07-24-95 PC Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC INPUT
.
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council
on land use. The Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a
land use proposal based upon the Commission's determination of whether the pro-
posed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and
whether the proposed use will, or will not. adversely affect the surrounding
neighborhood.
The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable
you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask
questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the
record and will be used by the Council. along with the Commission's recommenda-
tion. in reaching its decision.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the
Commission will utilize the following procedure:
1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommenda-
tion from staff. Commission members may ask questions of staff.
2. The proponent will describ~ the proposal and answer any questions
from the Commission.
3. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who
wish to speak to so indicate by rai!ing their hands. The Chair may
set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number
of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for
groups will have a longer pertod of time for. questions/comments.
4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the
Chair. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will deter-
mine who will answer your questions.
6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until
everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially, Please limit
your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal.
7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the
proposal and take appropriate action.
.
.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley
Planning Commission
July 10, 1995
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, COLincil
Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order
by Chair Prazak at 7:00 PM.
Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, Pentel and
Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and Beth
Knoblauch, City Planner.
I. Approval of Minutes -June 12. 1995
MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the June
12, 1995 minutes as submitted.
II. Discussion - Land Use for Area B
Chair Prazak passed out a discussion outline.
Staff and the Commission reviewed which properties in Area B were owned by the HRA and which
would have to be purchased. Certain basic assumptions were also addressed, such as Maren
Lane being vacated, the entire area would have to be cleared for new construction and the existing
underground utilities would stay in place.
Commissioner Pentel presented ideas of possible directions of study that the Commission could
take in reviewing Area B, from looking at the Community Survey to reviewing the possibility of
townhomes on the site. .
Other preliminary ideas that were brought forward as possibly being appropriate for the site were
convenience groceries and other service-oriented retail uses, or some residential with mix of retail.
There was little interest in office use.
III. Other Business
Staff discussed with the Planning Commission the bill passed by the Legislature regarding the 60
day rule for approving zoning requests.
VIII. Adjournment
Chair Prazak adjourned the Golden Valley Planning Commission meeting at 8:35 PM.
Jean Lewis, Secretary
..
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
July 17, 1995
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
. Subject:
Informal Public Hearing -- Minor Subdivision -- Lot 7 and 8, Block 1,
Val-Wood Second Addition (1566 Winnetka Avenue North) -- Daniel
Otten, Applicant
Background
This application involves the consolidation of two existing, substandard lots along
Winnetka Avenue (Exhibit A) into a single lot that meets current requirements for single
family or two family construction. The sketch (Exhibit B) of the proposed consolidation
identifies it as a "registered land survey", and the applicant has failed to provide an
adequate name as required on the application form. In response, staff would like to clarify
that the end result of the minor subdivision process must be an approved plat, not a
registered land survey, and the staff-assigned name is Val-Wood 3rd Addition.
Concurrent with this application for minor subdivision, the applicant is also applying for a
rezoning of the property from Residential to Two-Family Residential. That requested
rezoning is not necessary for the minor subdivision, since the property could still be used
for single family purposes if it is consolidated. It should be noted, though, that the
property as-is could legally be used for two single family homes, while after consolidation it
could be used for one single family home without rezoning or one two-family home if the
rezoning is approved. Despite the fact that the two existing lots could not be created
today - and in fact,'should not have been approved in 1959 when they were originally
platted (see Addendum for more background) -- they are considered to be legally
buildable in accordance with City Code Section 11.21, Subd. 4, which says in part that "all
lots located within an approved plat shall be regarded as buildable lots."
It should also be noted that the applicant is not requesting the option known under City
Code as "Minor Subdivision for Double Bungalow". That option would allow for each half
of a duplex to be bought and sold individually, including the land on which it is built.
Because the current application is a simple consolidation process, any two-family homes
that might be approved for the site could only be bought and sold individually through
some form of condominium agreement where the land remains in common ownership, or
through another subsequent minor subdivision process. On the other hand, the minor
subdivision for double bungalow could only be approved if approval of the accompanying
rezoning is also ensured.
I'
Minor Subdivision - Otten
Page Two
.
Conditions of Approval
Conditions for approving or denying minor subdivisions are clearly spelled out in City Code
Section 12.50. Each of the applicable conditions will be addressed ind.ividually in the
following paragraphs.
Minimum Lot Requirements -The property is currently vacant, so there are no existing
setback concerns. Single family lots must have a minimum width of 80 feet and a
minimum area of 10,000 sq.ft. Two-family lots must have a minimum width of 100 feet
and a minimum area of 12,500 sq.ft. The property has a combined width across both lots
of 100 feet and combined area of 13,172 sq. ft. Based on these numbers, the property
would meet the minimum lot requirements for either a single family or two-family lot.
Steep Slopes or Excessive Wetness - The property is not encumbered with either of
these problems to such an extent as to render it unbuildable.
Public Sewer and Water Connections - Both services are available to the property. A
second stub would probably have to be added if individual service is desired to each half
of the proposed duplex.
Easements - The consolidated lot will have to include dedication of utility easements per
City Code. Those easements are not indicated on the preliminary sketch.
.
Other Public Agencies - Winnetka Avenue is a county road, and so the City is required
by state law to forward the proposed plat to the County Department of Transportation for
review. City Code provides that approval "may be conditioned on the requirements of the
outside agency." Hennepin County believes that the right-of-way for Winnetka Avenue
should be at least at all points 80 feet wide, and it is now only 66 feet at this location.
Thus, the county requires an additional seven feet from all new plats fronting on Winnetka.
If the City enforces this requirement, the total area of the property will be reduced to
12,472 sq.ft. or 28 sq.ft. less than what is required for a two-family lot, though still ample
for single family use.
Recommendation
Approval of the proposed minor subdivision should be conditioned on the applicant
submitting a final plat called "Val-Wood 3rd Addition", and showing the appropriate utility
easements along property lines. Further, a decision must be made on how to deal with
the county's right-of-way requirement. If the proposed rezoning is denied, the seven-foot
dedication has no impact because the property's size is more than adequate for single- .
family purposes. If, on the other hand, the rezoning is approved, then the options are as
follows:
.
.
.
Minor Subdivision - Otten
Page Three
· Require the seven feet with the understanding that the minimal discrepancy between
the actual square footage and the required square footage is not significant enough to
constitute a violation of City Code.
· Reduce the right-of-way dedication to 6.72 feet instead of seven feet, thus preserving a
lot size of exactly the required 12,500 sq.ft. The county representative with whom staff
spoke felt that a reduction of the right-of-way dedication by a few inches would
probably be an acceptable alternative to not getting the right-of-way at all, which is
what would happen if the plat is denied.
· Go against the City's established policy for Winnetka Avenue and reject the county's
requirement for additional right-of-way.
The property does not appear to qualify for a variance in regard to the 28 sq.ft. because
there is no demonstrable hardship that deprives "the applicant of the reasonable use of his
land."
Because of the new state law limiting the time a city can spend reviewing zoning
applications, the rezoning in all likelihood will be completed before the minor subdivision.
For that reason, it is important to resolve the matter of meeting minimum area
requirements for the appropriate zoning district.
