08-26-74 PC Minutes �
MINUTES OF THE GOIDEN UWILEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 26, 1974
A regular meeting of the Gotden Valiey Planning Comrnission was held at 7s30 P�m.
on Manday, Aa�gtast 26, 1974 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road,
Golden Vailey, Minnesota.
Chairman Ron Edstrc�r► presided and the following members were present: Cornmissioners
Christiansen, Hakala, Hughes, Leonard, Lundsgaard, and Sehtin. Also present were
Car) Oale, Planner, and Jon Westlake, staff inember.
Members absent: Comnissioner Herje.
i . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOUED by Leonard, seconded by Lundsgaard, carried
unanimously, to approve the minutes of the August 12, 1974 Planning Cortmission
meeting as arr�nded as followss change the word modern on page 3, Item #2
to moderate. -
2• WATVER OF 'TH�' �'I.�TTING UROINANCE
(a) Richard Keefe (4 residentiat lots)
217 — 209 Paisley Lane and 215 — 221 Windy Draw
The request is to divide twa large lots ir�to four lots. The proponent in re—
questing to divide Lots 1 and 2 Block 1 Tralee Addition meets the requirements
of the Platting Ordinance far 100 feet of frontage and exceeds the 12, 500
square foot requirement. The preliminary survey indicates that the northeast
corner of the existing house on Lot 2 witl be 14.2 feet from the lot line.
Mr. Richard Keefe, the proponent, was present for the request and indicafied he
had spoken to the sarrounding neighbors about the request. He stated, in
response to the Planning Comnission's concern regarding the corner of the
existing house on Lot 2 being too close to the side lot line, that the lot
line coutd be adjusted.
In discussing the proposai Comnissioner Nakala indicated that she felt it was
out of character with the neighborhood to subdivide these tots because of the
exceptionally large lots in the plat, and npt knowing the feetings of the
neighbors, she was opposed to the request. ,
It was moved by Christiansen, seconded by Leonard, carried, to recornmend approval ''
of the waiver of Platting �rdinance, subject to the following: ',
1 . The existing dwelling on Lot 2 to meet the side yard requirement of TS feet '
and the newly created tot to the east of this parcel to meet the 10� foc>t ,
front yard requirement.
2. Notify the neighbors of the Council meeting regarding this request. '
3• Orainage or utility easement as required by the Engineering Department. '
Commissioner Nakala ;voted nay.
(b) Marvin Kirkeby (2 Residential lots)
200-204 Sunnyridge lane
�
Planning Comnission
August 26, 197�+ page 2
The request is to divide a very long lot which narrows to 85 feet off Meadow I.ane
into two lots. Both parcels meet the requirements of the present Ordinance.
There is an existing dwelling on the easterly parcel which would have a side
yard setback of 19 feet o� the west side if the division were approved.
Mr. Marvin Kirkeby was present to answer questions about the request. He also
stated that because of a line of trees on the west side of the present house,
he wowld like to adjust the lvt tine approximately 5 feet in case ait the trees
are not on the most easterly lot.
It was moved by �undsgaard to defer action on the request until the exact
location of the lot line is known. The motion died for tack of a second.
It was then maved by �.undsgaard, seconded by Christiansen, earried unanimously,
to recommend approval of the waiver of the Platting Ordinance alTowing the pro—
ponent to adjast the proposed iot tine up to 10 feet to the west, teaving the
north end of the proposed lot line fixed as indicated on the survey dated
Mar�ch 4, i959 by Caswell Engineering Co�any, ar�d subject to the following:
1 . Notifying the neighbors of the Council meeting regarding this request, and
2. Drainage or utility easements as required by the Engineering aepa�tment.
(c} John Winston (2 Cc�mrnercial lots)
4�00 Qlson Me�norial Highway ( The Whitehouse)
The request is to combine two parcets of land contiguous and west of the Whitehouse
parcel into one lot with a frontage of 120 feet off the service drive of T.�i. #55
by 600 feet in depth. The west parking tot for the Whitehotase is located on
these two pareeis and is 384 feet in depth.
Mr. John Winston, Attorney representing the property owner, was present and stated
that because of probtems with the pareel and a tax exempt strip of tand running
through the parcet , the iand had to be straightened oufi in court—which has besn
ecxnpleted—and this is why the par.cel is the size and shape it is.
