07-12-76 PC Minutes 3. �b�
MINUTES OF TNE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISION
Juty 12, 1976
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 7:30 PM
on Monday, Juty 12, 1976 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden
Vall�y, Minnesota.
Chairman Ronald Edstram presided and the following members were present:
Commissioners Christiansen, Herje, Lundsgaard, Mindess, Sehlin, and Wagman.
Also present was Carl Dale, Planning Consultant, and JQn Westlake, staff inember.
Members absent: Commissioners Hughes and Specktor.
t. APPROVAL OF MYNNUTES: MOVED by Herje, seconded by Mindess, carried unani-
mously, to approve the minutes of the ,lune 28, 1976 Planning Comnission meeting
as amended as fotlows: Page 2, last paragraph, should read "It was moved by Herje,
seconded by Mindess, as an �nendment to the motion, that as an alter.native the
proponent . . ." and Page 4, first paragraph, add to motion "and to consider
traffic signs for vehicte control and the ptacement of the structure on Lot 1
Block 2 to be further from the highway".
2. WAIVER OF THE PLATTING ORDINANCE
Applicant: C. S. McCrossan, Inc.
Location: 4515-4527 Sunset Ridge
Request: Adjust Two Parcels for Equa1 Frontage
Zoning: Residential
The request is to adjust two lots (lots 2 � 3 Block 16 Kennedy' s West Tyrol Hitls
Addition) to allow a more equal frontage of 106 feet and 100 feet. Presently
one parcel has a frontage of approximately 120 feet.
Larry Neilson, Attorney representing C. S. McCrossan, was present for the request
and explained that the request is to divide off 20 feet from Lot 2 and add it
to Lot 3.
The Planning Commission discussed the square footage, noting both lots will exceed
30,00 square feet. The fill in the lots was discussed, and the size and frontage
of the lots in the neighborhood were reviewed.
Chairman Edstrom asked for corrments from the audience and there were none. The
Chairman then read a letter addressed to the Planning Commission from Harry B.
Golden, 4541 Sunset Ridge, which expressed no abjection to the lot division;
however, he is concerned about a drainage �roblem which might occur because of
the fitl and asked that proper and legal grading be a part of the approval of
the lot division. Mr. Westtake indicated that he had spoken with two residents
who were concerned about the lot division.
It was moved by Lundsgaard, seconded by Wagman, to recommend approval of the
waiver of the Platting Ordin�nce;. subject to meetinq the requirements of the deed
restrictions and submitting a drainage and grading plan prior to a building
permit being issued on the lots.
2_�i 1
Planning Comnission
July 12, 1976 Page 2
Commissioner Herje expressed opposition to the motion and moved that the
wording "subject to the deed restrictions" be removed from the original motion
because of not knowing what the. rJeed restrictions contained. The motion did
not carry.
The original motion carried with Commissioner Herje voting nay.
3• PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-PUBLIC INFORMATTONAL MEETING
P.U.D. #17 General Plan Approval
Proponent: Health Central , Inc. Howard Dahlgren Associat��s
Location: 4101 Golden Valtey Road
Request: Construct a Medical Office Building and Parking Ramp to the
West of Present Hospital .
Pres�nt to hear the request were members form other City Commissions, including
the Er�vironmentat Commission, who scheduted their meeting to hear the presenta-
tion by the proponent.
Chairman Ron Edstrom briefly gave a background summary of this request, stating
that concept plan approval was passed by the Planning Comni�ssion on February 23,
1976, sabject to the fotlowing rrine conditio�s and requirements:
1. The pr,oposed road on th� east side must not be piaced close to the Lake and
other alter�natives must be explored.
2. No buildings to be built on the peninsula noted as an "H" category on the
map. Possibility of enlarging the other areas indicated for future building
sites to cover the building site loss of the peninsula.
