02-14-77 PC Minutes ���''�..
MINFJTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 14, 1977
A regular meeting of the Golden Vatley Planning Corrmission was held at 7:30 P.M.
on Monday, February 14, 1977 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Chairman Ron Edstrom presided and the following members were present: Commissioners
Forster, Herje, Hughes, Lundsgaard, Mindess, Sehlin, and Specktor. Also present
was Cart Dale, Planner, and Jon Westlake, staff inember.
Members absent: Commissioner Wagman.
1 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOUED by Sehlin, seconded by Specktor, carried
unanimously, to approve the minutes of the January 24, 1977 Planning Comnission
meeting as amended as follows: Page 1 , last paragraph, third sentence—change
North to South.
2. PLANNEO UNIT DEVELOPMENT — INFORMAL HEARING
P.U.D, #16—A Concept Plan
Proponent: Cheyenne Land Company
Location: 5916 Glenwood Avenue
Request: Construct 20 Doubte Units and 4 Quad Units for a Total of
56 Living Units
Chairman Ron Edstrom reviewed with those present the Planned Unit Development
process and then referred to a tetter from the Minneapolis Northfield and
Southern Railway dated February 9, 1977 in reference to the proposal .
Mr. Cart Dale then reviewed the following Planning Considerations:
A. Proposal
The current proposal is to construct 56 dwelling units on 11 .6 acre tract of
land located between Glenwood Avenue and Laurel Avenue west of and adjacent to
the MN�S Railroad line. The dwelling units would consist of:
20 units in 10 buildings of one duplex style;
20 units in i0 buildings of another duplex style;
16 units in 4 buildings of a "quad" or four—plex style.
Total 5� unifs in 24 buiidings (of three differing styles)
This results in a gross density of approximately 4.8 units per acre including
proposed streets, green areas, parking, and green belt.
Plans submitted are quite generat since PtJF concept plan approval is being
considered only at this time which involves the following two basic questions:
1 . Is the proposeG land `use correct, in conformity to the Corr�rehensive
Municipal Plan, and in the interest of the general public health,
safety, and welfare? and;
2. Is the proposed dwelling unit density in conformity to the above noted
criteria?
7��
Planning Commission
February 14, 1977 page 2
Plan details such as building setbacks, parking provisions, and the like can
be considered later when more complete plans and specifications are submitted
and considered under the next procedural step of a 6eneral Development Ptan.
B. Background
This matter has been considered earlier (see minutes of Planning Commission
meeting of May 12, 1975) at which time the proposal was quite similar but for
a total of 52 dwelling units in 26 buildings (all double unit or duplex type
structures). Planning considerations from our office noted at that time are
substantially still valid although some conditions have been changed to varying
degrees:
1 . It has apparently been determined that right—of—way for Lauret Avenue plus
a 100 foot "green—belt" on the south is to be required and these have been
so indicated on the current plan submission.
2. Sanitary sewer service is adequate and available.
3• The City has made progress in evaluating flood plain needs in this area.
4. As per recommendations of the Park and Recreation Commission, a SO foot
"green—belt" has also been provided along the east side of the site adja—
cent to the railroad. It is not totally clear if the "green belt" locations
and alignments are satisfactory to all concerned or if these should be
dedications or simply easement grants.
A number of concerns and observations have been expressed by nearby residents
and land owners as well as by the Planning Commission in the past:
1 . Density
2. Building appearance and height
3• Traffic generation and emergency vehicte access
4. Desire for single family homes rather than multiples
5. Flooding and flood plain corr�lications
6. Lack of approved and coordinated plans for development of adjacent land to
the west and larger area in general
7. Pedestrian safety related to the railroad
8. Possible effect upon nearby property values
9. Building setbacks.
The last action taken by the Planning Commission on this matter occurred in
May of 1975 was to� recommend that the City and various property owners meet to
consider a total and coordinated plan for the larger area involved. To this
date, however, this has been only partially accomplished and no specific plans
have been submitted for the adjacent vacant land to the west of the current
site under consideration.
C. Current Analysis and Recommendations
As a pure ''concept" as provided for and defined in the City' s Zoning Regulations,
our opinion remains unchanged. The concept proposal seems to be in general con—
formity to the Corr�rehensive Municipal Plan in terms of both land use and density.
r,;4��
Planning Comnission
February 14, 1977 page 3
1 . The site in question, plus land to the west is designated as having resi—
dential PUD potential on the Municipal Plan. The current proposal is for
such a residential PUD approach to development.
