03-26-73 PC Minutes ���
NIINUTES OF THE CO�DEbi V�I,LEY
PLANNING t7DI�IISSION
March 26, 1973
A regular meeting af the rolden VaZley Plannin� Commission was held at 7:30 P.M.
on Monday,' March 2b, 1973 at the Civic Center, ?80Q Golden Valley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Ch3a.rrnan Warren Lundsgaard �resi.ded and the following members were present:
Commissioners Anderson, Becker, Christiansen, Edstrom, Herj�, Hughes, Leonard,,
and 8ampson. Also present was Consultant Carl �ale and Recording Secretary
Jon Westlake.
Members absent: None.
1. APPFtC3VAL OF MINUTES: MOVED by Edstrom, seconded by ChristiansenJ caxried
unanimously, to approve the minutes of the February 26, 1973 meeting as amended.
2. WATVER OF THE PLATTING ORDTPtANCE
(a) fihe �errick Company {Commercial and Open Development)
923s-9315 Medicine Lake Road
The req�est is to divide two lots into three lots. Each of the t�ro lots adjacent
ta Medica.ne Lake Road will be approximately two acres in size. The third lot�
located on the south end of the property, wil� be approxi.mately fiee aeres in size.
Mr. Roger �errick was present to answer questions about the division of property.
The Planning Comma.ssion noted that, because of the new road through the property,
a fra�ment of the west parcel on the east side of the road would be sliminated if
the lot division were approved. Also, the proposed division line meets the
approximate division between Medium Density and Commercial as indicated on the
Camprehensive Plan.
it was moved by Sampson, seconded by Herje, carried unanimously, to recommend
approval of the waiver of the Platting Ordinance, subject to the property being
platted at the time the property is developed.
(b) James D. Williams (Residential)
6900-b922 Winsdale Street
This particular request is to divide twn merged lots into four fifty-foot Iots, as
originally platted and described as Lots 133, 131t, 13�, and 135 Belmont. Presently
there are homes on L�ts 133 and �.35 Belmont, and Lots 13t� and �.36 are vacant.
Mr. Williams of Valley Investments was present to answer questions. He stated he
has purchased the property ancl would Iike to bui�.d two additional homes an the
two vacant parcels. The Planning Coznmission in discussing the request considered
the size of other lots in this vicinity.
It was moved by Christianse, secanded by Sampson, to deny the request for
waiver of the Platting Ordinance. Upon vote being taken by ro11 caZl, the
fallowing voted in favor o.f the motion: Anderson, Christiansen, �mpson, and
Leonard. The following vated agai.nst the same: Becker, Fdstrom, Herje, and
�,��3
Plannin commission
March 2�, 1973 page 2
Hughes. The Chairman then voted in favor of the motion to break the tie. After
further diseussir�n Commissioner Anderson moved to reconsid�r the motion, seconded
by Fierje. The mo�ion carried with ? yea and 1 nay.
It was then moved by Anderson, seconded by Herje, to defer action on this request
until the abutting property owners are notifiefl of thi.s request whieh will be
considered at the ne�ct regular3y scheduled meeting. The motion carried with
one nay.
(c) L. R. Deveiopment Company (Industrial)
$8l�� Tenth Avenue North
This request is to divide 191� feet of frontage off a parcel of land containing
880 feet of frontage on Tenth Avenue North. McLaughl.in, Gormley, King Company
plan to purchase the 191� foot lot as a separate parcel which is contiguous to
their present parcel to the east. Mr. Glen Shaw of L. R. �evelopment Company
was present for the req�est.
it was moved by Christiansen, seconded by Edstrom, carried unanirr�usly, to
recormnend approval of the request for a waiver of the Platting Ordinance,
3. REF�tRAL OF PARKING LAYOUT F'ROM VILLAGE COUNCII,
Burger King Corporation
6660 Wayza�a Boulevard
In considering the Special Use Permit for Burger King Corporatian the Village
Council at their March 19, 1973 meet�.ng referred the site plan back to the
Planning Commission for further evaluation of the number of parking spaces in
relation to the operation. The Planning Commission in discussing the request
noted the present ordinance requires 38 parking spaces for this type of use, ,
while the praposed ordinanee �uld require 5!� parking spaces for this type of
use. The site plan for this operation has 53 parking spaces.
