Loading...
11-14-63 PC Minutes �a�; 9..� �l� REGULAR MEETING of the GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION November 1l�., 19�3 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commi.ssion was held on Thursday� November 1Li:, 1963 at 7:30 P.M• at the Civic Center� 780� Golder� Va11ey Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. President Brown presided and the following members were present; Bedwell, Bromschwig, Dis�cher, � Hetman, Jensen, Loughland, Pennock, Raughland, Shinder, Senstad, Straw, and VanHauer. Absent members were: Lynch and Velz. Also present �ere: Roger�Jlstad, Village Manager; :;Don Sorensen, Village Engineer; Robert Skare, Village Attorney; Dan Lynch, Village Building Inspector; and Roy Terwilliger; Administrative Assistant and Secretary. A motion was carried to approve the minutes of October 10„ 1963 as mailed. PLATS A) Spruce Second Addition - Fred B. Wines Plat Commit,tee Chairman Senstad gave the following report: ��The Plat Gommi.ttee met again with Mr. Bob Hughes, th�; representative of the a�plicant. The application calls for a plat of seven lots and one outlot. A1.1 lots meet area requirerr�nts and front on a proposed cul-de-sac, Bassett's Creek Lane. Due to topographic conditions the possibility of extending Bassett's Creek Drive through the plat would not be practical, and public access for the future development of the outlot would be on Lee Avenue. The Committee recommends approval of the p�at as submitted. It is further �ointed out that an �nresolved problem exists with respect to Lee Avenue.'t The Village Engineer, Don Sorensen, presented his opinion as to the need for the completion of I�ee Avenue alo�ig the east side of the Wines propert�r. It was pointed out by �Ir. Sorensen that a petition for water main has been submi�ted for Lee Avenue to serve the homes in Merribee Hills 3rd Addition. At the present time, the street is dedicated only to a 30 foot right-of way which is the east one-half of the future street. The logical place for water 'installation is along the west s.ide of the street since the sewer is on the east side and state law requires a 10 foot separation between the two utilities. Following farther discussion, it was noted that Mr. Wines, the applicant repres��rted by Mr. Bob Hughes, doee not wish to dedicate road right-of- way at this time to complete Lee Avenae. The alternate proposed road right-of ways were presented and consideration was given them at this time. It was moved by Jensen, seconded.by I�oughland, and carried unanimously 11�8�� Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission,� Nov. 11�, 1963 to accept the Committee Report and approve the plat as submitted. B) Street Vacation - Olympia Street - Ken Bergstrom Chairman Senstad gave the following report: 'lThe application is for a vacation of 0lympia Street from Aquila Avenue east to We51ey Park. Mr. Pan Lynch, one of the propert�r owners in the area, was present and answered questions f or the Committee, It was pointed out that the ta�- . pography in the present st�eet right-of-way was �znsuita��e for road pizrposes, and there was but 30 feet of dedicated street at this time. A portion of Olympia from Aquila west to �oone Avenue had been vacated previously on September '19, 1961. Following discussion, the Committee recommended approval of the street vacation with the stipulation that an easement for util.ity and access purposes be obtained over this particular strip of property." It was at this time pointed out by A�qr. Sorensen, the Village En�ineer, that the Village is presently in the process of acquiring lots l and 2, Block l� of Gleriwood View Addition. Vacating Olympia Street a1on� lot 1 from Zealand to the Park would only revert the property to the owner of lot 1. It was suggested� therefore, that the street be vacated only from Aquila Avenue to Zealarid, The remainder of the street east to the Park could later be vaca�ed and inclu�.�d in the Park property. The motion was made by Discher, seconded by Raugland and carried unani- mously to vacate Olympia Street only from Aquila Auenae to Zealand Avenue. ZONING A) 6705 Olson Memorial Highway - Apostolic Lutheran Church (Institutional) ?cning Committee Member Straw gave the following report: "The Committee again discussed at great length the proposed rezoning of the residential area at the above address to InStitu�Gional. The topogre�phy� of the area was displayed on maps, and it was pointed out that ths.s� �r�,s one of the c�etermining f actors in setting up a resider�tial plan for the entire area. The Committee after further consideratior� rea.f'firm� its previous stand and believes it to be fair and just to a11 concerned." Chairr+�an Brown read the following past history from��. summary of action received by all members