3. Must be a public trail easement leading North to South on the site.
4. Traffic -comparison of inedical rarnp facilities nad medical office buildings.
5. Current communication from Bassctts Creek Flood Control Comnission.
6. No future buildings of E,F,G or I without public hearing and approval .
7. Alt members of the Planning Commission to receive copy of State Regulations
on Lakeshore Development.
8. Representatives of Glenwood Hil )s N�ighborhood Association be sent infiorma-
tion available to the Planning Cortmission and that they be notified of any
Planning Commission meeting with Health Centr�l , Inc.
9. Request City staff to develop a set of conditions that would be set forth and
discussed and given to the developer at the time of general plan approval .
Concept plan approval was passed by the City Council on April 7, 1976, subject
to the conditions and requirements as listed in the Resolution entitled approval
of Concept Plan of P.U.D. # 17 Upon Certain Conditions and Requirements.
Planning Considerations
1. This matter has a lengthy history and has been considered and discussed at
numerous pulic meetings. During this process, a considerable amount of back-
ground material has been de�elo�ed . which, at this time, seems adequate to
serve as the foundation for arriving at some specific conclusion as to the
merits of the PUD plan proposal .
2. This Planning Report should be considered as an add�ndum to previously
submitted reports on this matter.
3. Recently submitted final plans appear to be corr�lete and adequate meeting
submission (code) requirements.
� w,
i �3�
Planning Comm��sion
Jtal�r 12, 1976 Page 3
4, Detaited plans (building, site, landscape) for development of Parcel ''D"
seem complete, adequate, and satisfactory.
5. Sketches submitted by the Applicant would seem to indicate that the view
presented by development of Parcel "D" would not be significantly different
from that which currently exists.
6. The Applicant' s case for location of a new roac��near S�veeney Lake is, in our
opinion, convincinq and reasonable.
7. We would suggest that the amount of "open space" to be retained in the
development bears._�ittle impc�rtance to "public land dedication" for the
following reasons:
a) This is a campus type ptan and use which would normally retain a signifi—
cant amount of open green space regardless of public requirements.
b) Mueh of the "open space" woald be c!i`fficult and expensive to develop in
any event.
c) Clustering of rather intense devetopments (such as proposed for Parcel �'0")
would normally require a significant amaunt of surrounding open space in a
suburban situation.
d) The "amount�� of open green space retained is of questionable value to the
"public" in terms of ac�uat use and direct benefit.
8. Traffic data as such seems of tittle value unless interpreted and applied;
analysis to date, however, seems to indicate that the City Council ' s restric—
tions upon further development beyond Parcel °'D" pending further study of
Golden Vall�y Road and alternate access roads is good and proper. It is,
however, stitl im�ortant to determine public policy as to the status of
Golden Valley Road (major or minor street?) under any development conditions.
9. It is our opinion that a public trail can and should be provicied; arguments
against such a trail made by the Applicant to date are not convincing.
10. It is suggested that the City consider taking actions as may be necessary to
eliminate the tax exempt status of the entire PUD area sincd it is difficult
to understand why in the public interest "office rental space" should be so
tax exempt.
11. The landscape plan should include sidewalks for pedestrian movements and also
additional trees to rrbre adequately screen the buildings proposed for Parcel "D".
12. In the future, a map should be prepared which more clearly indicates the line
between development parcels and that land whicM is cQ,rtsidered to be open
green space to be retained.
Recommendatian
We recommead approval of the General Development Ptan and Phase No. t development
under conditions as outtined in the PUO Permit dragt for your cortsideration.
Carl Dale then reviewed the Special Use Permit for P.U.D. #17.
The Planning G.ommission in di�scussing the Planning Report discussed the new State
regulations relating to Standards and Criteria for the Management of Municipat
Shoreland R:reas. Discussion was atso held in regard to dedication of land or cash
in lieu of and whether open space would be considered as tax exempt tand.
Chris Stang, Executive President of Health Central , Inc. , Dennis Stoekel ,
Administrative Assistant, and Michael Gair of Howard Dahlgren Associates were
present for the request. Michael Gair stated the the proposal is for a four story
office building (5 stories on Lake side) with a three level parking ramp consisting
of 167 parking spaces. This concept commits 51`� of the total dryland, 73.6 acres
of the total 113.8 acre site to open space of 65q of total land area.
