10-14-75 PC Minutes t`��
MINIlTES OF THE GOLOEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSIQN
October 14, 1975
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at
8:00 P.M. on Tuesday, October 14, 1975 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golde� Vatley
Ro�d, 6olden Valley, Minnesota.
Chairman Ron Edstrom presided and the fotlowing members were present: Commissioners
Hakala, Herje, Lundsgaard, and Specktor. Commissioner Hughes arrived at 9:35 P.M.
Also present was Jon Westlake, staff inember.
Members absent: Commissioners Christiansen, Leonard, and Sehlin.
l . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOVEO by Hakala, seconded by Herje, carried unar�i—
mously, to approve the minutes of the September 22, 1975 Planning Commission
meeting as amended as follows: Page 5, Item B 1 . to read "remove Ouluth Street
as a collector between Winnetka Avenue (west) to Aquila and from Flag Avenue
(west) to Mendelssohn Avenue service drive". (The minutes were approved at
the end of ineeting.)
2. WAIVER OF THE PLATTING ORDINANCE
Norman W. Schleif (2 Residential lots�
2530-2540 Florida Avenue North
The September 8, 1975 Planning Commission minutes were reviewed with respect
to this request. The Commission also referred to the August 27, 1973 and
the April 4, 1968 Planning Comrnission minutes. The prpposal is to divide a
parcel into two lots. The north lot will have a frontage of 100 feet with
10,000 square feet. The south lot witl have a frontage of 116.5 feet witM
11 ,650 square feet. The Platting Ordinance requires 100 feet of frontage
and 12,50d square feet in a lot.
Mr. John Kapphan of Forseth Realty and Mr. Schleif were present for the request.
Mr. Kapphan stated that he had met with the two neighbors to the east of this
property and also the neighbors to the south. He further stated that Mr. Schleif
would be willing to grant an easement along the south for street purposes as
long as Mr. Schleif could split tMe parcel into trMO lots for two homes. At
this time they are not interested in a comprehensive plan of the area—onty in
dividing the lots.
The Planning Commission in discussing the request still felt strongly that there
has to be a comprehensive plan of this area and in order to do this, the neighbors
have to agree on a particular plan. The plan should be a totat pian for the
area. 7he Comnission then referred to the Planning Carrnission minutes of
August 27, .1973 regarding this same parcel of land which state that if the area
is ever platted, these two lots (referring to the division of the two lots at
that timej should become part of the ptat.
Mrs. Th�nas, 2511 Douglas Drive, stated that if something is going to be done
in the area, this is the time to do it because the area is going through a
change of ownership.
�9
Planning Commission
October 14, 1975 page 2
It was rnoved by Lundsgaard, seconded by Specktor, carried ananimously, to deny
the request. In denying the request the Planning Commission pointed out that
there should be a plan for the area that the neighbors can agree on.
3• INFORMATIONAL HEARING - AMENDMENT TO P.U.O. #1 and 1-A
Proponent: Bassetts Creek Plaza
Location: 5801 and 5851 Duluth Street
Request: Ame�d P.U.D. Permit - Allow Certain Commercial Uses
Mr. Michael J. Miles of Shelard Ccxnpanies sumnarized his letter, which was mailed
to the Planning Commission, as follows: In office parks in the metropolitan area
which are comparable to the size of Bassetts Creek Office Plaza, there is a
portion of the building for timited conmercial to provide ancillary service to
people coming and going frorn the property. This P.U.D. does not allow the pro-
ponent to have these uses that other office parks do, making it difficult to
ccunpete ir� the market. The primary reason this request is before the Ptanning
Commission is for the barber hair stylist, and since at this time the proponent
is applying for an amenc�nent for that use, he is requesting the foliowing other
uses, atttrough they may never have the uses in the building: coffee shop, quick
printing, reproduction services, pharmacy, banking offices, and office suppty
shop. The proponent is requesting an arnendment to allow up to 15% of the total
square footage of the first floor of each buitding for these uses. This would
be a total of 10,000 square feet or 5,000 square feet per buitding. The
proponent feels the above uses would reduce traffic. Each employee and visitor
must now leave the complex for the above services.
