11-22-76 PC Minutes � ��
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 1976
A regular meeting of the Golden Valtey Planning Commission was hetd at 7;30 P.M.
on Monday, November 22, 1976 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road,
6olden Valley, Minnesota.
Chairman Ron Edstrom presided and the following members were present:
Cortmissioners Forster, Nerje, Hughes, Lundsgaard, Mindess and Wagman. Also
present was Jon Westlake, staff inember.
Members absent: Commissioners Sehlin and Specktor.
1 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The approvai of the minutes was deferred to the
end of the meeting at which time it was MOVEO by Lundsgaard, seconded by Hughes,
carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of the October 25, 1976 Planning
Commission meeting as mailed.
2. WAIUER OF THE PLATTING ORDINANCE
Applicant: Lowell Kitzmann
Location: 6448-6470 Glenwaod Avenue
Request: Divide into Two Lots
Zoning: Residential
The request is to divide a large lot contaYning a home on the East side of
the parcel into two lots. Both parcels exceed the 12,500 square foot re—
quirement and 100 feet of frontage. The home on the East parcel meets the
required side yard setback where the new prAperty line would be located.
If the request is approved by the Planning Gommission, the following should
be considered:
1 ) Recording of the Utility Easements for water and sewer, and
2) Removal of the shed on the West parcel .
Mr. and Mrs. Lowell Kitzmann were present for the request and indicated that
they have started to remove the shed, and the utility document will be filed
at the time of closing.
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Wagman, carried unanimously, to recornnend
approval of the waiver of the Platting Ordinance as submitted, subject to:
1 ) Filing of proper easements, and 2) Removal of shed on the West parcel .
3• PRELIMINARY PLAT — GOLOEN VALLEY ESTATES
Applicant: Howard Sybrant � Son, Inc.
Location: 8301-8695 block of Plymouth Avenue
Request: Divide Area into Thirtenn (13) Double Bungalow Lots
Zoning: Open Development
The request is to plat thirteen (13) double bungalow lots on 14 acres of land
at a density of 1 .86 units per acre. The proponent is planning to deed to
the City the Southerly 56� of the site and retain 44q; of the land for building
sites. The reason the proponent is planning to develop the site without
interior road patterns is because of the soil condition. The area of land
that is being dedicated will provide a natural buffer between the industrial
��`�
Planning Comnission
November 22, 1976 page 2
park and railroad tracks to the South. The dedicated area wilt have access from
the Park Oepartment' s Tree Farm which adjoins the plat on the Northeast corner.
The City trail system is presently constructed to the North of this parcel on
street Right of Way. The open space map indicates that a portion of the property
should be preserved.
The Cort�rehensive Plan for this area indicates a Residential P.U.D. (density
range of up to four (4) units per acre). The reason why the area was classified
as a residential P.U.D. was that:
1 . It was felt the land should be developed as a package,
2. Soil conditions of the parcel ,
3• The site lies south of Residential and Park land,
4. An Industrial land use to the South and West.
The ptat meets the requirements for double bungalow lots, except the frontage.
The present Ordinance requires a 150—foot frontage. The lots range from a
frontage of 103 feet to 170 feet (Tv�ro lots in the plat meet or exceed the
frontage required).
If the Planning Cortmission recc3nmends approval of the plat the next step would
be a review by the Board of Zoning Appeals because of lot frontages. As a
suggestion to the Board of Zoning Appeals, if a variance is granted, conditions
should be spetled out, such as:
1 . Set a time limit on removing the old building located on the North—
west corner of the site,
2. Require Building Board of Review to approve the plans, which would
include landscaping,
3• Because of the design of the lots containing a narrow frontage and
sufficient depth, establish a 50—foot front yard setback.
The request after receiving a ruling from the Board of Zoning Appeals would
proceed to the City Council for consideration of the plat. Regarding the plat,
the following are some points the Planning Commission may want to consider:
1 . Grading plan to meet the requirements of the Engineering Department
prior to the City Council setting the public hearing date for the plat,
2. Other requirements of the Engineering Department,
3. Rezoning the property from Open Oevelopment to Residential and the
City portion to Institutional (I-4).