prior to the meeting: "This m�.tter was continued from the last Commission meeting. Attached is a copy of a topographic map of the area as it was proposed for resi- dential development. Also enclosed is a Village �nap with other possibly available church sites noted. S v�f v\ iY�� '�/3. Regular_Meeting of the Golden Va11ey Planning Co�nmi.ssion� Nov. �� 1963 The applicant has not contacted the Village since the meeting except �i� obtain �wo° copies of the la.st minutes." Chairman Brown then read the following letters received by him and asked . that they made a. part of the record. Chairman of Planning Committee November 11� 1963 Village o� Golden Valley Golden Valley, Minnesot a Dear Mr. Char:im�.n; As a resident and taxpa�er in the Village of Golden Valley, may I take this opportunity to eacpress some views that ha�e recently come to mind. I have lived in the Village since 195Lt, and have been much pleased at the progress and planning which has made this a fine area to reside in. Two years ago, I made a sizable addition to my ho� and fotznd the Village officers ver�r cooperative in helping plan the project so as to meet all necessary codes, Recently however� a development has occured which I find very di.sappoin- ting. The Mirineapolis Apostolic Lutheran Chureh, of whieh I- am a member - arid Trustee, has planned for some time now, the eventual construction of a mew church in your Village. The application has met with refusal from your Committee, for reasons which seem to be rather weak, I would hate to think our fine Village sudden3y:-considered churches as a liabil- ity rather than an asset to the community, and I urge you to base your decision on sound 3udgement rather than political reasons. I am sure you realize the mariy values and advantages that churehes offer to a community, and that this type of project would be encouraged� rather than di.scouraged. Respectfully yaurs, James L. Magner 3348 Lee Ave, No. Mr. Joe Brown October 17, 1963 President of Planning Commission 11t00 Douglas brive Minneapol.is 22� P�iinnesota Dear Mr. Brown: On July 1 of this year I moved my family from Robbinsdale to 29l�3 orchard Avenue North in Golden Valley on the assumption that our new church would be located in the commnnity. As a member of the Minneapolis Apostolic Lutheran Church I was quite dis- turbed to hear of your opposition to our church builcling program. The parcel of land that we own on xi�t�W� 55 see�s ideally suited in every way for our purpose. ir� o Regular Meeting of the Golden Va11ey Planning Commission, Nov. 7.1�.� 1963 The building program we ha�e outlined is an a�nbitious one. I am sure the site and the surrounding com�unity will be greatly enhancad both estheticall,y and spiritually by our proposed program. Please consider the above in your future recommendations. Sincerely, Dr. J.R. Bergstedt 2500 West Broadw�r , Minneapolis, Minn. - The applicant represented by Mr. G.E. Brill and Pastor Kenneth B. Hendrick- son stated that their case had been presented before and they had nothing new to a�3d. Chairman Brown then recognized Mr. J.G, Brenner, 6837 Olson Memorial High- way, who stated that he was opposed to the church at this location because of the laek of frontage for the church and because there was too much fovt traffic at this time and the church would only add more. 4dhen he purchased in this area, it was his impression at the time he purchased that the area would remain Residential. He �tated that other parties in the area were also opposed. The names given as opposed were: Dr. W.J. Bushard, 6l�73 Westchester Circle, and Mr. Fred Sikora� 690� Olson Highway. Mr. E.R. Melberg, 6736 Glenwood Avenue appeared as an interes��d property owner. He stated that he was in f avor of the church locating in this area. He o�rns that property to the south of the proposed site and feels that there are alway�s complications in developing area.s and this area �aQUld be no different than others. Mr. Lou�h3�.nd then asked the applicants if they had investigated othex � areas. He feels that an overa].1 residential plan such as the one proposed in early 1960 should not be interfered with in the development stages. In reply, Pastor Hendrickson stated that �here had been a great deal of study of possible areas including the Latter Day Saif��s Church ian Golden Valley Roa� and felt that none were suitable. Because the church is still to be serving its original Minneapolis constitaents, it must be located close to the City, especially since many of the older parishoners may need transportation to and from chureh. The parking at the Lat�er Day Saints Church was inadequa.te, and it would have to be remodeled. H� also po�nted out that they don't want to locate too close to another Lutheran Church unless it is agreeable with the church. He felt that to adjast all present plans would be too much to do since they are serving the entire synod of the metropolitan area. Mr. Brill then stated that he felt there was no problem with safety and � ingress and egress for such since fire trucks and other emergency vehicles can make use of private property if need be. At this time, it was pointed out ta Mr. Brill by Mr. Raugland use of private property �ras not accept- able since there is definitel�r a need for a double access required. It was then suggested by Chairman Brown that a traf'�ic problem would exist and become increasingly more apparent. While he realized that � ���. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Coaunission, A1ov. 1.lt� 1963 traffic bulk is always present qn Sundays, it was believed that with a new church edifice and an energetic pastor, the activities would increase and compound the existing traffic problem. The motion was made by Bedwell, seconded by Raugland, and carried unani- mously to accept the Committee report and reeommend denial to the rezon- ing request. B) Co. 66 (D��.a�th Street) and Douglas Drive - DeMac Inc. (B.&P.O., Com- mercial and Multiple Ih�aelling Committee member Straw gave the following report: "The applicant again apAeared before the Committee with a plan for a gas- oline station, medical clinic and multiple dwelling. Action had been deferred at the Commi.ssion meeting in October pending further study. / All suggested revisions to the overa.11 plan were considered and incorpor- ated where practicaB�le. The plan met with all ordinance requirements and had been changed from a l�Lt unit apartment building to a SO unit st�zucture. It was pointed out that the gasoline station, clinic and multiple dwelling were<,all to be owned b�r separate parties and. consideration should be given to platting the parcel. The Committee recommended approval of the zoning. At this time it was suggested that study be given to co nsideration by the proper committee to d.etermine compliance with all ordinances.'� The applicar�.ts, N1r. DeVries and Mr. McFettridge, were present and answered questions. Following cliscussion of the zoning, it was rnoved by Shinder„ seconded by Straw, and carried unanimously to accept the Committee report and recommend approval of the zoning. C) 6101 Golden Va11ey Road - Brechet and Richter (Light Industrial) Committee member Stra.w gave the following repor�t: "The request is for rezoning of this parcel, Lots 1,2�3,1t and the North- westerly 55.98 feet of Lot 5, Block 2 of Lindsay's Second Addition to Light Industrail f�om Open Development. The firm desires to construct � office and warer�ouse for their bakery supply business. The applicant� Mr. John Richter, was prese�± with plans and answered questions coneerning the operation of the firm. He pointed out that �here was to be a tower for sugar storage constructed on the roof of the building. It would be screened and fit in �rith the overall building design. The plans are in compliance with existing ordinance�. Teh Committee recozmnends approval of this request providing the tower height is within 40 feet in height including the building.'r Mr. Richter was present and submitted new drawings with the tower enclos- ed and within the 40 foot stipulation. It was moved by Jensen, seconded b,y VanHauer, and carried unanimously to � L.f �.f'=_ Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission, Nov. 11�� 1963 accept the Commit-�ee report and recommer�d approval of the zoning request. D) 110l� Zane Avenue North - R.E: Fritz, Inc. (Light Industrial) Committee member Straw gave the following report: "The request is for rezoning from Open Development to Light Industrial� Lot 7� Block l� of Lindsay's Second Addition. The applicaz�t, Mr. Fritz, was present as was his building contrac��r� Mr. Schwartz, and presented preliminary information for constructing an office and warehouse for their wholesale tobacco and candy`'firm. Following discussion, it was concluded that since the Lot 7 in question was surrounded on three sides with Open Development zoning, it was impos- sible to have any buildable area left.