04-25-77 PC Minutes ,,
y .�
�
x
MINUTES OF THE GO�DEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSIQN
April 25, 1977
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 7:30 P.M.
on Monday, April 25, 1977 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Chair Sehlin presided and the following members were present: Corrrnissioners
Edstrom, Forster, Herje, Nughes, Polachek, and Wagman. Also present was
Carl Dale, Consultant, and Jon Westlake, staff inember.
Members absent: Corrxnissioners Mindess and Specktor.
1 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOVED by Edstrom, seconded by :Hugh�s, carried
unanimocas2y, to ap�orove the minutes of the April 11 , 1977 Planning Commission
meeting as amended as follows: Page 5, Item #6 Remove the wor`ding at a later
date and substitute with � the City Council , and Page 8, fifth paragraph,
last sentence remove word from and substitute with to.
2. REQUEST FOR REZONING
Applicant: George Walquist (Pannekoeken Huis)
Location: 2350 County �2oad 18 (service drive)
Zoning: West 1�2 Commercial and East 1�2 Open Development
Proposal : Rezone East 1�2 to Corrmerciat and Construct Family Restaurant
Cart Dale, Planning Consultant, reviewed the Planning Considerations as follows:
"Planning Considerations
1 . The proposal is to develop a family—type, sit—down restaurant similar in
service and operation to a Perkin' s or Uncle John' s Cake & Steak House.
Site and building plans submitted to date are rather general showing:
a) Site plan of building location, parking, and access drives. Areas to
be landscaped are shown but no landscape plan as such has been submitted.
b) Typical building elevation design. Seating capacity is indicated as
being for 194 persons. The site plan indicates a total of 134 parking
spaces.
2. The 3.0 acre site consists of two lots; currently, the west area is zoned
Corr�nercial and the east area is zoned "open". The total site is bounded
on the east by the J. Gallant Apartments, to the south by the existing
residential PUD, to the west by the service drive and County Road 18, and
to the north by the service drive and existing comnercial zoning development.
The site slopes down rather sharply from the service road and contains a
ponding area which extends into the residential PUD to the south and east.
3. As presented, the proposed development would not be in conformity to the
Comprehensive Municipal Plan nor the proposed zoning district .map• The
City Plan indicates the future land use as medium density residentiat PUD.
It must be noted, however, that the land use�environmental problem to be
solved here is one of finding a proper "transitional" use tocated between
?`��
P1 anni ng Corrrni ssi on
April 25, 1977 page 3
existing commercial to the north and multiple dwellings to the south and east.
The selected land use should not be detrimental to adjacent residential amenities.
More obvious "transitional" use in the general public interest would be offices
or a residential PUD (as indicated on the Comprehensive City Plan). The current
question then becomes, "is the current zoning and development plan proposal a
sound and proper "transitional" use, in the general public interest, and equal
to, or better than, that indicated on the current Comprehensive Municipal Land
Use Ptan?"
4. Our general observations on plans as submitted are as follows:
a) Earlier, a proposal for two commercial buildings on this site was discussed;
the current plan for only one building is a definite improvement.
b) The number of parking spaces would be adequate; access drives seem proper.
c) Proposed building architecture can best be described as "elaborate" and
difficult to evaluate in terms of "good taste" and environm�ntal compati—
bility. (Colored renderings woutd be helpful to the public review process.)
d) It is assumed that the hours of operation will extend into the night
presenting potential pr.oblems of noise and lights from the site including
car tights.
e) Stope and ponding conditions require an engineering review.
5. Based upon plans and information submitted to date, it is most difficult to
analyze suitability of this devetopment proposal as a proper ''transitional"
use compatible with adjacent residential development. In any event, two
important factors in this decision would be as follows:
a) The architectural design of the building as viewed from adjacent and nearby
residences.
b) Landscape plan details which would include visual screening (for parking and
light sources) , sound barriers, treatment of loading (service) and trash storage
areas, parking lots, and general site appearance.
