03-13-95 PC Agenda
e
e
e
I
i____ ______
-I
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
March 13, 1995
7:00 PM
I.
Approval of Minutes - February 27, 1995
II.
Informal Public Hearing - Amendment (No.4) to Pondwood Office Park
Planned Unit Development No. 28
Applicant: Pondwood Associates (Gerald Mundt)
Address: 4959,4969, and 4979 Olson Memorial Highway
Golden Valley, Minnesota
Request:
To connect the buildings located at 4959 and 4969. The
enclosed, connected area would be 605 sq.ft. in area.
III. Informal Public Hearing - Amendments to the City Code Regarding
Seasonal Farm Produce Sales
Section 6.37. Delete "Christmas Trees."
Section 11.03. Definitions - Add 82.5 "Seasonal Farm Produce Sales"
Section 11.30. Permitted Uses under the Commercial Zoning District -
Add "II. Seasonal Farm Produce Sales"
Section 11.87. Add New Section entitled "Seasonal Farm Produce Sales"
IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, Community Standards Task
Force, and Valley Square Task Force
V. Other Business
i
~ ,
i
I
VI.
Adjournment
PLANNING COMMISSION GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC INPUT
e
",
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.
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 4It
wish to speak to so indicate by raiting 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 pertod of time for. questions/commen~s.
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 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.
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley
Planning Commission
e
February 27, 1995
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 McAleese at 7:00 PM.
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 -February 13, 1995
MOVED by Prazak, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to approve the
February 13, 1995 minutes with the following corrections:
Substitute Page 4, Paragraph 6 "Chair McAleese asked how specific..." with the
following:
e
Chair McAleese asked how sensitive staff's recommendations are to the specific
types of uses on the site, and if these uses were to change, would they impact
the current recommendations. Mr. Grimes commented that in staff's opinion the
Super America and car wash are very specific and unlikely to change whereas
the auto mall may be of the most concern regarding turnover. Mr. Grimes
suggested that language could be added to the conditions to reflect that only
light auto repair, and no major type of repairs be allowed on the auto mall lot.
Addition to Page 6, Paragraph 1, "Mr. Sailor agreed to having the informal hearing
on PUD 68 continued to the February 27 meeting which would give his team time to
review the commission's concerns on this site.
II. Continued Informal Public Hearing - Planned Unit Development No. 68
Applicant: Jim Lupient Oldsmobile Company
Address: One Block Area Which Lies North of 1-394 and East of
Louisiana Avenue
Request:
Preliminary Design Plan Review for the Golden Valley Auto
Mall PUD No. 68. The purpose of the PUD is to locate an
auto mall, car wash, Super America and lube building on the
property .
e
Chair McAleese commented that this item was continued from the February 13th agenda.
Mark Grimes gave a brief staff report reviewing the "Option An revised site plan submitted
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 27, 1995
Page Two
e
by RLK Associates, Ltd. This plan shows the increased setback areas along the majority
of Market Street and less setback in front of the Jiffy Lube and turning south on Market
Street.
Mr. Grimes continued by commenting in comparison to the plan submitted at the February
13 meeting, the car wash lost some stacking space but is still adequate for cars waiting to
go through the car wash. Also, five parking spaces were eliminated from the Super
America site but parking for Super America still exceeds the parking requirement.
Mr. Grimes commented on the trash containers being screened using similar materials as
the stores it is serving. He also reviewed the revised landscape plans. Mr. Grimes had
talked with Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works regarding sidewalks and it has not yet
been determined on what side of the street sidewalks with be placed.
Commissioner Lewis asked staff to review the signage on the site. Mr. Grimes
commented that there would be a monument sign for each lot and one pylon sign. The
applicant has submitted a new plan for the pylon which shows the sign to be 260 sq.ft. in
area which is within the City Code sign requirements for shopping centers. The pylon sign
shown at the February 13 meeting was over 400 sq.ft. in area;
e
Commissioner Prazak asked why green space is being eliminated if there is excess
parking on the Super America site. Mr. Grimes commented that because of the cross-
parking arrangements there will need to be as much parking as possible to serve all uses
on the site. Staff feels Super America should have as much parking as possible having
looked at other Super America's traffic volume.
Doug Sailor, representative for the applicant, talked about wanting to make the site work
and reviewed the revised site plan regarding setback concerns. He also stated that by
moving the car wash more to the rear of the site, this would create more stacking space
for those cars exiting the site by using the westernmost exit on Market Street. He talked
about the exterior of the buildings and the decorative block-type material to be used, the
revised pylon sign. He is asking that the height of the pylon be as high as needed to be
seen from 1-394 - similar to the height of the Menards and Perkins signs. The applicant's
concern is visibility not the height.
Commissioner Pentel asked if the lots have been platted and if Lot 3 is landlocked. Mr.
Sailor commented that the lots will be platted through the PUD process and Mr. Grimes
said Lot 3 will need an easement for access to the street.
Commissioner Pentel asked about who would be occupant of the auto mall. Mr. Sailor e
said that Car X Muffler and Brake Shop would be occupying a portion of the building and
that there is space for a smaller light car use store.
e
e
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 27, 1995
Page Three
Commissioner Pentel questioned the need for a car wash at the Jiffy Lube site which is
situated next to a Mermaid car wash. Mr. Sailor commented that this car wash is strictly
for the use of customers using the Jiffy Lube store and that the car wash element is part of
the Jiffy Lube franchise.
Commissioner Pentel asked if there will be enough recharge area for the landscaped
materials. Chuck Habiger, RLK Architects commented that landscape architects have
planned for irrigation systems on this site to prevent trees from dying and that the soils at
this location is very good.
Mark Grimes asked Mr. Sailor about screening of the trash containers. Mr. Sailor
commented that he has written himself a note about implementing the request. Mr.
Habiger commented that materials being used for the buildings would also be used for the
screening of the containers.
Chair McAleese opened the informal public hearing.
Mark Dwyer, President of Wave Car Washes, 4940 Viking Drive, asked that the City
restrict the Jiffy Lube from selling exterior washing products from their store and is
concerned about a traffic problem on Market Street.
Chair McAleese closed the informal public hearing.
Chair McAleese asked staff about restricting stores from selling certain products. Mark
Grimes said he would check with the City Attorney about restricting the sale of products.
Commissioner Kapsner commented that he felt the applicant made an excellent and
successful effort in addressing the Planning Commission's major concerns from the
February 13 meeting. Commissioner Kapsner feels this is a good proposal.
Commissioner Prazak commented on the commission's concern regarding the entrance
onto the site at Louisiana and Market and feels the two-lane entrance is sufficient.
Chair McAleese asked staff what language or discussion should be included in the
minutes regarding which "Option" has been recommended. Mark Grimes stated that the
Commission should state which Option, A or S, it approves of.
Commissioner Pentel is concerned that if the sign says Jiffy Lube car wash the public will
assume it is open for car wash business. Chair McAleese commented that this could be a
problem and there is a need for language in the conditions in case a problem arises.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 27, 1995
Page Four
e
Commissioner Groger stated that he could not vote for this approval. He is concerned
with the intense use of the site. He is also concerned about how the PUD process is
being used to get around code requirements.
Chair McAleese stated that he too could not vote for this development; it is too intense of
a development for the site. He commented that this area is a gateway into Golden Valley
and there is too much on the site and will not look aesthetically pleasing. Chair McAleese
also talked about setback requirements, percentage of buildings v. open space on the lot,
and that the proposed stores will work together. He is concerned with what would happen
if one sells out and how the building would be reused.
Commissioner Kapsner talked about the fact that there is a real need for a service station
in the south side of Golden Valley and feels these stores are needed in this part of Golden
Valley. Commissioner Kapsner supports the proposal.
Commissioner Pentel opposes the proposal. She is concerned with the intense use of the
site and feels the PUD process is being used to increase the intensity. She believes this
would be a terrible precedent to set to allow such an intense use. Commissioner Pentel _
commented favorably on the work the applicant had done addressing the commission's _
concerns.
Commissioner Lewis questioned the intense use of the site. Chair McAleese commented
that although the minutes did not reflect some of the commissioners concerns it was
addressed at the February 13 meeting. (Ms. Lewis was absent from the February 13
meeting.) Commissioner Lewis felt this is a good proposal for the site and there seems to
be ample parking and circulation on the site.
Commissioner Johnson felt this would be a good use and the proposed stores are
complimentary to each other. She commented on the applicant responding to what the
Commission found objectionable and remedied the problems.
Commissioner Prazak stated that the applicant had commented that this site is less
crowded than other sites that have auto malls on them. He supports the proposal.