� ��`�
Planning Cornmission
July 12, 1976 Page 4
Mr. Gair then spoke to the items listed in the Aprit 7, 1976 Council minutes as
follows:
Road on West side of Site. There presently exists a graded road bed which is on
the same alignment as the proposed road which the proponent fetls is the most
logical placement, and it maintains a low profile as it comes through the area.
Two alternatives include moving the road 15 feet East of the existing roadbed or
moving the road 120 feet East of the existing roadbed. Moving the road 15 feet
East would provide a 50—foot space between the road and Sweeney Lake (meeting the
State' s Municipal Shoreline requirements); however, it would also require a re—
taining watl and removal of trees. Moving the road 120 feet East would require
the grading of at least 600 feet of existing landscaped area and would create
road grades of up to 10% and elevate the road bed six or seven feet, maki;ng the
road visually more obvious.
Peninsula. Mr. Gair reviewed the peninsula area known as Parcel ''H", pointing
out that it provides 230 to 300 feet of depth in dry tand between Sweeney and
Twin Lakes, of which 150 to 220 feet is above the 100 year flood elevation of
833' • We plan to develop 2.8 acres of this site and the remaining 2.2 acres of
developable area will be added to Parcel "G".
Trail Easement. The proponent stated that they feel a trail through this area
would be a negative impact. The trail should be located in an area where it
would better relate to user population concentrations. A trail through the
hospital property would have a negative impact on the seclusiveness and thera—
peutic value which presently exists on the site.
Traffic Cor�arison. The traffic comparison of six other medical office buildings
was discussed. It was pointed out. that since the buildirgis strictly a medical
facility, the estimated ADT will be higher than the previous figur.�s submitted.
The approximate number of suites will be 25, with a maximum number of 60 doctors.
The net leasable area is 31,000 square feet. The estimated average daily trips
generated per doc��t- is in a range of 32 to 54. The estimated ADT is 2,244.
Parkiru�. There are presently 319 parking spaces in the area of the originai
hospital ; however, the requi.red parking spaces, according to Golden Valtey
Oridnance, is 190.
Flood Plain Zoning. The lowest elevation fo the proposed building is 19 feet
above the 100 year Flood event, and the lowest elevation of the roadway is
8 feet above the loo year flood event.
Shoreland Zoning. In regard to shoretand zoning, it was noted by the proponent
that the Land Use Managemetn Section of the Department of Natural Resources
indicated that their only coneern is with regard ta "work in the bed of Twin Lake".
Review by Other Agencies. The pEOponent stated that no specific source of funding
has been identifies and it is possible thath the entire cost of construction may
be carried by a general contractor and thus requiring no addi,tionat funding source.
Access to Sweeney Lake. Public access to Sweeney lake was discussed at which
time the proponent said the public would continue to use Sweeney Lake as in the
past but would be asked to use the regu3,ar parking spaces.
Lartdscaping. La�dscaping, elevation on North and West sides of the proposed
building and parking ramp were shown and it was noted by the proponent that the
design is to p�-ovide �isuat continuity between the existing and proposed buildings
R
i ���
{
Planning Commission
July 12, 1976 Page 5
by intergrating form, material , color, and profiie.
The Planning Commission then held discussion on the proposal . The new standards
and Criteria for the Management of Municipal Shorland Areas was discussed in
regard to classification of all public waters in munincipal;ities ar�d corresponding
criteria, placement of structures on lots in accordance with the class of public
waters, high water elevation, and location of roads. Thr trail easement was
discussed at which time Commissioner Lundsgaard stated he could see no need to
provide a trail through this property because of the risk involved with a public
trait going through this type of development, and the area in some piaces is too
isolated for proper law enforcement. Parcel B presently houses psychiatric care
facilities, and-the proposed facitities for the parcet adjoining Parcel B would
house the same type of facilities. Also discussed was traffic generated by the
proposed use, types of uses in the proposed building, and parkland dedication.
