11-13-72 PC Minutes 1�7
MItVUTES OF THE GOLDE�J VALLEY
PLANN IN G COMt�ISS IOfd
Nove�er 13, 1972
A re�ular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 7:�fl P.M.
on Monday, November 13, 1972 at the Ci vi c Center, 78�0 Gol den Val ley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Chairman Lundsgaard presided and the followinq merr�ers were present: Vice Chairman
Franzen , Commi ssi oners Anderson, Becker, Chris ti ansen, Edstrom, Sampson , and Swanson.
Also present was Recording Secretary Jon Westlake.
Members absent: Comrrrissioner Van Norn.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOVED by Swanson, seconded by Anderson , carried
unanimously, to approve the minutes of the October 10, 1972 meeting as mailed and
to approve the minutes of the October 30, 1972 meeting as amended.
2. PUBI.IC INFORh1ATIt�IAL MEETING-VALLEY CLUB CONDOMINIUh1 (75 units)
GE[VERAL PLAN REVIEW
Wi 11 i am Rova, Reese/Rova Associ ates , Archi tects
Owner: M. J. Mikulak
Locati on: South of Ni ghway 55, North of 4Joodstock Avenue, East of Meadow Lane,
and West of France Avenue
Chairman Lundsgaard stated this propasal was before the Planning Commission on
June 12, 1972 and September 25, 1972 at which time the Planning Gommission made a
motion to deny the request. The motion was carried by a 5 to 4 vote. ( Chairman
Lundsgaard then read the entire motion from the Septemk�er 25, 1972 Planning Commission
mi n ut es .)
Recording Secretary Jon Westl ake then discussed what had transpi red since the
September 25, 1972 Planning Commission meeting.
Since the 1 ast P1 anning Gor►�ni ssi on meeting pl ans were mai led to the State Hi ghway
Department for their review. The Highwa,y Department sent a report with respect
to the project to the Village of Golden Valley. Copies of this report were dis-
tributed to the PlanninQ Commissian. The Planninq Com�mssion reviewed the report
and discussed Items 4 and 5 of the report recommending that ingress and egress
be located approximately 100' south of the south Right of Way line of Hi�way 55
and vacate the present service drive running parallel with Hi�hway 55 adjacent
to the apartment site.
Otto Schmid, a cansultant re�resenting the proponent, presented the proposal as
being a nine story building containinq 75 condominium units. The land is presently
zoned multiple with a four story height limitatian. The proposal has 13% total
site coverage, including parkinq. All information that is normally required under
the Planned Unit Develo�ment Application has been turned in for reviewal , including
the homeowner's agreement. In reference to the recommendati on of the State Hi ghway
l��
Planning Commission
November l3, 1972 page 2
Tiepartment-if the Planning Commission and Village Council feel they want the
recommendation includeci in the project, the proponent would be willing to c�o so.
Commissioner Anderson pointed aut it is difficult to turn onto a major high-
way from a service road, and if the project is approved, she would be in favor
of the recommended changes as requested by the Highway Department for the
entrance because of possible traffic problems. Commissioner Anderson also
questioned the status of France A,venue to the East, which is a platted street.
Commissioner Edstrom asked if stop signs could be placed along Meadow Lane
because of the speed of traffic on that street. Commissioner Sampson suggested
channeling traffic onto Highway 55 with ingress and egress on France Avenue.
The Commission questioned whether drainage would be a problem, and Chairman
Lundsgaard asked if the recreational area plans had been completed. The pre-
dominant concern of the Planning Commission was the height of the building.
The elevation of the building varies, depending on what side you are on (with
the Southeast corner as the lowest elevation). The elevation of the proposed
building at Woodstock Ave. and Meadow Lane is 97� plus ].l�� for a penthouse,
making a total elevation at this point of 111� .
The Planning Commission discussed the landscaping as presented for the project.
Mr. Schmid stated the hardwood trees on the site are between 60� and 75� in
height. The proponent plans to leave as much of the natural land as possible
in a natural state. Commissioner Anderson suggested that the proponent consider
an evergreen variety that would eventually provide sereening year around on the
site.
The following residents spoke again st the project: Ludwig Gartner, 220 Meadow
Lane N., asked that consideration be given to the question ��Do we want to build
a 100� high condominium in a residential axea af Golden Valley". There is pres-
ently no traffic problem on Meadow Lane, but there will be if 150 cars are
added to Meadow Lane. The proposed building is of no economic advarrtage in
Golden Valley and is not esthetically appealing. Ed Regan, 221t0 Pennsylvania
Ave. N., stat�d he kn,ows of 12 to 15 planned unit developments proposed in
Golden Valley; and if these are approved, they are going to add to Golden Valleyts
crime rate. The Village has traffic problems and the density is getting high.
