04-11-77 PC Minutes �f��
MINUTES QF THE GOLDEN VAlLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 11 , 1977
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 7:30 P.M.
on Monday, April 11 , 1977 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Chairman Ron Edstrom presided and the following members were present:
Commissioners Hughes, Mindess, Polachek, Sehlin, Specktor, and Wagman. Alsn
present was Jon Westlake, staff inember.
Members absent: Commissioners Forster and Herje.
1 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOVEO by Wagman, seconded by Hughes, carried
unanimousiy, to approve the minutes of the March 14, 1977 Planning Commission
meeting as mailed.
2. PLANNED UNIT DEVElOPMENT—INFORMAL HEARING
P.U.D. #19 — Concept Plan
Proponent: John Paulson
Location; 1370 Douglas Drive
Request: Construct a six—story, 37 unit, Apartment Building
(First Three Stories to Contain Parking)
Mr. Westlake reviewed the Planning Considerations by Carl Dale, Planning
Consuttant, as follows:
"Planning Considerations
1 . This current proposal is to construct a six (6) story, 37 unit apartment
. building on a 1 .8 acre site with a resultant density of 20.55 units per acre.
It is further proposed to have:
a) 79 enclosed parking spaces (within the apartment building) ,
b) Ten (10) open (exterior} parking spaces,
c) Amenities that include a party room, enctosed pool , sun deck,
outdoor tennis court, and picnic areas.
As planned, this new building will provide enclosed parking for the existing
apartment buildings to the North. The four (4)—building apartment complex
to the North has a rather good record for building maintenance, occupancy,
and the like.
2. Plans submitted are quite generat since PUD cor�cept approval is being con—
sidered only at this time which involves the following four (4) basic issues:
1 ) Is the proposed land use correct, in conformity to the Comprehensive
Municipal Plan, and in the general interest of the public health,
safety, convenience, and welfare?
2� Is the proposed dwelling unit densit in conformity to the above
noted criteria?
3) Are there potential access�traffic problems and hazards?
���
Planning Commission
April 11 , 1977 page 2
4) Is a "high—rise" building appropriate on this site and in this location?
Specific plan details such as building setbacks, tandscaping, screening, and
the like can be considered at a later date when more complete plans and
specifications are submitted and considered under the next procedural step
in the zoning process.
3• The site in its current condition cannot, in our opinion, be considered an
environmental asset to the community being mostly vacant and not aesthetically
pleasing; it is an unusual and perhaps even "unique" site due to location and
physical conditions.
The site is bounded by:
a) A major road on the west;
b) Existing apartments on the north;
c) The MN&�S Railroad on the east; and
d) A single—family home and Bassetts Creek on the south.
This entire area including adjacent properties is a relatively small "island"
neighborhood surrounded by the Railroad and major streets. The specific site
is unusual being much lower in elevation than some adjacant property.
4. The site is currently zoned M-1 calling for only a two-story building with
approximately 15 dwelling units as compared to the proposed 37 units. A
"credit allowance" for height and combined in—door parking would increase the
permitted number of dwelling units to approximately 24 as opposed to the
submitted plans for 37 units.
The Comprehensive Municipal Plan calls for "high—density" residentiat tand
use of eight (8) or more dwelling units per acre of land. A question arises
as to the upper limits of residential dwe1ling unit density that Golden Valley
will permit and under what conditions, circumstances, and housing policy
considerations.
5. The task at this time is to address the specific issues in question at this
early stage of zoning procedural requirements:
a) Conformity to Corrq�rehensive Municipal Plan
Is the proposed land use correct? In general , the plan
proposal seems to be in conformity to City Land Use Plans.
It is our opinion that apartment usage of this land is proper
as it is not well—suited for single family home development
nor is it well located for commercial or other high—intensity,
non—residential use.
b) Dwelling Unit Density. For comparison purposes, we would note
the following:
-�The Dover Hill complex in Golden Valley is developed at
approximately 1$ dwelling units per acre.
-'�''High Rise", "High—Density" apartment buildings in the Central
Cities are permitted at forty (40) dwelling units per acre or
more depending upon location, parking arrangements, building
height, setbacks, and other variable location and zoning conditions.
On the positive side, we must suggest that there are certain factors which
would favor a higher density for this specific site:
.,:���
Planning Commission
April 11 , 1977 page 3
%; A major portion of the required off—street parking is within the
building thus eliminating a "sea—of—asphalt" site ptan structure
that might resemble a "fish bowl" of parking.
