Loading...
04-14-08 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, April 14,2008 7pm 1. Approval of Minutes March 10, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plan Review - Planned Unit Development - Xenia Ridge - PUD 105 Applicant: Opus Northwest, LLC Address: 700 and 800 Xenia Avenue South Purpose: To allow for the construction of approximately 278,000 square feet of office space and approximately 10,000 square feet of retail space 3. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Adopting the Mixed Use Zoning District for the 1-394 Corridor area Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To adopt the 1-394 Corridor Mixed Use Zoning District 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 5. Other Business 6. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TrY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10,2008 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, March 10, 2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning an opment Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assist man. 1. Approval of Minutes February 25, 2008 Regular Planning Commission M McCarty referred to the second paragraph on page fo there to be no "stone requirements" in the propose what he said about the "stone requirements" wa not what he would prefer. e would like dina ceo He added that r a compromise, but Waldhauser referred to the first sentenc "and" be replaced with the word "by". uggested that the second MOVED by Eck, seconded by C February 25, 2008 minutes wit arried unanimously to approve the changes. 2. Informal Public Subdivision - SU09-12 -1017 Ravine Trail Applicant: bdivision would create two separate lots. a tion map and explained the applicant's proposal to divide their 'i:~~' He stated that the new lot will be created to the south of the existing tiH1e the applicants are not proposing to build a second home on the t. Grimes discussed the subdivision requirements and noted that the proposed new lot will be a corner lot so both street sides of the lot have to be 100 feet in width. Both lots also have to be at least 10,000 square feet in size and meet setback requirements. In this case, one lot will be approximately 13,000 square feet and the other will be approximately 16,000 square feet. He referred to site plans submitted by the applicants and discussed the potential building area of the new lot, setback areas, preliminary grading plan, utility plan and as-built survey of the existing property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10,2008 Page 2 Grimes stated that all of the subdivision and zoning requirements have been met for this proposed subdivision and staff is recommending approval of this request. He added that staff will also be working on a subdivision agreement for this property that will incorporate City Engineer Jeff Oliver's comments regarding right-of-way permits, sanitary sewer issues, grading and erosion controls plans, tree preservation, easements and park dedication fees. Keysser asked where Wayzata Boulevard ends. Linda McCracken-Hunt, applicant, referred to the location map and explained that the road on the south si ' eir property has always been a frontage road and that it "dead-ends" sli heir property. Keysser asked if there are easements on the property for m and if the wall would affect any of the setback areas. Grime easements on this property. He stated that there is a signific the wall and the maintenance of the wall and it does nt'J nd wall re of any ht-of-way for etbacks. Kluchka asked if there would be any impacts to new infill ordinance. Grimes explained that the p this subdivision request but if may have a suit of the proposed I ordinance does not affect house is built. McCarty asked Grimes if there is any right-of-way in the future. Grimes s that they have no concerns or a T possibly wanting additional ed to MnDOT and they have said garding this property. McCracken-Hunt confirme they must have sufficien e no agreements or easements with MnDOT so in the wall. Keysser asked wh wall was built in 199 II was built. Tom Hunt, applicant, stated he thought the hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, earing. on ed by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend ubdivision of the property located at 1017 Ravine Trail with the ns: 1. The CI torney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. The recommendations found in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, dated February 28, 2008 to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development shall become a part of this approval. 3. A park dedication fee in an amount determined by the City Council shall be assessed at the time of final plat approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 2008 Page 3 4. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that include issues found in the City Engineer's memo dated February 28, 2008 3. Discussion Regarding Mixed Use Zoning District Language Grimes reminded the Commissioners of their last discussion regarding the proposed Mixed Use zoning district language. He stated that he thought it would be best to bring the proposed ordinance to them one more time for discussion before th a public hearing. Eck referred to page six and asked what "sustainable" means. "sustainable" is a fairly common term in planning. Waldhause the same as "green" and "environmentally friendly" and that I sustained with minimal upkeep. Eck questioned if the averag what "sustainable" means. Keysser suggested adding'4 definition section of the code. Grimes noted that" addressed in the purpose section of the propos the most widely accepted definition of "sustaina definition of "sustainable" is "development compromising the ability of future gener questioned if that definition is too gen would like the definition to be gene able" is can be understand Ie" to the lopment is also ogeboom stated that ity's Comprehensive Plan s of the present without wn needs". Keysser enough. Waldhauser said she Kluchka questioned if the defini development, energy effici sustainability. i e "re-use". Cera stated that low-impact ace and re-usable materials are all part of McCarty said he thi "sustainability" lang industries. Sc . g clumsy. Heagr industry. ture and building industries will help foster the "sustainable" is well understood throughout those < rying to define "sustainable" will make the language arty that the term "sustainability" is well known in the eavlng the language regarding sustainability as it is written and if it don't understand it the issue can be revisited. Hogeboom stated that stainable guidebook that staff will refer to when reviewing developments. Kluchka s sted creating a brochure about sustainability that could be handed out with development applications. Eck referred to page seven and asked what "integrally colored" means. Schmidgall stated that it means the color goes all the way a material. McCarty stated that there are many materials that are not integrally colored and he questioned the validity and intent of the wording. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 2008 Page 4 Cera suggested the language say material should be integrally colored where possible or practical. Schmidgall suggested eliminating the sentence regarding integrally colored materials. The Commissioners agreed to strike the language regarding integrally colored materials. Kluchka referred to Subdivision 3 on page two regarding permitted uses and said he didn't capture that it was talking about multiple uses. He said he would like to make it less confusing and more usable. Grimes noted that Subdivision 7 explains when mixed uses are required. Cera question Permit. Grime business ' licens at she tial character in estioned why the City Kluchka asked what the ordinance is trying not to allow. Cera stat mixed then it will require a Conditional Use Permit. Grimes add states that if a development is over two acres in size it has to Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 5 regarding live-work uni doesn't agree that these types of units should maintai which the work space is subordinate to the reside would care if a live-work unit looks residential. Kluchka asked what "neighborhood-orient those are businesses that serve a neig Grimes suggested using the words "s Waldhauser suggested striking the commercial services". Keysser ices" means. Grimes said id he thinks that is limiting. lal services" instead. e neighborhood-oriented riking the word "larger" in Subdivision 5. Waldhauser referred to Su they would want to excl live-work units are limite "wholesale busines d egarding live-work units and questioned why manufacturing businesses. Grimes stated that um e f employees they can have so the words turing business" could be stricken. od service business would need a Conditional Use Ity could require a Conditional Use Permit for any type of but any time food is involved there is going to be some type of or the State. K that addla regarding equiring all live-work units to have an association or covenants so an restrict some of the issues that might arise. Grimes said he would the ordinance that requires live-work units to have covenants or rules ruse. Kluchka referred to Subdivision 5(0) and suggested striking the words "by appointment only". Keysser thought those words would help limit traffic. Keysser referred to Subdivision 5(F) regarding minimum height and questioned how a restaurant would fit in. Waldhauser suggested the language regarding height say "buildings occupying 5,000 square feet (rather than 10,000) or more must be two stories Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10,2008 Page 5 in height. Schmidgall said he doesn't think they can anticipate every development scenario. The Commissioners agreed that it should be changed to 5,000 square feet. Grimes referred to Subdivision 7(A) and suggested the words "in height subdistrict C" be stricken. The Commissioners agreed. Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 7(A) and asked what uses would be allowed by saying development sites over two acres in size shall be mixed use. She said she thinks it should be less than two acres. The Commissioners agreed to change t age to say sites over one acre in size shall be mixed use. Kluchka said he woul ome examples or scenarios of the types of developments that would b II over one and two acres in size. Grimes stated the 1-394 Corridor Stu . as I showing which lots in the Corridor area are one or two acres i rea. Grimes e wants to be d that developers will t e parking units. Waldhauser said she vide for parking some how. Kluchka questioned if there will be any inclusion of on-street said he doesn't think live-work units will create much t sure that there are no "no parking" signs installed. still have to follow the City's parking requiremen requirements may have to be amended to allow thinks developers will find a way to "squee McCarty referred to Subdivision 8(E)(2 primary street be faced with Kaso said that he thought that langua at the last meeting was three to language in the proposed Kasota stone says the C' Kasota stone, but he wou doesn't want the re Kasota stone limits using a differe approaches to there are having the Com st o of the fac;ade facing the 'genous dolomitic limestone. He ecause the Planning Commission vote Id r said she would like to keep the iscussion purposes. She added that requiring tent and theme in the area. Kluchka said he likes Ing 0 mpromise with the word "stone" instead, but he oved completely. Keysser said he agrees that requiring edom. Schmidgall asked if a developer could purpose oted that Subdivision 9 allows for alternative s andards with City Council approval. Cera said he thinks es. One is requiring Kasota stone or just stone and the other is ing requiring stone in the ordinance at all. Keysser suggested vote on whether or not to remove the language regarding Kasota arty, seconded by Cera and motion failed to remove the language regarding ota stone being required on 20% of the fac;ade facing the primary street. Cera, Keysser and McCarty voted yes to remove the language, Eck, Kluchka, Schmidgall and Waldhauser voted no. Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 8(C)(3) regarding the display area behind windows and suggested that area be required to be lighted. Cera said he would prefer not to mandate lighting for energy reasons. The Commissioners agreed not to require lighting in display areas. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 2008 Page 6 McCarty said he would like consistency with the way numbers are written in the ordinance. He said he would like the numbers one through nine spelled out and numbers ten and higher can be figures. The Commissioners agreed. Kluchka referred to Subdivision 8(M) regarding public art being encouraged. He said he would like public art to be a requirement. Grimes stated that the language could be changed to require public art in developments over two acres in size. Keysser said he doesn't want to require public art, but he would like to keep the word "encourage" in the ordinance. Keysser requested March 18 City Coun meeting. ated that the led because the City only" child care facilities. Grimes explained that the next step in this process will be a public Planning Commission meeting. 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelo Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and othe~ Kluchka reported on the March 5, 2008 City Co ordinance allowing employee-only child care fac Council did not want to limit child care faci!' . 