MOVED by Prazak, seconded by Lewis and motion passed by a vote of 4-3 to recommend
to the City Council approval of the Golden Valley Auto Mall PUD No. 68 with the following
changes or additions to the conditions:
1. The date on Condition No. 1 be changed to 2/22/95 reflecting the revised (Option A) _
site plan. _
2. A new condition with language that states the Jiffy Lube car wash may be used only
by Jiffy Lube customers.
3. A new condition which states outside trash containers will be screened with similar
material being used on the stores they will be serving.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 27, 1995
Page Five
4. An additional sentence be added to No.6 stating "The shared pylon sign cannot
exceed 260 sq.ft. in area.
III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
City Council. Board of Zoning Appeals. Community Standards Task
Force. and Valley Square Task Force
Commissioner Pentel commented on the meeting between the HRA and the Valley
Square Redevelopment Area C Task Force.
Commissioner Groger commented on the last meeting of the Community Standards Task
Force.
Mark Grimes commented on the City Council meeting with regards to the CDBG money
and explained to the commission how the money gets distributed.
IV. Other Business
e Commissioner Lewis expressed her concern about the parking problem at the Perkins,
located at 8806 Olson Memorial Highway, on Sunday mornings and should staff be
reviewing this problem. Mark Grimes commented the BZA approved an addition onto the
building which may be creating the parking problem. Perkins customers can park on
surrounding property on Sunday's when surrounding businesses are closed.
Chair McAleese commented that he has talked with Mayor regarding changes to the
ordinance and that some items may need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for
review.
V. Adjournment
Chair McAleese adjourned the meeting at 8:35 PM.
Jean Lewis, Secretary
e
MEMORANDUM
e
Date:
March 8, 1995
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Preliminary Design Plan for Amendment No.4 to PUD NO. 28,
Pondwood Office Park, Gerald E. Mundt, Applicant
e
Gerald Mundt, owner of the Pondwood Office Park, has requested a fourth amendment to
the Pondwood Office Park PUD in order to allow the construction of a 605 sq. ft. office
addition between the 4959 and 4969 office buildings. The area of the addition is indicated
on the attached site plan. Mr. Mundt states that the floor elevation of the addition will be
the same as the existing buildings (841 ft. above sea level). The addition will have a crawl
space. The addition is proposed to provide additional office space for the current tenant in
Building 2. Although Mr. Mundt has called this addition a connecting link between
buildings, the space will be primarily used as office space. If the tenant of Building 2
would some day choose to lease the south space in Building 1, it would then be possible
to utilize the space as a connecting link.
This is the fourth amendment proposed for the Pondwood PUD. The third amendment
was approved by the City Council in September of 1989. At that time Mr. Mundt received
an amendment to allow for a 10ft. by 26 ft storage area to be added to the east end of the
garage at the south end of the site. The first amendment to the PUD allowed for the
elimination of a garage along the east property line and the second amendment allowed
for the addition of an apartment for a disabled couple and two car garage to be built at the
south end of the site.
e
The approval of the third amendment was somewhat controversial. At the June 12, 1989
Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted 3-2 to recommend denial of the
proposed PUD amendment to allow the storage addition. Residents of the Cloverdale
Estates subdivision to the west felt that the pond already had too much development
around it and that any additional development may have a negative effect on wildlife. The
majority of the Commission agreed that the site had enough development on it and that
no setback variances should be granted. When the matter went to the City Council in
August of 1989, the Council voted 4-1 to approve the PUD with the condition that no further
structural additions be made to the site. One of the conditions found in the third
amendment to the PUD is that "There shall be no further structural additions" following the
third amendment. (I am attaching copies of previous planning reports, Planning
Commission minutes and City Council minutes regarding this matter for your background
review. )
e
Amendment to Pondwood Office Park
Page Two
When I first received this application for a fourth amendment from Mr. Mundt I did not
remember the recommendation of either the Planning Commission or City Council. After I
began working on the report and reading the background material, I called Mr. Mundt to
remind him of the previous condition of approval and the objection of many of the property
owners to the west. He said he did not remember the condition stating that no more
buildings should be placed on the site.
Although there is a condition in the third amendment PUD permit that states there should
be no further development of the PUD, Mr. Mundt does have the right to request the City
amend the PUD to allow this 605 sq. ft. addition. I told him that he will probably be
climbing an uphill battle because of this previous condition of development.
The proposal is fairly self explanatory. The addition will be constructed more than three
feet above the1 00 year flood elevation as required by the Bassett Creek Water
Management Organization. The building will meet the required setback in the Business
and Professional Office Zoning District. The addition is not required to meet the setback
requirements of the Shoreland Management Zoning District because the pond is not
considered one of the designated shorelands identified in the Zoning Code.
e
The Pondwood Office Park will also have adequate parking even after the 605 sq. ft.
addition. As indicated on the plan, total square footage on the site will be 12,411 sq. ft.
Office space requires one parking space for every 250 sq. ft. of space. Therefore, the
required amount is 50 spaces. The plan indicates 62 spaces on site including the garage.
The submitted plan also shows building elevations and its relationship to the pond. In the
past, the Planning Commission and the Council have been concerned about the
construction of more building close to the pond.
RECOMMENDA liON
I am somewhat concerned that Mr. Mundt was told by both the Planning Commission and
City Council in 1989 that there should be no additional buildings built on the site and now
he is making application for more construction. This is of particular concern because the
addition is near the pond-the one area that was of particular concern to the Planning
Commission, City Council and neighbors.
As indicated in the application for the fourth amendment, this was first proposed to the _
staff as a connecting link between the two office buildings in order to better serve the .,
tenant. I have now found out that the tenant in Building 2 does not have space in
e
e
e
Amendment to Pondwood Office Park
Page Three
Building 1. The addition would primarily serve as more office space for the tenant of
Building 2. It would only serve as a connecting link if and when there were the same
tenants in both buildings.
Even though I do not think that the proposed addition would have a large effect upon the
area, I do believe that the site is at its capacity before the addition. I would recommend
no change to the PUD.
MWG:mkd
Attachments:
Location Map
June 6, 1989 Memo to Planning Commission from Beth Knoblauch
June 12, 1989 Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1989 Memo to William Joynes (City Council) from
Beth Knoblauch
August 28, 1989 Memo to William Joynes (City Council) from
Beth Knoblach
Resident Petition
City Council Minutes (4 pages)
Site Plan (enclosed)
'~, ''6,
;::i
;:;i-tl
fT11~
;aN
:Q
~
~~'~..\
0"1,1. ~ 0,
-' ., ..~ 14"1\ 1''3 1o~\..1
::;. lt~i' OU.v .
on. ~lO.'t." \)\'tc.~ t.~",E.'^ ,-
I'
\ \
r--./ -0
;:: -~-:.
.. ..0:.
(... :
.
~ --
..
.
.. ,...
..
..
..
..
I
I
.~
...
'0 r
.,.
.~ ,
"
. "
I ~ ..
.
..
i
.. "
.~ ~.
... I
I
I
I
~
-c
.....
o
~
IJI '1
~
cJ'
~o
~
"
L.. _.
.n
I..
. ,-.
.. II~~' (10 Rads) ..
~ ~b
J ~'''- ~ -to ~.
" '" -,
:\ I ::s _ __ .. -...:
\O~
1\'\ ''''
.....
. if!" "!I) '"
~ ~
'"
'"
<>
i:
"..
I.
0 ~
I.
\
~ ~
~
.~
~
I,
:'"
~
l-.~.
I
i
I~
~
I
. ,,'1,C --
1'7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.'J
I
I
..
'.
.,
'"
.fr~~'o.W
',' ,o..u'
----. --- 'fjj ,
"'VI
.....
0000
8~
'"
~
0,
!"
I'"
~
'"
~
<i..
o.
f
I~O" ,
6"00
"'O.~'''/J.~
\^
" ...
..:: '-
lio
,45
...
e-
.
. -.-!'3__
.. .
'"
(
'-LI
1lt.. ~"'I
.... ~
I'ttt... N,
.<>' ~~
hj
~
....
e. .-
."
. 0
o .'
o' 0
..:: :
f...' . I
. C ~~
.
~
~
....
o
",11-.0
(:)
~
".
~
d'
,,-
\1_
. -- ~- ,~--...
, '!..
,) , ~.u
.J
.~ : ~
, v,
_:!.,12:' .~ _ _.
I
1f'.IS"~
6$':
2'1
,.- ~~S
I-
.'
..
.)
~ '"
" u~
~'"
\,g'"
;;'
..
..
.4SS
"-
<.
2..
:: ""rene.:1 f,'.!.itS '., . OTTAWA
o
610 " &
. I
~
. .-
ZOo
i
:00
Jt
u'
01
...
