The URL can be used to link to this page

01-24-83 PC Agenda , --- - -- - --_r _ _— - - - -T— _ , --- --- ------ . � i ' � . i I I I i . GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION I • (Civic Center, 7800 Golden Ualley Road) j January 24, 1983 7:00 P.M. AGENDA i � � � J � i I . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 10, 1983 I i II . INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - P.U.D. #39 WEST METRO SURGICAL CENTER ,� ; I APPLICANT: American Medical International , Inc. I � LOCATION: 6681 Country Club Drive ' � `I � i REQUEST: Approval of Preliminary Design Plan � for P.U.D. #39� including Medical � Offices and a "same day" surgical center ; � I � ' III . REPORT ON BZA MEETING - JANUARY 11 , 1983 I � � � � ; � I IV. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 18, 1983 i I i i I , I ' � i I i i � � >i i I � � `i I � � i ' I � I � � � � i � i :i I � � � � i , MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY P LANNING COMMISSION • January 10, 1983 A regular meeting of the Planning Comnission was held in the Council C hambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. C hairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Comnissioners Forster, Leppik, P,razak, Singer, Thompson a nd Tubman. Co mnissisoner Polachek was not present at the beginning of the m eeting. Also present were Mike Miller, Planning and Redevelopment Coordinator, and Alda Peikert, Assistant Planner. I . Approval of Mi nutes - December 13, 1982: It was moved by Comnissioner Forster, seconded by Commissioner Leppik and c arried unanimously to approve the minutes of the December 13, 1982 Planning Comnission meeting as recorded. Comnissioner Polachek arrived at the meeting. II. Continuation of Informal Public Hearing - P.U.D. #40 Ewald Way: APPLICANT: Monson/Ueland Architects, Inc. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Xerxes Avenue North and � Golden Valley Road REQUEST: Approval of Preliminary Design Plan for P .U.D. #40, Ewald Way. C hairman Thompson introduced this agenda item and recognized Mr. Jon Monson w ho was present to represent the proponent, Monson/Ueland Architects. C hai rman Thomp son asked whether there were any questi ons of staff, and C omnissioner Leppik asked about the private driveway easement over the s outherly ten feet of the site. Co mnissioner Leppik expressed concern over p roximity of the drive to patio areas shown for two units and over poten- tial danger to children living in these two units and using the patios as a back yard area. Planning and Redevelopment Coordinator Mike Miller con- firmed that the drive is on property currently awned by the City HRA and scheduled for transfer to the proponent, Monson/Ueland Architects, and that the drive is the only possible access to a garage serving a house on York Avenue North to the southwest of the sub�ect site. Mr. Miller pointed out that the drive is a private driveway to a garage and that it is no more heavily used than the usual private drivewa�y serving a garage in a private y ard. C hairman Thompson called on Mr. Jon Monson and asked whether he had � P1 anni ng Comni ssi on Mi nutes - January 10, 1983 Page 2 � anything to add on behalf of the proponent. Mr. Monson stated that the proponent intends to comply with the ten conditions of approval recomnended in the staff report. C hairman Thompson stated that he felt the firm of Monson/Ueland Architects did an admirable job of heeding the concerns of the Co�nission in prepara- tion of the revised Preliminary Design Plan. Chairman Thompson opened the informal public hearing for public input. M r. Doug Sandstad, 1816 Zephyr Place, stated that he is a member of the Ewal d Nei ghborhood Comni ttee, that al l members of the Co►mni ttee were aware of the Planning Comnission informal hearing on the Preliminary Design Plan a nd that all Comnittee members had a chance to review the plans. Mr. Sandstad stated that although he was not officially designated by the C omnittee members to speak on their behalf at the hearing, he could testify to the fact that the Comnittee members see favorable changes in the project plans and are supportive of the Preliminary Design Plan. There was no one else present who wished to speak to this agenda item, and C hairman Thompson closed the informal public hearing. C hairman Thompson reviewed the ten conditions of approval recomnended in the staff report. • It was moved by Corrmissioner Polachek, seconded by Comnissioner Prazak and c arried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the Preliminary D esign Plan for PUD #40, Ewald Way, subject to the fol]owing conditions: 1 . Placement of the six (6) foot utility and drainage easement required by the City Subdivision Regulations on the south property line to the north of the 10 foot existing drivewa�y easement. 2. Submission of Homeowners Association Agreements and Bylaws, easements and any apropriate deed restrictions or covenants with the General Plan of Development as required by the PUD Ordinance and approval of these documents by the Ci ty Attorney prior to Ci ty Counci 1 approval of the General Plan of Development for PUD #40. 3. Posting of fire lanes along the entire length of the drive to restrict parking to the designated parking spaces off the drive and to prohibit p arking along the drive. 4 . Provision far handicapped accessibility to individual units. 5. Separation of sewer and water service to each individual unit, separa- tion of interior plumbing for individual units and provision of one lawn faucet (hosebib) for each unit. � Planning Comnission Minutes - January 10, 1983 Page 3 � 6. Provision of roughed in connections for washer and dryer facilities if actual equipment is not furnished in each unit. 7 . Provision of individual cold air returns for heating systems. 8. Extension of fire wall in accordance with building code standards to the roof line between units with no penetration. 9 . Provision of integral outside combustion air for optional fireplaces. 10. Conformance of signage with the City of Golden Valley Sign Regulations and approval of the Building Inspector. I I I. I nformal Publ i c Heari ng - Rezoni ng 4955 Westbend Road: APPLICANT: Ms. Barbara Grove L OCATION: 4955 Westbend Road REQUEST: Change zoning from Residential (single family) to R-2 Residential (two-fami ly) C hairman Thompson introduced this agenda item and recognized the proponent, M s. Barb Grove. • C hai rman Thomp son asked whether there were any questi ons of staff, and C ommissioner Leppik asked about the building floor elevation shown on the p roposed site plan. Assistant Planner Alda Peikert explained that the building floor elevation is not indicated on the site plan but that the p roponent stated in meetings with staff that the planned elevation of the lower floor is 843.6 based on an expected change in the official flood elevation. C omnissioner Tubman asked about the procedure for changing the official City flood elevation at the subject location. Ms. Peikert replied that B assett Creek improvements have been completed and that the Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission will be making a separate recommendation to the City Council for revision of the official City flood elevation. C hairman Thompson called on the proponent, Ms. Barb Grove, and Ms. Grove s tated that she had nothing to add. Chairman Thompson opened the informal public hearing for public input. M r. Terry Nees, 2117 Windsor Way, presented to the Planning Comrnission a p etition with 31 signatures f rom neighboring residents requesting denial of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Nees added that he would like to give his per- sonal reasons for opposing the rezoning and expressed two concerns. First, � Planning Comnission Minutes - January 10, 1983 Page 4 • Mr. Nees said that he does not think it is right to rezone a lot in the neighborhood at this time because everyone who bought or built in the neighborhood did so with the understanding that it would be a single family neighborhood. Mr. Nees said that he chose to live in the neighborhood as a s i ngl e fami ly nei ghborhood and opposes any change from si ngl e fami ly resi- dential status. Second, Mr. Nees expressed concern over whether a house can be built on the lot in question due to unsuitable soil conditions. Mr. N ees reported that persons previously interested in the lot have concluded that it is unbuildable. Mr. Nees suggested the possibility that a house on the subject lot could become an eyesore due to maintenance problems resulting from the soil conditions, M r. Floy d Lobash, 2131 Windsor Way, stated that when he bought his house there was a deed