Loading...
06-24-02 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, June 24, 2002 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - June 10, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUD-65 A) Applicant: TCF National Bank Address: 8224 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant would like to amend the existing PUD to allow for a bank with a drive-through facility. III. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (SU 06-02) Applicant: George Wessin Address: Lot 10, Block 1 Heathbrooke located at 1811 Noble Drive; and Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 1104 and part of lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No.330, located at 1807 Noble Drive in Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting a subdivision of the two parcels of land in order to redraw the property line between these parcels. The applicant would like to build a new home at 1811 Noble Drive. -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings V. Other Business VI. Adjournment .c . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10,2002 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 June 10, 2002. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Gro McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were City a Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. Director of Planning Grimes was absent. n, Olson and nt, Mark I. Approval of Minutes - May 13, 2002 Plan MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Groger and the May 13, 2002 minutes as submitted. unanimously to approve Chair Pentel excused herself from the Vice Chair Shaffer chaired the meeti aring due to a conflict of interest so r"efirst item on the agenda. Informal Public Hearin ivision (SU 07-08) Applicant: Address: , Block 4 Thotlands Twin View Terrace, located at 941 and Drive, both in Golden Valley, MN plicants are requesting a subdivision of the two parcels of order to redraw the property line between these parcels. property line change will allow for a gazebo encroachment to e corrected. Purpose: Olson r a location map and pointed out the two properties involved in this subdivision est. He explained that the applicants are proposing to redraw the property line because of the encroachment of a gazebo at 941 Angelo Drive. He stated that this subdivision would not require any variances from the Subdivision Code and that all of the buildings on the property would meet the setback requirements after the property lines were redrawn. He stated that Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: the City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat and the Certificate of Survey submitted by the applicants, dated April 17, 2002 shall become a part of this approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 2 . Eck stated that he sees no problems with the subdivision but asked if the City knows how the gazebo encroachment occurred. Olson stated that the applicants weren't aware of where the property lines were when they built the gazebo and that the gazebo probably didn't require a building permit. Paul Pentel, applicant stated that he put up a fence where he thought the property line was and then built the gazebo five feet away from the fence. He s that it has been wrong for 15 years and that they want to get it corrected for the III. no one he closed the Warren Rottman, applicant stated that the way the properti that it makes sense to subdivide the property the way the Vice Chair Shaffer opened the public hearing, seeing a public hearing. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Eck and m request to subdivide two parcels of land locat Drive in order to redraw the property lin d unanimously to approve the Angelo Drive and 1021 Angelo encroachment. . Informal Public Hearing - Applicant: Address: se Permit Amendment (CU-75 A) nue South, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: t would like to amend the existing CUP to allow for a oil change and lubrication bay to this automobile pplicant is requesting an amendment to their existing it UP). He stated that the applicant would like to add an oil wash bay and two prep/detail bays on the northeast side of the y and a second addition on the southeast side of the building in the ional service bays are needed. Olson discussed an analysis done of the parking. He stated that the applicant would be decreasing the number of parking spaces but they have more than adequate parking on the site. Olson stated the Deputy Fire Marshall has requested that the applicants have a 45-foot turning radius around the building to allow room for emergency vehicles. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 3 . Olson discussed the conditions of approval from Mark Grimes memo dated June 5, 2002 and stated that the Deputy Fire Marshal's memo dated June 5, 2002 should be added as a condition. Olson stated that while he was doing some research on this property he found the minutes from the Planning Commission when this CUP was first approved. He stated that at that time, there was a property line running down the middl e property and that the applicant was asked then to go through the subdivision ither with the County or with the City. There was nothing in the City's files t subdivision was done. He suggested adding another condition of appr proof of the subdivision. He stated that according to the applicant th roperty line has been corrected. Hoffman asked if the oil change service would be how they would be disposing of used oil and if.