~ June 6, 1989
e
e
TO: Golden Valley Planning Commission
FROM: Beth Knoblauch, City Planner
SUBJECT: Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan, P.U.D. #28
Pondwood Office Park, 4959-4979 Olson Memorial Highway, Amendment #3
Mr. Gerald Mundt, acting for Pondwood Associates, has requested an amendment to
the Pondwood PUD in order to add a 10'x26' storage area to an existing two-car
garage. According to the City's Zoning Ordinance, lIany desired change involv-
ing a structural a1teration...not specifically allowed by a particular PUD
permit shall require that an application be filed for an amended permit.1I The
site plan that was filed as part of the existing permit does not show the
proposed storage area, nor is there any special allowance for future expansion
in the written terms of the permit.
The amendment as proposed involves primarily the addition of the storage area
to the site plan, though the phrase lIand enclosed storage areall should also be
added to the list of permitted uses. No other changes would be required. Mr.
Mundt has at this time supplied all materials necessary for the preliminary
design plan and for the general plan, though the Planning Commission as a rule
reviews only the preliminary design plan. It is Mr. Mundt's hope that, because
of the minor nature of this proposed amendment, the City Council will be
agreeable to holding both reviews on the same agenda.
The existing garage is at the south end of the Pondwood site, and the addition
would be along the east side of the garage. The completed addition would be
parallel to and 10 feet distant from the eastern property line. Under the
~ City's standard zoning regulations, this would be in violation of the 20 foot
setback requirement for Business and Professional Office structures, but PUD's
need not be bound by the standard regulations.
When the garage was first proposed in 1984, it was to include 3 car spaces, the
third of which was to be used for storage. When the Planning Commission agreed
with neighboring homeowners that 3-car garage might be too much, the applicant
voluntarily reduced the size and submitted a revised site plan. The concerns
as indicated in the minutes apparently did not include the setback issue. In
fact, the Commission suggested at one point that the garage should be construc-
ted right at the property line in order to get it as far away from the pond as
possible.
The submitted site plans show that the proposed addition would be constructed
to match the existing garage. After driving onto adjacent properties I couldn't
find any perspective from which it would be particularly visible, but the
architectural integration will further minimize what little visual impact there
might be. According to the applicant, none of the site's existing landscaping
would be altered, though I believe that at least some of the natural greenery
will have to come out in order for the addition to fit. There is also grass
cover that would have to be removed.
,
j
Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 6, 1989
Page 2
e
The proposed addition will not impact traffic, population density, or employ-
ment density. The applicant foresees no significant change in the drainage
patterns due to the increased building coverage. Parking and sidewalks also
will be unaffected. Despite the fact that the garage as originally proposed
was reduced in size before gaining Planning Commission approval, I don't see
this proposed addition as causing any significant detraction to the site.
According to the Zoning Ordinance, lithe Planning Commission's consideration of
the application shall be limited to a determination of whether the application
constitutes an appropriate land use under the general principles and standards
adhered to in the City and, if necessary, its report shall include recommended
changes in the land use planned by the applicant so as to conform the applica-
tion or recommend approval subject to certain conditions or modifications." I
think that an enclosed storage area is an appropriate use on this site, and
except for the setback infringement it meets the City's standards for design
and development. I don't think that the site will be overcrowded with this
addition, but if the Commission is concerned that further amendment requests
might still come up, you could consider recommending a new permit condition to
the effect that no additional lot coverage will be permitted beyond this point.
e
Attachments:
1. Site location Map
2. letter from Pondwood Associates
3. landscape/Sidewalk/Drainage Statement
4. Site Plans (Enclosed Separately)
e
e
, -
, "....
---
~
e
I
I
,.,.
.'"
:::
.,.
'II>
~
'W
~'.
... ....
o~'
" I
I
\ '
C')
o
~.
~
~
;....
...ro
...ro
n
=s-
:J:
r
&,:: I
~ ~"'..-l i
- \.--1'" ~ !r, __ '"
-J:': ~
'" -.. rrr\" ~
· ~ '0: ~
~ ~
tK_ _ _ ;:..
"7 -1._,
I
~
:~'srte
I'
I~
I'"
It
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
Ilo
....
'"
-
.,..
6
-<
0
I , I
'" I / i
.S'~., m
. OJ',' too
,t;J..// ~ '".:1'0. '"
.?.1' . : n
I. ...
..
0
r-
(I)
0
Z
e I
..
~ ~
III L'i\_ tJ.. I
...
0
.r. , . ,
..
Pondwood Associates
4969 Olson Mem. Hwy.
Golden Valley, Mn. 55422
e
N1ay 12, 1989
Mr. N1ark Grimes, Oi rector
Planning and Development Office
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Mn. 55427
Re: Amendment #3 to P.U.O. #28
Cornni ssi on:
It is Pondwood Associ ate's wi sh to add a 10 foot by 26 foot
storage to the existing 2 car garage at the south end of the
property. To do this, it is our understanding that our
P.U.O. contract with the city would have to be amended.
Since this addition is very simple, meets the set back requirements
established, does not effect the number of parking spaces originallv
shown, and is desi gned in the same styl e and wi th same materi al s
as the existing building, we are requesting that the Prel iminary e
Design Plan and General Plan of Development, herein enclosed,
be acted upon at the same time.
Enclosed wi th thi s I etter are the two appl i cati ons along wi th
the required fee and documents for your consideration. Should
you have any questions or need further information, please give
me a call at my architectural office, 541-9143.
encl.
e
e
e
e
Storage Addition to Pondwood Office Park
Amendment #3 to Golden Valley P.U.D. #28
Landscape Statement
None of the existing site landscape will be disturbed
and no new landscape material is proposed.
Side~1 k-!~~_Driv~_~l!l~~l
None of the exi sti ng si te si dewal ks wi II be di sturbed
and no new sidewalk is proposed. The existing bitu~nous
parking area adjacent to the addition will be patched to
match existing.
Dr!in!~~1!te~nt
The existin3 site drainage system will not be changed.
The final grade around the addition will be prepared
to drain away from the structure and onto the existing
~ drai ni n areas.
/~ E Mundt
Pondwoo Associates
Managi n Part ner
~. /2. 81
M E M 0 RAN DUM
e
TO: William J. Joynes, City Manager
FROM: Beth Knoblauch, City Planner
DATE: July 24, 1989
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Amendment #3 to P.U.D. No. 28, Pondwood Office
Park; Gerald Mundt, Applicant
At its meeting of June 12, 1989, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to
recommend denial of a proposed P.U.D. amendment which would allow construc-
tion of a 10' x 26' storage addition to an existing two-car garage at the
south end of the site. Residents of the Cloverdale Estates subdivision to
the west felt that the pond already had too much development around it, and
that the wildlife would suffer, though the proposed addition would be
blocked from the pond by existing development.
The majority of the Planning Commissioners agreed that the site is suf-
ficiently developed as is. There was also a feeling that there was no
demonstration of need significant enough to justify waiving normal setback ~
standards in order to fit the proposed addition onto the site. The appli- ~
cant has stated that his proposal is within the setback limitations
established for the site at the time of original development, but I have
found no setback provisions specified in the P.U.D. permit. On the other
hand, the pond does render almost half the site undevelopable, which might
in itself be seen as sufficient reason for allowing some flexibility in
the setback requirements for the developable half.
ncm
Attachments
e
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
AUGUST 28, 1989
TO:
William S. Joynes, City Manager
FROM:
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO P.U.D. NO. 28, PONDWOOD OFFICE'
PARK; GENERAL PLAN STAGE
On August 1, 1989, the City Council gave Preliminary Plan approval to
the request by Pondwood Associates to add a 10' by 26' storage area
onto an existing garage at the south end of the Pondwood site. That
approval was granted on condition that the P.U.D. permit reflect the
City's desire to see no further increases in development density on
the site.
e
Mr. Gerald Mundt, speaking for Pondwood Associates, presented all per-
tinent materials for both Preliminary and General Plan review in a
single packet at the time of his Preliminary Plan hearing. Some of
the submitted materials are attached again for your reference. The
amended permit is also attached.
Action necessary at this time is final approval of the details of the
proposed P.U.D. amendment.
Attachments: Location Map
Architectural Detail Sketch
Letter and Statements from Mr. Mundt
Amended Permit
.
P.U.D. # 28 Amendment # 3
City Council Approval
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
USE PERMIT
FOR
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
.