The developer is the only person to benefit from this proposal. Philip Lysne,
303 Sunnyridge Lane, stated there are many residents in the area who are opposed
to this proposal. L. Rossell, lt16 Meadow Lane, stated he is opposed to this
proposal.
It was moved by Christiansen, seconded by Franzen, that the project be approved
contingent ons l.) the proponent to work with the State Highway Department on
a plan for access to Meadow Latne, 2,) recommendations of the Bui2ding Board of
Review for exterior materials, 3.) landscaping, including an evergreen variety,
1�.) 1�� of the units be available for $25,000, 5.) the requirements of the
homeowner�s assaciation, and 6.) requirements of P.U.D. #9 as developed by
the Village staff. Upon vote being taken by roll call, the followi.ng voted in
favor of the mation: Anderson, Christiansen, Franzen. �The following voted
against the same: Becker, Fdstrom, Sampson, Swanson. The motion was denied
by a !t to 3 vote.
109
Planning Commission
November 13, 197� page 3
3. PUBLIC INFORNIATIONAL MEETIAiG-COLDIId VALLEY OFFICE PARK (two buildings
5 and 8 stories in height) General Plans
Owner and �eveloper: United Froperties
Loeation: Sauth of Highway 12, approximately 300� East of Boone Avenue,
West of Wisconsin Avenue, and North of the south boundry line
of Golden Valley
Chairman I,undsgaard pointed out the property is presently zoned Industrial,
which has a forty-foot height limitation. Mr. Lundsgaard then read the planning
considerations, which are as follow:
"PLANNING OONSIDERATIONS
1. The proposal is to develop two multi-story office buildings with the following
specifications: .
GROSS AREA
Buildi.ng "A" 5 stories
15,680 S.F./Floor 78,400 S.F.
Building "B" 8 stories
15,68� S.F./Floor 125 L�ltO S.F.
Total Gross Area 203, 0 S.F.
NET RENTABLE AREA
75� Building Efficiency
Building ��A" 58,800 S.F.
Building ��B" 9� 080 S.F.
Total Net Rentable Area 1 2,�$� S.F.
EXTERIOR MATERIALS
Vertical Concrete Fins
Windows - Insulated Tinted Glass
Spandrels - Matched-Tinted 5pandralite
�htrance �oors & Frames - Anodized Alumi.num Bronze Color
2. While the current zoning classification is industrial, this is not the
proposed land use on either the Village Land Use Plan or the proposed
new zoning district map (as prepared by Midwest Planni.ng & Researeh, Inc.).
The plan also would confl.ict with the major street plan as currently indicated
on the proposed Village Comprehensive Plan. The Village Land Use Plan
proposed public open space usage for a major portion of the site with the
p .;-propos�d zonii.xig district to be residential.
���
Planning Commission
November 13, �.972 page 4
3. Since it is not possible to "zone" land for public use, the rule today
- is to zone it for the best private use should public acquisition not occur.
The public open space proposal is based upon the following:
a) Is the proposed public area adequate?
b) What is the affect upon water levels, drainage patterns, etc.?
c) Are there any pollution or dangers to wildlife present?
d) How should the specific dividing line between private and public
land be treated?
!�. Currently, a drainage ditch extends through a portion of the property; it
is proposed to move this ditch to the extreme west side of the lot.
Apparently there are several problems associated with this proposal including:
a) Legal implications.
b) Possible conflicts with existing utility lines along Wayzata Blvd.
c) Affect upon Bassett Creek watershed pattern.
d) Maintenance of water levels.
e) Long-range solutions to surface water drainage problem.
It would seem that considerable reliance should be placed upon comments and
recommendations of �he Village Engineer, St. Louis Park, Bassetts Creek
Watershed offieials, and other technical resources.
5• A "first impressiontt is that the proposed development is rather "over-
powering" with an immense parking lot proposed to meet the parking
requirements. The large parking area results from:
a) The amount of office floor space proposed; and
b) The rather large parking req�airements of the eacisting zoning regulations
(one parking space for each 150 square feet of office floor space as
opposed to the 2�0 to 250 indicated as adequate by recent surveys of
new office buildings) .
It should be- noted, however, that the ground floor areas and perhaps other areas
might also be utilized for certain retail, personal service, restaurant, and
other non-office uses; such uses do require additional parking and such parking
can conflict with office parking if not properly planned. AdditionaZ information
is needed concerning the amount of fl.00r area that may be utilized for non-office
type uses.