EAK:mkd
Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Site Sketch
Addendum
ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT ON MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION:
Origin of Substandard Lots 7 & 8 of Block 1, Val-Wood 2nd Addition
.
There is no clear explanation in the record for why these two substandard lots were
allowed to be platted, but staff do know how it happened. The situation began when the
plat for the original Val-Wood Addition was drawn up in early 1958. At its southern edge,
it included a proposed 1/2 street extension of Wesley Drive, which had already been
platted to the west of Winnetka Avenue. At the time, it was expected that the other 1/2 of
the Wesley Drive extension would be provided when the land lying south of Val-Wood
was platted.
During this same period, Golden Valley was engaged in a city-wide planning effort that
included the designation of existing and future "thoroughfares" to connect the various
parts of the rapidly-growing community. Olympia Avenue, lying in a corridor a few
hundred feet south of the original Val-Wood, was designated as one such thoroughfare
from Douglas Drive to Winnetka Avenue. That designation occurred shortly after Val-
Wood was given its preliminary approval.
More than a year after submittal, the original Val-Wood plat still did not have final
approval. Meanwhile, in mid-1959 the proposed plat of Val-Wood 2nd Addition was .
submitted. It involved the land lying between Val-Wood and the Olympia Avenue
corridor. In order to ensure adequate right-of-way acquisition for Olympia, the extension
of Wesley Drive was dropped from further consideration. The proposal for the original
Val-Wood plat was revised to show a long, narrow outlot instead of the 1/2 street. The
proposal for Val-Wood 2nd Addition took that outlot and turned it into a series of
substandard lots, among which was one of the two properties involved in the current lot
consolidation request.
Immediately adjacent to the first series of substandard lots, the Val-Wood 2nd Addition
plat put another series of somewhat larger but still substandard lots, one of which
became the second property in the current request. Each combination of two lots would
equal a single parcel meeting minimum size requirements. The puzzle lies in why the
combinations were used at all. It should have been a simple matter to just add the
formerly proposed 1/2 street properties to the adjacent properties in legally-sufficient lots,
especially since the original Val-Wood plat had never been completed.
Val-Wood and Val-Wood 2nd Addition received final approval at the same council
meeting in 1959. There are no surviving memos relating to either plat, and there is no
discussion in either the Planning Commission or the Council minutes to explain why the
paired-substandard-Iot combinations were considered to be either acceptable or
necessary. Nevertheless, that is how the subject properties were approved and .
recorded.
EAK:mkd
;l5 .,
". tc')
2G~" c .. ' '"
() ... 17
.. " - -, :p ~
.""'" n ,:~ ss
.-
0- , ~,
? " 16
'~
;;. , I
E'. . 15 0' _IS .,
"- ... ..: ~
-I
I ,_.'l._,
.... '-"
to
c.~ . e'4 .;
'- . <&..: '
'=' r~ ,2
~
-0 6-
G. w '. 13
'*:
~
:il.
" ~
....... .
'^~
~~. 6
",0"
2. ~:> I~I;Z '~17' '''' Z
,).&, --.~:~: SE~ON~... ../,001.1
- u -. 5 ...r 4. "'"'...." ~
~lt' - 01 .. \t')" J.
13 .! 3 . . ~~: 1.;"': ~.~ ~ ,,-' ':T~ ~
~,1-1l1Z ~ _'_'II'l~ 1111' ' 11I1l
:;- 1 r ,~~7850 ..... 'it'
." 12e./ 4. ", ~. --~....'
..... - I !.: -- ~ 1=
':) <=\ 13 Z ",! "1 ~ ,~ "" ...,,, .,
I -_. :,134.:...~! I .~
~'^~ I'.'!, 5. ~, -
~... ~ :" " , ~ I
IJ~ 11-' ~ i ,.':.- ~;. ._~
- .:>~ '.-.... .".:...-..-
10 ~ 6.: ( :~'" ::
I ~ ,~;'''_
'Ql '0
..I ,~ '
01 '. ..-
':::': ~ .,
W'\ :::a.
~,;..'"
-
J....",
~
, ..,
"'.... -
- ...
- ".
;s
i IJ~
r/~DbLll~H' ! iERiiAC~ III ~
- i " 1'\' _1-
;. I . '" 2.; 3e ,4.:.5;1 .~1.~..,"
I~" I I, I"" ofl
99..) B,6iJ tJ,.j:.., ii,tJ~. 0/.;70 I. .,. d..,,,,,,v
r""- .ITI'1#17.0 r"'r'"""-r-r-;::J; t! t'~""
.U - -" o-",;~r ,7-... I.
" !~!. ~ .~ ... j: '-;1 9091 ~ -'II e:}:;,'
J I I;'': I .0.; ~j I ..:
!:.61 6'!1 .... ... ii.
:6 ~ Z~ ~ 26J...Cj- · '^ · ~: ~ r.,,18 ~
-; ...~ 29 '. 30 ~ : J&Z ....
I ""=-J--- :,,'----: ~ .~o! _,:~__:O'" -;; ;~-; -- CJ)~
~.. .. 0 .)t> .<:7~. 6;.., 2 ~ :::
;~ 19 ~ 18::t _ 17...~ o,:A_8~ ~ ~
:::: . ~ ~...; '~...:I. \"..' -.;J
... . /.- . -.... .,,..
IS is):J''' _"': , :.: ~ '1- 16 .... ~.,;-
, .:> - , ], · r.,'::'. : 3 0
Y S"'''' "LANE '-.., -':,-::-.;:'ji :';, ~p
:-'~' ~IJI .
...J-
:J../q.,/ i ~ t
... ,=~':':
~~~
~~ "" 4. ~
4 ".
~.-
I C:O_
Exhi'bit IIA"
... !t. ~ Jc ....
,;;.1 I ~
J Q~;II4.
60 C> "io
~::':'ZD.zl~
-:-~ . .
. us :: .
"': . . ;w; ..' ~
~\' .....8 ."~Ir:;: ~ ~
:r O"~~.."......
;0 ~.. ; , .,
..
::. "'" ,,'
..
9 ..: 8 Jo.
. "! . ~
;
) 3
-.
'"
. ,If;'
-
.. = ''::
,
.... ~...
- ':
.; l. ""
..
.:."
l\
I~
If'] :
-... 3 2
- C> .:.
~.- ....
f. ~ -
- ....
I ~
I:: 3
'"
1-
.-
1 ~~
_::':t J:;__
~ ;'i/:- - -~-~~~-
-. .. '0'. 00' '1; ~"...; ~
- .;...;~ " ~~.
_o:ois.J.. .3
: Ii /.:."1: .. DRfVE.~.:Jt;)
: . <0 ..
t I :1 ..
- ,,; '-
...0',
(,
..
,
~. ~
r S5
or
- ')
~-
J' :
:: . 9 .,,,-:,.2
~ ~ ~::: ~
~ ~'':III' ~
.... ""-3
:, ~ 8a .-_jJ},j!
- 1;'1:> ~ . 4
-~:j~
~ oJ 0 ~ l"~~~S_
~" 7 i
~'-:
-,
"'\
"" IIQ
:':'
c.;.