5. Other Business Kluchka said he would like to v Committee. The Planning Keysser and Waldhause th uglas Drive Corridor Study Scoping lunteers for this committee will be Kluchka, inders be sent to the Commissioners regarding the the March 19 Board of Zoning Appeals special 6. T journed at 8:55 pm. Lester Eck, Secretary Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: April 9, 2009 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for Xenia Ridge--PUD No.1 05, Opus Northwest, L.L.C., Applicant Introduction and Background Opus Northwest has applied for Preliminary PUD Plan for the construction of a mixed use development at the northwest corner of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive. The existing buildings on this site are currently vacant and will soon be torn down. The site is about 5.9 acres. The proposed construction will include an 8 story, 279,000 sq. ft. of Class A office space and about 11,300 sq. ft. of retail, service and restaurant space. There will also be a 6 level parking deck structure for approximately 1100 vehicles and 60 bikes. The site has been known as the Olympic Printing site because the printing company was located on the block for many years. Over the past couple of years, there have been proposals for the redevelopment of the site that included office, residential and retail uses. Due to changes in the housing and office market, these plans did not work out. Opus, a large national developer and builder, has now acquired the rights to develop the site. They believe that this is a great location for an office building with retail due to its closeness to downtown Minneapolis, the freeway system and other high quality buildings in the area. The property is currently designated on the General Land Use Plan map for Mixed Use and on the Zoning Map as Light Industrial (including office). (A proposal to create a new mixed use zoning category will be going forward to the Planning Commission and City Council starting with an informal public hearing before the Planning Commission on April 14, 2008. Final approval of the new zoning district could be before the City Council in Mayor June 2008.) The proposed Opus mixed use development is consistent with the proposed mixed use general land use plan designation, existing Light Industrial zoning and the proposed mixed use zoning district. This site is also within the Go.lden Hills Redevelopment area that was established by the City Council back in the 1984 to encourage high quality development near the freeway intersection of Xenia Avenue and 1-394. The Xenia Ridge site is one of the last redevelopment opportunities within the redevelopment area. The Redevelopment Plan states that the recommended land uses for Olympic Printing site is medium to high density offices with structured parking. Service uses are also a recommended land use. The proposed Xenia Ridge development appears to be consistent the redevelopment plan. 1 PUD Process City staff has reviewed this application for a PUD and it has been determined that the application is complete. The applicant has submitted all information that is necessary to accompany the preliminary plan stage of the PUD application. Also, the applicant has had a pre-application meeting with City staff and held a neighborhood meeting in late 2007 in order to introduce the development to those living in the area. At the neighborhood meeting, comments were made and Opus has taken those comments into consideration when developing their plans. Also, the staff has determined that the proposed Opus development is consistent with the intent and purpose provision of the PUD chapter of the zoning code. The PUD process consists of two stages. The first stage is the review and approval of the Preliminary PUD plan. The Planning Commission is charged with reviewing the materials submitted by the applicant and holding an informal public hearing on the application. After the informal public hearing, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the preliminary plan to the City Council. The Planning Commission must determine if the application is consistent with the intent and purpose provision of the PUD requirements and principles and standards adhered to by the City. The Planning Commission may recommend changes, conditions or modifications to the preliminary PUD plan. After receiving the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council holds a public hearing on the preliminary plan. If the preliminary plan is approved by the City Council, the applicant may then apply for the Final PUD Plan. The approval of the final plan also requires an informal public hearing before the Planning Commission and a recommendation from the Planning Commission. After receiving the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council holds a public hearing and then makes the final decision on the approval of the final PUD plan. Generally, the approval of a PUD from preliminary plan approval to final plan approval takes 3 to 6 months. Review of Preliminary PUD Plan for Xenia Ridge Opus applied for the Xenia Ridge PUD in December 2007. They were originally scheduled to be heard in January 2008 but Opus requested a delay in order to review financing plans and to make changes to the site plan based on comments received from City staff. A couple of weeks ago, Opus said that they were ready to begin the review process. Opus has submitted a thick set of plans for the site that have been reviewed by staff. City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, has written a detailed memo to me dated April 7,2008, listing the findings and concerns of the Public Works Department. His recommendations will be made a part of the recommendations found at the end of this memo. I will not repeat what Mr. Oliver states in his memo. However, I want to highlight several of his points. There will have to be several improvements made to the street system adjoining this property in order to accommodate the added traffic from this development and other anticipated development in the area. The improvements included will be paid for by a combination of assessments to benefiting property owners in the area and tax increment financing. Without these improvements, City staff would not recommend approval of the Opus development. The attached Travel Demand Management Plan is an important tool that the City has to require that owners of buildings in the area to take responsibility for peak hour traffic. This plan will have to be reviewed by the Joint Task Force consisting of representations from the Golden Valley and St. Louis Park City Councils in order to ensure that reasonable access and flow of 2 traffic is maintained in the area. With the changes recommended by Mr. Oliver, the Travel Demand Management Plan is acceptable. Mr. Oliver's memo highlights the importance of trails and sidewalks in the area. The proposed sidewalk and trail system proposed by Opus will compliment the existing pedestrian ways in the area and allow for easier and safer pedestrian access to businesses along with opportunities for exercise for residents and employees. Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson has written a memo to me dated April 7, 2008 that address issues important to the Public Safety Department. Mr. Anderson has told me that he is confident that the comments raised in his memo will be incorporated in the final plans for the PUD. These comments will also be made a part of my recommendation of approval. I am attaching a copy of the PUD Narrative that was prepared by Opus and dated December 4, 2007. This gives a good overview of the project and describes the building. There have been a couple of small changes since this was written in December. First, the building space includes 278,842 sq. ft. of Class A office space and 11,300 sq. ft. of retail and restaurant space. (This number has increased from the original numbers of 265,000 sq. ft. of office space and 10,000 sq. ft. of retail space.) Second, Opus would like provide 90 fewer parking spaces than would be required by the City's parking chapter of the zoning code. (See attached letter from Ericka Miller, Senior Manager with Opus to Mark Grimes dated February 29, 2008.) Opus contends that the Travel Demand Management Plan illustrates that this reduction of parking will still leave more than adequate parking spaces based on the parking requirements found in the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Parking Generation manual (2004). (The memo addressing parking is the final memo attached to the Travel Demand Management Plan dated February 2008.) Overall, this is a reduction of about 7% in parking over what the code requires. If they are short on parking, the owner of the building would have to add more spaces or restrict parking demand. On-street parking would not be an option. As noted in the site plans, there will be 60 bike parking spaces on the first level of parking deck. The City Code requires that there be bike parking at the rate of 5% of car parking. In this case, the number of bike spaces exceeds the 5%. Overall, the staff is pleased with the layout of the site. Opus has proposed a good pedestrian circulation system throughout the site which they will maintain. They have also provided plaza space at the corner of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive that will be used by employees in the area and residents of the area. It is hoped that some of the retail in the Opus building will attract employees and neighbors of the area. The water feature and landscaping of the site should make it inviting space. As shown on the plans, there is seating proposed around the pond and in front of the stores. The overall landscape plan appears to be well thought out. It will have to receive final approval from the Building Board of Review. The building is proposed to receive the Gold Certification from the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. This means that it is being designed to a high level in terms of energy efficiency and incorporates many sustainable features such as water use conservation, on-site storm water design and retention and redevelopment of a brownfield site. The building is proposed to be eight stories in height. This is two stories less than the tallest Allianz building to the south along 1-394. Because of the substantial distance (over 300 ft.) of this proposed building to the closest residential apartment to the northeast and northwest, this eight story building should not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The building is well designed with good materials. The parking deck is also well designed with the use of 3 quality materials. Opus has a good track record in terms of construction of quality buildings and the maintenance of the buildings. Recommended Action Staff believes that the preliminary PUD plan for the Xenia Ridge mixed use development should be approved. Opus has submitted plans that show a well thought out plan that includes public spaces, sidewalks and trails, a mix of uses and a building that will receive LEED certification. Opus has committed to help pay their fair share to improve the existing street system in order that traffic will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service during peak hours. A travel demand management plan has been submitted that commits Opus to help reduce peak hour traffic by various means. The recommended approvals have the following conditions: 1. The Xenia Ridge plan packet consisting of 24 sheets and prepared by Opus Northwest, L.L.C. shall become a part of this approval. These plans sheets are listed on Sheet Number CS and include the preliminary plat, site plan, grading plan, landscape plan and floor plans. 2. Lighting plans must meet the requirements of the City's lighting code. Prior to approval of building permits for the site, the proposed Photometric Site Plan will be further reviewed to insure compliance with the plan. 3. The final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved by the Building Board of Review. 4. The findings and recommendations in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and dated April 7, 2008 shall become a part of this recommendation. This includes Opus signing an agreement with the City of Golden Valley that would agree to payment of special assessments for street and other public improvements. Opus would also waive their right to appeal special assessments as part of this agreement. 5. The findings and recommendations in the memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning and dated April 7, 2008 shall become a part of this recommendation. 6. The preliminary PUD plan for Xenia Ridge is consistent with the intent and purpose provision of the PUD chapter of the zoning code and other planning and development principles adhered to by the City. Attachments Applicant's Narrative dated December 4, 2007 (2 pages) Letter from Ericka Miller, Opus, dated February 29, 2008 (1 page) Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated April 7, 2008 (8 pages) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated April 7, 2008 (2 pages) Xenia Ridge Travel Demand Management Plan (24 pages) Color Renderings (4 pages) Site Plans (24 oversized pages) 4 . QPUS@ Xenia Ridge Narrative PUD Application December 4, 2007 *Changes reflect updated plans submitted 2-29-08 Xenia Ridge is a 6 acre, mixed use office and retail development to be located at 700/800 Xenia Avenue, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Designed and developed by Opus Northwest, L.L.C., ("Opus") Xenia Ridge will offer state of the art office and retail space conveniently located along 1-394 and Xenia Avenue, providing convenient access, high visibility and close proximity to a wide variety of related retail amenities. These features, combined with Opus' plans to develop Xenia Ridge as a Gold- Certified Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED Project) will make it one of the premier office and retail projects in the Twin Cities. 278,842* 11,300* The mixed-use development will consist of over;;;Z65,eoo-square feet of Class A office and::f8;OOO- square feet of retail providing a unique blend of uses that will be attractive not only to the tenants within the project, but to the surrounding residential community as well. PUD Goals Opus has been working in close collaboration with the City to develop a project that responds to the stated goals within the PUD ordinance. The following describes some of these planning concepts as well as the overall development: ~ Development Overview And Architectural Character The site consists of three primary structures: an 8 story office building, a parking ramp, and a retail/office condominium structure. The office building consists of 265,000 square feet and will be located on the northern third of the property with its access oriented in an east-west direction. This location on the site allows the building to frame the balance of the development with its front door along its southern fa<;ade. The office building's exterior materials will consist of a slightly reflective green glass with buff colored architectural precast and metal accents. Each elevation of the building responds to the site. The south face will contain a greater percentage of glass than any of the other elevations allowing for maximum natural light into the building. The eastern fa<;ade provides views of the Minneapolis skyline and the north and west facades are softer in appearance with ribbon glass and architectural precast in response to the wooded neighborhood they face. The building has comer balconies on three sides. The south fa<;ade also has a bold metal accent at its roofline which will serve as screening for necessary mechanical equipment. The parking ramp is situated on the site along the western border adjacent to the rail line and industrial properties providing a natural buffer to these areas. The retail and office condominiums will integrate along the eastern face of the parking ramp, providing a two story element that frames the project's central court and gathering area. A continuous metal structure between the retail and office condominiums provides not only a sheltered sidewalk for the retailers, but also functions as an exterior balcony for the office users above. , op.US@ ~ LEED Certification Opus plans to seek Gold Certification under the LEED for Core and Shell category. Many of the LEED requirements and goals will provide direct benefit to not only the users of space within the building, but to the public as a whole. A few of the sustainable features Opus will incorporate into the building include: onsite stormwater design and retention, high efficiency mechanical systems, solar orientation of the office building, water use conservation through restricted flow fixtures, bicycle storage, public transportation via onsite bus stop, under floor air distribution (UFAD) providing tenants individual temperature control, and easier planning and layout of space, significant diversion of construction waste from landfills to recycling programs, and redevelopment of a brownfield site. ~ Landscaping The heavily landscaped site is intended to compliment the surrounding area and create a pedestrian-friendly destination for not only the office and retail tenants but the surrounding residential neighborhood as well. The site includes a prominent