PROJECT NAME: PONDWOOD OFFICE PARK
ADDRESS: 4959, 4969 and 4979 Olson Memorial Highway,
Golden Valley, MN
55422
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of the following described tract of land lying
West of the East 825 feet thereof; that part of the North 709.5 feet of the
Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 lying East of a line described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the North line of the Southwest 1/4 distant 1,639 feet
East of the Northwest corner of the Southwest 1/4, thence South at right angles
to said North line 291 feet; thence deflecting 7 degrees 50 minutes to the left
and running Southeasterly to its intersection with a line running parallel to
e
.0' and 709.5 feet South of the North line of the Southwest 1/4; except that part
thereof lying South of the Northwesterly right-of-way line of the Minneapolis,
Northfield and Southern Railway in Section 19, Township 29, Range 24, according
to the Government Survey thereof.
APPLICANT:
PONDWOOD ASSOCIATES
ADDRESS:
c/o Richard A. Van Sickle, Van Sickle, Allen and Associates, Inc.
1103 Wesley Temple Bldg., Minneapolis, MN
55403
OWNER:
PONDWOOD ASSOCIATES
ADDRESS:
c/o Richard A. Van Sickle, Van Sickle, Allen and Associates, Inc.
1103 Wesley Temple Bldg., Minneapolis, MN
55403
ZONING DISTRICT: Business and Professional Offices
PREMITTED USES:
Uses permitted in this development are three office buildings,
two buildings 4,291 square feet each in area and one building 3,224 square feet
e
in area for a total of 11,806 square feet of office space with optional use of
up to 1256 square feet of space as adult handicapped living quarters for no more
....L __ ....___ _ ..1__....._
USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT #28
Page 2
e
COMPONENTS:
A. Land Use Component:
1. Land uses within P.U.D. 828 shall be limited to those uses indicated on
the Title Sheet A-1, dated July 27, 1981 and revised June 8, 1982, of
the approved plans on file in the City Inspection Department and on
the amended Site Plan Sheet A-1, dated May 12, 1989. The principal use
shall be office park, consisting of three one story office buildings
comprising 11,806 square feet of office space, with optional use of up
to 1,256 square feet of space as adult handicapped living quarters for
no more than two adults. An accessory structure shall contain spaces
for two vehicles, plus a 10' x 26' enclosed storage area.
2. Parking for P.U.D. #28 shall consist of 61 outside parking stalls and
two garage spaces as shown on Sheet A-1, dated July 27, 1981 and
revised June 8, 1982, of the approved plans on file in the City
Inspection Department and on the amended Landscape Plan Sheet A-1,
dated July 16, 1984.
3.
Landscaping, as shown on Sheet A-6, dated July 27, 1981 and revised
September 30, 1981, of the approved plans on file in the City
Inspection Department and on the amended Landscape Plan Sheet A-1,
dated July 16, 1984, shall be completed within 210 days following
completion and occupancy of the buildings. New evergreen trees
installed in conjunction with the residential conversion and garage
construction shall be a minimum of six feet in height.
e
4. A landscape bond running in favor of the City of Golden Valley as obli-
gee shall be posted in the amount of $15,000 and shall run for two (2)
full growing seasons and until released by the Golden Valley Inspection
Department. The bond shall be executed and delivered to the Golden
Valley Inspection Department not later than thirty (30) days after
Building Permit is issued.
5. All structures shall be located at least one foot above the Bassett
Creek Flood Control Commission 100 year flood elevation of 838.0 feet.
6. Compensating storm water storage shall be provided for all areas below
the 100 year flood elevation of 838.0 feet which are filled in accor-
dance with the recommendation of the Bassett Creek Flood Control
Commission.
7. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, an erosion control plan
shall be prepared, submitted for the approval of the City Engineer, and
implemented to control siltation of Bassett Creek during construction.
8.
Following this amendment, and in the interest of protecting the adja-
cent wildlife habitat, the development density of the site should be
considered to be at maximum. There shall be no further structural
additions.
e
USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT #28
Page 3
e
B. Circulation Component:
1. An additional 20 foot easement for street purposes extending for a
distance of 200 feet from the west property line along the south side
of the existing 30 foot right-of-way easement shown on the preliminary
plat shall be dedicated using a separate instrument.
2. Interior sidewalks and concrete curb and gutter shall be located where
shown on Sheet A-1, dated July 27, 1981 and revised June ~ 1982, of
the approved plans on file in the City Inspection Department and on the
amended Landscape Plan Sheet A-1. dated July 16, 1984.
3. All green areas adjacent to parking and access areas shall be protected
by concrete curb.
C. Population Component:
1.
The southerly unit of the southerly building comprising 1,072 square
feet of space and 182 square feet of space in the adjacent unit for a
total of 1,256 square feet of space as shown on the amended Site Plan
Sheet A-2 dated July 16, 1984, may be occupied for residential use by
up to two adults, at least one of whom must be handicapped and at least
one of whom must have a direct association with the office use in the
remainder of the PUD development.
e
2. The space specified for optional handicapped adult residential use
shall revert to office use at such time as handicapped residental use
is discontinued.
3. There shall be no further conversion of Pondwood Office Park office
space to residential use.
D. Subdivision Component:
1. The described property shall be platted in accordance with the
Preliminary Plat of Pondwood Office Park, dated August 27, 1981 and
revised September 1, 1981, with the three buildings described as Lot 1
Block 1, Lot 1 Block 2 and Lot 1 Block 3, the garages described as Lot
1 Block 4, and the remaining portion of the site described as Outlot A.
2. The following revisions to the Preliminary Plat shall be incorporated
into the Final Plat:
a. The Plat name shall include "P.U.D. #28".
b.
A drainage easement shall be provided over all portions of the
site below elevation 838.0 feet.
e
3. The Final Plat shall be filed within six (6) months after the date of
the Council action giving final approval to the P.U.D. permit.
e
e
" E.
e
USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT #28
Page 4
D.
Subdivision Component: (Continued)
4. It is an express condition of this permit that if the holder of the
permit (or any assignee from the holder) at any time establishes any
portion of the property covered by this Planned Unit Devel~pment permit
as a condominium, whether said condominium be established at the time
of the initial development of the subject property or at any subsequent
date, then and in such event the condominium Declaration filed with
respect to any such condominium project shall include the express
language elsewhere set forth in this permit which acknowledges the
understanding of all present and future property owners in the Planned
Unit Development that the buildings being constructed in such develop-
ment and pursuant to this permit are being located with full knowledge
and assumption of risk relative to their proximity to the flooding and
drainage easement being created in favor of the City of Golden Valley
as a part of Planned Unit Development No. 28.
It is a further express condition of this Planned Unit Development per-
mit that any condominium Declaration prepared and filed with respect to
any condominium development to be included within any portion of
Planned Unit Development No. 28 shall in clude clear and express
language providing for the responsibility and management for all common
areas created by any such condominuim or condominiums thus created.
Services and Facilities Component:
1. Water and sanitary sewer service lines shall be installed, owned and
maintained by the owner or owners.
2. All utilities shall be underground.
3. Foundation for sewer and water shall meet requirements of the City.
4. Water and sanitary sewer service lines shall be encased where installed
under the pond at the approximate location of the existing 30 foot
roadway easement.
5. All mechanicals on the roof or ground shall be screened in accordance
with City Inspection Department approval.
6. A wall hydrant shall be mounted on the center building facing the
parking lot. A fire lane of twenty feet shall be provided in direct
line with the wall hydrant to allow fire equipment access to the wall
hydrant.
7. Complete fire separation to the roof shall be required between units
for fire protection.
8. All waste generated by occupants shall be stored internally until
removed from the premises.
USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT #28
Page 5
e
F. Construction Order Component:
1. A bond running in favor of the City of Golden Valley as obligee for the
amount of $21,770 shall be required for all bituminous surfacing and
concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter as provided on Sheet A-I, dated J~ly
27, 1981 and revised June ~ 1982, of the approved plans on file in.~e
City Inspection Department.
2. A bond running in the favor of the City of Golden Valley as obligee for
the amount of $21,000 shall be required for installation of sewer and
water service as provided on Sheet ME-I, dated July 27, 1981 and
revised September 4, 1981, of the approved plans on file in the City
Inspection Department.
G. Maps and Reports:
1. The architect or engineer in charge of the project shall provide
monthly written reports for each phase of the construction process.
2.
The architect or engineer in charge of the project shall inspect the
site during construction. When the project is completed, the architect
or engineer shall certify in writing to the Building Department of the
City of Golden Valley that the project has been constructed in confor-
mity with the approved plans on file in the City Inspection Department
and with the following amended plans:
e
a. Landscape Plan Sheet A-1 dated July 16, 1984 prepared by Chasney
Associates, Inc. and signed by S.M. Chasney.
b. Site Plan Sheet A-2 dated July 16, 1984 prepared by Chasney
Associates, Inc. and signed by S.M. Chyasney.
.
e
e
e
USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT #28
Page 6
It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City
Council approvals granted on June 2, 1980, on September 4, 1984 and on September
S, 1989 relative to Planned Unit Development #28.
