04-26-82 PC Agenda GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COt4MiSSION
APRIL 26, IgB2
(Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road)
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
I . APPROVAL OF t11NUTES - APRIL 12, 1982
II . SET DATE FOR lNFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - AMEtJDMENT TO PUD #28
APPLICANT: Pondwood Associates
LOCATIOtJ: 4959, 4969 � 4979 Olson Memorial Highway
(T.H. 55)
REQUEST: Approval of ��odification of PUD #2$, Pondwood
Office Park.
III . SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARIPJG -
WEST SUBURBAN SURGICAL CEPJTER, INC.
APPLICANT: Idest Suburban Surgical Center, Inc.
LOCATION: 6681 Country Club Drive
REQUEST: Approval to establish and operate a "same day"
surgical center in an I-3, Institutional Zoning
District.
IV. CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATIOP� OF GEPdERAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
WITHOUT CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL - PUD #3
APPLICANT: Golden Valley Lutheran College
LOCATION: 6125 Olson �lemorial Highway
REQUEST: Approval of General Plan of Development -
PUD #34, Golden Valley Lutheran Coilege
. _.. �. .._ �. , � . . ,. . .:.,, .
_ _ . .. . , ,...._ s
� Page 2
AGENDA
V. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - PUD #35, BUSCH SITE OFFICE IJAREHOUSE
APPLICANT: Kraus-Anderson Realty Co.
LOCATION: Northeast Quadrant of the Intersection of
lOth Avenue North and Boone Avenue North
REQUEST: Approval of General Plan of Development
without Concept Plan Approval for PUD #35
VI . REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING ORDI�JAPdCE
APPL I CAP�T: Hol i day Motor �4ote1
LOCATION: 812 Lilac Drive Pdorth
REQUEST: Divide one (1) commercial parcei of land into
two (2) commercial parcels
• VII . CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT
V111 . REPORT ON BZA P1EETING - APRIL 13, 1982
IX. REPORT ON HRA MEETIWG - APRIL 13, 1982
X. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETIt�G - APRIL 20, 1982
XI . REVIEW OF CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMEPJTS PROGRAM
�
Minutes of the Golden Valley
Planning Commission
� April 12, 1982
A regular meet+ng of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chambers of
the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. Chairman Thompson
called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Those present were Commissioners Leppik, Prazak, Thompson, Singer, Tubman and
Polachek. Commissioner Forster was absent.
Also present were Alda Peikert, Assistant Planner, and Kathy Middleton, Recording
Secretary.
I . Approval of Minutes - March 22, 1982:
it was moved by Commissioner Polachek, seconded by Commissioner Leppik and carried
unanimously to approve the minutes of the March 22, 1982 Planning Commission
meeting as recorded.
Chairma� Thompson, officially welcomed Ms. Lloyd Tubman as the new Planning Com-
missioner to replace Sue Eastes.
II . Set Date for Informal Public Hearing - P.U.D. #35, Busch Site Office
Warehouse:
• APPLICANT: Kraus-Anderson Realty Company
LOCATION: Northeast Quadrant of the Intersection of lOth
Avenue North and Boone Avenue North
REQUEST: Approval of General Plan of Development without
Concept Plan Approval for P.U.D. #35
Chairman Thompson introduced this agenda item.
It was moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner Singer and carried
unanimously to set the date for the informal public hearing of PUD #35, Busch
Site Office Warehouse, for the April 26, 1g82 Meeting.
Ms. Peikert, Assistant Planner, handed out the revised plans of the Busch Site
Office Warehouse to the Commissioners.
III . Consideration of P.U.D. #34, Golden Valley Lutheran College:
APPLICANT: Golden Valley Lutheran College
LOCATION: 6125 Olson Memorial Highway
REQUEST: Approval of General Plan of Development without
Concepf Plan Approval for P.U.D. #34.
•
Planning Commission Minutes of April 21 , 1982 Page 2
• III . Consideration of P.U.D. #34, Golden Valley Lutheran College (con't) :
Chairman Thompson introduced the agenda item and reported that the Commissioners
had visited the site of the proposed plans to view some of the concerns of the
neighbors.
Commissioner Leppik stated her concern that the Planning Commission request from
the College that they bring forward a complete master plan including any building
or any other kind of construction they hope to do in the near future for the infor-
mation of both the City and the neighbors. -
Commissioner Prazak suggested that a copy of the P.U.D. Plans be made available
. at the College and at the City Hall Offices for the neighbors.
Commissioner Singer endorsed the concerns of the Commissioners that they request
a total plan from the College.
Chairman Thompson stated that he will be writing a letter to the College addressing
the concerns of the Commission for a total master plan of this project.
It was moved by Singer, seconded by Leppik and unanimously carried to continue
this matter until the April 26, 1982 Planning Commission meeting.
IV. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning:
! APPLICANT: 6b81 Group Partnership
LOCATION: 6681 Country Club Drive
REQUEST: Change Zoning from Institutional (I-3) to
Business and Professional Offices
Chairman Thompson introduced the agenda item and the proponent, 11r. Steve Coddon,
TIPTON Real Estate Agent representing the Group.
Chairman Thompson asked the Commissioners if they had any questions of the Staff
on their report.
Commissioner Leppik asked if the Proponent had been informed of the fact that the
laboratory facilities associated with medical or dental clinic use are not permitted
in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. Assistant Planner Alda
Peikert stated that they had been informed.
Chairman Thompson stated that this land use is in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Land Use Ptan.
Chairman Thompson opened the Informal Public Hearing for public input.
Mr. Dennis Jackson, 6745 Country Club Drive, stated concerns with the increased
density and traffic at the intersection of Country Club Drive and Douglas Drive.
• Did not understand the need for the change of zoning and felt the rezoning was
leaning more to commercial in this area. Also stated concern with potential
expansion of the building.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 12, 1�a2 Page 3
• IV. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning (con't) :
�1s. Peikert stated the current zoning is for Institutional . A clinic is allowable.
The change to offices would be with an emphasis on doctor or dentist offices but
without the laboratory facilities and would also include general office use.
Ms. Peikert also stated that it was staff's feeling that probably the only inpact
that this would have would be a lessening of the daily traffic to the buiiding and
instead of steady traffic through the day you would have cars in the morning and
leaving late in the day.
Chairman Thompson asked whether the building would remain unchanged in terms of the
exterior.
Ms. Peikert answered that as of today the City has not received any plans for
expansion and the building itself will remain unchanged. The parking that is provided
is far more than is required for Business and Professional Offices zoning and would
allow room for building expansion.
Mr. Greg Stewart, 690g Country Club Drive, stated the traffic problem on Country
Club Drive should be dealt with before we increase the use in this area.
Mr. Dennis Jackson stated the traffic problem is not during the day but in the
morning and evening rush hours.
Commissioner Leppik stated her concerns with the traffic and the zoning along
• Highway 55 for this area and would like to see some alternatives looked at.
Chairman Thompson closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Polachek, seconded by Prazak and carried unanimously to approve the
change of zoning from Institutional I-3 to Business and Professional Offices
zoning district.
V. Consideration of proposed revisions to Commercial Zoni�g District Section of
Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Thompson introduced this agenda item and requested that it be deferred
until the next meeting.
VI . Report on City Council Meeting - April 6, 1982:
Commissioner Singer provided the Commission with a report of the City Council
meeting of April 6, 1982.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
. David Thompson, Chairman Margaret Leppik, Secretary
• T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 21 , 1982
FROM: MIKE MILLER, PLANNING � REDEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARIPJG - AMEPJDMENT TO
PUD #28
Pondwood Associates, owners and developers of PUD #28, Pondwood Office
Park, located at 495g, 4969 and 4979 Olson Memorial Highway (T.H. 55)
are requesting an amendment to PUD #28 which was originally approved in
July of 1981 . The proposed amendment requests permission to not build
a seven car garage originally approved as part of PUD �28.
I would suggest that the Planning Commission set May 10, 1982 as the date
for an informal public hearing on this matter.
•
MHM:kjm
.
� T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 21 , 1g82
FROM: MIKE MILLER, PLANNING � REDEVELOPMfNT COORDINATOR
SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR IPJFOR�IAL PUBLIC HEARING - WEST SUBURBAN SURGICAL
CENTER
On Tuesday, April 20, 1g82, the City Council received the attached letter
from the legal representative of West Suburban Surgical Center, Inc.
requesting a public hearing pursuant to Section 11 .05 of the Institutional
Zoning District chapter of the City Zoning Ordinance. Since this section
of the Zoning Ordinance is currently being considered for revision by
the City Council , it was thought best to refer the matter to the Planning
Commission for an informal public hearing and recommendation. There-
fore, the Council has referred the matter to the Planning Commission.
i would recommend that the Planning Commission set May 10, 1g�2 as the
date for an informal public hearing on this matter.
•
o MHP1:k j m
•
� � � STO�PESTAD 20��NorthCerrralTOwer ,lamesA Stolpestad
445 M�nnesora Street Russell C.Brown
So�nt Pau�,Minnesota 55'0� Stephen E.Smith
. ��O` �, 'n ' � ;6�2�222-15� MichaelTMcKim
V" I v Koren L Tarrant
� John M.Nichols
SM ITH 22�`F'�s?Bonk Place West Gary L Gandrud
� �2C Soum 6th Streer Gregory D.Soule
M,nneapol�s,Mmnesota 554C2 Edward E Fox
(612)3�3-8444 8arbara S Seilers
PI��FE�S!�(�AL 7homas E Surprenant
ASSOCIATION Attorneys a!i_a�.�� David E.Moran
Lori Wiese-Parks
John O.Sonsieng
Apri 1 16, 1,9$2 Reply to Mmneapohs Normon E.Biom,of Counsel
MESSENGER DELIVERED
Jeff Sweet
City Manager
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Va11ey Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Dear Mr. Sweet:
On behalf of West Suburban Surgical Center, Inc. , and William
Reiser, and pursuant to �11. 05 of Golden Va1ley City Code, T
request that the City Council be asked to hold a hearing on the
use of 6681 Countr� Club Drive, Golden Valley, as a "surgical
center. " As we have discussed, the use of 6681 Country Club
Drive falls under the provisions of §11. 05 of the City Code. The
"surgical center" is a facility designed for the convenience of
ambulatory patients. It has undergone an extensive review by the
Metropolitan Health Board, Metropolitaa Council and the State of
� Minnesota. It has been approved for a location within the City
of Golden Valley and would offer the community a tremendous asset.
