01-22-01 PC Agenda
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, January 22,2001
7:00 P.M.
I. Approval of Minutes - November 27, 2000 Joint Meeting of the Golden Valley Environmental
Commission, Planning Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission; and December 11,
2000 and January 8, 2001 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meetings
II. Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan - Rudy Luther P.U.D. No. 91
Applicant:
Address:
Rudy Luther Toyota
8801 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN
Purpose: The P.U.D. would allow for a car dealership building addition, various site improvements,
and the temporary inclusion of an alternative school building
III. Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Plan Map Amendment
Applicant:
Address:
Hennepin County
Southeast corner of Madison Avenue West and Nevada Avenue North - property located
at 7155 Madison Avenue West, Golden Valley, MN
Purpose: The applicant is requesting to change the General Land Use Plan Map for the property
from Semi-Public Facilities to Industrial at the corner of Madison Avenue West and Nevada Avenue North
IV. Informal Public Hearing - Property Rezoning (Z014-05)
Applicant:
Address:
Purpose:
Hennepin County
Southeast corner of Madison Avenue West and Nevada Avenue North - property located
at 7155 Madison Avenue West, Golden Valley, MN
The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property from Institutional (1-3) to Industrial at
the corner of Madison Avenue West and Nevada Avenue North
-- Short Recess --
V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning
Appeals and other Meetings
VI. Other Business
Discussion of March 12, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
VII. Adjournment
'.
';v
.
.
.
Joint Meeting of the
Golden Valley Environmental Commission
Planning Commission and
Open Space and Recreation Commission
November 27, 2000
The joint meeting of the Golden Valley Environmental Commission, Planning
Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission was held at the Golden
Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley,
Minnesota on Monday, November 27,2000.
Environmental Commission
Present: Richard Baker, Nancy Burke, Alicia Brown, David Fellman, Sue
Hess, Alan Kuentz
Absent:
Dawn Hill
Plannina Commission
Present: Les Eck, Rick Groger, Kevin McAleese, Paula Pentel, Robert
Shaffer
Absent:
Jay Hoffman, Peggy Rasmussen
Open Space and Recreation Commission
Present: Chuck Cahill, Linda Loomis, Jerry Sandler, Jim Sicora, Jim
Vaughan, Tom Zins
Absent:
Liz Elder, Jim Johnson, Roger McConico
City
Representatives:
Mayor Mary E. Anderson; Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public
Works; Jeff Oliver, City Engineer; AI Lundstrom, Environmental
Coordinator; Deb Somers, Administrative Secretary
Guests:
Larry Sawyer, General Mills
Dick Nowlin, Lindquist & Vennum PLLP
Ron Peterson, Peterson Environmental Consulting Inc.
Jim DeLambert, Liesch Associates, Inc.
Ray Wuolo, Barr Engineering Company
Cynthia Drake, Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
I. Call to Order
Mayor Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Mayor announced that
there would be a time for commission members to ask questions after the presentation.
The presenters included Larry Sawyer, Dick Nowlin, Ron Peterson and Jim DeLambert.
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc
.
,,/
The purpose of the meeting is so the Commissions have an opportunity to hear from
the people who prepared the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and to
respond to questions from the Commissions. Then each Commission may deliberate
and decide if it wants to make a statement or recommendation to the Council as a
Commission or individually.
.
Pentel asked if the member's comments tonight were going to be recorded as
comments for the EAW. The Mayor informed all attendees that tonight is an
informational meeting only and that written comments should be submitted to the Public
Works Director during the comment period of December 11, 2000 to January 10, 2001.
II. Presentation by General Mills of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
for the Proposed Bassett Creek Nature Preserve
Mayor Anderson introduced Larry Sawyer of General Mills. Sawyer gave a brief
background of how the proposal evolved. He stated that approximately two years ago,
General Mills' management asked him if there was an alternative to abandoning their
once through cooling system in the year 2002 as required by law. Currently General
Mills has 7 wells, 4 at the headquarters complex and 3 at the James Ford Bell facility.
This question lead Sawyer to extensive research into the laws and Minnesota Statutes.
The Statutes provided that if General Mills created a nature preserve, they could
continue to use their once through cooling system.
.
With this information, General Mills sat down with the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) to discuss a nature preserve. The discussion included mediation, which resulted
in the parties going to court. The judge's decision was in favor of General Mills. The
DNR did not appeal this decision. General Mills believes the proposed Bassett Creek
Nature Preserve will benefit the community.
Sawyer introduced Dick Nowlin, an attorney with Lindquist & Vennum, representing
General Mills. Nowlin discussed the EAW and the project approval process, a structure
for the proposed non-profit organization that would manage the Bassett Creek Nature
Preserve and some of the legal background regarding the Statutes.
The Non-Profit Structure
Nowlin explained that if this project is approved, the land would be conveyed to a non-
profit, tax-exempt organization. The Statutes require that both General Mills and the
City of Golden Valley be members of this organization. The organization will take the
concept plan described in the EAW to a final plan document. The number of square
feet to be included in this proposal is an estimate based on the concept plan.
After it is organized, the non-profit entity will receive the land and control how the
development occurs. It will try to receive funds over and above the commitment by
General Mills. It is estimated that this funding will take up to two years to obtain.
.
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc
2
.
EAW Process
Nowlin continued by explaining that the EAW process is an information development
process. The purpose of the EAW is to provide good, solid, accurate information about
the project; to publish notice of the EAW's availability; to have a 30-day comment
period immediately following publication in the State Register. The comment period is
to begin no earlier than December 11, 2000. Written comments will be accepted by the
City. The City, as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) will take these comments
and prepare responses for Council consideration. The Council then determines
whether or not the project causes enough significant impact on the environment to
warrant further study. If not, the Council adopts a Negative Declaration on the need for
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If the Council feels there is significant
environmental impact, it can authorize preparation of an EIS. The City Council has
scheduled a meeting on January 16, 2001 to make this decision.
Next is the review process, which consists of plan submission and agency review to
obtain the necessary governmental approvals. This involves permitting from the Corp
of Engineers, City approval of concept plan refinements, rezoning, authorizing a nature
preserve use at the location and review by the Bassett Creek Water Management
Commission (BCWMC).
.
Additional steps that are required include land/easement conveyance, project funding
and project implementation. It may be a minimum of two years before the construction
can begin.
Legal Background/Statutes
Nowlin explained that an exception has been created by the legislature for termination
of the once through cooling permit authorization. The court had to decide whether or
not General Mills met the requirements for a variance or exception, or whether a permit
from the DNR was required for the water appropriation and modification. The court and
legislature have said that the idea of creating a nature preserve is a higher priority use
than just a once through cooling system. A judgment was handed down in favor of
General Mills. The court determination is not an authorization for General Mills to build
the nature preserve. This can only happen if General Mills and the City of Golden
Valley ultimately agree to meet the statutory provisions for this qualified exception.
The statutory provisions state that General Mills must create a nature preserve and
spend two times the amount of converting the once through system on the development
of the nature preserve. It must designate a non-profit corporation to manage the
preserve and allow public use. The lawsuit does not mean this nature preserve is
approved.
Nowlin continued to say that General Mills would not need to apply for a water
appropriation permit or a permit amendment. General Mills does have a water
.
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes 112700.doc
3
appropriation permit that was issued in 1992, which allows the use of up to '600 million .
gallons per year, withdrawn from the Jordan Aquifer for its campus. Part ofj that can be
used for the once through cooling system and part is used for domestic purposes.
There is no requirement for General Mills, under the statutes, to get an am~ndment to
that permit.' i
The DNR has the authority to suspend and/or stop General Mills' use of the ground
water in an emergency. If the DNR believes that emergency conditions exist which
warrant a discontinuation of pumping, it can require General Mills to turn off its cooling
system. The existing permit is not an automatic or permanent grant to General Mills for
use of this water. If the nature preserve is constructed, the DNR, under constitutional
law, could go to the legislature and pass an amortization statute, which either has a
gradual termination of this use or provides compensation to General Mills for switching
over to another use.
Ron Peterson of Peterson Environmental Consulting Inc. spoke regarding the concept
plan. The Plan provides for:
· Restoration of the Bassett Creek channel to its historic meanders.
· Establishment of sedge meadow wetland and native plants.
· Screening parts of the area with trees.
· Increase flood storage area where possible.
· Outside of the preserve, an active recreation space. .
· No special wildlife concerns. The Natural Heritage and Non-Game Research
program at the DNR has indicated that Blandings' turtles have been reported in
the area in the past. However, Mr. Peterson indicated that he did not believe
that the site was suitable habitat for such species.
Jim DeLambert, Hydrogeologist for Liesch Associates Inc. provided information
regarding the Prairie du Chien/Jordan Aquifer, the source of water used for the once
through cooling system. The aquifer is:
. An artisan aquifer system.
. 465 feet deep.
· The largest source of groundwater in the metro area.
· Providing 124 billion gallons of water per year in the 5 county metropolitan area
under existing authorizations.
· Actual usage over the past ten years varies between 56-80 billion gallons per
year by various municipalities.
· 61 billion gallons are used for non-municipal uses.
General Mills intends to use approximately 0.35 billion gallons per year for its once
through cooling system.
The DNR does monitor water levels in the Jordan and other aquifers. DeLambert .
reviewed the DNR aquifer monitoring charts located in the EAW. As western suburbs
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 4
.
.
.
expand, most are relying on ground water and most will be using the Prairie du
Chien/Jordan Aquifer for their municipal water supplies.