~''''
~")Q
I
~~ -3
..J /U ']
~-~
-~ 0 -5 ~
......;... ,
\ !c~
'- ....
Q c.,Q
"'\ .6 .....
,...... -
---.;.17"' lS~ ~...
. .;..-~-- I;"
Q-. ~
~ Q -"7 '!. ';'
I.U
> ....~ !
< 10
" 20-
I ~j t "# .. ~
~ - ,. ,z__
. ~ ... if ;1tl ,
~-~
~: ...._ 1 7 )i'o'O-:" 19 .' 2 .
C:... ~ ..
. , ~- ~
~a~' "~~tJ \
. . " ..~--
. ~ P'q..
"0 '~~'.f."'~ 7
. " ~ "';.~-
-6
~... ,
5_
'.
~
"" .
~
.0(:, (;0.7
6 ~~. ~.~
'0 -
o
~
.r
",.J 0 !
...
''';,.1_< JJ ,
" 1\" .~.11" _J:=...
",' '" .
0' ~ 1 .-3..
:' ... eJ:: 0
l,:s"s ~
I :l,"J .
""1 4.'.JZ'/,,"
.. ::: 2..
~ l!! 11,:411'$1 v
:.:r' ..~:
...... 131 aZ :. QQ' G':.. I: Dj ~'
a ...-- -to ~r
~. CS 3 ~ - ~ -...,,:, 165 Q ....
!. ~ ~ ?.... ~... ~: 0:
~,,-, J~ -''''
.3. - 3 ,I
:l
-~
..~;'
...
<
. 12
7.
.12
. _'(,.e
6e C;, '\
, ~
Or,~
~-(O~
l:: ~. \I ~
~ (.
~ ~
,
,!,
Cl ~. .,. Ii,
;:, 10
~
....
~l
'0 ,- 10-~
... ~I
. ... :!'"Z::I
W -- '-
_'; ::.; ,6 ':::- I ~ ~
.---.:: - O:---T-----
~<t~. - 7 I ~
.. '7 2.~'"
0llC--=- .
~
2
I1,H
~
i
t,!!
.-
,
3. ~ ::
- ~,
r. ~
.6
,4-
---
5.
'e.
-... g 0'
j, ~.:: ..a
f;) ,.-oJ.'
<. 'V
'~, '. ,-.
" ,to _
~: .:.
~".
~ :.. ..3
.:;:3" .; r
::I ':.
lOCo
~
o ,"'1:;c
:0'';
fi.
r
I
---.-
l
~
Exhibit liB"
. PROPOSED REGISTERED LAND
SURVEY TO CONSOLIDATE
LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 1,
VAL-WOOD SECOND ADDITION
.
w I I
I I
> 131.72
<( h.
<( ~
~
~ ~ ~ 9
I- ~ ~ 10
w ~ ~ J ~ l'l]2,1
Z \l
Z f-: ~ Q3/,b
3: ~~
'll
WESLEY 1
DRIVE -v1-'\ 'j.q
~ MH
SCALE
/ II =4erJ '
2
~
~
N B9049' 24" E
. 2
'lv.fle
X'lZ4.{.
I
3
6
1.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK_ 1, VAL -WOOD
SECOND ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
5
4
OL YMPIA STREET
~ MERlLA 8401 73rd Ave. No.. Suile 63
Brooklyn Park. MN 55428
~ Telephone (612) 533-7595
_ & ASSOCIATES Fax (612) 533-1937
ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING
w. hereby certify thlt thit is . lIuI and correct 'Ipr...nulion of I survey of
the ....underin of the tboY. ~ribtcll_.nd 01 th.loCltion 01 .11 build'l\1II.
if any. th.,aol\ and ~I visible encroachment, if any, 'rom or on Mid land.
AlIIlrWYIcI thit 3 ~ city olg/..1 .18'IJ
~~.~? MWI.R.No.I4$9'!
Job No. 9..FO 7? look - '"
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
July 17, 1995
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing -- Rezoning from Residential to R-2 (Two-
Family) Residential -- Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Val-Wood Second Addition
(1566 Winnetka Avenue North) -- Daniel Otten, Applicant
Background
This application involves the rezoning of property along Winnetka Avenue (Exhibit A) for
the purpose of building a duplex in an area largely developed with single family homes.
The property currently consists of two undersized single family lots which must be
consolidated in order for the proposed rezoning to succeed; that consolidation through the
minor subdivision process is the subject of a separate application being processed
concurrently with this request.
The applicant has supplied the necessary site plan (Exhibit B) showing required setbacks
and potential site development. Actual construction cannot be required to conform to the
site plan, but the proposal gives an idea of what level of development could reasonably be
expected. Because Winnetka Avenue is a county road, exact driveway location and width
must be approved by Hennepin County. Staff know already that the County will not
approve a separate driveway for each half of the proposed duplex.
For most of Golden Valley's history, there was no distinction between single family homes
and two-family homes for zoning purposes. In 1956, the City began to require larger lots
for duplexes, but still allowed them to be freely intermingled with single family homes. In
1965, new requirements supposedly limited duplexes to only those locations directly
abutting any heavier zoning district or across the street from a commercial, light industrial,
or industrial district. In practice, however, those limitations were routinely being waived by
the Board of Zoning Appeals as early as 1967. The BZA would grant a variance for
reasons that included being on a busy street, being across the street from any heavier
zoning district, or having at least one other existing duplex nearby. A separate zoning
district for duplexes was not established until 1981. According to the U.S. Census Bureau,
there were 224 duplex units (112 buildings) scattered around Golden Valley by 1980, not
including Planned Unit Developments such as King's Valley.
Issues
Page TWO.
Under state law, cities cannot approve rezoning applications that are in conflict with the
comprehensive plan. The plan shows that the subject property and its surroundings are
intended for low density residential use. In Golden Valley, such use includes both single
family and two-family homes. There are two reasons for this: 1) the City has a significant
number of single family homes on lots of 40 to 60 feet in width, which creates a density
similar to that for duplexes in several areas; and 2) most of the City's duplex units are
widely dispersed through otherwise single family areas, which means that the average
density of areas with duplexes is similar to areas with no duplexes. Thus, both of the
currently-requested rezonings are in conformance with the comprehensive plan.
From a staff perspective, the only other significant issue that could decide approval or
denial of this application is whether it meets minimum lot requirements for the R-2 (Two-
Family) Residential zoning district. As explained in the accompanying minor subdivision
application memo, the property overall does meet the appropriate requirements. Because
it needs to be consolidated into a single lot, however, it is subject to Hennepin County
requiring an additional seven feet of right-of-way along Winnetka Avenue. If the City
agrees with that requirement, which it has consistently done for the past decade or more,
the property is too small (by 28 sq.ft.) to meet minimum lot area. The property cannot be .
rezoned at all if the two lots are not consolidated.
The Planning Commission and Council are free to consider other potential issues not
directly related to the types of technical or legal items that staff are generally concerned
with. Three points often raised by the public at rezoning hearings for proposed duplex
uses are: 1) the small scope (Le. usually one or two lots at a time) of the rezoning; 2)
putting two homes where only one could go before; and 3) promoting rental tenancy rather
than ownership. Staff would like to comment briefly on each of these potential issues.