In any event, it may be desirable to reduee the parking requirements somewhat
to enabl.e the provision of added grean areas to further ��break up" the large
expanse of parking area.
6. Aside from the obvious aesthetic considerations of building height, there
is the basic question of total "scale�� as proposed relating to floor area
and parking requirements (utilization of height increases parking area
spatial requirements). Parking, thus, is increased to maximum site
capabilities. There is also the basic questions of 1and use as previously
noted.
11.1,
Planning Commission
November 13, 1972 page 5
7. A �'Traffic Impact Analysis Report" has been submitted although it is some-
what difficult to interpret; the basic conclusions, however, seem to be
as follows:
a) Regardless of the proposed development, the capacity situation on
T.H. 12 is paor and will get worse in the future.
b) Traffic impact analysis seems to deal only with T.H. 12 and the frontage
road without reference to impact on other supporting street systems.
c) Report apparently does not envision need for project site land for any
street or highway improvements.
d} Assumption is made that all problems would be resolved with up-grading
to freeway status plus mass transit improvements.
e) Project would require some rather immediate although perhaps short range
improvernents to T.H. 12.
There is little to indicate in the report if the project is ��desirable" or
t�undesirable" from a traffic viewpoint.
8. Apparently, there are two alternative plans for the plaza and enclosed
parking portion of the project; this situation should be clarified as to
intent, staging, and purpose.
9. The project would apparently conflict with at least one of four alternative
plans for construction of Freeway 39t� in which a portion of the site would
be taken; this is also true of the Village Plan for major streets as it
currently exists. Both plans would reduce the area for parking and thus
could create a future problem if decided upon after building construction.
10. A rough draft PUD permit has not been drafted for several reasons:
a)- At this time, there is not sufficient information upon which to base
conditions;
b) �'h.ie to the nature of the project, it is suggested that a �'concept"
consideration is the first order of business;
c) The final decision and possible PtJD-conditions should be based upon
maxi.mum input from a variety of interests and disciplines including the
County, State Highway �epartment, Bassetts Creek kTatershed, Park and
Recreation, �hvironmental interests, Village Engineer, and others.
11. The first decision should have to do with the validity of the current
Comprehensive Village Plan proposal. Is it valid or should it be changed
to accomodate a potential development of the type currently proposed?
12. Although this opinion could be altered by the expected apinions and contri-
butions of others, the first reaction to this project is perhaps that it is
simply ��too much�' to e�cpect from the land and location.
i3. At this time, it is believed that the public interest could best be served
by public acquisition of a major portion of the land involved; if this is
not done, then maximum effort should be placed upon a determination of an
appropriate policy towards the �st appropriate alternative (private) use
of the land in question.11
�.I2
Planning Commission
November 13, 1972 page 6
The followi.ng individuals were present to review the proposal with the
Planning Commission: Messrs. Peter J�rvis, i�on Ringrose, and Richard Wolsfeld
from Bather, Ringrose and Wolsfeld, Mr. Fritz Rohkohl of Bsrgstedt Wahlberg
Bergquist Associates, Inc., and Mr. Kenneth Stensby of United Properties, owner
and deveioper. Mr. Stensby summarized what had transpired previous to this
informal hearing before the Planning Commission torTight. Mr. Jarqis e3cplai.ned
why they chose �o design an office park for this area. He explained how they
took the site into consideration by the design of the building in relation to
the nature i.nterpretive center and how the landscaping on the site will blend
with the area.
Mr. Rohkohl then explai.ned the site has naturally poor soil and all structures
will have to be piled. The proposal will be developed in two stages (Phase I
or Building A and Phase II or B), and the remaining parking w:ill be completed
on the second stage. The structures would be totally of concrete, and the
exterior material would be concrete and the glass area would be of tinted glass.
Mr. Ringrose explained how the sanitary sewer and water services will function.
The proposal is to serve the building with a looped water system, and sanitary
sewer can be considered with two optionss 1. pump sewage to �mall pump station,
or 2. construct a normal sewer conneotion.
Mr. Wolsfeld then discussed the access plan and traffic volumes of the pro--
posed development whieh the Planning Commission received a copy of. He stated
the proponent�s concern is how to get the people into and out of the site.
They have tried to document how many trips are made on a typical day, and
consider the amount of traffic that will be added to this�,. then compare the
existing demand to site-generated demand. Mr. Wolsfeld further stated they
would encourage people to enter the site from County Road 18, then onto
Highway 12. He also pointed out they haee met with Howaxd Needles Tammen
Bergendoff as to the future of Highway 12 in relationship to this site. It is
possible to construct within the present Right of Way using a three degree
curve, three lanes in one direction, ditches, and frontage road.
