supervise the filling of
��
Planning Commission
May 12, 1975 page 7
the site, 3) if the City Council does not approve P.U.D. #14, the fill �st be
properly Teveled in accordance with the existing terrain on the site and then
seeded by September 1 , 1975, 4) the Inspection Department has the right to
revoke the Fitl Permit at any time.
6. GEKERAL
(a) South Fork of Bassetts Creek
The City Engineer exptained to the Planning Commission the amount of acre feet
needed for storage in the area of the south fork and the approximate location
of the land needed for this storage.
(b) Memorial Day Observed — May 26, 1975
Because of the Holiday on May 26, 1975, the next regutarly scheduled Planning
Carmi ssio� r�eeting wi]1 be June 9, 1975•
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on rrption,
duly seconded, adjourned at 11 :40 P.M.
a
�, � :,�
a�rman Ronal E strom Secretary Ka hryn Her '
NO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 26, 1975