Present ta answer questions about the Burger King operation were Messrs. Hanson
and Mi11er. Mr. Miller informed the Planning Commission that their highest
volume restaurant in this area is in Bloomi.ngton which has a total of !�6 parkin�
spaces. Another operat3.on located at 26th and Hennepin also has the same amount
of outside parking. They have had no parking problems with these operations.
He pointed out how their operation is differen� than a McDonald's Restaurant
operation. The Burger King Corporation recommended !t5 to 50 parking spaces.
(Mc�nald�s Restaurant in Golden Valley has !�6 spaces indicated on their
June 1972 remodeli.n� plans.)
The Planning Commi.ssion in discussing the parking referred to the proposed
Zoning Code requirements for parking which according to the consultant was
arrivec3 at through a review of current standard and up to date zoning cades in
the Metropolitan area. The Commission further noted even though the same product
is sold, it is a different operation than McD�nald�s Restaurants.
it was moved by Anderson, secanded by Leonard, carried unanimously, that the
Planning Commission after review of the site plan and operation feels the
parking is adequate, but in the event it is not, the follawing condition should
�.��
Planning Commission
March 2ci, 1973 Page 3
be added to the us� permit: Parking shall be subject to revie�w� by the Viliage
of Golden Valley if it becomes evident th�re is not enaugh parking. The Permi.t
then would be reviewed to see what changes would be required in the site plan for
parking.
It was further pointed out by the Planning Commission that the proposed Burger
King will have more parking than other Burger King restaurants in the Metro area -
including the h�.ghest volume restaurant which is located in Bloomington. The
parking exceeds the present Qrdinance and meets the proposed parking prov3.sions.
!t. PRELTMINARY PLAT
Applicant-Glenwood Hilis Hospital (I7ivision of Health Central., Inc.)
Name of Plat-Glenwood Hills Addition
Location-?�225 Galden Valley Road
Mr. Westlake informecl the Commission that because of the previous history on this
parcel, the staff is involved in further research of the proposed plat.
I� was moved by Christiansen, seconded by Edstrom, carried to defer action on this
request for a preliminary plat.
5. REF�.RAL FROM VILLA�E nOUNCIL (Appeal from Board of Zoning Appeals}
Candor Carporation - requesting waiver on parking an,d green area
North of 7th Avenue, West of Boone Avenue, and East of �9ecatur Avenue
(praposed shopping center)
The Chairman of the Planning Commission reviewed a letter from the Village
Manager to the Planning Commission as directed by the Village Council to review
a proposal for a shopping center by Condor Corporation. Condor Carporation has
asked for waivers on parking and green area which was denied by the Baard of
Zoning Appea3.s and appealed to the Villa�e Council. The Commission then reviewed
the following Flanru.ng Cansiderations:
1. The proposal is to develop a shapping center with a retail. floor area of
approximately 32,�0� sq. ft. to be located on a site of 16l�,0�2 sq. ft.
(appro�..mately 3.7 acres) located at the northwest corner af Boone Ave. North
and 7th Avenue North. The site is currently zoned Commercial and is indicated
as Industrial in the Comprehensive Municipal Plan.
2. It must be noted that the "new" industrial zoning classification is a
mutually exclusive or f�pure" industrial zone which will not permit uses of
a '�retail" nature since a separate zone for pure retail has been provic�ed
under terms of the proposed zoning regulations. This has been proposed to
eliminate what is considered now to be a deficiene� in the current zoning
regulations which allows far a rather indiscriminate mixture of commercial
and industrial uses contrary to sound principles of planning and zoning.
