08-14-78 PC Minutes r��,�
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSIQN
August ]4, 1978
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 7:30 P.M.
on Monday, August 14, 1978 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Chair Sehlin presided and the following members were present: Commissioners
Eastes, Edstrom, Forster, Herje, Hughes, Mindess, and Polachek. Also present
was Jon Westlake, staff inember.
Members absent; Commissioner Specktor.
1 , APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOVED by Forster, seconded by Mindess, carried
unanimously, to approve the minutes of the July 24, 1978 Planning Commission
meeting as mailed.
2. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-INFDRMATIONAL HEARING
P.U.D. #22
Proponent: B & R Properties, Inc.
Location: South of Golden Va11ey Road and< West of Douglas Drive
Request: Construet a 51 ,300 square-foot Office Warehouse
The proponent has chosen to proceed under the general plan approach of the
Planned Unit Development Ordinance. The request is for a single structure con-
taining 51 ,300 square feet, whieh includes the mezzanine area. The office
area will contain 37,800 square feet and the warehouse 13,500 square feet.
1 . The site contains a land area of 304,202 square feet, or 6.g8 acres.
The building coverage is 32,400 square feet, or lli of the site.
2. There are 286 on-site parking spaces.
3. Finished floor elevation of the structure is 876' . Elevation of Golden
Valley Road ranges from $80' to 882' and Douglas Drive from 879' to 881 ' .
4. Setbacks for structure and green area are greater than the ordinance
requires on the South, West, and North.
5. The structure will be two stories in height with mansard hand split
cedar shingles on the North, East, and West sides. The remainder of the
structure will be brick with an epoxy aggregate treatment.
6. Driveways and parking area are blacktop with a 6" concrete curb.
7. Landscaping.
a) Berm areas should have elevations and be designed, including plantings
for future sidewalks.
b) In the final landscaping pTan which receives review by the Building Board
of Review, the plans should indicate the trees to be saved on the site
to determine if additional landscaping is needed.
8. Current site plans indicate access off Golden Valley Road. The Fire Department
has indicated since there are two accesses off Douglas Drive and complete
access around the structure, access from Golden Valley Road is necessary.
In addition to the July 24, 1978 Planning Report, the following should be noted
if the proposal is approved, as standards for the Use Permit:
��
Planning Commission
August 14, 1978 page 2
1 . Ido part of the developmenfi shall be sold or otherwise transferred from
ownership, except under terms of an approved subdivision.
2. Landscaping shall be properly maintained and replaced if damaged or harmed
by winterkill , drought, or other causes.
3. Easements for utilities shall be provided if requested by the City.
4. Provisions for surface water drainage shall be as required by the
Engineering Department.
5. Trash, garbage, wastes, and other refuse shall be stored and disposed of in
the manner as indicated on the approved plans.
6. Exterior storage of wastes, materials, equipment, trucks, and other
miscetlaneous storage shall not be permitted.
7. No identification, rental , advertising, directional , or other signs shall be
pe-rmitted except those, specifically authorized and shown on the approved
plans as part of this permit.
$. All development and uses shall be subject to annual inspection by the City
for purposes of assuring continued conformity to the provisions of the permit.
9. All structures and grounds shall be properly and well maintained at all times.
10. A pubtic pedestrian trail or easement shail be provided if required by the
Gity Council . (Trail plans indicate present trail West side of Douglas Drive)
11 . Changes in the use of floor areas within the buildings shall not be permitted
except under terms of an amended special use permit. Permitted exterior
changes without an amended special use permit are limited to what is approved
on the plan.
12. All uses and development shall conform to office use being not less than 73.7i
of the structure and warehouse no more than 26.3% of the structure. (Plan
indicates 37,800 square feet office area and 13,500 square feet warehouse,
for a total of 51 ,300 square feet.) Area of building coverage on the site
is 32,400 square feet.
13. Interior concrete curbs shall be constructed within the property lines and
City Right of Way to separate driving and parking surfaces from larrdscaped
areas. Interior curbs shall not be less than six (6) inches in height.