We look forward to providing you, the City Staff, the neighborhood,
the Planning Commission and the City Council with a11 of the
information necessary to make a favorable decision on our intended
use of 6681 Country Club Drive.
It is understood. that the City Council would ask the Planning
Commission to review this application at their meeting of May 10,
1982. Tn order ta comply with the provisions in §11. 05 of the City
Code, in addition to asking the Planning Commission for their comments,
on April 20, 1982, the City Council shoulcl al�o set a public hearing
on the application for the City Couricil meeting of May 18, 1982.
We look forward to meeting with the affected neighborhood, your staff,
the Planning Commission and City Council on this important and
exciting new service. Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Gary G ndrud
GG/lg 1273-001
•
•
T0: G4LDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 20, 1982
FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER
SUBJECT: REVISED GENERAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR PUD #34,
GOLDEN VALLEY LUTHERAPd COLLEGE
The Golden Valley Planning Commission on �larch 22, 19ti2, following a lengthy
informal public hearing, deferred action on the General Plan of Development for
PUD #34, Gotden Valley Lutheran College, to allow time both for Planning Commissioners
to visit the campus to review proposed plans and neighboring resident concerns on
site and forthe proponent to prepare revised plans designed to alleviate neighboring
resident concerns. Following meetings with Planning Commissioners and neighboring
residents on the campus and with the City Fire Marshal and other City Staff, the
proponent on April 14 and April 16, 1�82 submitted revised plans for General Plan
of Development approval .
Revisions to the proposed General Plan of Development for PuD r�34, Golden Valley
Lutheran College, include the following:
1 . Addition of a sheet indicating future development possibilities in response
� to Planning Commissioner, neighboring resident and City staff requests for
more complete and comprehensive PUD plans. Possible additions to College
facilities in the future inctude additions to the classroom building, construction
of a chapel at the southeast corner of the classroom building, and construction
of a gymnasium and accompanying parking facility in the northeast area of
the campus.
2. Relocation of the new dormitory building 50 feet to the north to provide a
wooded buffer area of 130 feet from the property line shared with adjacent
single family residences to the south. Relocation of the buitding to the
north necessitated redesign of the combined dormitory and commons building.
In the revised plans the buildings are separate with the commons building
offset to the east but with the two buildings connected by an underground
walkway.
3. Relocation of the access road to the new dormitory to the north rather than
the south of the southwest dormitory and relocation of the connecting road
required for emergency vehicles to the north rather than the south of the new
dormitory in response to neighboring resident objections to proximity of
the former connecting road to residences on the south. The connecting road
for emergency vehicles takes the form of a 12 foot wide cement walkway through
the central part of the campus designed to serve as an emergency vehicle road
when required. The walkway/emergency road is restricted by the use of break-
away chain from the new dormitory access point to the new expanded east
parking lot.
� '
I
PuD #34, Golden Valley Lutheran College Page 2
� April 20, 1g82
4. Elimination of the existing parking lot on the west side of the campus with
replacement parking space provided in a linear design along the west access
road and screened by a row of evergreen trees to provide additional distance
and landscaping buffer from adjacent single family residences on the west.
5. Adjustment of lot lines to eliminate three of the six building setback
variances required by previously proposed plans. Variances eliminated are
those previously in the following locations: 1) The northwest side of
the west dormitory on Lot 2 Block 2; 2) the south side of the southwest
. dormitory on Lot 3 Block 2; and �) the east side of the east dormitory on
Lot 5 Block 2.
Three building setback variances remain in the revised plans:
l . A variance of 23 feet off the required 30 feet for a 7 foot rear yard
setback from the south property line with the addition of the cafeteria to
the classroom building on Lot 1 Block l . The classroom building is on an
existing lot described by metes .and bounds for financing purposes.
2. A variance of 15 feet off the required 30 feet for a 15 foot side yard set-
� back from the east property line of the southwest dormitory on Lot 3 Block 2.
3. A variance of 14 feet off the required 30 feet for a 16 foot setback from
the west property line of the new dormitory on Lot 4 Block 2. The new
dormitory is located close to the existing southwest dormitory requiring
side yard setbacks for both dormitories from the common boundary line.
The revised plans deal with neighboring resident concerns while at the same time
providing the connecting .road between the east and west access roads specified
by the City Fire Marshal . Relocation to the north of the new dormitory building,
the dormitory access road and the connecting road for emergency vehicles preserves
a substantial buffer area between new campus improvements and the single family
residences to the south. Redesign of parking on the west provides a greater distance
from adjacent singte family residences on the west, and the proponent has added
screening in the form of evergreen trees. Staff suggests the addition of more
prominent signage at the entrance to the west access road to discourage unnecessary
traffic. The west access road is a private drive on private property, and there
is no restriction _on sign size or wording. Possibilities include: "Private
Entrance" or "No Through Traffic".
The City Fire Marshal is satisfied with the connecting road provided by the combined
walkway/emergency vehicle road to the north of the dormitories. However, the turning
radius of the curve to the northwest of the new dormitory appears inadequate to
accommodate City fire equipment. The proponent should examine the curve radius
and may find it necessary to either lengthen the curve or widen the pavement. In
addition, the new configuration of the commons building in relation to the dormitory
• requires a second new hydrant and a siamese on the comrrrons building to serve the
commons building separately from the new dormitory.
RE: PUD #34, Golden Valley Lutheran College page 3
• April 20, 1g82
The possible future additions to campus facilities include a gymnasium as
evidence of consideration of student recreational needs in future planning.
However, City Park and Recreation Staff reports that the College has a current
need for and should be making provision for tennis courts and ball fields. The
College includes tennis lessons in the curriculum offered and has baseball and
softball teams for both men and women students, but provides no on site facilities
for either of these activities.
Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of
the General Plan of Development for PUD #34, Golden Valley Lutheran College,
subject to the following conditions:
1 . Installation of wet type standpipes in the new dormitory building.
2. Installation of sprinkler system in all trash chutes and trash collection areas .
3. Approval of fire alarm systems by the City Fire Marshal prior to installation.
4. Addition of a second new fire hydrant to the northeast of the new commons
building adjacent to the new walkway/emergency road.
� 5• Installation of a Fire Department siamese, a connection accommodating two
fire hoses, on the west side of the new dormitory as near as possible to the
new fire hydrant.
6. Installation of a Fire Department siamese at the northeast corner of the
new commons building as near as possible to the second new fire hydrant.
7. Design of all radiuses on the new walkway/emergency road to accommodate
City fire equipment without wheels going off the payment on curves.
8. Vacation of existing watermain easement and dedication of new watermain
easements prior to issuance of building permits for the new dormitory and
commons buildings.
9• Addition of signage at the west access road to reduce unwarranted traffic.
10. Provision for student recreational needs in any future expansion of Golden
Valley Lutheran College facilities.
AP:kjm
Attachments:
l . March 17, ig82 Staff Report
2. List of Previously Requested Variances/Waivers of Yard Requirements
3• March 22, 1982 Planning Commission 1linutes
•
• T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 17, 1982
FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER
SUBJECT: INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - P.U.D. GENERAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
WITHOUT CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL - P.U.D. #34, GOLDEN VALLEY
LUTHERAN COLLEGE
Golden Valley Lutheran College requests approval of a General Plan of
Development without Concept Plan approval for PUD #34, Golden Valley
Lutheran College. Preparation of the PUD General Plan of Development
for Golden Valley Lutheran College was precipitated by a proposal for
expansion of the College facilities located at 6125 Olson Memorial
Highway.
Existing buildings on the Golden Valley Lutheran College campus include
a two story classroom building comprising approximately 67,760 square
feet of space and four dormitories described as follows: The three story
southwest dormitory comprising approximatety 48,240 square feet of space,
the two west dormitories which are both two story and comprise approx-
imately 12, 170 square feet of space each, and the two story east dormitory
which comprises 12,760 square feet of space.
. The College property has not been subdivided to accommodate the five
individual existing buildings. The entire campus property totals 30
acres, including two main central parcels between vacated Douglas Drive
North on the west and the Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railroad
line on the east, four original platted lots and an outlot west of vacated
Dougtas Drive, two platted lots to the southeast fronting on Meander
Road, and a remnant parcel to the east of the railroad line. The only
building located on a separate parcel is the classroom buitding. The
four dormitories are located all on the same remaining central parcel
with the most westerly dormitory extending partially into vacated Douglas
Drive on the west.
The existing situation on the Golden Valley Lutheran College campus is
not in conformance with Section 1 .03 of the City Zoning Code, which
prohibits more than one principal building on a lot or parcel . At the
suggestion of City Staff, Golden Valley Lutheran College utilized the
opportunity afforded by the proposed expansion to rectify this situation by
employing the PUD process. The PUD procedure includes platting of the
entire College property to accommodate both existing development and
proposed expansion in conformance with the City Zoning Ordinance and Sub-
division Regulations.
•
• RE: Informal Public Hearing - P.U.D. #34, Golden Valley lutheran College
March 17, 1982
Page 2
Expansion of Golden Vailey Lutheran College facilities proposed at this
time includes construction of the following: A new dormitory and commons
building, a cafeteria addition to the classroom building, and a new
parking lot and connecting drive. The proposed fifth dormitory is a
three story structure comprising 32,680 square feet of space. The con-
necting commons area is one and one half stories with a balcony design
including a total of 4,500 square feet of space. The cafeteria addition
to the classroom building is one story and 2,478 square feet in area.
Total new space is 39,658 square feet compared to 153,100 square feet of
already existing building space, representing a 25.9 percent increase in
space.
The new dormitory construction is planned to accommodate an increase in
enrollment of app roximately 30 percent. Current student enrollment inciudes
400 students who live on campus and 140 commuters for a total of 540
students. The new dormitory will house an additional 160 students for a
total of 560 students living on campus . College officiats expect the
commuter student enrollment to remain constant for a total enrollment of
approximately 700 students.