- The lot is 110 feet in width azd setbacks required would be 75 feet on the side; consequently� there would be no possibility of construction �t�out a waiver of the setbaek require- ments. The Committe� therefore recommends denial of this request. It further recomm�nds no rezoning, ta Light Industrial on the East side of Zane Avenue until such time as there is Residential develop��t in T�indsay's First Addition." Mr. R.E. Fritz was presF.nt and requested deferral of action on thi5 case. It was moved by Jensen, seconded by Senstad and carried unanimously to note the Committee's report and take no action at this time. E) 6000 Laurel Avenue - Petition from property owners to zone Residential. ComrrLittee member Straw gave the following report: "This request is a petition from more than �.0� of the pro�perty owners with- in a half-mile radius of the above named parcel who would like the area to be zoned Residential. In accordance with Section� ].L�..07 of the Village � Zoning Code, this petiti�n is submitted. Mr. Lowell Swanson and Mr. Bill Hur�e appeared as representatives of the signers on the petition. It was pointed out by them that in their opini.on the area was good for Residential since the �oundaries were previously well-defined, and property o�rners were under �he impressi�n, whe n they purchased, that the area would remain Residential. Following a leng�hy discussion, the Committee reaffirmed its:previous stand and recommended Light Industrial on the portion of the �roperty belonging to N1r. Minder South of the judicial ditch and Residential � North of the judicial ditch with a 100 foot buffer zone ta be provided 50 feet on each side of the ditch. It is further recommended by the Committee that at the time �i� rezoning to Light Industr�i.l, the Resident- ia1 area be platted with streets� sewer and water installed.'r Past action on the property was reviewed by Ch2i�man Bro�rn. There were no representatives of the group submitting the petition present. Mr. � ��~ Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission� Nov. 1.1a.,19b3 Harry Hamman� a property owner affected by the petition, �ppeared and sta�- ed that he was in accord with the Planning Commission�s previous recommen- dations. Following discussion, it was moved by Loughland, seconded by Shinder and carried unanimously to aecept the r�port of the Commit�ee and reoommend- ing denial of the petition and reaffirming previous Planning Commi.ssion recommendations. ORDINANCE WANERS A) �.01� Wasatch Lane - John Somers Ordinance Committee Chairman Bromschwig gave the following report: "Request is for a waiver of Sec. 3.11 (Yaxd Requirements) on Lot 6, Block 2, Mary Hills Addition. Applicant has made previous application far a waiver before the Commission on ::":�,�g�ember 12� 1963, in order to build an addition to the exi.sting structure with said request being denied. During the investigation of the previous application, it was pointed out to the applicaat�t that the exist- ing house was in nonconformance of the East by 6 feet. �:pplicant wa.s unaware of the nonconformance and is now before the. Comm�.asion requesting that the house b� put in conformance by a side 3rard wai.ver. The Committee noted that this house was built in 1956, �a tnro�.gn no error on the part of the owner, was mi.splaced on the lot with respect to the sideyard requirement. The Committee is of the opinion that the lack of full time inspection during this era was a contrubuting factor to this nonconformanee and ieels that dex�.a1 of this request would only aggravate the situation that e�d.sts. The recommendation of the Committee is for approval of this request allow- ing a setback on .the East of 29 feet as established by the exi.sting struc- ture.�j It was moved by Straw, second.ed by Raugland and carried unanimously to accept the report of the Committee and recommend approval. B) 11.�28 North Lilac Drive - J.W. Curtis Due to the absence of the applicant at the Committee meeting� action was deferred until';the December meeting. C) 220 Sunr�'idge Lane R- �r. I�.i.lton Baker Chairman Bromschwig gave the following report: "Request is for a waiver of Sec. 3.11 (Yard Requirements) on Lot 2� Sunny- ridge Addition. Applicant reqaests a waiver of 10 feet to a 25 foot set- back from Sunriyridge Lane therel�y alleviating the problem of tree removal in order �b construct a driveway with reasonai�le slope. - i �� Regular j��eting of the Golden Valley Planning commission, Nov. 11�.,1.963 The Commi.ttee noted that �his lot is hea�rily wooded with trees of sub- stantial size and is depressed from the street as far as elevation is concerned. The proposed structure, as explained by the architect, is designed with miniml�m tree removal in mind and to take advantage on the existing contour of the land, The Committee is of the opinion that removal of a tree or trees �'or con- struction of a building, cannot be construed as a hardship that .lays with the land, and that the topography as it e�.sts in this case is not consid- ered as extreme and presents no justification for a waiver. The recommendation of the Committee is for denial of this request.