01-22-96 PC Agenda
e:
I.
II.
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
January 22, 1996
7pm
Approval of Minutes - January 8, 1996
Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to Medley Park PUD 30-B
Applicant:
Address:
Purpose:
Donald Jacobson for Bor-Son Real Estate Investment, Applicant
Area Bounded by Mendelssohn Ln to the South, Mendelssohn
Avenue to the West, Hillsboro and the Galant Patio Townhomes
to the North, and the east side of Outlot A of PUD No. 30-B
Amend PUD 30-B to allow for the construction of office and
storage space onto the north side of the 'unit located at 2357
Mendelssohn Lane.
III. Informal Public Hearing - Review of Preliminary Design Plan
Applicant:
.
Address:
Purpose:
Sherman Associates, Inc.
That area bounded by Wisconsin Avenue on the East, Olson
Memorial Highway on the South, Bassett Creek on the West, and
Golden Valley Road on the North
To review the Preliminary Design Plan for Valley Creek PUD
No. 71 to allow for the construction of a 29,000 sq.ft. medical
office building on Lot 2, Block 1 and for the future development
of approximately 81,000 sq. ft. of additional office space on Lot 1,
Block 2 of the proposed Valley Creek PUD No. 71 plat and to amend
the zoning of this area from open development to B&PO.
IV. Review of Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
(Don Taylor, Director of Finance and Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works
will be present to answer any questions.)
V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council,
and Board of Zoning Appeals
VI. Other Business
A. Proposed Amendment to Zoning Code Regarding the Board of Zoning
Appeals Application Due Date - Section 11.90, Subd. 4(C)( 1).
B. APA Conference in Florida - Who's going?
. VII. Adjournment
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 pro-
posed 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 recommenda-
tion. in reaching its decision.
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 recommenda-
tion from staff. Commission members may ask questions of staff.
Z. 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 railing their hands. The Chair may
set a time limit for individual quastions/comments if a large number
of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for
groups will have a longer pertod 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.
S. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will deter-
mine 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.
.
.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley
Planning Commission
January 8, 1996
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council
Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by
Chair Prazak at 7:00pm.
Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, Pentel and
Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Elizabeth
Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Planning Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - November 27,1995
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the
November 27, 1995 minutes as submitted.
II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit Amendment
Applicant:
SuperAmerica Group, Inc.
Address:
1930 Douglas Drive North, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Request:
Amend Conditional Use Permit which would allow for the hours of operation
to be extended to 24 hours a day
Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, gave a brief summary of her report to the Commissioners dated
January 3, 1996 commenting that SuperAmerica (SA) is requesting the restriction on the hours of
operation (6am to 11 pm) be lifted to allow for SA to service their customers 24-hours a day. Since
the store was opened in 1989, there has only been one complaint regarding the store being opened
after 11 pm. As it turned out, employees were restocking shelves and cleaning which is permissible
under the CUP.
Ms. Knoblauch reviewed the ten "Factors for Consideration" commenting on several factors:
Demonstrated Need. Honeywell has a late shift, as other businesses in the area do. These
employees on the late shift may choose to buy goods at SA.
Effect of Traffic Generation. City Engineer Fred Salsbury does not anticipate additional street
congestion due to the site being open 24-hours a day.
Effect on Increased Noise Levels. The loud speakers are limited to the hours of 7am and 10pm.
Late night noise from deliveries shouldn't be a problem. The fire inspectors prefer the gas tankers
to deliver in the early morning hours when less cars will be on the site.
Visual Appearance. There should be no effect other than lighting. With the 24-hour operation, the
canopy and exterior lighting will be left on. The lighting is visible from the apartments, but it is not
directed toward that area.
Other Effects on General Public Health, Safety, or Welfare. Director of Public Safety, Dean
Mooney commented that convenience stores are vulnerable to hold-ups by their very nature, as are
other businesses who remain open through-out the night. Golden Valley's "dog watch" routinely
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 8, 1996
Page Two
.
stops by all 24-hour operations. SA makes a serious effort to maintain as safe a nighttime environ-
ment for its employees and customers as possible. Director Mooney pointed out that the 24-hour
operation may marginally increase the station's vulnerability to hold-ups, but at the same time it
would reduce the likelihood of burglary or vandalism. Director Mooney's opinion is that a 24-hour
operation will not decrease the safety for the neighborhood in general.
Ms. Knoblauch said that staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission would be to recommend
to the City Council approval of an amendment to the existing CUP striking out the hours of operation
(#7 on permit) and language added regarding the use of the loudspeaker.
Commissioner Lewis asked if all the pumps would be lighted after 11 pm. City Planner Knoblauch
said it would be difficult not to have the whole area illuminated.
Chair Prazak asked the applicant to come forward to make any additional comments and answer
questions from staff or the commission.
Michael Cronin, 8809 W. Bush Lake Road, representative for SuperAmerica, commented that
customers are the reason SA is requesting to be open 24-hours a day. He showed pictures of the
area and talked about buffering that surrounds the store. Mr. Cronin commented that he had talked
with the manager of the adjacent apartment building, who said that most tenants don't have a
problem with the extended store hours.
.
Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Cronin about the canopy lighting. Mr. Cronin said the lighting is
pointed downward and would prefer not to turn down the canopy lighting.
Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing.
Dr. Mildred Hansen, owner of the Golden Valley Arms apartments, said that the apartment manager
was incorrect in the number of residents who are against the proposal. The manager's count was 3
or 4 residents and Dr. Hansen's total came out to be 13 residents objecting to the extension of hours.
Dr. Hansen talked about the noise from the tankers at 3am and the clanging of garbage containers in
the early morning hours. She does not believe her apartment should be considered a buffer for SA.
Dr. Hansen strongly opposes the request.
Bob Parzyck, 2005 Brunswick Ave. No., opposes the extension of hours and is concerned with the
smell of gas fumes which come from the area.
Elinor Snodgrass, 1945 Brunswick Ave. No., opposes the extension of hours and is concerned with
added traffic congestion on Duluth and Douglas and the loudspeaker system.
Commissioner Pentel asked Ms. Snodgrass if the speakers could be heard from her backyard. Ms.
Snodgrass answered yes.
.
Paul Snodgrass, 2010 Douglas Drive, opposes the extension of hours and is upset with the night
time deliveries and noise they make and fumes generated from the intersection of Douglas and
Duluth.
Larry Blackburn, 2000 Douglas Drive No., is concerned with the amount of lighting that is generated.
His other concerns are with the clientele that will be generated from a 24-hour operation and safety.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 8, 1996
Page Three
Norma Ruths, 1935 Brunswick Ave. No. is concerned about safety with a 24-hour operation, the
loudspeaker noise - especially in summer, gas delivery and trash container noise.
Mr. Cronin, SA representative, told the commission that SuperAmerica had some homework to do
and would be willing to work with Dr. Hansen and the neighbors to clean up the operation on an issue
to issue basis.
Chair Prazak asked Mr. Cronin if there was an alternative to the loudspeakers. Mr. Cronin
commented that the loudspeakers need to be there due to fire code and there needs to be the open
communication between the customer and the employees inside.
Commissioner Kapsner asked where the speakers were located. Mr. Cronin said more to the top of
the post. Commissioner Kapsner asked if the speaker could be moved down to ear level or could SA
investigate new technology for loudspeakers.
Commissioner Pentel asked the applicant about the delivery of gas. Commissioner Kapsner
commented that the City is telling SA that they would like to see gas delivery in the early morning
hours because of traffic; City Planner Knoblauch acknowledged this comment.
Commissioner McAleese asked staff if there were regulations regarding garbage pick-up. Staff
commented that City Code only regulates residential zoned areas. Commissioner McAleese asked
when garbage at SA was being picked up and Dr. Hansen said Sam. The store manager said that
trash should be picked up later than that and will look into this with the trash haulers.
Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing.
Commissioner Kapsner believes the problem with the trash cans and other issues raised can be
worked out. He commented that the noise with the speakers need to be addressed so people don't
hear the speakers a block away. Commissioner Kapsner said that there is an opportunity for the
applicant and neighborhood to work together to solve some of the issues.
Commissioner Johnson agreed that some of the issues could be resolved with the applicant working
with the neighbors. She doesn't believe that a 24-hour operation will be a problem and that
undesirables will not come into the area just because there is a 24-hour operation. Commissioner
Johnson agreed with Director Mooney that having a 24-hour operation can be a benefit to the area by
decreasing the prospect of crime. Chair Prazak concurred.