Based on the depth of the aquifer, the depth of the wells and the casing depth, there is
basically about 200 feet of board free, or water standing in the wells to work with. A
one-foot change is approximately one-half of a percent of what is available to a well.
This is not enough demand to raise concerns over effects on other ground water usage.
In short, based on the history of pumping and what is being proposed, which is more or
less a continuation of the status quo, Mr. DeLambert indicated that he does not
anticipate any problems at other points of groundwater use or regional impacts on the
aquifer due to this proposal.
III. Questions
Pentel asked if the land is a part of the cost for General Mills to change from a once
through cooling system to a different system? How much money are we talking about?
What are the financial implications for the City compared to the long-term maintenance?
Nowlin responded that the statutes require that the expenditure for the development of
the nature preserve be two times the cost of converting the well field and cooling
system to a more efficient alternative use. The judge said that the number to be used is
the 1.5 million estimate of conversion costs in 1992. The total expenditure has to
exceed 3.5 million dollars. The judge also stated that the value of the land being
contributed by General Mills would be considered in reaching that determination.
Sawyer indicated that the land is currently zoned as Commercial/Industrial in downtown
Golden Valley, which is worth approximately $5.6 million. Of that General Mills has
pledged $1,000,000 upfront to start the project. In addition, over the next ten years,
General Mills has pledged $500,000 to develop the property, so it is not a burden on
Golden Valley.
Mayor Anderson stated that the City discussions regarding funding have been primarily
at the staff level. The Council is aware of what staff is planning and what the City might
contribute if this plan should go forward. Otherwise there has been no definitive
discussion about this at all.
Pentel asked how much the plan shown tonight would cost?
Mayor Anderson stated the Commissions might be able to get a more definitive answer
from the staff that has been working on it.
Baker asked if there has been an attempt to put a value on the land at its open space
value rather than its commercial value.
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc
5
Nowlin stated that the appraisal values the wetland, which is a large portion of the land,
at a much reduced rate. It does not take into consideration the preserve as a use, but it .
does take into consideration natural conditions.
Sawyer replied that the rate is $0.75 per sq. ft. for the wet area versus best land, or dry
area, at $8.00 per sq. ft.
Fellman asked what is the size of the property being proposed?
Sawyer responded that he took his numbers off the appraisal done at the time General
Mills decided to sell the property.
Fellman asked if the official number he found is 1,100,000 square feet, which divides
out to 23.19 acres less the creek bed.
Nowlin replied that an accurate survey of the property would be provided in connection
with the conveyance.
Brown stated that the EAW is a preliminary document and using estimates is
acceptable.
Hess stated that she did not know much about once through cooling systems. Today
she called an administrator of a water utility and briefly explained the proposal. The .
administrator asked if General Mills had a DNR permit. She said that if they have
permit, she could be assured that everything was taken care of. Is it fair to conclude
that because the DNR has such strict criteria, General Mills would not be able to get a
permit or an amendment?
Sawyer responded that the statutes state that if General Mills complies with certain
requirements, the new permit time regulations do not apply. The provision of the law
that terminates General Mills permit does not apply if it puts together a nature preserve
with the City of Golden Valley.
General Mills has a permit for 487.5 million gallons of water. At one time General Mills
drew up to 630 million gallons of water. Through conservation efforts, that number has
been brought down to where they are now. The judge agreed that General Mills does
have a valid permit to draw 487.5 million gallons of water.
Eck asked what General Mills motivation is for doing this if it is going cost twice as
much money to do this project as it would to convert their system?
Sawyer stated that General Mills is frugal. They have seven very good wells that they
think someone is going to want some place down the road. If General Mills does
change their system, they will cap the wells. General Mills made a conscious choice to
build a nature preserve. The once through cooling system is more efficient energy use .
wise.
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 6
. Eck clarified that disregarding the cost of the two possibilities, the ongoing operation of
the system is much more economical with the once through cooling method than it is
with an alternative method.
Sawyer stated that the once through system is not a lot more economical. He stated
that General Mills pays a considerable amount for the water but in terms of the quality
of the system it is clearly superior to an air-cooled system.
Eck queried about "the quality of the system".
Sawyer replied that the cooling medium for a cooling tower when it is 95 degrees is 95-
degree air. The cooling medium for a once through cooling system is 50-55 degree
water. The starting point on an air-cooling system is much less than on an air
conditioner system. The once through is a very good cooling system.
Loomis stated that it is her understanding that there are three wells at the James Ford
Bell Center and that facility has been converted.
Sawyer responded yes.
Loomis asked if those wells are still open and not capped?
. Sawyer responded yes.
Loomis asked if General Mills has looked into a closed loop system as opposed to the
once through system? She stated that General Mills would get the same advantage of
the water flowing through the ground to cool the water to 55 degrees.
Sawyer stated that he could not answer that.
Kuentz questioned Ron Peterson as to whether he has much experience converting
sedge meadows?
Peterson replied yes. He indicated that his firm has dealt with wetland restoration!
conversion projects for all kinds of wetlands. Going both ways, from sedge meadow
systems to forestry systems and vice a versa.
Burke asked if the wetlands that are being proposed for mitigation are going to be
restored?
Peterson replied that that is an open question at this point. He stated that a lot of the
wetland on this site has been degraded by drainage and filling. Most likely some of it is
not wetland anymore. It still has hydric soils and a lot of the tree species that have
come in are characteristic of wetlands that have been drained or altered.
.
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc
7
Clancy stated that, if built, the nature preserve would be under the ownership of a non-
profit organization, which would likely control the wetland credits.
.
Sawyer added that the credits will be sold and the proceeds would be directed back into
the nature preserve.
Burke asked if this non-profit organization would take title to the land.
Nowlin stated that there would undoubtedly be a need for a Phase I Environmental
Assessment to be performed, perhaps even a Phase II. He does not believe there is
any substance or waste disposal activity that could result in an environmental condition
creating a problem, but he does not know. An agreement may be developed between
General Mills and the non-profit organization prior to getting governmental
authorization. Questions such as the sale or credit would be addressed in that
document.
Groger asked about the City's potential use of the wells. General Mills states it has
offered the use the wells as a backup to the City's water system. How often, if ever, is it
anticipated that the City would actually tap into the wells and under what conditions?
Would there be any substantial cost to the City in terms of connecting to the General
Mills system? .
Clancy replied that about three years ago the Joint Water Commission (JWC) identified
the wells as a potential back up in the Comprehensive Water Supply Plan. It is
important to note that currently the City has a contract with the City of Minneapolis that
does not allow the JWC to accept water from any other sources. That contract has
expired and the JWC are starting to re-negotiate with Minneapolis. The City would like
the wells to remain as an option at this point in the discussions with Minneapolis.
.
Sawyer added that internally, General Mills has done the engineering and in the event
of an emergency, it thinks it could give the City as much water that could be sent down
a 16" pipe. General Mills could back pump from the well on the line they have with the
City.
Vaughan directed his question to Mr. Peterson. It says in the EAW that the
temperature of the discharged water is going to increase two degrees during the
summer months. What kind of effect does that have on Bassett Creek?
Peterson replied that he has tried to find some good solid temperature data on Bassett
Creek. One of the aspects of the whole restoration design includes some monitoring of
the existing temperature versus just an estimate, which may be lower or it may be
somewhat higher. This is a warm water stream and it is not suitable for a lot of aquatic
life. The temperature issue is something that needs to be explored further.
Pentel stated that she looked in her book on stream restoration today. The society for .
ecological restoration has as its definition, the process of intentionally altering a site to ·
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 8
.
establish and define a historical ecosystem. Changing the meander of this creek will
allow it to naturally re-meander, as creeks want to do. In the documents, it states that
currently there are no fish to speak of in the creek, so this does not necessarily involve
aquatic life. Pentel asked the presenters to please describe what ecologically will be
done better, differently in what I see as a linear patch, which is a harder ecosystem,
unless it is connected well, this cannot necessarily be connected well.
Peterson replied that as restoration projects go, this would not be an easy one. There
will be ongoing maintenance involved in this. Most of the restoration. projects have had
plant and community components similar to this. There are areas of reed canary grass
and purple loosestrife. Once the reed canary grass is eliminated, a prescribed mixture
of native plants would be planted. Then, during the maintenance phase, evasive plants
are kept out.
Peterson explained that there would need to be a decision about the alignment of the
stream bank. This would need to be explored in more detail with the BCWMC.
Fellman asked where the number 1200 gallons per minute (GPM) came from? He
stated that the correct number is 3700 GPM. He went on to state that there is no
mention of flooding and the official stormwater management plan shows this as an area
that floods. Fellman asked what is the relationship between the discharge of 3300
GPM at times of high water such as when Brookview Golf Course is under water and
General Mills is discharging 3300 gallons? Is there an impact on the surrounding
community?
.
DeLambert replied that he cannot answer the flooding question. The model referenced
by Fellman was prepared by the Hennepin Conservation District in 1997 and is not
something created specifically in support of this project.
DeLambert also stated that the 1200 GPM was derived by taking the annual maximum
volume and dividing it by 365 days and 1440 minutes. With 630 million gallons per year
and annual appropriation it calculates to approximately 1200. That is basically a
standard procedure to account for variations in pumping.
Oliver responded that the EAW it discusses the impact on flood level. During peak
flows of the creek, when this area is flooded, the total increase on the flood stage is
approximately .04 of an inch. Oliver suggested that this makes sense given the volume
that is discharging during flood conditions.
