06-27-94 PC Agenda
I~___ ,,__,n__,
.
.
.
L____
I.
II.
II I.
AGE N D A
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regul ar Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
June 27, 1994
7:00 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 23, 1994
JOINT MEETING - PLANNING COMMISSION/PARK AND REC COMMISSION
(7 - 8 PM)
INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - P.U.D. NO. 65
Applicant:
Address:
Request:
Trach Properties
7901 Golden Valley Road, 505 Winnetka Avenue, 7860-8040,
8200 and 8224 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley,
Minnesota
To legalize certain nonconforming aspects of the existing
shopping center including more than one building on the
lot
IV. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP
Applicant:
Address:
Request:
KQRS, Inc. and City of Golden Valley
825 No. Lilac Drive (Carson Property)
Golden Valley, Minnesota
Amend the property located at 825 No. Lilac Drive from
Residential to Industrial Use
V. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED - PRELIMINARY PLAT
Applicant:
Address:
Request:
KQRS, Inc.
825 and 917 No. Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Subdivide the property into two new separate lots for the
purpose of expanding the building and parking area
VI. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED - REZONING
Applicant:
Address:
Request:
KQRS, Inc.
825 and 917 No. Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Rezone the property located at 825 No. Lilac Drive from
Open Development to the Radio and Television Zoning
District in order that a parking lot and garage can be
built for use by KQRS, Inc.
---~-'~I
I
I
:1
,I
I
I
VII. REVIEW OF OASIS MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM - ANNUAL REPORT
VIII. REPORTS ON MEETINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY
COUNCIL AND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
IX. OTHER BUSINESS
X. ADJOURNMENT
e'
e'
:':
~. I
!
.
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
e
June 13, 1994
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City
Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota.
The meeting was called to order Chair McAleese at 7:00 PM.
Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, McAleese, Pentel and Prazak;
absent were Lewi sand Kapsner. A 1 so present were Mark Gri mes, Di rector of
Planning and Development, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - May 23, 1994
MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve
the May 9, 1994 minutes with the following correction: IIMOVED by Kapsner,
seconded by Prazak and ...".
Note: Item number V was moved to the beginning of the meeting due to the number
of residents in attendance to hear about this item.
V. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat
Applicant: Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority
e
Request:
West Side of RR Tracks, Between Laurel Avenue and 1-394
Approve Preliminary Plat - Golden Hills ~Jest 2nd Addition -
which will combine six existing parcels of land and redivide
them into two parcels for redevelopment purposes.
Address:
e
Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, gave a brief summary of the subdivision request
needed. She revi ewed the easements and lot 1 i nes so the pub 1 i c had a better
understanding of what the HRA was proposing. Ms. Knoblauch talked about the
development to the south of the property (Holiday Inn Express) and stated that
there were no development proposals for the remaining area to the north. Staff
recommends approval for this preliminary plat.
Chair McAleese opened the informal public hearing.
Jeannette Rubenstein, 6051 Laurel Avenue, asked how far north the Holiday Inn
Express property would be. Ms. Knobluach showed, from a site sketch, where the
property lines would lie.
Fred Aldridge, 6051 Laurel Avenue, said he is concerned with traffic that may be
generated from the southerly development and eventually development of the
northern portion. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development commented
that the Holiday Inn Express would be using a service road to the south and no
traffic will be generated onto Laurel. If several developments would occur on
the remaining two-thirds, some additional traffic may occur. He continued
saying that Laurel Avenue is a collector street and this kind of street is meant
to carry traffic.
Samuel Rubenstein, 6051 Laurel Avenue, asked if within the northern parcel a
east-west street would be built. Mr. Grimes commented that the developer is
proposing such a street.
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 1994
Page Two
Chair McAleese closed the informal public hearing.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend
to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat - Golden Hills West 2nd
Addition which will combine six existing parcels of land and redivide them into
two parcels for redevelopment purposes. This approval is also contingent on
engineering findings. .
II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit
Applicant: A.B. Huntington Inc. (Al Gleekel, President)
Address: 6126-28 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Request: To allow for the display of late model cars (indoors) for
sale or lease, by appointment only
Mark Grimes reviewed his report with the commissioners commenting that the only
real concern is with the fire code and Mr. Gleekel will be meeting \'lith Fire
Marshall Kuhnly regarding this issue. Mr. Grimes also commented that Mr.
Gleekel will have to work with the City and International Square regarding
signage. Staff recommends approval for this request.
e The applicant Mr. Al Gleekel briefly talked about his business.
Chair McAleese asked Mr. Gleekel if he would be taking trade-ins and how he
woul d handl e these vehi cl es. Mr. Gl eeke 1 commented that trade-i ns are not
desirable but a trade-in vehicle would be parked indoors or removed from the
property site. No cars would be parked outdoors.
Chair McAleese opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one
Chair McAleese closed the informal public hearing.
Commissioner Prazak commented that the use for this area seems to be a good fit
and compatible.
MOVED by Groger, seconded by Prazak and motion carried unanimously to recommend
to the City Council approval for a Conditional Use Permit to A.B. Huntington
Inc. to allow for the display of late model cars (indoors) for sale or lease, by
appointment only.
III. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning
Applicant: KQRS, Inc.
Address: 917 No. Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota
e
Request:
Rezone the property located at 825 No. Lilac Drive from Open
Development to the Radio and Television Zoning District in
order that a parking lot and garage can be built for use by
KQRS, Inc.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 1994
Page Three
IV. Informal Public Heairng - Preliminary Plat
Applicant: KQRS, Inc.
Address: 917 No. Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Request: Subdivide the property into two new separate lots for the
purpose of expanding the building and parking area
Mark Grimes, Di rector of Planning and Development reviewed both memos on the
rezoning and preliminary plat together. Mr. Grimes mentioned the approval of a
variance by the BZA the previous month and also talked about the widening of
Hwy. 100 and not knowing how this will affect this piece of property.
e
Jon Brakke, Lindberg Pierce, was the representative for KQRS, Inc. He presented
a site sketch to the commission which showed the existing building and the
requested additional space and parking.
Commissioner Groger asked if the addition could go on the west end of the
existing building. Mr. Brakke commented that this would create a hardship for
handicapped parking and some parking would have to be eliminated and the
remaining parking moved to the front of the building.
Mark Grimes commented that the driveway is very narrow and a fire lane needs to
be maintained.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the need for additional space was due to acquisi-
tion or if KQRS outgrew their space. Mr. Brakke commented that KQRS acquired an
acquisition and is in need of more space because of this growth.
Commissioner Groger asked about the signage in the front of the building. Mr.
Brakke commented that the sign would probably be removed because of the two dif-
ferent kinds of radio stations housed on the property. Although, Mr. Brakke did
say it is possible that the "mother" company may want their name on the sign.
Chair McAleese opened the informal pUblic hearing.
Scott Fergen, 5537 Lindsay, is concerned about the additional parking in the
rear because thi s woul d take out many trees, create more noi se and lower the
market value of his home. He also wanted to comment that he did not receive a
notice to the BZA meeting when the applicant appeared before the Board and what
could be done. Staff reviewed the procedure in sending out hearing notices and
that all neighbors bordering the property should have received a notice. Staff
will review the BZA application to note if his name appears in the file.
Commissioner Pentel asked Mr. Fergen if he had any screening between his prop-
erty and the parking lot. Mr. Fergen commented that there were five small
trees.
e
Commissioner Pentel talked about the wide cable lines that runs about 12 feet
above the ground. Mr. Brakke commented that those lines are the life lines to
the transmitting towers.
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 13, 1994
Page Four
Chair McAleese closed the informal public hearing.
Commissioner Groger commented that he is troubled by the decision of the BZA to
allow an expansion so close to a bordering residential area and with the likely
expansion of Hwy. 100 which would then make the front non-conforming.
Commi ssi oner Pente 1 is also concerned about the properties to the north and
expansion of Hwy. 100. She also talked about the amount of landscaping proposed
to the east and south and the lack of it to the north.
Commissioner Johnson talked about KQRS being a good neighbor and their hardship
situation for expansion and this area having various mixed uses.
Chai r McAleese commented about not bei ng sure about the rezoni ng of a parti al
piece of property. Commissioner Prazak also commented about the rezoning and
creation of a L-shaped piece of property. Commissioner Groger's feeling is that
there is no gain by rezoni ng just one pi ece of the southern property. The
commission and staff at this point spent several minutes discussing Open Develop-
ment and should all the land to the south be rezoned to Radio and TV.
e
Mark Grimes talked about the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and should it be
reviewed to change the use of the property to the south.
Commissioner Johnson requested to have these two items tabled to the next regu-
lar meeting of the Planning Commission. Staff will review the history of the
KQRS property and bring back to the commission an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map.
MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Prazak and motion carried unanimously to continue
the KQRS rezoning and preliminary plat to the meeting of June 27th and add the
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to the agenda.
VI. Reports on Meeti ngs of the Housi ng and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council and Board of Zoning Appeals
Commissioner Prazak and Mark Grimes talked about the HRA Special Meetings they
had attended.
VII. Other Business
Beth Knoblauch handed out brainstorming materials. The commission and staff
talked about the Schaper Property and using it for ball fields.
e
VIII. Adjournment
Chair McAleese adjourned the meeting at 9:15 PM.
Jean Lewis, Secretary
M E M 0 RAN DUM
.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 23, 1994
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Preliminary Design Plan for Golden Valley Shopping Center (GVSC),
P.U.D. No. 65 - Trach Properties, Applicant
e
Trach Properties, owner of the Golden Valley Shopping Center (GVSC) (with
addresses of 7901 Golden Valley Road, 505 Winnetka Avenue, 7860-8040, 8200 and
8224 Olson Memorial) have requested that their shopping center be rezoned to a
Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). The owner has requested this change for
several reasons. They are outlined below and in the attached application expla-
nation submitted by the applicant. The reasons are:
1. The property currently has two zoni ng categori es. The 1 arge majority of
the 8.68 acres of GVSC is zoned Commerci a 1. However, the westernmost
building now used by a window distributor (Mon-Ray Windows) is zoned
Business & Professional Offices (B&PO).
2. The dual zoning of the GVSC is not a problem except that the entire
center is on one unplatted lot. Current code and policy is to have a
distinct and legal parcel for each lot with a different zoning district.
Without these separate parcels, it is impossible to tell where the zoning
change occurs.
3. The single parcel has five buildings on it. The current code allows only
one building per lot.
4. The GVSC does not meet current parking requirements. The code requires
one space for every 150 sq. ft. of retai 1 space and one space for every
250 sq.ft. of office space. Based on the size of the buildings (85~710
sq.ft.), a total of 571 spaces are needed to meet code. Currently there
are 444 spaces on site or one space for every 193 sq.ft. (A more common
way to look at retail shopping parking requirements is spaces required
for 1,000 sq.ft. The existing GVSC is now 5.18 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.
of retail space.) With the reduction of the site by Hennepin County for
the widening of Winnetka Avenue, the parking is further reduced.
As part of the P.U.D., the City would accept the parking "as is" on the
site.
e
5. There are numerous building and landscape setback violations that also
exist on the site. In the application, it states that the buildings all
meet setback requi rements; I find the only excepti on to thi s statement
is the building at the corner of Winnetka and Golden Valley. I scaled
this building to be about 30 feet from the proposed new right-of-way line
- not the minimum 35 feet required. (Please note that the plans are half
scale, therefore double the number of feet indicated on the scale when
measuring at the 40-scale.)
,
Memo for P.U.D. No. 65, Trach Properties
June 23, 1994
Page Two
Code requires that there be a 35 foot green space along all areas adja-
cent to streets. The GVSC lacks this requirement along all streets with
the exception of Wisconsin Avenue.
.
Review of Site Plans
--
The applicant has submitted four maps for consideration. Review of these maps
reveals many of the issues to be considered as part of the P.U.D. approval
process. The first is marked Site Plan-P-1 indicating the new Winnetka Avenue
and Golden Valley Road right-of-way with the revised parking area along Winnetka
Avneue. It also indicates where parking has been lost due to the widening of
Wi nnetka Avenue and where the new dri veway 1 ocat ions are on Wi nnetka Avenue
(reduced from four to two). This map shows the existing parking and driveways
on the MnDOT easement for TH. 55.
The second plan marked Demolition: PUD-P-2 indicates the changes that are
necessary to the GVSC property to accommodate the wi deni ng of Wi nnetka Avenue
and Golden Valley Road. This indicates the location of existing parking and
driveways on the site and the areas that have to be removed. (The City has
reached agreement with David Trach, owner of the GVSC, regarding the necessary
acquisition of expanded right-of-way for Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road.
This new expanded right-of-way will be shown on the P.U.D. Plat for the GVSC.
The third plan marked Site Plan PUD-MnDOT ALTERNATIVE P-3 shows the new parking ~
and driveways along Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road plus illustrating how ~
the GVSC site would look if the owners were required by MnDOT to pull the
parking spaces and driveways off the current MnDOT easement. If this were done,
the parking spaces woul d be reduced to 361 spaces or 40 spaces fewer than if
MnDOT continues to allow the encroachment on their easement. This plan is the
one the City will have to accept as part of the P.U.D. approval.
The fourth plan marked Future Demolition: PUD MnDOT Alternative P-4 simply shows
what changes woul d have to be made if MnDOT requi res the GVSC to no longer
encroach on their easement.
Discussion ~ Parking and Driveways ~ MnDOT Easement
Staff has required the applicant to prepare the site plans indicating what the
GVSC would look like if MnDOT would require the GVSC to cease the encroachment.
As a condition to getting Hwy. 55 built through Golden Valley, the council was
required to adopt a resolution promising "that it will never permit or suffer,
within its corporate limits, any encroachment of any kind whatsoever" into the
highway right-of-way. A current survey of the Golden Valley Shopping Center
property indicates that a portion of the perimeter driveway and a couple of
parking spaces do extend into the right-of-way. The property owner's attorneys
were made aware of the situation and of the City's agreement. Staff made sure
that MnDOT was contacted with regard to this matter. Should MnDOT come back to ~
the City with the determination that the situation constitutes an encroachment, ~
action will be taken. Meanwhile, it must be made clear that the City's approval
of this P.U.D. is limited to the site plan labelled MnDOT Alternative P-3. The
e
e
e
Memo on P.U.D. Trach Properties
June 23s 1994
Page Three
only reason the City has not taken action so far is that there is some uncer-
tainty as to what constitutes an encroachment. The resolution lists some speci-
fic exampless all of which are structures of some sorts but does not make that
list all-inclusive. Staff also wishes to note that there is no suspicion on the
City's part that the property owner intentionally undertook to encroach on the
right-of-way.
There is also a question regarding the inclusion of the current easement area
for TH. 55. in the P.U.D. Plat. They have requested that this be held out of
the P.U.D. area. The staff is recommending that the easement area be included
in the P.U.D. Permit and the P.U.D. Plat. The City has sent the P.U.D. plan to
MnDOT for their review. They have not yet responded. If MnDOT does not care if
it keeps the TH. 55 right-of-way by easements it can continue to be shown to be
an easement. If MnDOT would prefer that the current easement be dedicated to
the States the City must indicate it in the plat as dedicated right-of-way.
In any cases if MnDOT continues to ignore the encroachment by the GVSC on their
easement or future dedicated right-of-ways the City will not object to the use
of this area for parking and driveways. Howevers the approval of the P.U.D. by
the City must be limited to the plan marked P-3 because it indicates the future
if MnDOT chooses to expand TH. 55. (At thlStime the City is unaware of any
plans that would require this easement area to be used.)
Wisconsin Avenue Access
The owner of the GVSC has asked the City to work with MnDOT to reopen Golden
Valley Road to Wisconsin Avenue as indicated on P-l. This action would allow
for another means of ingress and egress to the GVSC from the west. The City has
agreed to consider this request. This access is off the GVSC property so it is
not a part of the P.U.D. consideration.
Signage
The owner of the GVSC is asking that the type and amount of signage on the site
remain as is. This would be written into the P.U.D. Permit. For instances the
two pylar signs will remain on the site an'd they can be replaced but only with
signs with the same or less square footage. The same is proposed for signage on
the buildings. The size of the signage on the building will not increase.
They are also proposing to have one monument sign at the west end of the site.
This would be low to the ground and provide some identification for the future
access from Wisconsin Avenue.
Recommended Action
The request for the P.U.D. has its advantages for the City of Golden Valley and
the property owner. It eliminates the non-conformities that were discussed ear-
lier in the report. It recognizes the existing center and its inconsistencies
with today.s requirements. (This shopping center was built starting in the
early 1950's. It was one of the first strip type centers in the Twin Cities.)
It also gives the City some control over the future development of the area be-
cause no size changes to the buildings can be made without approval of the City.
Memo for P.U.D. No. 65, Trach Properties
June 23, 1994
Page Four
As part of the approval of the P.U.D., I would suggest that the following be
included in the eventual P.U.D. Permit.
e
1. Site Plan P-3 be the accepted plan indicating 361 parking spaces. The
City realize:s that the GVSC may continue to use the MnDOT easement area
as long as they do not object. Based on current usage, the 361 spaces is
adequate to serve this type of community shopping center.
2. The existing TH. 55 easement area be a part of the P.U.D. Plat and P.U.D.
Permit.