Commissioner Groger agreed that some issues could be worked out. He commented that it doesn't
take much lighting to be distractive and this may be the case with the apartment building.
Commissioner Groger also talked about the lack of adequate buffering between the SA and the
apartment building. Staff suggested that maybe the applicant could look at adding larger evergreens
in the area where the apartment building can be seen.
Chair Prazak asked staff to comment on the lighting. Staff said they could ask the applicant to do a
lighting study and decimal rating of the loudspeakers. The ideal situation would be to not have the
sound leave the area.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 8, 1996
Page Four
Commissioner McAleese commented that he would encourage the commission to recommend to the
City Council to look at the lighting issue. Commissioner McAleese said he would vote against the
proposal because he believes a 24-hour operation would change the character of the surrounding
residential area. He said he was also very concerned with the noise at this intersection.
Commissioner Lewis is concerned with safety in the area with a 24-hour operation, lighting and gas
delivery in the middle of the night. She opposes the request.
Chair Prazak commented that he feels there are concerns between the applicant and neighbors and
would highly recommend that these issues be talked about before the request comes before the City
Council. Chair Prazak is in favor of the request for a 24-hour operation at Duluth and Douglas.
Commissioner Pentel said that the speaker issue needs to be addressed before it goes to the
Council. She believes there is a need for a 24-hour gas operation in the area. Commissioner Pentel
would like to have the conditions state that there would be no speakers after 10pm, no trash pick-up
before 7am, have tankers deliver gas closer to 6am rather than 3am and encourage SA to put up
signs to encourage its customers to turn off their cars and radios before entering the store.
Commissioner Pentel said that she would like to see the SA request tabled until a time when the
applicant and the neighbors have had a time to review the issues at hand. Mr. Cronin came forward
requested a postponement, for an indefinite time, of SuperAmerica's request in order to meet with the
neighbors and address issues that were brought up at the meeting.
.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to postpone
SuperAmerica's request to amend the Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 24-hour operation of their
store at 1930 Douglas Drive.
III. Informal Public Hearing - Planned Unit Development
Applicant:
Golden Valley Commons, L.L.C.
Address:
Northeast Quadrant of Olson Memorial Highway and Winnetka Avenue
(Area C)
Request:
Review of the Preliminary Design Plan which proposes construction of mixed
retail and restaurant uses on 7.8 acres on the site known as Area C
.
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, gave a brief summary of his staff report to the
Planning Commission dated January 5, 1996. He highlighted a few areas of interest. The RFP had
stated that no drive-through restaurants would be allowed on the site. The applicant is not proposing
a drive-through restaurant but have indicated on the site plan a drive-through for the pharmacy on the
west side of the main building. Glen Van Wormer, consultant with SEH, reviewed the site plan for
the City and developer and parking layout. It is Mr. Van Wormer's belief that there is enough parking
available on the site to accommodate all the uses proposed. Mr. Grimes talked about the sidewalks
on the site. The sidewalks on the south and west sides of the site have been de-emphasized
because of busy Hwy. 55. There is a sidewalk along the back side of the post office and a sidewalk
along Rhode Island Avenue down to the southeast comer to accommodate the restaurant site. There
are also sidewalks on Golden Valley Road and the north portion of Winnetka Avenue. He also said
there were very good pedestrian connections to all of the Valley Square area. Mr. Grimes stated that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 8, 1996
Page Five
.
the site should have bike racks placed somewhere since the City of Golden Valley does allow bikes
on the sidewalks.
Mr. Grimes said variances would be required for the loading areas, parking spaces, street setbacks,
and nonstreet setbacks (parking only). The applicant has submitted signage for the site which
includes the clock tower and three pylon signs. The Inspections Department and Planning would like
to see the developer meet the sign code's square footage requirement.
Mr. Grimes told the commission that other public agencies have received the site plan and
preliminary plat for review. The Engineering Department has also reviewed the plan and submitted a
memo regarding the drainage and drive-through. The Engineering staff is concerned with the drive-
through driveway and may request that the driveway go directly into the back of the post office
driveway and not the street. Commissioner Lewis asked if having the driveway go directly into the
other driveway would cause accidents because of limited visibility caused by the building.
Commissioner Pentel talked about her concern in having three separate lots, the amount of parking,
lighting, maintenance of sidewalks and stop signs within the development. Mark Grimes commented
that the overall construction of the sites will be similar, and there will be a cross-parking agreement.
The owners of the businesses will maintain the sidewalks which are in the interior of the site. The
City will maintain the perimeter sidewalks. There will be controls within the development to control
traffic.
.
Commissioner Groger asked for clarification if cars will be able to turn into the center coming south on
Winnetka Avenue. Mark Grimes stated that cars will not be able to turn into the center if they are
traveling south on Winnetka Avenue. Access from the north will be from Golden Valley Road.
Chair Prazak asked the applicant to come forward.
Jay Scott, representative for Opus, talked briefly about meeting the needs and goals of the RFP and
that the developer is creating a development that meets the needs of the community.
Kathy Anderson, KKE Architects, talked about 1) the mixed uses (restaurants, coffee shops, retail
and drug) being unique, 2) the site being pedestrian friendly, 3) how the arbors and landscaping
mimic what is seen on WinnetkaAvenue streetscape and 4) how the roof lines and clock tower are
key visual elements.
Mike Pan, representative for Snyder Drug, told the commission that Snyder's has signed a letter of
intent for the drug store use. He commented that the drive-through is very convenient for the elderly
and those parents, who are picking up prescriptions for a sick child on the way home from the clinic.
Commissioner Johnson asked if customers would sit in line at the drive-through and wait for their
prescriptions to be filled. Mr. Pan said that was a possibility but most prescriptions are called in
ahead of time.
.
Mark Grimes asked what the anticipated use of the drive-up would be and how many cars would use
the drive-up window. Mr. Pan thought approximately 10 - 15% of customers would use the drive-
through which is anywhere from 6 to 25 stops per day. He also commented that the drive-through
window would only be in operation when the pharmacy is open.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 8, 1996
Page Six
.
Commissioner Pentel is concerned with the drive-through egress as well as cars lined up in winter
causing fumes - she is not in favor of any drive-throughs.
Chair Prazak suggested that the commission visit a drive-through facility. Mark Grimes commented
that he has never seen car stacking at the drive-through which is in his neighborhood.
Mark Grimes brought up the question of how to deal with the drive-through if Snyder Drug decides to
leave. After being in operation, Commissioner Pentel thought it would be difficult to tell someone,
when all the infrastructure is there, that they can't use it. Mr. Pan commented that the drive-through
could be ripped out and walled in after Synder left.
Commissioner Johnson expressed her concern on the signage for the area and the color scheme to
be used. Mr. Scott said that tenants will adhere to stringent guidelines on what signage they can use.
Commissioner Pentel asked about the width of the walkway between the video store and bagel store.
She is concerned with bike traffic on the sidewalks, which is allowed in Golden Valley. Mr. Scott
commented that the connections and internal flow within the development is very important. Mark
Grimes said that the development could decide to not allow bikes within the area.
Chair Prazak commented that he was very happy with the design concept.
.
Commissioner McAleese asked about the control over the design of the canopies and overall
consistency in the development. Mr. Scott stated that there would be a covenant agreement which
would have control over the design of signage, canopies, etc.
Commissioners Groger and Johnson agreed that they liked the general concept.
Commissioner McAleese said he was concerned with the drive-through and the blind corner. He
feels this problem needs to be addressed.
Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing.
Lu Rockman, 130 Jersey Avenue North, commented that she and her husband were involved in the
Valley Square Task Force. She thinks Opus has done an excellent job. She does not believe that
the drive-through works in this location. Ms. Rockman asked the developer if there was room for
outdoor sculptures.
Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing.
Mark Grimes told the commission that they needed to approve the Preliminary Design Plan and if
there is something specific that needs to be dealt with, they could name the item(s) or just vote in
agreement with the plan.
MOVED by Johnson, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the
City Council approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Golden Valley Commons PUD No. 70 as
. presented along with concerns on signage, the drive-through, crosswalks, awnings, etc.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 8, 1996
Page Seven
V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
City Council. Board of Zoning Appeals. Community Standards Task
Force. and Valley Square Task Force
Chair Prazak requested that the reports be continued to the next meeting of the Planning
Commission due to the late hour.
VI. Other Business
No other business was reported
V. Adjournment
Chair Prazak adjourned the meeting at 10pm.
