01-13-75 PC Minutes ��
MINUTf S OF THE 60LDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 13, 1975
A regular rr�eting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 7:30 P.M.
on Monday, January 13, 1975 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
The following members were present: Chairman Ron Edstrom (arrived 8:00 P.M.)
Commissioners Christiansen, Nakala, Leonard, Lundsgaard, and Sehlin. Also
present was Jon Westlake, City staff inember. It was moved by Christiansen,
seconded by Sehlin, carried unanirnously, to elect Commissioner Lundsgaard as
Chairman pro tem.
Members absent: Vice Chairman Hughes and Secretary Herje.
1 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOVED by Lundsgaard, seconded by Christiansen,
carried to approve the minutes of the Nove�er 25, 1974 Planning Comnission
meeting as mailed. Comnissioner Hakala abstained.
2. WAIVER OF THE PLATTTNG ORDINANCE �
Narry W. H�nrnan (2 lots) Open Development
6001 Glenwood Avenue
The Following Planning Considerations were reviewed with the Ptanning Comnission:
1. The current request is to divide this relativety large parcel (approximatety
13.5 acres) into two parcels—one parcel containing 11 acres and the other
containing 2.5 acres.
2. The pre plat also indicates how the property at b031 Glenwood Avenue could be
re—subdivided including the smaller of the two lots in the request to form a
total of eight lots in the future. No plan has been submitted indicating how
fihe targest tot could be re—subdivided although a future road access is
indicated onto Glenwood Avenue.
3. When previously discussed by the Planning Commission at their August 13, 1973
meeting, a number of problems and concerns were noted including access,
re-subdivision planning, relationship to adjacent tand parcels, and irregular
shaped land parcels. The current sub-divisian plan praposal answers only
sane of the questions raised earlier. For ex�npte, no plan has been submitted
showing how the major portion of the land might be utilized in the future or
how such development might relate to adjacen�t land parcels to the east, west,
and soath.
4. Sane lar�d to the extreme south may be needed for the Laurel Avenue extension
and/or some other public purpose such as open green space and connection to a
pubtic trail system.
a) Engineering Department would request a 35-foot right of way for Laurel Ave.
b) Ptatting Ordinance requires a minimum of 10% of the gross area being sub-
divided to be dedicated.
5. It is our opinion that rather major questions still remain unresolved and that
onty a partial effort has been made to arrive at a plan solution in the general
public interest. It has been our experience that such vacant parcels re-
maining to be developed in an urban setting can be mast important i;n
"completing" the environment and further that such planning can be sanewhat
di ffi cul t and ccxnpt i cated. I t i s rather casnion practi ce t4day for
��
Planning Conmission
January i3, 1975 page 2
ccmmunities to require corr�lete plans by applicants i� such circumsfances and
situations.
6. The most desirable situation would be that of some cort�ined and coordinated
plan for the larger area invotved being submitted for review and discussion
by the land owners involved. In any event, we recc�mmend that a more cc�mptete
p1an be sc�bmitted for the specific property in question prior to any official
public action and that alt reasonable attemps possibte be made to forrrnalate
at least a general development plan for the larger area involved.
Mr. Harry Hamnan and Mr. Brian Benr►ett, who has a purchase agree,r�ent on the
property from Mr. Hamman, were present for the request. Mr. Naeman reviewed a
pre plat, including how the large parcel could be subdivided into single fa�nity
lots.
The Planning Commission in discussing the request and the pre plat, which indicated
how all the tand coatd be utilized, noted that the lots platted along the eastern
edge would require street access off the large open parcel to the east. The
proposed street right of way running south into the property off Glenwood Avenue
witl not be dedicated at this time, but the pre plat does indicate how the long
narrow lot on the arestern edge could be added to the larger parcel to make three
lots. The Planning Commission also discussed the areas of the parcel that would
be in the ftood ptain, the street right of way for Laurel Avenae and the green
belt adjacent to Laurel Avenue.
Mrs. Turner, 6031 Glenwood Ave�ue, was present and indicated they were aware of
how their parcel of land could be added to the large parcel to make three lots.
They have no objection to this proposat; however, at this time they have no
intention of purchasing the additional 45 feet to make the three lots.
