Loading...
10-27-97 PC Agenda . . . AGENDA OLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, October 27,1997 7pm I. Approval of Minutes - September 22, 1997 II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (Lot Consolidation) Applicant: LOGIS (Local Government Information System) Address: Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey (RLS) No. 331 Purpose: To consolidate Tracts A and B which would allow LOGIS to construct a two-story, 14,000 sq.ft. office building to be used as its headquarters . III. Informal Public Hearing -- Amendment to Valley Square Redevelopment Plan - SHORT RECESS - IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals V. Other Business A. Continued Workshop Session on Technical Background for the Land Use Plan VI. Adjournment 1_____ -- I I I ---1 Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. , The Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon .- the Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. - - With the completion of the informal public hearing(s) there will be a short recess before the commission continues with the remainder of the agenda. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff. Commission members may ask questions of staff. 2. The proponent will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the Commission. 3. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. . 4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. . . . . Regular Meeting ofthe Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 1997 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, September 22,1997. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Martens, McAleese and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary. ~. _ r ~. '1$\ Lqq1 I. Approval of Minutes - J\ug-ust 25. 1997 MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 8, 1997 minutes with one spelling correction. II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 71 Applicant: Hennepin County Property Services Address: 7151 Madison Avenue West (Formerly Known as 7155 Madison Avenue West) Purpose: Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) dated June 3, 1997, which would allow for the proposed residential facility to be approximately 800 sq.ft. larger than permitted by the original C.U.P. Planning Director Mark Grimes reviewed his staff report. He told the Commission that they and the City Council had approved a smaller building at previous meetings. He noted that the plan before them was approximately 800 sq.ft. larger. Grimes told the commission that the proposed enlargement is due to thicker walls and the encasement of the utility room. He said that Hennepin County will appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on Tuesday night, September 23 and would be requesting different variances for the larger building. Commissioner Martens asked if it is a City requirements to enclose trash areas. Grimes said that trash containers are to be enclosed and the applicant prefers to have its trash enclosed within the main building rather than a separate enclosure. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 1997 Page 2 . Commissioner Groger asked for clarification of why the building was moved five feet closer to Nevada Avenue and if the whole building was shifted or if this is part of the enlargement. Grimes noted that the building is a bit longer but not any wider. He said that when Hennepin County first designed the lot, it calculated 18 foot long parking stalls instead of the required 20 feet. The plan also showed a three foot greenspace on the east side instead of the five feet which was on a plan that staff reviewed and BZA approved. By moving the building five feet closer to Nevada Avenue, the larger parking spaces and greenspace can be accommodated. Grimes told the Commission that Inspections and the Planning staff suggested that the building be moved over five feet closer to Nevada Avenue to accommodate the required parking space length and 5 feet of greenspace. Richard Strong, Representative for Hennepin County apologized for having to come back for review of a similar plan. He said that when the plan was worked out originally not a great deal of detail was worked on not knowing if the ph;ln would be approved. Strong said that this time it was decided to do it right with the intent that the site would be used for 20-25 years. He told the commission that the room and activity areas have remained unchanged with the exception of one of the cells being made handicap accessible. He reviewed new plans which noted the changes to the site. Chair Pentel asked who uses the front entrance door on the east side. Strong commented police, lawyers and employees. . Strong talked about the interior of the building noting specifically the two entrances to the yard area, one larger cell to accommodate the handicapped, and a vestibule. He said the biggest increase was the mechanical area which needed more room. Hennepin County also said there is now an electrical room which houses an emergency generator and the dumpster area was enclosed for security reasons. Strong said the walls would be 14" wide instead of the original 10". Chair Pentel asked about the intercom and camera on the east side of the building. Strong commented that there are a couple of cameras outside for security. He said the intercom is used for incoming vans to identify themselves which will then allow the garage door to open. Chair Pentel asked who would be picking up refuse. Strong commented a commercial company. Pentel asked if the dumpster area would be locked and Strong commented that an employee at the facility would unlock the area, roll out the dumpster and then move it back in after dumping and secure the area again. Commissioner Groger asked what the square footage would be on the final plan. Strong commented that it would only be 800 sq.ft. larger. el . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 1997 Page 3 City Planner Knoblauch briefly talked about the covenant agreement noting the increase in the square footage and this document would have to be amended noting the now proposed footage. Director Grimes said that he is going to recommend to the City Council that an amended covenant be attached to the Conditional Use Permit noting the footage as found on the current site plan. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Duane Devereaux, 2455 Louisiana Avenue, commented that the proposal is in an industrial parking and had always believed that the area would remain industrial. He talked about the number of variances required for this facility and believes that it does not fit on the lot. He asked if there was any possibility of a future increase in size of the building and Strong said no. Devereaux talked about a concern of increased crime in the area and number of employees on the site. He does not believe that it is economically feasible to build this proposed building on this lot and believes that a site at the correction facility property in Plymouth would be more ideal. Strong commented that Hennepin County rejected a Plymouth site because of setback requirements. He gave the Chair a petition signed by the businesses in the area. Dan Nelson, 2325 Louisiana Avenue, reiterated what Mr. Devereaux had to say. He said that he does not believe that this is a good site for a juvenile detention center. He asked if anything had been discussed about security. Nelson questioned the procedure to obtain a permit for when the girls group home went in. He believes that a detention facility does not fit into the industrial area and there may be possible life endangerment to the people in the area because of the facility. Terry Barber, 2520 Nevada Avenue North, is against the proposed detention facility which will be located 500 feet from where she works. She doesn't believe that the safety of the school children in the area has been considered and is worried that this facility will turn into an adult facility down the road. Barber said there are no guarantees that someone won't escape. Gary Barren, 2320 Louisiana Avenue North, asked how a facility of this type could be allowed within a three or four block area of a school. He noted that approximately 85% of his work force are females, that one opens at 6am and two work until midnight - he's not sure if people will continue to work for him with a detention facility in the area. Steven Svendsen, 7135 Madison Avenue West, talked about the building issues of size and the changes made. He agrees that this facility is a better use than the girls group home. Svendsen believes the problems that could come into the area are external to the facility and is not sure how anyone could handle these problem. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 1997 Page 4 Strong commented on procedures for a break-out noting that the Golden Valley Police Department and Hennepin County Sheriff's Department would be notified for response. He said that there has been only one escape from the facility downtown and e~plained to the commission and audience how that happened. Strong talked about the two ways that employees and visitors can enter the building. He talked about the facility and control room and how the outside speaker system and garage door would work to allow entrance into the building. . Chair Pentel asked if smoking would be allowed in the building. Strong answered no. Pentel asked where stall would go to smoke and Strong commented that at this time he did not know. Commissioner Kapsner asked Mr. Strong to comment on the outdoor lighting and height of the wall. Strong commented that the wall height is the same as the building to the south. Strong noted where the four cameras will be located and talked about the lighting attached to the outside walls of the facility, noting that there' would be lighting approximately every 15 feet. Commissioner Martens asked Strong about the type of infraction of offenders that would be housed at this facility. Strong said that this facility is set up as a minimum security facility for juveniles who have committed minor violations and who would . remain at the facility for approximately a seven day stay. Strong said that a violent offender would not be located at this site. Chair Pentel asked staff about the covenants. Grimes commented that the covenant states that this facility would be a 16-bed juvenile facility. The residents of the facility would be waiting for a court appearance because they may have committed a parole violation. Commissioner Martens asked if a violent offender could be sent to this facility. Grimes commented that Chief of Police Dean Mooney believes that this will be a much more secure facility than the existing building. Chair Pentel asked who would be considered a visitor to the site. Strong answered that there Yiould only be two types of visitors, either parents or legal counsel. Commissioner Martens asked Grimes about the rezoning of the property to Institutional. (Note: Commissioner Martens was not on the Commission when the rezoning was visited at a meeting of the Planning Commission.) Grimes commented that it was the City Attorney's opinion that Hennepin County could remodel the existing facility if it were rebuilt from the inside out, using the same foundation, in which case a rezoning would not need to occur because the footprint of the building would not change. Grimes continued to say that Hennepin County felt that this . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22,1997 Page 5 . facility did not meet its needs and in order to do it right they requested an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map and a rezoning of the property. Strong added that Hennepin County officials met with surrounding business people and it was decided by both parties that a new facility would provide for a better site. Gary Barren commented that a girl's group home is a different entity that a maximum security facility and believes problems from a detention facility are different that a group home. Dan Nelson believes the facility would become something more than a "holding tank". He questioned if school personnel had been contacted. Nelson believes this facility belongs in Plymouth, near the work house. He believes this is a done deal and doesn't believe that this type of facility belongs in the Industrial Zoning District. Duane Devereaux questioned how control of who visits will be handled. He talked about the commission representing the people and believes this is not being done. Terry Barber briefly talked about those employers who lease and can walk about from the area and if this facility goes in it will take away from the area, value of businesses and those who lease properties. . Steve Svendsen talked about the businesses who attended the meeting September 17 and noted Chief Mooney's commitment to answer calls about problems of the site promptly. Svendsen said that the County said that people who are loitering outside the building would be questioned and the situation handled immediately. He believes the facility will be security and does not want to see another girl's group home on this lot. Richard Strong commented that there would be outside cameras on all four sides of the building. He said that the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department would be notified first and then the Golden Valley Police. Because of the located of the Golden Valley police, these officers may respond more quickly. Dan Nelson asked if the City is willing to hire more police officers to handle any problems. Chair Pentel told Mr. Nelson that this was an issue that could not be addressed at this meeting. Grimes commented that the girl's group home initiated approximately 100 calls a year and does not believe the detention facility will come any where close to this figure. . Commissioner Martens asked if there was a commitment to house only non-violent offenders at this facility.. Strong said that he was not sure and then asked the commission and staff to define non-violent. Strong told the commission that offenders would be screened before being sent to the Golden Valley facility and that Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 1997 Page 6 the most violent offenders would remain at the downtown facility. He noted that Hennepin County is committed to take the least violent of the juvenile offenders to this site. .1 Director Grimes suggested to Mr. Strong that Barb Karns, Director of Juvenile Detention for Hennepin County, be present at the City Council meeting to answer questions concerning what type of offender would be at this facility. Commissioner McAleese said that a number of ways that the facility would be operated had been discussed but none of this discussion is found in the covenant. He suggested to staff that the City may want to asked Hennepin County to include language in the covenant addressing issues like having only minimum security juveniles housed at this facility. Grimes said that the City could discuss this with the County. Commissioner Kapsner questioned on how to define someone violent or non-violent. McAleese commented that Hennepin County must have a point system or some other way to determine this and then select these types of boys. Commissioner Martens questioned on how to define violent and non-violent. Terry Barber asked whether there was a clause in the covenant which states that this . facility cannot be turned into an adult facility. Pentel told her there was such a clause. Duane Devereoux asked Strong why Hennepin County rejected the Plymouth site. Strong said that the setbacks were so severe that they could not do it. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Groger asked staff whether the County would revert to the previously approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Grimes noted that the BZA approved the variances and the City Council approved a CUP. Hennepin County can go back to its original CUP. Commissioner Martens asked if the businesses in the area had attended previous meetings and Prazak answered yes. Grimes told the commission and audience that staff notifies, in writing, properties within 500 feet of a proposal and that it is up to the owner of a building to inform his/her renters. He said that the School District is aware of the request. McAleese noted that there has been an article in the SunPost regarding this issue. Commissioners Martens believes that it is the business owners view that they didn't like what the site was being used before and this may be better but there are still .! Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 1997 Page 7 . safety issues. Martens said that he would like to make a recommendation that the covenants to note that only non-violent offenders at this facility. Grimes said that by the time this item goes to the City Council he can discuss this issue with the County. Commissioner Johnson noted that the commissioner did recommend approval, in May of this year, for rezoning of this lot from Industrial to 1-3 Institutional. She noted that the CUP had been approved before and that the only change at this time is the size of the facility. Johnson said the issue tonight is whether the reasons presented for the additional 800 sq.ft. is appropriate. She outlined the changes being the entryway change for use of metal detectors which adds to security, enclosure of the dumpster area, second entrance to the outdoor recreational area, expanded cell area and the increased size to the mechanical room. Johnson said that it was too bad that this was not set forth in the original plans but would rather see it this way and supports the amended proposal. Commissioner Prazak agrees that the changes in the footprint are minor and reasonable. . Commissioner Groger commented that he understands what the County is trying to do. He said that he voted against the original plan which he believes was stretching the limits of what could comfortably be acceptable on the lot. Groger agrees with Johnson that it is an appropriate use of the site but believes that they are requesting substantial changes with substantial variances and will vote against the request. Commissioner Kapsner said that listening to the concerns of the neighbors he agrees about the expense per bed. He does not agree that hiring on more Golden Valley police officers is needed as the 16-bed facility will not put an extra burden on the police force. He said that the employees working at the site are from the Hennepin County Sheriffs Department. Kapsner agrees with Johnson that this is a better designed building. He talked about the question of whether this is an appropriate area for this type of facility and believes it is rather than in a residential area. Kapsner said that there is a need to address this type of structure and believes this is a good area in the county for this facility. He supports the amendment to the CUP. Commissioner McAleese said that he supported the request for a CUP in May of this year and still believes that it is appropriate. He said that he would not support the request this time taking into consideration the comments by Commissioner Groger that this was a large expansion. McAleese does not believe that the lot is large enough for what Hennepin County is now proposing. He believes making it larger would be better, but not for this lot. . Chair Pentel said that she doesn't believe the expansion is adding that much more to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 1997 Page 8 the site. She commented that the commission was aware of the solid wall. She said she was more concerned with the covenant in that it doesn't address the restriction of violent offenders from this site. Pentel said she was appreciative of hearing from the neighbors, but doesn't believe that the residents of the facility will be a problem. Pentel said the new building will be an improvement. She said she supports the amended CUP with the condition that the covenant reflect that the level of an offender at this site would be a non-violent juvenile. . Commissioner Martens said that he would vote in favor of the request per Chair Pentel's comments. He believes that this is an improvement to the building which had been approved in May. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried with the following conditions: 1. The attached site plan prepared by Symees Maini and McKee Associates and Winsor Faricy and dated August 29, 1997 be made a part of the amended CUP. 2. The "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" be filed with this property. No building permits will be issued until proof of recording is given to the City. . 3. A landscape plan be submitted during the building permit process and be approved by the Building Board of Review. 4. Any outdoor lighting be approved by the Chief Building Inspector to insure that the lights do not adversely affect neighboring properties. 5. The detention facility be limited to 16 beds. 6. All necessary permits for construction are obtained from the City, County and State. 7. There shall be no outdoor storage of goods, supplies or equipment unless screened so it is not visible from the street or adjacent properties. 8. Only non-violent offenders shall be housed at this site. 9. The uses on the site shall meet all applicable City, State and Federal regulations. . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 22, 1997 Page 9 10. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. A roll call vote was taken. GROGER - NO JOHNSON - YES KAPSNER - YES MARTENS - YES MCALEESE - NO PENTEL - YES PRAZAK - YES Commissioner McAleese wanted to clarify that it is required by the ordinance that the commission look at certain factors regarding CUP's and one of those is the consistency of the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and that we have recommended a change and that change as gone through; and therefore, there is consistency. III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals Commissioner McAleese briefly related what had happened at a City Council meeting. IV. Other Business A. Workshop Session on Technical Background for the Land Use Plan Staff and the Commission discussed this agenda item and requested staff to assemble a draft plan document that incorporates some of the recommendations from the draft Technical Background. V. Adjournment The Chair adjourned the meeting at 9pm. Emilie Johnson, Secretary . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: October 21, 1997 Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Consolidation of Tracts A and B, Registered land Survey (RlS) No. 331 (5800 Duluth Street) -- lOGIS (local Government Information System) -- Applicant . LOGIS (Local Government Information System) has requested the consolidation of two lots located on Duluth Street. They have signed a purchase agreement with the owner which permits them to go through the consolidation procedure. The purpose of the consolidation is to create one lot that will be used for the construction of a two-level, 14,000 sq.ft. office building. The property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map for Business and Professional Offices. The property is also zoned Business and Professional Offices (B&PO). Their proposed use is consistent with these land use designations. The properties to the north of this site are zoned Institutional. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) owns and uses the property to the northeast. About 70 feet of the LOGIS property abuts MnDOT. About 270 feet along the north of this property abuts City of Golden Valley open space. Directly east of the site is another small office building. This property is zoned B&PO. There are two properties across Duluth Street. One is the Basset Creek Office complex which is an office PUD and the other is the Springgate Shopping Center which is zoned Commercial. The property to the west across Basset Creek is zoned Residential. The proposed consolidated lot will comprise a total of 1.27 acres or 55,510 sq.ft. Currently, the property consists of portions of Tract A and B (the other portions of those tracts were acquired as part of the Duluth Street construction by Hennepin County in the 1960's). Tract A is about 26,000 sq.ft. in area and Tract B is about 29,000 sq.ft. in area. As indicated on the County section map, there is a lot indicated as "Part of En south of Tract B. This property is owned by the City of Golden Valley for street . purposes and is considered right-of-way for Duluth Street. City staff will be recommending that Tract E be given to the County for right-of-way purposes. . . After the consolidation is reviewed and a recommendation made by the Planning Commission, LOGIS must appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Their proposed building does not meet all setback requirements for the B&PO Zoning District. The attached survey indicates the proposed location of the building. . CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF CONSOLIDATION The subdivision code lists nine areas that must be considered for the approval or denial of a consolidation. Each of the nine areas are listed below with staff comment: 1. The proposed subdivision must meet all the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. In this case, the proposed consolidation meets the requirements of the B&PO Zoning District. 2. Consolidations may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the buildable portion of the new lot is encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness. The proposed lot has been reviewed by the Engineer and he finds it to be adequate for the construction of an office building. The lot is adjacent to Basset Creek. LOGIS will be meeting the required setback from the bank of the creek as required by the Zoning Code (50 feet). The proposed building will also be placed outside ofthe existing floodplain. It also should be noted that the proposed development would provide a stormwater and water quality pond in order to help protect Bassett Creek. 3. Consolidations may be denied if public sewer and water are not directly accessible for the lot. This lot currently has public sewer and water service accessible to the site. 4. Approval of a consolidation shall be conditioned on the applicant's granting of easements for necessary public purposes. The applicant will be required to give the City an easement for trail purposes over the west 50 feet of the property. This would allow the City to have a trail from Duluth Street to the north. Currently there is a path but it is not on City property. 5. Where public agencies other than the City have some form of jurisdiction over an area including or directly affected by a proposed consolidation, approval of the consolidation may be conditioned on the requirements of the other jurisdiction. Hennepin County has been notified of this consolidation. They may request additional right-of-way for Duluth Street; however, the County already has 100 feet of right-of-way for Duluth Street in front of this parcel, so additional right-of-way may not be needed. This will be known prior to final plat approval by the City Council. 6. The City may want to review the title to the property if the City Attorney believes this is in the best interest of the City. In this case, the Attorney may recommend review of the title because the City will be obtaining a trail easement from the owner. This would have to be done prior to final plat approval by the City Council. . 2 . 7. Consolidations may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the new development would cause undue strain on adjacent roads or other public systems, or have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. The City may require that specific actions be taken to mitigate the adverse impact. In this case, the Engineer has determined that with a single driveway to Duluth Street, this small office building will have minimal effect on the street system and surrounding land uses. 8. There may be a park dedication required. The developer will be providing the City with a 50 foot wide trail easement along the creek. 