11-10-75 PC Minutes �:��
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PIANNING COMMISSION
November 10, 1975
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 7:30 P.M.
on Monday, November 10, 1975 at the Civic Center, ]800 Golden Valley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Chairman Ron Edstrom presided and the following members were present: Commissioners
Christiansen, Hakala, Nerje, Hughes, Lundsgaard, Sehlin, and Specktor. Also
present was Jon Westlake, staff inember.
Members absent: None.
1 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The approval of minutes was deferred to the end of
the meeting, at which time it was MOVED by Nerje, seconded by Specktor, carried
unanimously, to approve the minutes of the October 14, 1975 Planning Comnission
meeting as amended by adding to Page 5 after the wording (Ccunmissioner Hughes
arrived...previously at Board of Zoning Appeals meeting).
2. WAIVER OF PLATTING ORDINANCE
(a) Erling Anderson (3 Residential Lots)
1605, 1621 , � 1637 Lilac Drive North
The request is to divide and canbine three parcels by adding 13 feet to the south
tot from the center lot for a total frontage of 90 feet. The rernaining 50 feet
of the center lot witl be combined with the north lot for a totat frontage of
142 feet.
The Planning Commission in reviewing the request discussed the possibility of
the northerly lot, with a frontage of 142 feet, being divided in the future.
Mr. Anderson, the proponent, indicated he had no intention of requesting a
division of the northerly lot in the future.
It was moved by Nerje, seconded by Sehlin, carried unanimously, to recommend
approval of the waiver as requested, subject to the parcets not being subdivided
further in any way,
(b) Jerome G. Conrard (2 Residential lots}
3900 � 3906 Glenwood Avenue
The Planning Corrmission in August of 1973 approved a request on this same
property to divide off the north 135 feet of the property to buitd a house.
The owner at that time is the same as now. He owns both parcels and each lot
has a house on it. Prior to selli�g the south parcel he is requesting to add
24 feet to the north parcel from the south parcel . The north parcel wouid have
a depth of 159 feet and the south parcel would have a depth of 204 feet. Both
lots have a width of 109 feet. The survey indicates that the house on the
south parcel meets the requirements of the City Ordinance regarding the structure
in relation to the lot depth.
Jerome G. Conrard, the property owner, was present for the request.
� �:s��
P1 anni ng Carrni ssion
November 10, 1975 page 2
It was rr�ved by Christiansen, seeonded by Lundsgaard, carried unanirrausty, to
recommend approvai of the request for the waiver of the Platting Ordinance.
Later in the meeting Mr. Roger Hammer, purchaser of the south parcei , appeared
and requested that the minutes atso indicate that the new property line as
established meets the rear yard Ordinance requirement for a structure, which is
20� of the lot depth.
The Planning Commission questioned discussing this request because the property
owner was not present. The Ccxnmission in reviewing the survey noted that the
structure on the south parcet is at the minimum of 20% of the lot depth in
retation to tMe proposed lot line. The makers of the original motion changed
the mation to include that the structure on the south parcel should be no ctoser
than 20� of the lot depth. The motion carried with Commissioner Herje voting
nay (because the property owner was not present). The Planning Commission also
asked Mr. Westlake to contact Mr. Conrard regarding the above.
(c) King' s Uatley (2 Residential lots)
2316 � 2318 English Circie
The request is to adjust a lot line by rernoving a four foot jog so that the lot
line can run between two units. The lots in question are Lots 1 and 2 Block 1
King' s Valley. Mr. Jim Nawks, representing Centurion Corr�any, indicated this
was an error on their part which was missed by the arehitects, engineers, and
surveyars.
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Hakala, carried unanimousiy, to recomnend
approval of the waiver of the Platting Ordinance as requested.
3• FLOOD PLAIN
Nick M. Loscheider, Property Owner
Request to Construct a Mouse — 1315 Louisiana Avenue North
Request to Fill for Future Houses — 1345,1401 � 1415 Louisiana Ave. North
Nick M. Loscheider is requesting a building permit on Lot 1 Btock l Peterson' s
Valtey View Addi-tion. Rlso, he is requesting ctearance for future construction
on three vacant parcels to the north. The reason this item is coming to the
Planning Commissian is that these tots are located in the flood Ptain.
Mr. Loscheider will be appearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals on November 12,
1975 to request a variance so that he can construct the house. In order that
the Board of Zoning Appeats may consider the request, it has to be reviewed by
the Bassetts Creek Flood Controt Cornmission, Department of Natural Resources,
and the Planning Commission.
Mr. Westlake reviewed letters fran the Department of Natural Resources and the
Bassetts Creek Flood Control Commission which indicated that Lots 1 and 2
Block 1 Prospect Heights Second Addition (1401 � 1415 Louisiana Avenue North)
are, above the elevation of the Management Envelope.
Mr. Loscheider was present and indicated he would also like the Planning Cornmission� s
consideration of 1316 Maryland Avenue North which he also oam s and is located
directly west of the above tots.
���
Planning Commission
November 10, 1975 page 3
The Ptanning Cornnission after discussing the request inctuding the present homes
to the North and South of 1315 Louisiana, it was felt they should have more
information; therefore, it was rraved by Herje, seconded by Sehiin, carried
unanimously, to defer action on this request.
4. KING'S VALLEY (P.U.D. #13)
Privacy Patio Fence — Request not to Construct if Owner does not want
Fence — 2100 to 230� Mendelssohn Avenue service drive
When this P.U.D. was approved by the City in 1974 part of the landscaping plan
indicated a fence detail showing location and the type of fence. More speci—
fically, the fence is a part of each unit as a patio or privacy area.