The proposed parking lot expansion will increase available parking by 33
• percent from 260 spaces to 346 spaces. The new parking lot will accom-
modate 102 cars, but there will be a loss of 16 spaces removed during new
construction for a net gain of 86 spaces. Parking is ample under applica-
tion of both the existing and proposed Institutional (I-2) Zoning District
requirements. Zoning regulations stipulate one parking space for every
four units of seating capacity or for every four students enrolled. Total
parking spaces will be almost one for every two students .
The proposed new construction includes installation of a circulation drive
connecting the existing east and west access roads as stipulated by the
City Fire Marshal for purposes of emergency vehicle access. The new
connecting drive will not only afford emergency vehicle access but wilt
also improve traffic circulation in general .
The City Fire Marshal reviewed the PUD General Plan of Development and
recommended the following conditions of approval :
1 . Instaltation of sprinkler system in all trash chutes and trash col-
lection areas.
2. Approval of fire alarm systems by the City Fire Marshal prior to
installation.
3. Instattation of a Fire Department siamese, a connection accommodating
two fire hoses, on the new dormitory building at the southwest corner
� of the extension on the west side near the new fire hydrant.
4. Specification of wet type standpipes.
RE: Informal Public Hearing - P.U.D. #34, Golden Valley Lutheran College
. March 17, 1982
Page 3
The City Building Official and City Engineer also reviewed the General
Plan of Development for PUD #34, Golden Valley Lutheran College. The
Building Official finds plans to be in conformance with all applicable
codes, and the City Engineer finds grading, drainage and utility construction
plans to be satisfactory. The City Engineer recommends as a condition
of approval vacation of the section of existing watermain easement running
through the proposed new commons building and dedication of new watermain
easements forthe proposed watermain running around the new commons building
and forthe�proposed new watermain running to the west side of the new
dormitory building, with vacation and dedication of these watermain
easements to be completed prior to issuance of a building permit for the
new dormitory and commons buitding.
The Acting City Park and Recreation Director reviewed the PUD General Plan
of Development and suggests that along with expansion to accommodate
growth in enrollment, "it will become necessary for the college to expand
its thinking in the area of recreation". The Acting Park and Recreation
Director was under the impression at one time that the College was
considering construction of a ball field in the area proposed for parking
lot expansion. The College currently utilizes City ball fields and
tennis courts. Staff does not feel that neglect of recreational needs
• during the proposed current College expansion necessitates a negative recom-
mendation on the PUD General Plan of Development. However, the City wishes
to notify the proponent, Golden Valley Lutheran College, that future expansion
plans should include provision for the recreational needs of the student
population.
This brings us to comment on the fact that the architect preparing plans
for the current expansion has indicated that the College definitely con-
templates further additions to campus facilities in the future. In the
words of the architect, the "next project" he expects to work on for Golden
Valley Lutheran College is addition of a chapel . Also in future planning
is a shift of the track and field events area to the south to accommodate
construction of a gymnasium in the northern portion of that area. Perhaps
preparation of a more far sighted PUD General Plan of Development for
Golden Vatley Lutheran College, rather than a rushed set of minimal plans
for the current expansion project, would have shown that the College does
in fact contemplate provision for recreational needs in the future.
While City staff appreciates the fact that Golden Valley Lutheran College
is taking a step in the right direction in utilizing the PUD process for
approval of the current expansion program, the intent of the PUD Ordinance
is provision of a far more comprehensive guide for total development of a
tract of land than is afforded by the limited plans prepared for this
General Plan of Development. Staff believes that better use of the PUD
process by Golden Valley Lutheran College in the future would assist both
the College and the City in achieving the most beneficial ultimate use of
� College property.
RE: Informal Public Hearing - P.U.D. #34, 6olden Valley Lutheran College
• March 17, 1g82
Page 4
For purposes of guidance to Golden Valley Lutheran College in preparation
of plans for future expansion projects, the City wishes to notify the
College that future expansion projects will require a repeat of the PUD
approval process. In the future, PUD plans should include complete infor-
mation on both existing and proposed facilities and on contemplated
changes in student enrollment. In order to best plan for future needs
and in order to minimize the number of times the college will be compelled
to repeat the PUD process, Golden Valley Lutheran College is encouraged to � �
prepare at the earliest opportunity the most complete plan for future
development possible.
Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval
of the General Plan of Development for PUD #34, Golden Valley Lutheran
College, subject to the following conditions:
l . Inclusion in current expansion plans of fire protection measures stip-
ulated by the City Fire Marshal , including installation of sprinkler
system in all trash chutes and trash collection areas, approval of
fire alarm systems by the City Fire Marshal prior to installation,
installation of a Fire Department siamese on the corner of the new
dormitory closest to the fire hydrant, and specification of wet type
• standpipes.
2. Vacation of existing watermain easement and dedication of new water-
main easements prior to issuance of a building permit for the new
dormitory and commons building.
3. Preparation of complete and comprehensive PUD plans in accordance with
the intent of the City PUD Ordinance at the time of any future expansion
of Golden Valley Lutheran College facilities .
4. Provision for student recreational needs in any future expansion of
Golden Valley Lutheran College facilities.
AP:kjm
Attachments:
1 . Application for PUD General Plan Approval
2. Site Location Map
• °
� C o r'1
. P.U.D. NUMBER 3'�
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
. APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
� of
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
Date of Application 2-22_g2
Fee Paid
Applicant Golden Valley Lutheran College 542-120�
Name:
Last First Initial Phone
Address• 6125 Olson Highway, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
� � Number and Street City State Zip Code �
Owner Same as above
Name:
Las t Fi rst In i ti al Phone
Address:
Nurr�er and Street Ci ty State Zi p Code
Street Location of Property in Question:
�
Legal Description of Property:
(See attached Plat Plan)
Name and Address of Property Owners Within 300 feet of the Property (Attach to Application):
Ty pe of Application:
Concept Plan (Fee-$150.00) General Plan (Fee-$150.00)
General Plan without Concept P an Approval �Fee-$250.00) X °
Type of Proposal :
Small Area X Large or Complex Area
Applicable City Ordinance Nurr�er Chapter 15 Section 15.07
Present Zoning of Property: Institutional
•Present Use of Property: Educational Facil�ty�
Proposed Use of Property: ( Same as above)
5 Existing
Structures: Number 1_New TypeMaso_ Heiqht 27 Ft. Nurr�er of Stories 3
QRec reational Facilities (example, tennis court) Maintain existina
track and footbali fields.
Nurt�er of People intended to live or work on premises: adults �S��nentc�iildren
Number af off-street parking spaces proposed: not enclosed 346 enclosed
Total Acres of Land in P.U.D. 30 . Acres excluding dedication of, for example,
City streets (non��_, Density 18.66
• ( �tudents/acre)
number of units acre
Indicate the follawing Data by percentages: Area covered by Structures 6,5
Area covered by Outside Pa rking 5.0 Area covered by Interior Streets 1 .5
Area Landscaped 72.8/ Area left Natural 13%
Ponding Area 1 .2 acre
I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material
are true.
�
Golden Valley Lutheran College
Signature of Applicant Date
By: � ��cu=;a`� �:�,,� President 2/22/82
Signature of Prope y Owner Date
FOLLOWING TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY Of GOLDEN VALLEY:
CHRONOLOGY DATE 8Y
App ication W thdrawn or Canceiled
Plamm�q Comm�ssion Act�on
Par�k and Recreat�on Commission Action
Environmental Cormnission Action
Other Camnission
Other Commission �
_ pp ication on Counci Agen a
Ad�acent Property Owners Not f�ed
Council Action
� Planning Commission Recomnendations
On this day of , 19 , this petition was (approved)
(disapproved) subject to the following conditions:
Ac ti on by th e C i ty
�On this day of , 19 , the Goiden Valley City Council
approved disapp►roved) this petition subject to the following conditions:
. . . . . . . ..,. _ .,,. _ -- - --__ . � ___>_ v_. ... . .. .._.. .
• "�._.� .._.�. ... "'._. s . . :.� ._� �� ..,,^ - rss.at - .. _. . = • ;o�.
_.f:: • _ o ' � �` N�'
_ .. ;._.._... .._. _ . _ _... . _. � ..Z.� � � qo
, h � n 2 , w.
M � f�r1 '�� 1 � w
a � . 1 � °
�� Z � 2 �° " � � �O ' 1
esoo ��� : a I1 1 �
; AID� MWY. N0. 102� �,�� N � �'� � 1 �
� PLAT 22�• . ' s_o_ ` 1 1 274c.a;R
, .... . ---
•--�--- --- ...�,': :Soa _`_ �
� ; •o •S� �So': :se9'4A4°1'E � •.
� +� �
2 � 9 i � ♦ �"� t �0
I � �'' � �'s �— o �• �� • � '';. � 1 �
� � S: _ ^a�o o w �I� �'�+��ja� � o`
� �' r ='� �'�`� s .s• j'•. :s� ,p.�o - a9oo
��• L14.7 �,��. ;� � ,. 6200 � - -� ----- .rrss t�e s4 �
C�� . .�
^•_� � Q.G.O.ItJ1�51 r.! ' - � � 1
M .�,�!� 0�►���, . '12��. � + t �
�: ..�-�,�Oi; �«,� �� �'�41s�5 � 1 i
'� Q � •� �
�� '�I �' +`,� { t ��r•
, � •�,� .� ��� �'c�°e6.� -- — — -- � 5� y 50
g ; � � —' -r � , �.—`-�i8:5S �
,
; �0,p ` ,�, . i � M ;
� ;ef14��. ���iy�i ��`•�ill�S�.�� v � i �e �
� � O
�. �� �1 � �N
�..1.L . �G: ,� �as � ` M
r� � . ': �r� � �, .�
.• �� , � d p.� .4 • .: �
:�' . � �li �. • . '� � 4 ' �
.� ,� s ,
� � �
3O 3e r; '7�• � 1 1 �
�� ' i � R�
� g �� e � ; e� � h
%`� �0 6 i g� ' '
: �n,� .' q � . 1 �
.�s 124.5 s 'e
� '�
,�M � 4
� �s:a S • i
, y b • �* '- i�l
, • � �N
w4 , �N
.s ' ±
• .' 9'� � . " � .U� t�
� �° 43 � Q• � :;
f� < �` � a ! S � �.;
�,,�,1� o i�. �� C r1 � � C ;c
3 �, : -,
! o � t� $ 1'�
� •q
Ss °' ,n
;,. h 4Q
� N
� ' ��
�
�.s - T T � � . .�
.r.I
,�
?. � � , �
. � �
'�;.c o o ;
i �
1
�° �� _ � �a
=O° 210 I t 2
0 os. ....o + Zio 25 .v ` '
• , � f; ..
