09-11-78 PC Minutes ��
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMPSSION
September 11 , 197$
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 7:30 P.M.
on Monday, September 11 , 1978 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Chair Sehlin presided and the following members were present: Commissioners
Eastes, Edstrom, Forster, Herje, Hughes, and Polachek. Also present was
Consultant Carl Dale and Jon Westlake, staff inember.
Members absent: Commissioners Mindess and Specktor.
l . APPROVAI�. pF MINUTES: Approval of the August 28, lg7$ Planning Commission
minutes was deferred because they were not included in the agenda packet.
2. REQUEST FOR REZONING
Applicant: Westside Properties
Location: 5740 Wayzata Boulevard
Request: Light Industrial
Zoning: Commercial
Commissioner Polachek disqualified himself on this item because of a possible
conflict of interest.
The request is to rezone two parcels of land located in the Northwest quadrant
of Xenia Avenue and old Wayzata Boulevard from Commercial to light Industrial
to accomodate building expansion for Contemporary Design.
Carl Dale reviewed the following Planning Considerations:
"1 . The light Industrial Zoning is requested in order to comply with off-street
parking requirements rather than the much higher Commercial Zone requirements
which are not realistic for the type of use existing and proposed. This use
is, and will remain, non-retail providing furniture storage and display only
for wholesale, contractors, interior decorators, designer, and the like
rather than the general public.
2. Existing parking spaces are not paved nor well defined. (We observed l3 cars
parked in front of the existing building and none on the gravel space to the
rear.) The proposed site plan calls for provision of 5g spaces which should
be more than adequate for the specific building use provided:
a) The spaces are paved, well marked, and provided with curbing.
b) Truck parking and loading areas do not render some spaces unuseable
(it is not clear from the site plans how existing loading areas and
retaining walls are to be changed) .
3. This immediate area in Golden Valley and neighboring St. Louis Park has a
very undesirable environment in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation,
location of parking spaces, general appearance, and "hodge-podge" of
mixed land uses. The proposed building addition and associated site plan
would clearly represent a much needed functional and visual improvement
to both the specific site and general area environment. We would suggest,
however, the following:
J�
Planning Commission
September ll , 1978 page 2
a) The City reserve the right to review and approve a more detailed
landscape plan (with trees added to the north property line) and
building addition appearance (north, south, and east sides) .
b) Parking area improvements as noted above (paving, etc.) .
c) Discussion of need (if any) to retain the existing driveway
along the West property line.
d) It is clearly understood that building occupancy cannot be later
changed to "retail" nor all office use without a substantial
off-street parking variance being granted by the City.
4. The proposed use and site plan would, in our opinion, be in total conformance
to the Comprehensive Municipal Development Plan and proposed zoning district
revisions required to properly implement the Land Use Portion of the City
Plan which calls for light Industrial land use and zoning of the site in
question and area to the west. As such, the proposed light Industrial
Zoning cannot be considered as "spot zoning".
5• It must b� noted that the existing Zoning Ordinance (districts and text
provisions) does not clearly nor specifically provide for nor adequately
recognize the specific type of use in question since it has characteristics
of both industrial and commercial business activity. This situation arises
from the fact that tfie existing Zoning Ordinance (text and district map)
has only one type of commercial district in contrast to a minimum of three (3)
found in most newer zoning ordinances which recognize the varying types,
intensity, and needs of "commercial" 1and uses. The proposed new Zoning
Ordinance would provide a more clear transition from intense "commercial"
land uses to lower intensity and on into the semi-industrial categories.
6. Subject to the conditions and considerations noted herein, we would recommend
approval of light Industrial zoning for the site in question; this would be
a proper step forward in Comprehensive Municipal Plan implementation for
Go}den Valley."
Mr. Jerry Zweigbaum, owner of Contemporary Design, was preserrt to discuss the
request with the Planning Commission. The firm is a wholesale furniture operation
with showrooms and offices which sells to designers, architects, and decorators.
They do not have a walk-in type of trade, and the majority of sales are handled
over the telephone. The concern is that they would like to improve the image of
the building. As discussed in the Planning Report, the proponent stated they
will provide plantings in the green area on the North end of the site. Through
the upgrading of the building and lot, the area would be greatly improved.