Mr. Jim Hawks of Centurion Company was present and stated that rrnach to their
surprise some of the people have indicated they do not want a fence with their
unit. Approximately 10� of the fences woutd not be constructed if the request
is approved.
The Planning Comnission in discussing the request noted the following;
l . that when the project was approved, it was fett by the Commission that the
layout of the units was a good plan — which the fence was a part of.
2. in the future, with peopte buying and selling the units, some may want to
build a fence or others may want to remove the fences, which would result
in a continuous problem.
3. The fences provide privacy and other uses, for example, an area for
children� s toys.
4. if one unit has a fence and the adjacent unit does not, the unit with
the fence is providing screening for both units.
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Sehtin, carried unanimousty, to deny the
request for the option of not having �ences for certain units in P.U.Q. #13,
noting the fence is an intrical part of the total house design which is a
part of the P.U.D.
5. DISCUSSION — CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Chairman R�n Edstrom indicated that the procedure for the discussion of the
CorrQrehensive Ptan will be to discuss the changes that the Planning Commission
approved at their first revised version Hearing held on September 22, 1975.
Members of the Councii present for the discussion were Mayor Hoover and
Council members Anderson, Swartz, and Thorsen. Also present was Gloria Johnson.
The items as listed below are changes for clarity in the Comprehensive Plan.
No changes are significant. Also included are typing error corrections.
Page 9, 11 , � 12
It was maved by Lundsgaard, seconded by Christiansen, carried unanimously,
to move #10, Items A — M to the bottom of Page 25•
� � ?'+�7
Planning Commission
November 10, 1975 page 4
Page 14
Supplement Page 14 to be rertpved.
Page 25
Fourth Paragraph, fourth sentence, to read: Planning ea11s for eventual
upgrading in its entirety although ptans for the Rortion in Goiden Vatiey
are not developed at this time,
It was moved by Herje, seccsnded by Hughes, carried unanimously, to approve the
change as above.
Fifth paragraph, re—write as follows:
Trunk Highway 12 is presently a four lane divided expressway through
Golden Valley and has been upgraded to full freeway within Minneapolis
as I-94. Prior to 1975, authorization of additional Interstate Highway
in the Trunk Highway 12 corridor (I-394) had resulted in an extensive
location study for the new route. The authorization provided for I-394
to begin on I-494 in Minnetonka and to end in the Minneapolis Central
Business District, following the Trunk Highway 12 corridor. Golden Valley' s
objectives at this time are: to prevent further encroachment on land
resources by containing the widening of Highway i2 within the present
right—of—way, and to provide ,more efficient, channelized access for the
City. Cooperation with the State Highway Department in the planning
stages is necessary to accomplish these objectives.
It was moved by Specktor, seconded by Lundsgaard, carried unanimously, that
when the word Plymouth appears, change it to Minnetonka.
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Sehlin, carried unanimously, that when the
word oals appears, change it to objectives.
It was moved by Specktor, 'seconded by Lundsgaard, carried unanimously, to approve
the fifth paragraph as changed above and to ask the staff to incorporate Ttem #10
A — M Page 9, 11 & 12 to the end of this paragraph, which may require re—writing.
Map — Page 27
The Council discussed with the Ptanning Coamission how the Commission arrived
at their Thoroughfare Plan.
Page 33
Typing correction — fourth paragraph, first line to read: The approval
and installation of stop signs on collector streets should .. ......
Page 35 �
Typing corrections — third paragraph to read Safety Council , not 6o�rrri�t�ee
fifth paragraph to read automobiie, not au�o�o�i�es
'�. 11Y�
Planning Commission
November 10, 1975 page 5
Page 49
Second and third paragraph to read as follows:
Another concept looked on as having application to the needs of the
comnunity and which is playing a significant role in expanding a meaning—
ful pedestrian system is the "urban traii" concept. i'he concept is not
necessarily new, but it is in the initial developing stages in the City.
It seeks to combine the proposats already made by various groups within
the cammunity for establishing certain sidewaTk routes linking major
pedestrian oriented generators. The newly conceived sch�ne extends this
concept by establishing walkways through a linear park system. Where a
park cannot be extended, sidewalks along local streets are being incorp—
orated into the system.
Unlike devetopment of a wilderness trail , where just one or two methods
of irt�plementation are required, the development of the urban trail is a
corr�lex undertaking which requires a high degree of coordinat�on and
dedication by the comnunity to follow through to final implementation.
The Urban Trail Implementation Map indicates a series of trail systems
throughout the City, all requiring a separate set of implementation
techniques. The degree to which the system is augmented witl depend
tapon the success of the initial attempt at the develop�nt of the urban
trail and the resultant value realized by the community residents.
It was moved by Lundsgaard, seconded by Specktor, carried unanimously to approve
the change as above for paragraphs 2 and 3 and refer paragraph four and Page 50
to the staff for study.
Page 53
Copy error — include Sweeney Lake paragraph
6. RESIGNATION — COMMISSIONER HAKALA
Commissioner Katharine Hakala indicated this woutd be her last Ptanning Carrnission
meeting because of moving out of the state. The Commission expressed their
thanks to Commissioner Hakata.
7. NORTHEAST FIRE STATION
The Council discussed with the Planning Commission the background regarding the
Northeast fire station. The Council stated that at their December 1 , 1975
meeting they will take input regarding the fire station. After this meeting
they will be asking the Planning Commission for their unput.
There being no further business to cane before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly secon , adjourne 12:40 P.M.
, ., ; _...._.._.r....... �
�..:, � ,,; ; �
� . _
6., ..,j;^�.
Ch irman Ronald E str Secretar ath � ��
y ryn erje