09-28-81 PC Minutes �
Minutes of the Golden Valley
Planning Commission
September 28, 1g81
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chambers
of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. Chairman
Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ,
Those present were Commissioners: Eastes, Forster, Moede, Polachek, Singer
and Thompson. Commissioner Leppik was not present at the beginning of the
meeting.
Also present were Mike Miller, Director of Planning and Redevelopment and
Alda Peikert, Assistant Planner.
I . Approval of Minutes - September 14, 1981c
It was moved by Commissioner Moede, seconded by Commissioner Polachek and
carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the September 14, 1981 Planning
Commission meeting as recorded.
II . Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit:
APPLICANT: James Yunger
LOCATION: 670 Mendelssohn Ave. N.
(Westview Business Center)
REQUEST: Permission to operate a Weight Lifting Studio
in a Light Industrial P.U.D.
This request for a conditional use permit was introduced by Chairman Thompson,
and the Planning Commissioners had no questions of staff, Chairman Thompson
recognized the proponent, Mr. James Yunger, and asked whether the Commissioners
had any questions for Mr. Yunger.
Commissioner Singer noted that the plans for Mr. Yunger's proposed weight
lifting studio include lockers for women and asked whether women also engage
in weight lifting. Mr. Yunger replied that interest of women in weight
lifting is growing.
Chairman Thompson asked Mr. Yunger where he is operating now. Mr. Yunger
replied that he was previously located in an office warehouse building at
600g Wayzata Blvd. in St. Louis Park, but that his lease has run out and he
is presently closed until approved in a new location. Chairman Thompson asked
whether Mr. Yunger experienced any problems with the City of St. Louis Park
Inspection .Department at his previous location. Mr. Yunger replied that
there had been no problems.
Chairman Thompson opened the informal public hearing. There was no one present
who wished to speak on this agenda item, and the public hearing was closed.
�
Planninc Comnission Minutes of September 28, 1981 Page 2
It was moved by Commissioner Moede, seconded by Commissioner Eastes and passed
unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the request from Mr. James
Yunger for a conditional use permit to allow the location of a weight lifting
studio within Westview Business Center, a tight Industria1 PUD located at
670 Mendelssohn Avenue North.
III . Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat:
APPLICANT: Robert L. Halseth
LOCATION: Southeast Quadrant of Intersection
at County Rd. #18 and Medicine Lake Road
REQUEST: Approval of Preliminary Plat of
"Westview Development"
Chairman Thompson explained that the request for preliminary plat approval of
"Westview Development" had been withdrawn at the request of the proponent.
Planr►ing and Redevelopment Director Mike Miller added that the proponent
requested that the informal public hearing be rescheduled for October 26,
1981 to allow time for an appearance before the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA) prior to hearing before the Planning Commission. Mr. Miller exp]ained
the necessity for a petition to the BZA prior to plat approval in order to
avoid creation of a nonconforming use.
The proponent, Mr. Robert L. Halseth, was not present.
It was moved by Commissioner Polachek, seconded by Commissioner Singer and
passed unanimously to reset the informal public hearing for consideration of
Mr. Robert L. Halseth 's request for preliminary plat approval of "Westview
Development" for October 26, 1981 •
IV. Informai Public Hearing - Rezoning of City Owned Property:
APPLICANT: City of Golden Valley
LOCATION: Former Schaper Property lying West of Ottawa
Avenue and adjacent City property lying South of
Sweeney Lake and West of former Schaper Property
REQUEST: Rezone from Commercial and Multiple Dwelling
to Institutional
Chairman Thompson introduced this City initiated application for rezoning of
City owned property, and the Planning Commissioners had no questions for staff.
Chairman Thompson opened the informal hearing to the public.
9f
Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 1981
Mr. Barney Rosen, 4$20 Killarney Drive, asked what plans the City has for
building on the property proposed for rezoning. Commissioner Forster replied
that the ortly plans are for construction of ponding. Planning and Redevelopment
Director Mike Miller explained uses permitted in the Institutional I-4 Zoning
District.
The informal public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Commissioner Moede, seconded by Commissioner Forster and passed
unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the City initiated rezoning
of City owned property located at 801 Ottawa Avenue North from the Commercial
and Multiple Dwelling (M-2) Zoning Districts to the tnsitutional (1-4) Zoning
District.
V. Informal Public Hearing - P.U.D. #32, Bassett Creek Office Park:
APPLICANT: ADDA Corporation
LOCATION: 5000 Olson Memorial Hwy.
REQUEST: �pproval of P.U.D. General Plan without Concept
Plan Approval
Chairman Thompson introduced this application for PUD General Plan approval
and asked whether there were any questions of Staff.
Commissioner Eastes asked why this PUD application is not following the normal
PUD process. Planning and Redevelopment Director Mike Miller explained that
application for General Plan of Development approval without Concept Plan
approval is an option available in the case of smaller and less complicated
PUD proposals.