14. Fire protection measures shall be as required by City Codes and the Public
Safety Department.
15. Landscaping, as per the approved plans, shall be completely installed. The
entire landscaped area shall be completed within 210 days following the
completion of the exterior of the building.
16. The applicant`s site planners and designers shall certify that development is
in conformity to approved plans and conditions of this permit upon completion.
17. The entire site other than that devoted to the structure or Tandscaped areas
shall be surfaced with concrete or bituminous surfacing to control dust and
provide adequate drainage, and the areas that have the semi movement shaTl
be designed to meet the requirements of a minimum nine (9) ton axTe load.
18. All outdoor illumination shall be provided with lenses, reflectors, or shades,
which will concentrate tMe light upon the premises so as to prevent glare or
direct rays of light therefrom from being visible upon adjacent property or
streets.
19. All mechanical services shall be screened and utilities shall be underground.
20. There shall be no loud speakers utilized nor other noise generated that may
create a nuisance on adjacent or nearby property.
21 . Requirements of City Council and Building Board of Review.
22. Additional requirements by Planning Commission.
��
Planning Commission
August 14, 197$ page 3
Messrs. Torgelson of B � R Properties and Burnett of ilolp Cons-truction Company
were present for the request. Mr. Burnett explained they are aware of the
planning recommendations of the July 24, 1978 Planning Commission meeting and
the August 14, 1978 planning report. The proposal is the same as submitted
at the July 24, 1978 Planning Commission meeting.
The following residents expressed their concerns as follows:
Mr. Carl Sutter, 2160 Xy1on Avenue North, Chairman of the Golden Valley Little
League, indicated they had leased this property from Minnegasco for the past
15 years. The lease with the Little League is cancelled as of Septer�ber 1978
and the property has to be returned to its original condition by that time.
This will invalve moving a two story structure, equipment, fencing, etc. The task
of completing this and also finding -a place to store the equipment will be
physically impossible by September. Mr. Sutter stated the field is used every
night of the week, including Saturday, and asked where these 250-300 kids will
go to play ball . There are probably 4 options: 1) move back to- the City park
and recreation system, 2) move bae k to Valley field as an interim step,
3) Laurel Avenue site-which would take three to' five years to develop. The
problem is, we need a place now. 4) GeneraT Mi11s site at Highway 55 � 18
which is in the diseussion stage. In an attempt to find a solution we have met
with B � R Properties and the Gas Gompany. We need-help and would be very
grateful if you could help 'us in any way. Mr. Gliff Skjegstad, 6420 Golden Valley
Road, �ould like to see no access to Golden Valley Road. Mr. Uincent Carlson,
6533 Golden Valley Road, residing in the apartment complex, questioned if the
plan meets the critiqus established at the July 24, 1g78 Planning Commission
meeting, noting there are two rows of parking on the West side of the building.
The Planning Commission in discussing the request explained the advantages of a
Planned Unit Development and how it applies to this development. The Commission
reviewed the plot plan, noting the area t.o be preserved, landscaping, structure
appearance, and elevations. In reviewing the site pian it was pointed out in
order to maintain the 135-foot landscaped area on the West, a row of parking
will have to be removed and added to the South side of the site. Egress and
Ingress to this site was discussed, including the amount of traffic produced by
the use, access to Golden Valley Raad, and the trail along Douglas Drive. The
Planning Commission discussed with the proponent the reasons why a performance
bond is required in the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, noting that the
City Council could waive this particular requirement. 7he Commission pointed out
they had suggested to the developer that he proceed under the Planned Unit
Development Ordinance.
The Planning Commission in discussing the -probl�ms of fhe Little League asked the
Golden Valley Littte League Chairman if they did not realize that some day _ th�y
wou�ld not be able to use the Minnegasco site and previously considered an altern-
ative location. The Commission realizes the Little League has a problem but the
Planning Commission reacts to proposals such as this request-which is land use,
and the Chairman of the Little League was informed that he should contact the
Park � Recreation Commission and the City Council . Mr. Burnett of VoTp Construction
Company indicated that the two story building could remain until spring because
it would not interfere with construction.