-- � 3 y;'s �Z 1 N � � 1 � _ �
. I � R � .g '" ro �, 2 � � ti
' � � u � b � � 1�5 1:9 'i�s ;� s
. � 3� .�
,e7.i
� R � � `r .��il'ir' ?��S i+
1 o . ' � �� � y° �. .� . � � ����1`d� �� R•ii).1: ?i���j� � ;
� � � 9. i �'/ .I�� . o�� l 0., • � C
• S ;s<<��,, .: :. �•. „ �,, i.. qNpFR �!o :
9 � . ,, .-:,f„ �, et� � R� .
�p O � p � : Q ARK 4��dy• .` �i �9 �V 'o .
� � � OO s . ��� � .. j j�, . Op C s
' Z � 1�J
'0y� �`.g fj' �� ypl� • ,�''*� �,:o� ;+ g.
� .'.__•-_•.,_--- N 4 . A � ,i , t i � O� �_ _•
n w .�r /^. • .
� . .. �Z � Fi: '�� W'�`�. ,.j '�*�e K a�`d ��
I � � � O ,•�.��.w"� a � w � J �. `� \ � • - �. ° m.
� PUD #34, GOLDEN VALLEY LUTHERAN COLLEGE
VARIANCES/WAIVERS OF YARD REQUIREMENTS
Yard Requirements in the Institutional Zoning District
Current Front Yard 50 feet from a front property line abutting a street
35 feet from a side property line abutting a street
Side/Rear Yard 30 feet from property line
Proposed Front Yard 35 feet from property line abutting a street
Side/Rear Yard 30 feet from property line
Variances from yard requirements on the proposed preliminary plat for PUD#34,
Golden Valley Lutheran College
Lot 1 Block 1 23 feet off the required 30 feet for a 7 foot
Classroom Building setback from the south (rear) property line
with the addition of the cafeteria
Lot 1 Block 2 No variances
Dormitory
� Lot 2 Block 2 10 feet off the required 30 feet for a 20 foot
Dormitory setback from the northwest lot line
Lot 3 Block 2 7 feet off the required 30 feet for a 23 foot
Dormitory setback from the south property line
25 feet from southwest corner
23 feet from southwest corner of south extension
15 feet off the required 30 feet for a 15 foot
setback from the east property line
Lot 4 Block 2 14 feet off the required 30 feet for a 16 foot
Dormitory setback from the west property line
Lot 5 Block 2 13 feet off the required 30 feet for a 17 foot
Dormitory setback from the east property line
•
Qlanning Commission Minutes of March 22, 1982 Page 2
� IY. Informal Public Hearing - P.U.D. #34,
o en a ey ut eran o ege
APPLICANT: Golden Va11ey Lutheran College
LOCATION: b125 Olson Memorial Highway (T.H. #55)
REQUEST: Approval of General Plan of Development
without Concept Plan Approval
Chairman 'fhompson introduced this agenda item, and the proponents, Dr. Bernt
C. Opsal , President of Golden Valley Lutheran College, and Mr. Jim Husnik,
Architect with Hammel Green and Abrahamson, Inc. , introduced themselves to
the Planning Commission.
Assistant Planner Alda Peikert distributed to Plannin9 Commissioners a list
of variances incorporated into the General P1an of Development for PUD #34,
Golden Valley Lutheran College. Planning and Redevelopment Coordinator
Mike Miller informed Planning Commissioners that staff would be providing
lists of variances involved in all PUD applications in order to fully
inform Commissioners of variances requested with PUD approvals.
Commissioner Forster asked a question concerning treatment of a continually
evolving PUD such as PUD #34, Golden Valley Lutheran College. Mr. Miller
verified that the College as an institution is constantly evolving and
� explained that future additions or changes would be treated as amendments
to PUD #34, Golden Valley Lutheran College.
Commissioner Leppik asked how far into the future the Co�nission could
reasonably expect the proponents to pro3ect their PUD plans and whether the
cost of preparing a complete plan for future improvements would be prohibi-
tive. Commissioner Leppik stated that she would like assurance that the
College is making provision for future needs in drawing up plans for
current improvements. Mr. Miller agreed that he would like to see a plan
for future development in general but cautioned that the Planning
Commission would have to deal with such a plan as something which could
change drastically. Mr. Miller suggested that planning for future improve-
ments could be required as part of the City Council approval and made the
point that such planning would be beneficial to both the City and the
College.
In response to questions from Commissioners, Ms. Peikert pointed out loca-
tions of requested variances from yard requirements and staff discussed the
purpose of platting in con�unction with PUD approval . Chairman Thompson
recognized the proponents, Dr. Opsal and Mr. Husnik, and offered them the
opportunity to present their proposal . Mr. Husnik stated that he wished to
clarify for Gommissioners comments about future development possibilities
on the College campus and that the College does not at this time have
existing plans for future additions. Mr. Husnik also explained the
rationale for placement of proposed 1ot lines requiring setback variances,
which lot lines he said were located to accomodate existing buildings and
� to preserve existing trees.
Planning Commission Minutes of March 22, 1982 Page 3
QCommissioner Leppik asked the proponents whether they had given con-
. sideraton to space for recreational needs. Dr. Opsal replied that the
College currently has a �mnasium within the Classroom Building and is
thinking about construction of a new gymnasium in the northeast corner of
the campus. Other future improvements which have been considered include
academic and science additions to the Classroom Building and cons�ruction
of a chapel south of the east end of the Classroom Building. Dr. Opsal
confirmed that the Callege intends to remain a two year school and expects
future size to be 700 to 800 students.
Commissioner Prazak asked what impact the increased enrollment would have
on College staff. Dr. Opsal explained that the College retains certain
staff in order to offer a basic curriculum and that a 30 percent increase
in the student body could be accommodated without a proportionate staff
increase.
Commissioner Forster asked when the College expects to experience the pro-
posed 30 percent increase in enrollment. Dr. Opsal replied that the
increase would take place in the fall of 1982 or the fall of 1983.
Commissioner Forster asked whether a 30 percent growth rate was typical of
�unior colleges. Dr. Opsal replied that a 30 percent increase in
enrollment would be high for a larger �unior college, but that starting
with the relatively small student body at Golden Valley Lutheran College,
30 percent does not constitute an unusual increase.
� Commissioner Polachek arrived at the meeting.
Chairman Thompson opened the informal public hearing for public input.
Mrs. Lois Lee, 250 Paisley Lane, stated ob�ections to the proximity of the
new dormitory and proposed connecting road to the back yard of her home.
Mrs. Lee stated that she and her husband have lived at their present loca-
tion for 20 years and that they were attracted to the area originally
because of the large lots and surrounding trees. Mrs. Lee expressed con-
cern over removal for the road construction of trees which presently form a
buffer between their property and the College and over noise generated by
the young people on campus and their stereos. Mrs. Lee added that she and
her husband have constructed a swimming pool in their back yard and are
concerned over loss of back yard privacy and lowering of property values.
Mr. Walter Lee, 250 Paisley Lane, said he believed that his wife also spoke
for their neighbors, the Hetlands and the Flannagans, in expressing her
concerns.
Dr. Opsal informed Commissioners and residents that the proposed connecting
road, required by the City Fire Marshal , would be 33 feet from the College
property line. In response to a question from Commissioner P razak, Dr.
Opsal stated that the current buffer area between the property line and
buildings is approximately 90 feet.
� •
� Planning Commission Minutes of March 22, 1982 Page 4
� Planning and Redevelopment Coordinator Mike Miller suggested that the road
could be blocked with break away chain for emergency vehicle use only to
eliminate daily traffic on the road.
Dr. Kenneth Valentas, 401 Edgewood Avenue North, observed that there is
presently such a chain on the access road into the College from Edgewood
Avenue and stated that he would favor use of such a chain on the proposed
connecting road.
Mrs. Lois Lee, 250 Paisley Lane, suggested that the College utilize vacant
land in the northern area of the College property for expansion rather than
ruining the residential neighborhood to the south.
. Chairman Tfi ompson suggested the planting of evergreens as a buffer from
residential property.
Mr. Husnik explained that topography and poor soils preclude use of pro-
perty to the north. Mr. Husnik expressed willingness to consider use of
evergreen plantings as a buffer and also noted that the proposed new dor-
mitory is oriented with the narrow end toward the residential neighborhood
to minimize exposure and to preserve existing trees to the east.
In response to a question from Chairman Thompson, Dr. Kenneth Valentas, 401
Edgewood Avenue North, stated that noise from the campus is a problem.
Mrs. Kathryn Valentas offered that there are minor noise problems in the
� spring and fall which are aggravating.
Mr. J ohn Paulson, 320 Edgewood Avenue North, suggested that the connecting
road be cut or blocked to prevent racing and that speed bumps be installed
on the existing west access road. Mr. Paulson stated he was in favor of
the use of evergreen plantings as buffer from surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
Mr. Juel Svenkerud, 6421 Westchester Circle, stated an ob3ection to
building of th� connecting road. He explained that he lives on the west
side of the campus near the small dormitories and is disturbed by the west
access road noise.
Commissioner Leppik asked the extent to which trees would be cut for the
road. Mr. Husnik replied that the proposed road width requires a 24 foot
wide cut through existing trees. Mr. Husnik suggested that the road width
could be reduced to 12 feet requiring the cutting of fewer trees if the
road were rest�icted to emergency vehicles and constructed as one lane for
one way only.
Chairmain Thompson asked whether the College would be willing to plant
evergreens, and Dr. Opsal replied that the College would be willing to take
this measure.
�
Planning Commission Minutes of March 22, 1982 Page 5
� Mrs. Lois Paulson, 320 Edgewood Avenue North, asked if there was any record
available of the number of false alarm calls to the Fire Department
� generated by the College due to the fact that she has observed numerous
fire equipment trips to the College. Dr. Opsal said that the College has
recently addressed the problem of a high rate of false alarms from the
College and has instituted a fine system.
Mrs. Kathryn Valentas, 401 Edgewood Avenue North, asked whether the College
has any long range plans to develop the west side of the College property.