water feature at the southeast comer running along Xenia Avenue with a combination of both natural vegetation and hardscape. This area will serve as a common gathering spot for the development and the community at large. The property will be entirely flanked by sidewalks and/or walking paths providing easy and intuitive pedestrian connections throughout. Additionally, the project will enjoy connections to the City trail systems. These two trails pass along the project's border to the east and south. ~ Access and Traffic The primary access point for office tenants will be along Golden Hills Drive, which serves as the entry point for the parking deck. Secondary access, primarily for retail customers, will also take place along Golden Hills Drive while a right-in and right-out access point will exist along Xenia Avenue. Finally, a single access point will exist along Laurel Avenue for loading and service purposes only. This entrance and dock area has been strategically located between the parking ramp and office tower so as to provide maximum screening from Laurel Avenue. Pedestrian traffic between the office building and retail will enjoy a covered connection along the retail frontage and office building's main entrance. Tenants, visitors and the general public will also be able to enjoy the common green space and seating areas provided throughout the site. A new MTC bus stop has been planned and incorporated into the site along Golden Hills Drive at the southern portion of the property. ~ Parking and Maintenance The parking requirement of 4 spaces per 1,000 rentable square feet has been met under the submitted site plan. This was accomplished by incorporating on-grade parking plus five (5) stories of decked parking. * (See.letter from Ericka ~Hller-Opus regarding parki~g va rl ance) A Reciprocal Easement Agreement will govern the use, operations, maintenance, repair design and construction of the project and create the necessary easements for parking, access, utilities, signage, construction, etc. , OPUS@ OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C. A member of The Opus Group THE OPUS GROUP 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka, MN 55343 Phone 952-656-4444 Fax 952-656-4529 ARC HIT E C T S CON T R ACT 0 R S D EVE LOP E R S WWW.opuscorp.com February 29, 2008 Sent Via Courier Mr. Mark Grimes City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 RE: 700 and 800 Xenia, Golden Valley - Xenia Ridge PUD Applicationll-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance Dear Mark, Please find enclosed a Memo dated February 11,2008 from Mark Anderson and me regarding changes to the Preliminary PUD application. Also enclosed are the revised plans based on the changes noted. I would like to draw your attention to the change in parking. We are asking for a variance on the City's requirement of 4 parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. Instead, we would propose a parking ratio of 4 parking spaces per 1,000 rentable square feet. The Traffic Demand Management Plan that has been drafted (you should receive this today or Monday) suggests that the Institute of Transportation and Engineers (ITE) analysis shows that only approximately 745 stalls will be used during an average weekday and with a total of 1,092 parking stalls we should be able to more than accommodate our tenants and visitors. Additionally, as you know, the City of Golden Valley has in place an aggressive plan that requires owners to encourage alternative forms of transportation (as outlined in the TDMP). We feel this is a good faith effort to begin that process. Finally, we feel this will enhance our efforts to obtain the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification we are seeking as alternative transportation is also one of the goals the LEED certification encourages. If you have any questions or need anything further, please feel free to contact me..at 952-656-4643. Zt:/liL Ericka Miller Sr. Manager - Real Estate Development Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Encls. Cc: David Menke Thomas Shaver David Hunt Beth Duyvejonck Jerome Ryan Ryan Siemers Mark Anderson Al Daspin THE OPUS GROUP: Atlanta. Austin. Boca Raton . Chicago. Columbus . Dallas . Denver. Houston. Indianapolis . Kansas City . Los Angeles. Milwaukee . Minneapolis Naples. Orange County . Orlando. Pensacola. Philadelphia. Phoenix. Portland. Sacramento. San Diego. San Francisco. Seattle. St. Louis. Tampa. Washington, D.C. alley o u Public Works 763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax) Date: April 7, 2008 @~@)~] To: From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Jeff Oliver, PE, City Enginee~ Xenia Ridge, P.U.D. 105 @ Subject: Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Xenia Ridge, a proposed office and retail development and a six story parking ramp. The proposed PUD is located west of Xenia Avenue, North of Golden Hills Drive and South of Laurel Avenue. Public Improvements: The City of Golden Valley is in the process of developing plans and specifications for a public improvement project to modify Xenia Avenue, Golden Hills Drive and Laurel Avenue in the vicinity of this development. These improvements include the installation of turn lanes, medians, traffic signal modifications, storm drainage improvements and utility modifications to accommodate this PUD and other existing and potential development in the area. This development will be subject to special assessments for the proposed public improvement projects. These special assessments will be for benefits received by the subject property for the street improvements, as well as for utility costs directly attributed to this PUD. By entering into the PUD agreement with the City, the developer agrees to waive their right to appeal the special assessments. The developer also agrees to provide access to this site as may be needed for the public improvement project. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan: The preliminary plat submitted by the developer includes the dedication of easements and additional street right-of-way for the public improvement project as previously discussed. The City of Golden Valley reserves the right to require additional easement and right-of-way dedication on this site as construction plans are finalized. The G:\Developments - Private\Xenia Ridge\PrePUD 040708.doc developer will be required to dedicate any additional easements and right-of-way determined necessary at no cost to the City. There is an existing 60 foot wide easement for drainage purposes, originally dedicated to the Minnesota Highway Department, along the western boundary of the proposed PUD. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) vacated the storm sewer within this easement as Trunk Highway 12 was upgraded to Interstate 394. Following the vacation of the storm sewer, the pipe and the easement rights reverted to the City of Golden Valley. Because the developer is proposing removal and replacement of the storm sewer within the easement, the easement must be vacated as part of the PUD approval and rededicated as shown on the preliminary plat. The developer must submit an application for vacation of this drainage easement as part of the final PUD submittal. The proposed site plan includes the construction of sidewalks and trails around the perimeter of the PUD. The concrete sidewalks parallel to Xenia Avenue, Golden Hills Drive and Laurel Avenues will be owned by the City of Golden Valley and maintained by the developer. The maintenance requirements for these sidewalks will be included in the development agreement for the PUD. The City sidewalks must be located within walkway easements as shown on the preliminary plat. The developer must submit legal descriptions for these walkway easements with the submittal for the final PUD. The City will prepare the easement documents for signing by the developer. The easement documents must be signed and be ready for recording prior to approval of the final PUD. The concrete sidewalks paralleling Golden Hills Drive, Xenia Avenue and Laurel Avenue can be constructed by the developer, or as part of the City's public improvement project. These walks should be installed near the end of the construction sequencing of the two projects in order to minimize the risk of damaging the walks. The City reserves the right to include the sidewalks in its project as construction progresses. If the City constructs the sidewalks the costs will be specially assessed to this PUD. The site plan indicates a piece of proposed sidewalk parallel and south of the Xenia Avenue site access that directs pedestrians towards Xenia Avenue. There will not be a crosswalk installed at this location and encouraging pedestrians to cross at this location creates a significant hazard. Therefore, this portion of proposed sidewalk must be eliminated from the plans. The bituminous trail along the western property boundary will be owned and maintained by the developer. The winter maintenance of this trail must be consistent with the maintenance of the public sidewalk system. The PUD plans indicate that the bituminous trail along the west side of the site will enter the adjacent railroad right-of-way at Laurel Avenue. The developer must obtain an easement from the railroad for this trail, or modify the plans to stay within the boundaries of the PUD. G:\Developments - Private\Xenia Ridge\PrePUD 040708.doc 2 Access to the proposed PUD will be provided from Golden Hills Drive, Xenia Avenue and Laurel Avenue. There are two access points from Golden Hills Drive. The first driveway, located in the southwest corner of the site, provides full access into the parking ramp. Because of the width of this driveway a center median should be installed to separate the incoming and outgoing traffic at this driveway location. The second access point from Golden Hills Drive is located approximately 260 feet west of Xenia Avenue. The driveway will be limited to right-in/right-out access for westbound traffic. The Xenia Avenue access will also be limited to right-in/right-out turns for southbound traffic on Xenia Avenue. A full site access is proposed from Laurel Avenue in the northwest corner of the site. This access will provide access into the parking ramp, but will also be the primary service access to the site. It appears that in order to access the loading dock area of the office building a truck must pull into the parking ramp and then back out towards the loading dock. The developer must demonstrate that this truck maneuver is possible and practical for all anticipated delivery vehicles, including full length semi trucks. Based upon the plans submitted, it appears that access to the upper levels of the parking ramp is only available from the south. The developer must clarify the circulation and access patterns for the parking ramp and provide full parking access from all ramp entrances. The right-inlright-out access points from Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive are the primary access points to the office building drop off and the parking lot in front of the retail space. It appears that traffic entering the site from Golden Hills Drive wishing to access the office building drop off will have a difficult left turn at the north-end of the proposed median. The radius on the median should be reviewed, and be modified as needed, to provide sufficient turning radius for cars and light delivery vehicles. In addition, signing and striping must be installed in the vicinity of the drop off loop to provide counter-clockwise circulation only. This should include prohibition of traffic turning left into the loop after exiting the parking ramp. All work performed by the developer within public street right-of-ways must comply with the City's Right-of-Way Management Ordinance and be built consistent with City standards and specifications. G:\Developments - Private\Xenia Ridge\PrePUD 040708.doc 3 Travel Demand Manaaement Plan: The developer has submitted a Travel Demand Management Plan (TDMP) for the proposed PUD. In order to minimize the impacts that traffic generated from this PUD has on peak traffic periods, the developer has agreed to develop and implement an incentive program to promote alternate modes of transportation. These measures include providing bike lockers and shower facilities, promoting transit and car-pooling incentives, flexible work schedules, scheduling truck deliveries for off-peak times, designating a staff member to serve as Commuter Benefits Coordinator, conducting commuter surveys and participating the formation of a Travel Management Organization. As with other office developments within the Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive area, traffic generation during peak hours is a concern. As discussed above, the TOMP outlines specific approaches to reducing the peak hour traffic flows to and from the PUO. In order to provide the ability to further analyze trip generation in the future if capacity issues develop in this area, the developer must provide the ability for the City to monitor the traffic in and out of the parking ramp. This capability has been provided at the Allianz parking ramp and has been included in recent discussions with the owners of the Colonnade site. The final PUO plans must include specific information regarding a traffic counting system. Utilitv Plan: The proposed PUO will receive sanitary sewer and water service from extensions of existing facilities into the site. Adequate capacity is available in the City sanitary sewer and water systems to accommodate this development. The proposed sanitary sewer service into the site is acceptable as shown on the utility plan. This service extension includes work within the right-of-way of Xenia Avenue as part of the City's public improvement project, and extension of the service into the PUO by the developer. The developer will be responsible for the construction costs for the sewer service included in the City project. In addition, the developer will be responsible for the maintenance of the sewer service from the City's main in Xenia Avenue into each of the proposed buildings. There are three existing sanitary sewer services to this site that will not be used following development. These services will be removed as part of the City's public improvement project, with all costs specially assessed to the developer. The proposed water supply system shown on the utility plan must be modified to include a looped watermain through the site. This loop should utilize the existing 10 inch diameter pipe previously installed by the City near the Xenia Avenue site entrance, and connect to the existing 8 inch diameter pipe near the southeast corner of the site. This watermain loop must not pass beneath the commercial portion of the development as G:\Developments - Private\Xenia Ridge\PrePUD 040708.doc 4 currently shown on the plans, and must include individual metered services to each of the buildings. The developer must remove the existing 6 inch diameter cast iron hydrant lead that parallels Xenia Avenue. The new hydrant lead should be a 6 inch diameter ductile iron pipe. All watermains within the PUD will be owned and maintained by the developer. Maintenance guidelines and requirements will be outlined in the development agreement for the PUD. The watermain loop, and all hydrant leads on site must be within 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements as shown on the preliminary plat. The illustrated easements must be revised to be consistent with the watermain loop discussed above. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control: This proposed PUD is located within the Sweeney Lake subdistrict of the Bassett Creek Watershed. Therefore, the development is subject to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission's (BCWMC) Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals, including the non-degradation requirements. The plans for the PUD must be approved by the BCWMC prior to final approval of the development. The proposed development includes the construction of a nutrient and sediment removal pond in the southeast corner of the site. Based upon the information submitted it appears that this pond is adequately sized to provide water quality treatment for its watershed. The discharge from this pond will flow into the existing storm sewer system in Xenia Avenue, and northwards to the Sweeney Branch of Bassett Creek. The existing storm sewer located along the western site boundary will be removed and replaced as previously discussed in this review. The plans for relocating this storm sewer must be modified to utilize reinforced concrete pipe for this storm sewer. Due to the size of this development, the developer will be required to obtain a general storm water discharge permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The developer must submit a copy of this permit application to the Public Works Department when the application is made, and a copy of the permit must be provided after it is issued. The developer will be required to obtain a City of Golden Valley Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Permit for this proposed project. This permit must be obtained prior to the start of any work on site. G:\Developments - Private\Xenia Ridge\PrePUD 040708.doc 5 Tree Preservation: This proposed PUDis subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. However, due to the absence of tress on the site a Tree Preservation Permit will not be required. The development will be required to comply with the City's minimum landscape standards. Summary and Recommendations: Public Works staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for the proposed Xenia Ridge Planned Unit Development subject to the comments contained in this review. A summary of the major issues to be addressed is as follows. However, additional points to be addressed are included within the text of this report. 1) The developer must complete an application for easement vacation that runs concurrently with the PUD Final Plan approval for the drainage easement along the western edge of the site. 2) The portion of proposed sidewalk parallel to and south of the Xenia Avenue site access must be removed from the plans. 3) The plans be modified so the asphalt trail in the northwest corner of the site be located entirely within the subject property, or an easement be acquired from the railroad for the trail as proposed. 4) The developer must demonstrate the need for the width of the site access in the southwest corner of the site and include a center median in the driveway to separate traffic. 5) The developer must address the truck turning and site access issues for deliveries to the office building at the north access to the parking ramp as discussed in this review. 6) The site plans must be modified to clarify the site circulation, signing and turning radii in the vicinity of the office building drop off area and the eastern access point to the parking ramp. 7) The developer must include ramp metering for all three access points to the parking ramp, with details provided with the final PUD submittal. 8) The developer must modify the utility plan to incorporate the watermain loop and other revisions discussed within this review. G:\Developments - Private\Xenia Ridge\PrePUD 040708.doc 6 9) The PUD is subject to the review and comment of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. 10)The developer must obtain the proper permits from the City of Golden Valley and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and any other required permits not specifically discussed, prior to the start of work on site. The approval of this PUD is also subject to the review and comments of other City staff. C: Mike Kotila, SEH Jupe Hale, WSB Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Gary Johnson, Building Official Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator G:\Developments - Private\Xenia Ridge\PrePUD 040708.doc 7 ~ ,. ~------------------------------------~ I I I I I I I I ! I W$N(1I<-lII'ffI .,,,... ~~"'''''''~ ~ ~J~ B. U\MtJONCK _'It' a~;:i<: J. <<<M'~ .~~l$ ~"''''#t ~:'>';/ M ,$~ "" ~M>iO<!~,:>,i",.",;;;w.",..,,=. - - Iii - - - ...,. \ 0SrTEfUN~ l~lrI EtJ Di CONSULTlNO GIIOlJl'.lNc PROPOSED SITE PLAN XENIA RIDGE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Opus Northwest, LLC Figure 2 0076333 January 2008 Public ~n~y Memo ndum Fire Department 763-593-8055 I 763-512-2497 (fax) To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning & Zoning From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Subject: PUD #105 - Xenia Ridge, 700-800 Xenia Avenue South- Revised Submittal Date: April 7, 2008 Cc: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections Jeff Oliver, City Engineer The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the re-submittal of the proposed development located at 700-800 Xenia Avenue South. Listed below are the additional or modified comments for this proposed site development: 1. The location and installation of all new fire hydrants located in this development shall not be obstructed in any manner or by any materials including, but not limited to, landscaping, electrical equipment, gas meters and other means that would hinder the fire department operation. 2. The location of the parking ramp structure shall have an access road around the building in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code. If the fire department access road cannot be installed, an approved alternate means of fire protection or safeguards will be required. Fire protection or safeguards include, but are not limited to, fire suppression systems, Class I standpipes, fire alarm systems, and any other fire suppression or safeguard approved by the code official. 3. The fire department access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of the fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving during the construction phase and the completion of this development. 4. The landscaping materials that are designed for this site shall not be placed or kept near fire hydrants, fire department connections, post indicator valves or other fire protection and control valves in a manner that would prevent such equipment or fire hydrants from being immediately deterred or hindered from gaining immediate access. 5. The post indicator valves for the fire suppression water supply system for each building and parking ramp shall be protected by the requirements listed in the Minnesota State Fire Code under "Vehicle Impact Protection." The post indicator valves shall also be distanced away from the buildings in accordance with recognized standards. 6. The proposed retail concept for this site shall be designed in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code. 7. The parking ramp concept for the proposed site shall be designed in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code. Additional safeguards and fire protection equipment will be required for this proposed site. 8. The proposed high-rise building for this site shall be designed in accordance with the Fire and Building Codes and the high-rise occupancy requirements including, but not limited to, fire department communication systems, elevator master control boards and other items indicated in the Minnesota State Fire Code. 9. The fire department will require a rapid-entry lock box for this proposed site. This rapid-entry lock box will be installed on all fire department access exterior entry doors and each tenant space identified in the retail side of this plan. 10. The fire suppression system and standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code and other recognized fire code standards. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 763-593-8065. ~ ... XENIA RIDGE REDEVELOPMENT TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL-DRAFT Prepared for Opus Northwest, LLC Prepared by SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 (763) 475-0010 Fax: (763) 475-2429 February 2008 SRF No. 0076333 " TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT DESCRiPTION........................................................................................... 1 GOALS OF THE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN................................................ 1 DISCLOSURE OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS ....................................................... 4 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS............................................................................................. 4 PARKING OPERATIONS ............................................................................................ 5 ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................6 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................................... 6 PROPOSED ACTIONS...... .......... ............................................................................... 6 APPENDIX A - Traffic Study Technical Memorandum APPENDIX B - Parking Study Technical Memorandum LIST OF FIGURES Paae Figure 1 - Project Area................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 - Proposed Site Plan............................................................. ......... 3 Figure 3A - Alternative Transportation Infrastructure - Transit .................... 7 Figure 3B - Alternative Transportation Infrastructure - Bike/Pedestrian ...... 8 LIST OF TABLES Paae Table 1 -Target Transportation Goals Mode Split Goals.............................. 1 Table 2 - Parking Operations Summary - City Requirements ..................... 5 Table 3 - Parking Operations Summary - ITE Parking Demand.................. 5 Table 4 - Transit Operations Summary ........................................................ 6 H:\Projects\6333\TP\FINAL-DRAFT TDMP _cv _Rev2.doc ... INTRODUCTION This Travel Demand Management Plan (TDMP) was prepared for the proposed Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment located in the northwest quadrant of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive in the City of Golden Valley (see Figure 1: Project Location). The project site is currently zoned light industrial, however, the developer, Opus Northwest L.L.C., is proposing a commercial Planned Unit Development (PUD). This TDMP identifies a plan of actions to be completed by the developer with support from various commuter organizations and the City of Golden Valley. It is designed to create an effective commute management program, which should reduce the demand for parking at the site and minimize the impact on local roads due to vehicular travel to and from the development. The success of this plan relies on the level of commitment to marketing and implementing the programs identified herein, with support from the City, Opus, and tenant employers. Project Description The project site currently contains 37,000 square feet of light industrial office along with surface parking. Based on information provided by City staff, the existing office space is assumed 30 percent occupied. The proposed redevelopment would demolish all existing buildings and parking, and construct new buildings with 278,842 square feet of office space, 7,896 square feet of retail space and 3,500 square feet of restaurant space. The parking garage will be accessed from Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive (see Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan). The planned completion date of construction and opening for full occupancy is 2009. Goals of the Travel Demand Management Plan The purpose of this TDMP is to support the overall City of Golden Valley transportation goals. The objective of this plan is to encourage employees and visitors to use alternative modes of transportation other than driving alone. This TDMP identifies actions to manage and minimize vehicle trips and parking generation of the development. It should be noted that this TDMP has been prepared in consultation with the City of Golden Valley to ensure that key issues are identified and adequately addressed. Based on previous TDMP's in the area and with the current status of the transit and bicycle/pedestrian system, the developer has identified the following goals in terms of mode split for the project: Table 1 Target Transportation Mode Split Goals Mode Split Goals Auto 93% Transit/Bicyc1e/W alking 7% Xenia Ridge Redevelopment February 2008 DRAFT Travel Demand Management Plan Page 1 c... III :>0 CO Ill..... .:;:!O> '" "'''' 0", o 00 0>< -om c::: Z en - z)> o ::0 ;::!.Cl =rG) ~ m en -l F~ Om r Cl m s:: )> z Cl s: )> z )> G) m s:: m z -l ""'0 s;: Z :n CQ c::: i -a.. o !" -1\ 1/~\~ ) 1 ~ ;,II ~ v--:-/ ~ $9.. 1.& \ III . \~! ! AVE. N. . ~'{" I I I':o,i) 'I' :c Q ~/' II; ~/ 'X ~ ~ II \ \ r- \ I PEN \ NSYL' ~ ~ KELLY I \ :. \~ ElLIS ,LA.IO \ .ra~ I ~ 4: -< ~ <.:p.l' VARNER WINNETKA ;g o ffi (") ..... r- o ~ :::! o ::c: 0; ~ ~ ~ '" Z RHODE j-'I@ {i ~ II ~ Iii " ill ~_m i~ ~ OREGON !. i:!; Z' ~ \_ NEVAD, . MARY ;f. ~ j Ave. s. ! ~ ~ $l! ~R/t)J-'-....../g !!l t ~'€'Ip.O" "VE. s.!-@! I Gav . M ""--1 GAR . R LANDAVE.S. :>, OENPARK SlANA 11' ~ (). < ~ '" 0 '" '" l l!! ~~ Ave.S. ,... I '~~Y '" . AVE.S I . 8 o -0 P 0 c: -0 '" . ~ o tv co AVE. !!;: ::T . AVE. j;f. )' ._~ I RD. ~ !!l ~I~ .OUISIANA ....,... ~ KENTUCKY AVE. r;f. AVE. t-- ;f. ~~. t~IRE '" +- /f:l / LOU! LOUISIANA ~ ::J 0. JERSEY ~ . IDAHO JERSEY AVE. S. ~ !" ;z 5 w. cOl!JlAv. 'tJ ~ CIR. ~~ ;:0 Q ()~ 0 . iVz c.. m o -I . EDGEWOOD r -\- DAKOTA AVE 0 COLORAoP L . 0 . BRUNSWI~ ~ ~ AVE.S. 0 l!! KING HILL RD Z ;f. \ ~~! l" ~ () ..