01-26-76 PC Minutes 115
MINUTES OF THE 60LDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 26, 1976
A regular meeting of the Golden Va11ey Planning Commission was held at 7:45 P.M.
on Monday, January 26, 1976 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valtey Road,
Golden Valley Minnesota.
Vice Chairman Donald Hughes presided and the following members were present:
Cc>mmissioners Herje, Lundsgaard, Sehlin, and Specktor. Also present was
Carl Oale, Consultant, and Jon Westlake, staff inember.
Members absent: Chairman �dstrom and Corrmissioner Christiansen.
1 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Planning Commission deferred action on the
approval of the minutes until the end of the meeting at which time it was MOVED
by Specktor, seconded by Lundsgaard, carried unanimously, to approve the minutes
of the January 12, 1976 Planning Commission rneeting as mailed.
2. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT — SET PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
P.U.O. #17 Concept Plans
Proponent: Health Centrat , Inc. — Howard Dahlgren Associates
Location: 4101 Golden Valley Road
Request: Construct a Medical Office Building and Parking Rarr�
ta the West of the Present Hospital
Vice Chairman Oonald Hughes introduced the members of the Planning Commission
after which Carl Dale reviewed the following Planning Considerations:
"1 . The current proposal is to develop a four (4� story medical office building
on 3.7 acres {3,2% of the total site area).
2. This matter was first considered by the Planning Commission November 12, 19733
a primary concern at that time was the lack of an over—all comprehensive plan
for the entire site. In addition, a number of general and specific concerns
and needs were considered from citizens and various City staff, commissions,
and committees. For a variety of reasons, the proposed expansion was denied
by the City Councit in July of 1974 with the suggestion that the Applicant
seek a PUO Permit for development of the site — a zoning procedure that prov=
vides the community with a greater degree of control over the uses, staging
of developments, property maintenance and other aspects affecting the
general public welfare.
3. At this time, the Applicant is seeking concept plan approval under requirements
as outlined by City Codes for institutional use development under terms and
conditions of a PUD Permit. The Applicant has submitted additional infor—
m�tion as originally requested by the Ptanning Commission including a
generalized plan for long—range use of the enfiire 113.8 acre site.
4. In terms of procedure, the first public action should be to review and
consider the general ptans and considerations for the entire site; if a
concept plan is approved by the City Council , the next consideration would
be that of review and consideration of immediate development plan detaits
and specifics. In any event, a detailed PUO Permit could be considered
outlining in considerable detail conditions for use of the property (related
to the �eneral Plan of Development Components: land use; circulation,
population, subdivision; services and facilities; staging and timing of
developmenfi; and others).
� � �
Planning Commission
January 26, 1976 page 2
5• This is a large site with many and corr�lex questions and considerations
dealing with various aspects of the environment (on—site and the larger
general surrounding area) including, but not necessarity limited to
natural environment, water use, traffic, land use, pedestrian circulation,
visual considerations.
6. A generalized concept plan for potential future development of the entire
site has been presented indicating that approximately 18 acres could be
further developed in the future. Other than the current development plans,
no specific uses are indicated for potential future development areas;
it is noted, however, that ultimate development would result in 64.7% of
the entire site remaining as a "preserved district" although this
apparently includes 32.5 acres of water�wet land. The general category
of future development is assumed to be further medical and related uses
similar to existing development.
7. Immediate development plans have been altered somewhat caliing -for a smalter
office building and no mention is made of �'retail" uses such as a pharmacy.
Other aspects of the detailed plans are generalty similar to those presented
in the past.
8. Many of the previous concerns expressed in the past have to do with the entire
site and environmental impact related to the surrounding corrmunity area.
These concerns have been considered at length in the past and must again be
considered and clearly documented for use in properly drafting a PUD Permit
which can be considered as a single document for public review and action.
It is suggested that all detailed and general considerations be outlined
by City Staff and that all existing information, recommendations, and
suggestions be assembled in order not to duplicate past efforts and unduty
lengthen the public review and decision making process. This background
information should include studies and information previousty submitted by
private individuals and neighborhood groups as well as the technical and
governmental reports.
9. In terms of enerat land use proposals for the entire site, the concept plan
would seem to be in conformity to the Corrp�rehensive Municipal Devetopment
Plan; that is use of the site for "semi—public" (institutional ) uses. This
is a large site currently only 16.5� developed; it would not seem reasonabte to
assume that such a large area of private land could remain forever predomin—
ately "open". If public tand use policy is to retain such large areas of
naturat open space, this should be so noted and documented on the Municipal
Plan; in an urban setting and density situation, such a land use policy also
implies a fiscal policy for some form of public use, purchase of development
and�or scenic easements, tax consideratians, and a number of other alternatives.