Dr. Opsal replied that the College has no plans for development of the west
area and noted that the College agreed not to put parking in that area at
the time of their last expansion in response to neighborhood ob�ections.
Dr. Maynard Nelson, Chairman of the Board of Regents, Golden Valley
Lutheran College, offered the information that the College plans to limit
enrollment and has a master plan for development available for examination
in the College foyer. Dr. Nelson stated that the College wishes to be a
good neighbor and that the Board of Regents is willing to do what it can to
minimize problems for neighboring residents.
Mr. Jerry Kassanchuk, 245 Paisley Lane, stated that his home is located in
the vicinity of the southwest dormitory and that he is bothered by loud
rock music and traffic. He stated that he wished there were a way to rr�ke
addition of the new dormitory more palatable to neighboring residents.
� M r. Husnik pointed out that the new dormitory will have no windows on the
south side.
Mrs. Kathryn Valentas, 401 Edgewood Avenue North, suggested that Planning
Commissioners visit the site to assess the effects on the neighboring resi-
dences before taking action.
Mrs. Lois Paulson, 320 Edgewood Avenue North, suggested the use of an
exterior build�ng color which would blend with the surrounding environment
rather than use of white cement as an exterior finish.
Mrs. Kathryn Valentas, 401 Edgewood Avenue North, suggested the planting of
ivy as an alternative in order to minimize visual impact of College
buildings.
Mr. Jerry Kassanchuk, 245 Paisley Lane, stated his ob3ection to a through
road and to increased traffic on the west access road. Mr. Kassanchuk
suggested moving the new dormitory building to the east with access to the
building from the east access road.
0
Planning Con�nission Minutes of March 22, 1982 Page 6
! Dr. Kenneth Yalentas, 401 Edgewood Avenue North, asked whether the College
had considered parking space needs for possible future addition of a �ym-
nasium building. Dr. Opsal explained that the College currently hosts
games in the existing �mnasium in the Classroom Building and would
construct additional parking area along with construction of a new gym-
nasium.
Commissioner �eppik suggested elimination of the parking lot on the west
side of the campus, provision of additional parking space in another
parking area and restriction of road access on the west road except for
specified times when students are moving in and out of dormitories in the
fall and spring.
Mr. Miller cautioned against the reduction of parking space.
Mr. Jerry Kassanchuk, 245 Paisley Lane, stated that the parking lot on the
west side of the campus generates considerable traffic on the west access
road due to people driving in to look for space even when the lot is full .
Dr. Opsal stated that the College does not wish to concentrate all parking
to the north along Highway 55 due to the unattractive front appearance that
would present from the highway.
Mrs. Lois Paulson, 320 Edgewood Avenue North, suggested parking to the
south of the athletic track. Mr. Husnik stated that the soils in the area
iare peat suitable only for athletic field use and not adequate to support a
parking lot.
Mr. Jerry Kassanchuk, 245 Paisley Lane, suggested moving the parking to the
east of the two small dormitories on the west side of the campus.
Chairman Thompsan closed the informal public hearing.
Chairman Thompson suggested that the Planning Commission defer action to
allow time far Planning Commissioners to visit the site and view the master
plan on display at the College and to a11ow time for the architect to work
with neighboring residents on plan revisions designed to alleviate their
concerns.
Dr. Opsal stated that the College is on a tight time schedule required for
the tax exempt bond issue which will finance the expansion and that a two
week postponement could postpone use of the new dormitory an entire year.
Dr. Opsal expressed willingness to make desired ad�ustments in the plans
but stated that delay would present problems for the College.
� °
Planning Comrtoission Minutes of March 22, 1982 Page 7
� Mr. Miller stated that he felt the Chairman's suggestion that Plannin
Commissioners visit the neighborhood was a good one, but that he understood
the proponent°s problem of a time line involving serious financial matters.
M r. Miller suggested that there were two alternatives opened to the
Planning Commission. The first was to delay action to a11ow for a visit to
the site. The second was to incorporate into an approval recommendation
suggestions made for minimizing effects of the proposed development on
neighboring residents. Mr. Miller pointed out that the plan adjustments
wo�ld have to be extremely well documented and would have to be incor-
porated into a revised plan, which would be referred directly to the City
Co�ncil and would not be seen by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mi11er
st�ted that the choice involved three parties: The College faced with a
. time problem, the neighbors who have concerns and suggestions, and the
Planning Commission. Mr. Miller expressed disappointment that the College
had not worked out plans with the neighbors prior to the informal Planning
Commission hearing and reported that this suggestion had been made to
College representatives by staff on several occasions. Mr. Mi11er
, concluded that the Chairman's suggestion was probably the best alternative.
On the other hand, he recognized the College as a good institution which
should be encouraged and expressed the wish that something could be done to
assist their situation.
Commissioner Leppik expressed support for the Chairman's suggestion,
stating that �he understands the pressures on the College, but that the
� neighboring residents also have financial concerns.
It was mflved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner Forster and
carried unanimously to defer action on the General Plan of Development for
PUD �34, Golden Valley Lutheran College, until the next Planning Commission
meeting and in the interim to visit the site. Commissioner Leppik
requested tha� neighbors draw up a list of concerns and suggestions and
that the College prepare alternative plan revisions to meet the concerns of
the neighboring residents.
Mr. J ohn Paulson, 320 Edgewood Avenue North, suggested that the College
stake the locations of the proposed new dormitory building and road. Mr.
Husnik agreed that this could be done.
Planning Comm�ssioners, residents and College representatives agreed to
meet at the main College bu3lding at 11:00 a.m. on Saturday, April 3, 1982
to review the proposed plans and effects on neighboring residents together
at the site.
V. Consideration of Proposed Revisions to City Zoning Ordinance
1. Commercial Zoning District
2. Open Development Zoning District
3. P.U.D. Ordinance
�
�
T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 21 , 1932
FROM: MIKE MILLER, PLANNING � REDEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
SUBJECT: PuD #35 - BUSCH SITE OFFICE WAREHOUSE
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Krause-Anderson Realty Company is proposing to develop an office-warehouse PUD
on a 10.04 acre parcel of land where the Busch 6reenhouse operation is presently
located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Boone Avenue North and
Tenth Avenue. This proposed project falls within the Valley Square Redevelopment
Area and would be eligible for financial assistance through tax increment financing
and/or tax exempt financing.
The site in question is zoned Industrial . Adjacent land uses include Tenth Avenue
to the south and light industrial and office type uses. Boone Avenue forms the
west boundary of the site with adjacent land zoned Industrial although not fulty
developed in that manner. To the north are the Chicago Northwestern Railroad tracks
� and beyond that is single family residential land use. To the east the land is
also zoned Industrial and the land use is of a heavier industrial nature. (See
ettached Area Map.)
The proposed development would contain two office-warehouse structures (one story �
each) , 64,336 square feet and 54,652 square feet for a total of 118,g88 square
feet of building (see page 2 of PUD plans) . According to the plans submitted,
total building coverage of the site amounts to 27 percent. , Based on a parking
ratio allowing for 25 percent of each structure for office use and 75 percent of
each structure for warehouse a total of 297 parking spaces would be required.
The PUD plans call for provision�of 300 parking spaces. Allowance for storm
water drainage and storage is provided for with an �.approximate 1 .2 acre ponding
area in the northwest corner of the site. From all appearances, all minimum set-
back requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance can be met.
The City Engineering Department has reviewed the PUD plans and has found no major
objections to the proposal . Certain minor technical changes may be called for
relative to drainage, but nothing that would significantly alter General Plan of
Development of the PUD. The City Fire �4arshal has reviewed the ptans and has made
the following recommendations :
1 . The entire project (buildings) should be sprinklered and wall hydrants
installed as shown on the PUD plans.
2. A Fire Department siamese should be located on each of the buildings
as close as possible to the nearest fire hydrant.
�
REs PUD #35 - BUSCH SITE OFFICE WAREHOUSE Page 2
� April 21 , 1g82
3• Fire extinguishers and locations will be determined by the Fire t4arshal
when occupancy is taken.
4. Fire lanes will be designated and posted when construction is compteted.
The Parks and Recreation Department has stated that they do not see a need for
any additional open space or recreational land area being generated by this
proposed land use.
RECOMMENDATION
If one views this site along with adjacent land uses it becomes quite apparent that
the site is underutilized as far as highest and best use of land is concerned.
It is unfortunate that so much of the site must be covered by buildings and paved
surfaces. However, the site plan does conform to the City Ordinance standards.
The.refore, I would recommend that the Planning Commission act favorably on PUD 35
General Plan Approvai without Concept Plan Approval subject to the following conditions:
l . The proponent be required to comply with the recommendations of the City
Fi re Marshal .
� 2. That all necessary engineering requirements be met as determined by the
City Engineer,
3• The proponent shall comply with the City landscape standards currently in
effect.
MHM:kjm
� �
� J 7v w� ,.� + . _
M 1� b ��. . . . s,•
`���i e � � � � �v �' �O � i o `}o� yD 5j t�� ph. L ?�� �yIV�� � :��
%� •• e b '2fZ «r` C � � �B ' q ��ti°LAy ��Py r�1
c�/ Q �- ti..d 0, ' ` q II �0 f' •4•0� e ..,,J`1
� : _Q � � � � � � Ol p l e,;,y SL G1 /,• /
P; j N ; .� ±+ _ , t a � / 1,A
4',� �F/ �' f � o � '�n ,,� e.,� � , � v
��!_ y/ � ♦ a �► Z' I a-.� •v tivp^ �� �
��o�p° �w�Y;� Jp��tf P '0 ot - �►- O •.,, P^+/+° /�
�v��1r �r^. �t '� a N a^ 9 V ��' tp�� �
__� D' ��e �s ; N �a '� �' <' /
6v�� py �6 : � - i
a ,, ri,I .r, .3N •f1
a � • s �� ,� �°�' � � � f O
� � • / ``y '
�...� bl 4i1E1 ' � L .Es � P»d:'b l' o8'blb °f' cE oii � �m'�`�S y�f52 �f9'- � o M ,
o„ � zoz�� - ots� •� 5�9 � � 04.�4 � . 5 Z. 4 :o,,: 3 n N 3 n
;' `', a . `{��d� >��� o M°
Q w � � Y'1p � , e3 j ws �i
� �3� -• • - �1 r �
zc• �u►us� �� � IS ��,� N j h " •
�p�iE'ri ��°,� "� ^ � �v�a In p � � : � 0 1.