-. the oil change bay would cause an increase in traffic. Olson stated tha wa 't sure of the technical details but that the Inspections Department would ha re . ments they would need to follow. Pentel added that there are als ate laws about the disposal of oil. 4ljhh Pentel asked wha^ setback are letters are the last reso around the building would reduce the the applicant could answer that question. . Eck asked if adding the 45-foot tur . amount of parking spaces. Olso Rasmussen asked Olson to areas because she has s explained the grassy are yard setback is 35 fe e display areas, setback areas and parking a ed on landscaped areas in the past. Olson is the setback and that the requirement for a front ess is for the City to be able to enforce the no parking in . Olson explained that photos are taken of the violation and ners. The next step would be to involve the City Attorney and .;}be revoking the CUP permit. , architect for the project showed the Commission a site plan and pointed out designated parking areas and the setback areas. He stated that adding the 45-foot turning radius wouldn't be a problem. He confirmed that the property was replatted into one parcel through Hennepin County and not through the City's subdivision process. He stated that he would talk to the employees about not parking in the setback areas. He clarified that the lube and car wash service is only for service customers and that their oil is disposed of properly. Pentel suggested that Staff get something from the County proving that the property has been replatted. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10,2002 Page 4 . Pentel opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, she closed the public hearing. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Hoffman and motion carried unanimously to approve the requested CUP amendment with the following conditions of approval: Deputy Fire Marshal's memo dated June 5, 2002 shall be added as condition number 9 and the following language shall be added as condition number 10'" i1ure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for re f the conditional use permit." Also the ten findings found on pages e of the staff memo were adopted. minor subdivision regulations and the setback requirements. He ormandy Place would not meet the minimum required frontage, the front yar k requirements and the side yard requirements. The 4940 Normandy Place property would not meet the minimum required frontage, the west side yard setback requirements and the accessory building requirements. Address: Lots 8 & 9, Block 7 Wood Normandy Place, both in , located at 4930 and 4940 IIey, MN IV. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision ( Applicant: Linda Lund and Ann and Fais Purpose: The applicants are land in order to r This property . be correcte ubdivision of the two parcels of "l6perty line between these parcels. will allow for a garage encroachment to . Olson stated that the appli encroachment of a garag 4940 couldn't get a b i1di encroachment. Olso property lines an e applicants are re any property uesting this minor subdivision to correct an r perty line. He explained that the applicant at it to rebuild their garage because of the Commission a site plan and pointed out the existing new property lines. He stated that the way the he property lines ensured that neither applicant would lose . Olson referred. to a maintenance easement, signed by both applicants in 1987, which allows the owners to perform maintenance and make repairs to the garage, fence and driveway. He stated that the garage at 4930 would have a zero foot setback after the minor subdivision and that Staff is not comfortable with that. Staff is recommending that there be a minimum of three feet - the width needed for fire apparatus. He asked the Commission if they recommend approval to also recommend the additional three- foot setback area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 5 . Rasmussen stated that she would be more comfortable recommending that any new property owner at 4930 would have to meet the setback requirements if they decide to rebuild the garage rather than the property owner at 4940 having to give up three feet of their property. She stated that the way the applicants have worked together to redraw the property lines resulted in an even trade and she didn't think it would make for good neighbors to require them to negotiate for the additional t feet to make the City more comfortable. Eck asked if the ease new owners. Se owners. Iowa fence or nk it was fair to arage is ity could prohibit Groger asked if an alternative could be to create an easem construction in the three-foot setback area. He stated th penalize the owner at 4940 because it is the owner at 4 encroaching the property line. Olson stated he wasn't s someone from building a fence. Pentel stated she was pleased that the neigh property line and she also understands wh t foot setback but she is also sympatheti worked together to redraw the uld like to have at least a five- aving to give up more property. . Ann Sessoms, applicant, stated