Loading...
10-10-94 PC Agenda , AGE N D A . GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Gold~n Valley Road Council Chambers October 10, 1994 7:00 PM I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 26, 1994 : l II. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - Preliminary Design Plan, P.U.D. No. 67 Applicant: Westwood Lake Limited Partnership \ Address: 8401, 8421, and 8441 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN Request: To create a P.U.D. for the purpose of legalizing certain nonconforming aspects of the existing office center which includes more than one building on the lot. III. REVIEW OF ATTENDANCE . IV. BRAINSTORMING SESSION V. REPORTS ON MEETINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL AND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ; ; ! VI. OTHER BUSINESS , VII. ADJOURNMENT ! , j f . \ . . . MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION September 26, 1994 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 7:05 PM. Those present were Commissioners Groger, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, and Pentelj absent were Johnson and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Developmentj Elizabeth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - September 12, 1994 MOVED by Lewis, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to approve the September 12, 1994 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Applicant: Thomas Ryan Address: Area North of 1-394 Between Sumter Avenue South and Rhode Island Avenue South Request: ~ Amend Comprehensive Plan Map from Low Density Residential to Office Use III. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning Applicant: Thomas Ryan Address: Area North of 1-394 Between Sumter Avenue South and Rhode Island Avenue South Request: Rezone Area from Residential to Business and Professional Office (B&PO) IV. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision Applicant: Thomas Ryan Address: Area North of 1-394 Between Sumter Avenue South and Rhode Island Avenue South Request: Consolidation of Several Existing Residential Lots and Pieces of Lots into a Single New Non-Residential Lot It was the consensus of the Chair and Commission to have staff review all three staff reports before receiving comments from the Commission, the applicant and audience. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 26, 1994 Page Two Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, summarized her report of the Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Map for the Commission. She stated three levels of con- cern: 1) the parcel, 2) the neighborhood, and 3) the City. Ms. Knoblauch talked about the small size of the parcel, that the parcel is located at the end of an established residential neighborhood and the impact an office building could have on the neighborhood. She talked about maintaining the Comprehensive Plan in a residential neighborhood, the traffic counts on 1-394, there being no access to the subject property from the freeway, and the buffering of noise from 1-394. She also talked about residential/non-residential areas coming together and about spot zoning, which can occur when similarly situated properties are not treated in a similar manner. Ms. Knoblauch reported on Comprehensive Plan objectives relating to affordable housing and interest in modest cost single-family housing for this site. An interested developer applied, through the City, for a grant of $100,000 to pur- chase this property and for utility work. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, did make Mr. Ryan an offer but was refused. A letter was written to MHFA declining the grant money. Ms. Knoblauch talked about the area being in a transitional area with businesses on one side and residential on the other. She added that the neighbors directly to the north would be affected by a paved parking area and that if the proposed office building was placed on the largest portion of the lot, the building would sit 10 feet lower than the neighboring house. She also expressed concern for access and visibility. ~ Ms. Knoblauch reviewed the staff recommendations and summarized the following Addenda: 1) Addendum A - Failure to Develop: Vacant Land Known as 7700 Wayzata Blvd., 2) Addendum B - Examples of Properties Similarly Situated as The Vacant Land Known as 7700 Wayzata Blvd., and 3) Addendum C - Examples of Small Office Buildings with Big Problems. ~ Ms. Knoblauch continued with reviewing the staff report on rezoning the proposed parcel from Residential to Business and Professional Office. She briefly talked about the 10 previous rezoning attempts, what constitutes spot zoning, construc- tion of 1-394 and the conflict with the Comprehensive Plan (key to rezoning is amending the Comprehensive Plan Use Map). Ms. Knoblauch then reviewed her report on the the Minor Subdivision request including the conditions and staff recommendations for approval of the Minor Subdivision. Commissioner Lewis asked for clarification of the property lot size. Ms. Knoblauch reviewed the required setbacks and stated that the lot would meet code requirements. Commissioner Groger asked about height restrictions. Ms. Knoblauch commented that the building could be three stories; any taller would need a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Pentel was concerned with the 10 foot height difference at the northeast corner where a building would most likely be situated, and how it might impact the home to the north. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 26, 1994 Page Three Commissioner Groger asked if there would be only one driveway on the site. Ms. Knoblauch commented that the Engineering Department would give the permits for driveways. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, commented that another driveway could go in but may cut p'arking. The applicant, Thomas Ryan, #2 Maclynn Road, Minnetonka, took issue with staff's claim that an offer had been made to buy the lots for residential use; he told the Commission there was no purchase agreement and no earnest money was received. He also commented on how the pictures from the staff report only showed residential lots -- Mr. Ryan showed the Commission pictures he had taken and they were returned to him at the end of the meeting. Mr. Ryan commented on the last ten years that he has owned the property saying the Planning Commission in 1985 approved an office structure but the City Council denied because of the 1-394 impact. He also talked about meeting with City staff and neighbors and the neighbors asked him to market the site for single-family residential, which he said he had for two years. Mr. Ryan stated that he contacted other professionals who said the land was not suitable for single-family, and MnDOT who said that freeways and neighborhoods are not compatible. Commissioner Pentel asked Mr. Ryan if he would lease out the proposed office building. Mr. Ryan said that he would sell the property to someone else who was maybe looking for a small office headquarter site. He would not build on the property himself. Commissioner Kapsner asked which years Mr. Ryan marketed the site for single- family. Mr. Ryan commented 1992-93. Marc A. Brickman, realtor for Burnett, 2818 Haskell Point Road, Orono, talked about marketing the site for five single-family residential lots and that he had several inquiries. He talked about office building space improving, the location of the proposed site and the City being able to collect taxes on a structure vs. vacant land. Commissioner Kapsner asked Mr. Brickman about the price of the land and what would a lot sell for three blocks from 1-394. Mr. Brickman said the lots were marketed for about $30,000, and that there is very little raw land left in the Hopkins School District. He felt lots three blocks from 1-394 would sell for approximately $49,900. The problem with the proposed parcel is noise from 1-394. Commissioner Pentel asked staff that if the hearing items were approved, would the Planning Commission see any building applications for this lot. Staff com- mented that a conforming building proposal on this site would not come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Groger asked about the number of homes that could go on the lot. Ms. Knoblauch commented that the parcel is platted for five lots which are con- sidered legally buildable under City Code even though they don't meet the current 10,000 sq.ft. per lot requirement. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 26, 1994 Page Four Rick Rosow, attorney for Mr. Ryan, 19835 Waterford Place, Shorewood, commented on his client's awareness that the public has concerns, and at a site plan review the neighbors and Mr. Ryan could get together and work things out. Mr. Rosow commended the work that went into the staff reports, but wanted to point out some inconsistencies. He showed a short tape of the area talking about the 1-394 noise, businesses in area and their business signs, and the proposed site not being a good residential parcel. He showed on the monitor a card quoting from the Comprehensive Plan Amendment report liThe subject property is clearly not one of Golden Valley's most choice homes sitesll, and asked how staff could then go on to recommend in favor of continuing the property's residential designation. He showed a second card, quoting liThe grade difference between 1-394 and the subject property plus the clutter of overpasses, highway signage, and adjacent business signage, leaves little opportunity for the site to make a significant visual impression on highway motoristsll and asked why the second half of the quote couldn't as easily be replaced by 1I1eaves the property unsuitable for residential use.1I Mr. Rosow read a paragraph from the Metro Council's Housing Development Guide, of 1985, which said that subsidized housing should not be built where not desirable, and compared it to the staff recommen- dation. He also passed out to the Commission a document from C.R. Pelton, Realtor, who wrote the best use for the parcel would be commercial use. Mr. Rosow read selected sentences from some of the scenarios in Addendum C (regarding problem office buildings), and said that he could see no problem other than that staff had to put some effort into doing their job. Commissioner Pentel asked the applicant if he had been paying taxes on the pro- posed property and Mr. Ryan stated yes. Chair McAleese opened the Informal Public Hearing. Paul McEnroe, 815 Sumter Avenue South, spoke on behalf of 42 neighboring resi- dents who oppose the rezoning and gave the Chair a statement with their signatures. Mr. McEnroe