0�1f111;� � � � �m � � m _��..
�f 0b' i V• °• N � . ��
M0 ti, 4��1�j'di ` d � -a�"' o
t�?� �j�� (G N,� �` I r- Z� `z
�ti $' y I O a� .� ,n � � � � .
g � � � • ..,, o � •
s �
�Y'L . v � °,�` � � I� �. 'L O
foi p • � �5.�
f�loi � £t fti 81 �� ... . Q o
ti as � : �.� p
• � m «q � " - r m � y �t
: A^ m� ? b � 2 `.o
� r = �
�dt o, F� .� ;^_ � � b o � � -_. O .. �' .
� • 1 � V
%9-b�,.o a!m • �
:a �N ' �d i2ES
� a
ct � ,,:
c�:�°r a o�'0�:i .� 'o E ' o
�'-a LLIm m~ � c< •S A .`�c.
y ...I\n • N e V 4 t\ d�"��.
i � o6'ft/ ` � `3 ��f
.o '-.�� �s
' � � m N � ° [f� ...
�LYti •O� � 5_7
� �,Qj � � � � ; � oo'� .
�i` I e N
aq� �� �C � • m � �
o �� .s N m v� I h • � ,�
sai
� a."- � � N � {�i� �' cst � :�''•••.
; !aJ m u 5 86 � �
�rss '1 Si +r f.. M� 1
'd �`a � � $ — � I
, ` � �. I
. W,. '� � � I
r� oou� - . ;
;
e.•� a r_ $ � �1 I
°- W
i,�1~� �f. y� � � p � O Q� ,
�`
�M ���0 � a � p I �I
'� � °'. , e,o 0o ss a � I
3 „ �e Q, g o 0
°�o. ' � ,►,j •+� 0� f/jLE I
00 � 0
�O�, oJ�v �s � .0 • -- 2C�C6----'r—
/ , �+ P1 � S/SE9
•se. �O
N a ; : N °° ' I
uoi 0 0;.� F5 � �
.r 009 ��
_ � ^p _ � 04 OE9 S�165 �
. �
� �° b � � 0
+r59 ►T sci.
�Sl�lZt' - � 9 _
.... s� ... '0621...
� � ' - y1� N
a��, :ii��. y:'�t , �.�'+ Z N� °N izoi si6... . .�i14 ;'.� LZ'fl4 �
� Ly 9Z r5� Ot�l o�b� _ ££Z+£
i
� � • .,, • � �ce . ' sza-�oe
� �
O '.�i e N � M v' a ^s � • r q � a`�o
�j�, a � N m YO N N � N O
� � � � � �
- , V W � O/ m 0�, �ti, °� Z" W N
� � JO rI: �p
� M � 0' OBt 4/ N O i � M„//,LOoON
WI � Ibbb b'YLE M„bt,S4�ON ,�` . I�'90£ o
�� � • I o ~_
�^ N � �- � - ! N �
�
�
w�� 12'£BE � OB2 �O �, m
tZ'E99 NI��N ( P ,
N
o � � M ,� � "... N e��i
_ n.
�
T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 21 , 1g82
FROM: ALDA PEIKERT, ASSISTANT PLANNER
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THf PLATTING ORDINANCE - HOLIDAY MOTOR MOTEL -
812 LILAC DRIVE NORTH
The proponent, owner of the Holiday Motor Motel , requests a waiver of the Platting
Ordinance to allow division into two parcels without platting of the unplatted
Holiday Motor Motel site.
The owner explains that due to lack of business the motel has closed the 3a unit
two story building on the southeastern portion of the site to save operating expenses.
The owner now has a buyer forthe entire motel operation excluding the southeast
building and wishes to separatet#ie southeast building from the main portion of
therrrotel in order to conclude the sale.
The proponent previously approached City staff concerning conversion of the south-
east building to a new use such as office condominiums. In conjunction with the
lot division request made at the current time, the owner states that he does not
contemplate any change in the use of the southeast building. The proponent reports
that he will have an arrangement with the new motel owner for continued use of the
� southeast building units whenever demand warrants. According to the proponent,
ultimate use of the separate southeast building has not yet been decided and the
proponent will contact the City to make proper arrangements and application as
required at such time as altered use of the building is proposed.
The existing motel buildings do not meet building setback and landscaped yard
requirements for the Commerctal Zoning District in which t#�e.property is located.
Existing buildings on the proposed main motel parcel are within two feet of the
road right of way. The southeast building is eight feet from the road right of way
line and five feet from the east and south property lines. Buitding setback
requirements in the current Commercial District Zoning Ordinance are 50 feet from
the adjacent Multiple Dwelling Zoning District land to the east and 20 feet from
Commercial property adjacent to the south.
Of greater concern are parking deficiencies. The total motel contains 100 rooms or
sleeping units, including 38 in the southeast building, requiring 100 parking spaces
at the ratio of one space per sleeping unit as specified by the current Commercial
Zoning District Section of the Zoning Ordinance. The motel restaurant, two banquet
rooms and two bars have a combined capacity of 576 persons. The current Commercial
Ordinance requires one space per 2 1/2 seats for restaurant facilities. Parking
required for the restaurant and bar facilities is 230 spaces, which makes a total
ot 330 required parking spaces with those for the �tel units added to the restaurant
parking requirements. Existing parking on site totals 176 spaces. City staff has
observed parking on the public street and parking and traffic congestion in the area
due to the parking shortages.
•
. RE: Holiday Motor Motel - 812 Lilac D�rive North
April 21 , 1982
Page 2
The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on June 21 , 1973 granted a waiver to allow
issuance of a building permit for a building addition despite the fact that
the motel was nonconforming in terms of building setbacks, landscaped yard and
parking provisions. The waiver was granted for a proposed sports/health club
addition between the main northwesterly building and the five unit bungalow
building directly to the east. The stated purpose of the waiver was to bring
existing and proposed construction into conformance with the Zoning Code. The
sports/health club addition apparently never materialized, but the waiver was
continued on July 8, 1975 for completion of the proposed addition as expanded
motel and restaurant space.
The site of the 38 unit southeast building proposed as a separate parcel includes
38 parking spaces and minimal space for additional parking. The building
obviously is not an economically viable operation as motel expansion space and
it will be necessary for economic reasons to convert the building to another
use in the near future. Other conceivable uses required additional parking space.
Office use of the 20,688 square foot building would require 83 parking spaces at
the specified ratio of one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. Land
division for separate use of the southeast building is likely to generate further
parking needs in an area already suffering parking deficiencies and traffic congestion
� problems.
it is the opinion of staff that the Holiday Motor Motel property, which has not
been platted previously, should be divided only by means of the platting process
in accordance with the City Platting Ordinance and that division of the property
by platting should not be considered until future use of the southeast building
is specified and the proponent has demonstrated ability to comply with all City
Zoning Ordinance requirements and other City regulations applicable to the proposed
use.
Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend City Council denial of the
request received from the owner of the Holiday �lotor Motel for a waiver of the
City Platting Ordinance to allow division into two parcels without platting of
the Holiday Motor Ptotel property for the following reasons:
i . It is against the policy of the City to grant a waiver of the City Platting
Ordinance for division without platting of unplatted property.
2. Eventual use of the southeast building proposed for separation from the
remainder of the motel operation is undetermined and it is questionable
whether the buiiding on a separate parcel can be converted to another use
within the restrictions of the City Zoning Ordinance.
3• Separation of the southeast building from the main portion of the motel for
a potentially different use creates a potential for increased parking shortages
� and traffic congest�on in the area.
Attachments:
1 . Site Lvcation Map
2. Site Survey
� � ,\. -... - . I
, - � ` '• I . � .
� �
,i ��I� � o � ��� h M a5
/ oD.� a M Q� I
S i p8 22f J , ?6�. � � N �
et � �
.,�'s�"-�' 88; .� ' Z �...� �. °
t= o
s • ,�� � V - ..is�7
'�/�: g��,9 8�/ SL ` ~ �
/ �,y�-.S11 e��� N V�
� . •'� 3 ss ?c9
4 � � N o �1
i �3'�°b`=�, '�O � � N
e
� N •
�4��.46 � � bo � . Jj
.
C� �910}... �
�. :o r Z ti � or
7j� f`•'a f s __- _ ' ___ _ � . M
^ r
06 .9�i � -_ _---- ___ --- o
06 � o 09 , � 000y�---- o
' ���` � N
I � ol O �
° N
� � a� M
,.+ � � � w .
� ' _ �R�O . � O � �
�i ' r{ s s � ° � I h --ofi -- �^
M �.7 0� � � s N ae
i � r^; �fl�� i 1. � .n
� � N �
• I ' i �� `� C � eO B69
�F, i • � � Z � � O
s I �� N /(
ps e °oi � � '_ � uC I,] � � fi
b
�,�/�G,S0i d (� '� �
�� V �
`o n sb . S ,D M � � W C7 _
i n � z °
7 � _ v
Gr. °�m...r��� P O - J� �h �
W ~ J ^
�'to��•?'r N � J w i � �
�J• �'y� � ,� � 3 � h �
�.�-�,��� J. ZS � � E c� 'yo ����� cr.� �
�� � �0 r . a�?I A1 J�'7 S�BeQ �u'! >
�6�ee� �'....� �a ;� a �� (oy o
N �
701 '`$ -, ~ ° �-
'r � , d °�(5484�� r
/Z6 i0e c c
!J Si . u
: � B:tz' f ;3 �-o ¢ � T• --- --- - "�
� � X _ . •�V 5:� 1 N
� �� � t�a � �re � N Uoi o �N^ 1 N
'�' '.+� � 1�' Fi• � � �ae� . V� : '
+� F�ti`•�: �;OB.6' �i �-' � E I N ! �' szf�; i
ail £b 61/
4. . �. „ �'��O � %�;��: , � p� I Q o� �
•oN ,, � z -� -----�...-ho.��f.o $ s9; � z .. � �8�bz so't�r� l '�
'�d� a� g � Fj fa� S sC5 S'b tiS... . I
; �no �� � Bf, ' KX•� °' I
� 6 6rF } � 'i: �+
i Q�, e • a.
