01-08-79 PC Minutes ��!
MINUTES OF THE GOLDE�d VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSIQN
January 8 , 1979
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at 8:00 P.M.
on Monday, January 8, 1979 at the Civic Center, 7800 Goiden Valley Road ,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Chair Sehlin presided and the following members were present:
Commissioners Edstrom, Forster, Mindess, and Specktor. Also present was
Jon Westlake, staff inember.
Members absent: Gommissioners Eastes, Nerje, Hughes and Polachek.
1 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The approval of the minutes was deferred to the
end of the Pl anning Corrmission meeting at which time it was h10VED by Mindess,
seconded by Forster, carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of the Dec�nber 11 ,
1978 Pl anning Comnission meeting as mail ed.
2. PL!#�tVED UNIT DEVELOPMENT #22
Proponent: B & R Properties, Inc.
Location: South of Golden Vall ey Road & West of Dougl as Drive
Request: Develop the 26.3� warehouse area into office area
The request is to change the requirement of Item 12 of the August 14, 1978
Planning Commission minutes which reads as follows, "All uses and development
shall conform to office use being not less than 73.7� of the structure and
warehouse no more than 26.3% of the structure. (Plan indicates 37,800 sq.ft.
office area and 13,500 sq. ft. warehouse, for a total of 51 ,300 sq.ft. ) The
area fo building coverage on the site is 32,400 sq. ft. "
The proponent is proposing to develop the 26.3q warehouse area into office area.
The approved plans are for a two-story building with offices on two floors
except in the warehouse area. Because of the request to develop the warehouse
area into office area, more parking space wiil be required. The building is
somewhat smaller than the approved plans. The current proposal is for a site
coverage of 30,000 sq. ft. or a total of 60,000 sq. ft. for the two stories.
The required parking for this size structure is 400 spaces and the site plan
indicates 298 spaces. Therefore after the City Council reviews the request the
proponent will have to apply for a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals,
because of the util ization of the East 55 ft. of the required 135 ft. landscaped
area. The site plan has also changed indicating parking within 75 feet of Golden
Valley Road. By providing parking in the above two areas the 400 required units can
be met. The type of office uses may also change as found in an office warehouse vs.
an office building. .. ..,
Messrs. John Richter, property owner and Glenn Burnett, Architect were present.
Mr. Richter ,indicated that the size of the building has been reduced by 2,400 sq.
ft. They have been advised that because of several things such as location, that
the best use af the parcel r�ould be an office building from a land use point of
view, we feel it is better because of the apartments to the t�est and single family
homes to the North. It is 'our feeling because of our current buildings in Golden
Va11ey �hat the original parking area as shown on the site plan as approved will
£')��
Pl anning Corrnnnission -
January 8, 1979 Page 2
handle the parking needs on the site, even though the warehouse area will
be office space. The parking works out to be 1 space per 200 sq. ft. of
building area which seems to be standard for a majority of suburban
communities.
��r� Vincent Carlson of Valley View Apartments, 6533 Golden Valley Road,
stated that he, including others, endorsed the revised plan and strongly
urge that the 135 foot natural area remain.
The Planning Commission in reviewing the �aroposed change discussed with the
proponent the type of tenants that he would be leasing to because it makes
a difference in the parking. The Commission discussed parking at Bassett
Creek Plaza and 4lestwood Lake Office Park as to their parking needs and applied
it to this proposal . The Commission in questioning the proponent anked if he
plans, for example, to have a restaurant, hair stylist or other ancillary uses
found in office buildings. The proponent indicated he did not want this type
of use or for example a doctors office. The intent is to rent to large office
uses, such as a food bro kerage firm.
The Co�nnission noted that the office use as approved before was the predominant
use and under this proposal will be the sole use. The Commission was concerned
about the type of use versus the number of parking spaces , however it aJas noted
the parking and landscape areas can be met under the current zoning requirements.
It was moved by Edstrom seconded by Mindess, carried unanimously to recorrnnend
approval of the reques,ted change for P.11.D. #22 which is to redesign the ware-
housing protion into two floors of offices. If tMe request is approved the
following should be added or changed in tfie use permit:
1 . If parking is not adequate on the site, the City has the right to
require the owner to provide additional on-site parking. The oamer,
in providing the parking, would follow the P.U.D. pracedure.
2, Any vegetation that is removed for additional parking wi11 be
replaced to create the same aesthetic look from the �daest or North.
3. It�n 12 of the use permit to read as follows: All uses and develop-
ment shall conform to office use, with a site coverage for the
structure to be no more than 30,000 sq. ft. (Two-story buildinc�
total 60,000 sq. f t. )
All other previous provisions of the use permit still apply.
3. REQUEST FOR REZONING
Applicant: Allan C. Boc k (Mark Hurd .Aerial Surveys, Inc.)