Jean Lewis, Secretary
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
January 17, 1996
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing - Amendment 3 to Medley Park PUD
No. 30-B - That Area Bounded by Mendelssohn Lane to the South,
Mendelssohn Avenue to the West, Hillsboro and the Galant Patio
Townhomes (PUD 14) to the North and the East side of Outlot A of
PUD No. 30-8 - Bor-Son Real Estate Investment, Applicant
Background Information
In June of 1981, Bor-Son Construction Companies presented to the Planning
Commission a Planned Unit Development Application (PUD No. 30-A) which proposed
the construction of subsidized (Section 8) units on the western half of what is known
today as Medley Park (see attached staff memo to Planning Commission dated
1/8/81). The applicant requested a continuance ofthe Planning Commission meeting
to make changes to the site which would include market rate townhouses and/or
condominiums in the area known today as Pheasant Glen. This housing
development would contain 30 low and moderate rental units and the ownership
housing would contain 34 townhouses/condos. The development is located on 8.5
acres located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Medicine Lake Road and
Hwy. 18 (today known as Hwy. 169). The low and moderate income housing segment
would be rental housing under the State Housing Program and the middle income
housing would be ownership housing under the FHA Section 234 condo program.
The continued hearing went before the Planning Commission on July 13,1981 and
the commission recommended approval of the concept plan for PUD No. 30-B. The
City Council approved the concept plan at its August 18, 1991 meeting. (The letters
"A" and "B", found in the PUD number, were used to differentiate between the original
concept plan and the changed concept plan.)
On January 12, 1982 Bor-Son Investment Properties appeared before the Board of
Zoning Appeals to request the number of covered parking spaces be reduced from 97
to 49 enclosed spaces for the entire site. The BZA approved the waiver unanimously
(Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes dated 1/12/82).
The Planning Commission on March 8, 1982 reviewed and recommended approval of
the General Plan of Development for PUD No. 30-B. The City Council approved PUD
No. 30-B on April 6, 1982.
Bor-Son Memo
Page Two
In June of 1983 Bor-Son requested the ability to change one of the tot lots, which was
located in the southeast portion of the PUD to a gazebo. Marketing studies had
shown that empty nesters and first-time homebuyers, who were delaying having a
family, were most likely to buy a townhouse or condominium. This amenity would also
give the purchasers of those homes in the area enjoyment of the gazebo and the pond
(see attached site plan [8-1/2 x 11] dated 1/18/82). Marketing studies have also
revealed that buyers are now looking for two-car garages. Bor-Son had requested,
depending on buyer demand, to add one additional garage stall to four more buildings
on this second phase. Both the Planning Commission and City Council approved the
amended Preliminary and General Plan of Development (see attached staff memo to
Planning Commission dated 1/4/84).
The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed and approved Amendment No.2
to Medley Park PUD No. 30-B in the winter/spring of 1985. The request would change
the plan by reducing the number of individually ownership townhouse units from '34 to
30 and construction of 17 additional garage stalls. The proposed amendment would
improve the overall parking situation. The number of parking spaces increases while
the number of units decreases resulting in a greater ratio of parking spaces to units
(see attached staff memo to Planning Commission dated 1/9/85).
Proposed Amendment
Bor-Son is requesting a third amendment to Medley Park PUD No. 30-B. This
amendment would allow for the construction of an office/storage area (approximately
11' x 29') onto the north side of the unit located at 2357 Mendelssohn Lane. The
office would not have direct access into the unit. The office space would have its own
entrance. The resident managers for Medley Park live at 2357 Mendelssohn Lane
and have requested more space. They presently have the office in their home and
with the addition of another child are running out of space. The present managers told
Bor-Son they would have to move unless additional space for office use and storage
could be found.
Enclosed in your packets, you will find an amended site plan dealing with the western
portion of PUD No. 30-B. When Bor-Son requested the previous amendments to
Pheasant Glen, they submitted only the eastern half of the PUD. Staff would like to
have a site plan showing all amendments before it goes before the City Council. As
noted on the site plan, the office/storage area does not take up a very large portion of
available space. There will be a sidewalk entrance connected to the existing sidewalk.
The applicant also furnished an elevation plan showing the office/storage area, height
and exterior of the building.
Mr. Donald Jacobson, Director of Housing Services for Bor-Son, will be available at
the Planning Commission's January 22 meeting. He submitted an article from
Kaleidoscope in which the resident manager, Mr. Wakefield, is highly praised for his
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bor-Son Memo
Page Three
work as the manager and maintenance person at Medley Park. Mr. Wakefield has
been very involved with the children and parents of the community and has kept this
area looking "sharp" as the article states. The applicant would very much like to keep
the Wakefield's as their resident managers because of the commitment they have to
the children and parents of Medley Park and to the community.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending approval of Amendment 3 to Medley Park PUD No. 30-B with
the condition that the proposed office/storage area be used only by the on-site
resident managers. The addition of the office/storage area should not have a
detrimental effect on Medley Park nor the surrounding area. According to the
applicant, with the addition of the office/storage area the resident managers will be
able to stay on and continue working for Bor-Son.
As stated earlier, staff is requesting an updated site plan which shows all of PUD No.
30-B with the amendments before this proposal goes on to the public hearing before
the City Council in February.
Attachments:
Location Map
Narrative from Bor-Son dated January 2, 1996
Kaleidoscope Article dated October, 1995
Staff Memo to Planning Commission dated 1/8/81
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals dated 1/12/82
Staff Memo to Planning Commission dated 1/4/84
Staff Memo to Planning Commission dated 1/9/85
Site Plan/Elevation Plan - enclosed separately
.CITY
OF GOLDEN
VALLEY
.
(fI'
:';"~.4:f{~s..
.
-:;::. Z667Z -.... "",ro "
,," N89'Wjl 'l"'-'Z~~ ~'W,'" .- .. ;'~.'" .-....-...
: ;) 9~O.';":: 9315
. . . .::.. 17S . I
'~o ~:;~ Q;
....6"';,. ,; ~M Q!
-P- ;So ..'" .' i\ !"
....oS' '.r"" <t
- '. i: . ~I
"'~ I "I
o I
.. Zo ~h ~o""!.
-~;'t'lt... .'-"
~. (~. :s
~'o w"
.... ..:
--.-~~:
330 ')
9145 '-~TR: -- :
33':
9105
'\~
o,p 0
a: '..,
g ~~~- " .
U) :':":'
...J ''0
...J .!!
J; .' ~ ~
. . .
11 ~--:
I '.
, I
'" ~I .~ """
1111
""I '~ 0,
"'" "'"
""I --V I I
I I
1 I
I i
I
!
I I
: I
-.. t ...
oOl. :'I.
.
.
)
a
'"
o
'^
~,
.~~
.-9
2. 2'f?oS
'II-
'"
: ~
'II-
- -
S8;'3: H"E
o~ MEOI ~ OUTLOT
'!!~~ c...c.; ~
~ H
... ~~. O'S ;,"... ll..
lt~.aS .!"
-._,JlJ"PL.1 ........,:t...
0'4.,:.... b .
~.._ t_:~~
SoJ.JZ.~..::::. _
"', ... _.
5". "
2
2nd
:t
~'~4
I-
-
PARK
.:-:~- ~
h8~
- IZ63.47"
N8!J05!J"50.e
KINOS
~
~
... ~"o
,o~
',. /50
~
'.:l
.....
Or.
~
...
.'"
'"
~
: --'50 - 7;::'!ft' - -: ,1.,,- -~ ,,<
. "
,
\ C),...
~I~
I::
:'-
". Mri't~"2.rW
: Sl4'l... '0,
o 4'30' E'-3 I
.0 '/1
I U:,.. . IZn. ,
nil Jf~J ii, D'
,~\" ,
(;) ~ 904$
.""I~
N~
oN '"
(:),..
~
')..
.i
....
- '"
N
~
.,.,
",
.'
i
.i
"
. <
"
~~~~,
.....
.
MEMORANDUM
January 2, 1996
TO: Mr. Mark Grimes
Director of Planning & Development
City of Golden Valley, MN
BORSON
COM PAN
E S
FROM: Mr. Donald A. Jacobson
Bor-Son Building Corpora ion
Director of Housing Services
RE: Proposed Office/Storage Addi
Medley Park Housing Complex
.
The Medley Park Housing Complex, consisting of 30 Townhomes
southeast of Highway 169 and Medicine Lake Road, was developed
in 1982 as a Planned Unit Development with the City of Golden
Valley. The project today is consistent with the Low and
Moderate Income Housing Program described under the
regulations of the Minnesota State Finance Agency. The.
property is owned by Bor-Son Real Estate Investment and
Bor-Son employees as a partnership.
