02-15-68 PC Minutes � � �
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING
COMMISSION
�: February 15,1968
A regular meeting was held Thursday, February 15,1968 , at 7 : 30
p.m. at the Golden Valley Civic Center, 78�0 Golden Valley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota. President Senstad presided and the
following members were present : Christiansen, Franzen, Provost ,
Silverman, Swanson. Also present : Planning Director Otto Schmid,
Village Engineer, Lowell Odland.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOVED, seconded, unanimously carried to approve the February 1,
1968 minutes, as corrected.
l. Re$oning - Louis H Graca - 3901-4001 Olson Memorial Highway M-4
Robert Ra�gland, James Anderson, and Mr. Graca were in attendance
to present their request to the Planning Commission. The follflwing
report was submitted by the Commission:
Name of Ap licant : Louis H Graca - 501 South Meadow Lane
Owner' s Name taken from 1967 Tax Rolls)
Lots 327,328 ,212,213,214 - 0 P Jones, Zimmerman, Minnesota
* 283, 215 James T Garvey, 3q15 Golden Valley Road
� 216 ,217 Blaine Carrey, 42� Yosemite North
218 Henry Greenstein, 8300 W 30 1/2 Street
219 Edith Hedlund 528 Meadow Lane
220 June Polikoff, 722 Upton North
287-221 Carl K Lifson, 1606 Cargill Building
222 William Scott, b021 Monterey Ave South
� 281-282 Robert L Langer, 2906 53rd Ave N
� 397,399,28�,285 Betty Anderson, 7226 Morgan Ave S
� 2$9, 400,401,286,288 Morry S Levy, 2305 Portland Avenue
� 320,321 C H Stokes 3325 Harriet Ave S
322 Victor Haar 3315 Washburn North `
323 Marie L Bork, Atkin, Minnesota
324 ,325 Lionel Johnson, 4322 Wayzata B1vd
326 Elizabeth M White, 24�5 Quail Ave N
395, 396 Mrs L. Ellstrom, 15 North Meadow Lane
� 398 Pow-Bel Constr Co, 4501 Garrison Lane
402, 403 L M Hardaway, 2315 Harriet Ave S
�Indzcates owners who signed petition.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A11 that part of Lots 212 thru 222 inclusive, 281
thru 2$9 inclusive, 320 thru 328 inclusive and 395 thru 403 inclusive
of Glenwood Addition, all lg�ng in Section 19, Township 29, Range 2�,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
ACTION DESTRED: The proponent is requesting a rezoning of this
praperty from Multiple M-2 to Multiple M-4 so th�t an e3ght (8) story
92 unit building can be constructed.
PERTINENT FACTS: This request deals with an approximate t�o bloek
area in the Glenwood Addition bounded by T H 55 on the North; France
Avenue on the East ; Woodstock Avenue on the south and Meadow Lane
on the �dest . This area was principally pl�tted into forty foot lots fo
single family residential purposes back in 1915 . The residential
zoning on this area was changed in May, i966 to its present M-2 category .
� o �
G V Planning Commission Minutes 2-15-68 Pa�;e 2
The first request for rezoning to Multiple M-U was reviewed by the
Plannin� Commission in August of 1965. At that time the Zonin�
Committee recommended that the M-4 be allowed because they believed
the location to be a good one due to the fact that it abutted T H 55
and. was ad,jacent to Theodore Wirth Park. In addition, the Committee
nc�ted that the Long Range highway plans called for a diamond inter-
change at T H 55 and Glenwood Parkway . Hovaever, the full Planning
Commission deferred action on this item until a proposed �joint
, meet,ing with the Council on apartment development• could be held.
No further action was taken until March of 1966.
At the March 10,1966 meetin� of the Planning Commissi�n, this item .
appeared on the agenda. The Committee once again stated that they
believed this to be a good location for a multiple development for
the same reason,s as mentioned at the 1965 meeting. However, the
Committee did not think that this was the place for an 8 story
multiple. (No reasons were �iven) The Committee then recommended
denial of the M-4 request but did recommend th�t M-2 be allowed.
This would permit construetion of a 4 story unit . They also
recommended that the e�ress from this property be alon� the frontage
road on T H 55. The full Planning Commission approved this
report unanimously.
A public hearing was held April 1g,1966, by the Council . At that
meet3.n�; most of the neighborhood appeared to voice objection to the
proposec� 8 story multiple. The Council seemed to a�ree with the
objectors and the Planning Commission and denied the zoning request
. to M-�� . The proponents then asked that a public hearing be called
to consider M-2 zoning �.nd this was done.