The Planning Cortmission in discussing the request had no objection to the request;
however, no reccmmendation was made due to the tack of knowtedge of the histpry
or status of the parcels regarding a proposed 60 foot road easement off Ottawa
Av�nue extending to the easter1y edge of this property. If this is an ease,ment
of record, why not at this time receive an extension of this easem�nt through
the property the proponent is asking consideration of. The Planning Commission
furtMer noted that if the City Councit had questians concerning the above, the
City Attorney and City Engineer woutd have the most knowtedge regarding the
above, and both would be available for input at the Councit meeting. The
Pla�►ning Commission would also add that if the City Council approves the request,
the Flanning Gommission v�rould recomnend a .stipulation that the proponent cor�ty
with the 3S foot landscape requirement for the front of the property.
3• GENERAC
(a) Report Regarding Public Works bisposal Area
Cvmnissioner Ar:t Leonard stated that Robert Gergen of the Park and Recreation
Ccxnmission, Nblly Lyons of the Environmental Cc�mmission, and he were the members
of an ad hoc committee to tocate land for a public works disposal area. �ther
,�
�
Ptanning Commission
August 26, tg74 page 3
sources of information to help the ad hoc committee were lowell Odland,
Jon Westlake, and members of the Open Space Corrmittee.
Commissioner leonard then reviewed the ad hoc committee' s report as fotlows:
"Problems:
1 . Residents on East side of Winnetka cort�lain of noise, dust, and
pollution caused by public works activities at northeast corner
of Brookview at Highway 55 and Winnetka.
2. Approximately $100,000 w�orth of gravel is located atong the north
border of Brookview aiong Highway 55.
3• The City needs ideally five, at a minimum three, acres for public
works disposal area activities.
4. Activities include: a) using up natural stores of gravel , as
mentioned above, b) area for landfill du�ing of materials by
City as a result of street work, stor�► sewer breaks, floods, wind
and tree damage, etc., c) ��in—and—out'' activities for stockpiling
and usage of blacktop, sand, and other materiats throughout the year.
Mast of the above activities are now carried out in the northeast corner of
Brookview with "in—and—out" usage also being performed in the City center.
Because of the large aanount of naturatly occurring gravel and the estimated cost
of buying it on the open market, we would recomnend that this activity, i .e. ,
removal of gravel from northeast corner of Brookview, be continued until it is
exhausted. It is estimated that this witl take three to five years. We atso
recommend that the City use existing funds to decrease as much as possible the
noise, dust, and visual pollution existant there by blacktopping the road,
using fencing, landscaping, and in dry, dust times, watering down the area as
necessary.
Four areas were tocated for us for possible use for public works disposal �eas.
These properties include areas on the north and south sides of Tenth Avenue
near County Road 18, one lot of which has an assessed market value of $34,000;
the NSP property on Tenth Avenue with an assessed market value of $25,000;
the southeast corner of Plymouth and Boone Avenues with an assessed market
value of $24,000; and finally, the "Douglas Pond" on the ease side of Douglas
Avenue just north of Highway 55 and south of the railroad tracks, which is part
of an industrially zoned property. Except for the southeast corner of Plymouth
and Boone Avenues the other three properties are zoned Industrial and all are
close to, or abutt, upon the railroad tracks. The southeast corner of Plym��rkh
and Boone is part of a residential PUD by our Corr�rehensive Plan map.
"Douglas Pond" This area is slated as preferred open space and a natural area
by the Open Space Comnittee, and it was the sense of this comnittee's feeling
that this area should be left naturat . (see below)
CountY Rd. 18 and Tenth Ave. Property It was felt that these tots would be
much too expensive for the City to acquire.
l
Planning Commission
August 26, 1974 page 4
NSP Property It was suggested bq staff that perhaps some negotiations for tand—
fill use and some "in—and—out" activities could be negotiated with NSP at little
or no cost to the City. Unfortunately, it is estimated it would take only three
to five years to fill this l:ot; after which, it weutd, ob course, revert back to
NSP and the City woald have to charge another ad hoc committee to look for further
public works disposal areas.
The Southeast Corner of Piyrr�outh and Boone Avenues 8esides being a� eyesore, it
is felt that the City might consider negotiating the purchase of this property
for Public Works disposal area. It is again estimated that it would take three
to five years to fill this area. Besides purchase price, the City would have to
invest money into the lot to guard against similar complaints from local residents.