Oliver continued by stating that this area does flood, and is a designated flood plain.
The vast majority of the Brookview Golf Course is also flood plain, as are areas on the
north side of Highway 55 to the Wisconsin Avenue control structure. The City is
currently developing plans to modify the flood control structure at Wisconsin Avenue to
lessen the duration of the peak flood in areas upstream of the Wisconsin Avenue
control structure.
.
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc
9
Fellman asked if the 3300 GPM that discharges at peak times has an impact in
flooding?
.
Oliver replied that it is considerably less than one inch, hundredths of an inch is his
recollection.
Fellman asked where would that be? Would that be a Brookview Golf Course or the
Mississippi River?
Oliver responded that the elevation would be measured on the flood plain in this
location.
Loomis stated that she assumed that the reason some of the natural meanders in the
creek were removed was because the water would flow faster from upstream locations.
How will restoring the meanders affect the flooding? She stated that the City is
considering doing pavement management in that area. How will stormwater ponds be
dealt with?
Peterson replied that the channelization of the creek had a lot to do with agriculture,
which was the use the land was in at the time. The impacts of the meanders would be
reviewed with the BCWMC to ensure that the project is consistent with the objectives of
the Commission.
Clancy stated that, with respect to the pavement management program, the first open .
house was held a month ago. Staff talked with the residents about any localized
flooding problems. Staff is in the concept phase of plan development and options for
flood storage will be reviewed.
Hess asked what conservation efforts that General Mills has made. She recalled
reference to usage of 600-700 million gallons of water for the once through cooling
system and now it is about 300 million gallons per year.
Sawyer clarified the current use as 265 million gallons per year.
Hess inquired about a reference to installing cooling coils. She asked if there was a
possibility of installing more cooling coils and using less water?
Sawyer replied that a true once through cooling system exists in the main general
office. It is essentially drawing water out of the ground and running it through the
radiators without running it through chillers. If General Mills pulled that system out and
put a chiller in, there would be a savings of 90 million gallons a year.
Hess confirmed that the new plant would have chillers built in and everything operating
to full capacity.
Baker asked about the circumstances under which the DNR could revoke the permit. .
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc 10
.
.
.
Nowlin stated that there are two statutory provisions that specifically authorize the DNR
commissioner to terminate the amount of aquifer withdrawal. One related to the aquifer
specifically. The other is more general. There are rules on that topic. Nowlin stated
that he could not say how emergency is defined or know how its been used in the past.
Baker inquired about the cost of creating wells like this.
Wuolo replied that in this portion of the Jordan, a well in the metro area would probably
cost between $150,000-$200,000 to develop.
Baker asked Peterson about his specific experience with sedge meadow restoration.
Peterson stated that the person who would be designing this has had quite a bit of
involvement in sedge meadow restoration.
Fellman stated that there is a monitoring well on site near the condominium units.
Fellman asked what General Mills was monitoring? Where is the 1996 study by Barr
Engineering for General Mills that Sawyer referred to at an earlier meeting? Sawyer
referred to it and said there is no environmental impact from pumping the water.
Fellman questioned where he could obtain that report.
Sawyer explained that there are seven monitoring wells on the property. They are
pieziometer wells.
Wuolo stated that the pieziometers are designed to monitor not water quality but the
water levels. A lot of times they are put in for pumping test wells or determining the
capacity of wells.
Oliver stated that these pieziometer well were installed recently in association with the
North Office building in that area to help delineate the wetlands.
Fellman asked about the 1996 study done by Barr Engineering. Where is that study
and is it a public document?
Mayor Anderson asked Sawyer to respond to Mr. Fellman, if possible.
Burke stated that she felt that General Mills has other property in Golden Valley that is
more amendable to being a preserve. How did General Mills decide on this property
versus other property that is a nature preserve?
Sawyer responded that the site selected met the criteria in the statute. General Mills'
water is currently going into that area.
Sandler stated that he was curious about the change of chlorine concentration of the
water and how it was resolved.
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes 112700.doc
11
Sawyer replied that the Department of Health came to General Mills and said that the .
chlorination levels that General Mills had were not high enough for domestic use.
Therefore, General Mills raised the chlorine level to meet the Department of Health
requirements.
Sawyer continued by stating that after raising the chlorine levels, General Mills was
informed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) that the levels were too
high for discharge into the creek. The levels were adjusted down to meet the MPCA
permit requirements. In the file, clearly General Mills was in violation as the levels were
too high. This was for a relatively short period of time.
Kuentz asked if chlorine was the only chemical that is added to the water.
Sawyer replied that there is a chemical added to prohibit fungus from growing inside the
pipes.
Kuentz asked for the name of that chemical.
Sawyer replied that he could get the name of the approved chemical that goes in at
very low levels.
Kuentz asked if the levels are low enough to not have an impact?
.
Sawyer stated that it falls within the permit guidelines.
Loomis inquired about the depth of the wells and whether deeper wells have been
drilled.
Sawyer stated that he did not believe General Mills has had to drill deeper wells.
DeLambert added that the four Prairie du Chien/Jordan wells that are part of this
proposal range from 455-475 feet deep.
Eck asked about the thickness of the aquifer.
DeLambert responded that it is 465 feet at the bottom of the Jordan sandstone. The
upper portion is constructed with about 260-275 feet of casing. The casing is actually
into the limestone but there is approximately 200 feet exposed.
Shaffer inquired about proposed property limits. Will the new ownership of the preserve
own where the creek is meandering? In that case, would the boundaries follow the
meander or would it be an easement?
Sawyer stated that the Bassett Creek Nature Preserve would own that land on the left-
hand side of the Exhibit C map. South of the condominium site (down the middle) is an .
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc
12
.
.
.
easement. There is a permanent easement on the south side of the creek. The
meander of the creek on the north side would basically follow that wetland line.
Shaffer asked if the area between the General Mills' facility and north facility would also
be included?
Sawyer replied in the affirmative.
Sandler stated that early on in the discussions there was talk about putting a road
through to create an alternative to the service road past KARE 11. Is that something
being considered? Have there been any thoughts to the type of active recreational
area to be built?
Clancy replied that this neighborhood was scheduled for pavement management last
year. When General Mills came to the City about this proposal, the pavement
management project was delayed for one year.
Clancy indicated that during the first open house last year, staff heard from some
residents that there were difficulties getting out of this neighborhood. Staff thought
about different opportunities to access the preserve as well as accessing the
neighborhood. Staff took 4-5 of those potential access points to the first open house
that was held with the neighborhood. The neighborhood's feedback indicates that they
seem to want things left as they are in terms of access at this point.
Fellman referred to a handout given at the open house and asked if General Mills is
creating any environmental harm.
Sawyer responded that they had asked the known experts whether or not they thought
this groundwater cooling system would create environmental harm. Nobody came back
and said this was going to have any environmental impact. The bottom line for the
company was that if General Mills ever thought there was going to be any
environmental harm, they would have never progressed to the point it is at.
Loomis asked if there would be any problem with putting shutoff valves on the outlets.
Could the water be kept in the General Mills ponds until such time that flooding
downstream subsides?
Sawyer stated that the ponds on the south side of their building were created at the
request of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT). These are flood
storage ponds and General Mills' water, on a secondary basis, goes into those ponds.
The pond on the backside goes by what the conditions are. General Mills has
substantial flood storage provisions on its property, which are there to meet the needs
of the State. Sawyer indicated that he did not think MNDOT would want the pond on
the backside shut off.
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc
13
Loomis asked if MNDOT created that pond with the idea that it is going to drain into
Bassett Creek?
.
Sawyer replied yes. Three ponds are linked together on the south side and go
underneath the road into their culvert and into Bassett Creek.
Oliver added that these are also rate control ponds designed to incorporate the General
Mills' campus, as well as runoff from Highway 1-394.
Baker stated that the DNR and General Mills have valued the conversion costs
anywhere from $347,000 (DNR's estimate) to $1.5 million (General Mills' estimate).
The judge has determined the value to be $1.5 million. Baker asked what is the
comparable value of the mitigation, the value of the preserve? How is a value placed
on the preserve?
Nowlin stated that the way to value the preserve is by pricing other passive recreational
facilities that have been recently created in the metropolitan area, particularly in the
center of a first ring suburb. Nowlin stated an example is the Swede Hollow project in
St. Paul. This area will involve about 15 acres of very polluted land. The neighborhood
community and the City and County have been trying to assemble $1.5 million to get
that land from the railroad. The railroad would also make substantial contribution in
value to establish that park if it were ever to happen.
Baker stated that this site is bounded by two six-lane highways. As a nature preserve,
it's a reach.
.
Mayor Anderson indicated that while the proponents would try to answer as best they
can, they might not convince you. Do not expect necessarily to have all the answers
satisfied.
Baker asked about the James Ford Bell property and how many people use it.
Sawyer stated that he had no idea.
Baker stated that, as a wooded upland, it must be enormous value in terms of any way
you look at it.
Brown asked if that area is zoned commercial? Has anything like that been proposed
by General Mills or is it being set aside to be a nature area?
Sawyer responded that it is zoned Commercial/Industrial. There are ten acres up in the
northwest corner, which is about the minimum size of a development.
Pentel asked at what point this will remain as undeveloped because it is in a flood
plain?
.
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc
14
..
.
.
.
Sawyer explained that some of the property is not in a flood plain.
Pentel referred to page 19 of the EAW, under Impact on Educational and Recreational
Facilities. It states that this would provide an opportunity for the study of natural
resources that is not currently available within the community. She asked for a
description of just what is going to be studied here versus at the Westwood Nature
Center or Eloise Baker?