th county and that as long as the the garage. She stated that sh understand why she should buys the property at 493 wanted to replace the ga ment agreement is recorded with the exists they have three feet to maintain like to replace her garage and found it hard to . e up any property. She stated that whoever ve 0 meet the setback requirements if they ever ded with the county would stay in effect if there were ted yes, the easement would stay in effect even with new . the easement agreement would stay in effect if the property lines ssoms referred to the easement agreement and stated she wasn't y in effect if the property lines were redrawn but that she would be the original easement agreement. Pentel opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one she closed the public hearing. Pentel stated that this is a difficult proposal because she doesn't want to penalize one neighbor because of the other neighbor's encroaching garage. . McAleese stated that handling the subdivision is not such a difficult issue and the fact that they are required to go this process is unfortunate but the neighbors have made an . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 6 agreement and now it is before the Planning Commission. He stated that he is convinced the City has a problem with the' way the Subdivision Code and Zoning Code are written and the way the process goes for subdivisions. He referred to a recently approved subdivision on Quail which required a variance from the Subdivision Code and stated that everyone was in agreement of the proposal but that Staff didn't prepare a separate motion for the variance from the Subdivision Code. He stated that the Council wasn't prepared to address the variance, which was an es 'al issue for them to address and that they were prepared to deal with that reques . sue when it was really two issues. McAleese referred to Section 12.50 Subdivision 3A of th d stated that it says that a minor subdivision shall be denied unless th the underlying zoning. He stated that the City could allow a variance b the City ought to be recommending a denial. He was referring to the prG'" eneral and not to this specific proposal. He stated the approach sho 0 r mend denial and then have a second motion recommending the su riance. He explained the reason for doing minor subdivision requests i is so the Council understands that it really doesn't comply with the Zo that it really does require a variance. He stated that variances ar inary process and it is important to call that out to the Council. If thes are handled in one step like the City has been doing, the variance part of u lips through. He stated in this proposal it is not important to do the two sf it is more important as the cases become harder. Pentel asked if a conditio variances would be that a motion couL~ b cond itions to be aft: applicant is be added to subdivision proposals that states uncil to permit nonstandard lots. McAleese stated hat way, but the Subdivision Code doesn't allow for If the proposal complies with the Subdivision Code the ubdivision. his recommendation to handle minor subdivision requests in a doesn't have a lot to do with this particular proposal but it has a lot to vision Code and the Zoning Code and that these issues need to be reconciled. stated that he has no problem recommending approval for this minor subdivision request. He doesn't like where the garage is located, but that it is not really being changed and he doesn't see an advantage to making the applicant at 4940 give three feet of property because the garage at 4930 is illegal. Shaffer asked McAleese if he was saying that the Planning Commission should recommend denial of this request, but recommend approval of the subdivision variance request. McAleese explained that he was saying the Council shouldn't approve subdivision requests without approving variances. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 7 . MOVED by Rasmussen, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve the subdivision request for lots 8 & 9, Block 7 Woodlawn Park, located at 4930 and 4940 Normandy Place with the following conditions: 1) The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2) The Certificate of Survey submitted by the applicants, dated Ja become a part of this approval. VII. 30 Shatter stated that he wants it noted that if a new garage is Normandy Place that it couldn't be built in the same loca . -- Short Recess -- V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing a Council, Board of Zoning Appeals a oth pment Authority, City eetings Rasmussen reported on the June 4, 200 conditional use permit for 3rd lair Ska meeting where the request for a o Florida Avenue, was approved. . Shatter reported on the May 29, a variance request where an a verify if the vacant third lot of Zoning Appeals meeting and discussed wnea three lots on Plymouth and wanted to ble lot. VI. Pentel stated that the telecommunicati Olson stated t District fro om the May 13, 2002 meeting mentioned that the nce was going to be on the agenda and asked why it wasn't. the process of removing the Radio and Television Zoning e. s adjourned at 8:22 PM. . . . .... . . . Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) alley To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Amendment No.1, Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 65, Golden Valley Shopping Center to Allow Bank with Drive-up Facilities-TCF National Bank, Applicant Date: June 17, 2002 TCF National Bank has requested an amendment to PUD No. 65 in order to convert the building at 8224 Olson Memorial Highway to a bank with six drive-up teller lanes and one A TM lane. The building is currently leased to a business that provides yoga classes. Prior to the yoga use, Monray Windows used the building for several years for offices and product display. This building is part of the overall Golden Valley Shopping Center owned by Dave Trach. The shopping center has had several additions over the years, with the first construction dating back to 1952. In 1995, a planned unit development (PUD) was issued to the Golden Valley Shopping Center. It was determined at that time that a PUD would be the most appropriate land use category for the shopping center. The PUD status eliminated some of thenonconformities that existed on the site including five buildings on a single parcel of land, two zoning categories, landscape and setback issues, and number of parking spaces. The PUD also reflects the new property lines after the widening of Winnetka Ave. in the mid-1990's and additional property obtained from MnDOT along TH 55. (I am including the PUD permit, maps and various memos from the 1995 PUD process for your review.) The proposed rCF building is one of the five separate buildings in the 8.68-acre PUD. The zoning of the area where the TCF building is proposed to be located is Business and Professional Offices (B & PO). This area is not a separate lot but is about 30,000 sq. ft. or .7 acres in area. The remainder of the shopping center property is zoned Commercial. The General Land Use Plan Map designates the entire shopping center as commercial. A bank with drive-up teller lanes is considered a conditional use in both the Commercial and B & PO zoning districts. Banks are also consistent with the commercial designation on the General Land Use Plan Map. Historically, it is interesting to note that in the past there were two freestanding bank buildings on the Golden Valley Shopping Center. The B Dalton Books store was at one time the . Golden Valley Bank. It included a drive-up lane. The lighting store next to the proposed TCF building was at one time a Midwest Federal bank with a drive-up lane. Amending the Golden Valley Shopping Center PUD Any change to an approved PUD requires a PUD amendment. The amendment procedure is essentially the same as the process to obtain an original PUD. This includes the submittal of a revised site plan showing changes. In the case of PUD No. 65, the PUD permit specially states that the permitted uses allowed include 85,710 sq. ft. of building space in five different building. The uses in those building are limited to general retail (including restaurants), offices, and service retail. A proposed bank fits into the general retail and service retail category. However, the proposed TCF bank requires that the approved site plan be modified to provide for the drive-up lanes, access drives, signage and small building additions. The PUD permit specially states that a minimum of 401 parking spaces be maintained for the shopping center. Description of Proposed TCF Bank The existing yoga building will be converted to the TCF Bank. The building is approximately 4500 sq. ft. in area. The bank will add only about 50 sq. ft. to the building in order to provide for the night depository and ATM. This addition is north of where the tellers will be located. Other changes to the building will include aesthetic changes including a front entry along TH 55. These changes are well illustrated by the attached submittals. . There are a number of changes that will be made to the site to accommodate the bank. The parking area between the TCF and the lighting store will be widened in order to provide for two-way traffic and 27 parking spaces. New curb and gutter will be placed around the parking area. The curb and gutter will go right up to the driveway along the west side of the lighting building. The driveway next to the lighting store will not be reduced in width. The area west of the TCF bank is where the most changes will be made to accommodate the bank. At the present time, the area to the west and south of the building is grass with a couple of large trees. With the exception of the west 35 ft. of the site along Wisconsin Ave., the area will be paved to provide for the drive-up lanes and the driveway around the north and south side of the building. The plan dated 5/14/02 indicates that there are three parking spaces close to Wisconsin Ave. Staff does not believe that those spaces are needed and suggest that those be placed in a "proof of parking" status or removed altogether. There are several issues that staff would like to highlight for Planning Commission review. These issues are listed below with staff comment: . 1. Parking: The original PUD permit for the Golden Valley Shopping Center indicates that the number of parking spaces should not fall below 401 spaces for the entire 8.68-acre site. This amount of parking has been more than adequate for the shopping center due to its tenant mix. The parking ratio that now exists is about 4.68 spaces for each 1000 sq. ft. of floor area. This ratio is slightly below the City's code requirement of one space for each 150 sq. ft. of retail floor space and the benchmark used by many cities of 5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of retail space. 