The project is professionally managed by the LaSalle Group of
Bloomington, Minnesota with Dave and Wendy Wakefield as the
on-site resident managers. The project has performed very
well as described by the attached State Newsletter article
commending the managers and designating Medley Park as
"Project of the Year". The Golden Valley Safety Department
has also commended the Wakefields for excellent work with the
children.
Wakefields have their second child now and space is limited.
We propose to make a small 11' x 29' office/storage unit
addition to the Wakefield's townhome to keep this excellent
management and future teams workable. The application to
amend the PUD and plans are submitted for your approval.
Thank you for this consideration.
.
Member: AGe-AssocIated General Contractors
BOR-SONCONSTRUCTION COMPANIES
P.O. Box 1611
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440 (612) 854-8444
FAX (612) 854-8910
EquaJ Opportunity Employer
. \. MHFA Announces Changes To)
.. . _ \ Redefined EquityProgra~ I
"f"'he ~ota Housing .~mance .' ..~ ~ ~gram. ~ve ~
,1. Agency anuounces reVISIons tothe' "tributtons will be peIIDlttedietroacttve-
. ,'Redefined Equi~gram which was ,:'<.ly to the fust date a devel~merit was
established in 198~ with the origi- enrolled in the Origin~_~f:iram for
,nal ~ogram, the re~d program is those developments wny-h elect
desi ed to provide in~ased partner- Redefined Equity :In
ship stributions in exch~ge for a ,
longer ~rm commitment to~the Section -In exchange for I increased partner-
8 pro~ Developments w~h are ship, distributions ~ailable under
currently\nrolled in the progr~~e Redefined Equi~ II, the partnership is
given the ~ftion of electing Rede~ed required to re,~ in the Section 8 pro-
Equity II. ll\.. addition, there will be \:\ gram for the maximum term of the
other developPlents which do not qual':\. Housing Asii.stance Payments Contract
ify for the ori~al Redefined Equity " and is alsl required to agree to not
Program but w \. ch will qualify un~r prepay eir MHFA mortgage.
the new guidelin for Redefmed
Equity II.
Under both redefme equity programs,
", the development mus be in good condi-
, tion ii1 order to qualify. The following
are the significant chan s to the pro-
gram for developments w . ch have
maintained 95% or greater cupanc
for 24 consecutive months . d hav a
waiting list equal to one- and
times the annual turnover:
II is effective at this
time and Agenc staff are in the process'
of calculating the ount of the
increased return a: . able to develop-
ments currently e ed in the Refined
,Equity Program so partnerships
may decide if they wis to enroll in the
, ' n~w p~gram. We ex 0 send this
information to general p rs within
the next four-to-six weeks.
, -There is no longer a perc
outstanding mortgage res
_ requirement.
. ", -Reserves of $3,
Units and,$5,OOO
units are require
Equity ll.
per unit for elder!
r unit for family
Under Redefmed
"
-Cumulati e distributions will be per-
mitted un the revised program
whereas they are not permitted under
K
/' a g
~
aI .:
I III
=. e
~ sa
I I,
aI .S
~ ~
08' 83
/' .a
e III
;: >
I>> !
~ 0
. .:
Q . tJ
III
(/I I
(/I
...
g
0
-
.- ~ d
~.
Qq
"lj
'~ 0 0
I' 't:;
0
....
Ct.I
.. B
~
::r. S Ii
~
III
< ;:
~ /'
C' !:l..
'0
~
,0 ffJ
...
a tD
I
0 ~
~ 0
I
::r. tD
~ ~
/'
P
e
October, 1995
Volume 4, No. 3
A Newsletter of
Multifamily
Division of MHFA
~. . . Medley Park:
. . edley Park in Golden Valley,
. a 30-unit townhome com-
munity, recently was named
. LaSalle Management Group's
"Outstanding Property of the
Year."
Composing A Masterpiece
age positive programs w;'h fami-
ly. The event was a gn;;at suc-
cess.
David Wakefield is both the resi- . _.
dent manager and maintenance
person at Medley Park and has a
very positive attitude about his
property and residents, especially
the children.
Ernestine Stephens, Housing
Management Officer for the
Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency, says, "Dave has always
kept the property looking sharp
and treated the residents well. As
a matter of fact, the development
looks as good as or better than
many market rate developments
in the area."
Wakefield has been very involved ..~~ ~
with the parents and community ~ - . . Kim Collinge, property manager
by participating in monthly. for the LaSalle Group, thinks
Manager Meetings sponsored by DaVid Wakefield Wakefield has a "people personal-
the City of Golden Valley Department of Public ity" that makes it easy for the residents to like him.
Safety. With the assistance of the Golden Valley "Dave is a great asset to Medley Park and LaSalle
Police Department and volunteers, Medley Park host- Management Group and has a great appreciation and
ed a resident party on National Night Out to encour- dedication to the residents," she says.
. PERSONALITY PnOl?ILE
1\
lii~'i
\ -
Sandy
Monk
JOB TITLE: Occupancy Specialist
YEARS OF SERVICE WITH MHFA: 6-112 Years
JOB DESCRIPTION: Responsible for the data
entry of Tenant Certifications for 100+ properties.
"Family is very important to me," says Sandy, who is
married with two soils and one grandson. The best
part of her job is "the warm and friendly people I
work with, including the site managers I talk to over
.e phone." According to Occupancy Supervisor
Marty Roller, her positive attitude and diligent work
ethic help MHFA process approximately 15,000
Tenant Certifications each year.
.f:I<aleidoscopeis published. by the"Pre>pcmy ManageIIleI\t
-=~~~
:'.h~g~issues. If you have ~y co~ents.or~ggestiOnS~Or:
\Woulddike to subscribe to. thiSFRElip1Jblication, pleasecilll'
... Pat LaVone at(612}296-7982. . .
.....,.. - ".-,.. _00."
.... ....:!';.~oritiDt!SiF.~.
MUmesotaHoUshtgFmance',Agency
4OQ:Sibley Street... SUite~300
StPaul~MNS5101:
'. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency does not discrimi-
! nate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion,
age or disability in employment or the provision of services.
The news and information contained in this edition of .'
Kaleidoscope will be made available in an alternative format
upon request.
TO:
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JULY 8, 1981
.
FROM: MIKE MILLER, PLANNING & REDEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL - P.U.D. #30-B
"GOLDEN VALLEY HOUSING"
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
Bor-Son Companies is proposing a Planned Unit Development containing 64 units
of family housing on 8.5 acres of land, located on Hillsboro-Mendelsonn
Avenue, north of Kings Valley and west of Medley Park (see attached area map).
This proposal is aimed at providing housing for low, moderate, and middle-
income families. Thirty-four (34) units are proposed for owner-occupancy
for moderate and middle-income families with a price range from $55,000 to
$70,000 (includes I bedroom quads and 2 bedroom townhouse11units). Thirty
(30) units of townhouses are proposed for rental units available to low and
moderate-income families under the HUD Section 8 rental subsidy program.
Amenities proposed for this development include two tot lots for youngsters,
two ponding areas for natural amenities and retention of storm water runoff,
and special landscaping to buffer uses and activities. It is further proposed
that the Bor-Son Company will own and manage the project through its affiliate
Bor-Son Investment Properties.
This Planned Unit Development (P.U.D. W30-B) is being offered for Concept .
Plan Approval. The primary purpose of submitting a Concept Plan for review
at an early stage of the proposal is to determine if the proposed land use
is appropriate for the area, or neighborhood, in which it is to be located.
The Concept Plan should be considered with respect to such things as impact
on the adjacent neighborhood, density, benefit to the neighborhood and the
Community as a whole. Approval of a Concept Plan is essentially a positive
statement of land use compatibility, and in no way binds either the Planning
Commission or the City Council in guaranteeing approval of the General Plan
of Development of the P.U.D. In short, the Concept Plan addresses the proposed
development in general terms, whereas the General Plan of Development deals
with specific design criteria being concerned with the detail of architecture,
drainage, traffic, financial feasibility, etc.
Land uses adjacent to the site proposed for P.U.D. #30-B include commercial
uses to the north (liquor store, McDonald's and a small convenience retail
center), a city park (Institutional) is located to the east, and single-
family attached townhouses are located to the south (Kings Valley). The
western boundary of the proposed site is comprised of County Road 18 and its
frontage road, Mendelsonn Avenue.
The current comprehensive plan for the City of Golden Valley calls for this
site to be developed as a medium density Planned Unit Development (residential).