<\\ ''>'31 -0 IIIII~ AOEUNE ;;; () In " 0 ~ z -. . lQ ~ '" :>, " ." . m '" OITA - AVE. ~ it::- ..i:' )> \\ \'~ l ,~ ~ ,po ! ~ 5. ~ \ .J'; 6 7/'r~ ~ //oi> ~~ . / P \ , ~ \.. ! /8 \ / / \ if] :>,. <' s: " The mode split goals should be attainable due to a number of factors working in favor of the site. First, there is a major transit corridor (1-394) adjacent to the site that will allow employees easy access to the metropolitan transit system. This corridor includes the Louisiana A venue Transit Center to the west, Park Place Park and Ride to the east, and High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on 1-394. Second, with the close proximity of amenities within a short distance, many employees will be able to bike or walk to secondary destinations (i.e. shopping or entertainment). DISCLOSURE OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS This section of the TDMP summarizes and describes the transportation impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment. A more detailed traffic and parking review can be found in the Appendices of this Plan. Traffic Operations In September 2006, SRF Consulting Group completed a traffic study for what was then called the Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan. This previous work reviewed the traffic impacts associated with a redevelopment project at this same location. The former land use development plan is similar to the proposed Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment plan in scale. As part of the current Xenia Ridge Redevelopment TDMP, we have completed an addendum to the previous Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Traffic Study. The purpose of this addendum is to determine if the operations analysis completed as part of the Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Traffic Study is still valid and applicable to the newly proposed Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment. We have completed a trip generation estimate comparison and subsequent adjacent roadway volume impact comparison. The trip generation estimate comparison between the two land use scenarios (former Miner Site and proposed Xenia Ridge redevelopments) indicates that the newly proposed Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment generates: 19 percent more trips during the a.m. peak hour; 18 percent more trips during the p.m. peak hour; 23 percent more trips on a daily basis. In addition to the total trip generation comparison presented above, a total traffic impact comparison was conducted at the intersection with the lowest level of service from the Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Traffic Study. The Xenia A venue and Golden Hills Drive intersection represents the intersection with the lowest level of service (LOS D). Based on our review, the increase in proposed redevelopment trip generation equates to an approximate 1.5 percent increase in the total traffic volume at the intersection of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive. In this context the additional trip generation represents a relatively small impact. The adjacent roadway network and intersections are capable of handling the additional trip load with the recommended roadway improvements outlined in the Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Traffic Study. Therefore, the proposed Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment will not create additional impacts on the adjacent roadway network beyond what was reported in the Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Traffic Study. More details and an expansion of this analysis discussion can be found in Appendix A. Xenia Ridge Redevelopment February 2008 DRAFT Travel Demand Management Plan Page 4 Parking Operations City Parkina Requirements The City of Golden Valley, through its zoning code, requires developments to provide a minimum number of off-street parking stalls. The proposed Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment will consist of office space, retail space and restaurant space. The proposed project plans to supply 1,092 parking spaces within the development. Based on our review of the City parking requirements, the proposed project is required to provide 1,182 off-street parking stalls. Based on the City of Golden Valley parking requirements, the proposed project will have a 90 space deficit. More details of the parking analysis can be found in Appendix B. Table 2 summarizes these results. Table 2 Parking Operations Summary City of Golden Valley Requirements Proposed Conditions (Year of openin2 - 2009) Proposed Off-Street Supply 1,092 spaces City of Golden Valley Minimum Requirement * 1.1 82 slJaces Surplus/(Deficit) (90 spaces) * See Parking Study technical memorandum for more information. ITE Parkina Demand A comparison analysis was conducted using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual (2004). Table 3 summarizes the results of this analysis. This method uses key inputs, such as facility size and travel behavior characteristics, to estimate parking demand. The ITE Parking Generation Manual method estimates the peak parking occupancy based on surveys. The peak parking occupancy is the number of occupied parking spaces during the peak usage time for a particular land use. Assuming current travel behavior characteristics are maintained into the future, the proposed site will have a future parking demand of approximately 745 stalls during an average weekday. Please note that the ITE based parking demand values differ from the City of Golden Valley's minimum parking requirements. This is provided as a comparison exercise only. Table 3 Parking Operations Summary ITE Projected Demand Proposed Conditions (Year of openin2 - 2009) Proposed Off-Street Supply 1,092 spaces ITE Projected Demand * 745 spaces Surplus/(Deficit) 347 spaces * See Parking Study technical memorandum for more information. Xenia Ridge Redevelopment February 2008 DRAFT Travel Demand Management Plan Page 5 Alternative Transportation Infrastructure The project site is served by transit with direct access to bus routes that run along Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive. Other bus routes are within close walking distance (see Figure 3A). These routes serve all regions of the metro area. Table 4 describes the routes that serve the project directly. These routes run to downtown Minneapolis and the Louisiana Avenue Transit Center where transfers to routes that serve the rest of the metropolitan area are available. Table 4 Transit Operations Summary Peak Frequency Non-Peak Route Service Area (6 - 9 a.m. and Frequency 3 - 6:30 p.m.) 9 Minnetonka, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, 15 minutes 30 minutes Downtown Minneapolis 643 Minnetonka, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, 30 minutes N/A Downtown Minneapolis The potential for pedestrian and bicycle activity is high within the proposed redevelopment area. The projects west property line abuts the South Hennepin Regional Trail: Golden Valley to Medicine Lake. The project site also has regional trails within close biking distance along the Cedar Lake Trail and Theodore Wirth Parkway. The proximity of the site to these trails can be seen in Figure 3B. These paths link to other city and regional pathways. The applicant agrees to provide bicycle storage areas on site that will be sufficient in size and number for the commercial and office uses. Such storage areas will be shown in the final plans of the project that will be submitted to the City as part of the building permit application process. TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN The purpose of this section of the TDMP is to outline measures to encourage employees and visitors of the proposed Xenia Ridge redevelopment to use alternative modes of transportation instead of driving alone. The implementation of the following actions is the responsibility of the building owner or manager. The building owner or manager agrees to fund, construct and maintain all of the actions identified below. Proposed Actions The building owner, or manager, will help the City of Golden Valley support and promote transportation-related goals and policies. To accomplish these goals, the building owner, or manager, with the assistance of Commuter Connection, will develop and implement an incentive program in order to actively encourage employees and visitors to use alternative modes of transportation. The incentive program will include, but is not limited to, the following strategies and incentives: Xenia Ridge Redevelopment February 2008 DRAFT Travel Demand Management Plan Page 6 ~ . Project Site Golden Hills Dr /- / / i I I ~ ! I Legend . Proj~ct Site . Bus Stops . Bus Shelters Bus Routes . . 1-394 Corridor Serving West Metro to Downtown Minneapolis ..~~...~53~g~el!,d. ~ --~~~.,'-- Park Place Park & Ride ALTERNATE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE - TRANSIT XENIA RIDGE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Opus Northwest, LLC Figure 3A OlNSVU1N<l GIlOVI'.1NC. 0076333 January 2008 ~ ~ ~ 6l~ 0' i I i"E tOO IU II!! I Colonial Dr 1m \ i " I~ \ \ l~~ Site ~~---~-. Circle 0", _. nns I- I ~ I js..... \{E. ;c :3= \.:'] I tV'll JhSt I I I \ C/) ~ <( c (Q € ~ -- r-\\\ $\ '-N \'0' W 16th St ~ ~.....~ ~$ 1>0' Gamb~ Dr Q) Legend ~ ~ . Project Site -c o u:: __ Trails ~ CoNsvt.11NG GROO1',INC ALTERNATE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE - BICYCLES XENIA RIDGE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Opus Northwest, LLC Figure 38 0076333 January 2008 1.) Support and Promote Bicycling and Walking as Alternatives The building owner, or manager, will actively promote bicycling and walking as an alternative means of commuting among the employees and visitors of Xenia Ridge, primarily through information dissemination and the provision of bicycle storage facilities. The building owner, or manager, commits to provide bicycle storage facilities (i.e. bike racks, bike banks and/or bike lockers), to meet the demands of employees and visitors in a location consistent with the design and landscaping of the redevelopment. Shower facilities shall also be provided for employees biking or walking to work. 2.) Support Transit as an Alternative The building owner, or manager, will actively promote transit.as an alternative means of commuting among the employees and visitors of Xenia Ridge; primarily through information dissemination. The provision of a transit stop along Golden Hills Drive (i.e. bus shelter) should be included in the site plan. The building owner, or manager, will work with Metro Transit to explore the possibilities of expanding bus service that serves the site directly. The building owner, or manager, will also work with office tenants to develop a program that will promote employee bus passes for those that choose to use transit a minimum of three days per week. 3.) Support and Promote Car and Vanpooling The building owner, or manager, will actively promote car and vanpooling as an alternative means of commuting among the employees of Xenia Ridge; primarily through information dissemination. Incentives such as preferential parking location for carpoolers and motorcycles will be offered. 4.) Provision of Information on Transportation Alternatives The building owner, or manager, will provide information on all of the transportation alternatives available to employees and visitors through a variety of mediums. . Provide route maps and information regarding the Metro Transit bus system, carpooling and other transportation alternatives on-site and at key locations (lobby, other building common areas, etc.). . Conduct a transportation alternatives awareness campaign directed toward employees, which may include the following: ~ Provide information in orientation packets. ~ Promote flexible schedules for employees, which allow employees to arrive and leave outside the peak commuting hours with their supervisor's permission and whenever it is appropriate. This strategy is difficult to implement within an office development that contains multiple office tenants versus one tenant throughout. Review of its effectiveness will be reviewed on a continual basis. Xenia Ridge Redevelopment February 2008 DRAFT Travel Demand Management Plan Page 9 ~ Whenever possible. and feasible, provide employees with information regarding telecommuting to promote working from home. 5.) Vehicular Traffic Movement & Access Restriction The building owner, or manager, will work with large delivery vehicles to access the site outside of the a.m. and p.m. peak traffic periods. No on-street space will be allocated for delivery vehicles. 6.) Participation with Regional TDM Organizations The building owner, or manager, will designate an individual to act as the Commuter Benefits Coordinator (CBC). The CBC will work closely with Commuter Connection to disseminate commuting information and materials to employees and visitors; participate in regional training or informational sessions about TDM programs; be available to meet once a year with Commuter Connection and/or the City of Golden Valley to review available regional programs and services; actively and continuously promote expansion of the TDMP program; and monitor progress on fulfilling TDMP commitments. 7.) Monitoring of Action Implementation and Goal Achievement The building owner, or manager, will monitor the implementation of the proposed TDMP ,actions and progress made toward achieving the TDMP mode split goals through the following monitoring program: . With the assistance of Commuter Connection, conduct a statistically valid baseline employee commuter survey within the first six months of full occupancy of the proposed redevelopment. . With the assistance of Commuter Connection, conduct an employee commuter survey every two years after the original baseline survey, for ten years or until the TDMP non- SOV mode split goal of seven (7) percent using an alternative mode of transportation is achieved. . After each round of biennial commuter surveys, review the TDMP in conjunction with Commuter Connection, to determine its effectiveness. Then prepare a status report for Commuter Connection and the City of Golden Valley to review and approve with recommendations. 8.) Participate in the Establishment of an area Travel Management Organization (TMO) The building owner, or manager, will participate in an area-wide TMO (developed by coalition cities in the area) and become an active member once it is formed. The TMO should include other developments within one-half mile of the 1-394 and Xenia A venue/Park Place interchange. The TMO will be responsible for promoting TDM strategies on an area-wide basis, such as establishing bus pass subsidy percentage standards and promoting the expansion of transit service in the area. Xenia Ridge Redevelopment February 2008 DRAFT Travel Demand Management Plan Page 10 APPROVED: Name: Ericka Miller Title: Senior Manager- Real Estate Development Opus Northwest, LLC Signature: Date: APPROVED: Name: Mark Grimes Title: Director of Planning and Development City of Golden Valley Signature: Date: APPENDIX A XENIA RIDGE REDEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CONSULTING GROUP, INC. RS I PLAN E IDES I Mll\iNfAPOLlS MADISON SRF No. 0076333 DRAFT MEMORANDUM TO: Ericka Miller, Senior Manager - Real Estate Development Opus Northwest, L.L.C. FROM: Craig Vaughn, P.E., PTOE, Associate Jessica Dauer, Engineer DATE: February 29,2008 SUBJECT: XENIA RIDGE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY - ADDENDUM TO THE MINER SITE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY INTRODUCTION As you requested, we have completed a review of the Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment land use program in relation to the previously proposed redevelopment project in the northwest quadrant of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive in the City of Golden Valley (see Figure A-I: Project Location). The purpose of this addendum is to determine if the operations analysis completed as part of the Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Traffic Study, dated September 28, 2006, completed by SRF Consulting Group, is still valid and applicable to the newly proposed Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment. Comparing the new land use program with the previously proposed redevelopment will allow us to define the order of magnitude and difference between the two trip generation estimates; thus, indioating the new land use programs impacts and similarities to the previous operations analysis. This addendum includes a trip genedtion estimate comparison and subsequent adjacent roadway volume impact comparison. LAND-USE SCENARIO COMPARISON The proposed Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment is expected to be fully constructed by year 2009. Therefore, the previous forecast horizon and analysis year of 2010 remains valid. All adjacent development assumptions used in the previous analysis are still valid and applicable under the updated Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment scenario. The adjacent development assumptions include redevelopment or expansion of the following sites: www.srfconsulting.com One Carlson Parkway North, SUite 150 I Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 I 763.475.0010 Fax: 763.475.2429 l\n E,/ual OpphrtmtJtJj Employer w MEM < z 61 ~ iil 0 SCHAPER < ~ COUNTRY CLUB ~~".." ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~-- ^ -~-= ~ ~ 'I~ H~ O~-~ ]~~ ~~ ~/ -" -'----- -(-'-:~., "'0, d' c .... """'-_ % ,~'i" % ~~~ I . ~ ~i ~ ~~- V.~ LORING ~ 000 z 0'/-' ~C ... c,. .~ " z ~ /S'lbP - 15 ~ i \ ~ If! f ---I. I!! ~ < g ~ .. ... rOSE~. ., """"'.""WOoI < i i.r I AVE. I i ~r ~( ~~- F--' l~' -VI-! "\ l'~ " 'I" .< < .us. RTlAWN < ~ ~ ~. <~ g \\1; .~ L.~:" h i ~,_ ~ t\ W' ~ :.. '7 " "< -k-- ~ < MARKET ~ / ST. III/ - ~I ~ 01 ,....01 nr;w / HII1S III DR. :::E.~ 01 !!! 5 9 POPlAR i ~AVE. ~ "'-'~1 "" LEa E.p ~ lA. -",,- ~t-CL '~~I ~ ~ ~I l.A. ~_ CREST. W. 14th ST. I-,,_,~~r ~ J ~III · "1',1 ";./ ~i ~l ~ ~ . I W. 16 t ~ f: < r 0 lJIrj < I I III GAMB~ DR~ ~ ~ -- _ SF; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U [ ,., I h ~ ... 1.8 ~ , ~ \II~ i!_~LJ i .1 L2 )I::,J JJ?(i6) ~ FRANKUN AVE. I ~ 54. QUEBEC DR. i . - ST. 1_ W. 22nd ST. nc! _ ..-----"1 . ~ CoNsutTlN<l GROIlP.INC PROJECT LOCATION XENIA RIDGE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Opus Northwest, LLC Figure A-1 0076333 January 2008 Ms. Ericka Miller Opus Northwest, LLC Scenario 1 Golden Hills Sho in Center Colonnade Expansion Allianz Insurance Ex ansion February 29,2008 Page 3 Scenario 2 Golden Hills Sho in Center Colonnade Expansion Allianz Insurance Ex ansion Minnea olis West Redevelo ment Note: Refer to the Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Traffic Study, dated September 28, 2006, for further information. Table A-I displays a summary of the trip generation calculations for the former Miner Site redevelopment scenario, as well as a summary of the trip generation calculations for the newly proposed Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment. The difference calculated at the bottom of Table A- I indicates that the newly proposed Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment generates approximately 19 percent more trips during the a.m. peak hour, 18 percent more trips during the p.m. peak hour and 23 percent more trips daily. Table A-1 Trip Generation Estimate Comparison Generation Residential Condominiums Office Retail (I) Hi h- Turnover Restaurant (I) Coffee Sho (I) 74 units 218,000s .ft. 2,500 s . ft. 6,000 s . ft. 1,500 s . ft. Subtotal Reductions Existin 0 Ice (2) 50 Percent Multi-use 434 2,400 617 763 1,074 5,288 6 297 10 36 39 388 27 41 7 33 26 134 26 55 26 40 20 167 13 270 29 26 19 357 Generation Office Office Retail (I) Fast-Casual Restaurant/Coffee Sho (I) Subtotal Reductions Existln Li ht Industrial 0 Ice (2) 50 Percent Multi-use 11,650 s . ft. 267,192 s . ft. 7,896 s . ft. 3,500 s . ft. 128 2,942 1,304 2,506 6,880 16 364 21 92 493 2 50 13 61 126 3 68 56 47 174 14 330 61 45 450 (I) 50 percent multi-use reduction applied. (2) Existing Light Industrial Office was assumed 30 percent occupied, based on information provided by City staff. Ms. Ericka Miller Opus Northwest, LLC February 29, 2008 Page 4 The directional trip distribution for the proposed site-generated trips was based on the previous distribution assumptions in the Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Traffic Study. Figures A-2 and A-3 present a comparison of the year 2010 scenario 2 build conditions (with all adjacent development assumptions included). These graphics include a combination of background traffic and trips generated by the former and proposed redevelopments for year 2010 scenario 2 peak hour build conditions. YEAR 2010 BUILD CONDITION IMPACT Due to excessive queues observed at key intersections in the project study area, the Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Traffic Study recommended roadway improvements under year 2010 no build conditions, with the assumed adjacent development assumptions included. The recommended roadway improvements were as follows: · Construct an additional westbound right-turn lane at the 1-394 North ramp to provide dual right-turn lanes . Provide a westbound right-turn overlap phase at the 1-394 North Ramp . Construct an additional northbound and eastbound right-turn lane at the 1-394 South Ramp to provide dual right-turn lanes · Provide a northbound and eastbound right-turn overlap phase at the 1-394 South Ramp . Optimize the signal timing at the 1-394 Ramps . Eliminate the split phasing at Golden Hills Drive . Modify the existing westbound left, left/thru, and right-turn lane to represent dual left-turn lanes and a thrulright-turn lane at Golden Hills Drive In the recommended improvements listed above, all key intersections were reported to oper~te at acceptable LOS D or better and have reasonable queues under year 2010 scenario 2 build conditions during the peak hours, with the former Miner Site redevelopment scenario. A total traffic impact comparison was conducted at the intersection with the lowest level of service from the Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Traffic Study. The Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive intersection represents the intersection with the lowest level of service (LOS D). I5ased on our review, the increase in proposed redevelopment trip generation equates to an approximate 1.5 percent increase in the total traffic volume at the intersection of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive. In this context the additional trip generation represents a relatively small impact. The adjacent roadway network and intersections are capable of handling the additional trip load with the recommended roadway improvements outlined in the Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Traffic Study. Based on this and the traffic volume comparisons shown in Figures A-2 and A-3, the proposed Xenia Ridge redevelopment will not create additional impacts on the adjacent roadway network beyond what was reported in the Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Traffic Study. Z -1~ ~ . CORT(' .....: I~~~ j ~ S. ~~TLAWN ~ g~ CIR. I ~ 0 8/1 N. 47. FlORIDA CT. I ~ ~ I FR I ANK . CoNsvt11NG Gaour.1Nc. 0076333 February 2008 LEa E ------., LA. z~ ~I d !!l a: <(" ~ uS CIR. 81: ~ 55. N. 'MLLOW LA. GAMBLE DR. , LEGEND XX - Volumes Based on Former Miner Site Development Plan ~ I (XX) - Volumes Based on Proposed Xenia Ridge Development Plan ill [XX] - Change in Number of Trips S - Signalized Intersection YEAR 2010 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO 2) -A.M. PEAK HOUR ~'A 2 XENIARIDGE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Igure - Opus Northwest, LLC LEa E ---, LA. CIR. CRE ~ ~ I Sl: ~ FR I ANK GAMBlE DR. . LEGEND XX - Volumes Based on Former Miner Site Development Plan 511 (XX) - Volumes Based on Proposed Xenia Ridge Development Plan iil [XX] - Change in Number of Trips S - Signalized Ihtersection m1i CoNsvLt1NG Gaour.1Nc. YEAR 2010 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO 2) . P.M. PEAK HOUR ~. A 3 XENIA RIDGE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Igure . Opus NorthlN'est, LLC 0076333 February 2008 . Ms. Ericka Miller Opus Northwest, LLC February 29, 2008 Page 7 CONCLUSIONS As previously stated, the purpose of this addendum is to determine if the operations analysis completed as part of the Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Traffic Study is still valid and applicable to the newly proposed Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment. We have completed a trip generation estimate comparison and subsequent adjacent roadway volume impact comparison. Based on this analysis, the following comments are offered for your consideration: · All adjacent development assumptions used in the Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Traffic Study are still valid and applicable under the updated Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment scenario. · The trip generation estimate comparison between the two land use scenarios (former Miner Site and proposed Xenia Ridge redevelopments) indicates that the newly proposed Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment generates approximately 19 percent more trips during the a.m. peak hour, 18 percent more trips during the p.m. peak hour and 23 percent more trips daily. · The increase in proposed redevelopment trip generation equates to an approximate 1.5 percent increase in the total traffic volume at the intersection of Xenia A venue and Golden Hills Drive. In this context the additional trip generation represents a relatively small impact. · The adjacent roadway network is capable of handling the additional trip load with the recommended roadway improvements outlined in the Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Traffic Study. Therefore, the proposed Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment will not create additional impacts on the adjacent roadway network beyond what was reported in the Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Traffic Study. H:\Projects\6333\TS\Report\FINAL-DRAFT _Xenia Ridge TDMP TS _Rev2.doc . APPENDIX B XENIA RIDGE REDEVELOPMENT PARKING STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM .. E CONSOLTIN GROUP, INC. IN s I PLANNERS I DESIGNERS I MI""EAP OUS FARGO MADISO" SRF No. 0076333 DRAFT MEMORANDUM TO: Ericka Miller, Senior Manager - Real Estate Development Opus Northwest, L.L.C. FROM: Jeremy V. Monahan, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner Craig Vaughn, P.E., PTOE, Associate DATE: February 29, 2008 SUBJECT: XENIA RIDGE REDEVELOPMENT TDMP PARKING STUDY ~ ADDENDUM TO THE MINER SITE TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN PARKING STUDY INTRODUCTION The objective of this parking analysis is to provide an evaluation of future parking conditions related to the proposed Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment in the northwest quadrant of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive in the City of Golden Valley. SRF Consulting Group completed a parking study for the previous redevelopment plan of this site in September 2006 (Miner Site Travel Demand Management Plan Parking Study). The purpose of this addendum is to update this analysis based on the newly proposed Opus Xenia Ridge redevelopment plan. Parking is a critical component of any new development. A balance must be struck between supply and demand. An over supply of parking can result in a lower alternative transportation mode split and additional traffic congestion, thereby degrading the quality of life of visitors and workers. On the other hand, the under supply of parking can result in unmarketable properties and spillover to other area parking facilities. PROJECT ELEMENTS / The project site currently contains 37,000 square feet of light industrial office space along with surface parking. Based on information provided by City staff the existing office space is assumed 30 percent occupied. The proposed redevelopment would demolish all existing buildings and parking, and construct new buildings with 278,842 square feet of office space, 7,896 square feet of retail space and 3,500 square feet of restaurant space. The planned completion date of construction and opening for full occupancy is 2009. www.srfconsulting.com One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 I Minneapolis, MN 55447.4443 i 763.'175.0010 Fax: 763.475.2429 A.1l EqUfl1 Opp"tllmity Employ"'. Ms. Ericka Miller Opus Northwest, LLC February 29, 2008 Page 2 PARKING REQUIREMENT AND DEMAND To determine how many parking spaces are required and typically demanded for the proposed redevelopment, the minimum off-street parking requirements were calculated using the City of Golden Valley zoning code. The projected parking demand was determined using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual- 3rd Edition (2004). Minimum City Parking Requirements The City of Golden Valley, through their zoning code, requires developments to provide a minimum number of off-street parking stalls. As previously stated, the proposed Xenia Ridge. redevelopment will consist of office space, retail space and restaurant space. The restaurant space has been identified as fast-casual and a coffee shop. Office space is required to provide one space for every 250 square feet (or four spaces per 1,000 square feet). Retail establishments are also required to provide one space for every 250 square feet of retail floor space (or four spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail floor space). To be conservative, this analysis was calculated based on the gross retail area. Restaurant space, with a Class I-classification, is required to provide two and one-half spaces for every 250 square feet (or 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet). Based on these requirements, the proposed Xenia Ridge redevelopment is required to provide 1,182 spaces. The project plans to supply 1,092 parking spaces within the development. Table B-1 provides a summary of the parking estimate calculations. Table B-1 Estimated City Parking Requirement Use Size City Reauirement Parkin!! Reauired Office 278,842 GSF 1 space for every 250 square feet 1,115 spaces Retail 7,896 GSF 1 space for every 250 square feet 32 spaces Restaurant 3,500 GSF 2.5 spaces for every 250 square feet 35 spaces Total 1,182 spaces Provided 1,092 spaces Surplus / (Deficit) (90 spaces) Note: Requirement rates from City of Golden Valley City Code Section 11.70 Sub-Division 3 ITE Parking Demand Estimates To generate parking demand estimates, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual (2004) was used. This method uses key inputs, such as facility size and travel behavior characteristics based on surveys, to estimate parking demand. The ITE Parking Generation Manual method estimates the number of peak parking occupancy, which is the number of occupied parking spaces during the time of peak usage of a particular land use. t' , , " Ms. Ericka Miller Opus Northwest, LLC February 29, 2008 Page 3 Assuming current travel behavior characteristics are maintained into the future, the proposed redevelopment will have a future parking need of approximately 745 stalls during an average weekday (see Table B-2). Table B-2 ITE Estimated Parking Demand Use Size Weekday Demand Rate Peak Parking Demand Office 278,842 GSF 2.40 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 669 spaces Retail 7,896 GSF 2.73 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 22 spaces (Avg. ofM - Th. and Fri; non-Dee) Restaurant 3,500 GSF 15.4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 54 spaces Total 745 spaces Provided 1,092 spaces Surplus/(Deficit) 347 spaces Please note that the ITE based parking demand values differ from the City of Golden Valley's minimum parking requirements. This is provided as a comparison exercise only. CONCLUSIONS Based on the above analysis, the following conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration: 1. The proposed redevelopment is required by City of Golden Valley zoning code to provide atleast 1,182 off-street parking stalls. The proposed redevelopment is expected to be short of the City's minimum off-street parking requirements by 90 spaces, providing 1,092 parking spaces. 