10. Some major constraints to further and future development of the site do,
however, exist. It is obvious that only one traffic access road to the site
from an already conge�ted street (Golden Valley Road) presents serious
irr�lications related to both on—site safety as well as neighborhood and
community traffic considerations. Such constraints become an even more
serious matter when the total potential for vehicular traffic generation in
the future (beyond current development plans) is considered.
Previously, the Planning Commission recommended that a study be made by a
Traffic Engineer; we would consider the existi�g traffic study (dated 1�2�73)
as not adequate since it does not address the issues of concern as raised
during the previous public review process; the report contains only estimates
of traffic generation and recommends installation of a traffic signal .
� ��
Planning Cortmission
January 26, 1976 page 3
It does not contain professional opinions or recommendations related to the
advisability of an expanded use at the site as related to neighborhood
concerns and the generat community public interest.
11 . A broader and more comprehensive traffic and environmental study was con—
ducted for the City some months ago by Nason, Wehrman, Chapman Associates, Inc.
a Golden Valley based pianning firm. We woutd concur with the observations
and recommendations of this study which are essentially as foliows:
a) A PUD zoning approach is in the public interest.
b) An alternate road to the south connecting to T.H. 55 is not very
practicable or feasible at this time.
c) The neighborhood has what could generally be considered a good
tand use pattern and mixture.
d) Golden Valtey Road (County Road No. 66) is not a minor residential
street; it is a major traffic artery and should be up—graded.
e) Changes should be considered for certain local street access points
anto County Road No. 66.
f) Some form of trail system through the Medical Center area is
recommended.
g) Constraints to the total and utlimate development of the entire
corr�lex may eventuatly necessitate public purchase of some property
development rights.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . First, all previous information (detailed and general ) should be collected
and summarized in order fio avoid duplication of previous efforts and
resultant time involVements.
2. Previously concerned and interested parties should be requested to amend,
augment, or otherwise provide the Planning Commission with an up—to—date
opinion and recommendation.
3• The Applicant should be requested to submit certain additional information:
a) A detailed map showing the specifics of existing devetopment would
be helpful ; existing maps submitted do not clearly differentiate
between that which exists and that which is proposed.
b) Some form of visual information is needed to more adequately judge
the actual view that might result from the current development proposal .
c) The Traffic Engineer' s report should be up—dated and augmented on the
basis of specific public concerns as discussed since January, 1973•
d) Concerns expressed by others and presented to the Ptanning Commission
should be as specific as possible; for example, specific environmental
concerns related to development impact upan water bodies should be
obtained.
e) The general cancept ptan should be evaluated upon the basis of up—to—
date information as may be obtained; the major: consideration at this
time should be the public policy involved with the entire site and
general environment.
4. The questions are:
a) Ts the total area concept plan acceptable?
Can totat development of the entire site be properly accommodated
without an alternate access route?
i ��
�r.�
Plan�ing Commission
January 26, 1976 p�ge 4
b) Could anly the imnediate construction plans be accommodated in the
public interest?
c) What conditions in the public interest should be inciuded in a
PUD Permit concerning both immediate and long—range development?
5. A decision on the concept plan should be based upon an evaluation of all
information as may become available. The recomnendation to the Gity Council
by the Planning Commission should include:
a) Desired �onditions for inclusion in a PUD Permit for the entire site
regardless of what may be approved for current construction.
b) Policy alternatives to total and full development of the entire site.
6. General land use plans seem reasonable and both existing and potential
development can be controlled in the public interest by conditions of a
PUD Permit. (The basic unresolved issue is the advisabitity of a lar�e
"campus'' cor�lex with only one access rmute.)"
The Planning Comnission discussed certain points of the report with Carl t7al�.
Messrs. Moward �ahlgren and Michael Gair of Howard Dahlgren Associates and
Chris Stang of Health Central , Inc. were present for the request. Mr. Dahigren
reviewed the history of the previous proposal for the site. One of the suggestions
at that time was that Health Central , Inc. proceed under the P.U.O. Ordinance,
which they are now in the process of. Mr. Dahlgren stated they have met with
certain City Committees and also the neighbors and have heard their specific
coc�cerns and now feel they have answered for the majority of concerns.