restriction prohibiting use of the property for other than a single family residence. Mr. Lobash said it is his understanding that all property in the area is under a similar restriction imposed by the City. Planning and Redevelopment Coordinator Mike Miller clarified that a deed restriction is a civil matter not a zoning restriction involving the City. Mr. Lobash indicated that he purchased his horr� 22 years ago, and M r. Miller stated that he believes deed restrictions are good for only 20 y ears under Minnesota law. Mr. Lobash added that there are three existing houses built on pilings in the neighborhood f rom which the earth is sinking away and that the three houses all look terrible. Mr. Lobash concluded � that these three houses should not have been built. M r. Frank Wells, 4945 Westbend Road, stated that he lives in the house adjacent to the subject lot on the east. Mr. Wells stated that he did not sign the petition opposing the rezoning request but that he has two con- c erns. First, Mr. Wells is concerned that in driving pilings for the pro- p osed duplex the proponent may cause damage to his property, in particular to his house foundation. Second, he is concerned that fill for the pro- posed structure will raise the flood elevation and result in potentially damaging drainage onto his property. Mr. Miller advised Mr. Wells that staff discussed with the City Engineer the question of possible damage to s urroundi ng properti es resul ti ng f rom dri vi ng of pi l i ngs and the Ci ty Engineer indicated that such damage is a possibility and that it would be a civil matter between property owners not involving the City. Mr. Miller further informed Mr. Wells that anyone filling in the floodplain is required to provide compensating flood water storage area in order to ensure that additional drainage onto neighboring property will not result and that the Bassett Creek Flood Control Comnisison confirms compensating s torage capacity when reviewing plans for development in the floodplain. Comnisioner Tubman pointed out that concerns regarding soils and drainage w ould apply to construction of a single family home allowable under current zoning as well as to the duplex proposed under the requested rezoning and that the proposed rezoning does not affect these concerns. � Planning Comnission Minutes - January 10, 1983 Page 5 � � Mr. Robert Wickman, 4875 Westbend Road, expressed concern over construction on the subject lot due to the soil conditions. Mr. Wickman reported that during construction of the home currently avned by Mr. Wells to the east of the subject lot, a "cat" was lost in the muck three times. Mr. Wickman reported that his home did not suffer structural damage from the driving of pilings for the Wells home but that he felt considerable impact. Mr. Wickman added that he understood that the owner of a house across from the W ells home had to tear out the entire lower section of his house due to unstable soil conditions. M r. Tom Parker, 4920 Sorell Avenue North, stated that his was the first home built in the area and that he is familiar with the soils in the vici- nity. Mr. Parker reported that the soil is sand at the location of the Wickman house at 4875 Westbend Road, that the first house on piling is the J ack Culhane house at 4925 Westbend Road, and that the soil is muck from that point to the corner. Mr. Parker reported that rock is 40 to 50 feet down in this area and that if piling is done correctly, there is no problem with house construction. Mr. Culhane verified that he has had no struc- tural problems with his house. Mr. Parker reported that his house did s hake a little when pilings were driven for the Culhane house, but that it w as not a problem. Mr. Parker concluded that he has no objection to construction of a house on the subject lot and no objection to construction of a double. Mr. Parker noted that there are two existing doubles in the • neighborhood. M r. Bob Perry, 2143 Windsor Way, stated that he purchased his home five months ago and thought there was no chance of construction of a double on the subject site. Mr. Perry stated that he is against construction of a double. Mr. Perry further noted that there is a chance of improper installation of piling and that the neighborhood does not need another eyesore. Ms. Barbara Grove, the proponent, asked permission to address neighborhood concerns. Ms. Grove stated that she has owned the subject property since 1977 with the future hope of building a two family home to house herself on one side and her son and his future family on the other side. Ms. Grove s tated that the duplex would not be rental property. Ms. Grove reported that she has been working with City Staff and with Staff for the Bassett C reek Flood Control Comnission over the last two years. Ms. Grove stated her desire to build a structure which will be comlementary to the neigh- borhood. Regarding Mr. Wells' concern over possible damage to his property resulting from the driving of piling, Ms. Grove reported that she met with structural engineers and was informed that the wooden pilings used would absorb the impact to the extent that pilings could be driven next to a house without causing damage. Ms. Grove stated that based on her calculations there will be a distance of 45 feet between the Wells home and the closest p oint at which pilings are proposed. Ms. Grove concluded with the state- • ment that she is coordinating with the Bassett Creek Flood Control 9 • Planning Comnission Minutes - January 10, 1983 Page 6 C omnission in order to avoid potential drainage problems over which neigh- bors have expressed concern. M r. Floy d Lobash, 2131 Windsor Way, asked wh�ther Ms. Grove is in real estate because he has seen people viewing the property apparently con- sidering purchase. Ms. Grove stated that she is not in the real estate business. Mr. Lobash expressed concern over additional drainage into the City properties to the west and over the lack of mosquito control on the City owned lowland lots. Mr. Miller suggested that Mr. Lobash contact the City concerning any rtrosquito problems on City property. M s. Helen Parker, 4920 Sorell, stated that she has lived at her current a ddress since 1953 and has been looking out at vacant lots. She said that the idea of a house on the subject property, whether a single or a double, is preferable to looking at weeds. C hairman Thompson closed the informal public hearing. C hairman Thompson pointed out that a duplex is a residential use and that the requested rezoning is only a slight change as far as zoning is con- c erned. Ch airman Thomp son added that he shares the concerns of the neigh- borhood over building on any of these lots due to drainage questions but • . that he is aware of the accomplishments made in flood control and feels that the Bassett Creek Flood Control Comnission has done a marvelous job. Commissioner Prazak stated that his concerns regarding piling for the s tructure have been satisfied but that his preference would be for a single f amily home at the subject location. Co mnissioner Prazak noted that the nearest double is almost a block away. Commissioner Leppik stated that aRy rezoning requires a compelling reason f or a zoning change. Co mnissioner Leppik stated that the subject lot could easily and appropriately be used for a single family dNelling as currently z oned and that there is no compelling reason for a rezoning. Co mnissioner Leppik noted that there is no guarantee that the proponents will remain in the home as a family arrangement rather than a rental situation. � Comnissioner Forster asked what piling would add to the construction cost. M r. Miller answered that piling would add substantial cost amounting to one third to 50. percent again over the normal construction cost. Comnissioner Forster said that he questioned the economic feasibility of building a single family home on the lot considering the fact that it has been vacant f or a long time. C omnissioner Tubman stated that the exterior design of the proposed duplex is not obtrusive, that it has the appearance of a large single family home , • and that it is located on a large lot. Co mnissioner Tubman speculated that in order to develop the property at all may take something larger and • Planning Comnission Minutes - January 10, 1983 Page 7 somewhat more objectionable than a single family home, but that a �plex is not as objectionable as the alternative of no development. Comnissioner Singer stated that the Planning Comnission should recognize that it has an obligation to consider proposals such as this with the idea that the small amount of property left within the City has to be utilized. C