It was moved by Nakala, seconded by Sehlin, earried unanimously, to recommend
approvat of the waiver of the Platting Ordinance, subject to a 35—foot street
right of way off Laurel Avenue, and the green belt as indicated on the open
space map on this parcel to be reviewed by the Open Space Committee.
It was then moved by Sehlin, seconded by Makala, carried unanimously, to reconmend
to the City Councit that the land in this vicinity that is zoned Open Developme�t
be rezoned to Residential as indicated on the Comprehensive Ptan—specifically,
the parcel bounded by Gtenwood Avenue on the North, Laurel Avenue on the South,
6lenway Slopes Addition on the West, and the Minneapolis Northfietd � Southern
Railroad on the East.
Mr. Harry H�rrnan and Mr. Brian Bennett stated they were opposed to this '
recortm+ended rezoning because they did not know the type of use they are planning
for the property. Chairman pro tem Lundsgaard then explained to the proponents
the reason the Planning Ccxnmission has been eliminating-the Open Devetopment
category.
(Chai rman Ron Edstrc�m presi ded for the remai nde�- of the rr�eti ngj
3• RESIOENTIAL PIAT
Proposal : Residential Plat containing lb single f�nily lots
�
�,�
Pianning Comnission
January 13, 1975 page 3
Location: Approximatety 500' west of Jersey Avenue, bounded by
Western Avenue on the north, and Colonial Drive on
the south
Zoning; Present Zoning — Open Development
Applieant: Richard Nesiund
The Planning Comnission reviewed the following Planning Considerations for the
proposed plat:
"1 . The proposal is to plat 16 single f�nily home lots as indicated by a pre—
liminary plan submitted for review and �onsideration. 7he land use proposed
wc�uld seem to be in confarmity to the Comprehensive Municipal Plan and
proposed zoning district classification.
2. While being in eneral conformity to the City's Land Use ar�d Zoning Plan,
there are a number of questions and eorr�lications invotved bere with matters
relatir�g to traffic circulation and neighborhood street arrang�nents (and
resultant Iot and block arrangements). Said complications may have been
general ]y indicated by noting the potentiat for a residential "PUO" on the
site and generaT area in question which provides for flexibility in planning.
3. The current proposal could significantty aFfect future deveTopment of nearby
and adjacent land to the west and south in terms of land use and traffic
circulation. It is also noted that development of this specific land parcet
, couid significantly affeet a much targer area due to the Cc�rehensive Plan
designation of potential for major street i�rov�ents on or near this
parcel (Western Avenue and Louisiana Avenue).
4. As is the case with certain other development areas in Gotden Valley, private
tar�d planning and developrnent is greatiy affected by potentiai future public
irrq�rovesr�nts; if said public irt�rovements are to be actually developed,
proper provisions must be made in the plar�ning of private lac�d to remain;
rnutual (public and private) concerns and interests are invotved and if
planning is to be property coordinated, decisions must be made by both
parties. In this particular instance, it is our understanding that no firm
public policy decision has been made regarding the future irr�rovement and
alignment of Western and Louisiana Avenues but if so, no "afficial map"
has yet been developed indicating the specific right of ways needed to
accomodate the contemplated pubtic improvements. If sueh major road improve—
ments are made, single family home lots may or may not be desirable.
5. It would se�n that pubTic decisions are needed as to the gen�ral feasibility
and desirability of the noted street improv�nents and if said improvements are
to be made, specific and detailed right of way a1ignment plans are needed
before private land develop�nt plans and decisions can be suitably accomodated.
Sane reasonable time table should be set for making such pubiic policy decisions.''
Mr. Richard Knutson from the firm of McCoombs Knutson was present for the request,
representing the property owner. Mr. Knutson reviewed a concept layout plan of the
remaining open iand directty west of the proposed plat to Pennsylvania Avenue
containing single fa�nily home Tots. Mr. Knutson indicated that the soil conditions
where they are proposing the plat are not bad. All lats in the plat contain
12,5�0 square feet and 100 feet of frontage. Mr. Knutson also indicated they
woutd rather give cash than to donate 10� of the tand.
The Ptanning Comnission in discussing the request asked Mr. Knutson why he chose
singte family lots rather than the P.Ii.D. approach as designated on the Comprehensive
Plan. The Commission was very concerned about the proposal in relation to the
„�:,,�
��::�,
P 1 ar�ni ng Cornmi ssi on
January 13, 1975 page 4
thoroughfare plan the Planning Comnission has approved ,and is now under study by
the City Council . The Planning Commission also discussed the drainage and the
eastern lots on the proposed plat which are designated as open space. (Mr. Knutson
indicated the area designated as open space on the City map on this property has
the best soil conditions.)