Commissioner Moede asked who made the determination that this was an uncom-
plicated PUD. Mr. Miller replied thatthe proponent's decision to proceed
directly to GeneraT Plan of Development without Concept Plan approval must
be agreeable to City staff. In this case staff determined that the proponent
coutd take this option but recommended that the proponent not do so.
Chairman Thompson recognized the proponents , Mr. John Pluhar of ADDA Corpor-
ation and Mr. Tim Menning of Amcon Corporation. Mr. Menning, acting as
spokesman for the proponents, presented the PUD proposal to the Planning
Commission. Mr. Menning stated thatthe partners in his company, Amcon Cor-
poration, are also principals in the proposed project. Mr. Menning ,explained
that the proponents chose to proceed directly to General Plan of Development
for the following two reasons:
1 . The proponent are, in their minds, well aiong on the project and know
how they wish to develop fihe site.
2. The longer PUD application process inc]uding concept plan approval would
necessitate extension of the option which the proponents hold on the property.
��
Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 1981
Mr. Menning reviewed the PUD design and pointed out that the office units
are set up for either rental or sale, with a separate entry provided for
each occupant to allow condominium use if desired.
Chairman Thompson asked whether Planning Commissioners had questions of the
proponent.
Commissioner Moede noted that previous proposals for the subject site have been
abandoned due to high soils correction costs and asked whether the proponents
have done extensive soils tests. Mr. Menning replied that the proponents
have undertaken no tests of their own but have available to them tests made
previously. He added that the proponents will conduct their own soils tests and
prepare a piling design prior to building. Mr. Menning reported that there
exists on the site eight to ten feet of miscellaneous fill over 30 feet of
peat and that trees have grown up on the fill showing that there has been time
for the fill to compress. Mr. Menning expressed confidence that this existing
fill would prove an attribute to the site.
Commissioner Moede asked how the proponents were able to prepare a comp}ete
financial feasibility study without further soils tests. Mr. Menning replied
thatth�-proponents know that the depth required for building pilings will be
40 feet and know the approximate cost of soils correction per square foot of
office space.
Commissioner Moede asked whether the proponents have obtained a commitment of
financing for the proposed PUD project. Mr. Menning replied that the pro-
ponents do not yet have financing for the project.
Chairman Thompson asked wheth�r the proponents were aware of the following
items covered in the staff report:
1 . Reapplication and repetition of the approval procedure for any changes
to the approved PUD General Plan of Development
2. Recommendations of the Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission.
3. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) review and permit
requirements.
4. Property valuation by the Senior Hennepin County Appraiser.
5• City requirements for dedication of land or �cash in lieu thereof for park
and open space purposes.
Mr. Menning replied that the proponents were aware of and had taken into con-
sideration all of these concerns. Mr. Menning noted that the �roponents would
contest the valuation placed on the property for purposes of determining park
dedication fees and would present as evidence their purchase agreement for
acquisition of the property at a cost below the valuation.
1'�
Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 1981
Commissioner Moede asked Chairman Thompson whether the Planning Commission does
not usually have an understanding of where financing will be derived. Chairman
Thompson referred the question to Commissioner Eastes, who replied that the
Planning Commission does not normally require information on financing sources.
Commissioner Moede asked the proponents to verify that there is no chance of
their requesting tax exempt or tax increment financing. Mr. Menning replied
that the proponents have no intent of applying for tax exempt or tax increment
fin�ncing. Commissioner Moede asked what circumstances might change that intent.
Mr. Menning replied that the only circumstances would be their meeting an
absolute roadblock to other financing. Mr. Menning added that the�proponents
feel there are disadvantages to tax exempt and tax increment financing such
that they would prefer not to use these financing mechanisms.
Commissioner Moede asked whether a traffic study has been prepared for this
site. Mr. Menning replied that no traffic study has been done but that the
proponents are aware of the traffic problems cited in the staff report.
Chairman Thompson opened the informal public hearing.
Mr. Barney Rosen, 4820 Kiilarney Drive, reported that the City Council con-
sidered installation of a traffic signal at the White House intersection some
time ago and that the traffic count was already high at that time.
Mr. Miller explained that installation of a signal had been proposed to the
City Council by businesses in the area but that the businessmen were unwilling
to contribute to' the cost of the signal .
Commissioner Moede asked Mr. Miller how additional traffic at this location could
be justified. Mr. Miller replied that the proposed PUD developmenfi meets
zoning requirements and that the City cannot prevent development of private
property. Mr. Miller pointed out that development of a permitted- Industrial
use could take place on the property without Planning Commission and City
Council action and that other Industrial development could generate truck
traffic less desirable than the additional automobile traffic expected as a
result of the proposed office PUD development.
