09-24-73 PC Minutes ���
MIMJTES OF THE GOL�EAi VALLEY
PL�NNING t70MMISSION
September 2t�, 1973
A regular meeting of the Golder► Valley Planning Commission was held at 8:00 P,M.
on Monday, September 2lt, 1973 at the Golden Valley Library Hennepin County Branch,
830 Winnetka Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Vice Chairman Mary Anderson presided at the meeting and the following members were
present: Con9missioners Becker, P'dstrom, Herje, Hughes, L�nard, and Lundsgaard.
Also present was Jon Westlake from the Village staff.
Members absent: Chairman Sampson and Commissianer Christians�.
1. APPRiOVAL (3F MINUTES: I�VED by Lundsgaard, seconded by Hughes, carried
unanimously, to approve the minutes of the September 10, 1973 meeting as mailed.
2. P'LAI�TED UNIT DEVELflPMIIJT P.U.D. #1-A General Plans
Applicant: Benson-Qrth Associates, Inc.
Location; 5801 Uuluth Street (East of present building)
Proposal: 3-story Office Building containing 38,000 square feet
Vice Chairman Anderson introduced the members of the Planning Commission and
Village staff present and stated that the purpose of a hearirig is to give the
Planning Commission information on which to base a decision. Information is
obtained by staff report, proponent�s presentation, and opponent�s presentation,
after which the hearing is elosed and discussion is held by the Planni.ng
Commission.
Jon Westlake, �irector oP Planning and Inspection, reviewed the proposal for
P.U.D. #1-A showi.ng the proposed relocation of the strueture on the praperty.
Mr. Westlake then reviewed a revised planning report as follows, pointing out
Where the proponent has submi.tted more detailed plans in answer to questions
raised by the Report.
"1. The developer desires at this time to proceed with Phase II of the PUD as
per the Construet�on Order Gomponent of the PUD Permit granted for the total
Bassett Creek P1aZa �ffice Building PUD.
2. fihis latest proposal is one of a series of revised plans submitted over the
past several months.
3. If approved, Phase IT should be groverned by amended andjor added conditions
to the original PU� Permit. Records of previous meetings i.ndicate certain
additional information has been requested:
a) Completion date for landscaping edges of entire PUD area;
b) Landscape and/or maintenance plan for a3.1 remaining vacant land;
c) Review comments and recoTnmendations from Bassett Creek Flood and
Drainage Commission, Trails Committee, and Building Board of Review.
b. In a staged construction program under PUI3 procedures, a good way to consider
conditions for later stages of construction is to evaluate the actual results
of Phase I. Our observations and reeommendations would be as followsr
201
Planning Commission
September 2k, 1973 page 2
a} Require concrete curbing rather than asphalt in tY�e parking and drive areas.
b) Require added landscaping adjacent to and near the buildi.ng structure.
c� Require added landscaping in parking areas (islands).
d) Continue "relaxed" parking requirements but with ��reserve" capacity
provided if needed in the future. Spot checks of the exi.sting building
indicate no parking problem to date although it is realized that the
bui.lding is not yet fully occupied.
5• The current PUD Permit states that no access is to be permitted onto St. Croix
Avenue; this apparently applied only to the first stage of construction since
it would not be practical for the total development to proceed without some
aecess onto St. Croi�. The current proposed access would seem to be in
keeping with earlier discussions and recommendations that traffic access
onto St. Croix be °limited" and that t'directtt traffie through the project
between St. G�oix and Duluth Street be discouraged. Subject to findings of
a traffic surveq and other evidence, the current pIan seems to aecomplish
this objective.
6. The previous plan reviewed by the Planning Commission in August proposed
that the building be located near Bassett Creek and St. Croix Aeenue; this
plan met with considerable neighborhood opposition. The current plan,
however, locates the Phase II building east of the existing Phase I near
Duluth Street. The over-all general development plan for the entire
Bassett Creek Plaza Area indicates now a potential third phase buildi.ng to
be constructed later near St. Croix Avenue. This potential third phase
building is apparently i.ndicated at this time only for information purpos�s
to generally i.ndicate how the entire si�e (PUD area) might be developed.