2. The proposed gross dwelling unit density is situated between that which
would result from a "standard" single family home subdivision and "mid—
density" developments such as townhouses.
The site does not seem well suited as an environment for a standard of typical
single family subdivision nor does it seem reasonable to expect that there is
a need for funding available for acquisition of alt or major portions of the
site for public open space; public trail and green space requirements as noted
on the Municipal Plan will be provided at no cost to the public as part of the
PUD plan proposal .
Recommendations
1 . As a concept plan at this time, the proposal seems satisfactory and we would
recommend approval but subject to later approval of more complete and
detaited plans yet to be submitted (General Development Plan) and further
subject to certain conditions and modifications that may be required following
further study and discussion of the plan, site, and larger area involved.
Among others, the following should be considered in the next procedural step:
a) If a plan for development cannot be secured from the adjacent owner to
the west, said owner should be requested to submit an opinion related
to land use, street arrangements, and the like.
b) It should be determined if the green belt tocations are satisfactory
and under what conditions these are to be provided (public dedication,
granting of easements, etc.).
c) Alternate means of emergency vehicle access to the site must be explored;
some possibilities are to extend future roads through property to the
west back out to Glenwood or to provide a drive onto future Lauret Avenue.
d) The appearance of proposed buildings adjacent to Glenwood Avenue shoutd
be considered; these should have some variety in design and have the
appearance of single family homes. If not, it may be better public
policy to require single family homes on a PUO basis (perhaps a smaller
lot size requirement).
e) A judgment on the architectural treatment of all buildings must be made
at a later date when plans are submitted.
f) It should be determined if snow plowing and rerr�val provisions are
adequate; City experience with existing developed projects may be
helpful in this matter.
g) Detailed plans must be related to flood plain problems and needs in
this area. Requirements of the Bassett Creek Watershed District will
be a consideration in detailed planning.
h) It shoutd be determined if the "green belt" areas are adequate or if
additional cash—in—lieu—of dedication shoutd be required. It is not
known at this time if private on—site recreational facilities are to
be provided.
i ) Detailed plans for parking.
j) Current housing policy.
�
��::�
Planning Comnission
February 14, 1977 page 4
k) An opinion should be secured from the City Engineer, the Fire Department,
and others relating to the proposed access location onto Glenwood Avenue.
1 } Landscaping.
m) Approved home owners or other open space maintenance agreement and
conditions.
n) Specific building setbacks.
o) External storage, signs, etc.
It is suggested here that it is not possible at this time to evaluate the effect
upon nearby property values as much would depend upon later plan details and the
quality of development and design. It is further suggested that if a PUD concept
such as currently proposed is found not to be in the general public interest,
imnediate attention should be given to amending the Co�rehensive Municipal Plan
to more accurately reflect a desired City Land Use policy for the site and area
in question.
It must be noted that a public land use policy of permitting only singte family
homes on this site would not eliminate all of the current problems and complica-
tions for development of this site. Additional problems would also be introduced
such as financial feasibility, competitive abitity of site under current market
conditions, and the like.
We wish to note further that a stipulation should be made that City approval of
the concept plan at this time does not bind the City Council to final approval
of the development plan and that changes may be required prior to said approval .
Further, approval of any plan for the development of this site in question does
not, in any way, set a precedent for approvat of a similar plan for development
of adjacent land to the west.
Messrs. Ron Bastier of McCoombs Knutson Associates, Inc. and Jim Hawks of Cheyenne
Land Company were present to review the proposal . Mr. Bastier stated that the
railroad on the eastern border of the property would have a less effect with this
proposal than with single family platted lots. The traffic generated by this
proposal would not be a problem because Glenwood Avenue is an arterial street.
There would be sufficient sight distance to allow the traffic access to
Glenwood Avenue. The site does tie in with the Hamman property with a future
access road from this site. The portion of the road on the North half of the
site will be dedicated to the City as a 60-foot street. We are aware of the
flood plain requirement on the property and will provide equal co�ensation-
which will be approximately 7 acre feet of storage. The density based on net
acreage, which does not include the street Right of Way but includes the green-
belt on the South and East, is 11 .6 acres or 4.8 units per acre.