-', A combination of "Hi—Rise" building and enclosed ramp parking
results in a highly favorable ratio between open green space
and structural land coverage.
� '•; The location is such that high—density effects such as traffic
onto minor residential streets is not a significant factor.
-� tow land elevation may subdue the visual impact of a high—rise
structure in this location.
On the negative side, the following must be considered:
%', The development plan calls for only one access road to the site
from Douglas Drive; it is not ctear if this situation will
present traffic, emergency vehicle, or other access problems
and safety hazards.
-'� The site is relatively isolated in terms of pedestrian circulation
and access to normal residential neighborhood community services
such as schools, children' s play areas, and the like. The "type"
of dwelling units may be a factor here (family or non—family
oriented).
c) Access/Traffic Problems. While the proposed access seems to be f
the only practical and possible plan solution, we would suggest
that the opinion of a Traffic Engineer is needed to more properly
analyze the dwelling unit density question and consequent trip
generation demand.
Apparently, access to the new high—rise building would also be
gained from the existing apartment complex via a ramp (bridge)
into the 3rd level of enclosed parking. The new building would
have approximately 2.4 parking spaces per dwelling unit and plans
apparently are to make some of the new enclosed parking spaces
available for use by persons living in the existing and adjacent
apartment complex (via the ramp�bridge).
d) Building Heisht. The question of building height has primarily
to do with the visual impact upon nearby property and the real
or imagined effect upon residential amenities, property values,
community "image", or other concerns.
Again, we have a most unusual situation in which the topography
of the site is such that the six story building height would
differ little from that of existing apartment buildings adjacent
and to the north. It is not clear, however, what the visual impac�
would be from the east, west, and south as viewed from existing
or potential development; this should be determined for a value
judgement.
6. Approval of this concept plan seems highly dependent upon at least two
major factors:
�,�,�
P1 anni ng Corr�ni ssion
April 1l , 1977 page 4
a� Access and Traffic. It is our opinion that advice should be secured from
a Traffic Engineer, the City Engineering Department, and others as
appropriate.
b) Visual . Further review and study should be given to the potential impact
of a high—rise structure as viewed from the east, west, and south.
In many respects, however, the plan seems to have merit such as the amaunt of
open space to be retained as compared to the existing apartment complex.
Further study and review should, in our opinion, be required prior to con—
sideration for plan concept approval .
7. Should concept plan approval be granted at a later date, more complete and
detailed plans would still be subject to a variety of reviews, considerations,
and approvals:
a) Design quatity (building architecture, landscaping, screening, etc.)
b) Recommendations from the State DNR and Bassetts Creek Flood Control
Commission.
c) Landscape plan details and maintenance agreement.
d) Pubtic Safety and Engineering Department requirements.
e) Various detailed building and site plan features.
f) Project signs.
g) Various conditions that may affect construction, maintenance and occupancy.
8. Summary
It is our opinion that the plan concept proposal may have merit but that
insufficient information exists to recorrmend either approval or denial at this
time. We can only state that the proposed land use seems correct and in general
conformity to the Comprehensive Municipal Plan; questions still remain con—
cerning traffic, density, and building height."
The proponent, John Paulson, was present for the request and explained that he had
met with almost all residents in the area who had received notices in regard to
this request on an indiviaual basis, and the residents were shown plot plans
identical to those distributed to the Planning Commission members. Mr. Paulson
stated that the majority of residents he met with felt the proposal was desirable.
The proponent discussed traffic and stated that this proposal would not add to
traffic problems which already exist on Douglas Drive. The proponent stated that
in doing a traffic count on the existing units the following number of cars were
counted entering and leaving the premises: Between 7:00 — 7:30 A.M. 8 cars,
7:30 — 8:00 A.M. , 7 cars, 8:00 — $:30 A.M. 11 cars, and between 4:00 — 4:30 P.M.
11 cars, 4:30 — 5:00 P.M. 12 cars, and 5:00 — 5:30 P.M. 16 cars. The proponent
felt there was no critical access�traffic problem.
Mr. Paulson pointed out that the property is 23 feet below the Northwest corner of
Dougtas Drive; therefore, it was felt that this type of "high rise" building
woald be desirable and appropriate on this site, with parking on the lower levels
and living units on the upper three levels. The proposed six—story apartment
building will house 37 units, and there are presently 58 units in the four existing
apartment complexes contiguous to the north.