Nowlin stated that the comment is based on City jurisdiction to a degree.
Mayor Anderson stated that this is at the concept level, not design level, but the City is
working with the school district and working with park and recreation. The Mayor stated
that no specifics have been discussed to her knowledge.
Pentel commented that the proposal seems as less of an ecological restoration and
more as a way to fulfill the language of the law, which would then allow General Mills to
keep the once through system.
Loomis asked where this aquifer is recharging locally.
DeLambert responded that this aquifer thins as you move to the west and shortly after
where that one diagram was located, it is gone. The recharge occurs from rainfall and
infiltrating basically everywhere between here and there. To some extent, going further
to the east as well, but at some point there is pressure from below, forcing the water up
to the river, which is the discharge zone.
Loomis confirmed that there is not one general area that recharges more than any
other.
DeLambert stated that locally there are some big variations in the rate of recharge, but
it is not a pinpoint like the more deeply buried aquifers that are really sealed up, only
recharge on their edges. The overlying formations tend to store water and it leaches
down to it.
Loomis asked if there is knowledge about the fill that has been placed on the site.
Peterson stated that the majority of the fill in this site is most likely side cast hydric soils
from when wetlands were filled when the freeways were built. It is possible that the
upland area on this site is old wetland soil that has been piled on top of other wetlands
to create upland. Some of that fill is just material that was excavated when the creek
was channelized, was side casted.
Loomis wondered if there is asphalt in there.
Peterson stated that there is no information suggesting that asphalt or construction
debris is buried at the site.
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc
15
Loomis asked what guarantees does the City have that General Mills will allow the DNR .
permit to be terminated, if necessary, and not just take the DNR to court.
Nowlin replied that General Mills, like any other water user or user of the Prairie du
Chien, wants to be treated equitably with authorization relating to use.
Loomis asked what level of proof General Mills is going to want from the DNR that there
is an emergency condition existing.
Nowlin stated that the DNR likely would not direct its activities or attention on
emergency conditions to General Mills.
DeLambert advised that there are two conditions that he is aware of that can occur and
have occurred in different places around the state. One being where the aquifer goes
through a conversion. For this type of aquifer that would mean that this water level
would have to drop below the top of the aquifer. We have seen on that one graph that
water levels have to drop 20 or 30 feet at Lake Minnetonka. These levels would have
to drop another couple of hundred feet in order for an emergency to happen.
DeLambert continued by stating that the other situation would be if the governor would
declare a water emergency. That would give the DNR a broad authority to step in and
really cut down on non-essential uses of water. This situation has happened in sand .
plain areas, such as Becker and Big Lake, and where there is a lot of irrigation.
Fellman stated that the City of Golden Valley is telling residents to shut off the water
while they are brushing their teeth on cable television. How is being a partner in this
use of once through cooling consistent with telling the residents that they have to shut
off the water while they are brushing their teeth?
Fellman asked about going ahead with General Mills' proposal but limiting the use to
the design life of the equipment and then quitting. That would be a major compromise
from the City and everybody would get what is wants, instead of doing this forever.
Mayor Anderson advised that the City is in the process of evaluating this proposal and
she does not know whether the Council will approve or disapprove, therefore she could
not answer Fellman's first question.
Mayor Anderson thanked all the Commission members for being at tonight's meeting
and for the very thoughtful and interesting questions they asked. She explained that if
any Commission, during its deliberation process, feels it would like additional resources,
they should let their staff person know so that those resources can be made available
to the Commission.
Mayor Anderson went on to state that there were several informational pieces
requested tonight that need to be looked up or checked on. She hopes that will be .
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes 112700.doc 16
.
.
.
.
done soon so that all Commissions have the information in time to do their
deliberations. If it is not received, please ask for it.
Clancy stated that the comment period is intended to be from December 11, 2000
through January 10, 2001. The public hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 16,
2001.
IV. Adiourn
The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Deb Somers
Administrative Secretary
Department of Public Works
G:\Environmental Commission\Minutes\ECMinutes112700.doc
17
,
.
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 11 , 2000
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council
Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, December 11,
2000. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:35 P,M.
Chair Pentel stated that the propos
misnomer and asked how others
Grimes stated that it was the frst
leese, Rasmussen
s and City Planner
Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Grogert Ho
and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Developme
Dan Olson
I. Approval of Minutes for November 13, 2000
Commissioner Eck stated the third sentence on page 9, in t
word "only" should be struck and the word economical
used incorrectly throughout and should be changed.
aragraph, was not correct. The
conomic. Also, The word "to" was
MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by McAleese
13, 2000 minutes as amended.
led unanimously to approve the November
.
Discussion on Environmental
orksheet - Bassett Creek Nature Preserve
reserve on the General Mill property is a bit of a
t It, and whether the Commission should make a statement.
e comment period.
Shaffer asked about the .
with comments or just try'
the Planning Commi
discussion and whether the commission was trying to come up
uss it. Pentel stated that it's open for discussion. Grimes stated that
ke a comment as a group or they can individually make comments.
ents of the group are limited to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
under the Comprehensive Plan.
Pentel stated that because the Commission is the keeper of the Comprehensive Plan, we have every
right to talk about it as a land use matter.
McAleese stated that it would come before the Commission because it has to be rezoned to institutional
in order to be used as a nature center. It is currently zoned business/professional office. Grimes stated
that the comments on the EAW have to be directed at the EAW itself. McAleese stated that if as a
commission we thought that rezoning that land would be inappropriate, the time to address that would
be at the later meeting when the City has an application for rezoning.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 11, 2000
Page 2
,
i
.
Pentel stated there is some confusion about the size of the nature preserve presented in the EAW. The
EAW states that it is 27 acres. Pentel stated that the EAW indicated there are 14 acres of nature
preserve and 10 acres of upland area that could be used for a ball field.
Pentel is concerne
know the cost of the
tinuing to use ground
water should be
peration of a nature
eral Mills to
that allows for the
There was a general discussion about the appropriateness of General Mill
water for the cooling of their buildings when the State has said such use
phased out. There was also discussion about the long-run cost to the
preserve and recreation facility on property given to the City (or no
compensate for the use of groundwater. The Commission went t
continuation of using groundwater for once-through cooling by
Groger stated he felt that the donation of the property to th
City because it will leave permanent green space. He
a good trade-off for the continuation of once-through
donation of land for a nature area is a good deal for t
ther non-profit is a benefit to the
e s that this green space donation is
General Mills. Schaffer agreed that the
Pentel questioned the usefulness of the prop
small size. She is concerned that the area
public will be able to see at a nature cen
aquatic life because it is too warm due t
She also said it is a difficult area to
rea due to its location near housing and its
VI e good wildlife habitat and wonders what the
s . She said the creek now is not fit for most .
ce-through cooling water that is run-off to the creek.
the existing road configuration.
Grimes said that only about 5-7 a
office building of 200,000-30
issues. Schaffer noted th a
with poor access.
he property is high enough for development. Perhaps an
ould be built on this property. However, there are access
a or park is better suited at this location than an office building
st of operating a nature preserve in the long term. She would like to
d lake Nature Preserve in St. Louis Park.
There was discu . n ut the effect of restoring the creek to its original route on flooding upstream.
oding on property owners to the east or west?
Eck said that there would be continued concern by the state about using groundwater for once-through
cooling, even after General Mills is approved by the state to continue the practice. The state could ban
such a use in upcoming years if the aquifer is going down too fast. If this is the case, the state would
end the use of groundwater for once-through cooling and the City would get to keep the nature area.
This is a benefit to the City.
Pentel stated that she felt it was important for the City to not allow this continuation of once-through .
cooling and that there will be public pressure for General Mills to not use groundwater for such a use.
; Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
~ember 11, 2000
.e3
Schaffer said that he believes that in the long run, General Mills will convert all their buildings to an air
conditioning system that does not use groundwater, because it will be more cost effective.
After some further discussion, McAleese stated that it did not appear that there was a specific position
of the Planning Commission regarding once-through cooling that could be rded to the City Council.
There may be individual comments.
III.
of an emergency.
used. Generally
ation, and content. It was
There was discussion about the use of the General Mills wells for C'
Also, the Commission talked about how much such a nature pres
speaking, the Commission felt it would not be heavily used due
agreed that the green space would be a benefit to the City.
Reports on Meetings of the Housing and R
Appeals and other Meetings
Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning
'ntel stated she was at the Council mee .
of those things passed. Honeywell d'
there will be sidewalks all the way to
Meadowbrook. Pentel stated the
discussion about how we treat thi
they realized that with the PI i
want to be the ones to go one
to see if they could get t r
with us and come up with c
developments.
t they looked at Meadowbrook and Honeywell and
put sidewalks in, but the council held firm and
gue field. Groger asked what happened with
t off by saying she realized there needs to be a
infill development in light of what the housing plan says and
ission unanimously saying no and staff saying yes, they didn't
other. There was a public hearing but the decision was made
nt to ask for a 60 day extension so they could have this discussion
at could be applied more uniformly when we see these sorts of
eaning on the council regarding Golden Meadows. Pentel stated she
r there was a leaning . Groger stated it was the Mayor picking out all the
pieces of the hous n that are in favor of the development and not the ones in favor of protecting
existing neighborhoods, he certainly detected some leaning. Rasmussen stated that there really is a
tension in this discussion between our tendency to want affordable housing and higher density and then
we come up against a neighborhood situation like this. Grimes stated that it comes up every time.