The same is true for the NSP lots; however, both lots are far enough frmn residents
that it would be unlikely (with appropriate construction) that tocal residents
would be bothered by noise, dust, or visual difficulties. Also, comrr�on to both
lots is the central location and good access to the railroad.
It is apparent from our information sources that no other areas exist in
Golden Valley for public works disposal areas. We are atso informed that the
Minnesota Highway Department (at Hwy. 100 and Du}uth) h"as tried to acquire some
land in Plymouth for simitar activities and has been denied. We wrould speculate
that we may have the s�ne difficulties; however, we should attert�pt to negotiate
this with Plymouth.
Finally, it might be worthwhile again considering the DouglaslPond area in that
it might be possible to use that for fill at no City expense if a dedication for
such can be obtained from the owner. I am told that at this tirr� nane of the
land owners on either side of Douglas from Golden Valley Road to Nighway 55 are
considering deveiopment. Although I, too, ar+i interested in the envirorunent and
conservation of natural areas of open space, such as exist in this area, if all
the property owners were to develop the industrial land along either side of
Douglas Drive leaving only the pond untouched, one wonders what kind of ��natural
area" would be left, and except fo� water fowl , how much wild life would remain.
It is estimated by the City staff that this area might take fill for at least
ten years and perhaps more. The trade—offs for areas like this, i.e. , longevity
of use versus destruction of naturat areas, is obvious.''
In discussing the report the Planning Commission asked the followings
1 . Now the particuiar areas were chosen.
Answer: Certain attributes were used as a guide, such as size, adequacy
for filt , access, location, adjacent to raitroad, away from
residentiat areas, etc.
2. Consider area outside of the comnunity.
Answer: The ad hoc committee briefly discussed this but felt this was
not their charge.
The Planning Ccxnmission then discussed each of the areas mehtioi�ed in the report.
It was moved by Lundsgaard, seconded by Christiansen, carried unanimously, to
aceept the report from the ad hoc comnittee and to thank the members of the
committee for their work.
�
Planning Cc3mmission
August 26, 197�+ page 5
Robert Brose, representing the Open Space Committee, stated that the Douglas
Pond area should be preserved. The area on Plymouth and Soone Avenues is also
an area that has been flagged for open space. The Open Space Committee would
request that the ad hoc committee report be referred to the Envirorunental
Commission for study. Also, the Qpen Space Committee suggests that areas ,
outside the comrr�.tnity be investigated.
Approximately eight residents who tive east of Winnetka Avenue just south of
T.H. #55 were present and expressed their concern about the dumping on the
west side of Winnetka Avenue.
The Planning Commission in considering a recornmendation for the City Council
noted there is no way material can be deposited without destroying someone' s
environment—whether it be the resident' s or the wildlife—no matter where it is
placed. The Planning Commission discussed the three different uses of a site:
1 .) storage of material which is an "in—and—out" procedure, 2.) removal of
natural material from the ground, and 3.) disposal of materials.
The Conrnission also discussed entering the present site from the south off the
park road to remove the gravel . When considering a new site, it may be wise to
consider a location near a railroad track not only to bring material into the
community but also in the future this may be the means of removing the materiat .
It was moved by Nughes, seconded by Sehlin, carried unanimously, that the
Pianning Commission recomne�d that all dutr�ing stop within thirty (30) days
at the present site and that this area should be fenced, screened, and main—
tained in a park like appearance, with the exception of the interior area
where the gravel is being removed. The gravel operation may continue. Also
this area should never be used for the storage of material .
It was then moved by Hakata, seconded by Sehlin, carried unanimausty, that the
Planning Commission recomnend that the City Council consider as solutions the
following:
1 . The areas west outside the comnunity, and if this is not possible,
consider land adjoining a railroad to provide a means of maving
material in or out.
2. The disposal of material is larger than a community problem, and
the Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County shoutd be contacted
to determine what their long range plans are.
It was then moved by lundsgaard, seconded by Leonard, carried unanimously,
that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to fiind an area of
adequate size to serve as an "in—and—out" storage area and not as a f311 area.
This area shoutd be located in an IndustriaT area to minimize the visual and
noise problems.