��
Planning Commission
August 14, 1978 page 4
it was moved by Edstrom, seeonded by Polachek, carried unanimously, ' to recommend
approva] of the general plan for P.U.D. #22, subject to the items listed in the
motion of the July 24, 1g78 Planning Commission minutes re-worded as follows:
T . No ingress and egress to Golden Valley Road- except for a designated area for
emergency vehicle access which is to be tandscaped but designated ta handle
emergency equipment {the Commission notes this is to be reviewed by the
Public Safety Department) .
2. The main truck driveway to be located within 350 feet of the Soufih portion of
the site.
3. Exterior lighting. ATl outdaor illumination shall be provided with lenses,
reflectors, or shades, which will concentrate the light upon the premises: so
as to prevent glare or direct rays of tight therefrom from being visible
upon adjacent property or streets.
4. Visual barrier planting along West edge of parking lot pavement.
5• 135-foot sideyard s:etback on West side.
6. Subject to review by Public Safety Department, who should not onty review
safety aspects but also consider ingress and egress. (refer to ltem #1 above)
7. Office Space. (See ltem #12 of the August 14, 1978 Planning report)
8. Percentage of area covered by buildings not to exceed that shown on plot plan
(34,000 square feet, total of 51 ,000 square feet including mezzanine) .
9. Consider waiver of performance bond in light of the request by P1-anning
Commission that this came forward as a P.U.D. rather than a zoning request.
Include Items 1 through 7 of the August 14, 1978 planning report and standards
for the Use Permit Items 1 through 18 of the August 14, T978 planning report.
3• SET PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL HEARING
P.U.D. #]6-A - Concept Plan
Proponent: Cheyenne Land Company
Location: 56i5 Glenwood Avenue
Request: Construct 50 Units
Mr. Ron Bastier of McCombs Knutson Associates was.present to request that the
Planning Commission set a concept plan hearing, even though they have received
concept approval , because of the time and changes that have occurred with
respect to the proposal .
It was moved by Herje, second:ed by Mindess, carried unanimously, to set the
concept hearing for September ll , 1978. The Commission asked the proponent to
meet with the neighbors prior to the hearing.
4. REVIEW PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGES AS DESIGNATED IN THE VALLEY SQUARE PLAN
Chair Sehlin reviewed a copy of a letter the Planning Commission received from
the Mayor in referenc� to the Planning Commission reviewing the proposed land use
in the Va11ey Square area so the Council may amend the Comprehensive Plan to
reflect the proposed land uses.
After discussion it was moved by Mindess, seconded by Polachek to table the request
and ask that a representative of the H.R.A. or member of the Valley Square Commission
present the land use changes to the Commission. The motion was withdrawn.
� --�
_:�,�
Planning Cammission
August 14, 1978 page 5
After further discussion the Planning Commission established the following
criteria to review the proposed land uses in the Valley Square area:
A. Abutting uses should be compatible.
l) ftesidential should not be next to Commercial or Industrial .
2) Office uses are more compatible with Commercial anc! Industrial .
B. Special housing opportunities, should be integrated into the
Residential-not isolated.
l) Special housing should be located where services are readily
available.
C. Deve}opment should take advantage of the natural resources of the area.
1) Bassett Creek should be preserved.
2) There should be an integral trail system.
D. Existing low environmental impact uses should be preserved.
1) Example: Greenhouses
E. Municipal building should be within a confined area.
1) Determination of need is essent:ial .
F. Railroads, pedestrian trails, and major and minor arterials have an
effect on land uses.
