09-25-78 PC Minutes ��
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 25, J978
A regular meeting of the Golden Ualley Planning Commission was held at 6:30 P.M.
on Monday, September 25, 1978 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Vice Chair Forster opened the meeting after which Chair Sehlin presided with the
following members present: Commissioners Eastes, Edstrom, Mindess and
Specktor. Also present was Jon Westlake, staff inember.
Members absent: Commissioners Herje, Hughes, and Polachek.
1 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The approval of the minutes was deferred to the
end of the Planning Commission meeting at which time it was MOVED by Forster,
seconded by Eastes, carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of the
August 28, 1978 Planning Commission meeting as amended as follows: Page 6,
Item 3, last two sentences of motion to read as follows, "Three members voted
aye and two members voted nay. The motion carried". Page 6, Item 4, last
two sentences of motion' to read as follows, °1Three members voted aye and two
members voted nay. The motion carried"'.
It was then MOVED by Forster, seconded by Eastes, carried unanimously, to approve
the minutes of the Sepfiember 11 , 1g78 Planning Commission meeting as amended
as follows: Page 7, third paragraph, remove ''the" and add the word "future"
before general . Item a) add to sentence "would be desirable". Item b) sentence
to read "More ponding may be necessary". Item c) sentence to read "Individual
design of units would improve diversity in appearance". Item d) sentence to
read "A11 streets in the proposal should be dedicated as a public street. City
should provide. . . . . . ."
2. NORTH WIRTH PARKWAY AREA - HRA
Review of Proposed Redevelopment Plan
Present for the request was Mary Anderson, Chair of HRA, Jeff Sweet, City Manager,
' Dana Young, Rdministrative Assistant, and Peter Dahm, from the planning firm of
Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc. Ms Anderson indicated the HRA has re-
viewed the proposal but they have not discussed the proposal for any finai
determihation. It was decided to receive the proposal and refer it to the
Planning Commission and therefore make the -process more open allowing the
Planning Commission to make more meaningful comments. The final changes in the
Plarr will be incorporated after the public hearing on the proposal . Along with
the Redevelopment Plan there will be a financial plan. (The financial plan
was to be handed aut at this meeting, but because of changes it was not ready.
It will be mailed to the Planning Commission members at a later date and should
be of interest.) The Council and the HRA are asking for the Planning Commission's
response on the Redevelopment Plan by October 3, 1978.
Jeff Sweet provided background and history of the area. In the early 1g70's at
the time the Comprehensive Plan was being prepared, this area was indicated as
suitable- for redevelopment. In October 1977 a proponent appeared before the
Council for certain variances (which was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals)
to improve the property. The Council at that time asked the staff to analyze
��
Planning Commission
September 25, 197$ page 2
the area and prepare a report-after which the Council felt it would be inapprop-
riate to grant tMe variances. The Council asked the staff to further study the
area-after which the Council decided to proceed with the option of a redevelopment
for the area. The Council at that time I�.� established a Housing Redevelopment
Authority. The firm of Rieke CarroTl Muller Associates, Inc. was hired in
June of 1978 to prepare a redevelopment plan.
Mr. Dahm then reviewed the Redevelopment Plan, which describes the existing
properties in the area, public utilities, transportation network within the area,
how the access from the area would function with Highway 55, why the area should
be redeveloped, benefits of redevelopment for the area, what changes in land use
are proposed, and types of businesses within the prescribed land uses. Mr. Dahm
then informed the Commission of current changes in the Plan.
In discussing the Redevelopment Plan the Commission noted the Plan is dated
September 18, 197$ pointing out if there are changes in the plan this is the copy
the Commission did review. The Planning Commission questianed that because of the
size of the community, will this proposal be properly done because of the involve-
ment in the Va11ey Square Redevelopment Plan? What is the City's process in
finding businesses interested in this area for development? What control does
the City have on the developer? The Planning Commission expressed concern about
the residents that will be displaced from this area because of the redevelopment.
The Gommission discussed that if the Humane Society intends to expand, could some
of the property from the office park or street Right of Way be taken equally from
the Railroad property to allow the expansion.