The Planning Commission then reviewed the Planning Considera�ions as follows:
. "1 . The request for a sign in front of the building located at 5801 Duluth Street
was recomr�ended for approval by the Building Board of Review at their
October 7, 1975 meeting. The Planning Commission then should consider the
request regarding the change in use.
2. The request is to change the occupancy (use) designation to permit a combina-
tion of additional uses including: Barber/hair stylist, coffee shop, quick
printing and reproduction serviee, pharmacy, banking office, office supply
shop. Currently, the PUO Permit notes the M-1 Zoning (rr�ltiple dwelting)
classification but as �nended by the PUO Permit provisions that altows for
Business/Professional Office uses. 7he current proposed uses are not per-
mitted under conditions of the existing PUD Permit (Land Use Component�.
3• It is not clear which office building is proposed to house the uses desired.
While no floor plans have been submitted showing the location and size of
the proposed uses, the Application infers that they will be located only on
the first floor and be limited, in total , to not more than 15% of the totat
building floor area. The stated purpose of the request is to make the
buildings more desirable in a competitive market by providing necessary
anciilary services for the employees and guests to a professional and
business setting.
4. The applicant suggests that the proposed uses may actually reduce traffic in
and out of the comptex by reducing the number of trips required to obtain
services not now present in the buildings. This may or may not be true,
depending upon a nurrd�er of variables involved such as how much traffic would
be generated by uses such as a barber shop, pharmacy, and bank attracting
�:� o0
Planning Conmission
October 14, 1975 page 3
customers who otherwise might not visit the building if limited in use to
business and professional offices. The specific size and type of use
would also be a factor, for example, it is not clear if the proposed
''banking office"' would be for building occupants only or if outside business
was e�ected even to the extent of drive—in facilities. It does seem reasc�n—
able to expect that under certain conditions, traffic valume could sub—
stantially increase and parking "turn—over" needs (frequency of space use)
�rould change.
5. The applicant suggests that the proposed uses �auld not produce a parking
problem for a variety of reasons. It is our opinion, however, that the �
proposed uses could, depending upon the type and extent of use, create
additional parking problems. While it is quite true that many larg�r office
buildings have retail and personal service uses on the ground floor level ,
it is also true that some of these have resulted in some rather substantial
parking problems. Some examples are the Pentagon Office Park in Edina and
the Rauenhorst Office Park in Woodbury; both parking volume and turnover
problems have been created. In Woodbury, for exarr�te, a small barber shop
' has created the need to post 30 minutes and one—haur parking time limits due
to conflicts in parking needs arrang various type uses (long—term vs.. short—
term/close—in parking needs and desires and confusion between employee and
short and medium term parking space users). Total volume (parking) needs
substantially increased upon installation of retail�personal service uses.
6. We v�rould agree with the applicant in that the proposed uses would probably
enhance the marketability of the building floor space and also provide con—
veniences for occupants and visitors. We would also suggest that the
applicant may be correct in suggesting that no parking, traffic circulation,
or other problems would result; it is, however, not possible to adequately
assess the probabilities due to the lack of sufficient information:
a} How much exterior (non—office oriented} traffic would be generated by
the barber, coffee shop, printing, pharmacy, and bank uses?
b) Would the pharmacy sell various retait items other than drugs?
c) Would the coffee shop be of such size as to serve more than building
occupant needs? and the type of coffee shop?
d) What type of banking service is being considered (drive—up teller�?
e) Are uses to be confined to only one office building?
f) Would the printing and reproduction service advertise for outside
business? Provide a delivery service? Require loading (truck) space?
Based upon information submitted, we cannot make any reasonable estimate of
probable results. It is suggested, however, that under certain limitations
and conditions, some or alt of the proposed uses could be accormwdated without
resulting in undue problems. Properly utitized and controlled, the proposed
uses could be an asset to existing uses as suggested by the applicant.