As drawn, hoWever, the potential third phase doss eliminate traffic onto
St. Croix but provides for emer�ency aehicle access via an access easement
with a break-away chain to bar general public usuage.
7. It is assumed that the nera location proposed for Phase II constructian will
be more satisfactory to nearby residents as so expressed by some at the
August meeting of the Planning Commission. Whi.le the new location for
Phase II seems satisfactory, some comments are due on the specifics of the
site plan; -
a} The plan submitted is rather general in nature. �imensions are not
indicated and landscaping is not specified. For exaa�ple, it is not
clear that landscaping will be provided adjacent to the office building;
it has been noted in earlier reports that good landscaping treatment
should be required directly arounc! the office buildings.
b) The proposed building is essentially the same as that proposed for a
different location at the August meeting. Current ordinance requirements
are for approximately 233 off-street parking spaces while 212 ar� pro-
vided for on the plan. This should be adequa-�e and in accordance �rith
' the recommended change in office building parking requirements (zoni.ng code).
c) While the proposed parking should be adequa�e, this is based upon an
office use factor and any non-office uses such as ground floor retail
should be clearly defined. Any non-office uses should perhaps be
limited to not more than one-half the first floor and not be of a type
which attracts the general public. General public usuage could create
parki.ng and other problems.
���
Planning Commission
�eptember 24, 1973 page 3
d) A,1.1 traffic from the project will now have access only via l)uluth Street.
The Dul.uth Street access has been re-desi�ned; this new design has
apparently been made to accommodate higher traffic volumes and it should
be evaluated by the County and Village �gineer.
e} A traffic "circle" is still indicated on the plan to the south of the
proposed building but only a portion of it wauld be on Pha.se II Iand.
It is not clear when and how this circle might be constructed or if it is
intended to have one-way or two-way traffic. There may be some traffic
conflicts if two-way travel is eontemplated.
f} The plan does not indicate how the setback land is to be used between
the building and the east property Iine.
g) As was note�d in Phase I construction, care should be taken to avoid a
t'blind" access onto �uluth by placing trees or other landscaping too
near the drive entrance.
SummarY
The proposed location for Phase II construction seems generally satisfactory and
should be more acceptable to neighborhood interests. Action on future Phase III
near St. G�oi�c is postponed due to this change in plans although it �hould still
be determined how this vacant area will be maintained until such time that a
specific development proposal is submitted for approval.
It is suggested that while the general plan submitted for Phase II may be
satisfactory, a final deeision cannot be reached until more complete and de-
tailed information is submi°tted. At that time, the existing Use Permit for
PIT� No. 1 should be amended to include specific conditions applicable to Fhase II;
also, the Construction Order Component might be elaborated upon to more cl�arly
spell out the timing, staging, and ghase relationships. This would be necessary
since there appears to be some overlap between Phases II and III and perhaps even
Phase No. 1." _
Mr. Westlake then stated he had contacted Mr. Hanson of Barr Engineering who is
the eonsultant for the Bassetts Greek Flood Control Commission about the change in
the location of the building. He was informed by Barr Ea�gineering that on a pre-
liminary basis they felt a review by the Bassetts Creek Flood Control Commission
was not necessary, but the plan would have to be reviewed in detail before they
would know. The Building Board of Review eill be reviewi.ng the building and land-
scaping plans on November 2, 1973. A.lso, the Public Safety �epartment has reviewed
the proposed layout.
G. Burton Brown, Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission, stated that wfien
the first building i.n Phase II was proposed, the Park and Recreation Commission
reviewed a proposed plan for a trail which was to be on the east side of Bassetts
Creek. When the building i.n Phase II was moved to the east csf t�he: present structure
the question of park use for the property was discussed on the location where
the building was first proposed-which was in the southwest corner of the site.
Mr. Brown stated that this planned unit development is located in an area where
the park situation is not adequate; therefore, the Park and Recreation Commission
requests that one acre of land be dedicated for park use on the east side of
Bassetts G�eek in the Southwest corner of the site.