omnissioner Singer stated that if the proposed duplex is the best answer f or achieving development of the subject site, the Planning Comnission should recommend approval of the rezoning. C hairman Thompson pointed out that double homes have been approved and do exist within residential neighborhoods in other parts of the City and that there are other doubles not far away from the subject site. Chairman Thompson stated that he is familiar with the subject neighborhood, that it is a very attractive area and that he does not find the proposed double unattractive or not in keeping with the surrounding single family homes. C hairman Thomp son exp ressed the opinion that if done properly, the proposed double would be an asset to the neighborhood. Ch airman Thompson added that h e lives not 100 y ards away from a double bungalow and that it has never bothered him in the slightest. He noted that .the important factor is how homes are maintained and that single family awnership does not guarantee � maintenance. It was moved by Commissioner Forster and seconded by Comnissioner Tubman to recommend City Council approval of the rezoning requested by Ms. Barbara Grove of a vacant lot located at 4955 Westbend Road f rom the Residential (Si ngl e Fami ly) to the Two Fami ly (R-2) Resi denti al Zoni ng Di stri ct on the basis of proper land use, a good building plan and the fact that the pro- p osed development would be an asset to the neighborhood. The recomnen- dation for approval is subject to the following conditions: 1 . Submission prior to City Council approval of the rezoning of a site plan acceptable to the City Engineer and City Building Inspector for construction of a structure the lowest floor elevation of which is a minimum of one foot above the flood elevation officially recognized by the City of Golden Valley at the subject site. 2 . Approval of the propsed site plan by the Bassett Creek Flood Control Comnission prior to City Council approval of the rezoning. The motion carried by a five to two vote. Co mnissioners Forster, Polachek, Singer, Thompson and Tubman voted in favor of the motion. Comnissioners L eppik and Prazak voted against the motion. IV. Request for Waiver of City Platting Regulations - 528 Indiana Avenue • North: — — • P 1 anni ng Comni ssi on Mi nutes - January 10, 1983 Page 8 APPLICANT: Brad Jones L OCATION: 528 Indiana Avenue North REQUEST: Permission to resubdivide three residential lots into two residential lots which would be more in conformance with the City Zoning Ordinance C hairman Thomp son introduced this agenda item and recognized the proponent, M r. Brad Jones. Mr. Jones provided the Planning Comnission with an explan- ation of his request, and Chairman Thompson asked for questions of the p roponent. Commissioner Leppik asked what would happen to the existing church located o n the southerly of the four currently existing lots. Mr. Jones replied that he plans to remove the existing church building and to construct a 24 by 40 foot one story rambler type single fami ly house on the lot. Mr. Jones explained that he proposes three single family duellings on three lots where there are now four lots with on house and the former church building. � C omnissioner Singer stated his opinion that the proposed develoment would improve the neighborhood and offered his approval of the requested change in lot lines. C omnissioner Prazak stated that the proposed single family residential devel- opment appears compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. , C omnissioner Tubman asked confirmation that any request for a setback variance would require a public hearing and notification of surrounding property owners. Planning and Redevelopment Coordinator °Mike Miller verified that a public hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals is required for a setback variance. C hairman Thompson reviewed the staff recommendation. I t was moved by Comni ssi oner Leppik, secnded by Comni ssi oner Si nger and c arried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the request received from Mr. Brad Jones for a waiver of the platting ordinance to allow r�-subdivision of three residential lots located at 528 Indiana Avenue North into two residential lots which would be more in conformance with the City Zoning Ordinance subject to the following condition: That any easements for driveway access granted across Lots 136 and part � of 135 be filed with the City Division of Zonin�g and Inspection and become a permanent reference in that department s Street File. V. Report on HRA Meeting _ December 14, 1982: • Planning Comnission Minutes - January 10, 1983 Page 9 Comnissioner Forster provided the Planning Comnission with a report on the 0 ecember 14, 1982 HRA meeting. V I. Report on 67A Meeti ng = December 14, 1982: Co�nissioner Polachek provided the Planning Comnission with a report on the D ecember 14, 1982 Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meeting. VII Report on City Council Meeting = December 21, 1982: Comnissioner Prazak provided the Planning Comnisssion with a report on the December 21, 1982 City Council meeting. VIII. Report on City Council Meeting _ January 4, 1983: Comnissioner Singer provided the Planning Comnision with a report on the J anuary 4, 1983 City Council Meeting. IX. Consideration of Consent Agenda: � C hairman Thomp son reported that he considered initiating a consent agenda f or the Planning Comnission. However, after discussing the possibility with Planning and Redevelopment Coordinator Mike Miller, he concluded that the Planning Comnission does not need a consent agenda. The only Planning Comnission agenda items appropriate to a consent agenda are setting of hearing dates already handled in minimal time. X. Update on Valley Square: C hairman Thomp son provided the Planning Comnission with an update -on the s tatus of the Valley Square Redevelopment Project. X I. Report on HRA Meeti ng _ J anuary 10, 1983: Commissioner Leppik was scheduled to represent the Planning Commission at the HRA meeting originally scheduled for January 11, 1983 but rescheduled f or the same time as the Planning Comnission meeting on January 10, 1983. Commissioner Leppik was unable to attend the HRA meeting due to the time conflict with the Planning Comnission meeting but provided the Planning C omnission with a report on agenda items to be covered at the HRA meeting based on a briefing received from HRA Chair Mary Anderson. XII. Discussion of Reappointment of Planning Comnissioners: ,� C hairman Thompson informed the Planning Comnission that his term and that of Comnissioner Forster as Planning Comnissioners are up on March 1, 1983 ��iatt��ieybw�ishh�oa�e reappo�n�e�dr Forster notified Mayor Rosemary Thorsen • P 1 anni ng Comni ssi on Mi nutes - January 10, 1983 Page 10 The meeting was ad,journed at 8:25 P.M. Respectful ly suhmi tted, Dav� ompson, C airman argaret Leppi , Secretary � ti � . T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 19, 1983 FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER RE: INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN - PUD #39, GOLDEN VALLEY SURGICAL CENTER The proponent, Country Club Surgical Associates Limited Partnership, requests Prelimi�nary Design Plan approval for PUD #39, Golden Valley Surgical Center, which proposes addition of a freestanding outpatient ambulatory surgical center to the location of an existing medical clinic building located at 6681 Country Club Drive. The proposed PUD consists of the two buildings, the existing 21 ,g6o square foot two story clinic and a proposed 12,474 square foot one story surgical center, with combined parking on the 4.8 acre site. The PUD proposal is a change from a previously approved Special Use Permit for the surgical center, which provided for a 10,000 square foot two story addition to the existing building to accommodate the surgical center on the lower level of the total building and the medical clinic on the upper level . The change in the new proposal is substitution of a 12,474 square foot freestanding building for the )0,000 square foot addition. The Golden Valley City Council on May 18, 1982 approved a Special Use Permit for the surgical center conditional upon the proponents stipulating in a contract • that they would ask for no future expansion beyond the 10,000 square foot building addition proposed at that time. The City Attorney's office prepared a Developer's Agreement for signature by the proponents stipulating that the developer would not expand the building located at the site beyond 31 ,g6o square feet, which included the 21 ,g60 square foot existing clinic buildings with the 10,000 square foot