Mr. Ray Milbauer of David C. Bell Investment Company, representing the two land
owners, distributed to the Planning Commission three different types of double
bungalow elevations to the Planning Commission, including pictures of doubles
built elsewhere in the Twin City area that would be constructed on these lots.
The units, inctuding the garages, would be no wider than 60 feet. Design of the
units would vary—such as two bedroom units on one side and three bedroom units
on the other side. The units will be sold to individuals.
Mrs. Lewis Harvatin, 1310 Castle Court, expressed concern about traffic pro—
duced by these units and would like to see residential in this area. Mr. Buranen,
property owner of the parcel in question (1130 Boone Avenue North), stated he
wouid like to do something with the property and people would not want to build
single family next to railroad tracks.
� :�
d ,5 i�� �
Planning Commission
November 22, 1976 page 3
The Planning Commission in discussing the request referred to the soil conditions,
surrounding land use, and discussed ways of making the plan more imaginative.
If the area were corr�letely developed with single famiiy dwellings, the area
would have approximately 30 homes or approximately 50 townhouse units. In dis—
cussing the site it was noted there are very few remaining large undevetoped
parcels in the ccxnmunity—of which this is one. The density and traffic produced
by this particular plan is not as much of a concern as how the plat is layed out.
The Planning Commission then asked the proponent'i�f he had any alternate plan
for platting the property—s�ch as frontage that woutd conform more to the Code,
or designing the plat to break up the row e�ffiect of these units. The Planning
Commission also felt there should be information regarding the parcel the pro—
ponent plans to dedicate to the City to find out if the City needs or wants
the property.
It was moved by Mi�dess, seconded by Lundsgaard, carried unanimously, to table
the request to the next Planning Commission meeting and ask the Golden Ualley
Park and Recreation Commission to respond back to the Planning Corrmission on
the parcels of land the proponent plans to dedicate to the City regarding the
use or need of the property. The Planning Comnission also asked for input from
the Engineering Oepartment or staff in reference to the City' s feelings on the
property. The Commission asked the Chairman of the Planning Commission to contact
the Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission in reference to the motion.
It was then moved by Herje, seconded by Hughes, carried unanimously, that as a
suggestion to the developer they consider other alternate ways of subdividing
the property, which the Planning Commission would like to see at the December
13, 1976 Planning Commission meeting.
4. PRELIMINARY PLAT — WESTWOOD IAKE OfFICE PARK AD�ITION
Applicant: The Northland Company
Location: 8401-8441 Wayzata Boulevard
Request: Plat Office Park into Two Lots
Zoning: Industrial (Residential off Wisconsin Avenue)
Northland Company is requesting to plat their property known as Westwood Lake
Office Park, located South of Highway 12, West of Wisconsin Avenue, and Idorth of
St. Louis Park' s Nature Interpretive Center, inta twoo lots. The reason for the
request according to the developer is that the mortgage co�any for the t�
existing buildings is requesting the developer to plat the property. The plat
would be considered as an as—built plat in that the developer plans no more
structures on the site than the two present buildings on Lot 2 and the building
under construction on Lot 1 .
In reviewing the ptat the following is noted:
1 . The present structure on Lot 2 meets the required 20—foot separation from
the new property tine,
2. The proponent is presently discussing �rath the City the possibility of
exehange or purchase of Qutlot 1 Industrial Park Addition—Replat, which
is owned by the City. The City is studyi�g the possibility of exchanging
Outlot 1 with the North end of Lot 1 , �r�ridge Addition because the service
drive runs through the North portion of Lot 1 .
� ��
Planning Commission
November 22, 1976 page 4
3• By platting the property it would eliminate the various lots and metes and
bounds descriptions.
If the plat is approved, the following should be considered:
1 . Subject to the Engineering and Fire Departments,
2. Agreement between the two properties for parking,
3• Easements for water and sewer between the two properties,
4. Because the area has been developed as an office park, the Planning Comnission
may want to consider suggesting to the proponent and Council a change in
zoning from Industrial and Residential to Business and Professional Offices.