First, with regard to the small scope of this particular application for rezoning, staff note
that three of the four duplex rezonings approved in Golden Valley since the district was
created in 1981 have been single lots. The fourth was two lots. Another application that
was introduced in June and is now completing the hearing process is also for a single lot.
Most of Golden Valley's existing duplexes, which were built before the zoning district was
established, occur at concentrations of one to four buildings (two to eight units) in
otherwise single family areas. The future of those units would be impacted by any
decision to rezone only large, multi-lot areas; existing duplexes cannot have garages or
rooms added, and cannot be rebuilt if substantially damaged, unless they can be rezoned.
Second, with regard to putting two homes instead of one on this particular property, it must
be remembered that there are two lots there now. Although neither lot meets current city
requirements, each is considered legally buildable. Staff are not aware of any existing
houses in Golden Valley on 35-foot-wide lots, but there are houses on 40-foot-wide lots.
.
t
.
.
.
Page Three
Finally, with regard to the ownership vs. rental issue, single family homes also become
rental property. It is true that the form of minor subdivision selected by the applicant in this
case sharply limits the opportunity to have each half of the building and property
individually owned. However, the option is available under City Code and, if the applicant
were to revise his request to incorporate this option, it would give each duplex unit the
same individual standing as a single family home. The negative aspect of the minor
subdivision for double bungalow is that it is a longer and more costly process because of
the need to execute a legal"Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions" that
would protect the homeowners joint interests. If the applicant were to change his mind
and request this option in the minor subdivision process, he should ask for the City to stop
the clock on the rezoning, which must otherwise be completed by the end of August.
Staff Recommendation
Based on the issues commonly addressed by staff in rezoning matters, there is no
overwhelming argument pointing to approval or denial of this application. The property's
location on a busy arterial is among the criteria commonly used for approving duplexes
since the late 1960's, but there are obviously many single family homes along busy
arterials as well. The Comprehensive Plan's low density residential designation for the
area would make either single family or two family homes equally appropriate. Minimum
required square footage is something of an issue, but the minor subdivision memo
identifies several ways in which it can be resolved. Staff therefore have no specific
recommendation to forward at this time.
EAK:mkd
Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Site Plan
I
~ ::. 10 .,
~ 1~1'~ ~:~
- '- ~'~\'~ - -
: ~ \ \ ,,',: I 2. ...
I~~. ~.::; '~\'.1..'\.ji
,,!-o - "', ~~ ~ I
"
........ .
"^"" , ('" I
J, . '.t ~. 6 t,g
. , _' - 1-
IJ~"."'~3 ~ '~tSE I ON~D AO'OI.
, cj: :; 5 ...f 4. -;;; ~ ~ . 5 :d
"'u: - '" ... ~ <' ~ "t".
. l~.:-:~ J.ZD...... ;.~ ~ ......,..) -T.~ :..!
".r:t.~; -~ ;:;~~ ~ '~.:' $:' '111 H
4 . --7';;'::.....
-;.: -" ~ ~I:)
'" 14. ""1 I .~
CJ\-. ~}_: .. ~ '-.a
wSz. 0 I .~ :;;.- -.:':
-'<:,." ..... ..,
)... ....:. .--
6. ~ I'~-: :~IJI:'; 3., .~'
:3"7' I ~
~ ~ _~~ft_ .4 40: ~ ~_ Ii
~, .10. 5.'~ '.: .10
Q, "~'W :CJ')
~'; ~ ."
~ ::t.
,.-
..
I~~
~
;<),0:-.:)-
~lq"I,'i _ I
;5
'0 00
't" ''1>
-. ..
~ 9 "4: 8 ~.
. "! . ~
:,
. _ .1-=J -: ..
~~. :r ~
Q:I~15 .; or- __
~ ~ - -~
.
:~ a-
o-F ~
: O~
..
,,"
E.
7 3'~
. ,,-,
:t . .
. < ; - }, ....--
-.;-4; . v {,O" -~..~.~
.. . Q.. - ....
'; l' r ~J'l' 7
'4J.J.. ~.
.. 4 -=-
'3
-.
7 ''';J
G.
i).;: ..
'..
or
..
l~~
_:~ ~ .J; -&
- ~,.. "--'-~"
., .:;..
..;. .f!; 9 - 8. J. p' '>
~." l.i9, \' ~ ; ....~:\.. :
.:. ~. 3
/~. '0. .
I; I':'~Z; .. DRIVr-'~:Jt;,
. ~ ~ ~
I
..
..... .
.. ...
::(7
'. . ;. z~" ;: :::
-:! 9 .Tl".;J',_ :.. .
J.4','oS' ,.
':1 ~
'. IJ /J
~,"., 41"
f. :. <'4! 8'J?/
I .,
",'", ~\.o"
:~ . I <\
....10'. Ie,; 8
f- --"--
~. ~
.:,~
,
.,.
.~
..
'\
I~
1,9 :
..
- ..
~~
, . 9 ....;~.2
1'"'\ ~ ~~: ~
~ ~'':8.tI' ~
.... ~ .3
': ~ ~ · 8 ..i21..5!
~l _-
...'
- '!!>."? ". '" . 4
~~.....
~ -:t 0 - I- J_~!-~5_
~" 7 ! .S
.......
~I"
-.a 'Z. 2
~.~ ~
"
:::....
...
r.. IIQ
:':'"
.f., _
I
I:: 3 00
'"
1- ?'.....
Z 'Z:J r
3.
3l Z
iJl
I
,
~~.3
-J /U;
jr;6: ~
J~ ll~-
Q:,....--- ...
... -
'.... .S ':.
-\"" rZ~"
.---"-~-
I Q, " Q
"'\ 06~""
. ,.....
_.---.:,cr- 1 ~ : .
. .;..--~I;.~~":
D .. -. ':>
~ Q 8.., ~ ~
7
.~ r
"I' ~ ~ 20.
-"
~ ' ;10 ,
co '" 19 . "
So ~ ~.
'"
"-
~~~, ~'~~\~~';". ~ ,'..
. "~~~. ."
-' "g.. "'{p 7 ~ 6 ~ ~ C'~ o. 7
w. ~'~
.t.,:;.;........ - - ....00....
o
!:!
.~ .
r ..t j
~
.&
~~
.1::_
~
..
17
,=~ SS
16
".
"
I) I - J
;.. . 15
I
0'
0;
-I
I
....
..
..~
""..
'= '~
-"
--.
...
..;
~
:l
.~ ~
~-'
~
<
.. 13 6.
I
--
0 12 7. .12
. .--.----
.~e
8.:;~' S"
e~
, (,)?
~"\O~
~. II ")
~ r..:
.! ::.:
"'.;
~:
'0 ._'O~
.. ~I
. ... :l' -Z ~I
W -- '--
~ ....:. ~ . 8 '::- I ~ ~
0--" - O:----r-----
<{r. ... 7 I .
.a '., Z ~ W)
~-
..f - .
~
3. ~ ~
- ~,
r. ~
.6
.11
be.
.,
-8 ()!