« The applicants, Dr. and Mrs. Milton Baker, and their architect, 1�Ir. Winslow Wedin, were present and ans�red� questions on the apAlication. Following discussion, it was moved by Bedwell, seconded by Hetman, and carried to accept the Comr,ri.ttee report and recommend denial. A7.1 members present voted in f avor of the motion, except Mr. Bromschwig who abstaa.ned. D) Co. b6 (Duluth Street) and Douglas Drive - DeMac Inc. Chairman Bromschwig gave the follovaing report: '1Request is f or-a waiver of Section 1I�. of the Platting Regulations - Conveyance of property by metes and bounds. In dividing the property at County 66 (Duluth Street) and Douglas Drive into parcels for development, the parcel for the Commercial property is 150 feet in width�d less than 22 acres, thereby requ�'ring° platting. It is the belief of the Ordinance Committee �hat no intent to violate the platting regulations exists. The Committce, therefore, recommends approval of a waiver �or Section ]_!a. of the platting regulations,fr Following cliscusszon, it was moved, seconded and carried unanimously to accept the report of the Committee and recommend approval. GENERAL A) Multiple Dwelling Ordinance The discussion was continued on the proposed new Multiple Dwelling ordin- ance. A meeting of the Committees had been held on October 30� 1q63, at which time the desirability of high-rise apartment developr�ents was dis- cussed. It had been generally conc,luded among members present that there was a place for �ig�.-r�:se apartments in the Village. It had not definit- ely been determined what the hei�ht Iimitation-should be, and a proposed decreasing seale for area requirements per unit was st��died, The admin- istrative staff was asked to determine thef�asibili�s of such an area scale and obtain more informatior."on the proposed high-rise. B) Institutional Zoning Code Mr. Skaxe, the �i�.lage Attorney, discussed the proposed revision of the Institutional Code ar� presented new terminolo�y to be used. �`�:�� Regular Meeting of the Golden Va7.ley Planning Commission� Nov. 1�� z963 Suggested new language for the Institutional ?.,oning Code would be as follows: Section 1I.01. Institutional Zoning Districts with subcategories . as indicated, are hereby established as follows: Class I-1: (Here list all legal descriptions, zoning districts which would fall into this class) Class I-2: (Follow same procedure as above) Class I-3: (Follow same procedure as above) Section 11.02. The following uses and no others shall be permitted in Class I-1 Institutional Districts: Churches Schools - public and parochial The following uses and no others sha11 be permitted in Class I-2: Public and private Libaries Colleges, seminaries and other institutes of learning Hospitals, Rest Homes, Sanitaria, Nursing Homes, Clinics and other buildings incidental to the operation thereof. Parks, public recreation buildings and areas, playgrounds, museums and cemeteries. The following uses and no others shall be permitted in Class I-3: Countxy Clubs and Club grounds, excepting those carried on as a business such as minature golf or a public bowling a11ey. Golf Courses Polo fie�ds The uses provided for in the foregoing Institutional Zoning District Classes shall not be permitted in a different class of institutional. zoning district wit�hout a s�eeific permit from the Council; provided, how- ever, that in the case of any of the foregoing classes of institutional zoning districts uses which in the opinion of the Village Council are com- patible with the uses specifically deseribed in each of san�td classes may also be permitted therein.'t C) Sign Ordinance V�llage Manager Roger Ulstad submitted a letter outlining the status of the new sign ordinance. Text of the lett,er was a follows: Mr. Joe L. Brown, President � November 1.L�, 1963 Members of Planning Commyssion Gentlemen: Because of the delay in the pa.ssage of the Sign Ordinance as proposed by the Planning Commission, the Village Council requested an explanation be presented to the Planning Comm�SSifln outlining the Councils attitude on this ordinanee. After r6�i�aing and studying the proposed �igi�. Ordinance, the Council feels �4�V=., Regular NLeeting of the Golden Va11ey Planning Commission, Nav. 11�.� 1963 that it was a very complete ordinance and moved to give the ordinanc8 its first reading, however, prior to the second reading questions were raised with reference specifically to the sign area regtzlated by the floor area. In view of this question the Council requested a field survey of existing signs and a determi.nation as to what extent they would be placed in vio- lation. The survey proved approzimately 50� on this basis would be in violation. The second reading was deferred with the probability of a ,.. minor change in this requirementgof the ordinanee, The Council feels that a second reading �rill be given shortly. Sincerely, Roger K. Ulstad Village Manager There being no further business to transact, an adjournment motion was made, seconded� and carried unanimously at 11:20 P.M. � erw�.11iger Secretary � � � �'� ; ,� �� � ` � � i�I � --, �-. ` , t E( �� r . � Joe Brow�, President � ;