1�5
Planning Commission
March 26, 1973 page 4
3. The propos�3 use has been referred to the Planni.ng Commi.ssion at this time
by the Village Council following an earlier recommendation by the Board of
Zoning Appeals to deny a request for waiver of certain parking requirements
and tca a11ow parking within the required landscaped area. It is true,
h�wever, that the proposed number of parking spaces is comparable ta that
which would be required under terms of the proposed zaning ordinance
(current requir�ments are for one space per 7� sq. ft. vf floor area with
the recommended change being 1/150).
!t. The Village Land Use Plan has been designed to outline purely commercial.
and purely ir�ciustrial areas; it is proposed to limit commercial development
to that area sauth of 7th Avenue North in tha.s vicinity and to proce� with
industrial development to the narth. Similar designations have been made
in other parts of the Village to better delineate and distinguish between
commercial and industrial districts.
5. It is questionable if a shopping center in this location would be of value
due to its relative isolation from residential concentrations. Existing
centers and properly designated commercial zoning district should be quite
ample to provide needed retail outlets for the community.
6. The traffic situation cauld be aggrevated by further and continual expan-
sion of high turn-over commercial land uses in this general axea.
?. The granting of a variance or �►waiver�� of zoning requ3.remen�s shou3.d normally
be done only in cases where uniform application of the regul.ations is not
reasonable due to same special or unique feature of the specific land site
involved; waiver of landscaping requirements in this case w�ould seem un-
related to any such special or unique feature of the land involved.
8. Approval of this request could �e����recedent for later erosion of the
Land Use Plan and Zoning (stil exp ion and mixture of commercial land
use types). The utilizatian of 7th Avenue as a breal�ing or dividing line
seem� logieal and appropriate at this time. Tt was noted early in the prep-
axation of the Village Land Use Plan that this general area already has a
rather unc2esirable m:i.xture of land uses and it is strongly recommended that
this situation not be extended and made even more undesirable.
Messrs. James Riley and James Smuda from Condor Corporation were present to
review the proposa3. A�r. Smuda stated the reasons they are requesting the waiv'er
on parking and green area. The type of uses proposed for this building are such
uses as electronics store, auto parts store, liquor, men and ladies apparel, etc.
The Planning Commission in discussing the� praposal referred to the Comprehensive
Plan which indieates an industrial use for thi.s area-which is how the property
is developed immediately to the north. The Commissian further considered uses
in the vicinity that are presently c3eveloped. Parking and the problems the
current shopping are�s have as they relate to parking was also discussed.
It was moved by Anderson, seconded by Edstrom, carried unanimously, that the
Planz�.ng Commission recommend to the Village Council that this praposed shopping
center is not a recommended land use for the followi.ng reasons:
��V
pl�nning Commission
March 26, 1973 A&ge �
1. The developer has failed to demonstrate the special or unique features of
_ . �he land that would justify the waivers requested. There is no evidence to
indicate that regulations applying to other land so zoned should be
modified in this instance.
2. The proposed use would not be in confarmity to the proposed Comprehensive
Municipal P1an nor the proposed Zoning Ordinance. It is the recommendation
of the Planning Commission that this site be utilized for industrial purposes
as defined by terms of the proposed zoning regulations. It has been duly
noted that the existing zoning regulations differ from those being proposed
specifically, the proposed zoning regulations call for a reduction in Aarking
requirements far retail uses; said reduction proposals, however, have not
been completaly reviewed by the Planning Commission, required public hearings
have not been held, and the Village Council has not taken official action
on this matter. �
3. It is the desire of the Planning Commission not to set a precedent for
further commercial expan�ion in this part of the Vil2age which already has
an undesirable mixture of vaxious land use types.