In diseussing the small retail area on the Redevelopment Plan, it was felt the
three retail uses as discussed do not fit in with the proposed redevelopment of
the area; therefore, it was questioned what would happen if one of retail uses
decides to remain and the other two re-tocate? The Commission discussed the
climate for office oriented use, noting a large portion of the redevelopment area
is indicated as such. The Commission then discussed the traffic patterns of the
area and placement of a semaphore at Highway 55. The Commission also discussed
the impact the semaphore may have on the area to the south of Highway 55•
It was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Forster, carried unanimously to recommend
the following with respect to the area north of Highway 55, east of Theodore Wirth
Parkway, and south and east of the Mp1s.North�ield& Southern Railroad:
1 . An important alternative to the North Wirth Parkway Redevelopment Plan
would be the original concept of residential use of all or most of the
land. The question of marketability of office space as proposed in the
next few years is of great concern. A diversified housing program in
the area would be a greater economic and social asset to the community.
II . In reaction to the plan submitted, the Planning Commission Offers the
following comments:
A) The Planning Commission considers �t to be improper land use to
have a small retail shopp-ing center` located in this area as proposed.
B) The railroad has not demonstrated any definite plans for current
use of the land they now own. Unless a plan for use in the near
future (within the time of redevelopment of the area is presented,
they should not be provided with land by the HRA for speculative
or long term investment purposes.
Planning Commission
September 25, 1978 �age 3
C) The Humane Society is an important asset to the community
should be provided with the aption of expansion if they
desire.
D) An extraordinary effort should be made to provide home owner
residents of the neighborhood with an equitable price for their
homes {i .e. , as was done for those on Rhode Island Avenue in
the Valley Square Plan) and relocation cvsts to assure their
ability to continue to live in our cornmunity.
E) Transportation �
l) There should be a signalized intersection at Highway 55,
preferably at lndiana Avenue.
2) [n reference to a detached service road on the west side
of Indiana, this shou}d be reviewed by a traffic consultant.
3) Consider diagonal for cul de sac from Meadow Lane on
$th Avenue North to Sunnyridge Lane.
4) In reference to the utilities, the Commiss+on noted the
current and proposed streets are within the same Right of
Way; however, where streets are to be vacated, easements
may have to be required for utilities.
5) With respect to the interior street pattern, the Commission's
comments are indicated in item E) 3.
b) In vacating France Avenue it provides for three improvements:
a) connects the area with Theodore Wirth by landscaping -
would greatly improve and add va1ue to the area.
b) would eliminate the ingress and egress problem of
France Avenue at Nighway 55•
c) provide for better utilization of land.
7) The redevelopment of North Wirth Parkway area should enhance
the value of the vacant parcel south of Highway 55 between
France Avenue and Meadow Lane.
F} It is the feeling of the Planning Commission that if homes are
removed from this redevelopment area, that the four homes north
of $th Avenue on Sunnyridge Lane must be included.
3• WAfVER OF THE PLATTING ORDINANCE
Applicant: Dr. Schut
Location: 434 Yosemite Ave. N. and Va11ey Wood Circle
Request: Divide Lot into Three (3) Parcels
Zoning: Residential
The request is to divide a large lot into three (3) parcels. The lot off Yosemite
contains the existing single family dwelling, and the two remaining parcels will
have frontage off Valley Wood Circle. All lots exceed .the square footage re-
quirements and meet or exceed the 100-foot frontage requirement at the 35-foot
setback line.
Dr. and Mrs. Schut were present for the request.
(t was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Specktor, carried unanimousty to recommend
approval of the lot division as per survey by Egan; Field & Nowak, Inc. dated
September 8, 1g78.
Planning Commission
September 25, 1978 page 4
(Commissioner Mindess left the meeting)
4. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL - TO RECOMMEND A ZONfNG ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH
OF GOLDEN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER AND EAST OF TURNERS CROSSROAD
Chair Sehlin referred to the June 5, 1978 Council minutes which ask the Planning
Commission to recommend a zoning on the property to the north of Golden Hills
Shopping Center and East of Turners Crossroad.
The following Planning Considerations were then reviewed:
1 . At the present time this parcel is vacant and zoned "Open Development''. The
site is bounded by Turners Crossrpad on the West, an alley on the South,
nursing home to the North, and an apartment complex to the East.
2. The City Comprehensive Plan indicates a potential for development of high
density multiple dwellings which would call for residential zoning.
3. The site is flat with a row of poplar trees along the south side. The trees
are not adequate screening for the adjacent cemmercial (rear of shopping center)
land use. Existing apartment� adjacent and to the east are poorly landscaped
and also highly exposed to view of adjacent commercial development. A nursing
home is adjacent to and north of the property in quesfiion. The site is long
and relatively narrow {150' x 505' ) . An 18 ft. wide alley is adjacent to the
site on the south; there are tentative plans ta eventually convert this alley
to a street in the future to help relieve traffic congestion at the semaphore
located at Highway l2 and Turners Crossroad. Single family housing along
Circle Down is of rather good quality. The site, then, is located in a
"transition area" between intense commercial to the south and low density
residential to the north.