addition. Copies of the Cit�y Council minutes and the draft Developer's Agreement are attached. The Developer's Agreement was not signed because the proponents at that time sold an interest in their project to a California based concern, American Medical Inter- national , and subsequently changed their plans to the current proposal for a free- standing surgical center building. Reasons for the limitation on expansion previously recommended by the Planning Commission and stipulated by the City Council were concern over additional traffic and over impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood to the west. The subject parcel size allows for considerable building development and for parking space to accommodate additional development under provisions of the current Institutional (I-3) zoning. The purpose of the Developer's Agreement was to limit expansion of the surgical center use provided for in the Special Use Permit. A simi:l.ar limitation on site development would be built into the proposed PUD approval . The PUD constitutes a zoning contract which may not be altered without approval of a PUD amendment involving the same procedure as the original PUD. The executive director of the surgical center partnership and the project architect explain in an attached letter and memorandum the changes in partnership arrangements and developmentS in construction planning which lead to plan revisions calling for � a freestarnding�surgical center in place of the previously pro�posed building addition. Planning Commission -2- January 19, 1983 . The proponents determined that the mechanical an.d electrical systems in the existing building on the site are inadequate to support the equipment used in the proposed surgical center and that upgrading of those systems would be more costly than new construction. Staff understands that the plan of the proposed new freestanding facility is a design previously used and proven by American Medical International to provide maximum efficiency for the proposed same day surgical center use. The proposed separate building for the surgical center is approximately the same size as the previously approved addition at 12,474 square feet over 10,000 square feet. The new proposal requires an additional 2,474 square feet of space in order to accommodate the desired surgical center design. The new freestanding building is one story rather than two story, which results in greater site coverage, but as shown on the PUD application form, over half of the total site still remains land- scaped area as opposed to building, drive and parking. The primary change under the revised plan is closer proximity of proposed new construction to the established residential neighborhood adjacent to the subject property on th� west. In an effort to minimize the impact of the new building on the single family homes to the west, the developers provide maximum building setback at )OS feet from the property line, over twice the required 50 foot side yard building setbeck in the Institutional Zoning District. The proposed building is one story in height and at an elevation a few feet lower than the residential properties to the west, which minimizes visual impact. The proposed building exterior finish is • brick, which does not blend with the stucco finish of the existing medical clinic building, but which does present a superior appearance to residential properties on the west. Refuse containers stored southwest of the building are screened with a matching brick wall . Parking on the west side comes within 25 feet of the west property line, which is exactly the minimum setback distance required under the Zoning Ordinance, and is screened with retaining walls and landscaping. For the major portion of the length of t�e parking lot along the west boundary line; the parking area is two feet below the adjacent landscaped area with a two foot retaining wall separating parking � from landscaped area. For a length of approximately 50 feet, the parking area is separated from the adjacent landscaped area by t�o retaining walls, one two feet in height and the second three feet in height, with shrubbery on the level between the two walls. The proposed landscape plan shows shrubbery a_long the top of the retaining watls, which adds height for screening of cars. The area between the parking and the property line on the west is heavily landscaped with the retention of existing overstory trees and installation of additional overstory trees, of ornamental and evergreen trees, and of shrubbery. The primary concern of the Planning Commission, staff and neighbors expressed at the time of the hearing on the original surgical center proposal was increased traffic. It was concluded that the proposed surgical center use is compatible with surrounding land uses, _including the office use to the east, industrial to the northeast, golf club to the north and residential on the �est. HowevEr, it was felt that the location could� not .accommodate substantially increased traffic. Singte family residential neighbors to the west report difficulty gaining access onto Country Club Drive during � rush hours, and the intersection at Highway 55, Country Club Drive and Dougtas Drive is already congested at peak traffic hours. The proponents provided at the time of the original hearing a traffic analysis which concluded that the proposed Planning Commission -3- January 1�, 1983 • surgical center would have minimal impact on the traffic situation. Factors in this conclusion include the limited number of patients accommodated by the surgical center each day, hours of operation which do not coincide with traffic rush hours , and the one time nature of patient use of the facility which allows management to suggest in their literature preferred routes for driving to and from the facility. Attached is an update of the previous traffic analysis which concludes that the revised plan for a freestanding surgical center would have no appreciable additional impact on traffic. Parking space provided is more than required by the Zoning Ordinance. The require- ment for clinics and outpatient treatment facilities is one parking space for every three employees, plus one space for each doctor, plus one space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. As shown on the chart provided on the Site Plan, the required number of parking spaces is 170 and the number of parking spaces provided is 172. V�riances incorporated into the proposed PUD involve setbacks from the interior lot line dividing the PUD into two lots for the two buildings. The setback of the proposed new surgical center building is 43 feet rather than the required 50 feet from the lot line, and the canopy only of the existing medical clinic building is 30 feet fromthe interior lot line. The more significant variance request is for a waiver of the landscaped side yard requirements along this lot line to allow • for combined parking and drive area located over the lot line. The proponents present justifications for the variances proposed in the attachment to their appli- cation form. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances are appropriate within the subject PUD which proposes to integrate parking and drive for two buildings which accommodate related medical uses. Staff suggests favorable consideration of the Preliminary Design Plan for PUD #39, Golden Valley Surgical Center, based on the fact that the use has not changed since the Special Use Permit approval , based on minimal increase in proposed square footage and documentation of neg�ligible additional traffic generation, and based on the pro- vision of adequate separation and buffering from adjacent residential properties on the west. The City Engineer and� City Fire Marshal , in their reviews of the proposed Preliminary Design Plan required under the PUD Ordinance, make stipulations which should be included as conditions of any recorr8nendation for approval . The City Engineer noted that a section of sanitary sewer line to be constructed in the street wilt be City owned and maintained, although installed by the developers at their expense, and must meet City specifications. In addition, the City Engineer expressed concern over proper construction and potential future maintenance problems of the proposed retaining walls adjacent to the west parking area. The City Fire Marshal specifies sprinklering of the new building, location of the Fire Department connection to the sprinkler system and direct connection of sprinkler and smoke alarms to the Golden Valley dispatch center. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the • Preliminary Design Plan submitted by Country Club Surgical Associates Limitied Partners:hip f�r PUD #39, Golden Valley surgical Center, subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission -4- January 19, 1983 � • 1 . The portian of sanitary sewer line to be constructed in the street shall be installed by the developer at developer expense but shall be City owned and maintained, shall be an 8 inch line, and shall include a manhole at the point in the street where the private 4 inch line to the site begins at an angle toward the south. 2. The developer shall submit with the General Plan of Development detailed engineering plans satisfactory to the City Engineer and City Building Inspector for the retaining walls proposed between the parking area and landscaped area along the west side of the site. 3• The surgical center building shall be completely sprinklered with the provision that if water could be hazardous to hospital equipment, smoke detectors will be accepted in unsprinklered areas. 4. Fire Department connection for the surgical center building sprinkler system shall be located on the north side of the building. 5• Sprinkler and smoke alarms shall be transmitted to the Golden Valley Police and Fire Dispatch Center • AP:kjm Attachments: 1 . Si te Location P4ap 2. Application with Attachment _ 3• May 18, 1982 City Council Minutes 4. Draft Developer's Agreement with Country Club Surgical Association 5. January 17, 1983 Letter from Mr. John F. May 6. January 17, 1983 Memorandum from Mr. Brian Cluts 7. January 14, 1983 Memorandum from Mr. James A. Benshoof • � � ° � f:• ..-... �--- - . •-4 � �..�. .n,. i � — ; �j W •, s :'.:SN �9.02 L{M�1f• � ,� :� L3I•� w � 4 p ...... ' •p5'SS�W'' . ;� - e f •• C") ,. � � : �� r. 4j �w - �n o ,,,o �;�AOO �oNW b�- ;io.�� ,. • •� s s ��{,• �� . ��,�;; •' �.. c�ici�s'�c o ;� rQ��i.-. •NO 367n�• � ; �y 0 � N � M �07.i4 W • �' � Np s�"' .'Rr ZI31 �•�' t�-'-�3�4.4�a�r; • lli.4� 12G11 ��h010'iN Z30.C6 W oy� M:�09�i0'E M �.._ I � �00 i �DO ' �QD wZ- .. p', 110 ��: o � i � ' a •�i � p � � �'lld.� �`e a � � ,� o - q �^ � -r'V � � Q w- w_ s� � �v an�° o ^ �� 0�j J, '�1 O O , �O !�� N' v•V � •V � f"� ��y..1 �. o: O /� [`Si //d � �.� m.r .r �`' u 1 �,+ �t± 1� v7 v O .n � �+ 4�JC6" � -O+ L� �'v � y°'" e� o �H O � � P. , O j d ? , a + �jd••46'.!R d� N ,� � � • •' � •s •f''i•b I � �A'+'� !Zo � ;ir_�F14.i2 Spp1J3N ' J_100 _�•• ' 0 1 P�n O Qi �Mq7 J} � �. 04:4 P- - w w � t.j, A �r } .aAw� �' — — -- -- s_�E�S �. �., �.,~c... � O A ,,, :; , �_ ��...— 3b1• w ,—A � j :�A�Oi� .�'. e r!YOl��!.�f� �a+ . ,. �MN� ` <..r..n� . F � �� `.;:, � � �io ',p 33D � IZG��B, !i � ' 3 w p . •r ,41i1 :S 11o.'yJ. �r_ � �is. �ii0 0 � � ' . M s1 a. w .,a•3c'3�'E�\�`"w "�, m►4��-„ 4 �I�TS _,i�• .. O. �� . _ . ` ' S .��', t�.e .� N .� � . -o a 4, _ �.�� A `l��,oe�o.1,•{ i � \50 �'o M a �� I'L��IS o.,. �e°+ Ss l� i S �N � n �7 f O _ 7�� • �:]'_ .r C �1'v a:+y r m' � re � - ti� � ' ! q - �� N � 33 � Ao�, ' D i � � � .r ��o�� '�'g a°�:J�i21 ,, � �' ' � . .o � . i u s o 9J�4� 5�::_�E� .Y ,..s �l09'S9� -- - - - • - - :�. i43 Sit.S _�f�_.' o,°' �� v ti 162; o r'' c'�v�Ei/�s s ��. ;3�` <?5� .� �;iCi� `� • 'O',i,•A � 0�:0 °'�'` I.i�� tiNl� °J' � � lZjtl� 6�7� �115 Q !sy. :S �� , o� �=^�. '�tiii9tiN'••� �1p_ __ 4) . ` V,935>; 'i�l�l' �:iteY!�,e �, �1tL:�'" '� ��_ ' • ',iy; ?4�_'1�'1��,�%�SShi itli 1t:'f'�1 At:l�l��'1J-, �► • �I�:�+ � •T•. t .n 'Siq6,.. 1.� 4�6:5.-''� $26i i.9� •'i., r' �� = ° ivU� s S°�''� ��15� �' �L1i d� °` o ' s iao �I, 98.�3 � � 4 .�. w a4w..e��alO�\e,�� ,�� 05�+a,y . 43 � 111+6e � .... , . +S ' �' �52 � a i2 �9508 _ �•13y.6•�4.. _ - - - - - -�.. ` o" :oo I�o ; �27.5 ,�..�:5�{3 •• �' � °.i;' : 'ew� '0/9'w =+' : l e(... - �ae j� � v -~+` � ° ^ :� �I"' � o �o° I� N u<.'3 N ,ti � � 0 0� � �o �.11'!o sL d��,°�o .��,° � 1 �I m I � ` 0 �ci �0 �°'f`' o Iv o v � � � Of ! , �� ► f j o s°s� � • Z \�10 N � � �� a 7 l �r ° I�� 1+ .• r] (D {!1 �. p a 7{!h I o .��i . 0- � Q� o � � _ O; � � �. 7 IY .+ , • Cv>4 . b o a� w�o . .I �� f � � N C �~ f.•' : �� y � ° v �� - f� C � '' O m � �.� � ': t Q' eY � •..t --°-� " �- ��.ti� — -- -- ti..�to1.{�.... ; c� o - '�•if. � . :r ti�• o � � � -n -� � co �� :,W ,t � : b �� v ' i ° r�,! 6ao5�j� '1 a O�i O �n � �O C'f � 9� y��. -u`r,.�o° �jt, ' r,r.'a�. c � ' •o � S fD 7• b !�� C .-. ° s ll�3f't s . �' ��C ',,, N rr � tn�u�+ � � � rt 1 �� I �o ;`\ oit9' • \ s.'9,,� , .o � a5°. . N J � r ��c+ _ } � v � p • 498 0 � `I - -- C �+ ,+ , • N �'ie u•s; 6 r o �, o �- — � �'�. rf � � • so9a � ° , , y _' �' o � N. v 0� ) "' � W ''' O '�- �`) o� �D �� %s �o N �o� � � '�,�O _. �, o. ; �+�.�.•'�` \ ' ,, -�1 -i. _ . . '�i. a o • ;:� v. Oi / 'ly ts.� �,c`�i f�D C(� 'j�o : \ S K� - � ; N � o 00 ,w� ° o * � i3'•. 1 L' '.�''o , t" .�1 • � .3 � , = G ! ►� r o�' 2 e � 0 � f�l � ye6��.' �o*',m � 0► .r •.w • r-.fOp ` Z �S t. �s� C S- . , A "! • v� �1 � � � ��..y ' ,�' r ; ',� � �/CJ `,, ��1w� ��\1r O� � 1 � ' ee� �w 1 /'I A � �y �¢ ° •'�`• �w �r„ � , � -1 O — �O �� K � �� o I�s;�ro •o� : � � r � �� ; • I c. � y ~ p�° �; k: � ;, �io�'r' a. . �� , . 1 � I �' � � > � � N .< <,r,t. � '° a ,,;. , , i3"s=. .��5'� 54�,�.' fc y �.i � N , � o , o �NO�, 6��';0, l .9 s��_ GTi�Ti�T,� � i � sj� � , , 0� ,a w d��•'f � :. ' �: ' p � � 4: . ' e.. �', i �3 __� -- �--- � �•�,"� A��:a� :,"� S t _\59- � �_ � = W • e E<� �6�,� .. � � ,`� % � u' � a °f sa�i wr��.- .l �•'�o r �r.:ia G9j I � � o rO ' s � • '" �-�'" �� °'.�'�' s �'. '"I � .\,�� :�� , .06 14 l00 1 �" Q± 1 � r 1 r O � qL :11.0� io to tob. � .o I �� 'a'� A 1 � �+ ' ~o .1� ""f)''�iw N � i 0. e�rl� O '� �s = a � �a t� 1�-=.� o�tl„�'� I c,qti��v ' N N t �a.s s o - �,:,�:.�'��' �: =�, �- � � ' -- � _ - . .,......- � _ '►in � r�Y� n ' � Y� 1'11i1/ ,��. P.U.D. NUMBER: 39 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY � APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION � OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN � DATE OF APPLICATIOPJ: November 22 , 198: FEE PAID RECEIPT N0. (5100.00) Country Club Surgical Associates Limited Partnership APPL IC"+NT NnM�� (See Attached Sheet) � PHONE NO. 647-0116 ADDRESS : Suite 900 Central Medical Bldg. 393 N, Dunlap Street St. Paul, MN Number � Stree[ City State Zip Code 5510� PROPERTY OWNER: 6681 Group (See attached sheet} PHONE NQ: 545-0155 ADDRESS: 434 Yosemite Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Number � Street City State Zip Code Attn: Lawrence ,J. Schut, M.D. STRE�T LOCATION Ar�D/OR ADDP,�SS OF PROPERTY IN QUESTIOPd: 6681 Country Club Drive LEGAL DESCRI PTIOPJ (Attach separate sheet i f necessary) : See attached sheet � � NAME AND ADDRESS OF FROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROPERI'Y IN QUESTIOt�: . (Attach to Application along with an area Half-Section Ma�) TYPE OF PROPOSAL: SMALL ARfA: }{ LARGE OR COMPLEX AREA: RE5IDENTIAL: COMMERCIAL: INDUSTRIAL: BUSINESS S PROFESSIONAL OFFICE: g INSTITUTIONAL: MIXED USE: REDEVELOPMENT AREA: PRESENT 20NING OF PROPERTY: I-3 Institutional PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY; Medical Offices � , . } PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY (Attach Additional Pages if Necessary) : � � Freestanding Outpatient Ambulatory Surgical Center STRUCTURES: NUMBER 2 TYPE Existing = Stucco; Proposed = Brick HEI GHT 29 ' & 15 � NUMBER OF STORI ES 2 & 1 AME�dI T I ES i�tvJ�OR REi,hE�.T I CFlr�L FACILITIES ( i . P. TPnnis Cnurt , pool , etc , ) �xisting ( 2 L,evels � i 0 , 9�0 T;�� , ) - ?1 , ��6Q - - ----==------ -- — --- - - - ------ -----�--- Proposed Surgical Ccnter ( 1 Lc�-el } _ ] _l , ti3G tJUMBER �F PEOPLE INTENDED TO LIVE OF IJORI: QN PREMISES: ADULTS : 60 CHILDREN: - � --- _.�_ NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES FROPOSED: ENCLOSED (Garage or Parking Rarr�p) 0 NQN ENCLOSED 172 TOTAL ACRES OF LAND IN P.U. D. 4 .8 DENSiTY: (Number of Units per Acre) -- INDICATE THE FOLLOWING DATA BY PERCENTAGES: AREA COUERED BY STRUCTURES: 10 .9 o AREA COVERED BY Drives : 22 ,7 0 AREA COVERED BY OUTSIDE PARKING: 14 .5 � AREA COVERED BY INTERIOR STREETS: � i �,REA LANDSCAPED: 51.9 � NATURAL AREA AND/OR OPEPJ SPACE � i PONDING ARE�,: 0 ° ZOtdiNG VARIANCES: List b�low all variances from the standard zc�ning ;-equirc�nert5 tha� wili be r•�quested �s part of tF�is P.U.Q. , and the justification t;�r qr�-�ntinq � :;id �.