06-28-76 PC Minutes `Y Jp^$
e. P>`�
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING CUMMISSION
June 28, 1976
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Ptanning Comnission was held at 7:30 P.M.
on Monday, June 28, 1976 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road,
Golden Va11ey, Minnesota.
Chairman Ronatd Edstrom presided and the following mernbers were present:
Commissioners Christiansen, Herje, Lundsgaard, Mindess, Sehlin, Specktor, and
Wagman. Also present was Jon Westlake, staff inernber.
Members absent: Commissioner Hughes.
1 . APPROUAL OF MINUTES: MOVED by Mindess, seconded by Nerje, carried unani—
mousty, to ap��ove the minutes of the June 14, 1976 Planni�g Camniss-ion meeting
as �nen.ded as follows: Page 4, add to end of first paragraph: involving a
possible financial interest of one of his employers in reference to one of the
properties in question.
2. PRELIMINARY PLAT — DESIGN STAGE
Applicant: Richard R. Tieva
Location: 2410-2510 Douglas �rive North
Request: Platting of Ten Lots
Zoning: Residential
The Planning Commission at their April 26, 1976 meeting reviewed a request for
a waiver of the Platting Ordinance for the East 1�2 of 2510 Douglas Orive.
Because of open land which may have an effect on the proposal , the Planning
Comnission suggested that the owners of the open parcels be approached to
determine whether the properties coutd be platted as a unit. The proponent has
devetoped a concept plan which has taken into account the remaining open areas
whieh are located east of Dougtas Orive, west of Lamplighter Estates, and an
open parcel north of Wynnwood Road. Ir� reviewing the concept, the following
is noted:
1 . Some of the tots do not meet the required 12,500 square feet or
100 feet of frontage at the 35—foot setback line. Some adjustments
coutd be made to meet the required 12,500 square feet, but it would
have an effect on the lot frontage.
2. The parcels that are involved in the plat and abut Douglas Drive
should become part of the plat.
3• The west lot line of Lots 1 through 5 should be studied further to
determine if a straight North and South tine coald be developed.
4. With no topog it is difficutt at this point to determine how the
terrain would blend with the lower properties to the East.
5• The street design contains a 50—foot Right of Way and a 100—foot
cut de sac.
This is a concept ptan and if the Ptanning Cornmission looks favorably upon it,
the proponent would proceed to the preliminary ptat stage.
Mr. Bruce Pankonin, representing the proponents, was present to review the request.
Mr. Pankonin pointed out that it is difficult property to develop because of
the geometrics of the property and a buyer—seller type of relationship. We are
� ��
Planning Comnission
June 28, 1976 page 2
proposing single f�nily homes for this area. The proposed plat contains ten
lots, which fi�� proponent feels is the most desirable plan for the area, giving
the facts of structures now present, terrain, and the amount of land available
for purchase. �r. Pankonin presented a sketch plan to determine whether this is
the direction the pre1iminary plat should be patterned after. The six lots in
the cul de sac area will generate approximately 40 trips per day.
The following residents were present to express their concerns as follows:
Mr. Winslow, 6140 Wynnwood Road, presented a ptat to the Planning Comnission
showing the road going down the center of the "property which would solve the
probl�n for the homes on the east and aliow a rear access for homes abutting
Douglas Drive. Was opposed to allowing smaller lots than the City requires.