4. Upon close examination, the site would not seem well suited for development
of multiple dwellings for the following reasons:
a) Practical limitations on building development due to the narrow shape which
may become even more narrow in the future if added right-of-way is required
for a new public street. It must be noted, however, that this narrQw width
will pose difficulties for � kind of building development.
b) The site is highly exposed to non-residential uses, activities, and sounds.
In many respects, it is highly undesirable ]ocation and environment for any
type of residential development. A somewhat similar adjacent site to the
east currently developed with apartments is existing evidence of the less
than desirable results which may be expected if the site is zoned for
multiple dwellings of any type.
c) Very close proximity to the adjacent nursing home (non-residential use) .
5. Proper land use for the site in question would caJl for zoning to accomodate
a good "transitional" use leading towards the high quality housing close by
to the north.
6. Zoning of the site for intense commercial use would not seem proper for the
following reasons:
a) Adverse affects upon both the nursing home and existing apartments to the
east which are already in a poor environmenta} situation.
b) Lot size and shape, practical limitations on building location, setbacks,
parking, access, loading and unloading, etc.
c) Further extension of potential adverse affects upon good housing located
along the north of Circle Down.
d) Further complication of an already complex and undesirable land use,
traffic, lot arrangement, general environment.
�� .
Planning Commission
September 25, 1978 pac�e 5
7. We conclude, then, that the site is not p�oper for residential nor hic�h
intensity comr�ercial development and activity. A proper use �hpuld be
that which is practical for private investment and also properly serving
as a "transitiona]" or "bu�Ffer" ]and use in the general public interest.
We would suggest the following as being suitable and proper land use
alternatives under existing conditions:
a) Expansion site for adjacent nursing home.
b) Zoning the land far uses permitted in the "Business and Profession�l
Offices"' Zaning District category. Such uses Qf a m+�re limited
intensity can be developed with some imaginative site ptanning
although it is still possible that scame setback variances may be
required for reasonable and practical development.
Howard Dahlgren of Howard Dahlgren � Associates, lnc. was present for the
request along with property owners af the p�rcel and the open comrriercial
property to the Southeast of this area. �Ir. Dahlgren informed the Commpssion
of a proposed road layout plan that will remave the small office building east
of Turners Crossroad and run parallel with the south property line takin� a
segment of the multiple property and thence running sc�uth alon� the easterly
border of the Tyrol West buiiding, He indicated they are wiiling to dedic�te
22' of Right of Way o�F the prpperties they own, including 7' off Turners
Crossroad, subject to certain variances dealing with parking, structure height,
and green areas for an office bui }ding Qn the parcel which is before the
Planning Commission for rezoning, There also wi11 be varian�e� on the existing
structure because of the proposed road, Mr. DahJgren referred to �n �c�t�eement
for further detail of the proposa} , copies of which were mailed to the
Planning Commission with the agenda material .
The Planning Commission in discussing the reque�t by the City Councjl fsar the
zoning of the open property informed Mr. Dahlc�ren th�t the tat�l prop�s�l
involves the City Council , Board of Zoning Appeals, and the t�innesota Highway
Department. The Planning Commission thanked the deve1oper for tnformin� them
of the total plan; however, the request is to respond to the Council as to the
land use of a parcel o�F land known as Park. The Commission then reviewed the
Planning Report, noting the current zoning on the abutting propertie� as
Institutional (1-3) tv the north, Multiple (M-1) to the east, and CQmmercial
to the south and west. Because of the zpnin� and current land use in the area,
it was felt an appropriate land use for the property in question wQUld be
Business � Professional Offices.
It was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Specktor, carried unanimously, t4
recommend to the City Council that, without regard to the pl�n presented, the
Planning Commission feels an appropriate land use �Qr the parcel entitled Park
would be Business & Professional Offices.
5• MEETING CANCELLATIQN - OCTOBER 9, 1978
Since the October 9, 197$ Planning Commission meeting falls on a holiday, the
Cammission cancelled the meeting. The next regularly scheduled meeting will
be held October 23, 1978.
..-.�f..� � �
3 ,
Planning Commission
September 25, 1978 page 6
There being no furthex business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
Jody Sehlin, Chair Mervyn Mindess, Secretary
NO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 9, 1978