McAleese stated that a lot of plans get approved and this was just a lousy plan. Shaffer stated it started
out worse and got a little better. McAleese stated that it really wasn't even a coordinated design you've
got homes on Winnetka and they're not doing anything to those. Shaffer stated at the last meeting they
used the house that they built on their property as a hardship against their own property. Rasmussen
asked if there was any threatened legal action. Chair Pentel stated no and that the Council will do what
~y want at the January meeting. Hoffman questioned what will happen if the Council doesn't vote on
T
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 11. 2000
Page 4
..
.
.
Rasmussen stated the Sheriffs site group is coming to a consensus. They want between 9-12 units.
Olson stated the meeting in early February is going to be a neighborhood meeting and before that, an
architect is going to draw up some plans. Pentel asked if there was any talk about Habitat. Olson
stated there is some talk of Habitat and that 2 people are coming to their meeting in January to talk
about it. Rasmussen stated the trees will be preserved and that the facilita . doing a very nice job.
Olson stated the consensus is that they will preserve the north woods a of trees saved on the
East Side and trails that would connect with all the trails in the area.
IV. Other Business
h om March 10 through the 14.
Olson stated that staff would need
Olson stated the National APA Conference in New Orleans is b
Grimes stated that there is $2,000 in the budget for someofli~
the early registration form by January 5.
V. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20
.
.
.
'I
.
Minutes
Joint Meeting
of the
City Council
and
Planning Commission
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
January 8, 2001
5:30 p.m.
Ajoint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission was h
Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Va
January 8,2001. The meeting was called to order by Mayor M
den Valley City Hall,
, on Monday,
t 5:40 PM,
Those present were Mayor Anderson, Council Members LeSu
Eck, Pentel, McAleese, Groger, Rasmussen, Hoffman an
Director of Planning and Development, Dan Olson, C'
Wittman.
1.
.
2.
.
akken, and Commissioners
Also present were Mark Grimes,
recording secretary Lisa
Review of Last Meeting
Mayor Anderson reviewed the me
issues related to in fill housing d
rk rimes dated December 29,2000, regarding
and the housing plan.
General Comments
Mayor Anderson stated s t velop some guidelines to help staff as they respond to
developers. She sees th eneral policies are being interpreted as potentially becoming a
difficult situation. Ma n added that as she reviewed the "brainstorming" notes from the
last joint session, hemes coming though: change and impact on neighborhood.
Mayor Anderson by stating change is inevitable and that times change and housing
demands ch it is the responsibility of the City Council and the Planning Commission
to try to re e forces of change are, and with that in mind, try to establish some
goals that w guide the change in a way that would have a positive impact on the total
comm 'ty. stated she thinks we need to listen carefully to what the citizens are saying, and
to under < at their perspective is, and what their source of information is. It doesn't mean
that any inp rom citizens is not valid, but as leaders of the community, we have to be aware of
this perspective and take it into account and be sure to look at the broader picture. She
continued by stating she thinks we all recognize that each of us are going to have different
conclusions as we listen and read the materials and as we think about what we think is best for
the community, so the real challenge facing us is to have an open, candid discussion and come to
some consensus as to giving staff direction on some of these criteria. She then stated she thinks
the specific issues regarding the impact on the neighborhood were traffic, property values, density
increases and noise. The Mayor talked about several neighborhoods in the City where there is
higher density housing near single family homes. She mentioned she looked specifically at the
Circle Down Mayfair Manor where there are 24 units that are established and the access is on a
single-family residential street. She also mentioned Yosemite Circle where there are 79 units that
have access through a single-family neighborhood to a collector street. Mayor Anderson stated
Minutes of the Joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting
January 8, 2001
Page 2
t
J
.
she used these examples to illustrate that in our community there is dense development fairly
close to single family development.
Mayor Anderson mentioned another concern was the impact on property value. She feels that
this is something we should be able to get documentation on from the Assessor roles. She went
on to state her main thought at tonight's meeting is to develop some kind of criteria on where infil1
development would be acceptable.
Eck stated that many
opposed to infill deve
an area where th
ow to either accept or
LeSuer stated he would like to hear staff talk about what crit
reject proposals when they are approached by developer
Grimes stated when someone makes an application for
meet with someone from the Planning, Engineerin nd I
10 days to review the application for completene
developers and asks them to withdraw the ap
information. But if the application meets the
application is sent to the Planning Com
nit Development they first
n departments. Staff then has
re problems, Staff meets with
nd make changes or provide additional
egulations Staff can't reject it. Then the
Grimes stated that the problem in wo
regulations are the basis for each
.D.'s is the flexibility, but the zoning district
t~ come to a consensus on some general criteria that ·
Mayor Anderson stated she'
would be helpful to Staff.
posals are subjective and the Planning Commission is not
eneral, and are not going to reject outright any kind of density in
g e family homes. There are usually other issues present.
or graph system when reviewing applications for P.U.D.'s and stated the
d be on this list: Front setbacks, side setbacks, rear setbacks, lot sizes,
, buffering, pedestrian access, public space, passive recreation space, life-
ordability, parking requirements. Pentel also mentioned that developers need to
hat greater good is being met, when variances are given from the zoning district
Rasmussen stated she was unclear on how to do things differently and be flexible, but not to set a
precedent by doing so. The Planning Commission sees proposals in the raw state and doesn't
get to see any pictures of what the building wil1look like. Rasmussen added it would be helpful
to see an overview of the general area and how the new development would look.
Bakken stated that he liked the idea of a list of criteria for P.U.D. applications, but doesn't agree
with the point system because then developers might feel if they reach a certain number of p.
that they would be entitled to the P.U.D.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting
January 8, 2001
Page 3
Micks stated she doesn't see that creating this list of criteria is a crisis. The Planning Commission
has been careful about looking at things but we need to get the neighborhoods involved and do
some visioning.
Mayor Anderson agreed creating these criteria is not a crisis, but thought it was a good
opportunity to get together and talk about these issues.
Shaffer stated that a list of criteria is already being done in r
P.U.D. and it would be good to force a developer to addre
earlier. Shaffer added he thought a mixture is good an
it should work within the community and if it doesn't the
doesn't.
echnical aspects for a
at Pentel suggested
u shouldn't look the same but
hould be able to say why it
Mayor Anderson asked if Staff could react to
ritena and if Staff has criteria to suggest.
Groger stated each P.U.O.'s equity/fairn
o be weighed equally.
Pentel stated that what's currently co
we have as the majority of the ho
e the style of housing is very different than what
ow.
Bakken asked how the City i
future and get it to fit right.
market these smaller hou
ransition from the styles from the 1950's and 60's to the
ed that part of the change is going to be how to sell and
Olson stated it's not n
When Staff gets
of the P.U.D. ordi
following list
Does it fit I
neede dens
bad thing for Staff and the Planning Commission to disagree.
Ion they have to look at whether it meets the bare minimum standards
d Staff is limited as to what they can say. Olson also suggested the
things that the Planning Commission can base their judgement on:
<, e neighborhood architecturally, what is the City gaining in return, buffering
r IC, ponding and draining, pedestrian connections, open space.
Grimes st lot of developments, such as Vallee O'or and South Wirth, started off as very
controversial and now they are accepted as a development and most of the change has been
good. Grimes suggested requiring developers to have neighborhood meetings and computer-
generated pictures. He also suggested looking at lot coverage percentage. Right now the City
does not have any ordinances covering lot coverage. Also, accessory apartments are something
that needs to be looked at as far as in-fill development and life-cycle housing.
Bakken stated he liked the idea of having a list and having the developer think it through and to
know they are going to have to answer questions at citizen meetings so they can explain what
they are thinking, then the Planning Commission can listen to that and see how the citizens are
reacting.
Minutes of the Joint (~()uncil and Planning Commission Meeting
January 8, 2001' p
Page 4
.
Johnson stated examples of some houses she didn't think would fit in originally, now fit in and
thinks the Planning Commission will soon see people wanting to split large lots.
3. Develop Policies/Guidelines to Help Staff as they Meet with Developer
Pentel stated ed
review the criteria
when they 10
previously as a starting
to developer's.
Mayor Anderson asked if it would be agreeable to use Pentel's lis
point and to have her go through the issues she thought shoul
Pentellisted the following issues that the developers woul
they're asking for and why: front setback, side setback,
parking, ponding, buffering, pedestrian access, public s
affordable housing, snow storage, garbage and ya ca
lfically state this is what
c lot size, street width,
. access, meeting life cycle and
Grimes stated there is also a need to address
coverage.
ffering around ponding and lot
Eck stated part of the problem in revie
process on the part of our citizens an
majority of citizens automatically
so when there is interest in brin
neighborhood is going to be
newsletters, mailings or p
needs to be part of our ci
and some of it is goin to
opments is dealing with an educational
ething the City can do something about. The
in bias against any kind of higher density housing,
o ype of in-fill housing, automatically the .
Eck also stated the City needs to educate citizens with
laining to the citizens that some higher density housing
re going to meet our goals and provide housing for everyone
near single family neighborhoods.
od idea and we need to assure the public that we are going to
. izens would know what the City is going to be taking into consideration
development projects.
hange is good and the City has to work around that. Micks add that traffic is
und the country and the City needs to realize it's a valid concern and figure out
Grimes mentioned one thing he would find educational would be to see how the economics of
housing has changed over the last 10-15 years. Grimes mentioned talking to town home
developers in the past about how they could never pay more than $5,000/unit for land costs. Now
they are paying $70,000 to $100,000 for land costs.