'.:.: ~ '1
?"4;'J
..., ..
.~..
., .,4
"
iO g Ql
~) = .,J
Q i.~ol.1
""-#
1.Q
...,.
" i'gee
:-.-:
~;'~.
I 1
---.- .,.
Z .,
2 . ~ ;~' _
'>1
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
July 17,1995
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing -- Rezoning from Residential to R-2 [Two-
Family] Residential -- Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 1, Val-Wood Addition
(1720, 1800, and 1810 Winnetka Avenue North) -- Daniel Otten,
Applicant
Background
This application involves the rezoning of three residential lots along Winnetka Avenue
(Exhibit A) for duplex use. The applicant has supplied the necessary site plan (Exhibit B),
showing required setbacks and potential site development. Actual construction cannot be
required to conform exactly to this site plan, but the proposal gives an idea of what level of
development could reasonably be expected. Because Winnetka Avenue is a county road,
exact driveway locations must be approved by Hennepin County. Staff have been
informed that the County will not approve a separate driveway for each of the six proposed
duplex units, and may in fact require the developer to combine driveways for two entire
buildings.
In order to fully evaluate the potential impact of this rezoning request, it may be helpful to
know the history of duplex development in Golden Valley. For most of the City's history,
there was no distinction between single family homes and two-family homes for zoning
purposes. In 1956, the City began to require larger lots for duplexes, but still allowed them
to be freely intermingled with single family homes. In 1965, new requirements supposedly
limited duplexes to only those locations directly abutting any heavier zoning district or
across the street from a commercial, light industrial, or industrial district. In practice,
however, those limitations were routinely being waived by the Board of Zoning Appeals as
early as 1967. The BZA would grant a variance for reasons that included being on a busy
street, being across the street from any heavier zoning district, or having at least one other
existing duplex nearby. A separate zoning district for duplexes was not established until
1981. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 224 duplex units (or 112
bUildings) scattered around Golden Valley by 1980, not including Planned Unit
Developments such as King's Valley.
Rezoning - 3 Lots - Otten
Page Two
.
Issues
Under state law, cities cannot approve rezoning applications that are in conflict with the
comprehensive plan. The plan shows that the three subject lots and their surroundings
are intended for low density residential use. In Golden Valley, such use includes both
single family and two-family homes. There are two reasons for this: 1) the City has a
significant number of homes on lots of 40 to 60 feet in width, which creates in the affected
areas a density similar to that for duplexes; and 2) most of the City's duplex units are
widely dispersed through otherwise single family areas, which means that the average
density of areas with duplexes is similar to areas with no duplexes. Because the area is
designated as equally suitable for single family or two-family homes, both of the rezonings
currently being requested by the applicant are in conformance with the comprehensive
plan.
For staff purposes, the only other significant issue in determining whether to approve or
deny this application is minimum lot size. Unlike the property in the applicant's other
request, the three lots here are already each 100 feet wide and over 12,500 sq.ft. in area.
that means they meet minimum width and area requirements for duplex lots without
needing to be replatted. Hennepin County is only empowered to required additional right-
of-way dedication through the subdivision process, so these lots are not subject to any
reduction in area due to right-of-way needs.
.
The Planning Commission and Council are free to consider other potential issues not
directly related to the technical or legal issues that concern staff. Three points tend to
come up during public hearings on duplex rezoning requests: 1) the small scope of the
rezoning; 2) putting two homes where only one could go before; and 3) promoting rental
tenancy rather than ownership. Staff would like to comment briefly on these potential
issues.
With regard to the first two, at three lots, this particular application is more extensive than
any of the four duplex rezonings approved in Golden Valley to date, or the one application
that was introduced in June. On the other hand, it is still in keeping with most of the City's
existing duplex development, which occurs at concentrations of one to four buildings (two
to eight units) in otherwise single family areas. Even if both of the applicant's rezoning
requests are approved, the average density of development on the block would be 3.8
units per acre, which is consistent with the concept of low density residential use within the
City. The duplexes must retain the same setbacks as abutting single family homes.
On the matter of ownership vs. rental, it must be noted that even single family homes are
subject to becoming rental property. It is true that by leaving the three lots as they are
now the applicant sharply limits the opportunity to have each of the six proposed units .
individually owned. Golden Valley offers an option through its minor subdivision process
.
.
.
Rezoning - 3 Lots - Otten
Page Three
which would give each unit the same individual ownership standing as a single family
home. That process would require a separate application for subdivision and would
increase the applicant's costs as well as delaying final approval of the rezoning. It would
also create the same difficulty as with the applicant's other current request, in which the
property cannot fully meet both minimum area requirements and additional right-of-way
dedication requirements. If an equitable solution to the problem of meeting requirements
can be devised, and if it would lead to an approval instead of denial of the rezoning
request, the applicant might perhaps be willing to initiate a minor subdivision for double
bungalow for these three lots.
Staff Recommendation
Based on the issues commonly addressed by staff in rezoning matters, there is no
overwhelming argument pointing to approval or denial of this application. The location of
the three lots on a busy arterial is among the criteria commonly used for approving
duplexes since the late 1960's, but there are obviously many single family homes along
busy arterials as well. The Comprehensive Plan's low density residential designation for
the area would make either single family or two-family homes equally appropriate. The
lots each meet minimum requirements for duplex construction. Staff therefore have no
specific recommendation to forward at this time.
EAK:mkd
Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Site Plan
~'.'
C'
Exhi bit IIA II ,I >:""2.. ..
~ r- ~~f-"'" 0''', v,. ,,--,,'w u"'....._.;:.. __ - J. - - -e....4::
T.. _"V;:'. ,- -. .-. ~,.-:rt .. ''ir-'",........,.,.... ...._.___
Q .....,>.,Q,_.. '" 'JJo..... ...... J: ~.
!: '~~I 9091..... -" _.,:.' . ,-
'bO _ .J Q;"'4 . U&; ~: .
i~ .
. r.:4" '_" 60 ~ ... ~ lQ "': e . ;'; _:
....0 .... ... . ZD.Z g"} B .......~: .
I Q - 0" el. C\ ,.... ."'..,lraQ.l):
;]bZ..."~ ...~~-:.:....-
._~o;..;." me ;Z5 .,
/65 ::; 2 ~ :-
".t. ~~t')
~
., ~
';!... 16 -:-:;-~e
v .. "::. .........."...~: 30
l .,. -,r. ~ ~_ 7 :,.
~.,~. 4:;8
..j
+.
'-' E. ;;-.
"-
-=>
..~ .
. '""""
,,-',
or
-0 6..
G. ~. '. 13
....:
.<l"
. - ~ I
:oj';
'" I ':) Q
., 20- ) .s
-J- ., C'> .
-~ ',z - --.- .,.
g - liD. 4 ~;'~ Z ::
,
t' ~ IQ . ~ ? . .9 :2,
..-
, 4. ,
d-.tqO""i _; h....., I r/-
l~tI I 117
TERRAC,E'
4 _ 5..; F;
c'L . ., ~
~;J,_3.
. ...
~
~
IZ,C.,::'
..~
<T'
~ ....
. ...