talked about the closeness of the neighborhood, the long-term residents of the neighborhood, and children being able to play in the neighborhood without fear. He commented on his meeting with MnDOT, the City of Golden and Representative Leppik regarding putting the neighborhood on a prior- ity list for a noise barrier along 1-394, even though all-day readings, recently taken by MnDOT from the Stillwell's yard, indicate that the noise level in the area is currently below the point where standards would require such a wall. Alvin Winkels, 914 Sumter Avenue South, said that he represents eight long-term residents. He has been through all of the past attempts to rezone this parcel and he asked the Planning Commission to give the neighborhood a break. In response to the staff report's reference to a IImystery buildingll on the subject property in the 1940's, Mr. Winkels told the Commission that a Mr. James Mercier owned and lived there until the mid-1950's. He also talked about dirt being excavated from this parcel. (Mr. Winkels presented a memorandum, to the Commission, with signatures of the neighbors). Karen Oman, 843 Sumter Avenue South, commented that she was at the 1985 rezoning meeting and thought 1-394 would destroy the neighborhood, but it has actually made the area more secluded because there is no access directly from 1-394. She said the neighborhood is very close-knit and people who move there stay a long time. She talked about very little traffic on the frontage road and pointed out that Mr. Rosow's video tape showed one truck passing by the proposed site. Ms. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 26, 1994 Page Five Oman talked about a letter she received from a realtor commenting that the pro- posed lots on the parcel should sell for approximately $18,000 and that $29,900 was too much for each lot. Scott Thuleen, 855 Hanley Road, commented that he lived through the construction of 1-394, has done extensive remodeling to his home and plans to stay a resident of Golden Valley. He opposes the plan to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Map and Rezoning. He talked about living next to the previously cited office build- ing where an unapproved business leased out vehicles, and he watched as they drove down the road at 60 miles an hour, which he did consider to be a problem for the neighborhood. Craig Stillwell, 1033 Sumter Avenue South, said that as an eight year resident, he was the new kid on the block. He commented that the proposed parcel was bought and sold many years ago for gravel. He said, in 1985, there was a site sketch for an office building on this site but Mr. Ryan has not brought in a site current sketch showing where a building would be placed. Dorraine Bailey, 950 Rhode Island Avenue South, commented that her parents adjoin the proposed parcel and are very uncomfortable with having an office building located directly next to them. She stated that the homes along Hwy. 100/1-394 are now selling and feels this proposed site is more attractive. Edmund Noren, 840 Sumter Avenue South, identified himself as another long-term resident. He commented about his good neighbors and opposes the rezoning of . this property. Chair McAleese closed the Informal Public Hearing. Commissioner Pentel commented that the neighborhood has suffered with the 1-394 construction and doesn't like the idea of an office building encroaching on the site. She also stated her opposition to spot zoning and stated that this prop- erty is appropriate for residential use and would be equally appropriate if left vacant; she does not see the necessity of having every single parcel of land in Golden Valley be developed. Commissioner Kapsner commented that he was on the Planning Commission in 1985 and circumstances are completely different -- 1-394 was an issue at that time. Mr. Kapsner felt that some of the neighborhood residents were a bit hard on Mr. Ryan, that there is nothing wrong with buying a piece of property and hoping to make a profit by selling it. Mr. Kapsner commented that he does not support changing the Comprehensive Plan Use Map and bringing one more office building into a residential block. Commissioner Groger stated that he was originally considering recommending in favor of the applicant's request, but then he stated that he had visited the site and commented that noise is a fact of life. He was on the property during rush hour and did not find the noise to be intolerable. Mr. Groger commented that the proposed parcel is not an ideal place for residential homes, but he cannot support an office building next to residential homes. . Commissioner Lewis concurred with what other Commissioners had to say and would like to see the neighborhood stay the same. She opposed the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Use Map. She also complimented staff on the thorough and well written reports. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 26, 1994 Page Six Chair McAleese commented that the completion of 1-394 has made the neighborhood improved for residential use and opposes a change to the Comprehensive Plan Use Map. Mr. Ryan asked Commissioner Pentel to restate her comment about the proposed site remaining vacant. Commissioner Pentel stated that she thought the land could be viable zoned residential though currently vacant. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Lewis and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council denial to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Map from low density residential to office use for the following reasons taken from the staff report: 1. Construction of 1-394 has increased the suitability of the property for residential use and decreased its suitability for small office use. 2. The residential neighborhood of which the property is a part is presently stable and includes existing homes that are similarly situated to the subject property. 3. Accepting the rationale that this property is residentially unsuitable because of highway impacts sets a precedent that could cause a threat to numerous other residentially designated highway frontage locations around the City. 4. Retaining the residential designation of the property is consistent with objectives and policies in the Comprehensive Plan that relate to afford- able housing. *(The original 5. has been deleted by consensus of Planning Commission.) 5. Small office buildings are not always the ideal residential buffer that their stereotype implies. Commissioner Groger recommended to replace the original reason No.5, from the staff memo, by instead stating that because there is no access from 1-394 to this area, any kind of use would now need to use the neighboring streets to access the proposed lot. The consensus of the Commission was to agree with Commissioner Groger that this neighborhood did not need more intense traffic on its residential streets, but no formal vote was taken on the recommendation and the motion stood with original reason No.5 deleted and replaced by No.6. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Lewis and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council denial to rezone the property from Residential to Business and Professional Office on the following findings: 1. In view of the residential character of the property to the North and West it would be spot zoning to rezone only this particular parcel, out of all of the contiguous residential area lying West of Rhode Island Avenue, South of Laurel Avenue and North of Wayzata Boulevard, to busi- ness and professional office zoning district. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 26, 1994 Page Seven 2. In view of the now completed 1-394 corridor, which is no longer at grade level pertaining to this parcel of land, the proposed property is suitable for residential use. 3. The parcel for which rezoning is sought is residential on the City's comprehensive municipal plan and it would therefore be inconsistent with and a failure to follow the previously studied and established plan to at this time rezone just this specific parcel to business and professional office zoning district. In situations of this type the entire residen- tial area should be considered as a whole and with particular reference to the comprehensive plan, and there should be no rezoning of only a part of such a residential area to a heavier use. MOVED by Lewis, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council denial of a Minor Subdivjsion for consolidation of several existing lots into a single new non-residential lot. There was some debate as to whether the intended use of the proposed lot was relevant to this particular item, but the applicant stated that he wanted the term "non-residential" left in the motion. Recommendation to deny was based on that factor. V. Brainstorming It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the brainstorming session to the next Planning Commission meeting (October 10, 1994). VI. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals Mark Grimes briefly reviewed the meetings he attended. VII. Other Business No other business was discussed. VIII. Adjournment Chair McAleese adjourned the Planning Commission meeting of September 26, 1994 at 9:55 PM. Jean Lewis, Secretary M E M 0 RAN DUM . DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 4, 1994 Golden Valley Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - Westwood lake Office Park 2nd Addition, P.U.D. No. 67 - 8401, 8421 and 8441 Wayzata Boulevard - Westwood lake limited Partnership, Applicant Over the past summer, Westwood lake Office Park, consisting of three buildings at 8401, 8421 and 8441 Wayzata Blvd., was sold to the Westwood lake Partnership. This partnership is represented by Attorney John Bowden. As a result of the research done to examine title and other matters related to this property, several non-conforming aspects of the property were discussed. These non- conformities include more than one building on a lot, inadequate building and parking setbacks, and lack of loading docks. The new owner would like to elimi- nate these non-conformities. It was determined by the-owner and City staff that creating a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) would be the best way to eliminate the existing non-conformities. Eliminating the non-conformities through variances is not recommended by staff. . Site History The site is currently zoned Industrial. Within this zoning district, office buildings with a height of up to 45 feet are permitted. (A three story building generally does not exceed 45 feet.) I am attaching a history of the site that was prepared