3. An inventory of the exi st i ng s i gnage be done and be gi ven to the City
prior to approval of the P.U.D. The amount of the existing signage would
be used as a benchmark for future sign changes. The site would be
limited to two pylar signs (as there are today) along with one future
monument sign in locations indicated on the site plan. The size of the
future monument sign shall be established in the sign inventory.
4. The setback of buildings and parking areas shall be as shown on Plan P-3.
These setbacks have been existing for years with the exception of along
Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road where new road improvements are
being done. The City staff believes that the widening of Winnekta Avenue
and Golden Valley Road along with improved landscaping will be an
enhancement to the GVSC.
5. Because GVSC has fewer than the required parking spaces currently allowed
by code, I would like the Planning Commission to consider if the City
should somehow limit the uses allowed in the shopping center. For
instance, would another sit down restaurant be acceptable due to the
amount of parking or would it be best left to the owner of the center to
control his tenant mix? The owner of the GVSC has done a good job
controlling the mix so as not to cause parking problems in the shopping
center. At a minimum, I would suggest that the shopping center uses be
limited to general retail, offices and service.
e
MWG:mkd
Attachments Letter (and attachments) to Mark Grimes from David Clark dated
March 7, 1994
Location Map
Site Plans
e
e
e
e
;:-~r::i
- -
CLARK
LARSEN
[Vf~
~Ocl
WIRTANEN
_ ~; -:-r' I !;
March 7, 1994
Mr. Mark Grimes
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Re: PUD Application
Golden Valley Shopping Center
WCL Comm. No. 9325.02
Dear Mr. Grimes:
Please find attached the applications for Preliminary Design Review and Planned Unit
Development for the existing shopping center. As discussed, it is to the city's benefit as
well as the Owner's to go through the formal PUD and plat procedures on this property.
The Owner has requested that we begin this process and is anxious to finalize these
discussions. It is understood that the PUD cannot be finalized until the current negotiations
for the land acquisition are complete along Winnetka Avenue. However, we would like to
have these PUD documents completed so that they can have final reading when the other
proceedings are complete.
As discussed, because this project is already existing, this will be an unusual application.
The intention is to bring the site into compliance with a formal PUD approval process.
However, the current site development will make it very difficult to make any significant
modifications.
Our office has prepared a brief narrative describing the PUD and this is attached to the
applications.
If any further information is required, please do not hesitate to call. I assume that after the
various departments have had an opportunity to review the drawings, we should sit down
to discuss this site.
Yours truly,
David Clark, AlA
Wirtanen Clark Larsen Architects, Inc.
DC.pmf
enc.
clark\grimes.39
e
PUD Application
Golden Valley Shopping Center
3.3.94
1. Project Description: Site
The existing site is located on the northwest corner of Winnetka Avenue and
Highway 55. The site comprises 8.68 acres or 378,140 s.f.
Currently in progress are formal acquisition procedures which would decrease the
site area by 11.439 s.f. [eliminating several dozen parking stalls) and take certain
access/ egress rights. This occurs at the northeast corner of Golden Valley Road
and the property along Winnetka Avenue.
Current zoning on the site is primarily commercial, but with a classification of
Business and Professional Office for the area around the westerly building.
2. Project Desaiption: Buildings
The site is developed with 5 separate buildings with an area breakdown as follows:
e
Shopping Center A
B
West Building
Center Building
East Building
30,020 s.f.
43,675 s.f.
4,621 s.f.
2.488 s.f.
4,906 s.f.
Total Building Area
85,710 s.f.
Site Coverage
22.6%
These buildings vary in design, shape and height. In general, the buildings are
substantial structures of masonry with steel roof structures. The exteriors are a
combination of painted masonry, aluminum storefront, accent panels and a printed
canopy.
In general, the image of the center reflects the simple convenience type of retail and
service tenants and yet maintains the delicate balance of economic viability.
Utilities
The center is currently serviced with all utilities as required by the City. These are
e
e
e
e
indicated on the attached survey.
3.
Site Issues
A number of factors have contributed to the noncompliance of this project with
current city zoning codes.
The age of the project (30 years approx) means that the center was built
under a radically different set of ordinances and conditions.
The current acquisition for the Winnetka road right-of-way will decrease the
current parking counts and eliminate any possibility of real landscape
setbacks on this edge of the site.
A brief description of existing conditions, if compared to the requirements if
the project would be built today under the current commercial zoning code,
is as follows:
A.
One building - one lot Requirement
Because there are 5 separate buildings on this parcel, the only way
the project can be brought into conformance is with a formal PUD
procedure.
B.
One Parcel - one zoning Requirement
There are currently 2 zoning designations on this one piece of
property. The PUD will designate appropriate uses of the site.
C. Parking Requirements
For a developed building area of 85,710 sf, current codes would
require 571 cars at 1 50 sf of building per vehicle. After the street
acquisition, the effective parking count will be 401 cars. Historically,
parking has not been a problem on this site and this should be
sufficient.
D. Building Setbacks/Allowable Height
The current buildings meet the following setbacks:
front/ street setback 351
side/ rear setback 20'
allowable height
3 stories/120'
No variances will be required in this area.
e
E. Landscaping Setback Requirements
Current zoning requires the following setbacks:
front/street setback 35'
side/ rear setback 10'
A review of the existing conditions indicates that setbacks on 3 of the
4 property lines do not meet the criteria. Variances would be
required.
The Highway 55 frontage is alleviated by the 3D' green area between
the roadway and the parking lot.
The Golden Valley Road frontage at the west end of the street is also
alleviated by a reasonable green buffer of 15' to 20' from the
roadway to the parking. The landscaping at the east end of Golden
Valley Road is exacerbated by the widening of the road and a minimal
buffer is all that remains.
The Winnetka property line is also deficient. Again, the road
acquisition in this area greatly reduces the landscaping possibilities. e
F. MnDOT Easement
A portion of the existing parking and circulation for the center
overlaps the easement granted to the state for Highway 55. The Land
Owner intends to continue his operations in the easement until such
time as this area is required by MnDOT. The MnDOT easement area
has been excluded from the PUD area, is that the City is not placed
in the position of ratifying the Land Owners use within the easement
area. The Land Owner will use all reasonable efforts to obtain a letter
from MnDOT acquiescing in the Land Owners current use within the
easement area.
A second drawing is included with this application which indicates the
parking configuration if MnDOT should, at any time in the future,
demand that all of the existing site improvements be removed from
the easement.
e
.
e
e
G.
Signage
The current signage ordinance permits 2 square feet of sign for every
foot of building frontage.
The configuration of the center with the recessed passage and
additional tenants in this area who do not have highway frontage,
makes it difficult to determine the permitted signage size.
At this point, we would propose accepting the signage as it exists. Any
future tenant signage would involve trading out the previous tenant
sign for any new tenant.
The style of the existing signage appears to conform to the ordinance.
There are two existing pylon signs and 1 monument sign on the site.
It is proposed that these be accepted as existing under the PUD
documents. Leaving these signs in place may be a variance from the
ordinance which permits only one sign per lot. However, we have 5
district builidngs and may be eligible for up to 5 free standing signs.
The details of these pylon signs shall be accepted under the PUD and
the Owner shall have the ability to reface, rebuild or replace the signs
in size and detail to the existing.
H.
Wisconsin Avenue Access
Recognizing that the congestion on Winnetka Avenue is responsible
for the majority of the redesign of this roadway, the Owner is
petitioning the City with this application to negotiate with MnDOT for
the extension of Golden Valley Road to Wisconsin Avenue. This would
provide another access and outlet for traffic from the site.
4. PUD Documents
The Owner would like included in the language of the PUD the following conditions:
A The Owner shall have the right to alter, build or rebuild" within the
footprint of the existing structures, buildings housing similar
occupancies, subject only to design review by the city staff.
B.
The Owner shall have the right to remodel the exterior facade of the
buildings including but not limited to, the replacement of awnings,
canopies, signage, wall details and materials, etc., subject only to the
design review of city staff.
C.
The parking ratio indicated on the plans and the ratio that may result
after any future enforcement of the highway easements by MnDOT is
realized by the PUD, not withstanding contrary zoning regulations.
.
D. The Owner shall the right to repave or reconfigure the parking and
circulation areas on the site within the parking and circulation areas
as defined on the plan and alter, repair and replace lighting standards,
planters and other fixtures in the parking area. City staff shall be able
to review and approve any parking modifications which may impact the
landscaping or building areas.
E. The PUD agreement shall run with the land, benefitting the current
Owner, Trach Properties, its successors and assigns.
clark\pudmemo.394
e
e
.~"..
:= --. e
:..0
~ A(cOO/V4LOS
('t/.Q /Va 58
::!
.