2 . . . The amount of parking for the TCF Bank will actually be increased over the parking that is now available west of the old Midwest Federal building. The current site plan for the yoga building indicates 25 spaces and the proposed parking for the TCF building will be 27 spaces without the 3 spaces along Wisconsin Ave. Therefore, the parking ratio will actually be increased for the overall shopping center. The number of parking spaces for the TCF office seems more than adequate. Assuming that the TCF building has 1/3 of the space dedicated for retail space (lobby area) and 2/3 dedicated for office space, the number of parking spaces needed for the 4500 sq. ft. building is 21. This is based on 1 space for each 150 sq. ft. of retail or service space and 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of office space. The 27 spaces for the TCF bank will exceed that number by at least 6. Since this is a PUD, other parking in the Golden Valley Shopping Center would also be available for the TCF bank use. The TCF bank will have no more than 10 employees on site at anyone time. Therefore, at least 17 spaces will be available for customer parking. According to TCF, this exceeds the number of customer parking they believe is needed based on their experience with other similar banks. 2. Access and Traffic: Access to the TCF Bank will be from Golden Valley Dr. across from the Wells Fargo Bank. This access is the same as it is now to the yoga business. Cars will enter off of Golden Valley Drive and either go directly into the parking lot or turn to the west on a one way drive to go to the drive-up lanes on the west side of the building. After going through the drive-up lanes, a customer would continue around the south end of the building and exit through the parking lot east of the building or go east on the driveway in front of the old Midwest Federal building to the main parking lot of the Golden Valley Shopping Center. I am attaching a copy of a memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, regarding the TCF proposal. He indicates that it is his opinion thatthe proposed site plan will create no negative traffic issues in the area. I am also enclosing a letter from City Consulting Traffic Engineer Glen VanWormer. He also indicates that the proposed plan will work and not have a negative effect on the area. He indicates that the traffic from a bank would be about the same as traffic from another retail use. The site plan indicates that there is adequate stacking distance for vehicles going to the drive-up lanes. There is also room for a bypass lane around the far west drive-up lane if a customer decides not to wait in line. As shown on the site plan, there are 6 drive-up lanes and 1 A TM lane. If all lanes are full, one car would leave all six lanes every 30-60 seconds. The number of tellers available determines this rate. Withthis rate of "release" from the drive-up lanes, the peak traffic in the afternoon will not have a significant impact on the intersection at Golden Valley Drive and Golden Valley Rd. 3. Setbacks: The site plan dated 5/14/02 indicates two building additions. However, the building additions on the north and south sides of the buildings do not create inside space. The south addition is the covered entrance to the building and the north addition is an outside patio area protected by a fence. There is also a small addition that is not indicated on the plan. This addition is less than 50 sq. ft. in area and is north of the teller area. The A TM and night depository is located in this area. Therefore, the setback from the north property line (Golden Valley Dr.) will remain the same or about 29 ft. at its closest point. Along the south property line, the building will be about 21 ft. and about 18 ft. from the post on the new covered entrance. 3 . . . The parking and driveway setbacks on the north, south and west of the building will be 0 ft. along the south side (TH 55) and 0 ft. along Golden Valley Dr. With the elimination of the 3 parking spaces near Wisconsin Ave. the setback in that area will be 35 ft. The 5/14/02 site plan indicates a trash enclosure along Wisconsin Ave. This enclosure will be moved along the north side of the building west of the area indicated "proposed addition" on the site plan. With the elimination of the 3 parking spaces and trash enclosure, there will be some green space along the west property line adjacent to Wisconsin Ave. It should be noted that there is a significant amount of green space within the TH 55 right- of-way south of the building. From the edge of the westbound lanes of TH 55 to the property line of the shopping center property where the TCF will be located is about 45 ft. of green space. It is unlikely that MnDOT will utilize this area in the near future for highway lanes. Along Golden Valley Dr., the street has been eliminated west of the driveway into the clinic (north side of Golden Valley Dr. west of the Wells Fargo Bank). The street right-of-way is used for a sidewalk and utilities. It is now mostly grass. This roadway will