Bob Grossman, 1940 Major Drive, was present as an interested resident and stated
that five stipulations had not been met: the road placement, trail , dedication of
p�rkland, public access to the Lake, development of Parcel "'H". Mr Grossman feels
that this plan should be rejected and the proponent should meet the requirements
of Ptanning Commission and Courcil .
It w�s moved by Herje, seconded by Sehlin to defer action on this requ�st to the
Augu�t 9, 197b Ptanning Commission meeta:rrg for the following reasons:
1 . Planning Commission to recei�e the recomnendation from the Park and Recreation
Comnission which well be meeting jointly with the Open Space and Trails Committee.
2. Planninq Commission to receive formal input from the Golden Valley Environ-
� mental Commission.
3. Proponent will have an opportunity to futly meet the conditions set forth by
Planning Commission and Cauncit .
4. Submission of a more detaiied alndscape plan.
Upon vo� being taken by roll call , the following voted in favor of the motion:
Herje and Sehlin; and the fotlawing voted against the same: Christiansen, Lunds-
gaard, Mindess, and Wagman. The motion did not carry.
It was then rr�ved by Lundsgaard, seconded by Mindess, carried unanimously, to
recommend approval of general plans for P.U.O. #17, subject to:
1 . A servey of the site which would include defining all the areas identified
by alphabet letters A through H. The survey should also include:
a) Size of the areas
b) O�;�nensions of the areas.
2. Provisions of Section 440s$0 (2) indicating how this shall be applicable to
Area D of P.U.D. #17.
3. Generat plan approval for P.U.D. #17 does not grant any waivers of the Flood
Plai►n Ordinance.
4. Proponent to comply with all requirements of special use permit and require-
ments and conditions as listed in the Planning Report by Carl Oale.
5. Proponent to comply with Bassetts Creek Flood Control Corrmission requirements.
6. Subject to approva� of the Fire Mar5ha11 and City Engineering Department of
Golden Valley.
7. Moving the road adjacent to Sweeney Lake a minimum of 50' from the high
water mark.
1� ��
Planning Comnission
July 12, 1976 Page 6
4. PRELIMINARY PLAT—TYROL WEST ADDITION
Applicant: Wayne Jopp
Location: 1300-1400 block of Natchez Avenue South
Request: Platting of Twelve Lots
Zoning: Residential
A brief exptanation of the request was given because of the previous meetings
the Ptanning Comnission has had regarding this request. The basic change is �
that ir� Block 1 there are five lots rather than six as previously presented.
The total .number of lots into the plat are twelve—tv� of which are proposed for
double dwetlings (Lot 5 Block 1 and Lot t Block 2).
James Held, designer of the preliminary plat, was present representing Wayne Jopp.
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Wagman, carried unanimously, to recommend
approval of the plat, reminding ��he City Council of the letter from the State
Highway Department in reference to this plat.
5. CAPITAL LONG RANGE IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE
Th¢ Planning Commission has no further suggestions to add to their ]ist which
was submitted to the Capital Long Range Improvement Comnittee at their June 22,
1976 meeting.
Because of the number of ineetings in the Capital Long Rang� Irr�rovement Commit—
tee has been involved in Commissioner Wagman indicated he would act as an atter—
nate to Commissioner Herje.
6. PROPERTY NORTH OF LAUREL AND FLORIDA AVENl1E
The Planning Commission was ir�formed that the City Council will meet on Tuesday,
July 13, 1976 at 6:00 PM to discuss the area known as the Elstad property north
of Laurel Avenue and Florida Avenue. The Council will be reviewing development
potential and drainage of the south fork with respect to this property.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duiy deconded, adjourned at 11:40 PM.
:..� �
. '
��--�...�..�..�
_m._ _... ;
?C airman Ronald d�trom Secretary athryn He 'e
NO PLAN[VING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 26, 1976