~~ t1-
"'"
4-'1
-
"
" I!. ~ .~ ."
-: .'61 r 6'!1 '0 ':1':
8.... .c.t:.
26 ~ 2.7 s.: 2S~J 29 ::-;
I '.0: ru- .', - _:. ~ . ~o! _.E~:>
~D '. f\. r;.; .4" ~o
20;~ 19 .v IS ~. ._ 17 ...,'':
. ~.' ..;:; . ~'" ~J:... ,.
lS JS J~ i. ... -. '...:.
, ,>;- lJ~~-"
.C.; -:'1
..
. ... ~
30 ;"
~
". c H)-
2_~ "
-.. '>
--: .......
"
0-
'SY, :a:..-
" LANE
,1 J.-
.;a "0
:, ..
..
.....
...
"
~
..
:!
9 "".
'''!
.
7 3 ~J
. ~-.
. t .
::
S ~.
.'t
,-
ol-:-;;~:~ . ,.... J.:,-i,:---
23 ,4.....
.
o ..;J
~ '''!~.
::: s.O
'T" ::" <'
e ~'lg' ;?
..; ~ 9 Tl"'.:J'.~ '/
J.4....oS. o~
H-
.
.(1)
..
""' ..
o ~'.
.. I ~~
_I' · J:;____
- "';)'J- .._.."-~..
., ' ,
. ,~. z~ 9 a J.
...... .. I.;,' : - : ~..,,~. ~
-. ~ '. ' / ...-,.
'r .. ~..n,' I 3
-. az J4 ~
i II I':'~W..' ORIVE'~~:)(.;'
. . '0 './I
I "')to itQ";
\(,'~ ;
~ ~ 15. ~
~~
.,"'~ ..
'0 .-:. .,~ \0
.. . z"
....~-:ol ,55
,,0',
<I.
~
...
I~
.,.
..,'"
.. If'.! . _ ..
:::.., 'I' ~~
~..
1
I::
..
1-
3
:::: _ 9 ...,~-2
~ ~ ~ 3
~ ~'48.t1' G'
~ "'" e3
<;:,: -i!. 88 i?J.C~
~ -~
-.!f.f.!.t..... ~I;'-::'. 4
.., ~-i ~ H
o ., 0 '- JA.<->-
-f' 7...J_5
~;~
...
'"
.
-to
- ~
~t-
I
2. 2 ~
~ :::....
...
C\o ~
::""'
+! -.
I '
I :q~ e3
~ .il' 5
j~:~
\~ 1.5.0-
0---- I.'
...
\a -5 ".
'....
\ IC!
) o~ "a
0"; 6 ~\W
'....... -
\.... < -
-'-, j;:;:; . ."
,.;.-- J5._,
.. ~~-, ':?
.;g
j · 8 ~~ t:.. \ ~ '~" . 8
\\~\.. 5. . ~ ~
~ ~- -",-::
~ ,{9.0. I . '. ~
, 't /g. "'J(. · () () <'I 'Q e 7
:,'.r...~..7 t> 6 ~ ~ ~. Q
13 ~ h.~~- ,-
} of e .". /0
o
~
.~
...
~-
.. .
.
_ J::.
.. '
<> '
. -, :p
n
-
,
"
!'
-- -~-.
5-
....
~;;:
'{'
:l
-~
'" .'
.~~
<'
'--
'\j
- 12
"
el2
7e
I
"1
'),
.,
~ ~- II ':I
::- 'i- t",,:
"
C ~-
~ 10
~
11, ';.:
~ a
7
---
6
c ...~
"-~
8.
i II
.
,
I .~:J.;:
:j::; ',.0'; ~
". ~": -, .It_
,., .:
-"'~
. ,
.'
I
,4
11
co,
':;:';
II
~: '''Q
'" 'fi'--
.10,
'.'!..
~
: , ~;
-,
::0 .
.,
i- g
~.J :
Q -8
.~
'';4:1
7.'4(1
o ".~4 j
""
"~r ..,
;44"
-,4
I~
- ~--
-
MEMORANDUM
Date:
July 20, 1995
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mary Dold, Planning Secretary
Subject:
Letters from Surrounding Residents
Attached you will find two letters from residents regarding the Otten rezoning. We
received the letters too late to include them as a response in the memo which Beth
wrote regarding the rezoning of Lots 15, 16, and 17.
mkd
,
attachment: Letter from M and E Tapper
Letter from A. Goodrich and T. Lehman
,
.i
~\)
t:::J
l.u ~
~. ~
......
I..u C;:)
(.J C'\J
I.J..J -.I
Q: ~
~
.....
C\I
....
U'l
dU'l
Zz
,,:::::!;
ffi ~ ""
a.. CD..!!
~E~
~~:;
oao:2
"",coO
"",~Cl
lJl
t
~ ~
~
~
~-
. ~ ~ ~~ I. . , . .
. ~~ ,~~~~ )- ~~.~ ~ ~ ~~ J
" ~" ,,' -~~. ~ ~ "'!~ - ,~ ,~~ ~ J
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ,t- ~ .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ - .~ ~.
. ~,. ;~~ l~~\ ~~~~1.'.. ~~.~~.~~\
~~~~~. ~,~~. ~~~~~ ~oS~~ ~
,~ ~"~~~ ~~~~~~. ~~~~~ ~~ ~
.'
1901 Sumter Ave. N.
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Department of Planning and Development
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588
Dear Members of the Golden Valley Planning and Development Department:
We are new residents of Golden Valley. We chose this community for its high quality of
living and for its low housing density. As part of our search, we studied local zoning
maps - a major factor in our choice of this particular area was its Single-Family zoning.
.
We strongly oppose the rezoning of the empty lots near us on Winnetka Ave. No. (1720,
1800, 1810 Winnetka), as well as the property further south on Winnetka
Tampering with the carefully thought-out zoning in this area is short-sighted -- rezoning
for two-family dwellings would impact the neighborhood negatively for decades.
We urge you to reject the rezoning proposal.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
-~
J U L 1 S 1995
&~..._.
~?~~~ i;u(
Aileen K. 'ch Todd S. Lehman
.
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
July 19, 1995
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Evaluation of Area B Portion of the Valley Square Redevelopment Plan
At the July 10, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission considered a
request by the HRA to review the Valley Square Redevelopment Plan as it relates to
Area B. The HRA would like to know if the overall assumptions found in the Plan that
was last updated in 1991 remain valid for Area B. This request has come from the HRA
at this time because of the recent approval of plans for the development of Area C and
Area A-1. Area B is now the last area remaining for redevelopment. With the time clock
running on the Tax Increment District, which has funded much of the redevelopment in
the area, the HRA believes it is an important time to evaluate the Area B plan.
In this memo I am going to list findings the Commission made at their July 10th meeting.
These findings are from notes made by Beth and myself. Hopefully, we have gotten the
gist of your thoughts on the subject. I am going to list them to made it easier to follow:
A. PORTION OF AREA B UNDER STUDY --The Planning Commission agreed that
only that part of Area B north of Golden Valley Road between Winnetka Avenue and
Wisconsin Avenue will be considered. Area B actually includes the Golden Valley
Shopping Center and the bank and clinic on Wisconsin Avenue. The Planning
Commission assumes that these uses are there to stay and will not be redeveloped.