not be reopened due to an agreement with MnDOT. The current parking lot for the Golden Valley Shopping Center along Golden Valley Rd. ranges from 0 ft. to 15 ft. Along Winnetka Ave., there is parking up to the property line and some minimal setback of about 10ft. south of the main driveway into the shopping center on Winnetka Ave. Along TH 55, parking or driveway setback ranges from 0 ft. to 10 ft. Along Golden Valley Dr., the setback for parking ranges from 0 ft. to 5 ft. Therefore, the proposed 0 ft. setback along Golden Valley Dr. and TH 55 near the TCF building is not out of character with the existing setback situations at the shopping center. I am attaching a copy of the 5/14/95 site plan that is a part of the PUD permit for the Golden Valley Shopping Center. It should be noted that MnDOT did give back a 20 ft. strip to the Golden Valley Shopping Center as noted on the site plan. This turn back of property to the shopping center now means that all parking and driveways along TH 55 are on the shopping center property. 4. Other Engineering Issues: As indicated in Mr. Oliver's memo, there are several other issues of concern regarding utility connections and grading, drainage and erosion control. Mr. Oliver believes that these are matters that can be handled as part of the normal review process. Mr. Oliver's memo and recommendations will be made a part of the planning staff recommendation. 5. Dumpster E:nclosures: The staff will be recommending that all dumpsters on the shopping center property be placed in enclosures and that the Director of Inspections approve the design of the enclosures. At the current time, there are several dumpsters on the site that are not in enclosures or partially in enclosures. This problem should be remedied. This may mean that several parking spaces are lost along Golden Valley Rd. There is more than adequate parking in the shopping center parking lot so several parking spaces could be lost. This is especially important now that there are dwellings across the street from the north side of the shopping center. 6. Acquisition of Property by the City at the Southwest Corner of Golden Valley Rd. and Winnetka Ave.: As indicated in Mr. Oliver's memo, the City staff will be 4 . . . recommending that the owner of the shopping center submit a plan for the installation of streetscaping as part of the General Plan of Development. This streetscaping would be similar to the streetscaping at the other three corners of the intersection. This matter has been discussed with the owner and it now is an appropriate time to get a commitment from the owner that property will be given to the City so the improvements can be made. The acquisition may mean that the building at the southwest corner of Winnetka Ave. and Golden Valley Rd. would have to be wholly or partially removed. The staff wiIJ be meeting with the shopping center owner to discuss this acquisition. 7. Signage: ThePUD permit for the shopping center states that the amount of signage for the shopping center is limited to the amount that was on the site as of the issuance of the PUD permit in 1995. The permit states that the shopping center is limited to two existing pylon signs (one for the shopping center and one for B Dalton Books) and a future monument sign west of the old Monray building. Any change from that amount or increase in pylon signs would require a PUD amendment. TCF is requesting signage above the signage that was on the Monray building and site in 1995. TCF would like to place a pylon sign and monument sign on their site. Staff wiIJ recommend that the pylon sign as indicated on their plans be approved as long as it is at least 10ft. from a property line. (The site plan dated 5/14/02 indicates that the pylon sign is on the property line near the intersection of Wisconsin Ave. and TH 55.) The staff wiIJ not recommend approval of the monument sign because of its location and overall amount of signage. In total, the staff wiIJ recommend that the signage on the site should not exceed 164 sq. ft. which is the amount permitted for a building in a commercial zoning district. This amount includes the 96 sq. ft. pylon sign. The remaining signage would be placed on the building. Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the conversion of the building at 8224 Olson Memorial Highway to a TCF Bank with drive-up facilities as indicated on the site plan. It is unfortunate that the bank construction wiIJ eliminate some green space on the west end shopping center property. However, the construction of parking and the drive-up lanes west of the building will maintain about the same setback as most of the other parking and driveway areas in the shopping center. The green space and area around the building will be well landscaped as shown on the attached landscape plan. As indicated in Mr. VanWormer and Mr. Oliver's memos, the traffic and circulation should function well on the site. The amount of traffic from a bank would not be any greater than another type of retail use. Despite the number of drive- up lanes, the traffic leaving wiIJ be spaced out so that no more than one car leaves the drive- up lanes every 30 to 60 seconds during peak hours. This spacing of traffic will help minimize the effect on the intersection of Golden HilJs Dr. and Golden Valley Rd. The staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. The site plan for TCF Bank prepared by Bolton and Menk and dated 5/14/02 shall be made a part of this plan. The site plan for the shopping center approved as part PUD No. 65 shall be revised for the General Plan of Development to include the TCF Bank. 2. The three parking spaces at the west end of the site shown on the 5/14/02 site plan shall be removed and placed into green space. (Alternatively, these spaces could be shown as "proof of parking" spaces.) 