by City Planner Beth Knoblauch. It will give you a better understanding of how these three buildings were built without meeting all Zoning Code requirements. At this time, there are two lots at Westwood lake Office Park. The 8401 and 8421 buildings are located on one lot as approved by the BZA in 1974. In 1976, the 8441 building was constructed and the Westwood lake Office Park property was subdivided to create one lot for the 8441 building. This subdivision was done at the mortgage company's insistence that the 8441 building have its own lot. During the 1980's, 1-394 had a significant impact on the Westwood lake Office Park. The land taken from the office park is shown on the attached survey. The taking reduced both the setback and parking areas. As a result of the taking, the parking deck on the west side of the property was constructed to compensate for parking lost to 1-394. It is my understanding that the parking deck was paid for by MnDOT. . Existing Site The Westwood lake Office Park is about 8.5 acres. The P.U.D. proposed would create a lot for each of the three buildings. The sizes of the lots are as follows: lot 1 = 3.6 acres, lot 2 = 2.1 acres and lot 3 = 2.8 acres. . . . Memo for Westwood lake Office Park 2nd Addition Page Two The building on lot 1 is the 8441 building. This is a three-story office building with about 63,500 sq.ft. of office space. The three-story building on lot 2 is the 8401 building with about 36,500 sq.ft. of floor space. The three- story building on lot 3 is the 8421 building with 36,500 sq. ft. of floor area. The total office square footage is 136,500 sq.ft. There are 547 parking spaces available for the three buildings. The Zoning Code requirement is 546 spaces for the three buildings. There are numerous non-conformities on the site related to setbacks. The Zoning Code requires that there be a 35 foot setback (green area) along the frontage road. This requirement is not met along most of the frontage road. The parking lot also does not meet the side and rear yard requirement of 25 feet to parking and 50 feet to building along the south property line. The required rear/side setback along the south property line is significant because the area is zoned Industrial. The property to the south is owned by the City of St. louis Park and is part of the Westwood Nature Center. The parking lot at the southeast corner of the property does not meet the required setback of 50 feet from the adjacent residential property. The west property line_abuts a public right-of- way and thus should technically have a front setback requirement. Since the right-of-way at that particular location is a parking lot rather than a travelled thoroughfare, staff would say that the intent of the code is probably met if a side yard setback of 20 feet is maintained. Despite the relatively recent construction of the office park's parking deck, however, the setback is still nonconforming by several inches. The current structures and parking areas wotlld probably not meet today's wetland protection ordinances. The wetland areas come to within several feet of both the 8441 and 8421 buildings. However, because these buildings were legally constructed in the 1970's, they may continue to be used. Any new additions or other buildings would have to meet all current local and state codes and ordi- nances related to wetland protection. I have visited the site. The buildings and grounds appear to be well maintained with adequate parking and green space. The location of the buildings is unique because of 1-394 to the north and the Westwood Nature Center to the south. It would be particularly nice to have an office with a south facing window. The new owner has asked that at sometime in the future, the P.U.D. permit a covered walkway to be built between the buildings. This appears to be a reason- able request. I would suggest that the P.U.D. Permit be written to permit this construction without an amendment to the P.U.D. However, all such construction would have to meet current City requirements relating to construction and wetland protection. The ownership of the small parcel along the frontage road that juts into the Westwood lake Office Park site should be resolved. This property has been used by Westwood for parking as shown on the site plan. Both the City Attorney and the owner's attorney are looking into this matter. The logical outcome is that the right-of-way line for the frontage road be extended straight across this property and that the remainder go to the owners of the office park. . . . Memo fro Westwood lake Office Park 2nd Addition Page Three Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the plan to make Westwood lake Office Park 2nd Addition a P.U.D. The P.U.D. recognizes the existing configuration of buildings and parking that is on the site. By creating lots for each of the buildings, these lots may be sold individually, subject to the P.U.D. Permit and all ease- ments for ingress, egress and parking. The P.U.D. eliminates the issues of "non-conformities" by recognizing the property lias is". Many of the non- conformities were created due to the MnDOT taking and creation of the Westwood Nature Center. In return, there are advantages to the City for the P.U.D. The P.U.D. may not be expanded or significantly altered without City Council approval. This is important to the homeowners on Wisconsin Avenue because it ensures that no expansion into the green area at the east end of the site can take place without further public hearings. The P.U.D. also eliminates the non- conforming situation of two buildings on one lot. There can now be future sales of individual buildings, if desired. Overall, the P.U.D. should enhance the value of the office park which is a benefit to the City. There are several conditions to the P.U.D. I would recommend: 1. The site plan prepared by Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc. and dated September 14, 1994 become a part of the P.U.D. 2. The property shall be legally platted and recorded, with the designation "P.U.D. No. 67" to be a part of the plat's title. . 