The northern edge of Area B is the creek. This area being studied is about 11.5
acres. The properties not owned by the City/HRA include the vacated grocery store
(owned by SuperValu), the house at 8030 Maren Lane (owned by the family of the
former owner), and the parcel at the northeast corner of Golden Valley Road and
Wisconsin Avenue (owned by the Bank).
B. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS -- In order to redevelop Area B, it is assumed that Maren
Lane will be vacated as a public street. Maren Lane now provides access to the
area from both the east and west. The street takes up what would be valuable
property in a redevelopment scheme. Access to both Winnetka Avenue and Golden
Valley Road could happen by private driveways to the redevelopment area.
All buildings in Area B must be removed for redevelopment. This means the strip
shopping centers along Winnetka Avenue, the house on Maren Lane, and the
vacated grocery store. Leaving anyone of the structures would minimize the value
of the entire area for redevelopment purposes.
Page Two .
All existing underground utilities will stay in place except if it is determined that they
need to be moved to allow for redevelopment and it is economically feasible. The
area is well served by public and private utilities.
The creek shall be considered an asset to the area. If possible, buildings and
developments should not be backed up to the creek. The trail system along the
south side of the creek west of Wisconsin Avenue should be extended to connect to
the pedestrian sidewalk along Winnetka Avenue and the trail to be built along the
railroad tracks to the north in the future. All required setbacks from the creek shall
be maintained in any development plan.
C. EXISTING PLAN ELEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED -- There have
been significant public improvements already made to Area B. These improvements
include the rerouting of Golden Valley Road from Winnetka Avenue to Wisconsin
Avenue. The City also opened Wisconsin Avenue to TH 55 and extended Wisconsin
Avenue across the creek to 10th Avenue. The improvements of Winnetka Avenue
were also recently completed which enhances both vehicular and pedestrian access.
The Winnetka Avenue upgrading is also a visual improvement to the area by adding
streetscape features. In order to accomplish these public improvements, the
City/HRA has purchased several properties in Area B including the strip shopping .
centers on Winnetka Avenue, a house on Maren Lane, and the old Hennepin Co-op
Seed Exchange.
D. CURRENT ACTION PLAN COMPONENTS - The action plan component lists three
tasks that are yet to be completed. First, the redevelopment of the sites purchased
for the Winnetka Avenue improvement. Second, the acquisition of the remaining
Maren Lane house. Third, enhancing Bassett Creek as part of any redevelopment
plan.
E. EVALUATION OF PLAN CHARACTERISTICS -- The 1991 Valley Square Plan is
brief as related to the plan for Area B. It simply states the following:
Improved traffic circulations; generally mixed uses with emphasis
on commercial; no residential uses.
The Planning Commission generally felt that the traffic circulation issues have been
taken care of by the improvements to Golden Valley Road, Winnetka Avenue and
Wisconsin Avenue. It was agreed that the elimination of Maren Lane as a street
would enhance the redevelopment area by allowing more land for redevelopment
and to eliminate traffic problems at the intersection of Maren Lane and Winnetka
Avenue. The Planning Commission believes that there may still be access from .
Winnetka Avenue into the redevelopment area via a private drive.
.
Page Three
The Plan calls for generally mixed uses with a commercial emphasis. The
Commission believes that calling for mixed uses in this area may be the best way to
encourage flexibility and creativity. There was a feeling that service oriented retail,
convenience grocery, and restaurants would be good uses. There was discussion
about combining uses such as retail on one floor and office uses on the second floor.
The plan specifically states that there will be no residential uses on Area B. This is
one area where the Planning Commission disagrees with the Plan. The
Commissions felt that some form of residential use, be it apartments or townhomes
may be appropriate, especially along the creek. Because there will be no housing
constructed as part of Area C, it was felt that an additional housing area in the Valley
Square Redevelopment District may be desirable. One of the concerns about
housing is if it is financially feasible. Townhomes was mentioned as a possibility.
However, town homes are relatively low in density and it may be impossible for a
developer to pay the minimum price needed to purchase the property. Higher
density apartments or condos may be able to pay the necessary land costs. There
was also discussion about the possibility of combining residential uses with other
uses such as retail or offices.
.
Offices did not seem to be a favored use by the Commission. With the addition of
more office space on Area A-1, it was felt that a more retail or service orientation for
Area B would be best. This is also in keeping with the current uses in the area. One
area where offices may be possible is directly north of the bank at the northeast
corner of Wisconsin Avenue and Golden Valley Road. This property is owned by the
bank and somewhat isolated from the part of Area B that has been traditionally retail
or service oriented. The bank has also shown interest in the past to use this area for
bank expansion.
F . RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PORTIONS OF VALLEY SQUARE -- The Commission
believes that whatever is developed on Area B should be complimentary to the other
parts of the redevelopment district. Area B should not be looked at in isolation but
considered a part of the overall development for Valley Square. It was mentioned
that there were many good ideas developed by the Area C Task Force that may
carry over to the development of Area B. These ideas include the need for good
pedestrian access and linkages with other areas. The design of both the buildings
and people space is also important.
The Commission also suggested that the Community Survey be reviewed to see if
there is any information about uses that the City may not have that could fit in with
Area B redevelopment.
.
Attachments: Portion of Valley Square Plan - Area B
Area B - Section Map
1978 Characteristics: Large portion of area occupied by Reiss Greenhouse, a
commercial grower; also included two single-family homes occupied by Reiss
family; no other uses.
Plan Characteristics: Improved traffic circulation; high density residential
development along creek, large office site fronting on Highway 55.
.
Redevelopment Activities Completed to-Date:
o
Acquisition and clearance of all property in area
o
Extension of Wisconsin Avenue northward -to intersect 10th Avenue
o
Opening of Wisconsin Avenue access onto Highway 55
o
Realignment of Golden Valley Road from location adjacent to highway to a
more northerly, curving route across area, subdividing the site into two
parcels identified as "A-I" and "A-2"
o
Constructi on of 3-story, 122 unit apartment compl ex, mostly market rate
but including low-income set-aside, on A-2 site adjacent to Bassett Creek
o
Bassett Creek walking path
Current Action Plan Components:
Area "B"
o
Preparat i on for and attraction of 1 arge-sc al e development, preferably
office, to the A-I site
.
Location: North of Highway 55, extending up to Bassett Creek; West of Winnetka
Avenue, extending to Wisconsin Avenue -- Overall size - 29 acres
1978 Characteristics: Mid-size commercial strip center with three outlying
buildings along Highway 55; two small-size commercial strip centers along
Wi nnetka Avenue; a supermarket and mi scell aneous other small commerci al
operations; two single-family homes along Creek.
Pl an Characteristics: Improved traffic circul ation; generally mixed uses with
emphasis on commercial; no residential uses.