In reviewing the proposal Mr. Dahlgren indicated they will restrict the
development so that 64q of the land wili remain open in its actual environment.
The following is the site development data:
°� of Total Site
Total Site Area 113.8 Acres
Dry Land 81 .3 Acres 71.4%
Wetland 32.5 Acres 28.6%
Existing Developed Area 18.8 Acres 16.5?b
Acres of Potentiai Oevelopment 21.4 Acres 18.9'�
T07AL 40.2 Acres
Area to be Preserved 7 .6 Acres 64.7�
TQTAL 113. Acres
Mr. pahlgren further pointed out that because of the large amount of open area
the proposed use witl fit into the land uses ir► the area. The buildings now
cover 2% of the site. If the office building is approved, the amount of land
coverage would be 2.7% which is below what the cortmunity has established in the
Institutional Ordinance. Mr. Dahlgren noted that all the major medical centers
in the metro area have a contiguous medical office building, and the reason for
this is efficiency for the medical fietd. Also, to conserve the land they are
proposing a parking rarr�. Mr. Oahlgren then referred to surrounding land use
and the street patterns in the area, including the lack of collector streets,
and felt that Golden Valley Road wili have to be upgraded in the future even
if the hospital grounds were developed as single f�nily parcels. We are going
to meet with the Minneapolis Park Board to discuss other access to the property.
� �`�
planning Comnission
January 26, 197b page 5
Mr. Dahlgren then described the interior street patterns and indicated that the
proposed road on the west side of the parcel will provide relief on the site—
es{�eciatly in the case of an emergency. In regard to a trail system through the
property—because of the type of use on the property and treatment of patients,
they are not in favor of it.
7he following residents were present and expressed their concerns: Mrs. Smith,
2080 Mary Hi11s Drive, referred to the discussion about a trail system on the
property and also indicated that the residents would like to see a southern
access to the site. Mrs. Mary King, 4025 Wasatch Lane, stated that the hospital
sinee their previous proposal should have been pursuing a southern access. We
have heard from the staff of the Minneapolis Park Board that a southern access
is difficult and therefore I (Mrs. King) would like to see the Minneapolis Park
Board Commissions thoughts on this. Also, a southern access shoutd be considered
for safety. The hospital should also pay their fair share of taxes. Mr. Elsen,
4015 Wasatch l.ane, referred to Golden Valley Road and stated that Lowry Avenue
should be the East—West collector street. Mr. Swanson, 1800 Major Orive, spoke
of security on the Sweeney Lake beach and a road to the south would help provide
this. A person who indicated he was from the Department of Natural Resources
stated there were some new drains from the hospital site to Sweeney Lake.
The Planning Corrmission in discussing the request referred to the open areas as
designated on the sifie and the areas designated as future building sites—as to
what type of use these areas may inctude in the future which would have an effect
on the traffic. The Commission discussed the problems of traffic on Gotden Valley
Road and also access to the south and referred to a letter dated April 26, 1974
from the Minneapolis Park Board regarding other access from the Health Central
property through the Minneapolis Park Board property. 1'he Commission also
discussed the City trail system and its relationship to this property.
It was moved by Sehlin, seconded by Specktor, carried unanimously, to table the
request to the February 23, 1976 Planning Commission meeting for the following
reasons:
1 . Obtain more specific ideas for the site that are prograrrmed for development
in the future, and more specific plans for the present proposal including
the parking ramp.
2. Input from the Bassetts Creek Flood Control Commission and the Department
of Natural Resources.
3. 7raffic count
4. Proponent is in the process of ineeting with other commissions and the
Planning Commission would like their input for the February 23, 1976 meeting.
5. Further investigation on a southern access for the hospital parcel by meeting
with the Minneapolis Park Board.
6. Copies of the report by the Glenwood Hilts Neighborhood Association for the
members of the Planning Cc>mmission who do not have a copy.
It was then moved by Herje, seconded by Sehlin, carried unanimously to req�aest
that Jon Westlake set up a meeting with the Minneapalis Park Board Commission
that could be attended by Carl Dale and the proponent. The proponent would
present his plans to determine whether answers could be reached regarding a
southern exit from the site.
����
Planning Commission
January 26, 1976 page 6
3• REQUEST FOR REZONING
Location: 6545 Country Club Orive
Applicant: Teacher' s Federation Credit Union
Zoning: Multiple (M-4) to Business and Professional Offices
Proposal ; Addition to Present Structure located East of this Parcel
which would extend into this �arcel
Jon 4Jestlake reviewed the Planning Considerations as follows:
"The request is to rezone the west part of Lot 2 Auditor' s Subdivision No. 322
to Business and Prafessional Offices from Multiple (M-4) which presently allows
a height of eight (8) stories (the allowable height in Business and Professional
Offices is one (1 ) story).