G. Desirable residential areas should be preserved.
Applying the aforesaid critique in reference to the following proposed land use
Changes in the Valley Square area is as follows:
A. Area North of Seventh Avenue, East of Boone Avenue, and West of
Bassett Creek.
l) Present Zoning: Light Industrial
2) Proposed Land Use:
a) South Parcel - Institutional (I-3)
Proposed Cand Use: Post Office
b) North Parcel - Business � Professional Offices
Land Use: House as Office Building
Planning Commission: proposed land use is compatible with area.
B. Reese Greenhouse Area - North of Hwy. 55, West ofi Wisconsin Avenue,
South and East 4f Ba�sett Creek
1) Present Zoning: Open Development
2) Proposed Land Use:
a) Area South Seventh Avenue tcr Hwy. 55 � Retail
Planning Commission: proposed land use is
compatible with area
b) Area North of Seventh Avenue to Bassett Creek-
Hic�h Rise Residential
%�%� Planning Commission: High Rise housing next
to Industrial and Commercial is not compatibie
land use.
�k�
Planning Commission
August 14, 197$ page 6
C. Office Building West of Midwest Federal , South of Golden Valley Road,
North of Hwy. 55
i) Present Zoning: Business � Professional Offices
2) Proposed_Land Use: Retail
Planning Commissian: proposed land use is compatible with area.
D. Post Office, Miller Sales, MeDonald's, and parking area (700-740 Winnetka)
1) Present Zoning`: Commercial
2) Proposed Land Use: Institutional (I-4)
Planning Commission: proposed land use is compatible with area.
E. Rhode Island Avenue North (700-80D block) , North of Golden Valley Road,
and $OO block of Pennsylvania Avenue North
1) Present Zoning: Residential
2) Proposed Land Use: 700 block Rhode Is1aRd Avenue-Senior Citizens
High Rise
%�%� Planning Commission: land use is not compatible - could be
Institutional P.U.D. or non-residential P.U.D.
3) Proposed Land Use: 800 b}ock Rhode Island Avenue-Institutional P.U.D.
%�%� Planning Commission: land use is not 'compatible - cou1d be Residential
P.U.D./senior citizens building.
4. Proposed Land Use: 80D block Pennsylvania Avenue North-Residential
P.U.D.
Planning Commission : iand use compatible, or senior citizens building.
F. Point Property - Golden Valley Road � Country Club Drive
1) Present Zoning: Commercial
2) Proposed Land Use: Institutianal (I-4) Transit Pulse Genter
*� Planning Commission: improper land use for such a valuable parcel
of land. Pulse- center park and ride should be on outer ring of
Valley Square area.
G. Rhode Island Avenue (800 block) South of Country C1ub Drive
1) West side of Rhode lsland Avenue
Present Zoning: Residential
a) Proposed Land Use: Retail
Planning Commission: land use is compatible.
2) East side of Rhode Island Avenue
Present Zoning: Residentia}
a) Proposed Land Use: Institutional (I,3)
Planning Commission: land use is compatibte.
H. Cataract Lodge and Residents to West (7445 - 7421 Glenwood Avenue)
1) Present Zoning:
a) 7445 Glenwood Avenue-Institutional (I-3)
b) 7421 Glenwood Avenue-Residential
2) Proposed Land Use: Townhouses Residential
Planning Commission: land use eompatible - could be higher density.
-�•� Asterisks indicate land use not compatible.
It was moved by Herje, seconded by Edstrom; carried unanimously, to recommend
the aforesaid land use in reviewing the proposed area of changes for land use in
the Valtey Square Plan.
�}�
Planning Commission
August l4, 1978 page 7
5. SCATTERED SITE HOUSING
A letter from the Mayor and a map containing the locatiQns. of the five areas
for scattered site housing was distributed to the P}anning Cor�r�ission, and
will be discussed by the Planning Commission at their Augus� 28, 1978 meeting.
Some Commission members felt the proponents of the scattered site housing should
attend the Planning Commission meeting to review the propasals with the Commission.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duTy seconded, adjourned at 11 :05 P.M.
Jody Sehlin, Chair Mervyn Mindess, Secretary