Johnson asked if on this list of criteria the City should ask the developer what's the trade-off, what
does the city get.
Micks stated it would help to have a sense of the benchmark when looking at the housing goa.
and that every in-fill project doesn't necessarily have to be high density.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting
January 8, 2001
Page 5
Mayor Anderson stated we need a clearer understanding of what we have now as far as density
and where are we as far as benchmarking.
Shaffer stated developers should approach the City and state why they want what they are asking
for, that it's the developer's responsibility and that's the advantage. Developers should be able to
tell us what the advantage is to the City.
Grimes mentioned he liked the idea of putting the ownership b
should be able to tell us why they want what they are askin
of neighborhood meetings and computer generated pictur
as a handout or a policy.
eveloper and they
dded he liked the idea
of criteria could be used
Micks asked for an updated housing policy.
Grimes stated the housing policy comes from
Olson questioned if this list should be in
just to be used as a checklist for Staff
mance or if it's something more informal
Mayor Anderson answered sayin
the Planning Commission, City
what it's purpose will be.
rve that judgement until they have a meeting with
ouncil on the P.U.D Ordinance so we'll know better
4. Adjournment
.'
emorandu
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
To:
Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan Review for Rudy
Luther Toyota, PUD No. 91 - 8801 Wayzata Blvd. - Rudy Luther Toyota,
Applicant
Date:
January 18, 2001
BACKGROUND
e
Rudy Luther Toyota is requesting a planned unit development (PUD) in order to allow for
the expansion and upgrading of the existing dealership at 8801 Wayzata Blvd. Rudy
Luther has been at this location since the mid-1970's. The records indicate that there
was a car or truck dealer on this site prior to that time. In 1977, the building and site that
is now occupied for used car sales at the corner of General Mills Blvd. and the frontage
road was purchased by Rudy Luther and added to the overall site. That building had
been a Mobil gas station up until around 1975 or 1976. There were concerns about the
use of this old gas station for car sales. Certain variances were granted to allow for it to
be used for used car sales. The old gas station and its site have been substantially
improved over the years. Luther purchased the building that is at 8901 Wayzata Blvd.
within the passed couple of years. This building currently has a conditional use permit
that allows the building to be used as a trade/training school in the Industrial zoning
district. Luther plans to convert this building for used car sales when the current lease
runs out with the school in a year or two.
The property that is proposed to be in the PUD is designated on the Comprehensive
Plan map for Industrial uses and on the zoning map as Industrial. Car dealerships are
considered a conditional use permit in the Industrial zoning district. There is no
conditional use permit for this dealership because it was established prior to the CUP
requirement for auto dealerships.
e
There are two stages of approval for all PUD approvals. This is the first, or preliminary
design plan stage. The purpose of this stage is two-fold: to give broad concept approval
to the proposal, and to call out issues that must be addressed in detail as the proposal
moves ahead to the General Plan stage. Preliminary plan approval does not guarantee
that a proposal will become reality. It gives an applicant some assurance of being on the
right track, and some guidance on how to proceed. In the case of the Planning
1
"
.
Commission in particular, the limitation of the preliminary plan approval is clearly laid
out. CC Section 11.55 Subd. 6.D states that:
.
The Planning Commission's consideration of the application shall be limited to a
determination of whether the application constitutes an appropriate land use
under the general principals and standards adhered to in the City and, if
necessary, its report shall include recommended changes in the land use
planned by the applicant so as to conform the application or recommend
approval subject to certain conditions or modifications.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
Rudy Luther intends to expand, remodel and upgrade the Toyota dealership at 8801
Wayzata Blvd. The site currently is about 5.2 acres in size. The site now sits on 9 lots
as indicated on the attached survey. These lots include the school building at 8901
Wayzata Blvd. and the former gas station site that is now a part of the dealership. The
plan also includes about an acre of property that is now a part of the frontage road along
the north side of the dealership. (The site will be about 6.2 acres after the vacation of
the frontage road.) This frontage road was turned back to the City of Golden Valley late
last year. The City's intent is to vacate the frontage road and turn the property over to
Luther and the other car dealers south of 1-394. The frontage road is no longer
necessary for access to those properties. The City would maintain certain utility and
drainage easements in the area to be vacated so the property can only be used for
parking (no buildings can be constructed over easements).
The overall plan calls for the expansion of the main dealership building by adding about _
14,000 sq. ft. of car service area on the north side of the building. This new car service .
addition will allow Luther to consolidate all its car services on this one site. Currently,
Luther has to "farm out" some of its car cleanup and do some car cleanup at a remote
site on Pennsylvania Ave. in Golden Valley. (Luther lost about 6,500 sq. ft. of car
cleanup space when the City acquired the Tires Plus building Luther owned where the
Allianz building is now under construction. The rear 6,500 sq. ft. of that building was
used entirely by Luther for car cleanup.) A customer lounge with some additional office
space will also be added which will be about 1,500 sq. ft. in area. An elevator will be
added to provide accessibility to upper level offices. The school building at 8901
Wayzata Blvd. will remain until the lease runs out. This will happen within the next year
or two. After that time, that building will be converted to used car sales offices. There
would be no cars parked inside that building in the future. Until that building can be
converted to office space for used car sales, the used car sales offices will have to be
accommodated within the main building. The existing used car sales building at the
northeast corner of the site will be torn down as part of the overall improvements of the
site.
The site plan indicates that the expansion of the building will not come any closer to the
property line than the existing buildings. In fact, the addition is going on the north end of
the existing main building. (Several years ago the staff had discussions with Luther
about expanding the building to the south. This reduced the existing setback area along
Miller St. The staff discouraged this proposal so that it was never brought to the City.)
The proposal does indicate that there are green areas along all sides with the exception
of the 1-394 side. At this time, the exact location of the street vacation has not been _
determined. It is assumed to be near the north curb line. The proposed site plan .
2
.
indicates the new parking area going up to the north curb line. North of the curb line will
continue to be owned by MnDOT. MnDOT will own 30 to 40 ft. of green space between
the new north property line and the freeway wall. MnDOT needs to maintain this space
for maintenance purposes so it will remain open.
The proposal calls for the major changes to the entire parking lot as indicated on the site
plan. At the current time there are four driveways into the site. The new plan reduces
the number of driveways to three-two along Miller St. and one on General Mills Blvd.
In addition, this plan calls for the vacation of the frontage road that will eliminate this
access to General Mills Blvd. A second access to Miller St. is proposed near the west
end of the property to provide access to employees and service vehicles (and perhaps
the school). Customer access will be primarily from General Mills Blvd across from the
access point to 1-394. The intent of Luther is to improve access to the site for
customers. Focusing the access point to the site from General Mills Blvd primarily does
this.
ELIGIBILITY OF APPLICATION
PUD's are regulated under City Code Section 11.55. Four subdivisions of that section
come into play when screening PUD applications for eligibility. Each is discussed below.
After considering the Rudy Luther PUD application in view of all four subdivisions, staff
finds that the proposal is eligible and may enter the preliminary design state of the PUD
process.
e
PUD Definition - PUD's are defined in CC Sec. 11.55, Subd.2. This proposal clearly
meets the terms of Subd. 2.A.2, which allows PUD's for developments having two or
more principal structures on a single parcel of land. In this case, the attached
preliminary plat of PUD 91 indicates only one lot. This lot will have two principal
structures-one for new car sales and service and one for used car sales. Until the
schools lease runs out, the 8901 Wayzata Blvd. building will continue as a school.
PUD Purpose and Intent - Applications must also meet the general purpose and intent
of PUD's in Golden Valley, as set out in CC Sec. 11.55, Sub. 1. According to Sub. 1, the
PUD process is designed for use in situations "where designation of a single use zoning
district or application of standard zoning provisions are too rigid for practical application."
In this case, it would be difficult for the proposed use of this site to be utilized without a
PUD. With the vacation of the frontage road, the school (future used car sales building)
will not have frontage on a public street. Also, the elimination of property lines between
the future used car sales property and the existing dealership property is necessary to
better utilize and integrate the uses on the site. Certain setback requirements are not
met on this site due to past property acquisitions due to 1-394 construction.
Standards and Criteria for PUD's - City Code establishes basic requirements for
different types of PUD's in Sec. 11.55, Subd. 5. Industrial uses are discussed in Section
5.C.
There are eight items covered under the basic standards for industrial or commercial
PUD's. The list is as follows with staff comments:
e
3
"i
1. The tract shall have not less than 100 ft. of frontage on a public street. In this
case, the tract has over 600 ft. of street frontage along both Miller St. and General
Mills Blvd.
e
.2. Public water, sewer and fire hydrants must serve the development. Public
utilities and hydrants currently serve the site. (See City Engineer's report)
3. The surface drainage systems shall be constructed according to a plan
approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has reviewed the attached
plans. His comments are in his attached memo.
4. The entire site shall be utilized for the PUD. In this case, the entire 6.2+ acre site
is part of the PUD.
5. The off-street parking spaces shall be painted on the surfaced are according to
a plan, which has been approved by the City Council. The proposed site plan
indicates that the parking spaces are striped. The PUD permit will indicate that all
spaces have to be strip according to the site plan.
6. Provisions shall be designed for off-street loading to service the business and
such spaces shall have easy access and not be designated for other use.
Deliveries vehicles are to access the site from the west driveway on Miller St. This
provides ready access to the service delivery area south of the main building as
indicated on the site plan.