According to the Golden Valley Housing Policy, medium density is defined as
being 5 to 12 dwelling units to the acre. P.U.D. #30-B is proposed at 7.5
dwelling units to the acre. The Housing Policy also states a preference of
51 to 60 percent federal subsidy for subsidized housing projects. This P.U.D.
Concept Plan proposes approximately 47 percent of the dwelling units would be
subsidized rental untts, while the remaining units would be owner-occupied and
.
Golden Valley Planning Commission
e
-2-
July 8, 1981
made available to moderate and middle-income families. This concept appears
to provide for a good economic mix as well as a variety of housing opportunities
(rental, owner-occupied townhouses, condo).
With respect to the proposed Concept Plan
intended to serve, the proponent projects
approximately 86 adults and 86 children.
the proposed Concept Plan.
and the number of people it is
that this development would house
Attached you will find a copy of
It appears that the impact on the adjacent neighborhood (Kings Valley)
would be minimal if the proponent adequately addresses certain concerns
raised by the neighbors. These concerns which center on drainage, landscaping,
traffic, building and walkway locations. Attached you will find a letter
from the proponent outlining steps that either have been taken, or will be
taken to address these neighborhood concerns.
RECOMMENDATI ON:
Considering that the Concept Plan for P.U.D. 30-8 appears to comply with
all, or most, land use considerations and neighborhood concerns, as well as
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and substantial compliance with the
Golden Valley Housing Policy, I would recommend that the Planning Commission
e. give favorable consideration to the Concept Plan for P.U.D. #30-8.
kjm
e
Board of Zoning Appeals
Page 4
January 12, 1982
.
Mr. Dennis Roch expressed his concern about parking on the site and traffic through
the area. He described the current problems of traffic and access to Medicine lake
Road and also Hillsboro.
As discussion continued such other items were ~ddressed such as Police Dept. authority
in responding to any parking complaints, access of Fire Dept. vehicles to the site,
management of the association, costs of covered garage units (estimated at $25 per
month), electrical outlets available for car heaters, etc.
Mahlon Swedberg said he could see that in the rent subsidized units the $25 additional
cost which would be required for a garage could be prohibItive for some people if
required of them. However, in his review of this project, he wanted to know if
additional garage space if found necessary or affordable could be constructed in the
rental area? Mr. Jacobson said yes it could be done with some adjustment of the
sidewalks, but it was possible without a great degree of difficulty.
Mahlon stated that overall the 151 total spaces proposed does substantially' meet
requirements; however, he does have some concern that this includes the space in
front of the garages also.
Swedberg said he could also understand that for the low and moderate income rental
units $25 additional monthly could be burdensome.
Larry Smith stated that this land will be developed at sometime in
that including the completion of the Galant P.U.D. is desireable.
comparable developments and overall this appeared to be a workable
the future and .
Larry noted other
proposal.
Mr. Duffy noted previous Planning Commission and Council meetings on this proposal
and said the Council was adamant on covered spaces being required.
Mahlon Swedberg moved to approve the waiver as requested,
the parkinQ is substantially met and as a condition of his
be so arranQed that they could be covered if In the future
reQuired.or desired.
~aaln notinQ that overall
motion that the open spaces
more covered spaces are
Mike Sell seconded the motion and added an additional reQuirement for the rental
units that in addition to the 15 garages as provided, that 15 outside parking
spaces be provided with electrical outlets so that a total of 30 spaces have either
the convenience of electrical heater assistance or covered garage space. Swedberg
agreed with this additional condition as an amendment to his motion.
Discussion was called on the motion. Mrs. Duffy in discussion asked that a total of
161 spaces be provided.
Mr. Jacobson agreed to the 15 electrical outlets.
Mr. Duffy reviewed his concerns for the proJect~
Glen Christiansen called the.vote and it was unanimous ~or approval of the waiver as.
requested subject to the conditions as stated in the motion.
~
.Board of Zoning Appeals
Page 3
January 12,1982
:
82-1-3 (Map 19) Multiple Dwellings;P~li:ti;J
Prop_l;'l.~~ located at Hi Ils~oro & Mendelssohn Avenues
Bo~son.~lnvestment PropertIes Corp.
.... -~:. .;.......!~4,jt
The Petition is for waiver of Sections
4.04 Appendix I (C) of the Zoning Code
for 48 covered parking spaces off the required
total of 97 to a total of 49 enclosed spaces for
the entire site.
Betty Koelke and Donald Jacobson of Borson Investment Corp. were present to
explain the proposal.
Also present was Mr. Bruce Duffy, President of the King's Valley Association and
his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Roch of the Jack Galant Assoc., Mr. David Thompson,
Chairman of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was also present for a portion
of discussion.
.The Board asked for an overview of this proposal and Mr. Jacobson described
the rental units, the owner units and the parking and covered garage spaces.
The Board entered a lengthly and detailed discussion on the definition of low,
moderate income and on comparisions with other similar projects including the
Dover Hills family units.
Betty Koelke described how rent subsidies were computed and salary and living
costs as they related to a family of four with an income of $18,000 annually.
Mr. Jacobson described the F.H.A. requirements for purchase of the ownership
units. Mike Sell questioned whether retired people might also qualify and
could be considered as possible tenants of the rental units in addition to
young couples or families with small. children. Jacobson described that if
they qualify this could also be possible.
Mr. Jacobson described their work in attempting to comply with the requirements
and recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Council during concept
approval. He stated that there are certain hardships with the site such as the
configuration of the property, the access required along Hillsboro and the ponding
area required.
The combination of all of these makes it a unique and difficult site to develop.
He described the Galant P.U.D. and the advantages as he saw them in including
this area and completing it.
Mr. Duffy expressed his concerns for traffic in the area which is now a problem.
. Duffy also described the difficulties of snow removal he has experienced in King's
. Valley and noted that the more uncovered parking spaces on the site the more the
snow removal problems are created. Mr. Duffy said he would like to see the parking
spaces be at 161 rather than 151 total as proposed.
Mr. Jacobson described the IIrandom" spaces provided on the site which may be used212
also by visitors. These. are included in the total.
--
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
January 4, 1984
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Alda Peikert, Assistant Planner
.
':
SUBJECT: INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN FOR AMENDMENT TO
PUD #30-B, MEDLEY PARK TOWNHOUSES
.-
Bor-Son Construction Companies, developer of the Medley Park Townhouses
Project located southeast of County Road 18 and Medicine Lake Road, requests
approval of an amendment to PUD #30-B, Medley Park Townhouses, to allow
replacement of a tot lot with a gazebo.
The attached Medley Park Project site plan shows the three tot lots included
in the General Plan of Development originally approved by the City Council on
April 6, 1982. The first phase of the project, the 30 subsidized rental
units on the westerly portion of the project site, was completed and occupied
in late 1982 and early 1983. The tot lot integrated into the central play
area was constructed as part of the first phase of the project. The original
plan calls for two tot lots within the second phase of the project, the 34
market rate ownership units on the easterly portion of the site. These two
tot lots are to the north and to the south of the six unit building centrally
located on the condominium portion of the site. The proposal is for replace-
ment of the southerly tot lot with a gazebo overlooking the pond. .
As explained in the attached letter from the proponent, the amendment request
is made in response to marketing considerations. Bor-Son Construction
Companies has completed the two southernmost buildings in the second phase
condominium portion of the project, and Bor-Son opened a model for marketing
purposes in November 1983. Bor-Son has found that prospective buyers of the
ownership units-include adult households as well as households with young
children and that there is a market demand for adult amenities. The applica-
tion letter from Bor-Son explains that the two remaining tot lots will be
adequate to serve the needs of projected numbers of small children within the
total development.
Marketing considerations have resulted in a second minor change to the origi-
nal PUD plans with the addition of garage units in the second phase con-
cominium portion of the project. The two buildings completed in the second
phase construction include an additional garage stall on the west end of each
building providing five garage stalls for four units in each case. This
gives the unit on the west end of each building'a two car garage.
.
r
.
.
.
Memo to Planning Commission
January 4, 1984
Page 2
This minor change in the originally approved building footprints should~be
recorded as part of any PUD amendment approved. Depending on buyer demand,
Bor-Son indicates that one additional garage stall could be added to the
southerly or westerly end of each of the next two buildings, the six unit
central building and the next building to the northeast. Space is not
available for additional garages for the two northerly buildings. The
marketing representative for Bor-Son indicates that demand for garage stalls
is such that these garage units most likely will be constructed, bringing the
total number of additional garage stalls to four. The additional garage
stalls definitely add to the value and desirability of the project and are an
improvement from a City standpoint.
Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval
of the Preliminary Design Plan for the amendment to PUD #30-B, Medley Park
Townhouses, requested by Bor-Son Investment Properties to allow replacement
of a tot lot with a gazebo and to allow the addition of up to four garage
stalls on the second phase condominium portion of the project.
Ap:ga
Attachments: 1. Site Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Letter from the Proponent
4. Sketch of Gazebo
5. Amended Site Plan for Condominium Portion of Project
JFull sized plan sheet enclosed ~eparately)
r;.~; .,', ~ fC=;\ t'ijt ~ .
~!.(l" ~ ~
Ji~~~~ i @ IF
~l ~; ~ IF .~ IfifiI
If }~4 W (g \QJ
~ ~ 1 ~ r.;;;t r;;:J ~
, r I . 1JUU ~ .'-..J.
~ l-;t;~. ~ [ffi IF
~l" ""4~' r=;'!
.. i- 1"1' i \:d)
:!~l!~ ~ T;:;;;1
l~ ,'.f~ ~ ~ II UU
tl ~!~ rF I7J ~
L.~ ".." IF ~
J>..l..
l' ~ It; 5f
~ .. ~ fiiiiI Ll
~ .r~ ..A ....
~;. ~
rt ta tQJ
~ ~:w
~ WiiI ~
~[f1~
· @2m
;~.
Iil
~
~-
db
(Q)
~
WJ
I I
~.
~
.
.
o
.
c
E
c
I
.
i
.,
.
.
r
~
lilt :~Iillll
j ~ Is II J i
u jal41 II
U i i It '1
"UI
. '.,
t\ t 5
tll"
J ,i
. !
( t.
I
-- ....
.~
~ ~.
II ~=--::a.::==== ~rrz.__
I af ~I r B!IF'.~':=:
. ,,~P...t-( ,.,..'" ..-..11
I , ::oeve1.Grea' ~.'kIN
l ........ON ~. ......;. - .
.
.~
TO: Golden Valley Planning Commission
. FROM: Alda Peikert, City Planner
DATE: January 9, 1985
RE: Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan for POD 030-B, Medley
Park Townhouses, Amendment 02
The proponent, Bor-Son Investment Properties Corporation, requests an amendment
to POD 030-B, Medley Park Townhouses, located southeast of County Road 18 and
Medicine Lake Road, to allow a reduction i~ the number of units and the
construction of additional garage stalls.
Background
A copy of the originally approved Medley Park site plan is attached. The first
phase of the project, consisting of 30 units of subsidized rental housing on the
westerly portion of the project site, was completed and occupied in late 1982
and early 1983. The second phase of the project as originally approved con-
sisted of 34 units of market rate individual ownership housing. Bor-Son has
completed eight ownership or condominium units arranged in two four unit
buildings on the southerly portion of the site.
.
A first amendment to POD 030-B, Medley Park Townhouses, was approved June 5,
1984 to allow replacement of one of three tot lots with a gazebo and to allow
the construction of four addition attached garage stalls. A copy of the site
plan for the condominium portion of the project approved at the time of the
first amendment is attached.
Proposed Amendments
The currently requested second amendment to POD 030-B, Medley Park Townhouses,
proposes a reduction in the number of condominium units from 34 to 28 or 30
units and the addition of 14 to 19 garage stalls. The proponent explains in the
attached application cover letter that the changes are proposed as a response to
market demands for a different type of unit and for additional garages.
Bor-Son proposes conversion of an originally approved eight unit condominium
building to a four unit building with a new split entry design. Bor-Son requests
the flexibility to revise the six unit building to the east to another four unit
building depending on market requirements. Variation in building footprint
would be minimal due to the fact that soil correction already completed for all
buildings is limited to originally approved building footprint areas. Value of
replacement units would be higher than that of units originally approved. The
resulting change would be a reduction in number of units and density along with
an increase in value for four to eight of the units.
The proposed amendment includes the addition of 14 to 19 garage stalls. The
plans s~ows the addition of one garage stall each to unit 14 in the six unit
building and to unit 22 in the adjacent four unit building to the northeast.
Potential for two additional garage stalls as required for marketing is
.
illustrated for the northernmost four unit building. The newly proposed four
unit building has eight attached garage stalls replacing nine garage stalls in .
the former eight unit condominium. Newly proposed detached garage buildings
include a five stall garage near the newly proposed four unit building and six
and two stall garages in the northern portion of the project. A potential three
stall garage is proposed at the end of the six unit building.
Parking
The proposed amendment improves the overall parking situation. The addition of
14 to 19 garage stalls compares to loss of 11 to 14 outside parking spaces.
Number of parking spaces increases while number of units decreases resulting in
a greater ratio of parking spaces to units. At the same time garages are pre-
ferable to outside parking spaces in terms of enhancement and value of the pro-
ject.
Variances
Construction of the two detached garage buildings in the northerly portion of
the site involves setback variances as part of the PUD approval. The six stall
garage is located six feet rather than the required 30 feet from the property
line shared with the Galant Townhouses. The two stall garage building is
located six feet rather than the required 20 feet from the property line shared
with the small shopping center zoned Commercial to the north. The garages
replace outside parking spaces for which lesser variances were approved in the
original POD approval. Required setbacks for parking are half the building set-
backs at 15 and 10 feet.
It is the opinion of staff that the two stall garage is adequately separated
from the shopping center building located to the north adjacent to Medicine Lake
Road.
.
In the case of the Galant Townhouses, the objective is to integrate the six unit
Galant Townhouses building into the Medley Park project site as much a~
possible. The easterly portion of the Medley Park Townhouses Project site, the
entire individual ownership condominium portion of the project, is the remaining
site of the unfinished Galant Townhouses Project. Therefore, although a pro-
perty line divides Medley Park from the Galant Townhouses, the objective is
integration rather than separation. Location of the Galant Townhouse at a
higher elevation than the proposed garages minimizes potential obstruct~on of
views. In addition, garage elevations on the enclosed plan sheets illustrate
construction of the six unit garage building into the hillside with approxima-
tely four feet of the garage below grade from the Galant perspective. This
further minimizes the height of the garages as viewed from the Galant
Townhouses. It is the opinion of staff that the garage building constructed in
this manner at the proposed location would not have a negative visual impact on
the Galant Townhouses.
:
.
.
.
.
Recommendation
Based on conclusions that the proposed amendment enhances the Medley Park
Project and has no negative impacts on surrounding properties, staff suggests
that the Planning Commission recomend City Council approval of the Preliminary
Design Plan for POD #30-B, Medley Park Townhouses, Amendment #2, which proposes
reduction of the number of ownership units from 34 to 28 or 30 and the construc-
tion of an additional 14 to 19 garage stalls.
~
-,---:,~--<:..' '
!. . _ . ... ,. ""', .......Co..... ..,
.~. -~.... ...~.. -~,_.')
'.- ~....-=_......... ~"'"
.. . --c.,.
. . - ,~
I
,
,.
': L
! J',:':-;,
" I
. I
!
..
i
. ~
..
't
/'
_.....~~
....
..'~
. ~'*o
~.
,/
"~LE:' .".30'
..~.
,,/
"'.....
<ii'
.of'
..' .
/.-
.~
. ,.
............. \
""'-.:..~.~,-r-- ___
.~ "'''-- --
........
-l>
------...
-...
-.
...---.....
~~
"....~
'-- ---
:-:-..: )
,
..
. ,".,"'" 1 """" ~
L- ,.,..N..~..~~. .
_I ..0 ._1
- --'
...
,.
1&
..
~
....
..
::.'
......
I.
I ..
/~..
:~
;e;
.. .
-:It!
, J..
, ,
"
"
"
. \
...
\ "
... I>
!,~.-
.' .1r!?:i' ,
I .........~.J-l-
l80D -==-,. 9'::,:.
.,
I
I
.
.." '.--.
...-i .
. ...:-
__. f':,_
... ":':.:.:::- -:-
:-
I y-:" '"J!I
,:::".... ---~
"', a.a . ' ... ---
''y/' .
~ PLAN. AL'T '"
__ __ ....:!,N"'Tt: Go"""Go~"
- -,
......., .
-'
.-
A
6
.
..'
,
.1\
1
.
.
,~
I
,
I
. I
I
p
j
!
J
-\
,
~)
,'-
.
\.
MEMORANDUM
.