9. Only the effect of the proposed consolidation on the eight previous issues shall constitute ground for denial. If the applicant satisfactorily meets the conditions, consolidation would be approved In order to better understand the development proposed by LOGIS, staff is attaching some of the information that will be submitted to the 8ZA. This includes a description of the property, proposed building and proposed variances. This is presented for information purposes only because the Planning Commission does not have authority on variances. . RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the proposed consolidation of Tract A and Tract 8, RLS No. 331 into one lot. The proposed one lot consolidation meets the requirements of the Subdivision Code and would provide a good site for a small office building as contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Staff is recommending the following conditions: 1. A trail easement over the west 50 feet be dedicated to the City of Golden Valley. 2. All necessary permits for access to the site are received from Hennepin County. 3. If requested by Hennepin County, additional right-of-way be dedicated for Duluth Street. 4. At the cost of the owner, the City Attorney shall prepare a title opinion prior to final plat approval. Attachment: Location Map Narrative by Pope Associates, which includes variances (4 pages) Oversized Plans . 3 I 2 I~ :::... -J~ 'D~ : 'IIZ.H i's,-;i'i:'f(- - --- 6+ "."<1 '.~./ 0" \it; l ,e . . -1l&'\ . ~.~ ---- 1//4.S'----__--.__ \'0\'0 C) ! 27M:!$ -f.~ . ." ~'o I S ,,,te sen V'fO~O ~ "0... c ...... ... ... . . s- .- o - I <DX CD"" ....=>> OQ I'CI) I ...,.. ~,.. '<::1 =... . "" .. 'I: TRACT ~. \-.. A ; 481 ~ ;!/ o. " I 01 H8'5125." ~ r-: .. AQ!.r.4.53 co ~- r-- - -S88'Z9'SSw 350.29 ... :a: , ~ ~ ~t-l No :11) "P 118'.5148-E ZStsz ~ . N -- N.., 0- o CI Z II 81'4,'IBiv US $60$-95 lXILlITH S7. .. ,i.?J9 . " ; . 5650 sr. CROIX . Ho.t S U'Z"WI'i 7 ~o. .- - .- - -: - - ~ 8 '^ '*' ;,. Q ~o ...,.- 0. ~! N;Y. . ,1&1 0 "'CIQ '" . . CD ('J 0lJ\ . - .0 ,2: W88'Z" SS-E 38'-'4 : .;:,:::: PART ~_ ~O!_'g ____:: l '-'------ '4 ... HIPPS ;~SRJCEFUif;.'i . 8 ...1:-- 9 ~. ~ '1- co PLAZA ~:E~DDITION . c:. I I H'.'8 3 148.05 Sbl.4\', SB80Z,-sS.W 717.48 5800 (MEDICINE LAKE ROAD) . . 0.35 Ac. 4j8. 7, 5826 I'S.21 $64$A)!~tlU~615 /0/./ : 560/ 10/,1 ~ ~ . t. . . . p o p f A f 5 5 A T s o ( October 8, 1997 Board of Zoning Appeals City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 RE: LOGIS Office Building Golden Valley, Minnesota Petition For Zoning Variances Pope Associates Project No. 45337-7806 This narrative is written in support of the petition for variances for the site and building of the LOGIS Office Building on Duluth Street in Golden Valley. The variances requested are as follows: 1. Building, Front Yard Setback: From 35' to 23'-11 Yz". 2. Building, Rear Yard Setback: From 30' to 20'-0". 3. 4 5. 6. 7. Parking, Front Yard Setback: From 35' to 6'-6". Parking, Side Yard Setback: From 10' to 5'-0". Parking, Rear Yard Setback: From 15' to 5'-0". Parking Stall Depths at Certain Locations: From 20' to 18'-0". Parking Lot Island Landscaping: From approximately 7 islands and 1 ,440 square feet to 4 islands and approximately 800 square feet. As requested by the Board, the narrative below describes the project and site, and the rationale supporting the request for the variances: The Site: a. The Duluth Street site is bounded by Duluth Street to the south, Bassett Creek to the west, a City park and the MnDOT facility to the north and a private office building site to the east. b. The site is 1.27 acres in area, or approximately 55,510 square feet. This small a parcel of land makes the development of a typical commercial building quite difficult. -'~-'''~''''~~~.WI:.J..~...~""",,~ ~~-."..~4(~..r""--,,,,'~"""'~f'" N c. 1360 Energy Park Drive Suite 300 SI. Paul, Minnesota 55108-5202 612 642 9200 FAX: 612 6421101 . October 8, 1997 Board of Zoning Appeals LOGIS Office Building Page -3- c. The Golden Valley Zoning Ordinance requires that a total of 56 parking spaces be provided for this sized building use. LOGIS plans to employ a total of 28 people in the building. However, the- nature of LOGIS' business requires a training room and conference rooms which will, at times, bring additionalpeople to the building. Thus, in order to negate the need to park off-site when additional people are visiting the building, LOGIS has indicated that they would like to maximize the number of parking stalls to be provided on the site. In order to meet this need it is proposed that the parking lot front, side and rear yard setback requirements be reduced by the amounts listed above, and that the parking stalls at the locations indicated on the Proposed Site Plan be reduced in depth. . It should be noted that the locations requested for the stall depth reductions are at the perimeter of the lot, where car overhangs typically will create additional vehicle space. If permitted, the stalls at the north side of the lot, where a retaining wall precludes taking advantage of the vehicle's overhang, could be designated for compact use only, as is commonly permitted in many communities. The Duluth Street front yard taking has also obviously played an important role in the need for these variance requests. d. The Zoning Ordinance requires that landscaped traffic islands be created at the ration of 200 square feet of island for each 3,000 square feet of parking lot, after the first 