7. RECOMMENDATION
We woutd suggest that a PUD arnenc#nent similar to that currently utilized
for similar developments in Chanhassen could be considered for application
in Golden Valley for PUD' s No. 1 and 1—A as foilowsa
���
Ptanning Commission
October 14, 1975 page 4
Under Permitted Uses, insert the following:
3• Certain ancillary or accessory commercial activities including retail
and personal service uses may be permitted if limited to ground floor
occupancy and such occupancy does not exceed 15% of the total building
floor space. Said ancitlary or accessory uses may be permitted only
as per conditions iisted in the land tJse Ccxnponent of this Permit.
Under Corr�onents, a. l.and Use Component. Add the following:
6. Ancillary or accessory commercial uses may be permitted only under the
following conditions:
a) The use shall be designed to serve primarily the occupar�ts of the
building and visitors normally attracted by the business/professional
office uses.
b) Each specific use must be separately approved by the Planning Commission.
c) No use shall be approved until eanplete and detailed ptans have been
submitted noting the specific nature of the cortmerciai activity,
location on the floor, floor area, arrangement within the floor area,
a description of activities, employment numbers, and such other plans
and data as may be required to accurafi,ely describe the proposed
business activity.
d) No use shall be permitted which, in any way, conflicts with the
principal use (business and professional offices).
e) No use shall be permitted which may draw a significant number of
custcxners in addition to those who would normally be attracted to
• the building in the absence of said ancitlary or accessory uses.
�f) No use shall be permitted that would significantay alter the traffic
c�rculation, votume, or parking requirements.
g) Special parking (such as posting for short term parkers), loading or
unloading, or other needs shail be specificalty provided for on
the plans.
h) All approved uses shall be in accordance with the specific plans
and provisions attached to and made part of this PUD Permit.11
In answer to some of the concerns expressed in the Planning Considerations
Mr. Miles stated that timits on footage be placed on the required uses; for
example:
Coffee shop limit of 1 ,500 sq. ft.
, Quick printing limit of 500 sq. ft.
Pharmacy limit of 1 ,500 sq. ft.
Banking limit of 1 ,500 sq. ft.
Office supply shops limit of 1 ,000 sq. ft.
By limiting the footage the particular use would primarily serve the office corrp�lex.
The Pianning Commission in discussing the request talked about the advantages of
having these services on the premises for the office park. The disadvantages were
also discussed, such as the parking required for the particular uses and the
amount of outside business the use would generate ar how much outside business
is needed to make the operation successful . The specific uses were also discussed;
for exa�le, the coffee shop—even thaugh it would occupy the s�ne space, it could
expand its menus and therefore draw mare business from outside the office park.
- -,. ,...� .
j_��f
Planning Commission
October 14, 1975 page 5
Mr. Miles in discussing the particutar uses with the Comnission asked that if
some uses were too questionable at this tirr� that the Commission deal only with
those they feel would not create the problems as discussed. Mr. Miles fearther
requested that the Planning Commission speak on the particutar request for a
barber hair stylist because it is a use that wants to occupy the strueture at
5801 �uluth Street. The request is for six stations and to occupy no more than
1 ,000 feet of the first floor of the building.
Mr. Leo Cr�n of 1880 Adair Avenue North, an interested resident, stated he is
against the request because of the traffic the uses w�ould generate and the uses
would expand (i .e. , the pharmacy would begin to sell other products).
It was moved by Lundsgaard, seconded by Hakala, carried unanimously to deny the
request for the uses as requested above, noting the ccxnplex was approved as an
office park and that the uses as requested may turn it into a small retail
establishment.
(Commissioner Hughes arrived ... previously at Board of Zoning Appeals meeting�.
It was then moved by Herje, seconded by Specktor to approve the specific use for
a barber hair stylist aliowing the use up to 1 ,000 square feet with six stations.
The motion did not carry.
It was then moved by Hakala that the barber hair stylist be approved for the
west building. The motion died for lack of a second to the motion.
4. PRELIMINARY RESIDENTIAL PLAT
Proposat : Ring�s CoTonial 2nd Addition (60 Residential lots)
Location: Appraximatety 500 feet west of Jersey Avenue, west to
Pennsylvania
Zoning: Residential
Applicants Richard Neslund
Review of this proposat which has been before the Planning Commission several
times indicates that a portion of the proposed plat was before the Planning
Commissian at their January 13, 1975 meeting which was deferred to the February
10, 1975 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission denied the request.