PONDWOOD ASSOCIATES
WITNESS:
BY:
TI TLE :
DATE:
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
WITNESS:
BY:
MARY E. ANDERSON, ITS MAYOR
WITNESS:
AND:
WILLIAM S. JOYNES, ITS CITY MANAGER
DATE:
-
~
..... i.
.'
~'. .
I
I
.
,I
4..,... .
"OJ'
.t;J"II~,;>. '.:1'0.
~ .
~
I
...
V"
!rl>
... "'.
o~
.
-
';0; .....
,': .::$ ..".
v~ ..".
1,1 ,..
~ ~ ?'"
I
. ... i
.~ !~
... f
:'"
'?
~
I
I
cie,-
.
I'" ~~
I\)
;: 0;)
... c
, .... c
.. --f. ....
,/- I " 1.0"
'" r: ~
. i:; 0' ...
, I
.i e
- - ;"-1.-,
-1...- "
~, F
: ~ Sate
st~~
I'
I~
1 "
It
I
I
1
1
, I
I
.. I
'"
. I
I
0 -
'"
~ . I:l ."
~ :::: b
'" ..;",
. ....
..
.. -<
0
"
~
~ ,
, .
...
~
.:?
~~-
m
o
r-
en
o
z
'"
r
e;
t
c
\' ~ .
d " jJa
f J{ ~ ~ I ~
~ ~ffiilf~
!Il ~.
\J ; - ~
. , -
i: t..
~! ~
t l I
~~ #, ~ -"
~l
~! I .~-
,
e 1 r
l~ I ~~
~~ I
~...' ,
~~ i~
~~ !~ ,
'1'~
l~
~
l ~
I
I I
. I
I,:
I;
I
e
i
~
---"\
~.
Q\
~;
..,
,,~
",..
~ ~.
~~
lil,-o-
'\\
I
~
e
~
"
't
it
~
'.....
>oJ
~
r"\
'--
-'-
! ,...:-'
..: ;..:.....
, ~.
( <:' '3$:
~' .::; ~
, -
- ~
.. ...--
- ...-
'4 --_~
~ - ~'.
~ .~~.
I~~-,'~
~ -<,-'
r"'---,,:: ~.
,
+.
" ,-
. <'
~~
....-
,. "
, -
...;
,:
Pondwood Associates
4969 01 son Mem. Hwy.
Golden Val ley, Mn. 55422
e
May 12, 1989
Mr. Mark Grimes, Oi rector
Planning and Development Office
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Val ley, Mn. 55427
Re: Amendment #3 to P.U.D. #28
Comni ss ion:
It is Pondwood Associate's wi sh to add a 10 foot by 26 foot
storage to the existing 2 car garage at the south end of the
property. To do this, it is our understanding that our
P.U.D. contract with the city would have to be amended.
Since thi s addition is very simple, meets the set back requirements
establ ished, does not effect the number of parking spaces originally
shown, and is desi gned in the same styl e and wi th same materi al s _
as the existing building, we are requesting that the Prel iminary ..,
Design Plan and General Plan of Development, herein enclosed,
be acted upon at the same time.
Enclosed with this letter are the two applications along with
the requi red fee and documents for your consideration. Should
you have any questions or need further information, please give
me a call at my archi tectural offi ce, 541-9143.
}7" c~
.'/;'7
~ .~,<, / //1~7
~ral d ~ Mundt
Ma na gi r(a Pa r t ne r
GEM/htn
encl .
e
e
e
e
Storage Addition to Pondwood Office Park
Amendment #3 to Golden Valley P.U.D. #28
tan~!E!.Ee Statement
None of the exi sting site landscape will be disturbed
and no new landscape material is proposed.
Sidewalk and Drives Statement
-------------------
None of the existing site sidewalks will be disturbed
and no new sidewal k is proposed. The existing bitumi nous
parking area adjacent to the addition will be patched to
match existing.
Dr!!..!!!9~2!.!te~nt
The exi sti n] si te drai nage system wi II not be changed.
The final grade around the addition will be prepared
to drain away from the structure and onto the existing
," . ~ drai ni n areas,
/:~
4ieral d E
Pondwoo
Managi n
Mundt
Associates
Part ner
- ...
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning COmmission
June 12, 1989
Page 2
e
I II . INFCJM.\L PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN Frn A'\1END.\1ENT #3
TO PUD # 28, PC>NmaD
APPLICANT: Pondwood Associates
LOCATION: 4959, 4969, & 4979 Olson Memorial Highway
~T: Approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for an Amendment
to PUD #28 to Allow Construction of a Storage Area to
the Existing TWo~r Garage at the South End of the
Property
Chair Prazak introduced this agenda item and asked staff for a brief summary of
the request. City Planner Knoblauch stated that Mr. MUndt has requested a third
amendment to Pondwood PUD in order to add a 10'x 26' storage area to an existing
two-car garage. She stated that the proposed addition will have no major impa~~
on traffic, population density, or employment density. Also, it will not CUe
into the landscaping. She did note, however, that a request for a 3-car gar
had previously been turned down by the Planning COmmission. At that time the ~
COmmission proposed a reduction in size before giving its approval to the two ~
car garage that now exists on the site. City Planner Knoblauch stated that she
did not feel that this proposed addition would cause any significant detraction
on the site. The proposed addition would came to within 10 feet of the pro-
perty line, which would not be allowed under regular zoning standards.
Proponent Gerald Mundt, managing partner of Pondwood Associates, stated that all
the general partners are housed at Pondwood and the storage of their files has
became a problem. The storage facility would be only for the partners and
tenants. The addition would be made of the same materials and have the same
design as the garage.
COmmissioner McAleese asked the proponent if they had looked at any other sites
to store their property.
Proponent stated that they had not; they need to have quick access to their
f i 1 es .
Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing.
Helen Ekman, 440 Cloverleaf Drive, submitted a petition to the COmmission. She
stated that the area is already too crowded. She is also concerned about the
wildlife in that area.
Sandra Kelly, 355 Clover Lane, stated she moved in because of the park like
area. She feels that there is already too much industry in this area. The e
residents there pay high taxes and don't want it to be an industrial area.
Proponent stated that they are sensitive to the wildlife in the area and feel
they have increased the wildlife since they moved in. They do not fertilize or
put weed killer on their grass because of the pond.
e
e
e
Minutes of the GOlden Valley Planning COmmission
June 12, 1989
Page 3
Chair Prazask closed the infonnal public hearing.
COmmissioner Russell stated she was not opposed but felt there were other places
to store their files.
Proponent stated again that the files needed to be readily available.
Discussion was held on whether or not there were other possibilities for storing
the files.
COmmissioner McAleese stated that he is against them going into the normal set-
back requirements. He feels that we should have a good reason for allowing a
developer to build beyond the normal setbacks. He does not feel this is a good
reason. He feels this is a matter of convenience and not hardShip. If it were
not for the setback, he would not be against this request.
Chair Prazak stated that he feels that this has minimal impact on the site.
COmmissioner Leppik agrees it has minimal impact, but does not feel it is a real
hardship and therefore can't go along with the request.
Proponent stated that their contract has a 10' setback and that they are within
the setback area.
COmmissioner McAleese stated that it was unclear that 10' setback was part of
their contract. But he agrees that we should not allow expansion. He feels
that there are other alternatives. He questioned whether or not they would
request an additional building when this one was full.
City Planner Knoblauch stated that it can be recommended that this be the last
enlargement of the property.
COmmissioner Russell stated that she felt that we should stay with the original
agreement that the blueprint stay as is without any further additions.
It was moved by COmmissioner Leppik, seconded by COmmissioner MCAleese to recom-
mend to the City Council denial of the Preliminary Design Plan for an amendment
to PUD #28 to Allow Construction of a storage area to the existing two-car
garage at the south end of the property at 4959, 4969, and 4979 Olson Memorial
Highway. Opposed: Chair Prazak, and Commissioner McCracken-Hunt. Motion
carried 3-2.
COmmissioner McAleese asked for clarification of the setback' issue in regards to
pm's.
'.
'~ Linda ~tcCrakken-Hunt, Pl anni ng Cor:lI~i ss ioner, stated the Commi ssion recomlrended
:. approval of the pl an.
The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were
. afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon.
Jerry f1undt, 4212 Poplar Drive, concered over traffic on f1eadow Lane, increase
...;in number of traffic lights.
i Cam Johnson, r-t.A. f10rtenson, concerned over evening traffic and traffic light at
. Ardmore, and concern over trucks being able to get onto Highway 55.
7The Mayor closed the public hearing.
.Jhe Council and staff expressed concerns and discussed traffic projections,
flow, truck traffic options, set back requirements, landscaping, "seall of asphalt
in parki ng lot.
MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Thompson and motion carried unanimously to approve
the preliminary design plan for PUD #57, North Wirth Commerce Centre.
Continued Public Hearing - First Consideration - Ordinance Amendment - Conditional
Use Permit - 1900 Douglas Drive
~illiam Joynes stated the proponent requested the Council delay action on this
ltem until September 5, 1989.
MOVED by Thompson, seconded by Bakken and motion carried unanimously to continue
the public hearing for first consideration of the ordinance amendment regarding a
a conditional use permit for 1900 Douglas Drive to September 5, 1989. ..,
'"Regular I'ICt::I.I"~ VI W,,~ W'-J
~ Ugust 1, 1989
., age 5
roval - PUD #28 - Amendment #3 -
~
r-1nda r~cCrakken-Hunt, Pl anni ng Commi ssi oner, stated the Commi ss i on recommended
enial of the plan.
he Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were
'~afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Hearing and seeing no
.~one, the t1ayor closed the public hearing.
,
'~MOVED by Thompson, seconded by Bakken and motion carried to approve the
'~preliminary design plan for PUD #28, Amendment #3, subject to the following
~~condition: There shall be no further structural additions to the site. Council
.;;; Member Johnson voted no.
roval - PUD #57 - Northwirth
,,: William Joynes introduced the agenda item.
.~ Ron Erickson, K K & E Architects, was present to review the design plan and
~. answer questi ons from the Council.
"
:\
I
I
.,
I
e\
i
~ ,
i
of the City Council
roval and First Consideration -
- PUD #34 - Amendment #1 - Golden
ORDINANCE 24, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDI~~NCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
(Approval of General Plan of Development
for P.U.D. No. 34 - Amendment #1)
6125 01 son t1emori al Hi ghway
Golden Valley Lutheran College/Hinnesota School
and Resource Center for the Arts Proponent
,he buildings and campus may also be utilized by the t1innesota School and
esource Center for the Arts. The School and Resource Center will have
'pproximately 270 full time students in the 11th and 12th grades.
pproximately 200 students will live in Delta dorm. Classes will be held
:~n the Administrative/Classroom building. The School and Resource Center
"ill also include part time programs for high school students in grades
-12. These part time students will occupy dorm space for 1-3 week
-essions during the normal school year and summer.
i:;'
,he Resource Center wi 11 include teachers and arts professional s conduct ing
esearch in the Learning Resource Center (Library) and short tenn workshops
_or arts teachers.
'.
e School and Resource Center may occupy any other of the buildings on
he site for its activities.
~e School and Resource Center may sublease a~ of the buildings to Arts
',lated organizations that are consistent with the purpose of the School.
, ndercofler, MN Center for Arts Education, Proponent was present to review
. lan and answer questions fran the Council.
"ayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were
~ded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Hearing and seeing no
,..,...the Mayor closed the public hearing.
vote, the vote was as follows:
BAKKEN - YES JOHNSON - YES STOCK~~N - YES THOMPSON - YES
roval - PUD #28 - Amendment #3 -
plan and answer
the City Council
ed Public Hearin - First Consideration - Ordinance Amendment - Conditional
nnit - 1900 Dou 1as Drive - Continued.
....
ej"":representing Mr. 11a1ik stated they do not support the ordinance in its
:.form and request the Council consider changi ng condition #2 to 27 feet.
background information on the item.
. :~
~or opened the meeting for public input and persons
aed the opportunity to express their views thereon.
1he Mayor closed the public hearing.
present to do so were
Hearing and seeing no
TH0l1PSOll - YES
BAKKEN - YES JOHNSON - YES STOCKMAN - NO
- General Plan
. by Stockman, seconded by Thor:1pson and ootion carried unanimously to approve
. purposes the following ordinance; subject to the following
ORDINANCE 29, 2ND SERIES
AN. ORDINAtlCE A~lENDING THE CITY CODE
(Amendment to General Plan of Development for
PUD No. 28, Pondwood Office Park at
4959, 4969, 4979 Olson t1emoria1 Highway
Pondwood Associates, Proponent
shall be no further structural additions to the site.
.d Mundt, proponent, was present to review the plan and answer questions
~~he Caunci 1 .
~yor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were
rded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Hearing and seeing no
;~~e Mayor closed the public hearing.
BAKKEN - YES JOHNSON - NO
STOCKMAN - YES THOt1PSON - YES
and Second
PUD #46 -
Boyce, President, Calvary Congregation, was present to review the amendment
.riequest the Council expedite approval so the daycare can open as soon as
S.S ble.
expressed her concern over landscapping of the facility.
V:" Lewi 5, Planning Commi ssion, stated the Commi ssion recommended approval and
cO expressed their concern over landscapping.
the City Council
in _ Second Consideration - Ordinance Amendment - General Plan
PUD #28 - Amendment #3 - Pondwood Office Park
and motion carried unanimously to approve
ordinance; subject to the following
ORDINANCE 29, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE At1ENDING THE CITY CODE
(Amendment to General Plan of Development for
PUD No. 28, Pondwood Office Park at
4959,4969,4979 Olson t1emorial High\'/ay
Pondwood Associates, Proponent
be no further structural additions to the site.
..,;opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so vlere
the opportunity to express their views thereon. Hearing and seeing no
~yor closed the public hearing.
BAKKEN - YES JOHNSON - NO
STOCKt.1AN - YES THOHPSOtl - YES
.., -
earin _ Second Consideration - Ordinance Amendment - Moratorium Restrictin
";vision in All Residential Districts
carried unanimously to approve
ORDINANCE 30, 2ND SERIES
, AN ORDINANCE At1ENDING THE CITY CODE
erim Ordinance Restricting mnor Subdivisions Under City Code
':i:~n 12.52 on All Property Lying Within Residential Districts)
e~ed the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were
..opportunity to express their views thereon. Hearing and seeing no
~r closed the public hearing.
BAKKEN _ YES JOHNSON - YES STOCKHAN - YES THOHPSON - YES
t&-d ~
~~.
CJ{~
/JJ.1U ~
~
i
I
r1q lqg1
4- f/, 1;
)
100
~~
~ pt tV
...
~.t'f:~(ii:f.~ ~ '<.~, t
. -~7."..,~..",r-.~~,;:..;< '"
~rrr~'j:~
; ....\:~:
_~~s~ ~~~~~:'~itJk:.~;'"
e
e
e
MEMORANDUM
Date:
March 8, 1995
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Amendments to the Zoning Code to Permit Seasonal Farm Produce
Sales by Administrative Permit
This past summer, a sweet com/vegetable sales stand was established at the Golden
Valley Shopping Center in violation of the Zoning Code. The vegetable stand was in
violation because such sales are permitted in the Commercial Zoning District only by
Conditional Use Permit. This sales operator did not apply for a CUP, but was only
given permission by the owner of the shopping center to operate the stand. Staff told
the owner of the shopping center and the operator that the stand had to be closed. It
was closed and did not operate for the remainder of the summer. This vegetable stand
operator and other operators have asked the City to consider a change to the Zoning
Code that would permit such stands by Administrative Permit rather than by CUP.
Permitting vegetable stands only by CUP does create a difficulty for the vegetable
stand operators. It takes two to four months to go through the CUP process. The
operators would have to start looking for their locations about now in order to go
through the CUP process for the 1995 season. The process is also expensive because
of the application fee ($250) and the information required as part of the CUP process.
Also, the operators have suggested the Administrative Permit route because many
other cities in the metro area regulate vegetable stands by that method.
The general feeling of staff is that vegetable stands are desirable for the City if they are
properly regulated. Many of us buy at such stands because it is a custom of summer
and the produce is fresh. Staff recommends that an Administrative Permit system be
used to regulate such produce stands.
Attached is a draft of recommended changes to the Zoning Code that would permit
produce stands and Christmas tree sales. The first necessary change is to define what
seasonal farm produce is. The definition clearly states that such produce sales are
temporary in nature and not a part of a normal business otherwise located on the site
and that the sale must be for Christmas trees or other agricultural commodities
harvested in season and hauled fresh to the site.
e
Season Farm Produce Sales
Page Two
Currently, the City does permit Christmas tree sales by a special permit. This is not
regulated by the Zoning Code. The proposed ordinance would require that this special
permit section of City Code be eliminated and that all tree sales be done by Adminis-
trative Permit. I want to make the Commission aware that this may cause some
concern for churches or schools. I believe that there has been at least one church that
has sold Christmas trees from their parking lot. Staff is suggesting that produce sales
(including Christmas tree sales) be only permitted in the Commercial Zoning District. I
would like to get input from the Commission regarding the use of non-commercially
zoned land for produce sales.
