Loading...
07-24-78 PC Minutes ;�'� MfNUTES QF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMtSS10N July 24, 1978 A regular meeting of the GoJden llalley Planning Commission was held at 7<3� P.M. on Monday, July 24, 1978 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Va11ey, Minnesota. Chair Sehlin presided and the following mem:bers were present: Commi�sioners Eastes, Edstrom, Forster, Herje, Mindess, and Polachek. Members absent: Commissioners Hughes and Specktor. Chair Sehlin introduced tihe newly-appointed Commission Member, Sue Eastes, to the Planning Commission. 1 . APPROVAL-OF MINUTES: MQVED by Edstrom, seconded by Herje, car�'ied unani- mously, to defer consideration of the Planning Commission minutes of June 26, 1g78 to that part of the agenda prior to ltem #4, at which time it was MOVED by Herje, seconded by Forster, carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of the June 26, 1978 Planning Commission meeting as amended as follows; Page 3, Item #5 under - Page 6 of repart,- omit first paragrapM and replace with "The Planning Commission questions the legal definition of blight", Page 4, under - Page 7 of report, omit first paragraph and replace with "The Planning Commission expressed concern with the word underutilization", Page 4, under: - Page 7 of report, fourth paragraph to read "In regard to ftem #7, it was moved by Mindess, seconded by Hughes, carried unanimously, that there are now ordinances and laws governing the cutting of weeds", Page 4, under - Page 7 0� report, fifth para- graph to read "lt was maved by Mindess, seconded by Edstrom that to summarize the justificat'ron for the redevelopment in this area, that the items as listed in the report are not adequate jusfii�'ication for the Ualley Square concept. Other more justifiable items could have been added to the repQrt. The motion carried with Commissioner H�rje voting nay.", Page 5, first paragraph to read "The decision that this parcel of land should be used for offices was surprising to the Planning Commission because no proposal had been presented to the Planning Commission", Page 5, under - Page 14 of report, add to end of sentence '"and ask what the role for the Housing Redevelopment Authority is", Page 6, under - Page 18 of report, second paragraph to read "Comment: The main problem with the Valley Square commercial area is the commercial development. The proposed Redevelopment Plan does not address the main problem." 2. CITY CAUNCIL REfERRAL "- TO RECOMMEND A ZONING ON PRQPERTY LOCATED, NO{tTH OF GOLDEN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER,AND EAST OF TURNERS CROSSROAD Chair Sehlin read a letter from Howard Dahlgren of Noward Dahlgren & Asspciates, the planner for the proponent, requesting that this item be deferred for approxi- mately one month to allow time for the parties involved to pursue a planning solution for this area. The Commission was in agreement to defer this item. ��� Planning Commission July 24, 1978 page 2 3• REQUEST FOR REZONING Applicant: B � R Properties Locationc Southwest Quadrant Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive Request: Rezone to light lndustrial Zoning: North segment-Open Development, and remainder-lndustrial The Planning Considerations are as follows: "1 . The site is currentty utilized as a recreational (Little League) ball field; the proposal is to utitize the entire site for office and warehouse develop- ment, Presently, the bulk of the site is zoned "Industriat'' except for a strip (Approx. i70 ft. in depth) of "Open Development" zoning along Golden Valtey Road. 2. The Comprehensive City Plan calls for the site to be multipte housing. Surrounding conditiorrs are as follows: a) High quality apartments adjacent and to the west; the apartment complex is on higher ground and is well screened from the site by dense tree cover. b) Single family homes to the north across Golden Valley Road on higher ground and set back some distance from the road. c) Industrial to the east across Douglas Drive. d) The railroad and vacant land (zoned Industrial) adjacent to the south. 3. Douglas Drive is a major street with existing truck and other heavy traffic. Golden Valley Road is a "eollector" street. 4. Homes to the north across Golden Va11ey Road on high ground look down upon much of the site and will have a view of any development on the site in question. Apartments to the west of the site are well screened by both elevation differences and vegetation. 5. The site is highly exposed (visualty and atherwise)to traffic and industrial uses. Being generally flat and exposed, the site is not especially well suited for residential use and, unlike the adjacent apartment complex, is rather isolated (by roads and terrain) from the residential neighborhood to the north and northwest. 6. In our opinion, utilization of the entire site for light industrial develop- ment will not significantly add to the affects upon adjacent and nearby residential uses provided excellent landscape and good building architecture is required along Golden Valley Road on land currently zoned "Open Development". ResidentiaT development of the site in question would seem feasible only if the entire site is so developed, well landscaped, and set back well from Golden Va}ley Road, Douglas Drive, and the railroad; residential or other "limited" use of only the land now zoned "Open Development'' would seem rather impractical and of little environmental value. 