(b) P.I.O. Ordinance
Carl Oale discussed his report as fo)lows with the Planning Corrmission.
�
Planning Commission
August 26, 1974 page 6
"Some years ago, it was comran practice to have a separate ordinance governing
the tocation and development of various institutional uses. Normally, these
resulted from efforts to control a specific use ar type of use. At the same time,
many were not controlled at atl ; for ex�te, churches were considered as a
"residentiat'� use and granted building permits aimost as readily as single
f�nily homes.
Today, the r+�ost cormaon practice is to require institutional uses of all �ypes to
secure a Speciat nr ''Conditional" Use Permit utilizing flexible standards and
criteria involving the total planning process. As is the case with other types
of developments, much more reliance is placed upon "performance" standards rather
than setting up separate districts; there are many reasons for this including:
a) There is a very large variety of "institutional" uses and even more u�en
differences in function, size, and scale of operation are considered within
any one type of use. To adequately cover all potential situations would
require an extremely large zoning text.
b) In atte�rr�pting to separate use types by distinct zoning districts or classifi—
cations, rgany are overtooked and not included. Also, there is a tendency to
begin the process of selective treatment which eventually leads back to a
confusing and co�licated zoning ordinance text and district map.-
c) It is possible to include performance standards in a zoning orc�inance as wett
as pr�cedural requirements which adequately cover mast development situations.
If the comnunity desires at this time to adequately control "institutional�� uses,
we would suggest it be dane in the following manner: �
a) �o not consider adoption of a separate ordinance but rather consider amending
the existing Planned Unit Development regulations by adding Section 1S•�S (4)
. Standards and Criteria for granting PUD Permits for ''Institutional Uses and
Areas", (residential , transitional , business, and industrial uses are aiready
covered and this is a logical extension of this subject).
b) Define what is to be included as an "Institutional Use".
c) In cases where an existing or proposed institutionaT use does not qualify, as
a PUD, awnend other appropriate sections of the existing zoning ordinance to
require a "Speciat Use Permit" and note that PUD Procedures, standards, and
criteria still apply.
d) When the proposed total new zoning ordinance is adopted, the desired situation
will be covered; a double check might be made, however, to assure the desired
results.
e) Some general standards now applied to other uses can be included in the PUO
Section amendment. Added standards can be utilized if adopted by resolution
of the City Council (all City Plan background materiat plus such others as
may be desired from time to time).
f) In addition to a definition of "institutional'' a "purpose" for regulation
should be drafted. It should be noted that the term �'institutional use" is
already included in the purpose for residential and transitional area
standards 15.05 (2).
SUMMARY
It is suggested that a new and separate ordinance is not required nor is it
necessarily desirable. Proper regulation of institutiona] uses can be attained
by some rather sirrq�le and minor revisions to existing iand ase and zoning
regulations.
�4 1�
.
Planning Com�ission
August 26, 1974 page 7
Later, the desired control will be available within the proposed new
Zoning Ordinance.
At this time, and upon instruction from the Planning Comnission, a draft of
amendments couid be prepared by the City Staff for action consideration. �etaiis
couid be worked out based upon policy guidelines and purpose as may be autlined
through discussion of this subject with the Planning Commission."
After discussing the report, the Planning Comnission asked the staff to put
together a proposed draft of an ordinance to become part of the present Ptanned
Unit Deveiopment Ordinance, and have it ready for the nexf Planning Comnission
meeting.
(cj P.U.O. #5 — Vallee 0'or
The Planning C�nrnission, reatizing this site is in litigation, is stilt very
concerned about the general maintenance of the site and is asking the Council
and staff to take a11 measures to see that the developer cleans up the site and
has a continuous generat maintenance program while the site is in litigation.
It was moved by Hakala, seconded by Leonard, carried unanimously, that the
Planning Comnission ask the City Council to notify the property owner to da
the following: proper watering of the tandscaped area, cutting of weeds,
replace broken windows, etc.
(d) Proposed Zoning Code
Jon Westlake reviewed with the Planning Corrmission the proposed parking ordinance
of the new Zoning Code. The Pianning Corrmission noted that the proposed Zoning
Code has been co�leted and is ready for the City Council .
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duty seconded, adjourned at )0:30 P.M.
.
Cha'rman Ron Edstrom Sec etary K ryn N je
NO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 1974