�E��
Planning Commission
April 11 , 1977 page 5
The Planning Commission then held discussion on the access and traffic problems
which might result from the proposal , at which time the proponent noted that
the apartment traffic would use the three existing driveways or the proposed
driveway. The high density, height, and land use were also discussed by the
Planning Comnission. The proponent noted that the garage parking is planned
for occupants of the buildings only — not for visitors.
The foltowing residents were present and voiced their concerns: Mr. � Mrs
Greg Hammes, 1461 West Constance Drive, asked if the proposed building would cast
a shadow on their property because of its height and also questioned how long
construction would take. Rome P. Clinton, 1317 Edgewood Avenue North, President
of the Bassetts Creek Town Homes Association, and representing members of the
Association, stated that this property as it now exists is very undestrable in
appearance, and anything would be more desirable than the condition that now
exists. Mr. Clinton also stated that the Association will be very concerned and
interested in the development of this site.
Chairman Edstrom closed the public hearing.
Corrmissioner Sehlin corrxnented on the placement of the existing fence in front of
the apartment buildings along Douglas Drive and felt the fence should be moved
furth�r back on the property to allow better vision when exiting from the apartment
comptex driveways. Commissioner Hughes asked what density would be aliowed if
this proposal were requested under straight zoning rather than under the
Planned Unit Devetopment Ordinance, from which the proponent is getting more
than a 50% increase in dwelling units, and expressed concern about the prece—
dence this request would set (15 units vs 37 units) . The Commission had
mixed feelings on the density — because of location, surrounding land use,
terrain, and more predominantly, the density in the corr�nunity now and
previousty regarding multiple dwellings.
The Housing Policy in Planned Unit Developments with respect to units sold and
the fair Market Rents e�tablished by HUD and income limits set by HUD were atso
di scussed by the Planning Corr�ni ssion.
It was moved by Wagman, seconded by Mindess to recomnend approval of the concept
plan for P.U.D. #lq, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Require a traffic report by a Traffic Engineer to inctude a traffic count on
the current units.
2. A moderate cost (rental assistance) plan be addressed at the time the plan
is presented to the Council at a concept hearing.
3. Prior to general plan approval the proponent is to design the exterior parking
area in accordance with the City Ordinance.
4. The proponent is to work ,with the City staff to develop a means of regulating
maintenance on the existing four buildings before general plan approval .
5. Further review and study to be given to the potential impact of a high—rise
structure as viewed from the east, west, and south prior to the present—
ation of a general plan.
6. Should concept plan approval be granted by the City Council , more complete
and detailed plans would still be subject to a variety of reviews, consid—
eration�, and approvats, such as:
22�
Planning Commission
April 11 , 1977 page 6
a) Design quality (building architecture, landscaping, screening, etc.)
b) Recommendations from the State DNR and Bassetts Creek Flood Control
Commission.
c) Landscape plan details and maintenance agreement.
d) Meet the requirements of the Public Safety Department � Engineering
Department.
e) Various detailed building and site plan features.
f) Rroject signs.
g) Various conditions that may affect construction, maintenance, and
occupancy.
The motion carried with Commissioner Hughes voting nay.
3. WAIVER OF THE PLATTING OROINANCE
Appticant: New Hope Nursing Home
Location: 253t Douglas Drive
Request: Divide Parcel for Two Double Lots
Zoning: Residential
The request is to divide a parcel into three tots, located in the Southwest
corner of Douglas Orive and Medicine Lake Road. Parcel 1 contains a home. The
garage further North on the site would be moved onto this parcel or destroyed.
The parcel would contain 120 feet of frontage with a depth of 322 feet and
36,240 square feet. Lot 2 (corner lot) would have a frontage of 160 feet and
a depth of 123 feet with 19,680 square feet in the lot. Lot 3 would have a
frontage of 120 feet by 160 feet of depth with 19,200 square feet. Lots 2 and 3
are proposed to be double bungalow lots.
Previous requests in the area have been proposed for combining and dividing parcels
located to the southwest of this area for the platting of single family lots;
however, nothing has ever been finalized.
Presently there is a new double bungalow located to the east of this parcel at
2520 Douglas Drive. The Comprehensive Plan indicates a heavier density for this
area, such as four—plexes. The total land area in this parcel is 75,120 square
feet, which would allow four double lots (8 units) using 18,750 square feet as a
guide, but because of street access, only three parcets could be divided off.
If the two double lots are approved, the next step would be a variance by the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
Len Caswell of Consutting Engineers was present for the request.