4,000 square feet of the lot. However, the size of the site, the County's Duluth Street taking, and the ponding and the flood plain requirements all combine to minimize the amount of land available for parking, thus creating a hardship in meeting this requirement. The proposed parking area is approximately 25,600 square feet. Our calculations indicate that a total of approximately 1 ,440 square feet, in seven landscaped traffic islands, are required by the Ordinance. In lieu of this amount it is proposed that four islands be provided, with an overall area of approximately 800 square feet, as indicated on the Proposed Site Plan. . . October 8, 1997 Board of Zoning Appeals LOGIS Office Building Page -2- c. In addition to its small size the site is steeply sloped, dropping approximately 20 feet downward from northeast to southwest. This condition adds to the difficulty of project development on the. site. d. The buildable area of the site is reduced by the required 50' setback from the flood plane. e. Because Bassett Creek abuts the property a larger than normal drainage holding pond is required by the Bassett Creek Watershed District. This requirement even further reduces the buildable area of the site. f. The amenities of the creek and the adjacent park, as well as the MnDOT facility to the northeast, dictate that the building be situated as far west on the site as possible. g. In 1988 Hennepin County reduced the front yard of the site by approximately 17' when they widened the right-of-way of Duluth Street. Until this 17' taking was discovered approximately one week ago, LOGIS, and ourselves, had been working with incorrect survey information. The correct survey information reached us only significantly after the site had been selected and the design work on the project had been well underway. In spite of this unwelcomed news LOGIS is still very interested in developing this project on this site, thus the reason for this petition. . The LOG/S Bui/dina and Site ProlJosa/: a. As per the submitted drawings, Logis proposes to construct a 2-story, 14,000 square foot office building (7,000 square feet per floor) on the site. b. Given the reduced site area after the County's taking, and the other site restrictions caused by the flood plane and additional ponding requirements, in order to allow for the construction of the proposed building it is proposed that the front and rear yard setbacks be reduced by the amounts indicated above. . . . . October 8, 1997 Board of Zoning Appeals LOGIS Office Building Page -4- We trust the above will satisfactorily present the rationale behind the need for the variances requested. If there are any questions we would, of course, be most happy to respond at any time. In conclusion, we cannot stress too strongly the project's need for approval of all of the variances requested. Without that approval the project will more than likely not be able to be constructed. Thank you very much for your consideration of this petition. Very truly yours, POPE ASSOCIATES INC. ~ .. . Pope, A.LA. President JRP/mml cc: Mike Garris, LOGIS Ken Schenk, PAl g:\45337\ 7806\corr\ 1 008.mem . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: . . October 22, 1997 Planning Commission Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to Valley Square Redevelopment Plan The HRA is getting ready to solicit redevelopment proposals for Valley Square's Area B, based on recommendations of the Area B Task Force. A key element of the recommendations is that any new development should include a mix of residential and retail uses. The current Valley Square plan, maintaining the basic direction of previous versions, specifically states that there should be NO residential uses in Area B. The plan must therefore be amended before redevelopment activities can proceed much further. The City has already applied for a Livable Communities grant to help implement the recommendations of the Task Force; a delegation will make a presentation to the grant selection committee on October 23, and awards will be announced in December. The Valley Square plan underwent a major revision back in 1991. The main purpose was to add a "Winnetka Avenue Overlay" section to outline activities related to or caused by the planned widening of Winnetka Avenue, but other existing plan elements were also re-considered to varying extents. Staff did ask whether planned Area B uses should be expanded to accommodate the possibility of a residential component, but at that time the area was considered an unlikely candidate for residential uses, based on a recent failure to get a mixed-use development off the ground in nearby Area C. In 1995 the HRA asked the Planning Commission to study and report on Area B redevelopment options. Among other things, the Commissioners concluded that part of the area could support medium to high density residential uses. Although a recommendation was forwarded to the HRA by the Commission, no action was taken to amend the plan. Now that the Task Force has validated the earlier Planning Commission recommendation, the HRA has approved the amendment. The amendment takes the form of several minor wording changes as shown on the attached page. Staff have considered a more comprehensive approach to update any items that might have changed since 1991, but are recommending against it for now. Per another of the Area B Task Force recommendations, the HRA is pursuing options for extending the life of the tax increment district in order to provide more financing for proposed Area B improvements. Once a . district extension is approved by the state legislature, the HRA will have to look at a major update no matter how many changes are made now; at this point staff feel it would be more reasonable to make only the minimum number of changes necessary to proceed. Attachments: Draft Amended Page of the Valley Square Redevelopment Plan . . 