Or. Schwartz, 6117 Heritage Circle, also representing Dr. Hiller, 6127 Heritage
Circle, questioned the plat not meeting the Ordinance requirements, and stated
the propo�ent did not meet with property owners as suggested by the Planning
Cortmission, and expressed concern about how the plat will tie in with his
property. Mr. Sorensen, 2510 Oouglas Drive, questioned the width of the boulevard
and felt there were lots in L�lighter Estates with less than the requirements
of the Platting Ordinance. Mr. and Mrs. Murray, 2401 Brunswick Avenue North,
questioned the 40 trips per day generated by the proposal , e�ressed concern
about the terrain of the plat which abuts their tot, and stated that people
were not notified east of Brunswick Avenue and the proposed lots do not meet the
Ordinance requirements. Mr. Kiesling, 2465 Brunswick Avenue No�th, stated his
property is 12 feet lower than the plat, and he would have a road on three sides
of his property. What would happen to fences and sbrubs and traffic generated
by this proposal? Mr. Brusven, 6107 Heritage Circle, expressed concern about the
deviation of lot size from the Platting Ordinance. Mrs. Kiesling, 2465 Brunswick
Avenue North, was concerned about tMe topography and placement of the road.
Mr. Huret, 6055 Manchester Drive, was concerned about topography, drainage, and
not meeting the Platting Ordinance requirements.
The Planning Commission in discussing the request referred to alternate ways of
platting the property, reviewed the platting of the parcels in the area, noted
that single f�nity residential would be the lowest use for development of the
property, and discassed the possibility of five tots rather than six lots in the
cut de sac area which would allow the North-South lot lines to be adjusted, and
the lots would meet the Platting Ordinance requirements. The three lots off
Wynnwood Road were discussed with respect to developing two lots. The Flanning
Commission asked the proponent why he designed this particutar layout for this
parcel . The proponent in answer to this stated they were restricted by the
amount of property they could purchase, the Platting Ordinance, angle of street,
and terrain. The Commission noted the terrain and street tocation were the
predominant probtems in designing a plat for this area.
It was moved by Wagman that the Planning Comnission recommend five lots in the
cul de sac area which would allow for the lots to mare nearly meet the Ordinance,
and that the lots on Wynnwood Road are to meet the required lot frontage width.
The motion died for lack of a second.
It was then moved by Christiansen, seconded by Lundsgaard that the concept plan
in the cul de sac area be adjusted so that Lots 1 , 2, and 3 meet the required
12,500 square feet and adjust Lots 4, 5, and 6 to more nearly meet the Ordinance
with the purchase of additionat property which would allow for an adjustment
�; i
� �.��
Planning Cormaission
June 28, 1976 page 3
in the fdorth-South rear lot li�e and atso the revised plan is to meet the
requirements of the Engineering Department.
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Mindess, as an �nendment to the motion, that
as an alternative the proponent re-design the concept plan for five lots in the
cul de sac area. The motion as �nended carried with one nay vote.
The Planning Commission suggested to the developer that he should meet with the
neighbors when they have re-designed this plat and to submit the proposal to
the Planning Department early enough so that the peopie may be notified a week
ahead of the meeting. The notification should inctude the residents east of
Brunswick Aventae alsa.
3• PRELIMINARY PLAT - TYROL WEST ADDITION
(Referred to Planning Commission by City Council )
Applicant: Wayne Jopp
Location; 1300-1400 block of Natchez Avenue South
Request: Ptatting of Thirteen Lots
Zoning: Residential
The plat of the Tyrol West Addition was approved by the Planning Comnission on
April 26, 1976• The City Council at their June 7, 1976 Councit meeting referred
the preliminary plat back to the Planning Commission for farther review. The
Council in discussing the plat with the devetoper discussed the fotlowing which
also was reviewed with the developer after the Jwne 7, 1976 Counci�.meeting:
1 . Btaffer along the highway service r�.
2. Traffic on Ottawa Avenue South may increase because of the vehicles
using Natchez Avenue as a route through this area during peak hoc�rs.
In reference to this, a cul de sac could possibly be designed for
the property.
3• Keeping the required i5-foot setback between the building even
though the lots are smatler.
4. East side of the ptat to be studied further for the possibility of
fewer lots.
(a) Woutd attow for greater distance between present structure
and lot line. ,
(b) The lots fihen could more nearly meet the City requirements.
The proposed plat contains approximately the same configuration of lots as
previously reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Wayne Jopp and Mr. Hetd were present to review the plat with the Planning Commission.