The following residents were present and voiced their concerns: Bill Thomas,
2511 Douglas Orive, questioned whether access would be on Medicine Lake Road or
Douglas Drive and asked the proponent whether any consideration had been given to
the widening of Medicine Lake Road. Mr. Thomas felt that access should not be
onto Douglas Drive because of an already heavy traffic situation.
The Planning Corrxnission then held discussion regarding access to the property,
and it was felt by the Commission that access onto Medicine Lake Road might be
more desirable because of the heavier traffic situation on Douglas Drive.
2�
Planning Commission
April 11 , 1977 page 7
It was moved by Specktor, seconded by Sehlin, carried unanimously, to recor�nend
approval of the waiver of the Platting Ordinance, subject to the following
conditions: 1 ) the garage to be moved off the northwest lat, 2) the proponent
to meet with the City staff prior to appearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals
and Council , to determine a proposal as to whether access is to be on Medicine
Lake Road or pouglas Drive, and 3) require a 50' setback off both lots on
Medicine Lake Road for the structure.
4. PRELIMINARY PLAT—EXPRESSWAY INTERNA7IONAL PARK
Applicant: Internationat Paper Realty Corporation
Location: Northeast Ouadrant of Highway 55 and Douglas Drive
Request: Qivide Parcel into Nine Lots
Zoning: Industrial
The request is to plat 23 acres into nine (9) lots. The site is bounded by
Douglas Drive on the west, Highway 55 on the south, Minnesota Western Railroad
on the north, and Minneapolis Northfield � Southern Railroad on the east.
Approximately 1 .8 acres witt be didicated by the proponent for re—construction
of the frontage road, which will eliminate a traffic problem at the present front—
age road at Highway 55 because of its proximity� to the highway. The City has
met with the developer and the Minnesota Highway Department regarding construction
of the frontage road. The meeting included discussion of the frontage road to
extend East, located south of the property with a bridge over the railroad tracks
to connect the industrial—commercial uses to the east of the plat and eliminate
the intersection of the frontage road at Highway 55 just west of the Highway
100 interchange.
The present zoning of the land is Industriat , which is the indicated use on the
Comprehensive Plan. The lots range in size from 1 acre to 7.9 acres. Lot 1 of
Block 1 houses the only structure on the site, which is International Paper
Company. The foltowing is noted regarding this parcel :
1 . The lot has a triangle design in the Northeast corner which is for
a spur track.
2. The property in one area along the West side where the parking tot
is located does n�t meet green area requirements because of the
new frontage road. `
The proponents are planning to dedicate Lot 5 to the City as a natural area
(1ocated in the Northwest corner of the plat). This area is noted on the City
map as an area to be preserved.
Paul St. Marie, representing the Open Space Committee, stated that he and the
Chairman of the Open Space Committee had attended the regular meeting of the
Park and Recreation Commission at which this particular item was discussed, and
they concurred with the corrments made in the Park and Recreation Cor�nission
minutes (copies distributed to the Planning Corrrnission) which stated that the
proposed dedicated area should be enlarged to include Lot 6 Block 1 and the
existing brush area to the east. Mr. St. Marie noted that this area has been
a concern since 1973, and referred to a report to the City Council dated
June 24, 1974 which directed attention to the marsh area past of Douglas Drive
���
Planning Commission
April 11 , 1977 page 8
and south of the railroad, and the planned City trail running Noeth of
Intern�tional Paper Company which should remain. The Open Space Committee
requests that the City work with the owner of these parcels to leave the area
in a natural state.
Jeffrey H. Lynford, Manager—Industrial Properties for International Paper Realty
Corporation, was nresent for the request and introduced the following persons who
were also present for the request: Jack Peterson of C. E. Coulter � Associates, Inc.
Duane H. Temple of Temple Associates, Consulting Engineers, John Seddon of Carl Mays
Corkill and Seddon, Inc. , Jim Benson, realtor, and Bob Simon, Development and
Environmentalist Specialist.
John Seddon, Consultant for International Paper Company, reviewed the site survey,
utilities, existing site conditions, and preliminary subdivision plat, including
the proposed new frontage road. Mr. Seddon explained the stages of development on
the property as follows: vacate the existing frontage road atong Highway 55 and
construct a new frontage road. Close the existing opening to the frontage road
off Highway 55• Mr. Seddon also noted that they are dedicating �ot 5 for open space.
The Planning Commission then hetd discussion on the effects the runoff from the
lots would have on Lot 5, which is to be dedicated for open space, and discussed
the possibility of installing sedimentation catch basins. Discussion was also held
on types of uses that would be constructed, areas of fill , and noted the lots were
of sufficient size.