7. In our opinion, there are no strong arguments or clear-cut planning criteria either for or against industrial use of the entire site in questian. Good site planning and architecture can relieve most potential adverse affects (including on-site truck movement noise) upon nearby residential uses. Like- wise, there are no strong arguments for or against zoning the site for multipl� dwellings. 8. The site is not included in the City's Comprehensive Plan for recreational facilities. z�� Planning Cornmission Juty 24, T978 Pa9e 3 9. It is our opinion that rezoning the site for multiple dwellings is not very practical unless done as part of a total , comprehensive rezoning plan and procedure for the entire City. 10. Due to topography differences and other reasons, there would seem littte to be gained by retaining the "Open Development" zoning strip or zoning, since the same desired environmental effects can be achieved via good site and building planning and zoning administrative procedures. 11 . Under existing conditions and subject to the following, we would recommend zoning of the entire site "light Industrial": a) The site plan should include two buildings (scheme No., 2 as submitted by the applicant) with the northerly building utilized for office space with no truck traffic onto Golden Va1Tey Road. Building architecture and landscaping (especia]]y as< viewed from Golden Valley Road) should be of high quality including building roof structure. b) The southerly portion of the site should contain a building which would have any truek traffic generation uses with site planning features limiting frucks and loading operations towards the south (much as indi- cated on the applicant's plan scheme No. 2) . c) All exterior lighting should be hooded (or directional focused) so as to shield the source of light from view to the north and west. d) Spruce trees and other dense evergreen plantings shou}d be required along the west property tine as needed protection for the adjacent apartments. e) Truck access should be limited to Douglas Drive as indicated on scheme No. 2 by the applicant. 12. Plan scheme No. 1%� as submitted by the applicant is not desirable due to access, visual , flexible use, and other problems. 13. Properly planned and controlled, it is our opinion that light lndustrial Zoning and use of the entire site under conditions noted herein would not be detri- mental to the nearby residential environment nor the community in general ." ��Single building (combined office/warehouse use) The Planning Commission held discussion on the proposal . The Commission expressed concern about the lack of assurance as to what type of buiJding or use would be placed on this property if the property were rezoned. Permitted uses and setback requirements as tisted in the Zoning Code Districts were discussed because of the concern of the P]anning Commission with the close proximity of this proposal to Residential and Mu]tiple dwellings. Access was discussed, particularly noting that restrictions should be placed on traffic on Golden Valley Road and access should be to Douglas Drive. John T. Richter, President of B � R Properties, Inc. , and Glenn Brunett of Valp Construction Company were present for the request. Mr. Richter indicated to the Planning Commission that he had met with the surrounding neighborhood and, after receiving input from the neighbors, a third proposal was completed late in the afternoon prior to this meeting by the architects taking into consideration the neighbor's concerns and comments. This proposed structure (scheme No. 3) witl have 47,000 square feet of floor area with office space located in the North, West, and East sides of the building and warehouse space on the South side away from the Residential area. The structure will have a mansard roo�F on three sides. �� Planning Commission .lulY 24, 1978 page 4 Parking will be moved as much as possible away from the West side with most of the parking placed on the South and East sides. Mr. Richter noted that there is industry to the south and east of this land. There are apartment buildings to the west and residentiat to the north. The proponent wishes to present a concept that would provide a smooth transition between the industrial and residential areas, and the naturaT area to the west of this proposal will be left undisturbed as much as possible. The following residents expressed their concerns as follows: Vincent Carlson, 6533 Golden Valley Road, resides in the apartment' complex to the west; and stated that he and others who rent in this complex are long term residents who are interested in their community. He objects to Scheme No. l because the building is too large and would take away the natural wooded area next to the complex, but is in favor of Scheme No, 3 which would preserve more of the naturat area to the north of the apartment complex. Also, concern was expressed that an approved use might change. Duane Ferguson, 6306 Golden Va11ey Road, called the Planning Department and