The following concerns were expressed by the residents: Harry Hamman, 6001
Glenwood Avenue, stated that the four houses in the Northwest corner of the site
should be one story in height. The proponent has not contacted him regarding
the development. Mr. Hamman indicated he owns 2.5 acres and Bennet owns 11 acres
contiguous to the West of the property. Mr. Levy, 240 Brunswick Avenue South,
stated his concerns are der.sity, traffic, type of units, single access to
Glenwood Avenue, best use of property, how this property reflects on the open
parcel to the West, and why not single family rather than patio homes, Mr. LeBlanc,
225 Brunswick Avenue South, questioned access to Glenwood Avenue and visibility,
possibility of Glenwood Avenue being widened, sidewalks, area from railroad track
,���'�
Planning Commission
February 14, 1977 page 5
to the west is singte family, and flood plain. Mr. LeBlanc stated he would
like to see single famity in this area, and also questioned emergency road
access across park green area. Glen Eiden, 345 Brunswick Avenue South, felt
the density is too high, density should conform to neighborhood, difficult
parcel wil ) require alot of ground work, precedent will be established for use
of land to the West, flood plain, and development will have an effect on his
home. Mr. Kane, 6100 Glenwood Avenue, asked what effect this project would have
on the value of hcxnes in the area. Mrs. Bix, 125 Brunswick Avenue South, pointed
out there was a problem with the notification by the developer for the neighborhood
meeting. Other residents voiced similar concerns as the aforesaid.
The Planning Comnission referred to the January 20, 1977 Park and Recreation
Comnission minutes regarding the trail system. The Commission in discussing the
request referred to the proposed density at 56 units, noting the guide plan for
this area would be up to four units for six acres and up to 7 units for 5 acres,
allowing a density range of approximately 59 units. This does not take into
account terrain, surrounding conditions, ponding, vegetation, access, etc. Because
of this the Planning Corrmission in reviewing the site discussed a density of 48 to
50 units on the site. The policy was discussed regarding credits, as for green
area, but would not include street right of way. The present use of the railroad
and future traffic was discussed. The Commission questioned if there was any
possible way that the proponent and the adjacent property owner to the West could
work together to provide a concept of the open parcet to the West which, among
other things, would provide a definite road location tying both properties together
to Glenwood Avenue. The types of units were reviewed, noting the units should
have a single family look on the Northeast area of the site. The units adjacent
to the trail area should not have exterior living area on that side. The single
access to Glenwood Avenue is a major concern, and an alternate emergency access
should be designed for the site. The Planning Commission also discussed the
flood plain—in which part of this site is located. The dedication of street
property was also reviewed, noting that if it is to function with the West parcel '
in the future, it will have to be dedicated. It was pointed out the City will
maintain the dedicated street, and the streets in the planned unit devetopment
will be teft to the home owner' s association. The quad units as proposed were
felt to be too strong for the site, especially with the open parcel to the West,
which when developed, should have less density than this site to blend to the
single family further to the East.
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Specktor to grant concept approval for P.U.D.
#16—A with the stipulation that the general plans contain no quad units and that
approval of the concept plan at this time does not bind the City Council to final
approval of the development plan. Further, approval of any plan for the develop—
ment of this site in question does not in any way set a precedent for approval of
a similar plan for development of adjacent land to the West. The motion carried
with Comnissioner Sehlin voting nay.
The Planning Commission pointed out that if the concept plan is approved and the
proponent elects to proceed to the general plan stage, the Planning Commission
will , among other requirements, ask the developer to provide such items as listed
prior to the general plan review by the Comnission:
1 . a traffic study
2. hydrant location p]an to be submitted to the City
� 3. alternate emergency access located in the south area of the site
���
Planning Comnission
February 14, 1977 page 6
4. require Bassetts Creek, Department of Natural Resources, and City approval
on the flood plain
5. a range of up to 50 units
6. the City' s housing policy
7. asked the developer to provide the following information for the staff to
submit to the Commission on the developer' s PUD'�S that are presently constructed:
(a) number of children
(b) problems the home owner' s association may have regarding street maintenance,
snow plowing, surrrner maintenance, outside storage, etc. Ways in which
these problems have been reduced or eliminated.