It was rr�ved by Wagman that the Planning Commission recommend that the preliminary
ptat be denied on the grounds that it does not preserve the open space and wild—
life objectives of the community. The motion died for lack of a second.
It was moved by Hughes, seconded by Sehlin, carried unanimously, to recommend
approval of the pre}iminary plat, subject tA the following conditions: 1 ) The
natural area to be preserved lying between Lots 4, 5, � 6 Block l be negotiated
with the City Council , and 2) Sedimentation catch basins to be installed to
handle runoff to the pond areas.
5. P.U.D. #14 GALANT TOWNHOUSES, 2400 HILLSBORO AVENUE NORTH
a) Swimming Pool
b) Rentat of Unit s
Jack Galant, owner of the property, was present for the request and stated that
he has not been able to sell any of the townhouse units recently constructed by
him; therefore, due to financial problems Mr. Galant requested to defer construc- -
tion of the swimming pool and not enctosing the pool area until Phase II.
Mr. Galant atso stated he would like to rent the five existing units (Mr. Galant
is living in one unit) , as opposed to selling the units as in the Planned tinit
Development agreement. The units would be rented with an option to buy.
The Planning Commission then discussed the aesthetic condition of the complex
and the landscaping. Also discussed was the legality of approving the rental of
the units, as opposed to selling the units as was the agreement between the City
and the proponent in the Planned Unit Development.
f�+I,�
:::a�� .
Planning Comnission
April 11 , 1977 page 9
It was moved by Specktor, seconded by Mindess, carried unanimously, to set a
public hearing for P.U.D. #14 for April 25, 1977 for changes in the P.U.D.
Permit, and to direct the City staff to review the requested changes in the
P.U.O. Permit with the City Attorney as to the legality.
6. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS FOR 1977
(a) Election of Officers
Commissioner Specktor, Chairperson of the Nominating Cornnittee, stated that the
Committee consisting of Commissioners Herje, Wagman and Specktor contacted alt
members of the Planning Commission with respect to their feelings about becoming
an officer of the Planning Commission. The Committee then met this evening at
7:00 P.M. to formulate the Committee' s recommendations for the Planning Commission
officers for 1977 as follows:
Commissioner Specktor requested a motion to nominate Jody Sehlin as Chairperson.
It was so moved by Hughes, seconded by Polachek. Chairman Edstrom called for
nominations three times and hearing none, it was moved by Hughes, seconded by
Polachek that nominations be closed and that a unanimous ballot be cast for
Jody Sehlin as Chairperson to take office April 25, 1977.
Conmissioner Specktor requested a rr�tion to nominate Robert Wagman as Vice
Chairperson. It was so moved by Sehlin, seconded��lindess. Chairman Edstrom
called for nominations three times and hearing none, it was moved by Sehlin,
seconded by Mindess that nominations be closed and that a unanimous ballot be
cast for Robert Wagman as Vice Chairperson to take office Aprit 25, 1977•
Corrxnissioner Specktor requested a motion to nominate G. William Forster as
Secretary. It was so moved by Mindess, seconded by Wagman. Chairman Edstrom
called for nominations three times and nearing none, it was moved by Mindess,
seconded by Wagman that nominations be closed and that a unanimous ballot be
cast for G. William Forster as Secretary to take office April 25, 1977.
(b) Alternates to Board of Zoning Appeals
It was moved by Sehlin, seconded by Wagman, carried unanimously, to appoint the
following alternates to the Board of Zoning Appeals for 1977: lst Alternate—
Donaid Hughes, 2nd Alternate—Kathryn Herje, 3rd Alternate—Peggy Specktor.
7. GENERAL
At the beginning of the Planning Commission meeting Chairman Ron Edstrom informed
the Commission members of the topics of discussion at a meeting he had with the
City Council in March 1977: The Council indicated in the Guidelines for Cornrnissions
that election of officers should be held by City Commissions by the second meeting
in March of each year; therefore, that portion of the Planning Commission By—Laws
regarding election of officers should be changed to correspond.
�?��
P1 anni ng Cor►mi ssion
April 11 , 1977 page 10
Also, the City Council is asking that each Commission submit to Council by
June 2, 1977 a work plan for the 'fiscal year from July to July, including a
list of items which the Commission already does, areas to exptore, to prevent
duplicative procedures, and to set work load for the coming year.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 11 :35 P.M.
��
._...._.
C
Edstrom, hai a Kat ryn Herje; Secreta