5 3. The trash enclosure shown on the 5/14/02 site plan shall be moved to the north end of . the TCF building west of the "proposed addition". 4. The landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Environmental Coordinator. 5. The total signage for the building shall be limited to 164 sq. ft., including a 96 sq. ft. pylon sign as shown on the attached plans drawn by Shea Architects and dated 5/13/02. A freestanding monument sign shall not be permitted for the TCF Bank. 6. The recommendations of City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, shall become a condition of this approval. This includes the requirement that land be provided to the City to install streetscape elements similar to the streetscape elements on the other three quadrants of the Winnetka Ave. and Golden Valley Rd. intersection. 7. The recommendations of Deputy Fire Marshall, Ed Anderson, shall become a condition of this approval. 8. Dumpster enclosures must be constructed for all dumpsters on the Golden Valley Shopping Center property by October 1, 2002. The Director of Inspections shall approve the enclosure design. Attachments: Location Map Original PUD Site Plan dated January 11, 1995 Original PUD Permit Memo from Mark Grimes dated June 23, 1994 Memo from Ed Anderson dated June 6, 2002 Memo from Jeff Oliver dated June 18, 2002 Letter from Glen Van Wormer, P.E. (SEH) dated March 19,2002 Site Plans dated June 20,2002 . . 6 z ..!l.., t . . . PROJECT NAME: ADDRESS: P.U.D. No. 65 City Council Approval February 7, 1995 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA USE PERHIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Golden Valley Center Addition, P.U.D. No. 65 7901 Golden Valley Road, 505 Winnetka Avenue, 7860-8040, 8200, and 8224 Olson t1emorial High\tlay, Golden Valley, ~1N LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcell: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the South- east Quarter of Section 31, Township 118, Range 21 lying Northerly of the center line of the right of way of State Trunk Highway No. 55 and Southerly of the center line of Sixth Avenue North except the Westerly 35.00 feet thereof and except that part thereof which lies Easterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the East line of said tract distant 487.25 feet North of the center line of said Trunk Highway No. 55; thence run West at right angles to said East line for a distance of 45.00 feet; thence deflect left at an angle 90 degrees for a distance of 292.02 feet; thence deflect right along a tangential curve having a radius of 36.0 feet for distance of 35 feet more or less to the North line of said Trunk Highway No. 55 and there terminating, according to the Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Being registered land as is evidence by Certificate of Title No. 68467 1/2. ~ . Golden Valley Center Addition, P.U.D. No. 65 Page Two . . APPLICANT: ADDRESS: OWNER: ADDRESS: ZONING DISTRICT: .PERMITTED USES: . Parcel 2: The Westerly 35 feet of the fbllowingdescribed tract: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the..Southeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 118, Range 21 lying Northerly of the cen~erline of the right of way of State Trunk Highway No. 55 and Southerly of the center-line of Sixth Avenue North, except that part thereof which lies Eas~erly of the follow- ing described line: Beginning at a point on the East line of said tract distant 487.25 feet North of the center line of said Trunk Highway No. 55; thence run West at right angles to said East line for a distance of 45 feet; thence deflect left at an angle of 90 degrees for a distance of 292.02 feet; thence deflect right along a tangential curve having a radius of 36.0 feet for a distance of 35 feet more or less to the North line of said Trunk Highway No. 55 and there terminating, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Trach Properties 4020 Minnetonka Blvd., Minneapolis, Minnesota Trach Properties 4020 Minnetonka Blvd., Minneapolis, Minnesota Commercial and Business and Professional Office The permitted uses on this 85,710sq.ft. shopping center in five separate buildings is limited to general retail (including restaurants), offices, and service retail. '. Golden Valley Center Addition, P.U.D. No. 65 Page Three t . COHPONENTS A. Land Use Components: 1. Land uses within P.U.D. No. 65, shall be as indicated on the approved site plan prepared by Wirtanen Clark Larsen Architects Inc. dated 1/10/95. The site plan is attached and become part of this Permit. 