Mr. Paul 5t. Marie, 7440 Ridgeway Road, indicated he was very concerned about this
area with respect to drainage.
It was moved by Sehlin, seconded by Hakala, carried unanimously, to defer action
on this request until the February 10, 1975 Planning Commission meeting, noting
the City Council is discussing the thoroughfare ptan whieh includes lowisiana
and Western Avenue with respect to their place�nent, and also the proposed plat
should be referred to the flpen Space Committee for their review because of the
open space designation on the City map.
4. REQUEST FOR REZONING
Proposat : Office Building
Location: 5000 Glenwood Ave.
Use: Institutional (I-1 ) to Business and Professional Offices
Applicant: West Suburban Buitders, Inc.
Mr. Jon Westtake reviewed with the Planning Commission the Ptanning Considerations
for a proposed office building located at the Northeast eorner of the interchange
between T.H. #1�0 and 6lenwood Avenue:
'�1 . Very general and prelimi�ary plans have been st�bmitted to utilize this site
for a two story office building and accessory parking. Also indicated is an
open green space and a pond area. Access would be via the service road in
this quadrant.
2. While informetion submitted for review is rather general and incomplete, it
would seem that the land use proposeT is in conformity to the Ccxnprehensive
Municipal Devetopment Plan which indicates potential for so� form of
"1 imi ted busi ness''..
3• Based upon existing land use patterns and projected trends, tit would sean
that limited business (includes office use) aroutd be a canpatibte and
desirable use for the site in question. Traffic circulation problems as
noted in the past for this general area would seem to rule out more intense
comnerciat use. Noise, isolation, and other factors may combine to rwte
out its desirability for some form of residential use.
4. No attempt has been made to evaluate specifics of the site and building plan
submitted except to note the following:
a) More complete and detailed pians a�auid be required prior to final action
on this matter by the Building Board of Review and City Council .
b) Modifications would be required in the parking layout, configuration of
the ponding area, and perhaps other site ptan features such as building
location, access, and others.
c) A waiver woutd be required by the Board of Zoning Appeals due to a
two—story building.
5. A major consideration of the Planning Commission in this general area has been
that of traffic and parking needs to be generated by the use and the resultant
effects upon the general area land use and traffic pattern. A first order of
business might be that of establishing the general desirabitity and feasibility �
of the current specific deveiopment proposal with respect to these basic concerns.
:��
P 1 anni ng Gemmi ssi on
January 13, 1975 page 5
Mr. Earl Wiison in explaining the proposal indicated he has 43 on site parking
spaces and the proposed office building, located o� the eastern p4rtion of the
site, will have an elevation of one story on the east side and ta� stories on
the west side. Mr. Wilson stated the structure is to be used by his construction
firm, which is for office use only.
The Planning Comnission in reviewing the request discussed the drainage and
etevation of the proposed office building in relation to the house to the east
and the service road. The types of uses in the proposed 40' x 80' two story
building wi11 be far the proponent�s construction firm, which is strictly an
office use, and a real estate firm. Together, the two firms wiTl have a total of
15 to 20 employees. The Planning Corrcr�ission also questioned Mr. Wilson about the
traffic the proposal will generate because of the access ofi the service drive to
Glenwood Avenue. The Commission also noted the proposed use conforms to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. George Arm►entorp, 4846 Glenwood Avenue, asked about the nurr�er of people that
will occupy the building and questioned whether the character of the property witl
remain the same (i.e., type of trees that would remain), signage on the property,
and exterior materiat on the building.
It was moved by Lundsgaard, seconded by Christiansen, carried unanimousty, to
reccxnnend approvat of the rezoning from I�stitutional (I-1) to Business and
Professionat Offices and suggest to tMe Board of Zoning Appeals that they
conside� the fallowing when the proponent is requesting a waiver on the structure:
that the prop�nent contact a landscape architect to provide a layout of the site
to preserve as much of the existing vegetation as possible and to preserve the
ponding area on the northwest end of the site so that it will remain as a pond for
perpetuity. And also, that when the Building Board of Review reviews the structure,
that the mechanicals, if on the roof of the structure, be properly screened from
the resident to the east that looks down onto the site. Also, the signs or identity
of the building and landscape plans should be part of the plans when the applicant
appears before the Building Board of Review. If the structure as located on the
preliminary plans dated January 13, 1975 is in the ftood plain, the Planning
Commission recommends that it be atlowed as shown by raising the elevation of the
structure.