�a� iances iltit;ach Hdciitional Sheets, if neededl . � (See Attached She�t) — __ —� _ - - - - ---- ----- —�--- - — - -- -------- % ------ 1 HEREBY DECLARE THAT ALL STAT.EMENTS MADE IN THIS kEQUEST, AND ON ADDITIQPdA! M,4TERIAL, ARE TFU�. � �. � � �� Z �� Si ature of Ap 1 ' ant Date han M. Brzica Jr. �, � Sig a - f Applicant Date Alfred V� nderson � ATTACHMENT APPLICANT NAME Country Club Surgical Associates Limited Partnershi.p, a limited partnership 393 North Dunlap Suite 900, Central Medical Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55104 (612} 647-0116 Attention: Stephen M. Brzica, Jr. Country Club Surgical Associates Limited Partnership is a Minnesota limited partnership having as its two general partners West Metro Associates, Inc. , a Minnesota cor- poration, and William R. Rieser, a resident of Edina, Minnesota. The limited partners of Country Club Surgical Associates Limited Partnership are as follows: Stephen M. Brzica, Jr. ; Wilbur F. Cant; Donald Davis; James D. Flakne; William Kelly; Gerald Lee; and David 0. Nelson. Messrs. Brzica, Cant and Nelson are anesthesiologists who will be active in the operation of the surgical center to be constructed on the site. At the time the new • suxgical center is opened, two additional anesthesiologists, Robert L. Venegoni and Gerald D. Edelman, will be added as limited partners to Country Club Surgical Hssociates Limited Partnership. - PROPERTY OWNER 6681 Group, a Minnesota limited partnership 434 Yosemite Avenue North Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612) 545-0155 Attention: Lawrence J. Schut 6681 Group is a I�linnesota limited partnership having as its general partners Alfred V. Anderson, Gunner H. Danielson, Arden Gruden and Lawrence J. Schut. There are also six limited partners in 6681 Group. LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of Lot 11, "Auditor's Subidivision Number 322, Hennepin County, Minnesota" , lying North of State Trunk Highway 55 , according to the plat thereof on file � or of record iri the Office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said Hennepin County. • That part of Lot Twelve (12) "Auditor's Subdivision Number 322, Hennepin County, Minnesota" , lying North of the North right of way line of State Highway No. 55, according to the recorded plat. ZONING VARIANCES At the time 6681 Country Club Drive was originally de- .veloped, the site consisted of two distinct lots, Lot 11 and Lot 12 , Auditor's Subdivision No. 322, Hennepin County, Minnesota. For purposes of the improvement of the property with the Elks Club and its adjoining parking areas, the two lots were com- bined into one tax parcel and the interior lot line between Lot 11 and Lot 12 was disregarded. In order for Lot 12 to be developed at this date, the interior lot line must be re-established and a variance then granted to accommodate the existing building and its parking areas which encroach upon the interior lot line. To accomplish this correctly, the City of Golden Valley has suggested that Planned Unit Development Zoning be applied for on both Lot 11 and Lflt 12 so that the two lots can be developed con- • sistently as a unit. � _ � Accordingly, applicant wishes to subdivide Tax Identif ication Parcel No. 32 118 21 41 0003 to redef ine the two original parcels so as to correspond with existing Lots 11 and 12 , Auditor's Subdivision No. 322 . There- fore, the Planned Unit Development Zoning which appli- cant seeks will recognize the existing development on Lot 11 while allowing for the integration of parking, access, ingress, egress and landscaping with the development of Lot 12. To do so will require the grant of several zoning variances which will be explained below. Presently, Section 11.07 of the Zoning Code of the City of Golden Valley sets forth Yard Requirements specify- ing that there must be a 50-foot yard setback on each � - side of the proposed interior lot line between Lot 11 ar�d Lot 12 with at least 25 feet of the area immediately adjacent to and on each side of that interior lot line to be landscaped. The existing building on Lot ll has a canopy which extends into the west side yard some 38 feet beyond the west wall of the building. That brings the west edge of the canopy within 35 feet of the interior lot line between Lot 11 and Lot 12 . Therefore, • applicant must first request a variance from the 50-foot setback requirement of Section 11 .07 for the canopy extending into the west side yard from the existing building. -2- • Next, applicant must request a variance from the 50- foot setback requirement of Section I1.07 for the construction of the new ambulatory surgical center facility on Lot 12 so as to permit the construction of the east wall of the new facility at a point 43 feet west of the interior lot line between Lot 11 and Lot 12. This will, of necessity, leave only a 43-foot east side yard for the new facility, rather than the required 50-foot yard, as spelled out in Section 11.07. Thus, the request for the variance. Thirdly, and most importantly, applicant must request a variance from the Yard Requirements set forth in Section 11.07 which relate to the establishment of a 25-faot landscaped area adjacent to and on each side of the interior lot line. At present, the parking lot� lying west of the existing building straddles the interior lot line, making it impossible for the areas on each side of the interior lot line to be landscaped as required. In seeking a variance from the requirements of Section 11.07 as that section relates to the 25-foot landscaped area requirement, applicant proposes that the area between the existing building and the new surgical , � center facility be developed in the following manner. Immediately west of the existing building there will be a 12-foot landscaped area. To the west of that area will be a 22-foot wide driveway under the canopy. To- the west of the driveway will be an 8-foot wide driving/ drop-off buffer separating the driveway from the parking area. The parking area, which will lie immediately west of the 8-foot driving/drop-off buffer, will consist of two 20-foot wide parking aisles separated by a 22-foot wide driving aisles. The interior lot line between Lot 11 and Lot 12 bisects the 22-foot wide driving aisle. Finally, applicant proposes to landscape a 12-foot. wide area lying between the western-most parking aisl� in the parking area and the west wall of the proposed surgical center facility. Since the interior lot line between Lot 11 and Lot 12 bisects the 22-foot wide driving isle in the parking area, it is obvious that the appli- cant cannot landscape an area at least 25 feet wide on either side of that line if that existing parking lot is to be preserved and used to service both buildings. Thus, the variance from Section 11 .07 must be requested. . As justif ication for these three variance requests, applicant wishes to point out the following facts: -3- l. Applicant's ability to meet the 25-foot land- � scaping requirements on� either side of the interior lot line was compromised in its effort to provide the required parking spaces for both buildings. There will be 104 spaces at the existing building and 66 spaces at the ambulatory surgical center facility. 2 . The applicant located the proposed facility within 43 feet of the interior lot line so as to offer maximum protection to the residential area lying im- mediately west of Lot 12. As planned, the west side yard of the new facility will be over 100 feet in width and there will be a 25-foot wide landscaped area along the west boundary of Lot 12 . Along the north half of the west lot line, the landscaped area will increase to 35 feet in width to preserve existing large trees which will further maximize protection offered to the residen- tial area to the west. 3 . In addition, applicant sought to locate the building within 43 feet of the interior lot line so as to remove as far as possible from that residential area the truck service area and the refuse collection point for the new facility. Those areas will be located on the southwestern corner of the new facility and care has . been taken to provide a landscaped screen around the area which will act as a further buffer between the new facility and the residential area to the west. � 4 . With respect to the parking areas themselves, applicant has , by careful planning, reduced the number of parking spaces available to both buildings from 216 to 172, two spaces more than required. In doing so, ap,plicant has increased the total "green area" on Lots 11 and 12 from 49 percent to 52 percent. 