The proponent has a purchase agreement on the east parcel which is presently
zoned Business and Professional Offices and has an office building on it. If the
request is approved the proponent plans to add a 2,000 square—foot addition to the
present structure which would extend into the parcel that is before you for
consideration of the rezoning. The proponent is the Teacher' s Federation Credit
Union which is presently located in Golden Valley at 1724 Douglas Drive.
Characteristics of the area are as follows:
�. Surrounding Land Use
a) to the northwest of this property is the Golden Valley Golf Club
which is zoned Fnstitutional (I-4).
b) to the north is Pako Corparation which is zaned Industrial .
c) to the west is the Etk's Lodge which is zoned Institutional (I-3).
d) to the south of this parcel is Residential .
2. Road Patterns
a) �he property is bounded by T.H. 55 on the south and Country Club Drive
on the north.
b) egress and ingress to the site is frosr► Country Club Drive.
c) the property on the east is where Country Club Drive and T.H. SS
Right of Ways intersect each other and extends into Douglas Drive.
3. Terrain
a) is relatively flat where the office buitding is located.
b) is somewhat roll,ing on the parcel which is before you for consideration
of rezoning. Toward the western edge of the site the terrain drops off.
c) the site is bounded by trees on three sides with evergreens on the west.
A small variety of trees are located within the site.
d) some of the trees will be lost on the east side of the site due to the
proposed addition to the present structure.
Considerations Regarding the Proposed Zoning:
l . Site Plans
a) Very preliminary site ptans have been subrnitted with the request.
b) The plans indicate a proposed addition which will be attached to
the present structure. This wilt require a variance from the
�aard of Zoning Appeals because' the present structure does not
con�orm to the present Zoning Code.
3� '
Planning Commission
January 26, 1976 page 7
c) The blacktop area for parking as presently constructed on the site
does not meet the present green area requirement. The proponent
intends to leave it as is presently built. This will also require
a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
d) The only change the proponent is ptanning for this structure from
their present building--other than a larger building—is a drive—' up
window.
2. Procedure by the Proponent
a) After receiving the Planning Commission reco�rmendation the proponent
can then request a hearing of the City Councit .
b) Prior to the hearing he will have to apply to the Board of Zoning
Appeals for a variance after which he would appear before the City
Council on the rezoning matter.
c) If the Council approves the rezoning, the proponent would then have
to appear before the Building Board of Review. The Board would
require complete building plans, eievation of the structure, and
corr�lete landscaping plan.
This particular use, as far as the City is aware, has been a quiet business— '
oriented use. 7his can be pointed out because the use is presently located in
Golden Valley. This should not influence your decision of whether to zone this
property to the requested use because the proponent could move somewhere else in
the future. It is better to consider the property under the more strict guide
lines of zoning such as: Is Business and Professional Offices the proper use
for this parcel? In reviewing it in this manner it is felt that the requested
zoning is a proper use for the parcel because the parcel to the east which this
parcel woutd be combined with has a structure on it which is zonQd Business and
Professionat Offices. The abutting uses are cort�atible with the proposed use.
The residential area to the south is separated from this use by T.H. 55• The
property if approved for the rezoning would be combined as one parcel of ground
and therefore abutt the right of way of a busy intersection which is Douglas Orive
and T.H. 55. The proposed zoning is in accordance with the Cort�rehensive Ptan."
Mr. Fred Sulzbach of the Teacher' s Federation Credit Union was present to answer
questions about the request. The Planning Cornmission in discussing the request
with the proponent talked about their type of operation, traffic, number of
err�loyees, and what their future projections are for expansion of their operation.
The Commission discussed the differences between a credit union and a commercial
bank which is allowed in a Commercial Zoning District, in reference to such items
as membership, traffic, employees, etc. '
It was moved by Lundsgaard, seconded by Herje, carried unanimously, to recommend
approval of the rezoning request from Multiple (M-4) ta Business and j3rofessional
Offices, subject to: 1 ) The two parcels are to be combined, and 2) approval
from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Vice Chairman Oonald Hughes indicated that he is a member of the Credit Union
and therefore excused himself from this item.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 11 :00 P.M.
�.� ,
� .
� `
Vice Chairman Donald ughes S cretary K hryn H je