1~ M U\ U.
': C) ~
~ co
~ ...
.
C) 0 ~
~ ~
9 - . --- ~
"0
- -z-.
~.. ii iii
..
0
0
t- ".. "
TO
37S.f.:J
- - --
IZ6."" of.. '21,21
~ . ~
o:a
l:) 'i:.
c.. q, ~
\, lads ~ co
3OS.~8
III
;!! ~. '"
l:)
J C4 ~
.OJ it .cs
~ i;{
CI) ~
~
~
~
"('
~
.
l:
3
~
l:)
I .... -
.. .
...
.
~.
"
'"
,'S,()I
eo
t..()e~
~L.
~ l.J () l. e". c
· · 1.,_ '/~/^
:u.'- "
~~
~g
~f. '~~
~ ~ ,n
~; 4r 1
~
~.,. .2
:. c:- .'~'~
.!,~ ',t
...
.. ....'..
. . .
; ;;e
~:-~
:.....
....~ :
, -1
\..(,
,
i
ID
.-,
. .
'.......'
-,)
,..
.
~.,-. .~
.'
~~
~~
'.0
ao
-
t.
,
,
M E M 0 RAN DUM
----------
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
June 21, 1994
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
SUBJECT: Supplementary Report on the History of the KQRS Radio
Stat ion P rope rty
At its informal hearing on June 13th, the Planning Commission asked staff
to provide additional information about the KQRS site. Commissioner
Johnson, the current delegate to the BZA, particularly recommended that a
long-standi ng member of the BZA be asked to. come to the next Pl anni ng
Commission meeting to provide some insight. Two members of the present
BZA have been involved in all four applications for variance to date.
However, the earliest of those applications was heard twenty years ago,
and the records indicate that there was already some confusion of memory
by the time of the second application seven years later.
Also, there were several significant historical events in which the BZA
was not involved. Some occurred before the BZA was formed. Others
occurred with regard to the adjacent area rather than the site itself, but
had an i ndi rect impact on how the site has been vi ewed. F or those
reasons, staff have determined that a detailed record search would yield
more complete information at this time. The search began with a visit to
the City's 1945 aerial photograph to determine the character of the area
just prior to the initial establishment of the radio transmitter station
in 1948. One of the thi ngs revealed by the photo is that the two acre
residential parcel at the southeast corner of the radio station site has
remained virtually unchanged since then. Having made that discovery,
staff concentrated on the site and the adjacent area to the north. A
report on the research is attached.
EAK:mkd
Attachment: The History of the KQRS Radio Station Property
.-
,
,
The History of the KQRS Radio
Station Property
Snapshot, 1948:
The four-lane, divided Olson Memorial Highway ran due west out of Minneapolis
to link up with the Belt Line Highway (Hwy. 100) at one of the oldest clover-
leaf intersections in the Twin Cities area. Northward along the Belt Line,
land use was primarily rural/agricultural with some large-lot rural homes and a
couple of small businesses. The village had recently acquired a parcel of land
on the west side of the Belt Line about 650 feet north of the railroad tracks,
and plans were underway to build a fire station on the site. The post war
building boom had Golden Valley well on its way to a 1950 total of some 1500
homes, but his particular part of the village had not yet been impacted by the
boom. .
The village only had three zoning districts in the early part of 1948. The
"Community Store" di stri ct all owed pretty much the sort of uses that its name
suggests. A second district, while called the "Commercial" district, was in
fact the equivalent of today's Industrial zoning district. Only a handful of
areas around the village were designated as belonging in one of these dis-
tricts. The bulk of Golden Valley, including the area west of the Belt Line
and north of the railroad tracks, was designated as part of the "Open
Deve10pment" zoning district which allowed a variety of agricultural, recrea-
tional, residential, institutional, and limited business uses.
Ti me Moves On:
In May of 1948, the Family Broadcasting System (FBS) was one of two applicants
appearing before the village Planning Commission with requests to construct
radio transmission towers. The other company subsequently ran into delays
trying to finalize its plans, and therefore missed out on its chance to become
a landmark in Golden Valley zoning history. FBS continued through the village
approval process alone.
Specifically, FBS proposed to locate its broadcasting tower and related equip-
ment for radio station KEYD on several acres of land between the railroad
tracks and the fi re station property. KEYD IS offi ce and studi os were bei ng
bui 1t in dowtown Mi nneapo 1 is. The propos a 1 made it all the way through the
Planning Commission and the first reading by the Village Council for rezoning
to "Community Store" (there is no explanation of why this designation was con-
sidered more appropriate than Industrial zoning would be). Then, on July 20th
the council abruptly changed course. Instead of giving a second reading to the
approved ordi nance, the counci 1 introduced a compl etely di fferent ordi nance
establishing a fourth zoning district within the village. With regard to the
new Radio zoning district, a statement in the minutes indicates "it was deter-
mined that this action would more effectively control establishment of radio
transmitting stations and towers, preventing their construction in existing
community store areas."
There were no standard setback requirements established for the new district.
This was consistent with the zoning practice for the other two nonresidential
di stri cts. E1 sewhere in the code, there \:Jere general requi rements to keep
business uses a certain distance away from platted residential lots, but there
were no platted areas near the FBS site in 1948, so those requirements didn't
apply, either. Because of the Belt Line beautification project, however, all
communities adjacent to the highway were encouraged to keep business uses well
t-
,
,
KQRS Supplemental Memo
Page Two
back from the road. Every time Golden Valley rezoned a property along the Belt
Line, the ordinance of approval included a requirement that buildings must be
300 feet back. This case was no exception. The applicant tried unsuccessfully
both before and after approval to get the requirement waived.
The original building was 66' x 23'. The oldest file survey shows that it was
indeed set well back from the highway, but it doesn't appear to have been 300
feet from anything in particular. A staff note scribbled on another survey
remarks that the record is unclear as to how the 300 feet was supposed to be
measured. At any rate, two more towers were added to the original one "out in
back" in 1958. Minor additions were made to the rear of the building in 1960
and 1961. The building permit in each case states that the addition "does not
affect II the side yard clearance. Specific setbacks for most nonresidential
zoning districts were not added to the code until the mid-60's.
Backing up just a little, residential platting of the property to the north of
the radio station was undertaken in 1959. (A narrow strip, extending north
from the fire station, had been residentially platted in 1950.) There is abso-
lute ly nothi ng in any City records to i ndi cate that either the Pl anni ng
Commi ssi on or the Counci 1 questi oned potenti a 1 confl i cts in use between the
platted area and the radio station. In 1960, the area covered by the plat was
rezoned to residential. The rezoning occurred as part of an "annual zoning
update II , a common practice in those days of rapid growth. The ordinance of
approval encompassed sixty different residential areas and another six nonresi-
dential rezonings. Individual notices of the proposed rezonings were not sent
out for such annual updates.
The radio station went before the BZA for the first time in 1974. The proposal
was for a 25' x 39' addition to the back of the building, adjacent to the north
property line. The staff liaison correctly noted that the residential zoning
to the north requi red a 100 foot setback. The questi on was rai sed as to
whether the applicant had looked at other parts of the site as alternative
constructi on opti ons. The record says lilt was shown that the rear area was
restri cted by poor soi 1, and the supporting cables and ground wi res for the
towers. II This is the only BZA hearing in which soil conditions are referenced
in the record. Variances were granted for the existing building and for the
proposed addition. There was no discussion of the driveway or of any existing
parking area, neither of which was shown on the survey. The addition, by the
way, was never built.
The residential lots to the north of the back part (the tower area) of the
radio station property had been developed soon after the plat was filed. At
the front end, the situation was different, but that was not necessarily
because of the radio station itself. In the original plat, there was only a
single, large lot at that location, with the service road and highway to the
east and the village fire station to the north across Lindsay Street. In 1976,
there was an uncompleted attempt to divide the lot into three parcels. At the
time, it was noted that the lot was "10w and would require fill".
In 1978, this still-vacant residential lot was one of five considered for
inclusion in a program to construct low/moderate income scattered site housing.
A staff report stated that the lot was undesireable for single family housing
because of the radio station, fire station, and traffic. The Planning
Commission agreed with the alternative of a four unit townhouse, but the vote
was split over the suitability of the location for a low income population.
The site was dropped from further consideration.
t-
,
,
KQRS SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO
Page Three
In 1979, the owner of the resident i allot came in wi th another proposal to
break it into three separate parcels for duplex use. At that time, double
bungalows were still allowed in the residential zoning district with certain
limitations. The necessary approvals went through normal Planning Commission,
City Council and BZA channels. Records indicate that notices were sent to the
radio station along with other adjacent properties. No comments from the sta-
tion appear in those records. Only one duplex, on the parcel nearest to the
highway, was built before the approvals lapsed in 1980.