In reference to the four points as listed above, Mr. Jopp explained the present
landscaping along the service ramp and what is proposed in the Southwest corner of
the site. In answer to developing a cul de sac on the site, it was felt it is
better planning to develop the street through the property. Item #3 has been
incorporated into the plat. Mr. Jopp further stated in reference to fewer lots
on the east site (Block 1 ) it is felt that the plat as designed is a good
layout.
� ��
Planning Comnission
June 28, 197b page 4
The Planning Comnission reviewed the four points as discussed by the Council ,
including the letter by the State Highway �epartment which expressed concern about
the plat. The letter also referred to contacting the Environmental QuaTity Board.
Jon Westlake informed the Comnission that the Environmental Quality Board had
been contacted as suggested by the State Nighway Department, and the EQB stated
they had no interest in this plat.
It was moved by Specktor, seconded by Lundsgaard, carried unanimousty, to table
the request until changes are made regarding Items 3 and 4 as listed previously
in the first paragraph and to consider traffic signs for behicle controt and
the placement of the structure on Lot 1 Block 2 to burther frorn the highway.
4. PRELIMINARY PLAT — FLORIDA ADDITION
Applicant: Inter—Inc.
Location: 6400 Wayzata Boulevard
Request: Divide Parcel into Four Lots
Zoning: Industrial
The request is to divide a parcel containing 5•59 acres into four lots with access
to Florida Circle. The lots range in square footage from approximately 30,500
to 35,500. The property is zoned Industrial as is the surrounding area. The
uses in this area are Office, Light Industrial and Commercial .
In order to provide a cut de sac off Florida Avenue for the property, the pro—
ponent has arranged to exchange the same amount of land with the property to the
west which houses a structure (6480 Wayzata Boutevard). In reviewing the plat,
the foltowing is noted:
1 . Is the area of traded property west of Lot 1 to be part of the ptat?
2. Will the parcel that houses the office building at 6480 Wayzata
Boulevard be part of the plat?
3. The stru_cture at 6480 Wayzata Boulevard will be approximately 3� feet
from the proposed East property line. Could additionat footage be
added to this parcel to allow perpendicular parking to the structure?
The proponent has approached the property owner to the east to determine whether
there would be any interest in devetoping part of the cal de sac on his property
to allow that parcet access to Florida Avenue.
Mr. John Voss of Urban Planning and Design presented the preliminary plat to the
Planning Comnission. In explaining the plat Mr. Voss indicated they are proposing
the trading of 5,000 square feet for 5,000 square feet frcxn the structure located
at 6480 Wayzata Bouievard. The proponent had hoped to have corr�leted the trading
of these properties by this meeting, but has not been abte to do so because the
property owner is out of town. Because of this they have an atternate #2, which
the staff has not reviewed, showing ingress and egress further to the north on the
site. Nowever, this may involve the City because of a possible condemnation.
Alternate #t is tMe proposal being presented to the Planning Carrnission for
approval . Mr. Voss further stated that presently they are planning a warehouse
on one lot and the possibitity of a restaurant on another.
The Ptanning Commission indiscussing the plat looked at the tot size in relatior�
to the Industrial land use and the design of the street and cut de sac for large
trucks. The access in reference to the contiguous lot to the east was also
di scussed.
"� r. �
-�.w.r i,.... .
Planning Commission
June 28, 1976 page 5
It was moved by Mindess, seconded by Lundsgaard, carried unanimousty, to
recommend approval of the plat as subrnitted (Atternate #1 ), subject to:
1 . The transfer of land as indicated on Alternate #1 which is to be included
in the plat,
2. Approval of the City Engineering Department and Fire Department, and
3. Dedication of land or cash in lieu of.
5. PRELIMINARY PLAT — MCCOY ADDITION
Rpplicant: Milton 0. Quam
Locatian: Southwest Corner of Lindsay Street and Highway 100
Request: Three Oouble Bangalow Lots
Zoning: Residential
Since the previous Planning Commission meeting the developer has adjusted his
proposed plat for three doubles south of Lindsay Street as fotlows (Ordinance
required 150 feet of frontage and 18,750 square feet):
Previous Present
Lot t Frontage 139.6� — 18,220 sq. ft. Frontage 139.6' — 18,$46 sq. ft.
