Loading...
03-12-84 PC MinutesMINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION March 12, 1984 1 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, Chairman Forster called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Forster, Leppik, McAleese, Prazak and Tubman. Commissioner Singer was not present at the beginning of the meeting. Commissioner Russell was absent. Also present was Alda Peikert, Assistant Planner. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES _ FEBRUARY 27, 1984 It was moved by Commissioner Tubman, seconded by Commissioner Prazak and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the February 27, 1984 Planning Commission meeting as recorded. II. SET DATE FUR INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPLICANT: John J. Day LOCATION: 1300-1304 Gettysburg Avenue North 1 REQUEST: Rezoning from Residential (Single Family) to Two Family Residential (R-2) Zoning District to allow construction of a duplex. Chairman Forster introduced this agenda item and recognized the proponent, Mr. John Day, who was present. It was moved by Commissioner Tubman, seconded by Commissioner Prazak and carried unanimously to set an informal public hearing date of March 26, 1984 for consideration of rezoning of 1300-1304 Gettysburg Avenue North from the Residential (Single Family) to the Two Family Residential (R-2) Zoning District to allow construction of a duplex. Commissioner Singer arrived at the meeting. III. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Undestad Investment Company LOCATION: 5530 and 5612 Wayzata Boulevard REQUEST: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a six-story office building in a Commercial Zoning District. 1 11 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission Page 2 March 12, 1984 Chairman Forster introduced this agenda item and recognized Mr. Lloyd Kepple of Thompson and Klaverkamp, attorney representing the proponent. Chairman Forster called on Assistant Planner Alda Peikert who provided the Planniny Commission with an explanation of the proposal and the staff recommendation. Chairman Forster then called on the proponent. Mr. Kepple introduced himself as counsel to the proponent, Undestad Investment Company, and explained that the subject property is under purchase by Undestad Investment Company. Mr. Kepple introduced other persons present on behalf of the proponent including Mr. Norman L. Undestad, Undestad Investment Company, Ms Cecilia Lynch, owner of the subject property, Mr. Warren Brueygeman, contractor for the proposed project, and Mr. Reynold Roberts, architect. Mr. Kepple stated that the key factor in planning of the project is the I-394 Project and that the proponent coordinated with the Minnesota Department (MnDOT) as much as possible in preparation of plans. Mr. Kepple stated that the proponent expects MnDOT determination of I-394 Project construction limits in May 1984 and finalization of right-of-way requirements in June 1984. Mr. Kepple related that an original proposal for a ten-story office buildiny was reduced to a six-story office building proposal through work with City staff. Mr. Kepple provided an explanation of the plan for adjustment to I-394 construction and concluded with the statement that the proponent is looking for a reading from the Planniny Commission on the proposal and desires to coordinate the project with I-394 construction and with City plans for the area. Mr. Kepple stated that it is the position. of the proponent that a determination on the Conditional Use Permit is required by June 1, 1984. Commissioner Singer asked the reason for the June 1, 1984 deadline. Mr. Kepple stated that June 1, 1984 is not an absolute deadline, but that it is necessary for the proponent to allocate resources for the project and that the June 1, 1984 deadline conforms to the internal time line set by the developer. Mr. Kepple stated that he feels this deadline works with the I-394 schedule. Commissioner Leppik asked whether the proponent has applied for approval from the City of St. Louis Park in view of the fact that a portion of the subject property is in St. Louis Park. Mr. Kepple replied that the proponent is going through similar procedures in St. Louis Park, but that the proponent places greater emphasis on coordination with Golden Valley due to the fact that the project is primarily in the City of Golden Valley. Concerning the size of the buildiny, Mr. Kepple explained that the proponent determined that there would be a problem marketing a buildiny of any less significant size at the subject location. Commissioner Leppik stated that she sees no problem with a six-story building at this location. She asked, however, whether the proponent would consider acquisition of the Forster property or a portion of that property in order to expand the size of the site and in order to coordinate development of the sub- ject site with the surrounding area. Mr. Kepple replied that the proponent would not foreclose entirely this possibility but has a strong preference for separate development of the subject site currently under contract. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission Paye 3 March 12, 1984 Mr. Reynold Roberts provided the Commission with an explanation of the pro- posed project from an architectural standpoint. Mr. Roberts confided that his first reaction to the subject site was that it would be difficult to develop, but that he was able to come up with a solution which is aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Roberts stated that he sometimes finds that a building which is the product of constraints turns out to be a more interesting building. Mr. Roberts explained the site plan and building elevations and suggested that adjustments could be made if necessary. Mr. Roberts pointed out that the front of the building facing Turners Crossroad could be used as a drop off point. Chairman Forster questioned Mr. Roberts concerning the loss of a turnaround in Phase II following I-394 construction. Mr. Roberts explained that the turn- around is required in the first phase for persons checking parking spaces ,to the north but that the parking arrangement for Phase II does not require a turnaround. Mr. Roberts added that there may be another solution if there is objection to loss of the turnaround. Commissioner Prazak asked whether the City Engineer indicated a problem with only one vehicle access to the building. Mr. Roberts replied that the City Engineer made no objection. Mr. Kepple added that representatives of the pro- ponent had various meetings with City staff including the City Engineer/Acting City Manager and the City Building Official. In response to staff suggestions, the proponent attempted to bring the three sides of the building exposed to streets other than the freeway into conformance with setback requirements. Mr. Kepple concluded that the proponent has been talking with staff since January 1984, that staff comments were helpful in preparation of the proposal, and that the proponent now feels ready to come before the Planning Commission for input. Mr. Undestad added that the proponent wants to work with staff and the Planning Commission to obtain a favorable recommen- dation and prefers that the. proposal be tabled to allow time for coordination rather than denied at this time. Chairman Forster opened the informal public hearing for public input. Mr. Herrmann Held, 5400 Circle Downs, stated that his family has been a pro- perty owner in Golden Valley since 1869 and was involved in the development of property to the north and east of the subject site. Mr. Held stated that he is in favor of the proposed development because it is confined to property directly adjacent to Highway 12. Mr. Held said that he prefers the low pro- file of existing buildings to the north of the subject site in the direction of residential development and is opposed to suggested expansion of redevelop- ment further north than the subject site. Mr. Held stated that the proposed building is great at the subject location because the height matches that of buildings across the highway, but that redevelopment should not take in the four acre site to the north. Mr. Held spoke against removal of the beautiful buildings to the north currently in use and providing tax income and spoke in support of saving the residential neighborhood to the north. Mr. Held concluded with the statement that there was talk of the I-394 Project 23 years ago, that I-394 still is not a certainty, that it would be burden to the pro- ponent to be forced to wait for I-394, that the City needs the tax base now, and that he therefore thinks the City should go for it. 13 ~~ Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission Page 4 March 12, 1984 Chairman Forster closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Prazak asked about. the single vehicle access to the building and about the penthouse above the sixth story. Mr. Peikert stated that for emergency purposes the building would be accessible from Turners Crossroad and that the entire development including the ramp would be a minimal distance from streets on three sides. Mr. Roberts verified that the penthouse is for elevator, stairway and mechanical purposes only, and Ms. Peikert confirmed that the Zoning Code specifically excludes mechanical equipment and elevator penthouses from computation of building height. Comrissioner Leppik stated that she basically likes the idea of the develop- ment proposal but is concerned that the request is premature due to the indef- inite nature of I-394 plans at this time. Commissioner Leppik said that she is reluctant to recommend approval at this point and therefore recommends denial, not because she does not like the plan, but because it is advisable from a land use standpoint due to timing. Commissioner Tubman added that is is unfortunate that the proposal is made now at a time so close to the time when better information on the I-394 Project should be available. Commissioner Tubman agreed that the proposal is prema- ture and noted that even if the setbacks provided from projected I-394 construction limits are conservative, the building is still close to the pro- perty line. Commissioner Tubman offered a motion to table the proposal for reinstatement at the request of the proponent. Commissioner Leppik noted the Zoning Ordinance requirement that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council within 30 days of the Planning Commission informal public hearing and suggested that the motion would have to be denial at this time. It was moved by Commissioner Tubman and seconded by Commissioner Leppik to recommend that the City Council deny the Conditional Use Permit requested by Undestad Investment Company for construction of a six-story office building at 5530 and 5612 Wayzata Boulevard in a Commercial Zoning District as premature at this time in view of the fact that I-394 construction limits are not yet finalized, with the understanding that the Planning Commission and City Council would be willing to .reconsider such a proposal at the appropriate future time. Chairman Forster stated that he wants it understood that he is not against development of this site and that he sees nothing wrong with the proposed design, but that the proposal comes at a bad time. Commissioner Singer observed that the proponent obviously has a selfish interest in proceeding with development now but that the City has a selfish interest in taking the time necessary to coordinate development of the area with the I-394 Project and that he feels it is possible to come up with a good solution. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 12, 1984 A vote was taken, and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted. G. William Forster, Chairman Margaret Leppik, Secretary Page 5 15