� � J d'� N
� p � a � e� o~��� i
O - W O C �v / i
1 O � � E ,., �1-+ y ' \ I
� � � J E .� o c.� �, ;
, ' � o o .o � .
� ' �f U � � I
` ^ c
o ��°�"" � •- �� i
' � r!r\ � C /.
� / I
` � L � b0i,
� ��
1 � � N m j
�,..s\ r. • .o r- � •
O ✓r� � `Y � I
.�� `
� I � � -- - ��` b�i� � • \� �
Q oCl �° � �
V t�9 :i0+� I
_ � . �4��
oae � _ �' ,e
�' ''�-.� d� 1�`7�S
� t' �4(.•
o � 1 � - y, I '^� sJ
'�_1— d
� _ � • .o o, s�
nt g
o i � �p
m � . � �
.N.B 9'LSI.. -
� �v � � �,;.... S.,,trS..
_ =�: ':
Z� .. •'� ' •- •s�b 81'4l2 ..
i2'b'8ir1'44'�as •�o� i�J
� .
i
...__ • .
' � '
——— -c�vs-. , �� '. -•o.sc�_ •:�:+'t�.:. :.f °'s�fi— • _ . . . .
. ,:��,. ,Y I ,�y• ' ' . . 4 � } . /' bl ' ' ~ . ' }h
• [ �p :. ':r", �'6v,rp/,s�g. r • t N a" 6 t/ / � / 'j » � •6
9� a r•` 7 �•oai
�e �} 4�OT � � w. .., ,�
��� 1� _ . , . , • ",N�H ..
�•�, �� .. • • : • e : - ,�m � • . ' , '.. •
. ' �.?� �•
� � �� '.. : , . � . T ' ..��o� •. .. _ �.
� :��'' -� ,,�'°°-L�'.' . *, . . .
t .. • ..' •. ..; . A � •
. $�3 . ��o . . � . , . � a
d _ .. . . . �� ,
t :K. .e.�.y� • .� , n o ,.
'-•�.1 .pe � '�* .. . ' �• � = o ��
�S� , o . � h.• .�� ' t�' . . . N
� � 6v,�p�,r,g�� ` � .. • , - a�.: . _�,9 . . • ,
) " � �
�. .N � ?a . .,�o�5a��' 'I,•�`, *► '. rcca�2; 'cs.
� �' 4� ~ ` "� � . . 1.'4�•�hA o��� ti '�� �-.� �` �i����y . � 3
. j �• •!�', � .�`�_ '_ t 4`t v`/ /� • yl � �`'� O• ., rr �
:�s � , � � • ,,, d a. :�°� J�e�.. . .�. � '.6,.�� .m '
.` � ,�1� �-.s 5_ R�•_ � . p' . .I: - •� \�� � �;. .„ .. .
� , +1 " s s �. • �••� .� 8 y
..� � , . ��; � _ �' .r . . .� � ;. ,
` , � ,�.�,� ' � ��. " '� :� °'" '
�. } .� .. ° .. k ., :�I� � � '\ �� ' � -.F aes °' �
� � y,^ a. lw�.Pl.rrg .� . .. .. . ` , " _� ' ' �s.' '°y . .. .
�1} 4' � . �I I • . . � . . � \ \`b� •'6s?p I
•� (� �`, r: �s' � I . . . • - . � : � `\��` � ' , � �
�. • • '!��A l • • 1 .
---.�...,� _�_ �.�,� , • � : '. � , � `� w .� -
;� ��w `+� dl ' JM� . ' � I� � - -__ ... -,.:... _... —r—
`� a `��� '�'� �:� 3::� o � o a� �I • � � `� - . ._
ll�• � �� ".t':ji.. '�`�t. . m ..e � .) . ' . - . .
_ e .., . ._,.:: . .� � . , . . . . .�.. - . . . ._
• . . �: ' � `` � . CNi. r A °j . -
4 � ,..1.%:, ,.?;:a fl�. � .�
J y' t�.`a c � r J 3. T N ; � I h ;4
Q �
'c�+:. �. '�. �.y ' �ul� ..
••�� n �l �• .\* • ,I h•"--,•� �." .� f ` .
� . .. .� ` '°'���',. �t i
; �� , . � > � �{� . ���� .
t ,� F
`� o ♦.- t ' .
ti ,°, .
` ' • . � • • ,`� � 1 Lf.
d �ci�Y/J�.g,� �.+ '•y°l., ,.� t .
' :�� ,;. :'� y.r? �. � .
�� o N +� ,,t
�p ' � o '
� . ��v � � 1 . r•
}` `�_ -�C $� ^ � `'* ../� .. -
.?�1� � . � . .�� ?Y~ �p .�� �� `\'�'/' , -
� � r.. . .e. 3y.a�.,r �t-,� � � '6f o ,j�� \,', , +�..., .
�� .°�m . �ss'°s "s^�•� t. v f�. ' . ' r �. . �' \ � i.4 . :
/ ' �. ee . ." n� .
'4• i-: �► . y . . _''�S'' 1 . � . '-�1
.r '.�r .f-<bL j �.,'; y {.40�Nb{,S�d/M � :: . � i�� . • � 1 '�
.c:c�' � ��o,. " . % : ..�,� °, ' .%�� .
�• �j . . � � �" pEa_�4.,, � :�. �� . . .
J �� 4 � ` �
I ��. �• �` '
, • . .. . •� • . � �� + \ .\'
. . . .. a� � oi- ' a \ ' .
. � ' � ' i . 6. ,•. • , . ,
.. � ' � , trv�.:� �tdoNY��. � �p 4. . � , � .\ � • . ' i
' y i 4�.
i � - .1. �� . , . . _ . '� .�{ ''
„'. . � - . ��3 �r.w-� .• , . �' � ;i�," ', ....
� N,
� .- , _ . . Gv�O� ' . ' . � '� �N�.-� I ' 'r'-. '
�. Cm . . , ' . . 'J�k J • ' . . Q = > , ,'tc�.<.
ti.. ,e � {
•s9 �6� y� '� ..
n � v� �. � .: .
. •� ��• - .. , ys� I I• � .
� . .. . . . � • __ ''O�fi- � ( ' . . _i
� � ��1
. . � .Ee'CI./ — . .
' • . - . . a � . . . . . .
I • . : . '. . ._ '' • " - ' � , : . � ' , � .
. • ry '`0.:: . . . . • . . . • '. ; I . . . _�
. � . . _1r' . . . . ... � . . . , , � , _1
� T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSIOfJ DATE: APRIL 21 , 1982
FROM: MIKE MILLER, PLANPJING � REDEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
SUBJECT: COPdSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT
Attached you will find a report relating to existing parking conditions
at the three commercial shopping centers (Spring Gate, Golden Hills, and
Golden Valley Shopping Center) as requested by the Planning Commission.
Suggested parking ratios are aiso inciuded.
The Urban Land Institute has just completed a detaited study of commercial
and shopping center parking requirements. We have sent for this report,
but unfortunately it will not be available for our meeting of April 26, 1982.
� MHM:kjm
•
� T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COf1MISSION DATE: APRIL 21 , 19�2
FROM: MIKE MILLER, PLANNING � REDEVELOPMENT COORDIPJATOR
SUBJECT: ANALYSIS OF PARKING REQUIREMEPJTS ANO PARKI�JG NEEDS WITHIN
THE COMMERCIAL ZONIPJG DISTRICT
As per the request of the Planning Commission, Staff has prepared an
analysis of parking requirements, and parking needs, relative to the
existing Commercial Zoning District, and with suggestions regarding
possible revisions to the Zoning Ordinance.
Chapter 13, Section 13.01 Off Street Parking Requirements and Regulations
as it now exists states:
". . . in shopping centers and stores or shops, individual or combined,
one parking space shall be provided for each 75 square feet of floor
area, exclusive of basement storage. . . ."
As requested by the Planning Commission, Staff surveyed three existing
shopping centers in Golden Valley relative to existing parking conditions
and how they relate to existing parking requirements. Those shopping
centers surveyed were:
• 1 . Golden Hills Shopping Center - Turners Crossroad and T.H. 12
2. Spring Gate Shopping Center - Duluth Street and T.H. 100.
3• Golden Valley Shopping Center - Winnetka Avenue North and T.H. 55•
It was quickly discovered that none of the three shopping centers in Golden
Valley meet the minimum requirements of the existing Zoning Ordinance
relative to parking. In fact it is highly doubtful that they ever did.
At some point in time each center has asked for, and received , a variance
from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or City Council granting relief
from the existing parking requirements.
Based on existing parking conditions and requirements the fotlowing infor-
mation is provided:
l . Golden Hills Shopping Center -
Presently provides 156 parking spaces (representing 11 700 square
feet of floor space according to existing Ordinance.�—
Total floor area, excluding storage, amounts to 34,340 square feet,
which would require 457 parking spaces according to the new Ordinance.
�
RE: Analysis of Parking Requirements and Parking needs within the
. Commercial Zoning District
April 21 , 1982
Page 2
2. Spring Gate Shopping Center -
Presently provides 235 parking spaces for 39,825 square feet of
floor area excluding storage
If current Ordinance were applied to parking a total of at least
531 parking spaces would be required.
3• Golden Valley Shopping Center -
A total of 382 parking spaces are now provided representing 4,679
square feet of office space (19 parking spaces) and 27,225 square
feet of retail space according to the existing Ordinance.
The entire center contains 78,265 square feet of floor area excluding
storage (basement) . The 4,67g square feet are used for office (parking
requirement of one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross
floor area = 19 parking stalls. The remaining 73,586 square feet
of retail floor would require g81 parking spaces under the existing
• Ordinance.
It should be noted that parking stalls now must be at least g feet in
width and 20 feet in length. Prior to 1981 parking spaces were required
to be 10 feet in width. In general terms one can estimate that the average
parking space in a shopping center lot occupies between 270 and 300 square
feet. This allows for the parking space plus one-half of the driving
atsle needed to maneuver the vehicle.
Viewing the three parking areas surveyed, it is quite apparent that the
existing parking requirements for commercial zoning districts are too
strict for general application to commercial-retail land uses, including
shopping centers. The Golden Hills Shopping Center has the least parking
(1 parking space for each 220 square feet of retail floor space) . The
center has been undergoing renovation and future plans included acquisition
of additional land for additional parking. Golden Hills in its present
state definitely gives a crowded impression when viewing the parking area.