6. Another factor to consider is the degree to which public control can be maintained
over deveiopment plan and operation details once commercial zoning (for easterly
portion of site) is granted. We would suggest that Commercial zoning, as such,
would not be in the general public interest in the absence of total public
control over the specific land use, standards of operation, and both building
and site plan details. In other words, there should be some zoning procedure
assurance that commercial zoning is contingent upon City approval of a specific
use, building and site (including landscaping) plan, and business operations
such as storage of trash, noise controls, signs, lighting, erosion safeguards,
and the like. A PUD approach in which specific conditions and procedures could
. be employed might be a possibility in the public interest.
7. SummarY
Based upon plans and information submitted to date, it is our opinion that the
commercial zoning reque�ted should not be given Planning Corrmission approval .
On the other hand, it would seem premature to recommend City Council denial of
the rezoning (to corimercial ) request. Rather, we would suggest the following:
rf�)
.._;$.-�4�
Ptanning Commission
April 25, 1977 page 3
a) This matter be tabled pending submission of a more detaited landscape
plan addressing the specific potential problems noted herein.
Drawings indicating the potential view from the south and east should
be evaluated.
b) The City Attorney should be consulted as to procedure and adequate public
control over plan, development, and operational specifics.
c) The City Engineer should be consulted as to slope, ponding, access drive,
erosion controls, and other plan features.
Provided the herein expressed environmental concerns are further explored,
evaluated, and found to be in the general public interest in the tight of
additional p�an information and details, the current proposal may have merit.
An additional safeguard to the public welfare, however, should be that of
assuring adequate public control over the specific land use, site and building
plans, and use operations."
The Planning Commission discussed the surrounding land use, which is Corrmerciat to
the north and Residential to the south and east, the possibility of devetoping
this parcel under the Planned Unit Development Ordinance; and the most predominant
point the Commission discussed is whether a restaurant use could be a transitional
use at this location.
George Walquist, representing the Pannekoeken Nuis, was present for the request
and explained that they are only interested in obtaining a rezoning to build this
type of restaurant for which they have plans. If they cannot construct this
t�pe of restaurant on the parcel , they are not interested in rezoning the parcel .
The following residents were present and voiced their concerns: Kenyon D. Sandstead,
2220 Mayfair Road, felt that surrounding home owners should be notified before any
action is taken on requests regarding this property. Bonnie McWilliams, 2213
King' s Valley Road East, questioned that if this use were approved under the
Planned llnit Development approach, would the requirements of the PUD Permit still
have to be recognized by any future owners of the property?
Chair Sehlin closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hughes discussed possible traffic generation created by this type of
use, encroachment of cornrnercial use into a residential area, future use of the
building, and felt the proposed use is not a good transitional use. Also, the
use does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Corr�nissioner Wagman expressed
concern regarding traffic and noise pollution to the adjacent residential area and
felt that the 24—hour operation would not be a transitional use to Residential .
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Edstrom, carried unanimously to recommend denial
of the request for rezoning the easterly portion of this property from Open
Development to Con�nercial .
3• P.U.D. #14 GALANT TOWNHOUSES, 2400 HILLSBORO AVENUE NORTH
Request to Construct Swimming Fool with Second Stage of Oevelopment,
and Not Enclose the Pool
���
Planning Commission
April 25, 1977 page 4
In discussing this proposal at the last Planning Corrrnission meeting the Planning
Commission asked that the City Attorney review the P.U.D. regarding the rental of
the units. In reviewing the Use Permit and other information with the Attorney,
it was determined that Mr. Galant does not have to receive permission from the
City to rent the units. In reference to this, one concern would be that once an
area is rented, it may be difficult to sell the remaining 28 units to be developed
in Phase II.
The request before the Planning Commission at this informational hearing is to
defer construction of the swimming pool to Phase II. Presently it is a require—
ment of Phase I. The second part of the request is that it not be enclosed.
The approved plans for Phase I show the pool to be enclosed.
The Planning Commission discussed the housing policy and whether it was specified
in the Use Permit that the units be sold, and the aesthetic condition of the
complex and landscaping which has not been completed.
Jack Galant, owner of the property, and Richard Diamond, representing Mr. Gatant
were present for the request. Mr. Diamond stated that the proponent has scheduled
the blacktopping and landscaping to be completed in the next month. Mr. Diamond
also explained that there is a distance of approximately 5 to 12 feet between
the swimming pool foundation and the foundation of �he second stage of units to
be constructed, and if the swimming pool is installed prior to the second stage
of units, it would be very costly to excavate for the foundations of the units
without causing damage to the pool .