2. Based on existing travel behavior characteristics and the 2004 ITE Parking Generation Manual, the proposed redevelopment is expected to generate a peak period parking demand of 745 parking stalls. With the proposed supply of 1,092 spaces, a 347 space parking demand surplus is projected using this methodology. H:IProjectsI6333ITPIFINAL-DRAFT Parking Study Tech Memo_cv_Rev2.doc Hey Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: April 9, 2008 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing: Amendment to the City Code Adding the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District After extensive review of the language contained within the proposed 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District, the Planning Department requests your recommendation of approval of the creation of the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District (Section 11.47 of City Code.) It is the intent of the City to ultimately rezone the properties located in the 1-394 Corridor Study Area with this zoning classification. In December, 2007, the Land Use Plan Map was changed to reflect the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. State law requires zoning designations to comply with land use categories. The adoption of the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District will facilitate this process. These changes reflect recommendations made by the 1-394 Corridor Study Report. The report and its findings were presented to the Planning Commission in February 2007. At that time, affected property owners were also informed of the findings. Since that time, with the direction of the Planning Commission, staff have revised various language contained in the Ordinance. Staff asks for your support in recommending adoption of an ordinance amending City Code to add the 1-394 Mixed-Use Zoning District. Attachments: March 10, 2008 Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes (4 pages) Memo from Joe Hogeboom dated March 11,2008 (2 pages) Proposed Ordinance related to Mixed-Use Zoning District (11 pages) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10,2008 Page 3 and approval by the City Council emo dated February 28, 2008 4. A Subdivision Agreement will be dra that include issues found in the . 3. Discussion Regarding Mixed Use Zoning District Language Grimes reminded the Commissioners of their last discussion regarding the proposed Mixed Use zoning district language. He stated that he thought it would be best to bring the proposed ordinance to them one more time for discussion before th a public hearing. McCarty said he thi "sustainability" lang industries. Sc . clumsy. He agr industry. able" is can be understand Ie" to the lopment is also a ogeboom stated that ity's Comprehensive Plan ds of the present without wn needs". Keysser enough. ~aldhau~er said she Eck referred to page six and asked what "sustainable" means. "sustainable" is a fairly common term in planning. Waldhaus the same as "green" and "environmentally friendly" and that sustained with minimal upkeep. Eck questioned if the averag what "sustainable" means. Keysser suggested ~dding definition section of the code. Grimes noted that" addressed in the purpose section of the propose.gne the most widely accepted definition of "sustainao~~" and t definition of "sustainable" is "development s the compromising the ability of future gener questioned if that definition is too gene would like the definition to be gene Kluchka questioned if the defini development, energy effici sustainability . i "re-use". Cera stated that low-impact ace and re-usable materials are all part of cture and building industries will help foster the "sustainable" is well understood throughout those rying to define "sustainable' will make the language Carty that the term "sustainability" is well known in the avtng the language regarding sustainability as it is written and if it don't understand it the issue can be revisited. Hogeboom stated that stainable guidebook that staff will refer to when reviewing developments. Kluchka s ested creating a brochure about sustainability that could be handed out with development applications. Eck referred to page seven and asked what "integrally colored" means. Schmidgall stated that it means the color goes all the way a material. McCarty stated that there are many materials that are not integrally colored and he questioned the validity and intent of the wording. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10,2008 Page 4 Cera suggested the language say material should be integrally colored where possible or practical. Schmidgall suggested eliminating the sentence regarding integrally colored materials. The Commissioners agreed to strike the language regarding integrally colored materials. Kluchka referred to Subdivision 3 on page two regarding permitted uses and said he didn't capture that it was talking about multiple uses. He said he would like to make it less confusing and more usable. Grimes noted that Subdivision 7 explains when mixed uses are required. Cera question Permit. Grime business licens t she tial character in estioned why the City Kluchka asked what the ordinance is trying not to allow. Cera stat mixed then it will require a Conditional Use Permit. Grimes add states that if a development is over two acres in size it has to Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 5 regarding live-work unit doesn't agree that these types of units should maintairi which the work space is subordinate to the reside would care if a live-work unit looks residential. Kluchka asked what "neighborhood-orient those are businesses that serve a neig Grimes suggested using the words "s Waldhauser suggested striking the commercial services". Keysser ices" means. Grimes said id he thinks that is limiting. lal services" instead. 'de neighborhood-oriented riking the word "larger" in Subdivision 5. Waldhauser referred to Su they would want to excl live-work units are limite "wholesale busines d regarding live-work units and questioned why d manufacturing businesses. Grimes stated that mbe f employees they can have so the words turing business" could be stricken. od service business would need a Conditional Use Ity could require a Conditional Use Permit for any type of but any time food is involved there is going to be some type of or the State. ,~fequiring all live-work units to have an association or covenants so can restrict some of the issues that might arise. Grimes said he would f the ordinance that requires live-work units to have covenants or rules ruse. Kluchka referred to Subdivision 5(0) and suggested striking the words "by appointment only". Keysser thought those words would help limit traffic. Keysser referred to Subdivision 5(F) regarding minimum height and questioned how a restaurant would fit in. Waldhauser suggested the language regarding height say "buildings occupying 5,000 square feet (rather than 10,000) or more must be two stories Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10, 2008 Page 5 in height. Schmidgall said he doesn't think they can anticipate every development scenario. The Commissioners agreed that it should be changed to 5,000 square feet. Grimes referred to Subdivision leA) and suggested the words "in height subdistrict C" be stricken. The Commissioners agreed. Waldhauser referred to Subdivision leA) and asked what uses would be allowed by saying development sites over two acres in size shall be mixed use. She said she thinks it should be less than two acres. The Commissioners agreed to change t age to say sites over one acre in size shall be mixed use. Kluchka said he woul ome examples or scenarios of the types of developments that would b I over one and two acres in size. Grimes stated the 1-394 Corridor Stu showing which lots in the Corridor area are one or two acresi McCarty referred to Subdivision 8(E)(2 primary street be faced with Kasot said that he thought that langua at the last meeting was three to language in the proposed Kasota stone says the C' Kasota stone, but he wou doesn't want the re . m Kasota stone limits using a differe at approaches to I there are having the Com st . t' rea. Grimes e wants to be d that developers will t e parking units. Waldhauser said she vide for parking some how. Kluchka questioned if there will be any inclusion of on-street said he doesn't think live-work units will create much t sure that there are no "no parking" signs installed still have to follow the City's parking requiremen requirements may have to be amended to allow thinks developers will find a way to "squee o of the fac;ade facing the enous dolomitic limestone. He ecause the Planning Commission vote r said she would like to keep the iscussion purposes. She added that requiring tent and theme in the area. Kluchka said he likes Ing to mpromise with the word "stone" instead, but he oved completely. Keysser said he agrees that requiring edom. Schmidgall asked if a developer could purpose oted that Subdivision 9 allows for alternative t standards with City Council approval. Cera said he thinks es. One is requiring Kasota stone or just stone and the other is ing requiring stone in the ordinance at all. Keysser suggested vote on whether or not to remove the language regarding Kasota MOV arty, seconded by Cera and motion failed to remove the language regarding ota stone being required on 20% of the fac;ade facing the primary street. Cera, Keysser and McCarty voted yes to remove the language, Eck, Kluchka, Schmidgall and Waldhauser voted no. Waldhauser referred to Subdivision 8(C)(3) regarding the display area behind windows and suggested that area be required to be lighted. Cera said he would prefer not to mandate lighting for energy reasons. The Commissioners agreed not to require lighting in display areas. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 10,2008 Page 6 McCarty said he would like consistency with the way numbers are written in the ordinance. He said he would like the numbers one through nine spelled out and numbers ten and higher can be figures. The Commissioners agreed. Kluchka referred to Subdivision 8(M) regarding public art being encouraged. He said he would like public art to be a requirement. Grimes stated that the language could be changed to require public art in developments over two acres in size. Keysser said he doesn't want to require public art, but he would like to keep the word "encourage" in the ordinance. Grimes explained that the next step in this process will be a publi Planning Commission meeting. 4. orts on Meetings of the Ho ii, Board of Zoning Appe Kluchka reported 0 ordinance allowing em e-only child c Council did not want to liml te the se the City child care facilities. 5. Other Business Kluchka said he would like to v Committee. The Planning Keysser and Waldhause Keysser requested March 18 City Coun meeting. ent to the Commi h 19 Board of Zoning ers regarding the eals special 6. journed at 8:55 pm. Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: March 11, 2008 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, Planner Subject: Sustainable Development Definition Sustainable development is a concept that is increasing in popularity. Although the term is generallyunderstood to define conscientious and thoughtful development practices, it can often become ambiguous when it is not specifically defined. The most widely accepted definition of sustainability was created by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). In 1987 the WCED released the Brundtland Report, which defined sustainability as: "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." In recent years, sustainability has come to define the long-term social, economic, and environmental health of a community. This concept is often displayed in a circular diagram, illustrating the interconnectedness of the three core values. In an effort to include this belief in a usable and effective capacity, staff has proposed the following definition of sustainability to be added to City Code: Sustainable Development: Development which engages diverse stakeholders in respectful and open decision making processes, expresses values that have been adopted by the community, focuses on long-term land use issues, works toward equitable distribution of resources, and is socially acceptable to its surroundings and to the community as a whole. Sustainable development must minimize environmental degradation and meet or exceed standards set forth by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA.) Sustainable development must prove its ability to be compatible for current and future uses. Staff feels this definition best supports the vision of the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District, and the long-term development ideals for the City of Golden Valley. Environmental Coordinator AI Lundstrom has reviewed and approved the Planning Department's definition of sustainable development. Staff proposes to add the definition of sustainable development to the Zoning Code. In addition to the language used in the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District, staff will include this definition sustainable development in the 2008 revision of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed Future Ordinance Related to Mixed-Use Zoning District The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Section 11.03 is amended by adding the following as new paragraphs in alphabetical order and renumbering the remaining paragraphs: "Display Window" - A window at street level, typically part of a storefront facade, used to display merchandise. "Park" - An open space with natural vege include recreational facilities, designed to se the community. p, office, studio, or cupant both lives and "Live-Work Unit" - A dwelling unit in combination wit other work space within the same building, where the re . works. which may residents of e by children, which typically acilities such as basketball or blic and used for passive provided with amenities es, grass and other .12 of the City Code is hereby amended by changing it to SECTION 11.12. PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON ONE LOT. Exceptfor properties within the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District or regulated under the Planned Unit Development Regulations of this Chapter, every principal structure erected in the City after the effective date of this section (October 3, 1991) shall be located on a separate lot and in no case shall there be more than one principal structure on a lot. Section 3. A new Section 11.47 entitled 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District, is hereby adopted to read as follows: July 10, 2007 1 SECTION 11.47.1-394 MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The City of Golden Valley has undertaken a study of the 1-394 Corridor with the intent of improving the area's cohesiveness, attractiveness, and sustainability. The purpose of the 1-394 Mixed Use ("MU") Zoning District is to implement the principles and recommendations of the 1-394 Corridor Study. The principles are as follows: A. Enable the corridor to evolve toward a diverse mix of land uses, including residential as well as commercial and industrial. interchanges. B. Maximize integration rather than sep of land uses, where appropriate. D. Improve the visual cohe E. Improve connectivit of intersections and highway H.E between urban and n ing form, height, bulk and placement in 'sually appealing, accessible to non- . It is designed to complement the withi Subdivl changes t provided in ict Established. Properties shall be established Dist the manner provided for in Section 11.90, . The istrict thus established and/or any subsequent be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as this Chapter. Sub n 3. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the 1-394 MY Mixed Use oninq District: A. Multiple Dwelling (three or more units) B. Elderly and Handicapped Housing C. All permitted uses in the Commercial Zoning District, provided that such uses are combined with other permitted or conditional uses within a mixed- use building, and that the gross floor area occupied by any such single use shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. July 10, 2007 2 D. Class I and III Restaurants E Business and professional offices, provided that the gross floor area occupied by the use(s) on any lot shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. F. Medical clinics G. Live-work units H. All uses permitted in the Institutional Districts, 1-1 through 1-3 I. Child Care Facilities J. Adult Day Care Centers K. Structured parking district commercial zoninq district area. square f office req Servl al offices occupying more than 10,000 he City C il may establish a maximum amount of ermitted on any zoning lot, based upon traffic studies as . g District, using appropriate minimum Levels of rch and development laboratories enience stores, including the sale of gasoline. . Drive-in or drive-through facilities accessory to any permitted or conditional use. H. Buildings exceeding the height limits specified in Subdivision 6(D). Subdivision 5. Standards for Live-Work Units. The purpose of a live-work unit is to provide a transitional use type between a home occupation and a larger commercial enterprise., and to provide neighborhood oriented commercial services, July 10, 2007 3 while maintaining a generally residential character in 'Nhich the 'Nork space is subordinate to the residential use. A. The work space may be located on any floor of the building, but businesses serving the public shall generally be located on the first floor for accessibility. Office or studio spaces or other low-traffic activities may be located on upper floors or basements. B. The dwelling unit component shall maintain a separate entrance located on the front or side facade and accessible from the prim ry abutting public street. (30) percent of the total gross floor area of the unit. Q C. A total of two off-street live-work unit, located to the rear of the unit, 0 e D. The business com small service establishments, home crafts whic dwelling unit, or limited retailing or personal services. It may not in business, a commercial food servic service or repair for any vehicles oth property. ding may inc offices, Iy considered accessory to a ociated with fine arts, crafts, , ousine business or auto residents of the person who resid workers on-site at e-work unit must be conducted by a siness shall not employ more than two of the live-work unit. um front yard setback, buildings: 1. Nonresidential or mixed uses facing an R-1 zoning district 5 feet (measured from right-of-way) 2. Residential uses facing an R-1 zoning district across a public street: 30 feet. 3. Buildings with residential uses at ground level: 10 feet from edge of right-of-way. 4. Buildings with nonresidential uses at ground level: no minimum setback. July 10, 2007 4 5. All setbacks shall be landscaped according to the standards of Subdivision 8 hereof. B. Front, side and rear yard setbacks, surface parking: at least 15 feet, landscaped according to the standards of Subdivision 8 hereof. C. Side and rear yard setbacks, buildings: D. Maximum height: three height through "C" are established, as shown on Figure 1. the following except by Conditional Use Permit: 1. Adjoining an R-1 or R-2 zoning dis 2. Adjoining any other district: 1 designated as "A" shall not exceed 1. Subdistrict A of buildings located the maximum height . Buildinqs occupyinq 10,000 5.000 t. A one-story wing or section of a taller than 25% of the length of the fa~ade. impervious coverage. The maximum impervious cov densities . redevelopm lively, pedestn . Den and Mix of Uses. Mix of uses, minimum are established to ensure that new development or goals of the 1-394 Corridor Study and contributes to a vironment. equired mix of uses. Development sites over 2: one acres in size in height subdistrict C shall include at least two use types from the following categories: 1. Residential 2. Commercial 3. Office July 10, 2007 5 4. Other, including studios and other live-work uses B. Required open space. Development sites over two acres in size shall reserve at least 15% of the site as designed and landscaped open space, consisting of a plaza, green, park, play area, trail or parkway or combination thereof. C. Minimum density, residential development 1. If housing is part of a mixed use development, no minimum density is required. hall be developed at a ption of buildings or oundary (no 2. Freestanding residential buil minimum density of 15 units per net residential acre, wit portions of buildings located within 75 feet of a reside minimum density applies in this transitional area). D. Maximum floor area ra . except by Conditional Use. Subdivision 8. Development S objective development standards f to encourage creative and sustain some degree of flexibility in that so is section establishes trict. Standards are intended lopment, and therefore allow hers are suggested: A.B adjacent primary stree the north-south stre Rhode Island. (A services uses sho pedestrian environ of the ar laced close to the s elude: Laurel Avenue and pshire, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and e established in the future.) Parking and the site in order to create a vibrant the visual interest and attractiveness visu openi architect or roof shap elements that windows or area sign. Building facades over 30 feet in length shall be nts by architectural elements such as recesses, 'als 0 tails. Building tops shall be defined with the use of ornices, parapets, contrasting materials or varied window uld have a defined base, middle and top, and employ uman scale and appeal to the pedestrian, such as awnings, . Transparency. Views into and out of nonresidential buildings shall be provided to enliven the streetscape and enhance security. 1. Where nonresidential uses occupy the ground floor level, window and door openings shall comprise at least 60% of the length and 30% of the area of the ground floor fayade facing the primary street and shall be located between three and eight feet above the adjacent grade level. Window and door or balcony openings shall comprise at least 15% of upper stories and side and rear facades. July 10, 2007 6 2. Where residential uses occupy the ground floor level, window and door openings shall comprise at least 20% of the primary fayade and 15% of each side and rear fayade. 3. Window and door openings shall be clear or slightly tinted to allow unobstructed views into and out of buildings. Views shall not be blocked between three and eight feet above grade by storage, shelving mechanical equipment or other visual barriers. Display windows, if designed to provide equivalent visual interest, may be considered as an alternative approach as provided in Subdivision 8. The display area behind the window shall be at least four feet d p and shall be used to display merchandise. D. Building entrances. Building entr primary street on which the building fronts, in addition parking areas. Street entrances shall be lighted an e portico, recess, or other architectural details. all be provided on the ces from rear or side s of a canopy, E. Building materials. e fayade facing the primary street shall dolomitic limestone. itectural trim, up to 15% of the exterior tion ma d, metal, exterior insulation finish system rials as approved by the Director of Planning and . Fay e treatment. All building facades shall be equivalent levels of quality to those used on the front e is not visible to the public. Ilding colors. Bright or primary colors shall be limited to 15% of and roofs, except when used in public art or on an awning. G. Parking location. Parking shall be located to the side and rear of buildings to the maximum extent feasible. Parking within front yard setbacks between buildings and the primary street shall be limited to a maximum depth of 40 feet. H. Parking screening. Parking areas shall be screened from public streets, sidewalks and paths by a landscaped frontage strip at least five feet wide. If a parking area contains over 100 spaces, the frontage strip shall be increased to eight feet in width. July 10, 2007 7 1. Within the frontage strip, screening shall consist of either a masonry wall, berm or hedge or combination that forms a screen a minimum of 3.5 and a maximum of four feet in height, and not less than 50% opaque on a year-round basis. 2. Trees shall be planted at a minimum of one deciduous tree per 50 feet within the frontage strip. I. Structured parking. The ground floor faca e of any parking structure abutting any public street or walkway shall be desig nd architecturally detailed in a manner consistent with adjacent commercial e buildings. 1. Upper floors shall be de of parking structures do not dominate the appeara t sloped floors typical 2. Entrance drives underground parking) shall be located and pedestrian movement. Pedestrian walks sho 3. The a minimized so that they do not dom techniques include recessing the en entry; using screening and landscapi smallest curb cut and driv possibl (compared to the ped nce) i emphasis. d parking entrances shall be of a building. Possible . f the structure over the ce of the entry; using the parking entrance inence, location and design required along all street frontages, and th the City of Golden Valley Public sidew located s be at least the surroundi length with trees, -defined pedestrian path shall be provided from the stom resident entrance of a building. Walkways shall be etween street and entrance is minimized. Walkways shall nd shall be distinguished through pavement material from alkways shall be landscaped for at least 50% of their lower beds and/or planter pots. 3. Sidewalks of at least six feet in width shall be provided along all building facades that abut public parking areas. 4. Sidewalks shall be maintained by the adjacent property owner. K. Drive-through facilities. July 10, 2007 8 1. Drive-through elements shall not be located between the front fac;ade of the principal building and the street. No service shall be rendered, deliveries made or sales conducted within the required front yard, although tables may be provided for customer use. 2. Site design shall accommodate a logical and safe vehicle and pedestrian circulation pattern. Adequate queuing lane space shall be provided, without interfering with on-site parking/circulation. 3. Drive-through canopies and other tructures, where present, shall be constructed from the same materials as the ry building, and with a similar level of architectural quality and detailing. L. Outdoor seating and receptacles are encouraged within front, sid seating may be permitted within rights-of-way, width of five feet. Service windows serving foo part of any building fac;ade. Garba tacles sh owner. 4. Sound from any speake be audible above a level of normal conversation at residential district or on any residential property. e premises shall not y surrounding nd garbage areas, and te orary t sidewalks remain clear to a verages may be permitted as maintained by the property development . . aches to Development Standards. his Section are mandatory, there may tive. The City may permit alternative ation, mee e intent of the development standards sical conditions of the site or building would make 'ate. 8 entitled Site Plan Review, is hereby adopted to PLAN REVIEW. Sub on 1. Purpose. Site plan review standards are established to promote development that is compatible with nearby properties, neighborhood character and natural features, and consistent with the comprehensive plan and/or area plans adopted by the City Council. The regulations in this Section are intended to minimize pedestrian and vehicular conflict, to promote public safety, and to encourage a high quality of development. The regulations recognize the unique character of land and development throughout the City and the need for flexibility in site plan review. Subdivision 2. When Required. Within the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District, site plan approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit for any July 10, 2007 9 proposed construction or issuance of a zoning certificate for any proposed use, with the following exceptions: A. Construction or alteration of an accessory structure. single family d'..velling or accessory building; B. A use within an existing building that has received site plan approval, if the establishment of the use does not alter the approved site plan for the property. C. Proposed modifications that are stricti ted to the interior of the building. D. Modifications, additions, or enl not increase the gross floor area by more than 500 u e feet less, and which do not require a variance from t visions of thl a building which do 00, whichever is 'nance. E. Alteration or expans' change of no greater than 10% of the total n F. Grading or . the existing site, as approved by t ans shall be drawn to e extent specifically nt: eve loper, and designer of the project. an interest in the property. and intended use of the property and all structures num of dwelling units proposed, parking, circulation, rmwater management and snow storage facilities. ther information deemed necessary by the Director of Subdivision 4. Site Plan Application. Applications for site plan approval shall be made on forms provided by the City. A. Site and building plans which do not involve a variance or conditional use, and do not involve other matters requiring consideration by the Planning Commission or City Council may be approved by the Director of Planning and Development. An administrative review shall be completed within 30 days of receipt of complete plans, and the applicant will be notified by mail. Administrative decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission. July 10, 2007 10 B. Site or building plans involving a conditional use, or other matters requiring consideration by the Planning Commission shall be reviewed by that body. The Planning Commission shall make findings and recommendations to the City Council. C. Site or building plans involving a variance shall be re'lie'Ned decided by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Subdivision 5. Site Plan Review Standards. Site plans shall be reviewed with reference to: Section 5. City Code Chapter 1 entitl Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Pe entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" hereby ad though repeated verbatim herein. A. Conformance to the applicable stan other city requirements B. Where applicable, consiste and objectives established for the 1-394 Mixed U districts in the Comprehensive Plan or other pment standards cific areas or sions and De ions ation" and Section 11.99 heir entirety, by reference, as law. , 2008. July 10, 2007 11