Spring Gate Shopping Center on theother hand is stightly larger than
Golden Hills, but does provide more parking spaces. The current ratio is
1 parking space for each 169 square feet of retail floor area. It should
be pointed out that while the Spring Gate parking lot often may appear
to be full , turn-over of vehicles is such that one can always find a
place to park. The primary problem with this parking lot is the congestion
caused by ingress and egress. Golden Valley Shopping Center when surveyed
appeared to be the least used parking lot of any commercial shopping center
• surveyed whith 382 parking spaces provided including 19 spaces provided
for business office use, the center has a parking ratio of one space for
each 215 square feet of retail floor space.
• RE: Analysis of Parking Requirements and Parking needs within the
Commercial Zoning District
April 21 , 1982
Page 3
In reviewing parking needs for commercial-retail establishments and shopping
centers today it would appear that the parking ratio used in the existing
Ordinance is in fact too restrictive and unnecessary. it would seem a
parking ratio of one (1) parking space for each 150 square feet of ftoor
space, excluding storage areas and office apace would be a more fair
approach to commercial-retail applications.
MHM:kjm
•
• •
• T0: GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 21 , 1g82
FROM: MIKE MILLER, PLANNING � REDEVELOPMfNT COORDINATOR
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CITY GAPITAI IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission review the
current City Capital Improvements Program and make recommendations for
possible changes, or alterations, where appropriate.
Attached, you will find a copy of the City Capital Improvements Program
for your reference.
MHM:kjm
�
�
�
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
CAPITAL IMP ROVEN�NT PROGRAM
�
�
. �
. �� 5/26/R)
• PARK CAPITAL INPROVEMENTS FUND
� 1961 1982 1983 1_�84 �gg5
TW4t�SFERS
6eneral Fund 10,000 160,550 75,000 30,000 25,OOO 25,000
Capital Exp. Reserve 35�000
Equipment Replacement Fund 20,000
*1NTEREST EARNINGS 2.406 1 .300 --- 400
CONTRIBUTIONS 3,000 1 �500
BALANCE FORWARD 9,578 46�759 --- �2,830 486 13,386
TOTAL AVAIlf1BlE 56,g84 248,609 73,000 54,330 25,480 38,385
PROJECTS
• Piayground Equipment 1 ,873 5.000 5,000
Parking 3,065
Trails � Greenbelt 4,116 10,000
• Trees � ����
Athletic Fields 146,000 10,000
Seeman Fteld Preparation 6.500
Seeman Parki�g Lot 7,500
Natural Areas 28,609 11,670 42�644
Park Lights i1 .000 12,100 13�300
8rookview Gr111s 1 �500
Rfltary Club Building � 11 ,000
�*Mary Hills Perk . 46�000
• TOTAL 10�225 228.609 55,170 53�844 12.100 18.300
B1�LANCE FORWARO �►6,759 •" 22�g3o 486 13,38Fi 20,�Rh
*interest earnings do not reflect adJusted balance.
**Need to be reviewed arior to itnoletnPntatinn
� 5/26/81
, • � _ � )
_ . STATE A1D STREETS FUNDS
�
�`� �= 1,�6? 1983 1 8�4 1 gg5
. �
Ni�A REPAYMENTS 200,000 740,000 �
INTFREST FARNINGS 20,212 30,000 30�000 46,000� 55.000 53.000
GAS TAX ILLLOTMENT 311,129 371,382 390�000 400,000 400,000 400,000
BALANCE FORWARD 693,561 1.127,949 924,331 1,539,33� 1 .�25,331 � .788,331
TOTAL AVAILABLE 1�224�902 1,529,331 2,084,331 1 ,985,331 2,280,331 2,241.331
_ PR4JECTS
.
. State Atd MaT�t. 5?.946 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
" Visconsin �V/Maren 20,867
12/Turners 80�000
• Florida Ave. 160,000
�Boone Ave. Extension . 192.000 109,000
Signal lOth/Winnetka 100,000
. Signal DouglasJGV Rd. 100,000
Signal 55/!{eadow Lane 85,000
Stgnal Old Mayzata RR � 3,000
Lauret Avenue 285.000 220,000 120,000 160.000
Rhode Island 23,118 15,000
55I2ane RR Crossing 100�000
T07AL 96,953 605;000 5#5�000 160,000 492,000 149,000
BALANCE FORWARD 1,127,949 924.331 1, 539.331 1,825,331 1 .788,331 2,092�331
� •
. ' • . PUBLIC 1�IORKS RESERVE FUND 5/@E/81
{ —-..� 81 �? � �= � �
• TRMtS FERS
Ceneral Fund - • ' 100�000 150.000 150,000 150.000 150,000
1957 Sinking Fund 640,000 ;
NRA REPAYMENTS
INTEREST EARNINGS $0�672 30.00o t7.000 30,000 3z,000 32�000
CONTRIBUTIONS/ASSESSt�lENTS 125�000 125,000 125�000
BONO SAlE �
Special Assessments - Street 375,OOQ 375�000 375.000
-'S�wer 350,000
6AS TAX ALLOTMf NT •
• � MISCEIi.ANEOUS 6,589
• BALANCE FORWARD 922,566 21 .343 576,343 9s3,3�+3 � .1�3.3�+3 1 ,09 5�343
_ ---
TOTAL AVAILABLE 1,o6g,827 ��a9� ,3�+3 1 ,093,343 � ,b63.3�+3 � .795.3�+3 � ,777.3�3
• PROJECTS
Disposat Site 220,239 30�000 �
.Ctty Share:
. Storm Sewer 417,7�8 50.000 �
Streets 12.177 50�000 50,000 50,000 30,000 50�000
l-394 5tudy �8.280
Ponding SV Piawy. 60,000 �
Sweeney lake 25.000
Oecola Pond 90.000 .
T�ansfer-Bassett Creek 350.000
Conc. Street Repair 60.000 50,000
Street Replacement 500.000 500.000 500,000
• Sidewalk � 100,00D 100.000
Landscape Laurel Ponds 10.000
TOTAL t,o48,484 3�S,000 � >>o,000 550.000 700,000 650.000_
BALANCE F'ORWARD 21.343 576.343 983,393 1 .113.3�►3 1 ,095�3�+3 1 ,127.3k3
. . ( • i 5/26/81
. �- )
BUILDING FUND
� � ��. �� �� �984 1985
TRANS Ff RS
6eneral Fund 10,000 115,000 100�000 125,d00 1$0�000 150,000
Capltai Exp. Reserve 120,000
Motor Yehlcte Office 19,000 10,000 50,000
HRA REPAYHENT �
INTEREST EARNlNGS 30,384 20,000 3�500 5,000 9,000 6,000
OTHER Z2 �
BALANCf FORWARD 215,893 362,771 115,277 178�777 303,777 212.777
TOTAL AVAILABLE 395.299 507.777� 218,777 308,777 •`{62,777 418,777
, �
PROJECTS
Civlc Center Remodeling 13,392 125,000
• P.S. Bldg. kerrodeling 13,800 2p� .000 '
. Emer. 6en. Ftre Station 15�000
Emer. Gen. P.S. - CivTc Ctr. 50,000
Planner's Office 5,330
Fuel Tanks � 2,500 20,000
Emer. Generator - Shop 20,000
Maintenance Shop Doors $,000
Clvic Center Garages/Storage 100,000
Energy tmprovements 150,000
Sprinkler System 100,000
TOTAL 32.522 39�500 40.000 5,000 350,000 ��p ,000
BALANCE FORWARD 362,777 >>5,277 178,777 303,777 212:777 318,777
�� �
_ ~ ' S/26/81
�... � ' � �
�
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
�`L �� � �� �4 1985
�
TRANSFERS �
6eneral �und 15,000 25.000 --- 50,000. 5�.000 75�000
CapTtal Exp.. Reserve 35,000
Cert. Indebt. Sinking Fund . 2�,000
HRA REPAYMENT
INTEREST EARNINGS ],368 2.500 2,500 3,000 1,500 4,000
. BOND SALE
Cert. of Indebtedness 58.299 75,000
i
GAS TAX ALLOTMENT
BALANCE FORWARD 59.060 87�208 91 ,208 84,708 42.208 76�708
• TOTAL AVAILABLE 116,428 173,007 193,708 137,706 93,708 155�708
_ - PROJECTS
.
Radio System 29,220 3�300
Park Mowers 20,OD0 20,000
Loader 130,000
Trucks 60,000
Admin. Cars 14,000 15,500 17,000
911/Dispatch Equipment . 75,000
Civit Defense Sirens 58,299
TRANSFERS TO PARK CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN 20.000 �
ToTa� . 29,220 81,799 109�000 95.500 17,000 130,000
! BALANCE FORWARD 87.208 g1,208 84,708 42�20$ �6�708 25�7�6
. 5/26/81
� ) } '
PUBLIC LAND FUND
� 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
TRANSFERS
. Capital Expenditures Res. $ 35�000
Public Works Reserve
Revenue Shari�g 47�579
INTEREST EARNINGS 6�954 1 �000 3�0 400 500 6�0
CONTRIBUTIONS 1,220 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Z,000
BALANCE FORWARD 208,920 95,464 11 ,464 13�764 16,164 21 ,264
TOTAL AVAILABLE 2g9,673 98,464 13,764 16,164 18�664 21 ,264
PROJECTS �
Disposal Site 200,000
Vatlee d'Or 75�000
• Laurel Pond Landscape 4,209
- � Laurel Greenbeit 12,000
�TOTAL 204,209 87,000 --- --- --- ---
8ALANCE FORWARD 95,464 11 .46k 13,76h 16,1G1E 10,6�1E 21 ,2�►�
�
, • . C . '. .� ' � 5/26/81
� COMMUNITY CENTER FUND
�.� � t,�8i t�83 � t�84� i 285
� �
� CONTRIBUTIONS- 1.500.000
BOND SALE
6eneral Obligation 1,500,000
TOTAL AVAILABLE 3�000,000
PROJECTS
Cortmunity Center 3.000.000
i '
TOTAL 3,000.000
�
.
BALANCE FORWARD . ---
.
�
. .