Back at the radio station in 1981, another expansion was proposed. This addi-
tion, at 44' x 46', would be to the front of the building instead of the rear.
It had been determined some years earlier that the practice of establishing
extra-ordinary setbacks through specific rezonings \'ias not strictly legal, so
the 300 foot limit was no longer in effect. There \'ias a new staff liaison
since the previous BZA application, and he apparently neither checked the file
nor investigated the zoning of adjacent parcels. He stated that the required
north side setback was only 20 feet, and therefore the requested waiver was for
15 feet off instead of the 95 foot waiver that he should have indicated. With
seven years having gone by, the two BZA members who remained on the Board since
1974 apparently didn't catch the error either.
Despite the fact that the proposed addition would almost triple the extent of
the sixteen foot high wall of the building adjacent to the three residential
parcels, the staff liaison stated in the minutes that the proposed addition
"presents no signficant effect on the site". A board member further stated"
the location of the existing building and the addition are not controversial
and do not appear to have a negative effect on surrounding properties". The
waiver was approved with no further discussion. Although the driveway and
parking area were shown on the 1981 survey, and varied between three and five
feet from the south prop-erty line, no variances were requested, proposed, or
granted for that situation. The rear parking area met the required north set-
back of 50 feet.
In 1982, the action goes back to the residential lots. The owner had finally
found a buyer for at least one of the remaining two, and wanted to proceed with
construction. Not only had his previous approvals lapsed, however, but in the
interim the City had established the R-2 zoning district. The two lots had to
be rezoned. Again the radio station was on the notification list for the hear-
ings but made no comment in the record. Staff referred to the adjacent radio
use but as in the past there was no discussion of potential conflict between
the uses. The rezoning was approved. Incidentally, by this time the fire sta-
tion was gone and the staff report indicated that four more double bungalows
were expected to be built on that site.
1987 brought yet another radio station expansion proposal. Again it would be
at the front of the building and again it would be bigger than previous expan-
sions (70' x461). Actually, two expansion areas were identified in the appli-
cation for variance but it isn't clear whether the smaller (141 x 32') one at
the back of the building was included in the BZA discussion. Between the two,
they would have just about doubled the length of that wall located some five
feet from the north property line. The minutes of the 1987 BZA hearing are
attached to this report in their entirety, because that hearing had by far the
most detailed discussion of the property. Among the highlights: for the first
time there was one adjacent property owner opposed to the request, the required
north si de setback was correctly noted as 100 feet, a BZA member poi nted out
that enforcing such a setback would make the whole front part of the property
unbuildable, and the representative for KQRS said no further future expansion
.-
,
,
KQRS Supplemental Memo
Page Four
would be necessary. In the end, the variance again was approved, "consistent
with previous approvals by the Board". The 1987 survey shows the front drive-
way but the surveyor did not continue past the building or into the rear
parking area. Architectural plans reflect a rear parking area extending all
the way north beyond the required parking setback to the existing building
line, but don't indicate whether that expansion had already taken place or was
just being proposed at that time. Either way, no variances were discussed.
Today:
That completes the history of the KQRS radio station property up to the current
requests. The site and its surrounding area both seem to have grown over time
with little consideration of how they might affect each other. Some of the key
decisions were made at a time when village planning was not at a very sophisti-
cated level and things were happening more quickly than the growing village
could handle. More recent decisions have had to deal with the resulting
situation. The radio station property was occupied and correctly zoned before
any intensive residential development took place, and the station1s owners
appear to have compl ied with the rules over time to the extent required by
local government; should this entitle the site to some priority, or must it bow
to changing times? The residential lots were also developed with government
approval, and with full knowledge of the nonresidential site next door; is this
a case of caveat emptor, or does the City owe those property owners some
protection? Difficult questions, with no easy answers in sight.
EAK:mkd
Attachment: Board of Zoning Appeals - Minutes - November 10, 1987
.-
,
,
Board of Zoning Appeals
Page 3
November 10, 1987
The petition was in order. Consent had been obtained from all adjacent
properties. However, several days before the meeting, Ms. Helga Burba of
2915 Everest Lane, Plymouth, MN came to Director of Zoning & Inspection,
Lloyd Becker, and asked to have her approval removed from the petition. Ms.
Burba owns an adjacent two-family dwelling which she rents out and she was con-
cerned for the landscaping and appearance of the K.Q.R.S. addition. Ms. Burba
was in attendance at the meeting.
Present for K.Q.R.S. was Mark Steinmetz, General Manager of K.Q.R.S. and Mr.
Robert Pierce, the architect for the project. Secretary Lloyd Becker reviewed
the proposed Highway Dept. improvement to the service road which will require
some taking of the K.Q.R.S. property and an existing two-family dwelling at the
corner of Lindsay and the Lilac Drive service road.
Lloyd Becker also provided a history from city files on the development of the
K.Q.R.S. site and previous B.Z.A. approvals of setback along the north lot line
in 1974 and 1981. The original building constructed in the 1940's began at what
amounted to a two-car garage in conjunction with the antenna installation.
Mr. Pierce made the presentation to the Board. The proposed addition is
approximately 3,100 sq. ft. The site will meet all required parking and other
setbacks. The addition is in line with the existing building and will have the
same exterior appearance. Presently there is a portable office trailer that was
approved by the Golden Valley City Council for temporary use. This would be
removed should the waiver be approved.
Mr. Steinmetz noted there are no further plans for expansion. Based on the size
of the station market and the broadcast characteristics, the new addition should
meet all of their needs. Mr. Steinmetz noted he had mailed a letter to Ms.
Burba with his assurances that any existing landscape damage during construction
would be replaced and he would cooperate with her to alleviate her concerns.
Chairman Swedberg provided Ms. Burba the opportunity to comment. She noted her
two-family dwelling is almost new, requires substantial rents and she was con-
cerned about the view to her tenants. Ms. Burba noted the decks and outside
living area is in the rear of her building and adjacent to K.Q.R.S.
Mr. Steinmetz noted there are no windows proposed for his building on the side
facing Ms. Burba's property. The addition is for broadcast studio. Ms. Burba
said that broadcast noise comes through on the telephones and on A.M. radio.
Mr. Steinmetz responded that this occurs around radio stations. He noted they
have worked with other adjacent neighbors and there are suppression systems that
alleviate this condition. They would provide the same for her tenants and will
have their broadcast engineers contact her tennants.
Chairman Swedberg commented that the K.Q.R.S. property was platted as it exists
for well over 40 years. It started with a small building and has grown several
times on a very difficult lot configuration. Mah10n asked the architect if they
had considered adding toward the rear rather than the front. Mr. Pierce said
yes they had looked at several possibilities but it would only distract from the
site by moving the parking out in front and more visible from properties such as
Ms. Burba's.
.-
,
,
Board of Zoning Appeals
Page 4
November 10, 1987
Kevin McAleese noted that the 100 foot setback required in this instance is
ridiculous and addresses the antennas which more than meet the 100 feet.
McAleese noted there is no reasonable application for the 100 feet to the
building as the lot is only 98 feet wide.
Following general discussion on the landscape and noting the Building Board
of Review will have an opportunity to review and comment, Kevin McAleese
moved to approve the waiver as requested to provide for the addition in line
with the existing building along the north lot line consistent with previous
approvals by the Board. Second by Art Flannagan and upon vote carried unani-
mous1y.
Secretary Lloyd Becker assured Ms. Burba he would notify her of the Building
Board of Review Meeting that addresses this proposal.
There being no further business to come before the Board, it was upon motion,
second, and vote to adjourn at 8:30 P.M.
~~f!<e~~JL./
Mahlon Swedberg, Chairman
e
e
e
F'
\
} ,
M E M O;R AND U M
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 21, 1994
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Elizabeth A. Knoblquch, City Planner
Informal Hearing, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Industrial Use of the Property at 825 Lilac Drive,
City of Golden Valley - KQRS, Applicants
Background
This item is being brought up with relation to the request of KQRS radio station
to acquire additional property from the large residential parcel to the south-
east in order to expand its existing facility at 917 No. Lilac Drive. Mark
Grimes, Director of Planning and Development for the City of Golden Valley, has
already introduced applications for subdivision and for rezoning in this matter.
In his staff memo discussing the rezoning, he noted that the proposed change
would not be consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation of the
property for low density residential uses. In his judgment, however, the amount
of area desired by KQRS is not large enough to require prior amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan in order to maintain the legally required consistency between
plan and zoning.