7. Private roadways shall be constructed according to a plan approved by the City
Engineer as to type and location. The City Engineer has reviewed the site plan and tit
his comments are in his memo.
8. Landscaping shall be provided according to a plan approved by the Council in
accordance with City landscape standards. A landscape plan has been provided
with the submittals. This landscape plan will have to be reviewed and approved by
the Building Board of Review prior to issuance of any building permits.
Completeness of Application Packet - The final screening of any PUD proposal for
eligibility purposed is based on CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 6.A, which establishes the various
components that must be submitted at the preliminary design stage of application. The
City is in possession of each of the items that is outlined in this section. The information
that has been submitted by Luther is complete with the exception of the preliminary plat
indicating existing and planned easements (see City Engineer memo) and the building
setback lines. Luther has stated that they will get this information to the staff as soon as
possible, but no later than, when the information must be sent to the City Council for
preliminary design plan review.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The types of issues that come up in connection with PUD applications vary based on the
type of development and the specific characteristics of the development. In this case,
Staff has identified no particular concerns beyond those that generally accompany a
PUD application. The staff highlights the following issues:
e
4
Zonina - The "Purpose and Intent" paragraph of the PUD requirements make it clear
that a major intent of the PUD process is to "permit design flexibility by substantial
variances from the provision of the zoning chapter, including uses, setbacks, height,
parking requirements and similar regulation." Thus, to some extent, variances are a
given with any PUD; that is part of what the process exists to do for qualified PUD
applications. As noted before, the Luther application does qualify as a PUD.
.
Despite the basic intent of the PUD process with regard to variances, the City must
ensure that each proposal does not exceed the bounds of good design practices in the
type and extent of variances being requested. To that end, it is useful to have an
understanding of how any proposal varies from normal zoning standards.
Because this property is located in the Industrial zoning district, the comparison is made
to the regulations found in the Industrial zoning district. The following comparison is
made with staff comment:
2.
3.
4.
e
5.
6.
e
1. Permitted uses - Auto dealerShips are considered a conditional use in the
Industrial zoning district. Trade or training schools are also considered a
conditional use. The trade school has a valid conditional use permit for
operation. This auto dealership does not have a conditional use permit because
it pre-dates the requirement for a conditional use permit is the Industrial zoning
district. There are three auto dealers along the frontage road west of General
Mills Blvd.
Lot width - There are no lot width requirements in the Industrial zoning district.
Lot area - There are no lot area requirements in the Industrial zoning district.
Lot coverage - Buildings or structures cannot cover more than 50% of the lot in
the industrial zoning district. In the case of this PUD, buildings cover less than
20% of the property.
Building height - The buildings within the PUD do not exceed two stories in
height or less than the permitted 45 ft.
Setbacks - The buildings exceed the minimum street setback requirement of 35
ft. and the side setback requirement of 20 ft. However, the 35 ft. setback along
streets is required to be green space with only driveways allowed to encroach.
This green space along General Mills Blvd. and Miller St. as indicated on the site
plan ranges from 32 ft. to a minimum of 10ft. However, along both the
aforementioned streets, there is more green area than exists with the existing
development. It appears from the site plan that the 10ft. green area along the
west property line is met. Adjacent to the 1-394 right-of-way there will be no or
very little green area setback. However, north of the Luther property is green
area maintained as part of MnDOT right-of-way.
7. Parking - The proposed PUD appears to meet the City's parking requirement for
dealerships in the Industrial zoning district. This parking analysis is shown on the
site plan. Staff has reviewed the analysis and it appears to be correct. Parking
for the school that will remain on the site for the time being must be provided on-
site. Luther should designate spaces near the school building for school only
parking.
8. Access driveways -The proposed site plan exceeds the City's minimum
requirement for access driveways.
9. Landscaping - The Zoning Code requires that a landscape plan be submitted
and approved by the Building Board of Review. A landscape plan has been
submitted as part of the preliminary plan. The code also requires that all outside
5
i.
storage be screened. The plan does not indicate any outside dumpster areas so
the staff assumes that they are inside the building.
.
Park Dedication - Because this site is fully developed, the City has not required park
dedication. If this was an undeveloped site, the City's policy is to require a park
dedication fee.
Engineering/Construction Issues - A memo is attached from City Engineer Jeff Oliver
dated January 18, 2001. The memo indicates his recommendations on page four.
These recommendations will be made a part of recommended approval of the
preliminary design plan. Mr. Oliver indicated that the preliminary plat should be revised
to include the turn-back area. At this time, the amount of the turn-back area is not
specifically described. The City is in the process of turning that description over to
Luther. Once that is done, the preliminary plat can be altered.
Approval of the plans to use the MnDOT pond east of the site for storm water ponding
must get final approval from MnDOT. If approval is not given, the overall site plan may
have to be changed to reflect additional storage or water quality ponding. This decision
from MnDOT will have to be received prior to approval of the preliminary design plan by
the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Luther Toyota, PUD No.
91. The proposed improvements to the site will enhance this area of the City that is the
home to several car dealers. Access to the area will improve along with improved
landscaping and improved appearance. The old gas station building at the corner will be tit
torn down to allow for better site usage and circulation. The new auto service area will
allow for better service to their customers at this successful dealership. The PUD will
also allow for all dealer services to be incorporated at the same location, therefore,
reducing trips for auto cleanup to off-site locations.
The approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All recommendations and requirements set out in the Engineering Memo from
City Engineer Jeff Oliver, P.E. dated January 18, 2001.
2. Prior to review of the preliminary design plan by the City Council, MnDOT
approval for allowing certain storm water drainage on MnDOT property shall be
obtained.
3. The Building Board of Review, as part of the building permit process, must
approve the landscape plan.
4. The building at 8901 Wayzata Blvd. may be used as a school until June 1, 2003.
It may be changed to the used auto sales building anytime prior to the date. An
amended PUD is not necessary for this change. Luther should designate at least
25 parking spaces near the building for school only use during certain hours.
5. The plans submitted, as part of the PUD application shall become part of this
approval.
..
6
.
,
.
e
.
Hey
Memorandum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Date: January 18,2001
To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineei1!fJ'
Subject: Preliminary Design Plan Review: Rudy Luther Toyota Planned Unit Development
Public Works staff have reviewed Preliminary Design Plans for a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) submitted by Rudy Luther Toyota for their site on the south side of Interstate 394 and
on the west side of General Mills Boulevard. This review discusses issues that need to be
further addressed prior to General Plan approval of the PUD.
Site Plan and Preliminary Plat:
The proposed PUD consists of an addition to the existing car dealership building, demolition
of the used car building (former gas station) and reconstruction of the parking lots. The
existing building in the northwest corner of site, which is owned by the developer, will retain
its current use temporarily. Once the tenants of the building leave the building will be
incorporated into the rest of the site.
The major change on the site will be the proposed elimination of Wayzata Boulevard, or the
south 1394 Frontage Road, along the north edge of the PUD. This portion of the frontage
road has recently been turned back to the City of Golden Valley by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT). The developer has petitioned the City to vacate the
frontage road, and the vacated land can therefore be incorporated into the site. The
preliminary plat, and all other plans for the PUD, must be revised to correctly illustrate the
MnDOT turnback to be incorporated into the property as part of the General Plan submittal.
The legal description for the turnback is being forwarded to the developer.
The proposed vacation of this portion of Wayzata Boulevard will not have any detrimental
effect on traffic circulation in this area. The presence of General Mills Boulevard and Miller
Street provide adequate access to and around the site. The Wayzata Boulevard vacation
must occur at the same Council meeting that the final plattor the PUD is approved. Any
easement vacations that are needed must also occur at the same time as the street vacation.
The proposed PUD site currently has seven driveway entrances onto Wayzata Boulevard,
General Mills Boulevard and Miller Street. The PUD will reduce the number of accesses to
three. The primary site access will be from General Mills Boulevard, and will be shifted south
to be directly opposite of the entrance/exit ramps from 1-394. This proposed alignment would
G:\Developments-Private\Rudy Luther\Prelim PUD Review.doc
f
.
greatly reduce the occurrence of turning movement conflicts created by the existing offset
intersection. This primary site access will provide access to all portions of the site.
It appears that truck access for the site will utilize the two driveways on Miller Street. The
developer should demonstrate that the proposed radii and driveway layouts are adequate to
accommodate the semi-trucks used for delivery by providing plans with truck turning
templates superimposed on the site plan. In addition, the plans should have the intended
truck routing through the site labeled.
.
The preliminary plat does not show any existing or proposed easements across the subject
property as required by City Code. City records indicate that there are several existing
easements across the parcels included in the PUD.
The preliminary plat must show a drainage and utility easement across all of the Wayzata
Boulevard street turnback discussed above. This drainage and utility easement must extend
ten feet south of the existing north property line.
As outlined in City Code, all watermains on site must be within drainage and utility
easements. Therefore, the preliminary plat must include 20-foot wide drainage and utility
easements centered over all watermains, including hydrant leads.
The site plan, and all other plans, must illustrate and label pedestrian ramps at all points
where public sidewalks cross driveways. The City standard detail plate for these pedestrian
ramps must be included on the plans.
Gradina Plan:
e
This proposed PUD is within the Main Stem sub-district of the Bassett Creek Watershed, and
will be subject to the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) Water
Quality Policy. The final plans will be subject to the review and comment of the BCWMC,
which meets on the third Thursday of each month. Plans to be reviewed, and a completed
application form, must be submitted to the BCWMC three weeks prior to review by the
Commission.