Date:
January 18, 1996
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Preliminary Design Plan for Valley Creek PUD No. 71 to Permit
Construction of 29,000 sq.ft. Medical Office Building and up to 81,000
sq.ft. of Additional Office Space in Two Buildings; and Rezoning of
the Property from Open Development to Business and Professional
Offices - Sherman Associates, Inc. and Golden Valley HRA,
applicants.
At the November, 1995 HRA meeting, the HRA approved a development agreement
with Sherman Associates for the sale of a portion of Area A-1 in the Valley Square
Redevelopment District. This area is designated as Lot 2 on the preliminary plat. At
that same meeting, the HRA designated Sherman Associates as the developer for
Lot 2.
.
The development agreement calls for the sale of Lot 1 to Sherman Associates and for
the construction of a 29,000 sq.ft. clinic on the 2.4 acre site at the northwest comer of
TH 55 and Wisconsin Avenue. It is anticipated that the HRA will close on the property
with Sherman Associates in May, 1996. Sherman Associates hope that construction
will begin this summer on the building. The building is to be leased to North Memorial
Hospitals for a clinic.
The HRA has designated Sherman Associates as the developer of Lot 1. This
designation means that the HRA has given Mr. Sherman time to explore the market and
determine if there is a sufficient market for two more office buildings on Area A-1. Mr.
Sherman is working with KolI-Shelard, a real estate consulting firm, to market the site.
If there is adequate interest for additional office space at this location, Mr. Sherman will
come back to the HRA and begin the development agreement negotiation process. If
Mr. Sherman fails to get other interest in the site, the HRA has the option to look for
other developers. Both Mr. Sherman and KolI-Shelard have told staff that there is
increasing interest in the office market in the western suburbs. This is an excellent site
due to its location and visibility from TH 55. The HRA and staff hope that construction
on Lot 1 could begin as early as fall, 1996 or early 1997. Lot 1 is about 5.9 acres in
size and has access from Golden Valley Road and Wisconsin Avenue (over Lot 2).
.
The total 8.3 acre site was purchased by the HRA in the mid-1980's from the Reiss
family. The rear or north part of the.property was sold to United Properties for the
construction of the Mallard Creek apartments that were completed in 1986. United
Properties also had a signed development agreement with the HRA for the sale of A-1
for a office building. United had plans to construct a large, 200,000 sq.ft. plus office
)
Sherman Associates - Memo
Page Two
tower. However, the office market went sour and United pulled out of the development
agreement. United paid a substantial penalty to the HRA for defaulting on the
agreement. The redevelopment plan for the Valley Square area has called for office
space on this site. This proposed PUD is consistent with the Valley Square Plan and
the Comprehensive Plan for this area.
.
As part of the consideration of the PUD, the City must also consider the rezoning of
Area A-1 from Open Development to Business and Professional Offices (B&PO). The
PUD code requires that the underlying zoning for a PUD must be consistent with the
proposed use in the PUD. Because the property was previously used as a greenhouse
and two houses until 1985, the City had the property zoned Open Development.
Private greenhouses were considered conditional uses in the Open District. After the
greenhouse and homes were demolished by the HRA , the zoning of the property
remained Open Development. The HRA believes that rezoning of the property would
be best accomplished when a use of the property consistent with the Valley Square
Plan was determined.
The total site comprises about 8.3 acres at the northwest comer of TH 55 and
Wisconsin Avenue. The site is also bounded on the north by Golden Valley Road and
on the west by Bassett Creek. The site is fairly flat except that it falls off to the creek
and to TH 55. The proposed buildings are located on the TH 55.side of the site to take .
advantage of the visibility from the road and the views across the golf course.
The first phase of construction will be the clinic building to be built along Wisconsin
Avenue. The building is proposed to be up to 29,000 sq.ft. on two levels. The total
leasable area will be 25,000 sq.ft. The clinic will house family practice doctors,
specialty clinics, dentists, and possibly a pharmacy. There will be 120 parking spaces
provided for the building on Lot 2. This is about 4.1 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of floor
area. This is greater than 4 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. that is required by office buildings.
However, clinics generally require more parking than offices. In order to boost the
number of parking spaces for the clinic, Mr. Sherman has reached agreement with the
HRA to allow for the construction of a portion of the parking area for the other proposed
office buildings on Lot 1. As shown on the attached plan, about 31 additional spaces
will be constructed on the second phase site at the same time as the 120 spaces. This
parking will be built at Sherman's expense. This means that there will be 151 spaces
available for the clinic site when it is open or about 6 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. Mr.
Sherman has constructed several clinics for North and they have a similar parking ratio.
North believes that 6 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. is more than adequate to serve the clinic.
A cross parking and access agreement will be provided over both Lot 1 and Lot 2. This
means that the tenants and visitors from the clinic will be allowed to park in the parking
provided on Lot 1 and visa versa. Also, those coming to the future office buildings on .
Lot 1 will be allowed access over Lot 2 as those coming to the clinic from Golden Valley
Road will be allowed access over Lot 1. (At the time of the clinic construction, the
driveway to the parking area on Lot 1 will not be constructed.)
\.
Sherman Associates - Memo
Page Three
. The overall parking ratio for the 110,000 sq.ft. of building is 4 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of
gross floor area. This is the minimum requirement of the Zoning Code for office space.
It is the opinion of staff that this amount of parking on the site will be adequate to serve
the clinic and the future office space, if the future office space is not for clinic space.
This should be written into the PUD permit that there shall be no medical clinics in the
buildings located on Lot 1. The staff feels comfortable with the amount of parking for
the entire PUD because the 4 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of office space is generally
considered to be more than required for standard office space.
The site does meet the required setback requirements from Wisconsin Avenue, Golden
Valley Road, TH 55 and Bassett Creek. (The setback requirement is 35 ft. from streets
and 50 ft. to the normal high water mark of Bassett Creek.)
.
The preliminary design plan has been reviewed by the Engineering Department for
issues regarding access and drainage. Their preliminary findings are that the site will
adequately drain into the City's existing storm sewer system or directly into Bassett
Creek. Final drainage plans will have to be approved by the Bassett Creek Water
Management Organization. The Engineering Department also believes that the two
access points to Golden Valley Road and Wisconsin Avenue will provide good access
to the site. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has also been sent notice of
this PUD. The City is required to notify MnDOT of all subdivisions adjacent to state
highways. The City does not anticipate any negative comments from MnDOT because
there is no direct access to the site from TH 55.
The developer will be required to provide sidewalks along both the west side of
Wisconsin Avenue and the south side of Golden Valley Road as per the policy of the
City Council. This will allow those working and visiting the site to have easy walking
access to the shopping area and restaurants to the east and west. The developer
should also provide bike racks on the site in order to encourage bike usage.
The developer has submitted a preliminary landscape plan which indicates the overall
concept for plantings. Because the development is meeting the required 35 ft. setback
along both Wisconsin Avenue and Golden Valley Road, there is the opportunity to have
large boulevard shade trees along those streets. There is also substantial landscaping
proposed around the buildings and on islands in the parking lot. These parking lot
islands help to breakup the large expanse of parking on the north side of the buildings.
Along the west side of the side adjacent to the creek, the plan is to save as many trees
as possible. Placing of landscaping is critical on this site in order to preserve the views
of the creek and the golf course south of TH 55. Overall, staff likes the landscape
concept. The final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved by the Building Board
of Review prior to the issuance of the building permit.
.
)
Sherman Associates - Memo
Page Four
As indicated on the project data sheet, the site is proposed to be about 44%
landscaped area. This large amount is partially achieved because of the required
setback areas along the streets and adjacent to the creek. There is also planned to be
substantial courtyard space between the buildings.
.
The Building Board of Review will also make comments on the architectural plans for
the buildings. The developer has submitted preliminary elevations for the three
buildings. The tallest building is proposed to be three stories. Since the design is done
by the same architect, there is a consistency to the elevations. The developer has
proposed the covered connections between the buildings that help to tie the
development together. Overall, staff is pleased with the quality of the design plans.
A preliminary plat has also been submitted by the HRA as part of this PUD application.
This new plat indicates the division of Area A-1 into two lots. Note that there is an
easement in favor of Minnegasco at the southeast comer of the site. The City is in
contact with Minnegasco about abandoning the easement. The preliminary report from
Minnegasco is that they no longer need the easement and that vacating should not be
a problem.
Recommended Action:
.
The plan submitted by Sherman Associates for the development of the 8.3 acre, Area
A-1 site in the Valley Square Redevelopment Area, is consistent with the plans
established by the City and HRA for this property. The HRA has held this property for
over ten years because they believe that this property is a high quality office site. It
appears now that the market has caught up and that offices will be built on the site.