The proposed subdivision and rezoning were initially considered by the Planning
Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting of June 13th. During discussion,
the commissioners raised various planning concerns. They chose not to vote on
either of the two applications before them at that time, asking instead that
staff come back with additional information at the next regularly scheduled
meeting. Although some of the concerns go beyond the narrow confines of confor-
mity with the Comprehensive Plan Map, Director Grimes asked that an application
for amendment of the plan be included for hearing along with the other informa-
tion to be provided. That way, if the final decision in this matter is going to
depend on the conformity issue, then the commission and council would have the
opportunity to ensure conformity by amending the plan concurrently with approv-
ing the other requests.
Options
There are several courses of action that coul d be taken with regard to thi s
matter. Not all of them would be beneficial to the immediate applicant, KQRS.
In short, if the council finds either 1) that Director Grimes' conclusion of no
significant impact (and thus no need for amendment of the plan map) is correct
or 2) that there is a conformity problem but that all or a portion of the resi-
dential property would more appropriately be designated for industrial uses in
the Comprehensive Plan, then it can proceed to approve the rezoning. On the
other hand, it would also be perfectly legitimate to decide that there is a con-
formity issue, but 3) a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment should not be made at
this time, or 4) an industrial use designation is not appropriate for the parcel
in question. In either of those latter two cases, the rezoning would have to be
denied.
Page Two
One bi g concern among the Pl anni ng Commi ssi oners was the need to consider the _
future of the residential parcel in its entirety before carving a chunk out of ..,
one corner. The parcel is about two acres in size and the existing house has
been sitting there since at least 1945. Its exact age is uncertain. The KQRS
proposal would leave a platted, but irregular, lot of 1.75 acres. If the poten-
tial taking of additional right-of-way for Hwy. 100 occurs, the lot size would
be further reduced by about 0.12 acres. The parcel is roughly rectangular now;
after platting by KQRS, it would be less regular in its shape. Among the ques-
tions raised by the commissioners: how would its size and shape combine with
the impact of adjacent uses to affect the ultimate disposition of this parcel?
Adjacent Uses
To the south of the residential parcel lie the railroad tracks and then the
Industrially zoned Tennant Company (designated for continued Industrial use on
the Comprehensive Plan). To the east is Hwy. 100, which tends to minimize or
eliminate other use impacts in that direction. Wrapping around the parcel to
the west and north is the KQRS property. Zoned for Radio and TV purposes and
included in the Industrial use category on the Comprehensive Plan t1ap, there are
really two separate components to the KQRS site: to the west in the large back
portion of the property stand the big transmitter towers, while in the narrow
eastern IIneckll of the property stands a basic office-type building.
Looking at either the Zoning Map or the Comprehensive Plan Map, there is some
sense to redesignating the residential parcel for industrial uses. The change
would be very much in keeping with the immediately adjacent uses. On the other e
hand, 100 feet to the north of this parcel lies the edge of a residential neigh-
borhood. Events of the not-too-di stant past have shown that the nei ghborhood
feels somewhat threatened by the existing light industrial uses over along Zane
Avenue. A Comprehensive Plan designation for industrial purposes would allow
any of those uses - and more - to locate on the residential parcel in the
future. The only limiting factor would be the size of the parcel, which will be
discussed below. The Comprehensive Plan at this time contains no helpful goals,
objectives, or policies to provide guidance on the interaction between residen-
tial and industrial areas. However, the land use section does state that
IIhistorically, Golden Valley has shown a deliberate attempt to protect the
environment and lifestyle epitomized by the single family dwellingll. For the
most part, the City's industrial uses coexist in relative peace with nearby
residential neighbors, but there are no absolute guarantees on the future.
The versi on of the Comprehensi ve Pl an that predates the current one used a
IIlimited businessll designation for the area including the residential parcel,
the KQRS property, the row of duplexes along Lindsay, and the former fire sta-
tion site. That designation was intended as a sort of buffer between the resid-
ential neighborhood and adjacent highway/industrial uses. The term translated
basically to office uses. Redesignating the residential parcel for office uses
would still make some sense today, especially in view of the fact that the front
of the adjacent KQRS property is also serving as office space. This would not
resolve the conformity issue, however, since the Comprehensive Plan Map speci-
fies that Radio and TV zoning must be classified as industrial use.
It appears that staff and Planning Commissioners are pretty well in agreement
that the best future for the residential parcel is going to be something other
than low density residential use. One final classification that might be con-
sidered is a higher density residential type. In many communities, these are
e
e
e
e
Page Three
considered to be fully compatible with office uses and a good buffer between
residential neighborhoods and more intensive uses. The four duplex lots to the
north of KQRS are considered to be low density for Comprehensive Plan purposes,
but are obviously at a higher density than most single family lots. The still-
vacant fire station site has long been considered a good candidate for a small
townhouse development (again, not indicated in the current Comprehensive Plan).
This alternative, however, could be disastrous to the long-term viability of the
KQRS site, which is already hopelessly nonconforming in its side setbacks
(though variances continue to be granted for each new expansion so far).
Parcel Size
There isn't a great deal of difference between the size of the existing parcel
and the size of the proposed lot after subdivision. To that extent staff would
see no major problem with allowing KQRS its needed redesignation to industrial
use for the back corner, regardl ess of what acti on - if any - is taken to
redesignate the bulk of the parcel. The commissioners asked about the developa-
bility of a parcel this size. Buried in the text of the land use section of the
Comprehensive Plan is this statement: "It shall be the continuing policy of the
City of Golden Valley to stress quality land use development that will benefit
the community as a whole."
Staff will not try to interpret the policy statement with regard to lot size.
However, to help the Planning Commission evaluate it better, staff did prepare
two maps, showing clusters of parcels ranging in size from 0.9 acres to 2.1
acres (attached). One map shows industrially-zoned sites, while the other shows
office-zoned sites. Staff believes the selected sites to be approximately
representative of what might be built on the residential parcel. The commis-
sioners are encouraged to take a quick field trip and do their own evaluation.
One important difference to keep in mind is that all of the selected examples
have greater access to (though not necessarily greater visibility from) the main
traffic arteries than the residential parcel will have after the improvement of
Highway 100. The staff odometer shows a 0.8 mile distance up to Duluth Street
and a 0.9 mile distance over to Douglas Drive. The importance of access and
visibility often increases as site size decreases.
Parcel Shape
The odd shape of the proposed lot certainly doesn't meet the standard image, but
as long as the basic developability of a lot is not impaired there doesn't seem
to be much in the City Code to prevent funny shapes. This is in fact a greater
issue on the already-developed KQRS property, which clearly could not be devel-
oped the same way today -- the required 100 foot building setback from Residen-
tial or R-2 zoning makes the entire 98 foot wide "neck" of the property an
unbuildable buffer zone. The residential parcel, however, is not affected by
any such buffer requi rement and is wi der to begi n with than the front of the
KQRS property. Again using the examples selected by staff for comparison, the
parcel appears able to adequately support a modest building in its wider area.
The somewhat narrower rear could be used for parking or loading.
Asking KQRS to purchase land from this parcel in such a way as to leave it
mostly rectangular was an option raised by the Planning Commission. Staff would
not see that as necessary. If the squaring-off were done across the back of the
parcel, staff would have no major objection; the parcel would still be viable
Page Four
given the evidence from the smallest of the selected comparison sites. On the ~
other hand, staff would definitely recommend against any squaring-off by ..,
purchasing a strip of land along the entire north side of the parcel. While
this might correct the nonconforming setbacks along the south side of KQRS, it
would do nothing to alleviate the much greater nonconformities to the north. At
the same time, it could impair the future deve10pabi1ity of the residential par-
cel by making it too narrow to be desirable. The only way to substantially
improve the status of KQRS with regard to nonconformities is if the station
acquires the entire residential parcel, combines it with the current site, and
rebuilds in a conforming location. That is not a viable option today, as the
current owner is happy living in his house. Trying to fix only the south side
of KQRS is not worth the risk to the remainder of the parcel.
Action Necessary at This Time
The Planning Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council about
whether to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map for some or all of the residential
parcel and, if so, what the new designation should be. The announcement for
this hearing indicates that the enti re parcel is under consideration and that
the proposal is for redesignation to industrial use, but it would not be
inappropriate for the final recommendation to cover a smaller area and/or a less
intensive use category.
If the Planning Commission determines that the deve10pabi1ity of the residential
parcel is not significantly affected by the loss of a portion to KQRS, and no
other major concerns remain to be addressed, then one of the following recommen- ~
dations would be in order: ..,
A. The land desired for rezoning and use by KQRS is too small to raise any
questions of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Map, and therefore
no plan amendment is necessary in order for KQRS to proceed with its
other applications.
B. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is necessary in order for KQRS to
proceed with the rezoning of the land it wants to acquire. The redesig-
nation of the affected land for industrial use is appropriate at this
time.