3. Prior to final approval of the P.U.D., the small section of property at the northeast corner of the site which "juts" into the Westwood lake Office Park property and is used by Westwood for parking become a part of the P.U.D. 4. An at-grade covered walkway may be constructed between buildings without an amendment to the P.U.D. The construction and location shall meet all City and State requirements. 5. A second tier of parking may be constructed above the existing parking deck without an amendment to the P.U.D. 6. There shall be no construction (building or parking) on the portion of the P.U.D. east of the existing parking area near Wisconsin Avenue. 7. Covenants and agreements providing cross-access and cross-parking rights among the three lots shall be prepared or revised as necessary, and shall be made a part of the P.U.D. Permit. M~IG: mkd Attachments: location Map Westwood Office Park Development Chronology Proposed Site Plan (oversized) . . . .. '. '. :: .1.....,..4. J ''',JJ~ ~ '-r-'- PLAT fJ"... 27-2 . ....... _...._..~_.. 6 -'....~ : - -.!. ~...r -,--- "I.: ,I' , ..........,.. _. ..t.,,,., '. !~ ~ ~ ;' ~: ..I. . .... ~.c'. :!i.';, ., . "' : .~ hi' . 7 ~ , . ." -_::~:.j!-_.. -' . ;~. :. ::::~;. ::';Z . W C) I, # . ,;,..,.. 8 " 1~' , ::,. 9 ~IA .. ..~, !- 5 " I 2 I . ' :. 4.,' '---_t" I .; <'~ .'....~I.11 ! I I' f ~: :., ., -0;':..3 ... '~'. . OUTLOT 2 LifT (lc G ULliE" V~LLEY ,:,.., ",. Clrv ":lr~': ..AI,', (, ur $1 ,-O')ICj, rAPt( .:";. ~ ~ tJ :'-~'#! ~ ~ ~ i. '~:'J - ............... -......:!........ .. .... ... J :: .:. , . '\ .. -. . . - I: . .' . t ';;." .. ..' .... 00' ......... ...... " " ... '. ". ....: .... ... .............. ...;: -;'~ . . . Westwood Office Park Development Chronology 1953 Rezoning from Open Development to Industrial o All of the land lying south of Wayzata Blvd. and west of the Arcridge residential addition. 1957 Original Platting of Murri-Mac Industrial Park o Two very large lots with an east/west street along the south City limits and a north/south street over by the Arcridge Addition. o Major utility work in the area began even before the plat was approved. 1962 Replatting of Murri-Mac Industrial Park o Property owner wanted to break the area into smaller lots. especially to the west where the better soils were. -- o Street system was redesigned and original streets were vacated. o One small piece of the former road system at tne northeast corner of the plat was dedicated back to the City as an outlot. apparently because a major sewer line or other utility was located under it. 1973 PUD Application for Office Park o Two buildings. of five and eight stories. plus related parking struc- ture on remaining large lot where poorest soils were. o City of St. Louis Park was in process of condemning southerly 360' of lot (which extended all the way down to city limits) for addition to Westwood Lake Nature Center. o Applicant withdrew from PUD process after stiff opposition from several sources. including Planning Commission; although City's Comprehensive Plan at that time designated property as open space. existing zoning overruled future plans and applicant's stated intent was to go ahead with a single building in conformance with code requirements. o The first office building was constructed (8401 Wayzata Blvd.). 1974 BZA Waiver of "0ne-Building Per Lot" Requirement o Applicant's plan at that time called for four office buildings of three stories each. o No reason was given by BZA in minutes. but waiver was approved. o The second office building was constructed (8421 Wayzata Blvd.). Westwood Office Park Development Chronology Page Two . 1976 Waiver of Floodplain Ordinance to Allow Filling of Low Land for Construction of Third Office Building o Floodplain ordinance did not exist when first two buildings were constructed. o Council approved filling of low land at site of third proposed building, on recommendation of Planning Commission after developer agreed to provide equal flood storage capacity elsewhere on property through regrading. 1976 Westwood Lake Office Park Plat o At mortgage company.s insistence, property owner rep1atted to create a separate lot for new building. o No discussion on record about splitting existing buildings; Planning Commission did recommend rezoning to Business and Professional Office district, but mortgage company refused because at that time office buildings could only be one story in height. 1980's MnDOT 1-394 Condemnation . 0 Parking deck constructed to compensate for loss of parking. o Front setback nonconformities created or increased. .