On May 3, 1966, the Council reviewed the request for M-2 zoning.
Once again the nei�hborhood appeared to voice ob�ections but this
time the Council accepted the Plannin� Commission's recommendation
and voted to approve rezoning to M-2. Since that time this pro�ject
has evidently experienced some difficul�,y with financing and cost
factors .
EXISTING C(�NDITIONS : The area in question contains some 3� lots and
involves 19 separate owners, 8 of which have si�;ned this petition.
In addition, two alleys and one street �naverse this area, which
would require vacation under this proposal. The Villa�e presently
has both watermain and sanitary sewer lyin� within that protion of
Sunnyridge Lane. Storm water drainage is presently carried by a
natural ditch through the property but this will be replaced by a
storm sewer to be construeted along Woodstock Avenue.
Access to this area would more than likely be from Meadow Lane and
f'rom T H 55 service road. Meadow Lane is a State Aid Street and the
1966 traffic count was 436 vehicles per 24 hour period. The pro-
jected daily traffie for Meadow Lane has been placed at 1641 �!ehicles
by the Village Engineering Department .
This parcel, which covers approximately 221,000 sq ft (includin�
road and alleys) is �enerally low lyin� with fair to poor soil
conditions. Presently it is covered with tall �rass, trees, one
dilapidated structure and quantity of rubbish.
�. .� �
G V Planning Commission Minutes 2-15-6$ Page 3
ANALYSIS: This proposal, as presented, seems to comply with all the
requirement� -of the Village Zoning Code .
Planning-wise, the difference between an 8 storv multiple and a 4
story multiple is nebulous . The number of units is determined by
the setback requirements as found in Section 4 . 04 Paragraph (a) of
the Zoning Code. If the M-2 Zoning is retained, approximately 75
units can be constructed. If the M-4 Zoning is granted, approxi-
mately 92 units could be constructed, a difference of 17 units .
Land use wise, the Plannin� Commission and Council have already
determined that this corner should be multiple dwelling in nature .
The main question then seems to be whether or not the hei�ht of an
8 story building is desirable as opposed to the lot coverage of a
four s�ory building or buildings .
The height of this proposed building wauld not be destroying a
view and the building itself would not interfere with sunlight as
the residences lie to the south and west of this site. In actuality,
the $ story unit would allow for additional g;r,een area and open
space. The other important planning considerations such as egress
and access , traffic patterns and flow, etc . , have been answered in
the past and d�d not seem to be a problem then and likewise do not
seem to be a problem no�r. However, access to T H 55 ar to
Glenwood Avenue will be difficult at peak hours but this is true
for much of the Village, not just this area.
The highway department has indicated that an interchange probably
will be constructed at Glenwood Parkway and T H 55 but that plans
for such an interchange are low priority at this time . It was
also indicated that the MPC Guide Plan and the System 14 through-
fare Program called for an interchan�e in this general area.
In addition, the members of the Commission noted that an M-4 re-
zoning has taken place on T H 55. In March 1967, the Co�ncil
approved M-4 zoning for 65�5 6th Avenue North and it was noted that
the Planning Commission was in favor of this proposal. Several
minor problems should be brought to the attention of the developer.
The first being the relocation of the utilities lying within Sunny-
ridge Lanes and the second being trash disposal within the building
itself. We would suggest that the developer be required to con-
struct a gas fired multi flue incerator to solve the later problem
and that the Village En�3.neer be contacted concerning the utility
relocation. It should also be brought to the attention of the
developer that he would bear the cost of such relocation.
The CQmmission also discussed the top story elevator equipment
spaee pro,�ecting on top of the 8th floor, and they were of the opinion
that this should not be construed as an additional story to the
building.
RECOMMENDATION: maved by Swanson, seconded by Silverman to
recommend rezoning of this parcel from P�Iultiple P�-2 to Multiple
M-4 . This motion carried with 4 yea and 2 nay.
i � �
G V Planning Commission Minutes 2-15-68 Page 4
2. HIGHWAY PLANS-COUNTY ROAD 18 FROM TH 55 to 1�1EDICINE LAKE ROAD
The Engineer and Planner presented to the Commission the County
Highway Department 's Plans for the upgrading of Co. Rd 18 . After
reviewing the plans , a motion was made by Silverman and seconded
by Swanson, Carried unanimously to recommend approval of the plans
as submitted with the changes noted by the Engineer.
3 . GENERAL
There being no further business, the meeting ad�ourned at 10 :30
P.M.
,
-;;�� __. �'" .
_
. -
�
�
---- - - --- --- ---- - - - --=-�'=—°-� ----
President Paul Senstad Secretary Otto Schmid