2���
Planning Commission
September 24, 19?3 page !�
Commissioner Hughes questioned how close a body of water such as Bassetts Creek
should be to a park, and Commissioner Edstrom asked Mr. Brown if the proponent
had been contacted previously regarding the dedication of land for park use.
Ken Benson of Benson-Qrth Associates, Inc. was present. Mr. Benson briefly
discussed the drainage. Also, parking was discussed, and Mr. Benson stated the
proposal at this time is for 17l� stalls. The largest number of cars parked at
one time in the parking lot for the present existing building was 115. The pro-
pc>sed buildi.ng will have the same exterior as the present building. The State
Highway Department will occupy two floors for office use and a portion of the
first floor may contain a cafeteria mainly for use by tenants of the building.
Commissioner Anderson asked if adequate Right of Way was provided for any
improvements that the County rnight recommend, such as a left turn and right turn
lane. I�r. Benson replied that there is a total of 66� Right of Way. Mr. Benson
is willing to give the 100-foot easement (given by a previous oxner) along
Bassetts Creek for paxk use, but feels the request for one acre for park use is
a difficult requirement.
The following concerns were voiced by the residents: I�Ir. Lambrecht, 6025
Wolfberry Lane, questioned the change in the south lot line of the lot involved
in this proposal.. ATso, is the parking for proposed Phase III adequate or will
it overlap into Phase II? Mrs. Lambrecht also asked �hy the building is located
so far back from 3l�luth Street. Mr. Kunz, 1610 E. Constance I}rive, is concerned
with the building setback. Wl�y was it not built as originally planned along side
the first building? Mr. Kunz expressed conaern that the proposed cafeteria' in
the building would eventually be used as a public cafeteria and cause more traffic.
Mr. West, 163� E. Constance Drive, stated that the changed location of the
building defeats the possibility of any building to be built on the north end
of the site in Phase III. Move the proposed building in li.rie with the fir#�
buildi.ng. Mr. and Mrs. Harrison, 6455 Wol�berry Lane, like the area left natural.
Mr. Harrisan questioned traffic problems onto Duluth Street, and does not feel
there is a good proposal for traffic. Asked if park could be designated by the
Village Council or can Planning Commission make a recommendation to this effect
to the Council even if the proponent does not want to designate land for park
use. Mr. Smith, 59�5 Wolfberry Lane, stated parking can be located to south of
building if the bu3.Ida.ng is �ushed forward to the north.
The Planning Commission in discussing the proposal talked about the den�ity,
noting that Fhase I and Phase II would be very closa to what is allowed under
Business and Professional Offices Zoning using the easement area along Bassetts
Creek as credit. If Phase II was considered alone as proposed on its lot and
block, the building would be approximately 20� strong for the land under the
Business and Pro.fessional Offices Zoni.ng �i.strict.
Also, the Plannang Commission discussed the parking spaces as listed on the
plans, no�ing if certain interior landscaping areas were removed, the proponent
could meet the parking requirements. The proponent does not plan to construct
a11 the parking spaces at this time because he feels he will not need that°many
spaces based upon an analysis of his existing parking. A1.so, the traffic circle
will not be constructed at this time.
���
Planning Commission
September 2�, 1973 page 5
Commissioner Edstrom brought up discussion on the proposed cafeteria and
inquired of any tentative plans for a cafeteria, and asked if the proponent
�puld have to return to the Planning Commission for approval of a restaurant
when the propone�t has more definite plans. Commissioner Edstrom asked if the
cafeteria could be left out of the Special Use Permit until such time as the
proponent returns to the Planni.ng Commission. He felt that some type of eating
establishment should be allowed for employees in the building. Commissioner
Becker asked if overnight parki.ng would be involved with State Iiighway �epartment
vehicles. Mr. Benson stated it would be mainly Engineering personnel, and no
trucks or the like would be stored at this property but would remain on their
property across the street.
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Leonard, carried unanimously to recommend
approval for P.U.D. ,#].-A contingent upon the follo�ring conditions: _
1. Structure to be moved north 50 feet making the north end of the building
220� from the south Right of Way of t3ul.uth Street measured along the east
property line,
2. The property from Bassetts Creek east approximately 150� and from 5t. Croix
Avenue �torth approximately 29�� to be dedicated for park purposes (approxi-
mately one acre). The Planning Commission further recommends to the Board
of Zoning Appeals a waiver for 51� parking spaces on the dedicated park land
as currently required in the present Zoning Code. (Planning Commission's
new Zoning Code is not as strict; therefore, waiver is tied to present Code.)