(Comnissioner Leonard ieft the meeting)
5• SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND PLAN REVIEW
Proposal: Wendy' s Restaurant
� Location: 76d1 Country Club Drive (East of Point property)
Use: Fast Food Restaurant
Applicant: C � C Investment Inc.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Planning Considerations for a pr4posed
Wendy's Restaurant located on a through lot East of the Poiht property between
Golden Valley Road and Country Ctub Orive. They are as follows:
"1 . The proposat is to develop a "fast food" operation on the site in question;
very preliminary site plans have been submitted showing potential ways in
which the use might be developed (buiiding locatian, parking, traffic, green
e
��
Ptanning Gonmission
January 13, 1975 page 6
space, etc), The requested nse apparently is ai�d primarity afi persons who
would pick up prepared food for off—premises eating (at home, office, work, and
50 OR�.
2. In October of 1974, an alternate plan proposat was submitted for this s�ne property
by the owner; at that time, a complex of retail store operations was proposed
(see Planning Report dated October 23, 197�+)•
The following was noted:
a) Retail commercial is not co�sistent witM the Comprehensive Municipal Plan
nor with the existing or proposed zoning district classification.
b) The site is noted as a ''re—study" ar�a which should be planned in some detail
to create a desired environment (land use, parking, circulation, visual effects,
economic, general environment, and the like).
c) In the absence of a detaited area plan and general agreement on area develop—
ment (environ�ntal) objectives, a large number of questions remain to be
answered concerning traffic patterr�s, appropriate land use and zoning,
pedestrian circulation, public use, parking, green space, ''streetscape''
features (lighting, rest benches, outdoar phones, bus sfiops, kiosks, and
other street furniture), and economic use.
3. While the rnost current development proposal (site plan} recognizes the potential '
need for a "ring road'', little change has been made in the land use proposal
which is still more intense than envisioned as the Cor�prehensive Munieipal Plan
was being developed and reviewed at public hearings. One improvement, however,
is the placement of the proposed building to the west and thus f�rthest away
from residentiai areas to the east; under this site plan proposal , a land use
transition or buffer w�ould be provided by parking and related screeR planting and
green area setbacks. Even i f a "ri ng road'' i s desi red, i ts exact al i grnnent rr�st
be set before private land developments can be properly planned.
4. Perhaps the major qaestion of concern at this time is the plan for futare traffic
circulation which may catl for substantial atterations in existing roads. In
any event, no detailed plan has been developed or approved sF�wing how private
developments should be planned in coordination with such potential future public
improvements. In the absence of such public plans, private land owners are at a
considerabie disadvantage in ptanning for devetopment or redeveiopment of their
land or even site and bc�itding rehabilitation. Also, there is the question of
economics related to the long—term purpose of the entire civic eenter area.
5. It seems quite likely that the Metropolitan Area is entering into a new and quite
different growth period which we believe will be characterized by the following:
a) Less �nphasis upon new, low—density development in constantty expanding
rings around tMe central cities;
b) Fewer speculative commercial devetopments fo114wing new residential
growth patterns;
c) More concentrated or ''stractured'' urban development aimed at accorrr�odating
some form of mass transit and "open space" system in the future;
d) Much greater emphasis upon rebuilding and rehiabilitation of existing
development onee it becanes clear that the Metropolitan Area cannot or
should not expand indefinitely. This would, in effect, be assurning a
European attitude and approach to planning and development which places
m4re realistic values upon ex�ansion possibilities and re—use or continued
�.,`.
c...�4r
P 1 anni ng Comrni ssi on
January 13, 1975 page 7
use of the existing urban environment. As noted in earlier reports,
unless such changes oceur, the Community of Golden Valley must face the
abandonment/physical decline cycle previously experienced by the �entral
cities and carrently by scxne of the first tier suburban communities. The
point here is that the Vatley Square or City Centet- area of Golden Vatley
can be planned for continaed use and prosperity or it could be left to
the chance, and in our opinion probabitity, of environrr�ntal declir►e
(physical and economic).