2 . . Area "B" Location: North of Highway 55, extending up to Bassett Creek; west of Winnetka Avenue, extending to Wisconsin Avenue -- Overall size: 29 acres 1978 Characteristics: Mid-size commercial strip center with three outlying buildings along Highway 55; two small-size commercial strip centers along Winnetka Avenue; a supermarket and miscellaneous other small commercial operations; two single-family homes along Creek. Plan Characteristics: Improved traffic circulation; generally mixed uses with emphasis on commercial.;. R9 and residential uses. Redevelopment Activities Completed To-Date: · Acquisition and removal of one of the two houses . · Acquisition and removal of Hennepin Co-Op building (business relocated within Valley Square, on Lewis Road) for street realignment purposes · Acquisition and removal of former Jerry's NewMarket building · Vacation of Vermont Avenue adjacent to street realignment · Realignment of Golden Valley Road to a more northerly location, beginning just west of supermarket and continuing through Area A · Former Golden Valley Road alignment west of Vermont Street alignment closed to through traffic but retained for local access and to protect underlying utilities Current Action Plan Components: . Commercial Mixed use redevelopment of sites cleared for Winnetka Avenue improvement (see Winnetka Avenue Overlay Area) and additional land acquired between Golden Valley Road and Bassett Creek . Acquisition and removal of remaining single family residonce · Acquisition of vacant lot from Marquette Bank of Golden Valley adjacent to . Bassett Creek and Wisconsin Avenue . Bassett Creek amenities '". ',.- . . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: October 22, 1997 Planning Commission Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner Work Session on Land Use Plan Update Given the lack of comment at the previous work session, staff have the feeling that Commission members are ready to pass on the Technical Background report pretty much as is, except for completion of the land use inventory in Section II. This is the Commission's chance to either confirm staff's impression or provide instructions for additional work to be undertaken. At the upcoming session, staff would like to know, for each section and appendix of the report: 1. Are there any typographic, grammatical, or other basic writing errors that should be cleaned up? 2. Are any sections, subsections, paragraphs or sentences written in a way that makes them difficult or impossible to understand? 3. Did staff draw any conclusions with which the Commission disagrees in whole or in part? 4. Did staff miss any topics (particularly in Section IV, for which staff have finally managed to crank out the attached "summary" page) or recommendations that the Commission wants to address? Depending on the outcome of this session, staff could probably have a draft plan ready for the Commission's consideration - again, omitting the uncompleted land use inventory information - within a week or two. If the Commission is then able to go through the draft before the end of the year, it will leave only the plan map itself to be revised in January and February. Attachments: · Page 36 Of Technical Background . . Summary To better meet requirements of state law, Golden Valley might want to address the following recommendations in the updated plan: · The City could carry over and broaden the housing plan objective of establishing an electronic data base on all Golden Valley properties, so that developers can be guided to appropriate sites before they begin assembling a proposal. · The City and HRA could re-examine the existing HRA "redevelopment philosophy", to address questions raised in the Technical Background for the Land Use Plan. · The City could consider whether part or all of the 1-394 corridor area would be better served by amending the comprehensive plan to indicate commercial or office uses rather than industrial. · Among other alternatives for dealing with 1-394 corridor rezoning issues identified in the Technical Background report, the City could explore a zoning overlay district that would allow commercial uses only for certain qualifying properties as specified in the code. · The City could establish an objective of studying planned land uses all along the Highway 100 corridor after all highway-related improvements are in place, with an eye to determining the need or desirability of area-wide land use plan amendments to accommodate altered land use demand. · The City may also want to think about establishing a policy of deferring consideration of any proposed land use plan amendments for individual properties within a certain distance of Highway 100 until after construction is complete and the broader corridor study is undertaken. . The City may want to establish an objective of reviewing all institutional land uses and considering their long term viability and/or options for alternative use. . The City could draft one or more goal statements based on the balancing-of- interests approach of SOL · The City could establish an objective of studying the sugge~ted strategies of the SOl local guidebook, when available, for possible local application. . A policy of monitoring ongoing SOl research and accomplishments at the state level would also be appropriate. . 36