3. Requirements of original P.U.D. #1 adding Item It of the Planni.ng
Considerations. (Permit will sti11 state no access to St. Croix Avenue.)
!�. Requirements of the Village staff.
5. Requirements of the Building Board of Review and, if pertinent, other
requirements of Item 3 of the Planning Considerations.
3. PRII�IMINARY RESIDEbTTIAI, PLAT
Mr. Jack �ow, owner - 501fl Circle �3own
Six (6) Residential lots approxi.mately 2�0 feet west of Hwy. 100,
South of Colonial 3lrive, and North of Cixcle �3own
Jon Westlake, Director of Planning and Inspection, explained to the Planning
Commission that the proposal is to plat the present parcel into six (6) lots,
each 1ot being larger than the mi.nimum required size. There is presently a house
on Lot 3 (5010 Circle Down). Mr. Westlake stated the ponding area should be lef�
in a natural state and used for ponding. The propanent has agreed to dedicate
the area to the Village, which is shown as an outlot on the proposed plat.
Drainage and filling of the pond was discussed and it was the staff�s suggestion
to involve a fill permit at the same time the Village is considering the plat.
The Dillage staff also suggested that �his item be referred to the Environmental
Commission for their review and other Commiss�na :�nd Boards which may be involved.
Mr. Bert Nygaaxd, Attorney for the proponent, was present for the proposal.
Commissioner Lundsgaard stated he was of the opinion that Mr. I,�ow, the proponent,
had sold the housa at 5010 Circle �3own and questioned the ownership of the
property being platted.
���
Planning Commission
September 24, 1973 page 6
It was moved by Herje� seconded by Lundsgaard� carried unanimously, to refer
this item to the Environmental Commission for their review to include a fill
permit and, if necessary, to other Commissions and Boards prior to being
� reviewed by the Planning Commission.
!t. PLANNLD tTNIT �EVIIAPMIIVT - SET PUBLIC INFOAMATIONAI, MEETING
P.U.D. #11 General Plans
Applicant: Donald M. �ickson
Location: 1300-1Lt00 block of Natchez Aeenue
Proposal: 18 Townhouse Units
Mr. Westlake informed the Planning Commission that the proponent was out of
town and could not be present at this meeting, but he would still request that
the Planni.ng Commission set an informational hearing for general plans. The
Planning Commission set November 12, 1973 to hold an informational hearing on
P.U.D. #Z1.
5. G�r�.t.
(a) Presen'tation on Bassetts Creek Watershed Plan
A joint meeting consisting of the Planning Commission, Environmental Commission,
and the ad hoc' Co�nittee on Open Space will be held to hear the presentation
by Len (�amer of Barr Engineering on the Bassetts Creek Watershed Plan. The
joint meeting will be held on Tuesday, actober 23, 1973•
(b) Housing and Redevelopment Authority
It was moved by Fdstrom, seconded by Lundsgaard, carried unanimously, to
innite Dick Brustafl of the Greater Minneapolis Metropolitan Housing Corporation
to speak to the Planni.ng Commission about an H.R.A. on Monday, Nonember 12, 19?3.
(c) Rezoning Lots 1 and 2 Block 1 Lindsay's Addition
Commissioner Becker discussed with the Planning Commission the rezoning of
Lots 1 and 2 Block 1, Lindsay�s Acidition with respect to the previous policy
of the Planning Commission to extending a rezoning request in an area to remove
the Open Development Zoning if there is a small portion of Open �3evelopment
remaining. After discussing why this is or is not a good policy the Planning
Com¢aission suggested to Commissioner Becker that maybe a policy statement could
be prepared by her for the Planning Cc�mmission to review.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
dulq seconded, adjourned at 10slt0 P.M.
/' ` �"
�
' rman John ampson Recording Secretary Jon Westlake