6. It is our opinion that the current development proposal is not consistent
with the Comprehensive Manicipat Plan as it currently exists (in terms of
apparent general public policy intent and purpose). The site ptan detaits
for building location, parking, access drives, and the ]ike may or may not
be proper; there are no detaiied public plans by which they can be evaluated,
compared, and coordinated. Even if a very limited use (small office,
retirement housing, etc.� were to be proposed at this time, it would be
rrbst difficult to properly plan for on-site irr�rovements.
7. Although not the cause of nor concern of specific, individuai land owners, it
would seem premature to permit any further major change in land use or physical
development to accur in the re-study area until both a general and detailed
plan has been developed for the area outlining long-range environmental
objectives with not the least of concerns being to plan for remaining
econo►nic�tly.competitive in future years.
8. We suggest that the City of Golden Vaitey consider an improvement and renova-
tion program for this and other areas in the Community similar to that
currently noted in Chanhassen, Hopkins, North St. Paul , White Bear lake,
Robbinsdale, Hastings, Forest Lake, and various other suburban comr�nities
facing similar situations. A temporary detay in new private development
might best serve both the public and private interests assumir�g that such
a delay would be for a reasonable length of time and that a positive action
prograu� would resutt as well as a definite consensus regarding environrr�ntai
objectives.
9• Future wse of the adjacent "Point'' property must also be resolved as well
as ,the question of pubiic facility and service land parcel needs.
10. If the right of way for Rhode Island Avenue is considered as part of this
devetvpment, the site would require waivers for parking and green areas.
11 . The City Councit is in the process of tooking into appoir►ting a committee for
the Valley Square area."
Messrs. Peter Cook, President of C � C Investment Inc., and Offivid Nelson of Borgner
Consultants were present for the request. Mr. Nelson expTained the two layoat plans
for the restaurant. One layout plan showed the structure meeting atl City Ordinances
and the other would require waivers and allow space for the future extension of
Rhode Island Avenue. If the second layout were chosen, part of the parking for the
restaurant would be on the apposite side of the future Rhode Island Avenue, if it
were constructed. The split plan woutd contain a total af 55 parking spaces, but
the site would require certain waivers for landscaping. It was pointed out by
Mr. Cook that their operation presently has approximately 87% of the customers
eating in the building. The seating capacity is 92 seats. There is a drive-up
speaker where persons can order from outside while in their vehicles. Approxi-
mately 23 people are employed at the restaurant-15 of which are high school
students; approximately 400 to 500 persons/day are served.
��.
Planning Commission
January 13, 1975 page 8
The Planning Conmission in reviewing the request expressed concern about the sptit
parking lot if Rhode Island Avenue were extended through the property as part of
the ring road because of the amount of traffic that would use the street. The
Cc�mission also discussed the new Zoning Code which would require 60 parking
spaces for this type of restaurant (present Zoning Code requires 28). The
Camrnission further noted that when this area was discassed in the Comprehensive
Ptan hearing, a predaninant reason for indicating this property as a Limited
Business category was to reduce the more intense commerciat use to the south�st
from the residential area north of this parcel . The parcel in question is part
of the Valley Square re—study area for which the City Council is appointing a
study cc�mittee.
It was moved by Lundsgaard, seconded 6y Christiansen, carried unanirr�ously, to
recommend denial of the Special Use Permit, noting the proposed development does
not agree with the Corr�rehensive Plan; and, because of the type of use, traffic
- generated by it is greater, which would add to an aiready congested area, especiatly
with Country Ciub Drive and Gotden Valley Road funneling into Winnetka Avenue.
Also, to the north of the parcel is the base for Police and fire emergency vehicles.
6. CIVIC CENTER REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Chairman Ron Edstrom indicated that the City Council is requesting that a member
of the Planning Commission serve on the Civic Center Redevelopment Cornmittee.
Commissioner Sehlin i�dicated her willingness to serve on the Comnittee. The
Ptanning Comnission was in complete agreement that Commissioner Sehlin serve as
Planning Corimission representative on the Civic Center Redevelopment Committee.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 11 :25 P.M.
,
. c
Ch irman Ron Edstran Secretary Ka hryn Her'
NO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 27, 19J5