!t. The Planning Commission is of the opinion that a shopping center is not
nesded .in this area and that adequate shopping facilities and areas have
been provided far community serviee in the proposed Land Use Plan and Zoning
Regulatian5. This opinion is based upon over two years of e�ctensive study
by the members in conjunetion with necessary and required foundation �rk
for preparation of a Comprehensive Municipal �evelopment Flan and effect-
uating, offieial controls including a new zoning ordinance.
5. The proposed commercial use would kaave an adverse impact upon the general
neighborhood in terms of traffic, land use� and environmental goals -
contrary to the spirit, intent, and purpose of the Comprehensive Mun��ipa1 Plan.
6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to submit recommendations for
changes in parking requirements to a later date when the Comprehensive
Municipal PZan has been officially adopted and zoning studies and required
public hearings have been completed to provide a satisfactory basis Por final
recommendations. Until such time, great care should be taksn in the waiver/
variance process to avoid permitting a deveZopment that may or may not be in
conformity to fina2 and off�.cial Village Plan and zoning amenciment actions
by the Village Council.
?. The variation in parking if allowed would be determi.ned by the Board of Zoning
Appeals. Also, specific comments on the green area would involve the
Building Board of Review.
The I''lanning Commission then discussed the specific question of parki.ng, no�ing
that Car1 �ale and Jon Westlake are studying the parking rec}uirements an.d the
Planning Commission has not completed their studies on parking. Therefore, no
ne�r regul.ations have been adopted by the Planning Commission.
It was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Sampson, carried unanirnously, that the
Planning Commission recommend to the Village Council that they use the current
Zoni.ng Ordinanee on parking for shopping centers until such time as the
Planning Commission has reached a decision on parking.
6. ftEQUEST �OR RE20DJING
{a) The Golden qalley V.F.W. Post Corporation
23t�0 Mendelssohn Avenue Nort�i
(Open "�evelopment �cy Institu ional}
147
Pl.anni.ng Commission
March 26, I973 page 6
The property for rezoning is located 860 feet north of the centerline of
�uluth Street (which is the point of begi.nni.ng} a,nd thenee south 1l�0 feet.
The depth of the lot is 395 feet east of the ssrvice drive of County Road 18.
Mr. Carl i)al.e then reviewed the following Planning Considarations:
1. The praposal is for both zoning and subdivision ta accomodat� the proposed
V.F.W, building. The site and much of the surrounding area is zoned open
development although land to the north is zoned commsrcial.
2. The site and general vieinity is designated for medi.um density housing on
the praposed Camprehensive Municipal Plan; the proposed zoning is res�.dential.
3. The proposal for a V.F.W. Club could be considered as an �'institutional"
use and eertain institutions or T'semi-public�� uses such as a ehurch, lodge,
fraternal organization, or similar use can under certain cireumstances, be
compatible with a residential situatien and environment. In each case,
however� the actual, �pecific use and potential impact upon the environment
must be considered. For example, churches were once cansidered highly com-
patible with a residential environment even to the extent of baing l.ocated
we11 within residential neighborhoods; this is not the case toda,y. Ihie to
the changing nature� scope, and functions of the ehurch today, planning
criteria ca11s for church locations to be Iocated at the edge of residential
neighborhoods and perhaps serve as a "buffer�� between housing and commercial
or other rr�re intense uses. To further illustrate the importance of actual
"use�� impact, a church parking lot can harclly be considere� as being more
aesthetic than a parking lot for a sY�pping center or any nther use.
!t. In this particular case� the propoged actual use would apparently be quite
similar to a more standard type commercial liquor establishment such as a
tavern, bar, or cocktail lounge; 3.n effect, it is a "commercial" use.
Further, it is commercial type of such intensity as to a special use permit
(conditional use) even in a commercial district under terms of the proposed
new zoning ardinance. As such, the proposed use could not be considered
as being appropriate to the planned residential nature of the nearby area.
The proposed use, would in fact, eliminate the potential for a nearby resi-
dentia3. environment. Some type of "buffer�' would be required between the
proposed V.F.W. use and a residential environment.