Location: 7350 Laurel AVenue
Zoning: Open �evelo�nent
Proposal : Business & Professional Office
The property �o be considered for rezoning is located 220 feet East of
Pennsylvania Avenue, North of Laurel Avenue and 120 feet South of Oregon
Avenue South. The property is undeveloped and covers approximately 3.40 acres
of land. The zoning of the property is Op�n Development and the request is to
�Eh:
Planning Corr�nission
January 8, 1979 Page 3
rezone the property to Business & Professional Office. The property owner has
no plans for development of the property but feels from their standpoint the
best method for marketing the property is to have the parcel properly zoned.
Because there are no development plans for the site the following shouid be
considered in reviewing the parcel for rezoning:
1 . Surrounding Land-Use Impacts
2. Topography and Slope
3. Traffic-Volume Generated
A) Surrounding Land Uses
North: Detached Single Family Dwelling Units
South: Industrial Zoning - site houses Liberty Carton
Northeast: Detached Single Family Dwelling Units
North: Vacant platted lots for Single Family Housing
West: �oned Business & Professional Office - property houses
Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc.
B) Topography - relief:
The proper.ty is characterized as prairie with slopes ranging from
1-18� (Nilly). The steep slopes are found along the West and North
boundary of the property. .�:.,.�.
The soil composition of the property consists of the following:
HbD: Hayden loam, 12-18� slope
NbC: Nayden ]oam, 6-]2% slope
NdB: Nessel 1 oam, 1 -4q slope
Pa: Peaty Muc k
C) Traffic - property access:
Beaause there are no development plans, traffic generated for a specific
use cannot be evaluated at this time. The trips generated could range
from a-1 ight office use to a cl inic , or a mixture of both.
Current access to the property would be a driveway to Laurel Avenue.
Because Laurel AVenue is not currently constructed, the driveway from
the property would extend along the right of way of Laurel , and connect
with Pennsylvania Avenue.
D) Considerations:
l . In order that the possibility of conflicting land uses are minimized ,
^
?a p�
Planning Commission
January 8 , 1979 Page 4
the proposed property to be rezoned should be zoned so that there is minimal
impact on the residential areas to the north and west of the site as well
as the undeveloped publicly owned property lying directly east of the site.
2. The traffic volume generated by a "Business and Professional �ffices"
zoning district is hard to determine because of not knowing the particular
use and size of structures at this time.
3. The contrast in soil domposition and slope on the site may 1 imit the
design capabil ities for a "Business and Professional Offices" use.
E) Consistency of proposed Rezoning to adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan:
P. 17 According to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, a rezoning
of this property to a "Limited Business Area° shall :
. . . incl ude uses high in aesthetic appeal and r�,y be compatibl e
with various residential uses. . .locations may range from a fringe
use of a residential neighborhood to a large office park adjacent
to a major highway and industrial park.
Goiden Valley Comprehensive Plan - 1977
Messrs. Bradley R. Janzen, Attorney and Gene Bormer of l�iark Hurd Aerial Surveys
were present for the request. P�tr. Janzen indicated the property owner, Allen
C. Bock, Trustee for Employees Profit Sharing Trust, would like to sell the
property. It is felt the most feasible way to market the property v�auld be
to request a change in the zoning.
We feel the best land use would be Business & Professional Office because of
Business & Professional Office Zoning to the West, Institutional to the East
and Industrial to the South. The proposed zo��ing wiill act as a buffer use to
the Residential use to the North, Northeast and Northwest.
Mr. & Mrs. Jaffe of 420 Pennsylvania Avenue South were present as interested
residents and stated that traffic is a serious problem in the neighborhood
especially on Pennsylvania Avenue South. Any additional building will add to
the traffic. Questioned if the City has considered purchasing the property.
The Planning Corr�nnission in discussing the request reviewed types of uses that
may be compatible for the property other than Business & Professional Office,
which are residential , townhouses, multiple, r��rsing home and the City's
interest in the property for ponding. The Planning Corr�nission pointed out
that any use other than ponding would produce traffic. The Corr�nission noted that
Laurel Avenue is a collective street on the Comprehensive Plan and questioned
when Laurel Avenue would be completed between Louisiana and Pennsylvania /ivenues.
The Commission also noted that in order to evaluate the site, a site plan would
be hel pful .
It was moved by Specktor seconded by Edstrom carried unanimously to table the
request to February 26, 1979. The Pla nning Commission noted that the owner
�� .
Planning Commission
January 8, 1979 Page 5
of the property in qu+�stion, which has frontage on Laurel Avenue, is requesting
a Business & Professional Office zoning. However, it is extremely difficult to
adequately consider this request without additional information. The Planning
Canmission requests the Council to provide the Corrnrnnission with current informa-
tion on the status of Laurel Avenue, and the timing of its construction. The
Planning Comnission also requests that the City nrovide an assessment of the
present traffic situation along Pennsylvania Avenue in the vicinity of Laurel
Avenue and types of solutions.
The Planning Commission requests that the developer provide a complete site r
plan of the site to show building size, setbac ks, landscaping, parking and
types of traffic generated for an office use.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
Chair Se in Secretary Mervyn I�indess