If the Planning Commission is still concerned about the overall deve10pabi1ity
of the residential parcel or about the long-term future of the KQRS property
itself, then its recommendation should take the following form:
C. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is necessary in order for KQRS to
proceed with the rezoning of the land it wants to acquire. The redesig-
nation of the affected land for industrial use is not appropriate at
this time because expansion of industrial uses in the area may not be in
the City's best interest over the long term.
Regardless of what recommendation is made for the small chunk of the residential
parcel that KQRS wants to acquire, staff would see some benefit in continuing
discussion before deciding what to do with the remaining bulk of the parcel. ~
Therefore, staff's recommendation would be to deal only with the smaller piece ..,
e
e
e
Page Five
at this time. However, if the Planning Commission is comfortable that it has a
suitable vision for the entire parcel, then it may offer an alternative recom-
mendation to that effect.
EAK:mkd
Attachments: 1. Sketch of the "Residential Parcel"
2. Map of Small, Industrially Zoned Buildings
3. Map of Small, B&PO Zoned Buildings
, /" ._A....
\ /
."J \
c/'. \ "
\
\
\
\
Sketch of the IIResidential
Parcel II
~
--- -
,0'
," .
~..-i-G'
----
.
..
o
CN
en
CJ
en
CJ1
(\J
c'
)
~~
r"
4
'"
%
Z
"
z
-t
p
o
.
""
H
,
L
,
.,.
+
,
,
-
'-.J
L c;,..
10">'
... '-
'<> r-
. 3:
-
~;?- ~I ./08
.. --1-....
.... oJ'
.
.>
. <"-
. ,'0-
""
""
o~
",,<>
:-.z. O.
fJO~
.....
4'!::o
~
---
...
,
Go. U
Co T
~ +
,
-
~
-
.
'i . .~.
c;'-1~
. -- . -~.;1.~ ' c;~ 10' \ .'
" "50 ~, '. \
.- . .'" - \ \
.\..r;'r
\ -\
\Z\ ~
\ ~\O "'~\
'" U1 ~..C/) ~ ~,
a'l ~ \ ....... \
~, ~ \ \
, ~ '
\ CJ)~
\ .'
!fJ
\ \
~ \
\ P,
o \ ., \
, \~ ~
A \tJ~....,J
,- ..,,;.
a a'.\,rr
~ 'J,A~
\;.
\
\
\
\
\
~e
..r\
\
\
\
\
I~\
...~\
\'-\
\
'e
~
., a'l
't'
P:..'- ,.
J' ~ : '3 ~
"0;
.
. i'
:r ..~ . .~f''\1
CJ ... #" ..........
~.. . :.' ~.- -~ ;;,.\.~' .. ..
J'. hi c' C'",~.(/) - Cl) , D
r~ / s~ I ~
~ J: ~\ mil) 1...1..
... . ~'. f"" ., ^ 0\\,
"1 ("l 1-. 0 ~,.:o \ , ..,.-
r';~ ~\ /"'... ' A 1 '# C
::. "L '.. \ _ ~
~ ~ >~ "a/~~S'~~ . .:~'r
(J) c.. - Z' ...... r- #~
~ ~ \'.1../", N .1/ ~
'..!!"" ~b':..,~~~'7 0 ,.. ~ -
'" . ./ bOX # 1&
I^ ,..... /' _...... ~ -;.
:. _:..\,:"' c:::~ . T ~.~--
~'" ~ Lt_ ~"1... , . +~ '"
~I:= ~/ l>" ...;.':r.~ J ..-. ~ <6~_
-Ie:. (,H - -'
~... --
'0
. ..... ',I ..-'
~ \4' ~
~', '" C
~!"~ .
:h,
...
"
.,
'A
":'u ..... .;..1::"._ --1. ~~.H ~_____.
'. ~"; ;'4 't;"~ :-:.' . - J.\.;f ~l.:'" :tI,:- .I'"
;g;g . --: ' 'C f
- .
C';)
..
C':)
Q
~~..
=:J
=i
i .., aJ
....
I ":
r~
I ."
,..;
"
f v. ::'
",
...
... ,.
..,.
..,.
~
'-
r'
3:
~
Q
::0
....,
::t:
~
t; c"
......,
0'1"Y
:tJ
::if:
I
o
..
o
.;: '~'t::
'.
m.
e
.....
~
;,J
;.,
()
"
>.-
)II
I -d:::
~ p-
0)>>0
;(\~
S"'~
tr-
- $~
r
-,
:..
1.(1
..
,.s"
" ,.;J
...fl"
.... ... ,
U'".
"'
-
,
",
~
($)
n
~
r_
-.
~.
.,.'
r, Co
-
.~ \\
.,
.. . ...
· ..... ~~.o .
o' -
. G
c-. ,- <
'" ......
~-- ~
Z A' ~
=0 (JlI ~ ~ "'.
~, Vi 0
... N. ,^. <.II '0'
f' !:~~ bO"l "'~.
,.,.!.,..z~..'lJ':'\- .~....
_G" ',i ~'c~,,,'t
. .
b"
po
r
"
0
'+' ~
r.
" "
0 0 ~ r~
1" ~ lJ
'1'(1 "
,. 0 " V'
!;.~
..
; .
oc:
~,
1"':' c.... '-.f -.,
. .' fi"
~ 0-";- , -0
.' ~ I7lJ~ :
~ ...:; --.
. ~ ..
~ zef/
~
':: · ..:...\. '-"
i:5r:i -~ ~= ....
'~ q ~'--"-.
~.' -
" Q
~
"1
~
IW\
,
..
H. :~':"".:~ .r.
~";:r#< EN V>'. s.-
, ~ ]A "'';'' ~
,.>> 3." cc-...~-~."l',;:.
~ f\ ~ .... p _ ~ 1.... ~. r~ ,
.... Z" A.'.
III 0 7fa " VA :\. -
r z 'i ,...~~ ~
, ~ .. I::.
~.. 10 ~<: . ,', .
~'I.t!t :C , 1:"'~
ij;i .~
~ "
-
. -'--
. . .:.
'. 'I'
;: 0:
. ..
(f)
:-t-
co
c
~^'WC'l
~ ~.... f ..,
.
Examples of Small,
Industrially Zoned Properties
in Golden Valley
.--
~-.:~~
,,~
.~)~"',:'f_ ~;._ _ .. _ ....
~: ~O
.
c. I 9 !;:: 20
~
'.2. A
..., c::. 0 18
. '" '"' S>
.., ..,~ . :"0
'" 'l'1C'\j
~, , .-'';;0
<'J ,00
<::>
,
UJ o. -t "
~ 17 I) 16
> ~
<( <.
",.6Q-c:.-:o .
L. ~ 'Q
.;....- "'S(J
.
a---- ...
- '.
--.LLJ
>
-
1--
--<e-
1LI
~,. -0::..
~:' O. ~
2 ~
e I~ -~ -,.i(- ..
"'3/:P~'JY l'I1~':
r> ". 5
. ~ .:ro
>,.a _
_ .:3,.0.
('".3 .D-:;:"~
"
'<.i'
" ~
~-<"
~
. ~1"
. '
I) ~. ..
J' J
_~.I' ~ \.
"c ...... S
: fJQ
"'---.
..
t.
~: ':~
~
c ~'
.~ ;... -
.f)
~~
~
" .....
( '..
~.
~
UJ
Z
,1..0 40
.~. MADISON
- '. ~
'! ~;:~ 17": ']'7
.. 1 ..4
". .; -lO':'Mi7
~ -
jn'~ r: ~"E
!OU
6
,.
.;;;
'"
\ .':'S.37
.".4,~ .
j,..~; ZS"
4
-.
'r,
." ~
..
0;:) .;:;
.;., 3
;""'~
.", ~
.... ""
G
'I.
t--
'-.ll
"" -=
Q'-' I":)
~~
..:.
".
or-
-+-
~
....
..D
c:J. r ,
. ~
f~,,'A
0::
W
~14
Z
IiJ
'0
'.tf ~.
IN
.
J 2..0..
~
:;0 I
C).
Z
-
CJ)~
'1\
....
Eo,f 3".05
-'00 . . . - lod. 1 ~~-:-.'-~
....
......:
. jOQ
tf .
~ I": :"I
c
"
.. ?i'
0." '" ~-::St
· 3 0-0 ~
4
13
;~ ;::
Q ..... '0<>:)
II .'to... 10 .~~ 9 ~ ~
....0 "'" of)' "'X) ...~ ~.
o ":),c-.... 'J
~ ~ a'
(L.t.J:nG~' z..' A ~
6960
.
, r
. 4 q-t
A.\lE": :J!~,f
,.." . 83" '!j:
Zo.,) :')
W-. Y:o ~~
'.3 A
, ,
. ..1'"
'j;"':~~J~ ~I;.
: I.:
':. ~. .J _ f......