As outlined in the Water Quality Policy, the size of this proposed PUD requires that water
quality ponding be provided. Initial indications from MnDOT are that a portion of the required
water quality treatment for the site has been provided in the pond constructed with 1-394 on
the east side of General Mills Boulevard. However, at this time there is no clear indication
from MnDOT that all of the volume required has been provided. The developer has
indicated, and noted on the plans, that they are working with MnDOT on the possibility of
performing excavation in the pond to meet the policy requirements.
The developer must provide the Department of Public Works with copies of all computations,
correspondence and permit applications regarding this issue with MnDOT. In addition, a
copy of the approved permit, once issued, must be provided.
The grading plan submitted appears to function well for storm water drainage. However, the e
plan does not include any detail regarding erosion and sediment control during construction.
The grading plan that is submitted with the General Plan application must be prepared in
G:\Developments-Private\Rudy Luther\Prelim PUD Review.doc 2
'.
.
e
e
accordance with the City standards, which include detailed erosion control items. A copy of
these standards has been forwarded to the developer.
This project must obtain a General Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency prior to beginning work on site. A copy of the permit application,
and the permit once obtained, must be provided to the City.
This PUD is also subject to the City of Golden Valley Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control
Ordinance. The developer must obtain the City permit prior to beginning any work on site.
The invert elevations of the existing storm sewer in the northeast corner of the development
along General Mills Boulevard must be confirmed. Several of the inverts appear to be mis-
labeled.
The grading plan must be revised with the General Plan submittal to include additional
topography along the western border of the site. This topography is needed in order to fully
analyze and insure that the existing drainage patterns between the properties are maintained.
The grading plan includes storm sewer catch basins within median or parking lot islands in
several locations. However, the plan does not specify that the curb will be depressed in order
to allow water to flow to these catch basins. The developer should clarify how this drainage
will occur and label the plans accordingly.
Additional spot elevations must be provided along General Mills Boulevard in the vicinity of
the proposed driveway entrance and the new curb. These spot elevations must be at a
minimum 50-foot spacing and at the beginning of all radii to insure drainage.
The grading plan must provide additional detail regarding the existing and proposed storm
sewer at General Mills Boulevard and the existing intersection of Wayzata Boulevard. In
particular, the pipe sizes and proposed casting changes must be noted on the plans.
Copies of storm sewer calculations for this site must be submitted for review.
The driveway aprons at access points into this PUD must be constructed according to City
standards. A detail plate for these aprons must be included with the plans.
The developer must obtain city right-of-way permits for all work within street right-of-ways and
easements. A right-of-way permit is also required for the installation of the irrigation system
noted on the utility plan.
Utilitv Plan:
In order to fully analyze the need for hydrants on and adjacent to the site the utility plan must
be revised to include all existing hydrants. In specific, the existing hydrants on the south side
of Miller Street need to be shown.
The existing utility services for the building being demolished must be cut off at the right-of-
way line. A separate sewer and water permit will be required for these cutoffs.
G:\Developments-Private\Rudy Luther\Prelim PUD Review.doc
3
..
The utility plan indicates that the existing hydrant near the new site entrance is to be moved
to the first island inside the property. This hydrant must remain withirflhe right-of-way of
General Mills Boulevard. However, the existing hydrant lead can be utilized for the fire e.
suppression system, as determined by the Fire Department, and for an additional hydrant to
be placed on the parking lot island off the northwest corner of the building.
The existing fire hydranton Wayzata Boulevard, located in approximately the center of the
site, must be relocated to be within one of the parking lot islands.
The existing hydrant on Wayzata Boulevard near the northwest corner of the site must be
relocated to a point where it can be accessed from the parking lot in this PUD.
Summary and Recommendations:
Public Works staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for the Rudy Luther
Toyota Planned Unit Development subject to the comments contained in this review. These
comments are summarized as follows:
1. The preliminary plat should be revised to incorporate the right-of-way for Wayzata
Boulevard along the north side of the property. In addition, the preliminary plat must
contain all existing and proposed easements as discussed in this review.
2. A Final Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, prepared to city specifications, must
be included in the General Plan submittal.
3. The developer must obtain the required permits and approvals from all agencies as
discussed in this review.
e
4. Subject to the review and comments of other City staff.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
Gary Johnson, Building Official
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall
John Baker, Baker Associates, Inc.
e
G:\Developments-Private\Rudy Luther\Prelim PUD Review.doc
4
e
.
e
C I T Y 0 F G 0 L DEN V ALL E Y
CON D I T ION A L USE PER M I T
No. 94-64
DATE OF APPROVAL:
August 16, 1994 by the City Council in accordance
with Section 11.10, Subd. 2 and Section 11.36 of the
City Zoning Code.
ISSUED TO:
The Ackerberg Group
APPROVED LOCATION:
8901 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, Minnesota
APPROVED CONDITIONAL
USE:
To allow the building to be used for a trade/training
school in the Industrial Zoning District.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The school be operated by Intermediate School District 287, Hennepin
Technical College. The program will service students between the ages
of 16-21 with emotional/behavioral disorders.
2. The total number of students and staff on site shall be limited to 50.
3. The owner of the building will construct an additional 27 parking
spaces on the site if it is determined additional parking is needed
which is at the sole discretion of the City of Golden Valley. Also,
the additional parking lot shall meet all City standards (curb and
gutter and paved).
4. All other applicable City and State requirements shall be met.
5. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be
grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
.
WARNING: This permit does not ex you from all other City Code provisions,
regulation and ordina ces
Issued by:
4
.
e
.
.,'
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
January 16, 2001
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Dan Olson, City Planner
Informal Public Hearing on General Land Use Plan Map
Amendment for the Property Located at 7155 Madison Avenue
West - Semi-Public Facilities to Industrial- Hennepin County,
Applicant
Informal Public Hearing on Zoning Map Amendment for the
Property Located at 7155 Madison Avenue West -Institutional
(1-3) to Industrial- Hennepin County, Applicant
Hennepin County is requesting that the 28,787 square foot (0.66 acre) site that they are
planning to sell to a new property owner be rezoned from Institutional (1-3) to Industrial (see
attached map.) Although at this time Hennepin County does not have a designated buyer for
the property, the County felt that rezoning the property would be beneficial in order to
accommodate some land uses that would not be permitted within the current Institutional (1-3)
zoning district designation. Along with this rezoning, the applicant is also requesting that the
General land Use Plan Map be amended from Semi-Public Facilities to Industrial.
Brief History of Property
This site is currently a vacant lot. In 1975, the City Council granted a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) to a private business called Home Away to operate a shelter to temporarily house
teenage girls. Prior to 1975, the building was home to a printing company. In 1991, Hennepin
County purchased the building and received variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
so that they could demolish the building and construct a new building to house a 16-bed boy's
detention facility. Also around that time, the City Council rezoned the property from Industrial to
Institutional and amended the General land Use Plan Map from Industrial to Semi-Public
Facilities for the site. The Council also granted a CUP to allow a detention facility on the
property. Upon receiving these approvals, the County demolished the building in 1998.
However, due to the high costs of building the detention facility, this facility was never built by
the County.
"
Recommended Action
The staff recommends that the zoning map be amended to Industrial for this site that is now
zoned Institutional (1-3), The rezoning will be compatible with the industrial zoning that e
surrounds this property. Staff also recommends revising the General Land Use Plan Map from
Semi-Public Facilities to Industrial.
Attachments: Location Map
Existing Portion of General Land Use Plan Map
Existing Portion of Zoning Map
Oversized Plans
--
.
2
.~
.
------------
MEDICINE LAKE RD
----------------------------------.
.
Existing Institutional (1-3) Zoning
!UUUUI
~ AOAO __ _
ILJ
70
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
.......... ..
. .......... t'
T
. .,j.'J.-.w,.... .' '*....~.,:..,..
. "''''_.:..~....I....,~. .~'"
'\.-~....l: '..J.", .;).'..;}'
..' ~ :,...{ ~ ...."......~......"J ...
'.'J. t ~'1' ~"'-\" "oW'. v";:'". ...
,J, .r::.; ....~~~\.f ~:.;..,.. ~-.:~'.
J-;.)';,,,:" }-.;.'.'.4~-.),::.j~
.; ~.'-;. ..., .......' , - ......
ew
~
-.1\
rElY
~AlJLlLIE~JY ..
GENERAL LAND USE PLAN
RESIDENTIAL
CJ Low Density (Less than 5 units per acre)
L:L:I Medium Density (5 to 11.9 units per acre)
.. High Density (12 or more units per acre)
COMMERCIAL
r ,. "' Office
.. Commercial (also includes Office)
INDUSTRIAL
r::=J Light Industrial (also includes Office)
IIfIlndustrial (also includes Office)
III Open Space - Public and Private Ownership
c=J Schools and Religious Facilities
r-:--~] Public Facilities - Miscellaneous
.. Semi-Public Facilities - Miscellaneous
.. Open Water
c=1 Wetlands National Wetland Inventory - not field verified
(Minor adjustments made to some wetlands)
~ Railroad
Existing Local Trail
Proposed Local Trail
Regional Trail
Proposed Regional Trail
Pedestrian Bridge
Road Rights-of-Way
----
_PED
Municipal Line
1 inch = 1 ,833 feet (j)
Thibault
ASSOCIATES
, ....""'-
~
-
-
Comprehensive Plan 1999 - 2020
Cllrf~",^ \^/~.^r I\A~n~,..~rnl"\""" 01"""....