5. Finally, by reducing the size of the parking areas, applicant has been able to reduce the amount of lighting necessary to provide adequate light to the parking areas. Again, this was done with the residents to the west in mind. For all of these reasons, applicant requests the three variances from the requirements of Section 11 .07 as it relates to Yard Requirements. • -4- Regular Meeting of the City Council May 18, 1982 - *Solicitor's License - Golden Ya11ey �ittle League . MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Stockman and motion carried unanimously to approve � the solicitor's license for the Golden Yalley Little League. *Liquor License Yiolation - Westview Liquor Store — MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Stockman and motion carried unanimously to receive and-file the memo from �he City Attorney, and to set a hearing for June 15, 1982 to review the license violation. *Minutes of Boards and Commissions MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Stockman and motion carried unanimously to receive and file the minutes received as follows: Human Rights Commission - April 29, 1982 Tax Exempt Finance Committee - April 9, 1982 Planning Commission - May 10, 1982 Board of Zoning Appeals - May 11, 1982 Council/Manager Meeting - January 12, 1982, February 9, 1982, March 9, 1982, April 13, 1982 and May 11, �982 Planning Framework for Human Rights Commission Committees MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Stockman and motion carried unanimously to receive and file the planning framework for the Human Rights Commission committees. • *Call for Public Hearing - Amendment to PUD #28 - Pondwood Off.ice Park - 6/15/82 MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Stockman and motion carried unanimously to call a public hearing to consider the proposed amendment to PUD #28, Pondwood Office Park for June 15, 1982. *Call for Public Hearing - Revision to Zoning Ordinance - Commercial Zoning s r ct - MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Stockman and motion carried unanimously to call a public hearing to revise the Commercial Zoning District section of the zoning ordinance for June 15, 1982. Public Hearing - 6681 Country Club Drive - Special Use Permit - Surgical Center Gary Gandrud - Dr. Steve Fisaka - Proponents - were present to review the pro3ect and answer questions from the Council . Lloyd Tubman - Planning Con�nissioner - stated that the Planning Cammission recommended approval of the pro�ect with the following conditions and answered questions from the Council : 1. That the proponents understand, and the City Council stipulate, that the surgical center would not ask for, nor would they be permitted to expand the building on this site at any time in the future beyond 31,960 square feet of gross floor area. � 2. That all parking information be provided relative to this building and proposed expansion prior to City Council action on this matter. Kegu i ar r�eeti ng or tne [:i ty �ounc� i r�ay i�, 1982 Public Hearing - 6681 Country Club Drive - Special Use Permit - Surgical Center - ont nue � Allen Barnard recommended that the City and the applicant enter into a contract which specifically provides for inforceability of the cdnditions. The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon. De�nnis Jackson - 6745 Country Club Drive - He stated that the neighbors do not ob3ect to the project and agree with the Planning Commission recommendation. The Mayor closed the public hearing. MOYED by Anderson, seconded by Mitchell and motion carried unanimously to approve the application for the special use permit for the West Mletro Surgical Center and that they understand and stipulate in a contract that no future expansion be approved beyond 31,960 square feet proposed at this time. Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows: ANDERSON - YES JOHNSON - YES t4ITCHELL - YES STOCKP1AW - YES THORSEPJ - YES Public Hearing Continued - General Plan Approval - PUD #35 - Busch Site �ce are ouse Liv Hornland - Coldwell-Banker - Representing the Proponent - answered questions from the Council . . Jeff Sweet recor�mended that the Council defer action on this project until June � 15, 1982. Lloyd Tubman - Planning Commissioner - stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval and answered questions from the Council . � The 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 Mayor closed the public hearing. MOVED by Mitchell , seconded by Anderson and motion carried unanimously to defer consideration of PUD #35 until June 15, 1982. Public Hearing Continued - Street Vacation - Busch Street Liv Hornland - Coldwell-Banker - Representing the Proponent - answered questions from the Council . Jeff Sweet recommended that the Council defer action on this project until June 15, 1982. � The 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 Mayor closed the public hearing. • MOVEU by Stockman, seconded by Anderson and motion carried unanimously to defer consideration of the vacation of Busch Street until June 15, 1982. - - -�/ � CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY ' HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1982, by and between the City of Golden Valley, a municip�l corporation of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called "City" and Country Club Surgical Association, a Minnesota partnership, and �Villiam Reiser, collectively called "Developer". W I T N E S S E T H : WHEREAS, the City Council contends the Developer' s proposed > use of the property described below and located at 6681 Country Club Drive as a surgical center is a hospital within the meaning of the City' s Zoning Code and is subject to the requirements of Section • 11. 05 of the City' s Zoning Code ; the legal description thereof is: Lot 11 and Lot 12 Auditor' s Subdivision Number 322, Hennepin County, Minnesota; WHEREAS, the Developer has made application to the City Council for issuance of a special permit therefore, in conformity with Section 11.05 of the City' s Zoning Code; WHERAS, the City's Planning Commission reviewed the Developer's application for a special use permit and submitted its recommendation on the Developer' s proposed use of said property on May 12, 1982; WHEREAS, the City Council held a Public Hearing in conformity with Section 11.05 of the City's Zoning Code, on the Developer's proposed use of said property; and � • WHEREAS, the City Council on May 12, 1982, approved the w issuance of a special use permit for said property to the Developer contingent on the execution of this Agreement between the City and the �eveloper. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises and conditions hereinafter contained, the City and the Developer hereby agree as follows: 1. The Developer's proposed use of said property constitutes a hospital within the meaning of the City's Zoning Code. 2. In accordance with the City's policy of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, the Developer agrees it will not expand the building located on said property beyond 31,960 square feet at any time in the future. • 3. The City agrees it will issue a special use permit to the Developer for use of said property as a surgical center. 4. The Developer agrees it will not apply for or seek expansion of the building on said property beyond 31,960 square feet for a surgical center or other hospital-type use at any future time. . 5. The parties mutually recognize and agree that all terms and conditions of this Agreement run with the land herein described and shall be binding upon the heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns of the Developer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Developer have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. � -2- � CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By Its Mayor �a Its Manager DEVELOPER COUNTRY CLUB SURGICAL ASSOCIATION BY I ts , And William Reiser, Landowner STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. � COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 1982, before me personally appeared Rosemary Thorsen and Jeff Sweet, personally known to me as the Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Golden Valley, and they acknowledge that said instrument was signed in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council and they acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � day of , 1982, by of Country Club Surgical Association, a Minnesota partnership, on behalf of the partnership. Notary Public � -3- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) • ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1982, by William Reiser, landowner. Notary Public � � -4- S' Fau! SurgiCo Cen?r� ' 393 Nortn U�niau StrF�� Suite 9UG St Fa�� M�nnesota 55'�� • Janua.ry 17, 1983 - - ,��' I Mr. Mieha.el Miller, Planning Director City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Mi.nnesota 55�27 Dear Mr. Miller: The following letter relates a chronology of events that has ta.ken place regard- irag the 6681 building in Golden Valley. Initially, West Metro Surgical Center, Inc. (James Flackne, S. M. Brzica, W. F. Cant, D. 0. Nelson, William Jackoway and George Osland) took out an option to purchase the building in approximately April