Redevelopment Activities Completed to-Date:
o
Acquisition and removal of one of the two houses
o
Acquisition and removal of Hennepin Co-op building (business relocated
within Valley Square, on Lewis Road) for street realignment purposes
o
Vacation of Vermont Avenue adjacent to street realignment
o
Realignment of Golden Valley Road to a more northerly location, beginning
just west of supermarket and continuing through Area A
Former Golden Valley Road alignment west of the Vermont Street alignment
closed to thru traffic but retained for local access and to protect
underlying utilities
.
o
-8-
.
.
.
Current Action Plan Components:
o
Commercial redevelopment of sites cleared for Winnetka Avenue improvement
(see Winnetka Avenue Overlay Area)
o
Acquisition and removal of remaining single family residence
o
Bassett Creek amenities
Area "C"
Location: North of Highway 55, extending up. to Golden Valley Road, East of
Winnetka Avenue, extending to Rhode Isl and Avenue -- Overall size - 11
acres.
1978 Characteristics: Mid-size commercial strip center along Highway 55;
Dahlberg, Inc. (hearing aid manufacturer), small office building, and
mi scell aneous small commerci al operati ons 1 oc ated behi nd stri p center to
the north; two single-family residences along Rhode Island; triangle of
vacant publicly owned land between Golden Valley Road and Country Club
Drive.
Plan Characteristics: Improved traffic circulation; unified, mixed-use devel-
opment over entire site; high-density residential component desirable but
not mandatory.
Redevelopment Activities Completed to-Date:
o
Both Residences acquired and removed
o
Gas station at Winnetka and Golden Valley Road acquired and leased out
pending future removal
Small office building acquired and temporarily being used by the Golden
Valley Public Safety Department Drug Task Force pending completion of
improvements to the Public Safety Building, located in the Government
Center Block
o
o
Dahlberg, Inc. acquired (business relocated to North Wirth Redevelopment
District)
o
All other mi scell aneous small properti es acqui red, wi th 1 eases to be con-
tinued pending future removal
Current Action Plan Components:
o
Acqui siti on of commerci al stri p center (Krel itz property); HRA pl ans to
acquire property in 1991 even without a development agreement
o
Coordination of redevelopment site with Winnetka Avenue improvement (see
Winnetka Avenue Overlay Area)
Vacation of Country Club Drive to improve configuration of redevelopment
site (underground utilities must be preserved)
o
o
Establishment of large~scale, mixed use development to fill area
o
Widening of Rhode Island Avenue at approach to Highway 5~
-9-
~p -~
4.'/~!:~#~~~~~~~:-~r"~~",
ft~-;"~.
... - --:--,i"..
- . - - -
0" :,,:,,-,,_-':~ - - ~~~~~~:...:-:----.r:':-:::~~~-:"~' .
.~~;
-
I....': -:J :.:'.~
......-.;....
.' r,p
{~7 ". i.3 "'~.~ I':''''
1.3NNtM .. ..._~ . . -,,;;.-:-.:
: N ;- ~r-. "l '.
I ~'t i.:'S ~ ..:;\;~E J ........
I i --:... ~. :.:; ".
, .~ .'1.".
J> 00
-!- "a,
........" :
,. 4T.....---,;:~.~ .
.I., \ ...r" ~
."J:.~ :; .tl
<-:" if I:
-,J..l.NnOJ
--------~- .
~ l .J t::.";:-..
""r."rr
.. .,. ': !'
Ii'
'.
.-
~.....
J>
r Q
:!;~
.
."l
Co
;-
~
r;1(; l" ;,
. ~~:~!.
.-
--""
.. ., ",...-
.:..'" .._~...~
~ -.
N ....,f'>oi ~..'"
. .:..~.-:.. .
.....~' ....
-;
.-
I; ?::
N.
..;' 1,:1
~ '.;"1>;
00 " .
-. ,f ...
........C3)~~ ";\..IC:I.~.
.)q_..~ /" '/~,.
::- I-:-...f -} /....
", ""~.. ,~... "':~l~r '=s .. .. -..'
. ... "1 . "'0... ,_ ."":...J;.......;
.."": . ... ',- q"~ '>"
,/ ..;..11> .r~" .... /):~~ .
""" .:.....,,""1 "1' .,:~ / ......, ....._
I":c ...~'"
o~o.
:;.,
i
__I..J
~e
.-
"-: I
I'f',;~
"'-'"
".'uJ
:::
.,~ ,.
j- "!I.'
,.,
I
I
- . "'
..
v
..........
. J :
I'" .-..,'
'"
(r .i .:,j
,..~:'
. /'
. "
....
:.... I
.... ::;
,AI
:..~ I
_ _:... J
.0
-..
z
I
:- .....
Qa ..:1 ... I
~ .~i: I
.1..
o 1 ~
~ : ~
-'4t I .;:, T
" =-~
.~~ I
'll
.- ----i
t;':'. ".-
.;
.
~~.~
O .._r':~
, .--~
UN
-
... ....,
. . . : ;-;
1.1.I .c.._
t..
,..,
CD
.::.;;-;
~.
~
~
(\/ . ~
'"
q,
~ 8:; ;..~c
" S POl'
~ ~ .,
0- r-
"
. :\.
..:~ or.
If,_, 6. ~:'.
_.4':.,
- ~
{.'co
Stl :r,,'
...
.c;.
4"
~.
/ V ,..,. C\l
boV "
~y ;
~
...I
.
..... \ ""~
...,.. - ~ ~I
\V .do '"
..)..) ?
.do "
"7 U'
.:z
'"
"'
'.-
':' ~.(N ISNO:)SIM
..
,,-~
.,.."",In
(... ; ~ t
.~
<>
.... oJ
.... ...
~~~
t')_ -.
....
.....
OL
q.. .
::
o
o
>-
W
...
.,
~
'"
-z-
o
---
'f"
t
-
-r-
';;'0
0'"
.0 0
...z
~
.. - _.~
or'I
'"
~.
,
. ~.,-
'" ~
.r l~
~ :~..
.1
.
~ ~
,""
''0
I'
Co
-,
("
I
, I
I .
o
ex:
:t'
j'
.{
'1
! I ~~
~ ~ sr
..
..
It
__ ~-.J
.~ I
~
:---. , <..J
I .Q'O
~-4I .
..1
r"
.....
'~
'~
r'~:-
'" ~
cO "!..~
......
.;
'J
OW
..c
.t'
v
o
,....~
~
-:r~
I \ l~.
:r- 0
":~.~ c: ~
~ ...
U ...
....
..
... ~
01'
'Q ::a -
~.. I ~~
-;0 "'
.. ..
0 0
u.. -
~....
\
-.,..
. 0
-"0 0
<..>
.r
\J,t
I '..)
I:. ::.~
I.)? ~l.~
....~7
I . - ..'
0- "'l~
. '.~-t.
Ul
~
o
<9
In
'"'1
-.9
!;::
....,
.-::~..~
. p'; t'a;.>-~
. - ":}1f.
.
:z:
c
2:
L4.I
~
cc:
L&.
z
z
~
.
c: >-
0 J-
>- Z
W ::::>
> 0
c: u
::::>
CJ) z
>- a..
~ w
z z
::::> z
0 LaJ
U :J:
cc:
=
~
:>
--J
cz:
~
r'
"
(>...
--1:
.
:,.