This site will be developed in at least two phases. The medical clinic will be constructed
this year followed by the two office building. This phasing is consistent with the
marketplace for offices. At this time, developers will not build speculative office
buildings - they will wait until the space is committed before construction will begin.
The staff is recommending approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for the Valley Creek
Office Park. The plan provides the City will additional office space in a manner which
takes advantage of this quality site and does it in an uncrowded and sensitive
approach. Staff also recommends the rezoning of the property from Open
Development to Business and Professional Office (B&PO) in order that the proposed
PUD is consistent with the zoning of the area.
Attachments:
Location Map
Site Plans - enclosed separately
.
. , ~. ~ " '^ '"'
. , 0, - ... I Ul
!l. ()IN l> ~ r ",CL ..
. \ I ..
J I ~ <~
~ .'~ r n ~,
Ct, .
~ r "
C'l ,\~,.rl, '2:
0.. \ I 3Ci 32 I::>
~I. :-0_ I
I
I )> .,
.... , l~
,-' :::0 .~
I i . '., cf)..
\ L~.:LqL 601 ~~ I -.... 1(.'~ '.
,\o,.fn ::05 , ';0 ,- ; 21/3
0'L \ .. ~:BOONE ,-- '"
4:' '6 ~.I I -, '"
AVE.: f~:-
, ....: .'::......
""0
, \.;"
"'V.
.':'.~'
.
II
I~
I~
'"
....
'"
i
\
., \
.', \
I
.:. \
.~. 1
"J' I
". \
~;. ,
l
I
I .
...
00'
I ".
~: ;.; .~: ~
... '
II.. ., 10"
" ... d'
,
!
1
,
.;. ~
..
I
,
...
..
I
/
/
i
...
'" .
t.
\)
I~ toAr.
'os i'S
Qo
'" N
~ .
\)
;!J
o
ti'
.QJ
~
CI).
0'
>
I
CI)
;;!
;;:.
~
.(S
v.
,,; '{ - - - r~ .; oJ
I'
'"
...
... ----
~
1\I
4- N
r,
r, .
\1.
i'. .
'"
.....
'"
s-
o
...
<:>
'"
3"10 3 J
/VlJutJ ?'li"I\
~:' 11
~ ~
:",
ON
,,~
""
.,.
...
n
...
N '~r'
- N'
... .,. r'
... ....
- Ni'
.....'1
.
'>."'5
z ~ 5. S 5 3: ~ B \ :
,~ "". i
.-------800NE--. ._.---1... .\or/Ii _ _~I~ 2.2. _.~':.-
.. \t~o.....'
, U,.,O 0 m.3
I '... ::..j ,:;:.'
I l> · I.
i () F~-'" ---.-..........- -6Il.lJ-
:- ::tf . ,.' - - . -; .-.- :'. '~"I. ... .
I ~ I if: r
I to
'" '8
. '. J.j
ZoO C"'vt
~'4a'.';5'
" 11'.%
L
~
~
.J...
...
'"
()
Q.
\
CD
..
'"
Q
- ., .
<..
..
. .
...
x
".;-.
;'~' ~ . .,..,
<. '/o..t:. ~ ...
~...."~'~..f'l '~",
t:1 6" \
tI .. "
tf)
~
"17
~l'
.. ...
..,..
:r .'
~~
('\%0
Of
oj
, ...
o
;~Proposed Site
l'Valley Creek PUD No. 71
!
~~
....
~ . ~ -~.
. ;.,--
, .
Jri ..I
1.16.'/
-4't-
^
N ~^
~
'fJ
. /i" :/
~ ~~.~ ~.t'.'...
.. . 1 ~. ....
/11'" .S .' ..-. ~. s'< .
· 'Y ~. "r'S
'!t" .. . "Y /.... 6"~ .
~.'... l. c," At. "'to"..', '4~ .\:, .
.. . ,.. ~~': l . " i..,'" iJ~
~ ....... :'" QI. ,It .~ " ~l'
J} / ,,,' .... (.'" :-."~,, ,:';
.~'1,.~ .{. .r~:~ c.j'1 ......
.:t'
-
~
I
c: I !t
~I""l"""'..
. .. I 16/J ,;" ...
,'ofC .".....
1
.
.
.
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
MEMORANDUM
January 8, 1996
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Proposed Amendments to Zoning Code Regarding the Board of
Zoning Appeals Application Due Date - Section 11.90, Subd.
4(C)(1). Procedure.
At the November 14,1995 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, staff requested that the
Board consider changing the due date of applications from 12 working days to -15
working days. The request was made because staff is finding it difficult to review
applications, for completeness, with applicants on a Friday afternoon. (There have
been as many as three applicants, each turning in an application, after 4pm on a
Friday.) Also, a planning agenda is due out the same time as the BZA agenda. The
three extra days will give the planning staff time to mail out notices, visit sites and
write staff memos in a timely manner for both the Planning Commission and Board of
Zoning Appeals.
The Board unanimously approved this amendment to Section 11.90, Subd. 4(C)( 1) of
the City Code at their November 14 meeting.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City
Council for an amendment to the Zoning Code, Section 11.90. Administration. Subd.
4(C)(1). Procedure. This amendment will allow for the due date of BZA applications
be 15 working days before a BZA meeting instead of 12 working days.
mkd
attachments: Staff memo dated November 8, 1995
BZA By-Laws Article III. Meetings.
.
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
November 6, 1995
To:
Board of Zoning Appeals
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Change in By-Laws - Article III. Meetings.
Because of the increasing demand on staff's time, it has become more and more difficult
to visit application sites, write memos and process and copy all the accompanying
materials for an agenda. The Planning Commission agenda is also due out the same
week as the BZA agenda which makes it difficult for the Planning Secretary to get the
agendas made up and out to members in a timely manner.
Staff is requesting the BZA to amend Article III. (1.) by allowing BZA applications to be
due in the Planning Department at least 15 working days (instead of 12 working days)
prior to the day of the meeting for which a hearing is scheduled. This will give staff the
needed time to review surveys, visit sites and get agenda packets out in a timely
fashion.
Another reason for this request is that the due date has been falling on a Friday. More
and more residents are bringing in their application late on Friday afternoon causing a
waiting line. Staff briefly reviews each application for completeness and answers any
questions that a resident may have. It is difficult to attend to the needs of these
applicants and complete other work started during the day.
Recommended Action
Staff requests the Board of Zoning Appeals to amend the By-Laws in Article III -
Meetings - to allow for the application date to be 15 working days prior to the day of the
meeting for which a hearing is scheduled, instead of 12 working days.
mkd
Attachment: By-Laws, Article III. Meetings
"
.
.
.
BYLAWS OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
Article I.
These Bylaws of the City of Golden Valley, Board of Zoning Appeals and adopted by same,
shall govern the conduct of its proceedings as provided for in Section 11.90, Subd. 4. "Board
of Zoning Appeals" of the City Code, attached hereto as Appendix I.
Article II. Officers and Staffing
1. The Chairperson shall be elected by April of each year from and by the members of the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
2. The Director of Planning and Development of the City of Golden Valley or his/her
designee shall serve as staff liaison to the Board.
3. The staff liaison shall conduct and maintain all official correspondence, subject to these
rules, at the direction of the Board, including all notices required by these rules of
procedure and Section 11.90 of the City Code; minutes of the Board's proceedings; and
files on petitions for each case which comes before the Board.
Article III. Meetings
1.
A monthly agenda shall be prepared and mailed to each of the members of the Board.
Completed petitions must be received at least 42- .15. working days prior to the day of
the meeting for which a hearing is scheduled.
2. A regular monthly meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for the hearing of cases shall
be held on the second Tuesday of each month at 7 PM unless no cases are pending.
3. Special meetings may be called by the Chairperson whenever he/she deems the same
expedient, and shall be so called whenever three members request the same in writing.
Each member and affected petitioner or property owner shall be notified at least five (5)
days previous to any Special Meeting, of the time, place, and purpose of the same.
4. A majority of the membership of the Board shall constitute a quorum. In case there
shall be no quorum present on the day fixed for a regular or special meeting, the
members present may adjourn from time to time until a quorum be obtained, or shall
adjourn said meeting sine die.
Article IV. Conduct of Business
1.
The meetings shall be called to order by the Chairperson or in his/her absence, the
immediate past Chairperson. In the event that both are absent, the staff liaison shall
call the meeting to order for the business of electing a Chairperson Pro Tern.
2. The Roll shall be called at each meeting and a record made of those Board members
present and those absent.
(Revised 11/95)