5. In terms of land use, the proposed deve2opment could not be considered as
being in eonformity to the Comprehensive Municipal 27eve1opment Plan.
b. There are also questions concerning the proposed subdivision. Simply to
carve out one pi�ce from a larger tract of land without showing some
logical relationship to existing and potential future land use and sub-
divisian for adjacent areas is not considered good platting praetice.
?. ATo attempt has been made to review site and building plan details since
the basic issue here would seem to be one of proper land use and platting.
Such a review will be made only if the Village considers approval of the
proposed land use and subdivision.
���
Planning Commissian
March 26, 1973 page 7
$. It is suggested that no development proposals be approved far the site in
question until some type of plan has been submitted for the larger area
involved and this has been reviewed in relation to the still larger area
involved (area bounded hy County Road 18, Medicine Lake Ftoad, 7A�luth Street
and Ensign Avenue}. The proper ��filling in" of remaining vacant land in
the Village is essential to attaining the environmental �oals outlined in
the proposed Comprehensive Municipal Flan.
Mr. John DiehZ, �ttorney for the proponent, explained the reason they are re-
questing a rezoning. The facility wi11 be used for a club and for social
gatherings. The Veteran's organi.zation provides a number of public service
f�zzr,ctions.
At the present location they da not own the building and they would like to own
and occ�py their own building to become a better part of the community (also,
many members live i,n Golden Va11ey). He further stated the residents expressed
opposition to multiple in this area about ane year ago, and the V.F.W. feels
this light commercial use would be a better use. The present zoning shows
commerci�l to the narth, and a graduation to institutional zoning would be a
la.ghter use of the property. The Post Commander, officers, and some members of
the Golden Valley V.F.W. Post were present to answer specific questions.
The following residents were opposed to the proposal: Mrs. Kruth, 2016 Hil.lsborv N.
is opposed to this lncation and agrees with the Planning �eport. She further
stated she realizes they ne�d a new place. Mr. Tofte, 20�8 Mendelssohn, is
opposed to traffic generated by this use. Nlr. Weller, 9200 Ear2 Street, is i.n
favor of resid�ntial use for this area. Mr. Larson, 9036 Elgi.n Place, felt
this is not a proper site location for this use. Mr. Welch, 900fl E�.gin Plac�,
was opposed to the proposal.
The Planning Comma.ssion in discussing the proposal pointed out the Comprehensive
Plan indicates that this area should be Medium �ensity housing. The proposed
use would not fit or blend into what the Comprehensive Plan indicates for this
pareel af ground. The Planning Commission also reviewed the types of uses that
are generally a part oF the operation of the V.F.W.
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Becker, carried urianimously, to recommend
denial of the rezoning request for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is not in eonformity ta the proposed Comprehensive Municipal Plan
which has designated the area for residential development.
2. The progosed zoning regulations indicate that the land should be zoned for
residential development.
3. The proposal would be ��spot�' zoning and not a logical extension of a well-
planned commercial distriet.
�t. The praposal bears no logical orreasonable relationship to existing devel-
opment nor potential future land use or subdivisions.
5• The proposal does not indicate how it might be compatible with future,
adjacent development and/or platting.
6. The use is of a type which can present special environmental problems
similar to that of a liquor estahlishtnent open to the general public.
���
Planning Commission
March 26, 1973 page 8
7. The proposed use is not of an institutional nature tha� can be compatible
with a residential environment.
$. The proposed use would serve to discourage residential development of nearby
land as recommended by this Planning Comma.ssion.
9. Any development propose�i in this general area should be shown to relate we17.
to the planned development of the larger area involved.
10. �ue recognition has been given to the report of the Planni.ng Consultant�
Village Departments, and to the neighbors present.
(b) Waiqer of the Platting Ordinance
The Golden Valley V.F.W. Post Corporation
23�� Mendelssohn Avenue North
The request is to divide a tract of land ap,proximately 1ltOf x 395' from an
approximate 20-acre parcel {same lot as described in 6 (a}.