Mr. Bill Thibeau, Planner from St. Louis Park, read the following memo to the
Planning Commission fram St. Louis Parks
��St. Louis Park requests that the Planning Corarr�ission and Village Council of
Golden Valley not approve the application without taking into account the
following items which are of grave concern to the City and the City�s plans for
the Nature Interpretive Center:
1. That there be a dedication of property for public use in accordance with
the acquisition plan for the Nature Center. At least 80 to 1Q0 feet
must be provided north of the shoreline. It is believed that the pro-
posed development encroaches into this area desi�nated for the ATature
Interpretive Center.
2. Public easements for access and for parking on a portion of the pro-
posed development should be included in the plans to provide public
access to the Nature Interpretine Center for residents of Golden Valley
���
Planning Commission
November 13, 1972 pag� 7
and others and to provide some off street parking in those hours When the
office is not in use. It is felt that such a provision would be beneficial
for improv?n� the access and use of the Nature Interpretive Center by
Golden Va11ey residents.
3• '�rainage of the site in�o Westwood Lake as proposed appears unsatisfactory
in that the outfall goes directly into the open water. It is suggested
that a more suitable drainage system be created which would allow the
storm water to filter through the shoreline areas prior to its entrance
into the open water. Also in this regard use of salt and other chemicals
and the cleanliness of the paxking lot is of concern and would affect
the ecology of the lake. '
!t. There is concern that the building height will affect the ecological
balance of the lake, according to the comments made by the City's con-
sultant. It is suggested that the building heights be reduced.
5. The type and location of fencing abutting the southerly boundary line of
the proposal is of a concern and detailed review of the fencing is requested.
6. In order to maintain a park-like a�mo5phere, it is suggested that a land-
scape plan for the parking lot be required whieh would include tree
plantings and the like throughout the parking lot area.
7. That portion of the development proposed along the north side of the lake
should be designed and constructed to blend naturally into the nature
interpretive areas. Sharp contours or exposed banks would be objectionable.
It is suggested that Golden Valley consider requiring the developer to
hire an environmenta7. consultant to prepare a detailed plan and to work
with the enaironmental consultant hired by 5t. Louis Park on those aspects
covering the nature interpretive center.
The city of St. Louis Park will present additional information on any of the
above items, should Golden Valley request such information.�'
� It was moved by Franzen, seconded by Swanson, to include the considerations as
listed by the City of St. Louis Park in the Planning Commission minutes. The
motion was carried unanimously.
The following residents expressed their opinions regarding the proposal:
�ale Gustafson, 1030 Wisconsin Ave. S., stated he feels Golden Valley should
work with St. Louis Park in this nature site. He fesls the landscape plan
does not go with current surrounding Iandscaping, and it is not feasible to
cross Highway 12 during peak hour as indicated by the traffic consultant.
Mrs. �ale Gustafson, 1030 Wisconsin Ave. S., is opposed to this proposal
because of the general inconvenience of traffic, possible danger to children,
and loss of privacy. Thomas Ryan, Ryan Properties, stated he supports the
project.
It was moved by Sampson, seconded by Swanson, to recommend denial of the general
plan as proposed. Upon vote being taken by roll call, the following voted in
favor of the motion: Anderson, Becker, Christiansen, Edstrom, Franzen, Sampson,
and Swanson. The following voted against the same: none. The motion carried
unanimously.
ll�
Planning Commission
November ].3, I972 page 8
!�. GEI�ERAL
(a) Acquisitiors af Star of Bethlehem property
Chairman Warren Lundsgaard read a letter from the Village Manager dated
November 8, i972 in regard to acquiring the Star of Bethlehem property for park
and recreation purposes. The Planning Commission noted that at their last work
shop session they changed this area on the Comprehensive Plan, including all land
North of 23rd Ave., East of Winnetka Ave., South of Medicine Lake Road, and
West of the Minneapolis Northfield and Southern Railroad.
(b) Resignation of Planning Commission Member �ean Van Horn
Chairman Warren Lundsgaard read a letter addressed to the Mayor and Village .Gouncil
regarding the resignation of ?9ean Van Horn, Planning Commission member. The letter
was accepted with gratitude and appreciation for Mr. Van Horn's sernice on the
Planning Commission. It was moved by Christiansen, seconded by Anderson, carried
unanimously, to accept the letter of resignation.
There being no further business to come before the me�ting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 22:10 A.M.
Chairman Warren Lundsgaard Secretary Lo�aell Swanson