3• WAIVER OF THE PLATTING ORDINANCE
Applicant: Griswold Coffee Corr�any
Location: 8320-8360 Tenth Avenue North
Request: Divide Parcel into Two Lots
Zoning: Industrial
The City has received a request by the First National Bank to divide Lot 1 Busch' s
Gotden Valley Acres into two lots. The West parcel houses a warehouse and will be
2+ acres in size with a frontage of 171 .47 feet. The East parcel will be the
future home of Griswold Coffee Company on 3+ acres of land with a frontage of
341.62 feet. If the division is approved, both parcels will meet the City parking
and green area requirements under the present Code.
Mr. Steiner, contractor for Griswold Coffee Corr�any, was present to answer questions
about the division.
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Forster, carried unanimously to recommend approval
of the request as per survey by Leroy H. Winner � Associates, Inc. , Land Surveyors,
dated January 13, 1977•
4. WAIVER OF THE PLATTING ORDINANCE
Appticant: Dr. Joseph F. Bocklage
Location: 2080 Major Circle-2130 Spruce Trail
Request: Add a Segment of West Parcel to East Parcel
Zoning: Residential
The request is to add land from Registered Land Survey Number 7�9 to Lot 1 Block 3
Heathbrooke 2nd Addition Revised. Both lots will exceed the square footage re-
quirement f�r single family residentaal }ots. ' The City'is r�q�esting the�cQntin—
uation of a 50—fQOt easement along the Creek, which i.s deeded on the plat of
Heathbrooke 2nd Addition Revised, but not on the R.S.L.
Dr. Joseph F. Bocklage was present and indicated he saw no problem with deeding
the 50—foot easement along the Creek.
It was moved by Hughes, seconded by Specktor, carried unanimously to recommend
approval of the request for a waiver of the Ptatting Ordinance as per survey
by Thomas S. Bergquist, dated August 10, 1976, subject to the dedication of the
50—foot easement along the creek.
+/ #J'�
Planning Comcnission
February 14, 1977 page 7
5. WAIVER OF THE PLATTING OROINANCE
Applicant: Francis Lemieux
Location: 1320 Spring Valley Road
Request: Divide Parcel into Two Lots
Zoning: Residential
The request for a waiver of the Platting Ordinance as submitted is the same request
as approved by the Planning Commission on January 12, 1961 and by the City Council
on January 17, 1961. Other divisions in this area are as recent as October 1976
when the Pianning Commission and City Council approved a request to divide a vacant
parcel of land on Sweeney Lake located one lot to the North of this area.
The following is noted regarding the proposal :
Parcel A — Northeast Lot
Lot Frontage — 102.7�
Rear Lot Width on Land — 123.0'
Approximate � Land Area — 29,500 square feet
Location of House — approximately 92' from Right of Way
Orainage of Parcet — to the Southeast
Parcet B — Southwest Lot
Lot Frontage — 100.0'
Rear Lot Width on Land — 100.0'
Approximate � Land Area — 21 ,200 square feet
Drainage of Parcel — to the Southeast
In reviewing the request it is noted that the proposed interior lot line is con—
vexed to the South (just South of the existing house to meet the required 15—foot
sideyard setback). The real estate agent was informed that the Planning Commission
in reviewing lot divisions does not look favorably upon tot tines that have
configurations such as this request. The reasons are, for example, drainage,
fencing, easements, etc. Alternate ways of dividing the lot were discussed with
the proponent; however, the proponent has chosen the proposal as previously
submitted in January of 1961 .
If the request is approved by the Planning Commission, the Cornmission may want to
consider similar conditions as in the previous request to the North, such as:
1 . Require a setback greater than 35' because of the setback of the present
house on the lot and the house located on the parcel contiguous to the
Southwest.
2. Require a minimum of 15' sideyard setback.
3• Require a grading plan at the time a permit is issued for a structure.
Present for the request were Leland Frankman, Attorney, Charles Lemieux, son of
the property owner, and Artene Deziel , realtor.
The following residents expressed their concerns as follows: Charles Blome,
1318 Spring Vatley R oad, stated the following: 1 ) The area of the lot on which
���1�
Planning Commission
February 14, 1977 page 8
the house will be located will be too small , causing the house to be cocked on
the lot. 2) Presently there is good drainage-how will it be graded with a new
structure? 3) My property will be squeezed between taro smatler lots if the
division is approved. Mrs. Savage, 1315 Spring Valley Road, expressed concern
over the proposed division.