Commissioner Leppik arrived at the meeting at approximately 7:35 p.m.
Commissioner Moede asked the proponent how many offices there would be in
the PUD. Mr. Menning replied that the size and number of office units would
be flexible. The smallest unit possible would be 1 ,000 square feet, so the
maximum number of units would be 25 if all _were 1 ,000 square feet in area.
The proponents prefer and expect to have larger units and fewer occupants.
Commissioner Eastes asked whether it would be possible to close the access
to Highway 55 at this location and direct all traffic to the new signal scheduled
for installation at Meadow Lane. Mr. Miller replied that the service road is
not complete from this location to Meadow Lane.
1�
Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 1981
Mr. John Pluhar, ADDA Corporation, asked to address the Planning Commission
in order to make two points which might alleviate concern over the traffic
problems. Mr. Pluhar stated that development of the subject site to its full
potential for office development wo�ld ailow construction of 40,000 square
feet of office space and the proponents have chosen to limit their PUD devel-
opment to 25,000 square feet of office space. Secondly, Mr. Pluhar reported
that typical users of the type of office unit proposed are attorneys , accountants
and insurance agents who by their nature keep staggered office hours.
Chairman Thompson closed the public hearing.
lt was moved by Commissioner �orster, seconded by Commissioner Polachek and
carried unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the General Plan
of Development for PUD #32, Bassett Creek Office Park, conditional upon the
following:
1 . Prior to the City Council hearing, modification of the plat name to
include "PUD #32" as part of the plat name and to avoid confusion with
Bassett' s Creek Plaza, the plat name of an office complex located at
S8ot �ututh St.
2. Prior to the City Council hearing, compliance with MnDOT requirements
and recommendations regarding the preliminary plat.
3. Prior to the City Council hearing, MnDOT issuance of State Highway
Entrance Permits for the two proposed access points to the State Highway
55 service road.
4. Prior to the City Council hearing, MnDOT issuance of a drainage permit
to allow the proposed discharge of surface drainage from the site into
the State storm sewer located at the service road.
5. Prior to referral to the Building Board of Review, inclusion of building
sprinkler systems in final building plans.
6. Prior to referral to the Building Board of Review, elimination of trees
and shrubs in the utility and drainage easement on the final landscape
plan.
7. Prior to recording of the final plat, compliance with Section 440:80(2)
of the City Subdivision Regulations, which requires dedication of ten
percent of the land area of the plat for park, open space or storm water
ponding purposes, or payment of a cash equivalent estimated at $7,040
based on an appraisal of $70,400.
UI . Report from Chairman on APA Educational Subcommittee:
Chairman Thompson gave a report on progress of American Planning Association
(APA) Educational Subcommi:ttee plans for the upcoming seventh annual Planning
and Zoning Institute to be held at the Radisson South Hotel . Chairman Thompson
read a list of topics for sessions included on the Institute agenda and commented
that this Institute appears to be more worthwhile than those offered in the
pas t.
l�
Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 1981
UII . Report on City Council Meeting - September 15, 1981 - Don Singer:
Commissioner Singer gave a report on the City Council meeting of September 15,
1981 . Commissioner Singer reported that the only Council agenda item of
interest to the P]anning Commission was approval on second reading of rezoning
of 4680 Olson Memorial Highway North to the Radio Zoning District for con-
struction of a radio tower.
VI11 . Consideration of September 26, 1981 Minneapolis Tribune Article on
Redevelopment of the Ewald Property:
Chairman Thompson invited discussion of the article by Dan Wascoe on plans
for redevelopment of the Ewald property in the Cities of Golden Valley and
Minneapolis which appeared in the Saturday, September 26, 1981 Minneapolis
Tri bune.
Planning Commissioners discussed reaction to the article and possible Planning
Commission response.
It was moved by Commissioner Moede, seconded by Commissioner Leppik and carried
unanimously to request that the City Manager send a letter to the Director ofi
the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (CDA) , with a copy to Dan White,
Alderman of the City of Minneapolis, expressing disappointment over remarks
made by Mike Brinda of the Minneapolis CDA Planning Staff quoted by Dan Wascoe
in his article in the Minneapolis Tribune of September 26, 1981 . Chairman
Thompson agreed to write a letter to the City Manager transmitting the Planning
Commission request.
IX. Rescheduling October 12, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting:
Chairman Thompson opened the meeting to discussion of rescheduling or canel-
lation of the Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 1q81 , which is a legal
holiday.
Planning arrd Redevelopment Director Mike Miller reported that there are no
public items to be placed on the agenda for October t2, 198) .
It was moved by Commissioner Polachek, seconded by Commissioner Eastes and
passed unanimously to cancel the October 12, 1981 Planning Commission meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 8: 10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
l�O�l vr.
David Thompson, Cha rman