Lot 2 Frontage 130' — 18,220 sq. ft. Fron�age 135' — 18,846 sq. ft.
Lot 3 Rear Lot 130' — 20,840 sq. ft. Frontage 143j122� — 19,618 sq. ft.
(rear)
The developer has contacted a surveyor for a boundary survey which would include
present and proposed contours of the property. Presently this is not ready,
but the proponent will try to have it completed by the Planning Commission
meeting. The reason the developer is asking that the request be ptaced on the
agenda is that if it is approved, he would then be able to request a variance
at the July 1976 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting regarding the frontage.
Messrs. Kerivedy and Quam were present for the request. Mr. Kerivedy exptained
the changes between this plan and the previous plan. He further stated he
has a surveyor Hrorking on the project, but he �as not completed his work.
The Planning Commission in reviewing the June 14, 1976 Planning Commission
minutes discussed again the tand use of residential versus the Professionat
Offices use as indicated on the Corr�rehensive Plan and the land uses in the
area now and what the land uses may be in the future. The Commission then
reviewed the plat, noting the changes to more nearly meet the Ordinance for
double bungalows.
It was moved by Specktor, seconded by Christiansen, carried unanir►�usly, to
recommend approval of the preliminary plat, subject to:
1 . The proponent to have a registered engineer provide a drainage plan which
would include consideration of any filling on the parcet not causing
displacement of soil on other lots, and
2. Oedication �f land or cash in lieu of.
6. PRELIMINARY PLAT — FREDSALL'S AODITION
Applicant; Or. Fredsall ,
Location: 508-520 Westwood Orive South
Request: Platting of Seven Lots
Zoning: Residentiat
� ��
Planning Corrrnission
June 28, 197b page 6
This preliminary plat was approved by the Ptanning Canmission in May 1967 and by
the City Councit in June 1967. The plat was not corr�leted as a final plat. The
Platting Ordinance requires that within six months of the preliminary approval by
the Council the final plat must be submitted for approval . Because this was not
completed within the time sequence, the ptat is before you for review. There fias
also been a change in this plat from the previous plat which is an additional
parcel shown as Lot 4 on the plat.
A11 lots rr�et or exceed the requirements, except Lot 4 which is at the end of the
cul de sac, which has a frontage of approximately 75 feet at the 35—foot setback
line; however, the square footage of the lot is 28,000.
The Planning Commission in reviewing the ptat with Dr. Fredsall noted that
presently there are three homes on the plat which conform to the City require—
ments. The blacktop street is in, including sewer and water.
It was rrbved by Lwndsgaard, seconded by Christiansen, carried unanim�usly, to
recommend approval of the request as submitted, subject to the City Engineering
Department requirements and the dedication of land or cash in lieu of.
7. REPORT OF MEETING WITH THE CAPITAL LONG RAN6E IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE
Commissioner Sehlin reported that she and Jon Westlake met with the Capital
Long Range Irr�revement Cortmittee on June 22, 1976 to review the items submitted
by the Planning Commission to the Comnittee as indicated in the May 24, 1976
Cornmission minutes. The Committee indicated they will be open to additional
input; therefore, if there are additional cvmments, they should be presented
at the July 12, 1976 Ptar�ning Comnission meeting.
There being no further business to cane before the meeting, it was on motion,
duty seconded, adjourned at 11:10 P.M.
,�
. � �
.:
� ..A ._'_.. '- �
� � °� a.
Ch irman Ronald Edstrcxn Se r tary K thry H je