The Planning Commission reviewed the land use in the area and the proponent's use
of the property, including the zoning. The present zoning in the area to the
North is light - Industrial and to the East and West is Commercial . The current
and intended use is an office, display, and warehouse operation. The Commission
noted the variances for parking and landscaped areas on the West and East sides of
the site. The Commission felt that the use was in keeping with the area, and the
proposal will upgrade the area. The proposal utilizes the vacant parcel of land
to the East of their present building, which by itself is not large enough for
a retail use and is presently zoned Commercial .
�,��
�3 u, �
Planning Commission
September 11 , 1978 page 3
It was moved by Edstrorn, seconded by Forster, carried unanimously, to recommend
that the property be rezoned from Commercial to light Industria}, subject to
the two parcels being combined and to suggest to the Board of Zoning Appeals
that if they approve the waiver, a condition be placed on the strueture for the
use, which is office, showrooms, and warehouse, allowing up to a certain per-
centage for each.
(Commissioner Herje arrived.)
3. P.U.D. - INFORMATIONAL HEARING
P.U.D. #16-A Concept Hearing
Proponent: Cheyenne Land Company
Location: 5615 Glenwood Avenue
Request: Construct 50 Units
This proposal received concept approval from the Planning Commission at their
February 14, 197} meeting and also from the City Council at their April 4, 1977
meeting.
Because of the conditions in the motion and the time lag since the above meetings,
the proponent is again requesting -concept approval . The proponent feels he has
designed his project in accordance with the April 4, 1977 Council minutes, including
the range of 50 units as indicated in the February 14, 1977 Planning Commission
minutes.
The Planning Commission reviewed the February 14, 1977 Planning Report which has
been revised to reflect the current proposal :
"The current proposal is to construct 50 dwelling units on an 11 .6 acre tract of
land located between Glenwood Avenue and Laurel Avenue west of and adjacent to
the MN&S Railroad line. The dwelling units would consist of:
4 single family on 4 individual parcels,
12 units in 6 buildirrgs of one duplex style,
18 units in 9 buildings of another duplex style,
16 units in 4 buildings of a "quad" or four-plex style.
50 Units 23 structures
This results in a gross density of approximately 4.3 units per acre including
proposed streets, green areas, parking, and green belt on l }.6 acres of land.
Plans submitted are general since concept plan approval is being considered only
at this time which involves the fo9lowing two basic questions:
1 . Is the proposed land use correct, in conformity to the Comprehensive Municipal
Plan, and in the interest of the general public health, safety, and welfare?
2. Is the proposed dwelling unit density in conformity to the above noted criteria?
Plan details such as building setbacks, parking provisions, and the like can be
considered later when more complete plans and specifications are submitted and
considered under the next procedural step of a General Development Plan.
6�
Planning Commission
September 11 , 1978 page 4
Background. This matter had been considered at the Planning Commission meeting
of May 12, 1975 at which time the proposal was similar but for a total of 52
dwelling units in 26 buildings. The request before the Planning Commission at
the February 14, 1977 meeting was for 56 units in 24 buildings. Planning
considerations noted at those times are substantially still valid although there
are some minor changes, in addition to the density:
1 . It has apparently been determined that right�-of-way fc�r Laurel Avenue plus
a 100 foot "green-belt" on the south is to be required and these have been
so indicated on the current plan submission.
2. Sanitary sewer service is adequate and available.
3. The City has information to evaluate flood plain needs for this area.
4. As per recommendations of the Park and Recreation Commission, a 50 foot
"green-belt" has a]so heen provided along the east side of the site adjacent
to the railroad. It is not totally clear if the "green�belt" locations and
alignments are satisfactory to all concerned or if these should be deductions
or simply easement grants.
A number of coneerns and observations have been expressed by nearby residents
, and land owners as well as by the Planning Commission in the past:
1 . Density
2. Building appearance and height
3. Traffic generation and emergency vehicle access
4. Desire for single family homes rather than multiples
5. Flooding and flood plain complications
6. Lack of approved and coordinated plans for development of adjacent land to
the west and larger area in general
7. Pedestrian safety related to the railroad
8. PossibTe effect upon nearby property values
9. Building setbacks.
Current Analysis and Recommendations. As a concept as defined in the City's
Zoning Regula�ions, our opinion remains unchanged. The conce t proposal is in
general conformity to the Comprehensive Municipal Plan in terms ef both }and use
and density.