The Planning Commission in denying the request for rezoning feels that a waiver
of the Fl.atting Qrdinance is also a part of this particular rezoning request
but shotzl.d be cansidered separately because it is a division of land.
Zt was therefore moved by Anderson, secanded by Hughes, carried unanimously�
to recommend denial of the waiver of the Platting Ordinance.
7. 17ISCUSSION OF GOLDEDi VALLEY OFFICE PARK
Ken Stensby of Northland Company and Fritz Rhpoh2 of Bergstedt� Wah2berg,
Bergquist Assoc.
Loeation-South of Highway 12, West of Acridge Addition� and approximately
300� East c�f Boone Avenue
(see Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1972)
The Commission reviewed the Planning Commission minutes of November 13, 1972
including the Planning Considerations with respect to this request. Ken Stensb�r
of Northland Company stated he is before the Planning Commission on an inform-
ational basis anly to show the Commission how his firm has changed the plans
since the November 13, 1972 meeting. He stated their proposal presently is to
build one five story building and one eight story buildzng. He also reniewed
a proposal showing how Boone Avenue connecting to a frontage road could extend
through the property. The proposed square footage of both buildings wou�.d be
188,000 square feet. They could canstruct a building contazning 18�,000
square feet with a height limitation of forty fest on the property under the
present Code.
A long discussion followed with the Planning Commission, after wh:i..ch it was
moved by Sampson, seconded by Anderson, carried unanimousZy, that the Planning
Commission go on recard reaffirming the Planning Commis5ion's desire to have
this area as a natural area and encaurage the Council to acquire this land.
It was then moved by Sampson, seconded by Anderson, that if the acquisition
program to purchasa thi.s land is unseccessful, the Planning Commission would go
on record avo ng thg develo m nt, f a lanned unit de elopment concept for
this parce�. ��ie motion carr�e� wi�h on� nay vote and �mmissioner Herje
abstaining.
���
Planning Commission
March 26, 1973 page 9
8. Gr,NERA.L
(a) El.ection of O:�ficers
The Chairman of the Planning Comrnission stated the nominating committee, con-
sisting of Commi.ssioners Andersan, Christiansen, and 5ampson, will meet
Th'��rsday, Mareh 29, 1973, and if anyone fzFom the Commission would like to
speak to them about a nomination, con�act a member af the nominating commi�tee
before that date.
(b) Golden Va11ey Safety Council
Commissioner Anderson spoke of two areas that have been discussed previously
by the Planning Commission because of safety. The Planning Commission would
like these areas reviewed by the Safety Council. The first area is placing
stap signs at Rhode Island Avenue and Harold Avenue where the Val.lee �'Or
planned unit development is located and a1:so a "no left turn from 7 - 9" sign
on Winnetka Avenue at Haro3d Avenue should be considered. The second area,
brought to the attention of the Planning Commission at the recent Public Hearing
on the Comprehensive P3an, is that the Planning Commission was informed of
several accidents at the intersection of Glenwood Avenue, Edgewood Avenue,
and Western Avenue.
(c) Environmental Task Force
The �rvironinental Task Force is a committee the Village Council has pl.aced
under the jurisdiction oP the Planning Commission, which will function much like
the Trails Committee under ths Park and Recreation Commission. The Uillage
Council has asked the Planni.ng Commission for suggested names of residents in
each of the precinets that would be interested in serving on the committee.
Commissianer Anderson stated one of the founders of the committee, Bettq Waldhauer,
has a list of people who may be interested in serving on the committee. This
list wi11 be mailed to the Commission members, and at the next meeting the
Commission will discuss the list, including any added names. The Planning
Commissian wi11 alsa consider appointing a representative ar�d an alternate to
serve on this sub-�ommit�ee.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 12:35 A.M.
Chairman Warren Lundsgaar Recording 5ecretary Jon Wes-tlake