The Planning Commission spent considerable time in discussing atternate ways of
establishing the interior lot line, keeping in mind the setback for the structure,
tot frontage, and rear lot width.
After further discussion it was moved by Hughes, seconded by Lundsgaard, carried
unanimously, to recommend approval of the waiver of the Platting Ordinance with
the interior lot tine to be described as follows: The South lot to have 100 feet
of frontage at the 35' setback line and thence veer Southeasterly to within
15 feet of the furthest portion of the structure and parallel with the structure
and thence veering Northeasterly to a point in the rear yard l00 feet North of
the South property tine; Subject to the stipulation that no variances be granted
and the proposed house to maintain a minimum of a 15' sideyard setback.
6. REQUEST BY CITY COUNCIL TO REVIEW ZONING OF WESTWOOD LAKE OFFICE PARK
t8421 WAYZATA BOULEVARD)
The Planning Commission at their November 22, 1976 meeting recomnended approval
of the plat entitled Westwood Lake Office Park Addition. The Commission at
this meeting atso recommended to the City Council to consider rezoning the area
to Business and Professional Offices because of the existing use and intended
use. The City Council at their January 3, 1977 meeting approved the prelim-
inary plat and deferred the consideration of the zoning to the March 7, 1977
Council meeting. The Council has asked the Planning Commission to point out
the differences if the property were rezoned to Business and Professional Offices
from its present zoning.
Present zoning of the property is Industrial , except Lots 1 , 2, and 3, Arcridge,
which is zoned Residenti;al .
(A) Industirial Zoning
1 . Use - heaviest use in comnunity
2. Height - 40-foot height timitation
3• Setback - Adjacent to Similar Use;
35-foot front yard, all required green
20-foot side and rear yard for structure, 10' required green
4. Setback - Eastern area of Plat:
Adjacent to Residential-100' for structure, 50' required green
Across Street from Residential-75' for structure, all
. required green
5• Parking - One (l ) space per 150 square feet of building area
(B) Residential Zoning
1 . Use - single family dwelling
2. Parking - requires variance
���
Planning Commission
February 14, 1977 page 9
Proposed zoning of the property is Business and Professional Offices. �
(A) Business and Professional Offices
1 . Use — office oriented uses
2. Height — 1 story in height at the front
3• Setback — Adjacent to Similar Use:
35' front yard, all required green
20' for side and �ear, 10' required green
4. Setback — Eastern area of Plat:
Adjacent to Residential-50' for structure, 25' required green
Across street from Residential-35' for structure, all
required green
5. Setback — If the three lots remain Residential :
50' for structure, 25' required green
6. Parking — One (1 ) space per 150 square feet of building area
The differences in the zoning would be: 1 ) height of structure, 2� uses allowed
in the zoning district, and 3) depending upon the three residential lots—whether
they remain as such or are recommended for rezoning, the green areas and building
setback in the eastern area of the site would change.
Mr. Westlake pointed out some alternate ways of handling the rezo�ing because
of the problem Northland Company would encounter with their mortgage lender.
Also, the three lots presently zoned Residential , which are part of the plat,
would provide more protection for the residents living East of the Office Park
if they were to remain as such.
Jeff Jarpe, Attorney with the firm of Mau, Hazel , Green, Hayes, Simon � Aretz
representing the property owner, was present and stated that they would encounter
serious problems with their mortgager if the property were rezoned at this time,
even if approval was granted by the City for a variance on height as one of the
alternates as suggested by Mr. Westlake.
In view of the aforesaid it was moved by Hughes, seconded by Herje, carried
unanimously that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to defer
the rezoning of the property until such time as the third structure is completed
on the site and that the Planning Commission recorrmends that a height varianee
be considered for the structures existing on the site. The Planning Gommission
further recommends that the three lots zoned Residential remain as such and that
the area zoned Industrial be considered for the Business and Professional Offices
zoning.
7. GENERAL
(a) The Planning Commission was informed of the meeting with the City
Council on February 28, 1977.
(b) Chairman Edstrom informed the Planning Comnission of a Planning
and Zoning Institute to be held on February 24 � 25, 1977. For
further information, the Corrrnissioners should contact Mr. Westlake.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly c ded, adjo ed`°' t 11 :55 P.M.
.✓� _ _ ,
,,
�
, .
�: _w ..
. �,-- ,�: � f�,,
hairman Ron E st om Secreta y Kat yn erj