Mr. Bruce Odlaug, Attorney representing the proponent, was present for the request.
In reviewing the proposal with the Planning Commission Mr. Odtaug stated that
no further structures are planned for the site. The reason for the plat is that
this is one of the conditions of the mortgage company in order to mortgage the
two existing buildings.
The Planning Comnission in discussing the plat noted the property is platted as
one as—built plat with structures and green area meeting the present Code.
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Forster, carried unanimously, to recommend
approval of the plat, subject to: 1 ) the requirements of the Engineering
Department and Fire �epartment, 2) an agreement for cross parking, and
3) easements for water and sewer between the two properties.
It was then moved by lundsgaard, seconded by Mindess, carried unanimously, to
recanmend that the property be rezoned fr�n Industrial and Residentiat to
Business and Professional Offices.
5. PRELIMINARY PLAT — VALLEY W000
Applicant: Fisher�Sanko
Location: 5651 Olson Memorial Highway
Request: Platting of Thirteen (13) Single Familq Lots
Zoning: Residential
Yhis plat was approved by .the Planning Conmission at their September 27, 1976
meeting. Since then the City Council has held two hearings on the request` but
deferred the second hearing to the December 6, 1976 City Council meeting. Prior
to this hearing the Council is sending the plat back to the Planning Commission
for their review. In answer to two of the items in the September 27, 1976
Planning Commission minutes, the Council will require cash for the 10�b land
dedication, and in reference to the traffic problem, the Council sent a resolution
to the Nighway Department, and the Highway Oepartment responded back indicating
there were no funds avaitable with respect to this request.
The proponent still has not turned into the City for review a profile of the
street nor worked out the deeding of the property of the cul de sac on the
Schut property.
F. W. 0'Keefe of David C. Bell Company and Dr. Lawrence Schut discussed with the
Planning Comnission the cul de sac area.
� ��
Planning Comnission
November 22, 1976 page 5
It was moved by Lundsgaard, seconded by Wagman, carried unanimously, to
recommend acceptance of the preliminary plat dated November 19, 1976, subject
to the deeding of the Schut property for street Right of Way.
Mr. 0'Keefe indicated that the deed and street profile wili be given to the
Engineering Department not later than December 1 , 1976.
6. DISCUSSION
(a) Comprehensive Plan
The Chairman of the Planning Commission indieated that the Planning Department
will be revising the Ccxnprehensive Plan as approved by the Council for the
Oecember 13, 1976 Planning Commission meeting.
(b) Metro Ptanning Workshop
The Planning Commissior► was informed of a planning �rkshop to be held on
December 7, 1976 at the St. louis Park Recreation Center at 7:30 P.M. The
workshop wilt be in reference to carrying out of the Land Planning Act.
Although other Planning Commission members will be attending, Commission Forster
will represent the Plannir�g Commission.
(c) Guidelines for Planned Unit Development
Comnissioner Wagman reviewed with the Commission the guidelines for Planned
Unit Development which he and Commissioner Sehlin had revised. In reviewing
the revised copy changes were made. These changes will be made in the final
draft and sent to the Planning Commission along with a suggested form for the
developer to use for the progress report.
(d} Guidelines for Comnissions
The Planning Cornmission noted that the City Council at their December 6, 1976
meeting will be discussing guidelines for Commissions. The Planning Ccxnmission
m�nbers have copies of such and discussed the report at their September 13, 1976
meeting (which was not an official meeting due to lack of quorum). The
Planning Commission at that time had no comments and it was decided at that
meeting that if any Ptanning Comnission member had any camnents, they should
contact the Council directly.
(e) Meeting Cancellation
Because of the Holidays, the Planning Conmission will caneel their Oecember
27, 1976 meeting.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 10:20 P.M.
,,-` �
. . ° .
� . �,....,.........,,., �n, ....... � �..., .,.
C airman Ron s r Se r tary thr n He je