~.. t = I ~
.. ~ I"
-- r ,,"
P:'~~
.
'. - ~
'" '
OF :...r~
B
"I
...
5
~. t.
.,. B..Or.K
,
~
'.
I:::
:'; :=-'c,
J, _00,.',,:.,.
."'''5,
':.~ w-
01....;..
....,
0'
",'
H4.8{,
.
'.'S""48'44 "11'
~..: /) /,)'/"01
'SO
.
~
\Jl
l./)
<>ti
'-9
,~
, .
(H one.'t We.ll)
:.... "-
.::.
.".,
....
. .,
~
~
3 "-
<:)
. ~
"
;0 ~o
]:8. 3~
r":- ~~ 0 .'
~:;J9
r,...
,':
F bNJ
. V,
:~ 0
~ . , ~
~~
,
.:.~
I
8
-.
<:)
...;
..,....
......
">"'-~::> .
~..~...
--=::,
!l~ J
L..
L
. i"
..'
Q
..
'"
...
\. 6~'';S'44"tV
2'100
7
o
~
<.
, <:)
...~ ("0...
11".
~
UJ '
>. '.',
~
'" "
6
.
5
5::
t J ~~
." "
r.'.
"
.,
~
"0
C>
o
<:)
'"
4
<(~ ':
Z ~.
~ :-.
en
;:)<
0;
...J'
3
-
c:
Q.
J
c
~
c:
U
-
;( ....-t. :r-t~.
\ BQ~8'44.'",
;:'10.0
I I.' A
~.:o
. .: 14'4-
. S.'4S'SB'
.' lo) )S
.,
_r:~
~54SG(~OO bO'"'51 c-;~ t)(,l"e.""')
'~, ,0
//1' \ \
~7,:, 12 , 13
. "q \s. \.~.
SECO~D'~.\
. .~ "'-'l{\.\\~'l \';.'" :~
~~~.~(O'. '. "~r~ ''A 0' 0 .u./J ;, .'. I
,.;.:, II "
~\ . \\ \ . .~,. ". "'17 ;/
t',. ~ .
"'61 \ \ ,~.'
)< " ';lINDSAY~,~ ~~
15
..,1
;,\
",
I
16
1\
Examples of Small, Business
& Professional Office Zoned
Properties in Golden Valley
I ;.
I ~..'\ W
I" '>
o
a::
l?
./11\
;J.I r'
~1 \~.O~
~\ \-:
I
I
B
~
<t
dO
.
,
\
..~. ,
.1
~,
..
...
.D.
."
.......
.....~ ;~.. .
....~.
.J.
. "
6
./
'f\"Jb /~~
//\ .... ~
:;. ..' "'i I' \
~/LINDSAY 51, ~v~, ..\
~~ ~'" /~.\i.
.:; I,. \:...... 5 ./
.: ~: 2~1.1\('
'-n '~ /' -"
\ II.'" / 6
". .......-
,
\
. 7
~ ;,
.
" .
I .,.
t,. u.
I
l~.
,
~..; '!
l.;;:.
~I~
I::
~ ~.
:Y'
I'
...j
,
I ::.
.. 1
. ." ,t
\
'"
G
"l~
~.: ,.or
'~':"
::)s 5/2)
.
..
"
'h
"
17
~.l
o.'~
1
I~
,
f
,
...,.s
~! - ~o.~ ...._.l-.
....
s ·
fJ\ 0":...
.,1,: ! ~ _ . _ .
'. ~
....Ui
3.
4
.
.
1..3 A
"0
5
2....
~w~
C)~~().
tl(. \i;.2u 0:.0
o
~ U;;; .. _
_ ~ ~~.. 6
;;:, -;-'--;. --
....... 1
GO~,
:"
4-
5
..
..
/(00.
'1--
..
,
., - "0 ~ .
.
\
1001..
11 'l'.:J Pi"t~~ p
1"'S:~~-"r5
t~~ _
g~ · 8
t,~. ~
u
;0
<:
,':I
,
.r,
.,.
~"'.
,....:y..
~~,
,
16 .
i~
ts~ ,
,0
!o
..
15 J~.~ ::
. :,'r 1 ....
n
\
\
\
..... "
\~L. L.~V
\,~.~~ \
\
10
;"
.'1
t.
" \.
~ ,.
....
\,1
! ."
."
IV'
14
-:.
<.
".
,
-.
.,
. .
,
\
\
\
13 .:.:.'
8
:~
3~"
:60.r
2!l6 5'
.
A
c
, '.
r.1 .r
""i~ e
....,.. I'
"-:'''\'l"O
"
,
..
~
,
.
lI~k~o I,
(K~ ~~)..:4..
8,.,
......
8
~Hl .
4. . ,
,~.
'~
,.
:,,:CH/(;AGO
"1
J ~t
,1~.~
...., ."Y'
0,.
o
,
"
"
, \
\
, \ ~
z
\ 'Z
\ ';
\"g
\ I.l
. \~J.~
\\
\~
\ ~
\ 0
:\ ~
. ell
~.~ ~
.....\ "'"
:t
'"
~
..... ,'", ze ,
t.,"
-;-
.
..
"
'"
,.'
49. .'
l~ .
A
....
.",~
~Ift'
~..
. --.0-
o
",.U'
:i!.
-,
""
3
p.
'.
1, t,
J~----'~'-
~
~
~
~
:A
'0
~
~
:'';.41~t
.Jff.:
'"
'~
.
~)
J~
n:l
,-
.j
"
,.
~~ '.
\
\ ?J
\ ?J
\ ..: \
\.~-
/ ':.
/ \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ .~ I
? .r'
.1,
t'>;
:,'1"-
"t.
, .
(II.,
. .
11:
,
\t
\0
l~"
t:~
r .::
'G.
;~~ ',.
'Ii.
'J.
,
.
.:
.,
MIlO
. .,
I
" "
'J~V.,
r-
,
I,
~
t,
"
. . .
';'Nn ~.~
.io
"
. t -s:fA'FF-r '''~wv.
oJ'J
-.
- NORTHWESTERN_'"
'''80
, R,R
I JO'IZ"1\' .
10 s~ S 3
,.( o.',f"" 'T' .
., . roc,",'
'080
'1"" 1
h~
().'" =- ' "_" ': \...~1.
.','oJe ~?IlJJ.". d I)rj)' beoJ.,...:..,p pe,~ta:;"'/~(J :\. G./i. :"e ..,na,nf Co. orQ' OO/(/~I?'! ,J.. 001',: e/)'
are lJ.o:t:.~ (,'0:." )/j'.J,..c- c..olJrl .":c::::orial Pla.- Cafe No 130~14
.
-
(~
"'..
.'
"
141 ~LM ':;' ,fSO'It'I\'(,
W;\I\ I JIM. JI"
'h
'.
~ ...' ~
)Jo ., '..
e,,""
"
'"
,~
~'~
Or'
.~-.
~, '''1
..
~:;.
t; (I
,~f'
r~ I Jl---
..
~...
J~" .,
,.... "It
111 ~
".2 ~
'"
4\'
Oq' .
)1".....' !u;
l.j
J~M
I ~ "
J~~'
n
..
;;
..'
'.
~
I. "A
,.
.
. .4>
oa:'; :.".....
_~f! :i~:'~
'. ('\ '*:: ITI.
.V.:' 'J
.
"
--.
. \'.1 ,.
~ oC 'f'
,.. ,..~v.:.. . ~r-.
V,4T. ?...Vl
I~"""
I.tA
I. "A
,
"
1
.~
Jly,
,
~
,
I
fA
,
..
~
..
'.~A
.,~
,~ r, ,.,
,~ .. '" .,. ....
, I J
- .
I:
J"
.,.
.
'"
,0
/
,
:>6/2
.
- ...,," \....
\ . ...'" ?~ :';
,c, .\,,,: . '.. .. \ .
'~\.,,:, ,L ,
't: l,' .......<: .'
.t ~t.,
.~616
.
.
. ..~..o
'f'
..'
:-'
"
.,
~10
...
,Ii II
...
.
( FLOYO
38
8. OLSON
I:. _,
MEMORIAL HWY.)
.1,'"
.,'
"
o
..
I _
0'
J, ."
"
I. '.'
I...
, ..
H
t'.. :'.. .
I" 'lit
.1' U.
.
33,
I
.....
'-:1
...'
..!
I
...
"
I
.~
::1
-
.1
....,
!
,
I
"
"
'!
3,4
t..
"
.., ~':
r'
.',V'
.'.1('
. .
U
I'"
.
:~. ~ 0
u,
.J <
~ (It
-;.,.
.
G' ?
:.' -
"
i;.
.
~
"
J.. JLM 114.
-!',.
"".
\;
I
,