The foltowing residents were present and expressed their concerns: Bonnie
McWilliams, 2213 King' s Valley Road East, questioned the reasons for P.U.D.
REQ,UIREMENTS, AND ASKED WHAT A PLANNEO UNIT OEVELOPMENT IS.
Chair Sehlin closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Wagman felt it would be unfair to require that the proponent construct
the swimming pool prior to construction of the second stage of units which may
cause problems to the pool or pool building, but felt it more reasonable to ask
that the proponent at the time of Phase II approvat construct the pool and pool
building simultaneously with the units. Comnissioner Herje expressed concern
about the lack of performance so far to some of the P.U.D. requirements for this
development and expressed concern about the possibility of any future requests
the proponent may make before completion of the total development. Commissioner
Herje asked that the City Attorney direct a letter to the Planning Commission
regarding the agreements signed with Mr. Galant with respect to the sate or
rental of units.
It was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Wagman that the Planning Commission recommend
to the City Council that P.U.D. #14 be amended to allow and require construction
of the swimming poot with the second stage of development and that the swimming
pool be enclosed as shown on the original plans (Phase I). The motion carried
wi th Cornrni ssi oner Her je voti ng no.
(� %'V(
s & F�
Planning Commission
April 25, 1977 page 5
4. WAIVER OF THE PLATTING OROINANCE
Applicant: Waldo Schulz
Location: 7131-7201 Glenwood Avenue
Request: Divide Lot into Two Lots
Zoning: Residential
The request is to divide a large parcel , containing a home on the West side, into
two residential lots. The smaller lot (Easterly lot) will contain approximately
13,700 square feet and have a frontage of 150 feet at the 35—foot setback line.
Mr. and Mrs. Waldo Schulz, property owners, were present for the request and
explained they are requesting to divide this property with the intention of
selling that portion proposed to be divided off for construction of a single
dwelling.
The following residents were present and voiced their concerns: Leslie Jandert,
71d1 Glenwood Avenue, expressed concern regarding the type of home which could be
built on the lot and felt the home should be required to be placed further back on
the lot than Ordinance requires. Mr. Vizard, 7120 Glenwood Ave. was also present.
It was rrroved by Edstrom, seconded by Hughes, carried unanimously, to recorrxnend
approval of the waiver of the Platting Ordinance as submitted.
5. WAIVER OF THE PIATTING ORDINANCE, AND STREET VACATION
Applicant: John Day
Location: 9120-9160 Plymouth Avenue
Request: Vacate Contiguous Flag Avenue and Adjust Lot Line
Zoning: Residential
The proponent requested that this item be deferred because of further work to be
completed on the request.
6. WORK PLANS OF PLANNIN6 COMMISSION (AS REQUESTED BY COUNCIL)
The City Council is asking that each Commission submit to the City Council by
June 2, 1977 a work plan for the fiscal year from July to July, including a list
of items which the Planning Commission already does, areas to explore, and to
set the work load for the coming year, to prevent duplicative procedures.
It was suggested by the Planning Commission that the following be placed on the
list for the work plan to be prepared for Council : Housing policy, changes in the
Zoning Code (i .e. , setting up work shops specifically for the purpose of working on
Zoning Code changes) , review areas for re—development (such as North side of
Highway 55 between France Avenue and Sunnyridge Lane), review Comprehensive Plan
and follow—up on specific recommendations listed in the Plan.
7. PLANNING COMMISSION BY LA�►S
It was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Hughes, to change the word Chairman,
wherever used in the By Laws, to Chair and to change the words he and his,
wherever used in the By Laws, to he she or his her.
e-
����
Planning Commission
April 25, 1977 page 6
It was moved by Edstrom, sect�nded by Hughes, to change Section 1 . to read
"The annual meeting of the City Planning Commission shall be the second regular
meeting in March of each year".
It was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Wagman, to change Section 11 , first
sentence, to read "At the annual meeting in March of each year. .. . .", and to
change the heading of Section 12. to read DUTIES OF THE CHAIR.
It was noted by the Chair that the above changes will be voted upon at the next
regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 10:20 P.M.
. �
' .�
Jody hlin Cha� r . Witliam Forster, Secretary