1 . The site in 'question, plus land to the west, is designated as having residential
PUD potential on the Municipal Plan. The current proposal is fc�r such a
residential PUD approach to development.
2. The proposed gross dwelling unit density is situated between that which would
result from a "standard" single family home subdivision and "mid-density"
deve}opments such as townhouses.
The site does not seem well suited as an environment for a standard of typical
single family subdivision nor does it seem reasonable to expect that there is
a need for funding available for acquisitian of al } or major portions of the
site for public open space; public trail and green space requirements as noted
on the Murricipal P1an will be provided at no cost to the public as part of the
PUD plan proposal .
,
h.;..�:.��t .
Planning Commission
September 11, 1978 page 5
Recommendations.
l . As a concept plan at this time, the proposal seems satisfactory and we would
recommend approval but subject to later approval of more complete and detailed
plans yet to be submitted (General Development Plan) and further subject to
certain conditions and modifications that may be required following further
study and discussion of the plan, site, and larger area involved. Among
others, the following should be considered in the next procedural step:
a) If a plan for development cannot be secured from the adjacent owner to
the west, said owner should be requested to submit an opinion reiated
to land use, street arrangements, and the like.
b) It should be determined if the green belt locations are satisfactory
and under what conditions these are to be provided (public dedication,
granting of easements, etc.) .
c) Alternate means of emergency vehic}e access to the site must be explored;
some possibilities are to extend future roads through property to the
west back out to Glenwood or to provide a drive onto future Laurel Avenue.
d) The appearance of proposed buildings adjacent to Glenwood Avenue should
be considered; these should have some variety in design and have the
appearance of single family homes. If not, it may be better public
policy to require single family homes on a PUD basis (perhaps a
smaller lot size requirement) .
e) A judgment on the architectural treatment of all buildings must be made
at a later date when plans are submitted.
f) It should be determined if snow plowing and removal provisions are
adequate; City experience with existing developed projects may be
helpful in this matter.
g) Detailed plans must be related to flood plain problems and needs in this
area. Requirements of the Bassett Creek Watershed District will be a
consideration in detailed planning.
h) It should be determined if the -"green-belt" areas are adequate or if
additional cash-in-lieu-of dedication should be required. It is not known
at this time if private onsite recreational facilities are to be provided.
i) Detailed plans for parking.
j) Current housing policy.
k) An opinion should be secured from the City Engineer, the Fire Department,
and others relating to the proposed access location onto Glenwood Avenue.
1) Landscaping.
m) Approved home owners or other open space maintenance agreement and
conditions.
n) Specific building setbacks.
o) External storage, signs, etc.
It is suggested here that it is not possible at this time to evaluate the effect
upon nearby property values as much would depend upon later plan details and the
quality of development and design. It is further suggested that if a PUD concept
such as currently proposed is found nat to be in the general public interest,
immediate attention should be given to amending the Comprehensive Municipal Plan
to more accurately reflect a desired City Land Use Policy for the site and
area in question.
�`� :.
Planning Commission
September 11 , 1978 page 6
It must be noted that a public land use policy of permitting only single family
homes on this site would not eliminate all of the current problems and complica-
tions for development af this site. Additional problems would also be introduced
such as financial feasibility, competitive ability of site under current market
conditions, and the ] ike.
We wish to note further that a stipulation should be made that City approval of
the concept plan at this time does not bind the City Council to final approval of
the development plan and that changes may be required prior to said approval .
Further, approval of any plan for the development of this site in question does
not, in any way, set a precedent for approval of a similar plan for development
of adjacent land to the west."
Messrs. Ron Bastier of McCoombs Knutson Associates, lnc. and Norm Nielsen of
Cheyenne Land Company were present to review the proposal . Mr. Bastier stated
that since essentially the same proposal was before the Planning Commission at
previous meetings and received eoncept approval from the Planning Commission,
and City Council at their April 4, 1977 meeting, he would review how they
incorporated the conditions-of concept approval into the current pTans.
Mr. Bastier further indicated they would also be wiiiing to plat the property
into 38 single fami }y lots which is s:eemingly what the residents want after
meeting with them.