of 1981. Our option expired in October of 1981 and we let that option expire because our application for a certificate of need for a free-standing surgical center at that site had not yet been approved or acted upc�n by the Metropolitan Health Board. At this time we were unsure as to when that appli- cation would be aeted upon. Eventually, in February of 1982 our certificate of need for construction of the surgical center was granted for the 6681 site. • Following approval we subsequently found out that the building had been purchased by a Mr. Bill Rieser. Apparently at that time he had plans for the building that were nonmedieal in nature. As to what these plans were, I am unsure. Since West Metro Surgical Center, Inc. now had a certificate of need and no build- ing we began to look for a nearby location. During this searching process, Mr. Rieser approached and asked us if we would like to jointly purchase the 6681 build- irag. We then agreed to purchase half of the building with him and subsequently formed a group called Country Club Surgical Associates whieh included Mr. Rieser and the members mentioned above in West Metro Surgical Center, Ine. At that time we then applied to the city to remodel and add a 10,000 sq. ft. addition to the , 6681 site. Followirag city approval for the addition to the 6681 site, two contractors and two architects informed us that the eost would be too high to remodel that build- ing. They suggested that we build a free-standing building at that site rath�r than going with remodeling and the addition, The reasoning was that the mechani- cal, electrical and heating plant would be too expensive to renovate for surgical center needs. During the surr�er of 1982 St. Paul Surgical Center, located in St. Paul, Minne- sota (the majority of whose members are part of West Metro Surgical Center, Inc.) joined in an agreement with a company from California called American Medical International to sell its surgical center to them. During this ne�otiation it was also decided it would be in our best interest to sell one-half interest in � A;-� Arr�encan Metl�cal InternaUonal, Inc Outpat�ent Surgicai Cente� Mr. Michael Miller Page 2 � , West Metro Sur�ical Center, Inc. to American Medical International. Subsequently, American Medical International came on board somewhere in September of 1982. It was then decided that West Metro Surgical Center, Inc. (which was now composed of the previous mentioned players at West Metro Surgical Center, Inc. and now American Medical International) would then proceed to obtain permission from the city to build a free-standing buildin$ at that site. Si.nce that time, we have subsequently applied to the city for approval. Gary Gandrud, the attorney for the surgical center, and I are now in charge of presenting this application to the city. , I hope this chronogly will be of help to you and if there are any questions please feel free to call. Sincerely, ��- '" ��/ !�i John F. May, � Executive Director J� • ' , � An Amencan Medical International, Inc.Outpatient Surgical Center waters, cluts &o'brien inc. memorandum , 7470 market place drive 16121941-4822 eden prairie, minnesota 55344 TO= John May DATE� January 17, 1983 St. Paul Surgical Center Suite 840 St. Paul, MN 55104 FROM� Brian Cluts PROJECT� GoldeT Valley Surgical Center COMM. NO.� 8260 SUBJECT= Architectural Documentation of Remodeling vs. New Construction In response to your request I am summarizing an architectural • analysis of the decision to build a new facility in leiu of remodeling the existing one. Basicially the decision was , based on two factors. First, the economics of remodeling vs. new construction to provide the necessary operating facilities clearly showed . the costs to be comparable. Providing the requirecl mech- anical and electrical needs for operation rooms (air changes per hour, high efficiency air filtration, contaminated air � transfer� medical gas piping and alarm systems) became more costly than new construction when dismanteling and removing of the existing systems was considered. Secondly, we felt that rather than try to force very specialized health care proceedures into an existing structure; we would much better off designing a new facility that would be in direct response to its physical needs. We feel this approach offers the best possible health care facility for the community. BC/JP � � BENSHOOF AND ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION PLANNiNG AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 119/ EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344/(612) 944-7590 � January 14, 1983 REFERTOFILE: $3-34-01 MEMORANDUM T0 : Michael Miller , Director of Planning , City of Golden Valley FROM: James A. Benshoof Q A� 1 SUBJ : Update to Traffic Analys.is for West Metro Surgical Center BACKGROUND As requested by John May, Executive Director of the West Metro Surgical Center , this is to update the traffic analysis for the proposed surgical center to be located on Country Club Drive in the City of Golden Valley. The basic purpose • of this update is to determine whether the current , proposed plan is consi stent with the earl ier pl.an in terms of not causing adverse traffic effects on Country Club Drive or on other local roadways . In May , 1982 , while with another firm, I completed a traffic analysis for the proposed West Metro Surgical Center . l At that time , the proposal was for a 10,000 square foot addition to the existing medical office building , 8 ,000 square feet of which would be used for the surgical center and 2,000 square feet for additional office space . The present plan would leave the existing office building unchanged (present size is 22,000 square feet ) and would involve construction of a separate building for the surgical center with about 12 ,500 square feet . Under both the earlier and current plans , the site would be served by the three existing driveways on Country Club Drive . 1Memorandum to Gary Gandrud from James Benshoof dated May 6 , • 1982. Mr. Michael Miller -2- January 14 , 1983 � . ANALYSIS The first step in the analysis is to project the number of : trips that would be generated by the proposed development . Applying the expectPd trip generation ratesl to the size of the of€ice building and proposed surgical center , it is expected that the complete proposed development (existing office building plus surgical center) would generate 1 ,790 vehicle trip ends per day. Of these 1 ,790 vehicle trip ends , 1 ,650 (92 percent ) would be generated by the medical office buildinq and 140 (eight percent ) would be generated by the surgical center . This total projection of 1 ,790 vehicle trip ends per day is 50 vehicles per day (three percent ) greater than the total daily trip generations projected in the earlier traffic analysis , Since the development would be served by the existing dri - veways , same as in the earlier plan , it is expected that trips to and from the development would distribute as in the earlier analysis - 75 percent to and from Douglas Drive or T. H. 55 and 25 percent to and from the west on Country Club Drive . With these distribution percentages , the total volume between the site and the west on Country Club Drive would be � 447 vehicles per day - 12 vehicles or three percent greater than in the earlier analysis . CONCLUSIONS Based on the preceding analysis , the following findings have been established : • The proposed plan would generate only three percent more trips than the earlier plan . The main reason for this finding is that the expected trip generation rate for the surgical center is quite low compared to the rate for the medical office building . • The projected development traffic volumes on Country Club Drive , Douglas Drive , and T.H. 55 would be just three percent greater than under the earlier plan , The development traffic volume on Country Club Drive west of the site would increase by just 12 vehicles per day. 1Daily trip generation rates used are 75. 0 vehicle trip ends per 1 ,000 square feet for the medical office building and . 11 . 3 vehicle trip ends per 1 ,000 square feet for the surgi - cal center. These are the same rates as used in the earl ier traffic analysis . Mr . Michael Miller -3- January 14 , 1983 � On an overall basis , it is concluded that the proposed deve- lopmeqt plan would involve no significant changes from the earlier plan in terms of traffic effects . It is expected that the proposed plan , like the earlier plan , would be :accommodated effectively from a traffic standpoint , without any significant adverse effects on the local roadway system or on residential proper.ties along Country Club Drive . JAB/mt . �