The devetoper returned to the Ptanning Commission in June of 1975 with two
different plats of the total area. Because of the Planning Commission considering
changes in the Transportation portion of the Comprehensive Plan which might affect
the plat, the developer waited and appeared before the Comnission at their
5eptember 8, 1975 meeting. The Commission at that meeting deferred the plat to
the October 14, 1975 meeting.
The proposed plat contains 60 single family residentiat iots, Each parcet in the
plat has the required 100 feet of frontage at the 35-foot setback tine and
12,500 square feet in the lot. In reply to the discussion at the September 8,
1975 Planning Comnission meeting, the fottowing has been done regarding this
particular plat:
1 . Louisiana Avenue has been extended to connect to Colonial Road.
2. The three rQmaining streets are in cul de sac form-two of which are 5�0 feet
or less in distance, i'he third street scales 650 feet in length.
� f��
Planning Commission
October 14, 1975 page 6
3• The streets off Western Avenue have a right—of—way of 50 feet. The developer
has indicated they will grant an additional easement of 5 feet on each side
of the street so that the City will have a totat area of 60 feet.
4. The parcel located in the southwest area of the enclosed plat indicated as
an exception is owned by Mr. Allan Bock who is President of Mark Hurd Aeriai
Surveys. As you wi11 note, it is iisted on the piat as one ownership.
The City records indicate there are three parcets of tand. The two easterly
par.cels are owned by Mr. Bock, and the parcel on which the Mark Hurd
building is located is listed as owned by Mark Nurd Aerial Surveys.
5. The proponent is proposing to have the trail meander through Outlot A.
The ponding will be handled through a storm sewer with a holding area in
the south central area of the plat extending into the two parcels north
of Laurel Avenue.
Richard Neslund, property owner, and Richard Knutson of McCoombs—Knutson Associates
were present to present the proposed plat to the Planning Commission. The
Commission in discussing the plat referred to the previous plats on this parcel
of land. The proponent did discuss a similar plat with the Park Board earty
this year which included discussion regarding the trail . The Planning Commission
discussed the street pattern, trail , ponding area, and the parcel of land owned
by Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys.
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Specktor, carried unanimously, to approve the
plat, subject to establishing a minimum of an 80 foot easement for the trail
� and to straighten out the rear lot lines abutting the trail on Lots 1 — 5
Block 2 of the plat.
5• 6ENERAL
(a) Northeast Fire Station
Jon Westlake reviewed the three locations suggested by the Committee for the
Northeast fire station to serve that section of the City. The sites are as
follows: a) a single parcel of land located in the Northwest quadrant of
Golden Valley Raod and Bonnie Lane, b) two parcels of land located south of
Golden Vatley Road directly west of the Minneapoiis Ciinic, and c) twoo parcels
of land located south of Golden Valley Road known as Lots 2 and 3 Bloek 1
Pankonie Addition. The Ptanning Commission was informed that the parcel chosen
by the Council for the fire station wilt be rezoned to an Institutional (I-4)
category, which will allow a City use. The Planning Comnission indicated that
if the City Council wants the Planning Commission to respond to the report
when co�leted by the Northeast Fire Station Cortmittee .r.egarding �and use,
the Commission would be glad to do so.
(b) Co�rehensive Plan
Because of some confusion in the transportation section of the Comprehensive
Plan with an article in the October 2, 1975 Golden Vatley Post newspaper, it
was the concensus of the Planning Commission that the Chairman of the Ptanning
� Coamission send a letter to the newspaper to clarify certain portions of the
Transportation Plan.
� .:���
Planning Commission
October 14, 1975 page 7
Chairman Edstrom informed the Planning Commission members that the Comnission
will distribute: the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council at the October 20,
11975 Council meeting and that all members of the Planning Comnission are
invited to attend the Council meeting in reference to this.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 11 :05 P.M.
..-� � �
•^==.V`�
_ „
,, �� -
C airman Rona d Ed `rom e retar Kathry Herje�'"���
�
NO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1975