The Zoning Code would also have to state in which zoning districts seasonal produce
stands would be permitted. As stated in the paragraph above, staff is suggesting that
such sales be permitted only in the Commercial Zoning District. In Golden Valley there
is a small amount of Commercial property. However, the retail sales of produce is
consistent with the intent of the Commercial Zoning District and not the intent of other
zoning districts in the City. Some may argue that such stands should be allowed along
the 1-394 corridor where the great majority of the property is zoned Industrial. Staff
believes that such property is already so intensely used that adding temporary retail e
sales of produce would further congest the area. It seems that the most logical location
for such produce stands is in those few commercial areas in the City, such as Valley
Square, where there is parking and good access.
The proposed ordinance regulating the produce operations is fairly simple. It
establishes an Administrative Permit process that is administered by the Inspections
Department. The criteria and rules for such produce stands and Christmas tree sales
are outlined in the Ordinance. The following are some of the highlights of the
Ordinance:
1. The permit shall last for no more than 45 consecutive days. This is generally
the length of the fresh produce season in Minnesota (including Christmas trees).
There is some flexibility in the Ordinance that would allow a site to be used for
a limited number of days each week for up to six months per year.
2. There are rules regarding the location of the sales in regard to both the public
right-of-way and the property lines. In particular, staff believes that no sales shall
occur within 25 ft. of any property line or in a street. Persons wanting to buy
produce should park in a parking lot. No parking is permitted on the street.
3.
The ordinance does allow for up to 25% of the area occupied by the sales
operation to be used to sell processed agricultural products such as honey,
juices or handicrafts.
e
e
e
e
Seasonal Farm Produce Sales
Page Three
4. The ordinance limits the size of individual sales operations to 180 sq. ft. No
more than two such operations could operate on one site if there is a joint
application.
5. The sales operations shall demonstrate that there is adequate space on the site
for both access and parking in addition to space for the parking and access for
the permanent occupant of the site. This will have to be a judgment call of the
City staff to determine if there is adequate parking on a particular commercial
site to allow a produce stand. In most cases in Golden Valley, existing commer-
cial businesses only meet or are below the required number of parking spaces
required by the code. Staff would have to be convinced that the existing uses
on a particular commercial site did not need the all the parking area available to
it.
6.
The sales operation would be allowed a limited amount of signage to advertise
the sale. The maximum signage per site is proposed to be 32 square feet on no
more than two signs. (The size of the signs is based on one side only.) If there
would be two sales operations on one site, the two sales operations would have
to share the 32 square feet of signage.
7. The staff has created a separate category for Christmas tree sales. The parking,
access and signage calculations would be the same as for produce stands.
There could be two concurrent sales on one lot. (This would seem very unlikely.)
8. There is an application procedure as outlined in the Ordinance. The information
requested would allow the staff to make the judgment regarding the issuance of
the permit. The staff would have the ability to suggest changes to the sale plan.
If the permit is issued and the operator fails to meet the requirements of the
permit, the permit will be revoked.
9. There would be a filing fee of less than $100.
10. Both the owner of the site and the sales operator are responsible for the produce
sale operation.
Seasonal Farm Produce Sales
Page Four
Recommendation
The staff recommends approval of changes to the City L.~.. .: ::hat would allow the sale
of seasonal produce by Administrative Permit in the Commercial Zoning District. This
process would also include the sale of Christmas trees and the elimination in the City
Code of tree sales by business license as is now permitted.
Staff welcomes comments by the Commission regarding the districts in which seasonal
produce sales will be permitted and other comments regarding such issues as sign size
and parking.
MWG:mkd
Attachments:
Deletion of Sec. 6.37. Christmas Trees
Addition of Sec. 11.03, Subd. 82.5
Addition of Sec. 11.30, Subd. 3 (II)
Addition of Sec. 11.78 (in its entirely)
e
e
e
9 6.37
SE~. 8.37. ~HRISTM^g TREES.
.
SYh~. 1. LieeAse Re~Yipe~. It is YAlawfYl far aAY ~ersaA ta give,
er traae, Barter ar sell at retail, aRY €Yt evergreeA, fir, sprY€e ar at~er tree
af like kiA~, far yse as ~~at is geRerally kRa~R aRa aes6riBee as a "~~ristffias
Tree", ~it~eYt a lieeRse t~erefer fraffi t~e City.
Syh~. 2. ApplieatieA. tiery a~plieaRt far sYe~ lieeAse s~all file
wit~ t~e City Clerk a ~:ritteR applieatieR t~erefar, statiAg, affiaAg et~er t~iAgs,
t~e a~plieaRtls earreet Aaffie, aearess aRa ~laee sf iRteReea sale af sYe~
C~ristffias trees, teget~er yit~ t~e Aaffie af t~e ~erseR fraffi ~:~affi aAa t~e ~lace
frsffi \:~ie~ sYe~ a~plieaAt iAteAes ta €Yt ar secyre t~e C~ristffias trees iAteRsea
ta Be sale BY sYe~ ap~lieaRt.
Syh~. J. FiliAg Qate. A~~lieatieRs fer lieeRses te ee issyee YRaer
t~e ~ravisieAs ~ereaf s~all ee files ~:it~ t~e City Clerk eA er eefere Na~effieer
39t~.
SEC. 6.38. HEATING, VENTILATING, AIR CONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION
INSTALLERS.
e
Subd. 1. License Required. It is unlawful for any person to engage
in the business of installing heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refri-
geration equipment without a license therefor from the City.
Subd. 2. Bond. All applications for such licenses shall be accom-
panied by a bond in the penal sum of $5,000.00 conditioned on the installer
having made all such installations in a workmanlike manner and in accordance
with the Heating, Ventilating and Refrigeration Rules contained in the State
Building Code.
SEC. 6.39. MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS.
Subd. 1. License Required. It is unlawful for-any person to engage
in the business of selling or arranging the sale or leasing of new or used motor
vehicles, including automobiles, trucks, motor homes, recreational vehicles,
motorcycles and motorized bicycles, without a license for each place of such
business from the City. Licenses are not required of salespeople and other
employees of a licensed dealer, nor of persons making isolated or occasional
sales or leases of motor vehicles. Dealer licenses are of three types (1) new
motor vehicles, (2) used motor vehicles, and (3) new and used motor vehicles.
Subd. 2. Conditions of Licensing.
A. Every licensee shall provide and maintain in the City at
least one equipped and manned repair shop or facility capable
e
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
o
99
(6-30-88)
9 11.03
78. "Residential Facility" - Any facility licensed by the
State of Minnesota (except for foster family homes) public or private,
which for gain or otherwise, provides one or more persons 24 hour per
day care including food, lodging, training, education, supervision,
habilitation, rehabilitation and treatment they need. Residential
facilities include but are not limited to State institutions under the
control of the Commissioner of Public Welfare, residential treatment
centers, maternity shelters, group homes, halfway houses, residen-
tial programs or schools for handicapped children.
Source: Ordinance No. 653
Effective Date: 4-12-85
e
79. "Restaurant, Class I" - Any traditional type restaurant
where food is served to a customer and consumed while seated at a
counter or table, including cafeterias where food is selected by a
customer while going through a service line and taken to a table for
consumption.
80. "Restaurant, Class II" - Fast-food type restaurants
where customers order and are served at a counter and take it to a
table or counter, or off the premises where the food is consumed. A
"Class II" restaurant also includes "drive-in" restaurants where some
or all customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of
how it is served, and further includes carry-out and delivery
restaurants where food is prepared for consumption off the premises
only.
e
Source: Ordinance No. 585
Effective Date: 1-14-83
81. "Restaurant, Class III" - Any type of night club,
tavern, restaurant or other facility providing entertainment, food
and/or beverage that provides sitdown service but may also provide
standup bar service and standup tables within the premises.
Source: Ordinance No. 615
Effective Date: 5-25-84
82. "Schoo1, Primary, Secondary, College or University" -
Any school having regular sessions with regularly employed instructors
teaching subjects which are fundamental and essential for a general
academic education, under the supervision of, and in accordance with,
the applicable statutes of the State of Minnesota.
83. "Service Station (Gasoline Station)" - Any building or
premises used principally for the dispensing, sale or offering for
sale at retail of automobile fuels or oils or for the servicing of
motor vehicles.
e
9 11.30
.
for profit.
AA. Skating rinks (ice or roller) privately owned and operated
ss. Shopping centers (general retail - convenience shopping).
CC. Theaters.
DD. Trade or industrial training schools, both public and
private.
EE. General retail services and/or sales not otherwise listed as
a Conditional Use in Subdivision 4, below.