The following concerns were expressed by residents: Mr. Eiden, 345 Brunswick Ave. S.
submitted a petition to the planning Commission supporting the plat of 40 single
family lots: for detached single units, which would reduce the density and also
produce less traffic. This would allow the neighborhood to develop in the style
it has and it is a plan that we as neighbors would like to see built. We feel
what will happen to this property will carry over onto the Hamman site. Referred
to flooding in the area and that single homes can be built next to the railroad,
and an example of such are the homes north of Glenwood Avenue. Mr. Hamman,
6001 Glenwood Avenue, referred to how his property is divided-which has not been
approved by the City. Mr. LeBlanc; 225 Brunswick Ave. S. supports the plat for
single family lots over the present proposal . Concerned about flooding in this
area, A portion of the property has been filled by the Highway Department who
has removed silt from Highway 12 and the Railroad. P.U.D. has no public streets
and it does not insure control of the development. Single family is best far
this area. Mrs. Eiden, 345 Brunswick Ave. S. , stated they had met with the
developer and had agreed on single family lots and now the Planning Commission
will not consider this.
The Planning Commission reviewed the previous Planning Commission minutes regarding
this issue and informed the residents that the request before them for consideration
is a P.U.D. , not a plat of the property. The Gommission, however, did discuss
the King's Creek plat containing 40 lots, noting it was denied by the Planning
Commission in September of 1977 and by the Counci } in December 'of 1g77. The reason
for denial was that the plat failed to meet the platting requirements.
In discussing the P.U.D. the Commission still feels the best pian for this area
would be to include the Hamman property. In considering the concept of this P.U.D.
the density is within the P.U.D. Guidelines of the City Comprehensive Plan. IN
looking at a buffer adjacent to the railroad, single family dwellings on smaller
�r�r
Planning Commission
September 11 , 1978 pa�e 7
lots may make for a potential blighted are� in the future. H±�h qual ± ty low
density doubles are a better use through a P.U,D. by allowing a better loc�tion
for structures, landscaping, etc, In answer to the flood�ng question, the cievel�-
oper has to meet the standards of the Bassett Creek F1ood Control Commfissian.
The Commission felt that the quad units should be eliminated; however, the
density could remain the same. In discussing the streets, it was noted that the
street off Glenwood Avenue is public and the interior streets are not; therefore,
for maintenance and snowplowing the streets should aTl be publ �c. The Planning
Commission asked the developer if they had considered the purchase of the
Hamman property. Mr. Bast'ier indicated that, because of some legal problem, they
do not have an interest in the property. He also indicated that if the Planning
Commission expressed an interest in Platting the property versus P.U.D. , it
would contain 38 single family lots.
tt was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Herje, carried to recommend approva) of the
concept p}an as submitted for P.U.D. #16-A, subject to the following for general
plan review:
l . A traffic study
2. Hydrant location plan to be submitted to the City
3. Alternate emergency aecess located in the south area of the site
4. Require Bassetts Creek, Department of Natural Resources, and City
approval on the Flood Plain
5. A range of up to 50 units
6. Adhere to the City's housing policy
7. Developer to provide information for the staff to submit to the
Commission on the developer's PUD's that are presently constructed:
problems the home owner's association may have regarding street
maintenance, outside storage, etc. Ways in which these problems
have been reduced or e} iminated.
The motion carried with 4 members voting aye and 2 members voting nay.
In further direction to the developer, the Planning Commission indicated the
following with respect to future general plans:
a) Elimination of the four-plex would be desirable.
b) More ponding may be necessary
c) Individual design of units would improve diversity in appearance.
d) All streets in the proposal should be dedicated as a public street.
City should provide services like any other public street.
4. NORTH WiRTH PARKWAY AREA - HRA
Chair Sehlin informed the Planning Commission of a letter received from Mary Anderson,
Chair of the Housing Redevelopment Authority, asking to meet with the Planning
Commission on September 19 er 26, 1978 to review the proposal of the North Wirth
Parkway area.
Because of commitments, the Planning Commission members asked Chair Sehlin to
contact Mary Anderson to consider a different date than those mentioned above.
There being no firther business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
Jody Sehlin, Chair Mervyn Mindess, Secretary