indicated that because of a previous engagement he could not attend the Planning Commission meeting but asked that the Planning Department relay that he supports the City Gomprehensive Plan which indicates a high density Residential use for this site. Charles Wurley, representing Pako Corporation at 6300 O1son Memorial Highway, stated they do not object to the proposal but expressed cancern about the traffic flow on Douglas Drive. With the additional traffic generated from this proposal , the traffic would back up at Highway 55 and asked the Planning Commission to consider a traffic study for this intersection. Jerry Johnson, 6539 Golden Valley Road, resides in the apartment complex to the we:st of the proposal , felt that Scheme No. 3 is a better plan but expressed concern that lights from the parking lot would be located very close to the apartments to the North. Cliff Skjegstad, 6420 Golden Valley Road, stated that his main concern is the traffic on Golden Valley Road, which has increased greatly through the years, and feels access should n.�ot be to Golden Valiey Road, size of trucks should be limited on Golden Valley Road, speed should be reduced on Golden Valley Road, and a 4-way stop sign should be placed at Hampshire Avenue � Golden Va11ey Road so that the area resi-dents have an access to Golden Valley Road. Mr. Skjegstad distributed a letter signed by area residents to the Ptanning Commission stating their concerns. Gene Nessly, Vice President of the Minnesota Division of Minnegasco, stated they sold the land for which this proposal is planned to B � R Properties, and he feels Mr. Richter is a very conscientious developer. Hugh Marron, 6320 Golden Valley Road, asked whether the light Industrial Zoning has any restrictions on noise and air pollution. The Planning Commission again' discussed the proposal . The Commission expressed concern that if this parcel were rezoned to light lndustrial , the proposal could change, and the City would have no control over what would be constructed. Access and the traffic situation on Golden Valley Road were discussed and it was felt that access shou]d be to Douglas Drive. The Commission discussed developing this parcel through the Planned Unit Development Ordinance by which the City could place stipulations and controls on the building, landscaping, and access. The Planning Commission discussed the Planned Unit Development procedure with the proponent. It was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Herje, carried unanimousty, to table indefinitely the rezoning request to allow the proponent time to review the Planned Unit Develop- ment procedure and also time to consider a P.U.D. approach for the proposal . � �,�� Planning Commission July 24, 1978 Pa9e 5 It was then moved by Mindess, seconded by Herje, carried unanimously, to recommend that the following be included in the plans if the proponent should choose the Planned Unit Development procedure: 1 . Truck traffic limited to DaugTas Drive only. 2. The main truck driveway to be located within 350 feet of the South portion of the site. 3. Exterior lighting to be hooded. 4. Visual barrier planting along West edge of parking lot pavement. 5. 135-foot sideyard setback on West side. 6. Subject to review by Public Safety Department, who should not only review safety aspects but also consider ingress and egress. 7. Office space should be at least 60i of total rentable space. 8. Percentage of area eovered by buildings not to exeeed that shown on plot plan of Scheme No. 3 (47,000 square feet) . 9. Consider waiver of performance bond. 4. GENERAL A) HOUSING POLICY Chair Sehlin read a letter dated July 19, 1978 from Mayor Hoover outlining the time frame for the formation of the Housing Policy by the Housing and Community Development Commission which has been extended to September 14, 1978. After the Council receives the r�:port it will be referred to the Planning Commission for their review. B) BUDGET - 1979 Jon Westlake informed the Planning Commission that :if the Commission has any requests for funds from the 1979 budget, he should be informed. It was moved by Herje, seconded by Edstrom, carried unanimously, to request that $200 be added to the Planning budget for Planning Commission members to attend educational conferences and schools. 5• REVIEW HRA - MARY ANDERSON, CHAIRPERSON The PTanning Commission adjourned to the Gold Room at which time Mary Anderson, Chairperson of the Housing � Redevelopment Authority, reviewed with the Planning Commission the regulations as required by State statutes for a Housing � Redevelopment Authority, types of applicants for HRA, Metro HRA, and HRA as a new approach for Golden Vatley. Mary Anderson then reviewed how the Ua11ey Square plan was enacted from a concept idea into a Valley Square Development plan and adopted by the City Council . The City Council has also established a Valley Square Commission consisting of 5 members - 1 member will act as Chair while the remaining members wi11 head up four task forces. General discussion followed. � � Planning Commission July 24, 197$ pac�e 6 There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion, duly seconded, adjourned at 12:05 A.M. Jody Sehlin, Chair Mervyn Mindess, Secretary