Source: Ordinance No. 569
Effective Date: 7-16-82
FF. Massage parlors, saunas, rap parlors, conversation parlors,
escort services, model services, dancing services, hostess services, adult
encounter group services, adult sensitivity group services and other similar
adult oriented ,services that require City licensing pursuant to other provisions
of the City Code.
Source: Ordinance No. 603
Effective Date: 8-26-83
GG. Tanning parlors.
Source: Ordinance No. 609
Effective Date: 11-11-83
HH. Essential Services - Class I
e
Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 11-28-91
II. Seasonal Farm Produce Sales
Subd. 4. Conditional Uses.
A. Animal hospitals, veterinary clinics, and/or pet grooming
facilities.
S. Auto repair shops, including tire and auto accessory repair
and installation.
C. Car wash.
D. Convenience food stores.
E. Drive-in retail establishments, such as banks, cleaning,
photo shops, etc.
F. Gasoline service stations.
G. Mortuaries.
H. Off-street parking for adjacent commercial or
industrial uses.
I. Outdoor sales, including car lots, auto and equip-
ment rentals.
e
J. Outside storage and/or sales of horticultural nur-
sery sites, temporary farmers market, and itinerant sales.
K. Pool halls.
L. Class II restaurants (drive-in, fast food, etc.)
Source: Ordinance No. 609
Effective Date: 11-11-83
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
~
p
227
(3-16-92)
Sec. 11.78
SEASONAL FARM PRODUCE SALES
~ 11.78
.
Subd. 1. Purpose. In acknowledgement of the public benefit to be
gained by providing urban residents with convenient and cost-effective access to
rural farm produce, the purpose of this section is to establish guidelines for
the permitting of temporary agricultural sales sites. As a mature, inner ring
suburb, Golden Valley lacks suitable permanent or long term open space sites to
devote to such sales activity. Therefore, it is the intent of this section to
modify certain zoning requirements specifically for the uses contemplated by
this section, while still maintaining a level of regulation that protects the
general public health, safety, and welfare.
Subd. 2. Requirements.
A. For All Sales Operations.
1. No such operation shall take place in a zoning district
for which it is not listed as a permitted use.
2. No such operation shall take place without first
obtaining a permit for the sale premises in accordance with the provisions of
this section.
3. Receiving such permit does not excuse the vendor from
meeting other applicable local, state, or federal licensing or permitting ~
requirements. ~
4. No such permit shall be good for more than forty-five
(45) consecutive days. This shall include each day, or any part thereof, during
which any structure, equipment, or merchandise can be found at the sale
premises, regardless of whether any actual sales transactions occur on that day.
However, a single permit may be issued for a period of up to six (60 months at a
time provided that the operation so permitted occupies the same site according
to a regular schedule not to exceed two (2) days or portions thereof per week
and also provided that the operation so permitted completely vacates the
premises on those days or portions thereof when not scheduled to conduct sales
transactions.
5. No sales transactions or promotional efforts shall take
place within any part of a pUblic right-of-way or within twenty-five (25) feet
of any street property line.
6. Sales operations may be located within side or rear set-
back areas provided that any damage to or alteration of landscaping elements is
subsequently corrected, and providing that written consent is obtained from the
owners of any nonresidential property located with fifteen (15) feet of the
actual sales site and any residential property located within fifty (50) feet of
the actual sales site, and providing that the City review staff find no poten-
tially hazardous situations that could occur because of the location of the
sales site.
7. Up to twenty-five (25) percent of the area occupied by a
sales operation may be used for the storage and sale of processed agricultural
products such as honey, juices, or hand-crafted decorative display items if, in
the judgment of the City review staff, the amount and type of processing still
meets the intent of this section.
e
~11.78
.
Area or Less.
B. For Sales Operations Occupying Sites of 180 Square Feet in
1. The area occupied by a sales operation shall be calcu-
lated to include any structure, vehicle, equipment, and merchandise storage or
display area, plus an extra two feet of clear space beyond the limit of such
elements at any location where customer circulation can be expected to occur.
In no case may an individual sales operation exceed 180 sq.ft. Two concurrent
sales operations which together would exceed the maximum area permitted must be
considered as part of a joint application. (No more than two sales operations,
of up to 180 sq. ft. each, may occur at one time on any particular site or
property.)
2. There shall be no on-site parking required for the sales
operation itself, but it shall not impede normal on-site vehicular circulation.
The submitted plan shall clearly demonstrate that adequate off-street parking
for the proposed event can and will be provided for the duration of the sale.
Determination of compliance with this requirement shall be made by the City
Inspections Department who shall consider the nature of the sale and the appli-
cable parking requirements of this Ordinance. Consideration shall be given to
the parking needs and requirements of other occupants in the case of shopping
centers and multi-tenant buildings. Parking on public right-of-way and streets
is prohibited.
e
3. Signage for such sales operations may be counted separate
from the maximum allowed for the normal business otherwise occupying the site.
However, this waiver shall cover maximum of two signs per site, each of which
may be two sided; and shall cover a maximum combined size, based on one side
only, of 32 sq.ft. Such signs shall be located either within the site occupied
by the sales operation or as an attachment to an existing sign for the normal
business otherwise occupying the site, provided that the City review staff must
in any case approve the exact sign location.
Feet or More.
C. For Sales of Christmas Trees Occupying Sites of 180 Square
1. The calculation of area shall be performed in the same
manner as for paragraph B. above. When two concurrent sales operations are con-
templated, they must be considered together in a joint application process.
2. There shall be no on-site parking required for the sales
operation itself, but it shall not impede normal on-site vehicular circulation.
The submitted plan shall clearly demonstrate that adequate off-street parking
for the proposed event can and will be provided for the duration of the sale.
Determination of compliance with this requirement shall be made by the City
Inspections Department who shall consider the nature of the sale and the appli-
cable parking requirements of this Ordinance. Consideration shall be given to
the parking needs and requirements of other occupants in the case of shopping
centers and multi-tenant buildings. Parking on public right-of-way and streets
is prohibited.
e
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
289-2
(4-95)
9 11.78
3. Signage for such sales operations may be counted separate4lt
from the maximum allowed for the normal business otherwise occupying the site.
However, this waiver shall cover maximum of two signs per site, each of which
may be two sided; and shall cover a maximum combined size, based on one side
only, of 32 sq.ft. Such signs shall be located either within the site occupied
by the sales operation or as an attachment to an existing sign for the normal
business otherwise occupying the site, provided that the City review staff must
in any case approve the exact sign location.
Sec. 3. Applications.
A. Required Elements of Application. In order to be accepted for
review, all applications for seasonal farm produce sales operations shall
include the following:
1. An official application form.
2. A licensing fee in an amount established by City Council
resolution.
3. Written consent of adjacent property owners, when
required under the terms of this section.
4. A scalable site plan indicating:
a. the exact dimensions and proposed location of any
booth, tent, vehicle, rack, barrel, or other structure or equipment;
e
b. all landscaping elements within ten (10) feet of the
proposed site;
c. exact distance from the site to any property lines
within twenty-five (25) feet.
5. Drawings or photographs of any structures, vehicles, or
equipment to be used for the sales operation.
6. A parking and circulation plan showing how the proposed
site meets the requirements of this section with regard to parking and on-site
vehicular circulation.
7. Drawings or photographs of any signs to.be used for the
sales operation, along with information on proposed sign size and location.
8. If the proposed sales hours are to extend after dark, a
lighting plan showing how adequate light will be provided for the sales opera-
tion in such a way as to minimize any potential hazard or distraction to others.
B. Application Process.
1. The completed application for any proposed sales opera-
tion shall be turned in to the City.s Inspections Department at least three (3)
weeks prior to the intended date of commencement of sales activity.
4It
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
289-3
(4-95)
~ 11.78
.
2. One party, which may be either a sales operator or a
property owner/manager shall be identified on the application as the applicant.
However, the application and the permit, if issued, shall be signed by and con-
sidered binding on any involved operator(s) and any owner(s)/manager(s) of
property to be occupied by the sales operation.
3. The application process shall be coordinated through the
City's Inspections Department. In addition to a designated staff member of that
department who shall direct the process, the application may be reviewed by the
Public Safety Department, the Engineering Department, or the Planning Department
as necessary to ensure that the intent of this section is met.
4. After considering all elements of an application, the
review staff will notify the applicant of any revisions that might be necessary
in order to gain permit approval. The permit, if issued, shall identify the
sales operator(s) and the approved dates for the sale, and shall specify all
conditions governing the sales operation with regard to each element of the
application.
5. A permit may be denied if a proposed sales operation can-
not meet the conditions established by the review staff.
6. A permit may be revoked after issuance if the operator(s)
or property owner(s)/manager(s) fail to adhere to the specified conditions.
e
.
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
289-4
(4-95)