2. The five buildings that make up the shopping center may be used for the following uses: o Office o General Retail including Restaurants o Service Retail o Sale of Seasonal Farm Produce by Administrative Permit. If the City amends its ordinances to allow for the sale of seasonal farm produce by Administrative Permit in the Commercial Zoning District, the owner of the shopping center may apply for such Administrative Permit. If such a Permit is granted, the sale of seasonal farm pro- duce may occur without amendment to the P.U.D. o Other than those specified above would require an amended P.U.D. . 3. An inventory of signage at the Golden Valley Shopping Center as of the date of P.U.D. approval is on file with the City of Golden Valley. The amount of signageexisting on the site at the date of P.U.D. approval shall be the amount permitted on the site. Any changes to the signage on site shall not exceed the amount of signage at the time of P.U.D. approval. The site is limited to two existing pylon signs and a future monument sign at the west end of the site as noted on the site plan. B. Circulation Component: 1. Access drives and parking shall be maintained as indicated on the site plan. Any changes to the parking and access shall maintain a minimum of 401 parking spaces. C. Subdivision: The final plat of P.U.D. No. 65 shall be filed by the applicant with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of any building permits. The appli- cant shall give to the City proof of such filing. . '. \, . . . Golden Valley Center Addition, P.U.D. No. 65 Page Four It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City Council approval granted on February 7,1995 relative to Planned Unit Develop- ment No. 65. WITNESS: ~~lJV ' WITNESS: iflllff& WITNESS: '1ryCUo 8~ ~/ DATE: T~achProperties ,,/} l/ t) /.-; _...l.-""'''''''''''' J. BY: C_i" /J L~>--1,/ -//'-6.....:'..1,,- David Trach DATE: ,.~. ? 1 / _,-L.. ..... ?- :J'~> I 9- 9~ ..- BY: mp:v%9} ~_ Bl~~e~ . q""--- ;;2--'4- ~ DATE: BY: Warning: This permit does not exempt you from all other City Code provisions, regulations and ordinances. ~ "z III c:W 5:Q l.J u< .... . . . / " ;;1 iil ;'--0 ~ .. I ..' el! L" .'-." /' id !::-.- I' I I., . ; ; I i III i ! Ll i , ! i' J!: " /' r@i2Jiff'// ,_:LIL" , , ' ~. .,.-'.' I I iiTIT' '-. '. ii,ll !!i iii i!!1 d: ~ 3f'W]AY UJ....IJ1 '_~_'__""'__""',""""._n' , i I ~ ~: ! ] ~ ,: I I I! I ~ if !: ;i !i !I b ., , I ~ i ! I r . . I i _ ! --- ; , : \ ~, : ~l ',', , ;i \. \- ~i' '\ il i Y ~, HI_III I I i / I I I 'j //' " , ' 'j '/1' ,,/ . .:' i ;' / ,/j /1/ / i i I I , / ; j '/ , I ' / ; j i ,j if .'(" : I i " I · " i , - I ,'I' i If,' i i.:1 :' ~ i' Hi:! ' n,- '/,' . 3, , !tii " , I iii .n .n ~''''~''''.~ ~ ~ ... n__ ~~ I !i i h r . ., i i f ~ Hi+H#Hq ~\", ., J, . I'll!! [II c""J _. J f "J ~' ,"'. "":-=-::-~~-' , I [: 1, , N " J Q' r L I ' F b-' I II Ii- F i I Ii i' -. I' [ '! Ii F.' . .q , ~ II r ~! ii Ii tt"-;--'1 I: " E ), ,.' . ~ I ~ ~ U /= ;V i i.:~~;'j. :::~:... II I j /1 i / ////1 11/ ..~, w' / I ii' ~ o ~~...... Ii ~5;;1 Ii;.... . ~ c ~ f <{ o = I ~ I i Il Ii 'I " il I l. I' i 1I ii n n i ~ i ! a- ~~~ H ~f; Fi ~~. ,Jo =!~ Efr ; ,1,/'1'11111 o !!1;1;. ~:i;l; '1;11 ~ '('!I! 11~!11 ... n. II ill III z. Sf !~i ~f:' ~;~ !~. iiiQ ~-lt _I ~~! ~'O ~i: ~_l{ ~zw -x~ ~~~ u i~i~ = !!1ll Z Ii !:~r.l II! IIlili!I"llt!~ III!" II i I n; I ~ M E M 0 RAN DUM . DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 23, 1994 Golden Valley Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Preliminary Design Plan for Golden Valley Shopping Center (GVSC), P.U.D. No. 65 - Trach Properties, Applicant Trach Properties, owner of the Golden Valley Shopping Center (GVSC) (with addresses of 7901 Golden Valley Road, 505 Winnetka Avenue, 7860-8040, 8200 and 8224 Olson Memorial) have requested that their shopping center be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). The owner has requested this change for several reasons. They are outlined below and in the attached application expla- nation submitted by the applicant. The reasons are: . 1. The property currently has two zoning categories. The large majority of the 8.68 acres of GVSC is zoned Commercial. However, the westernmost building now used by a window distributor (Mon-Ray Windows) is zoned Business & Professional Offices (B&PO). 2. The dual zoni ng of the GVSC is not a problem except that the ent ire center is on one unplatted lot. Current code and policy is to have a distinct and legal parcel for each lot with a different zoning district. Without these separate parcels, it is impossible to tell where the zoning change occurs. 3. The single parcel has five buildings on it. The current code allows only one building ~er lot. 4. The GVSC does not meet current park i ng requi rements. The code requi res one space for every 150 sq. ft. of retai 1 space and one space for every 250 sq. ft. of office space. Based on the size of the buildings (85,710 sq. ft. ), a total of 571 spaces are needed to meet code. Currently there are 444 spaces on site or one space for every 193 sq.ft. (A more common way to look at retail shopping parking requirements is spaces required for 1,000 sq. ft. The existing GVSC is now 5.18 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of retail space.) With the reduction of the site by Hennepin County for the widening of Winnetka Avenue, the parking is further reduced. As part of the P.U.D., the City would accept the parking lias is" on the site. . 5. There are numerous building and landscape setback violations that also exist on the site. In the application, it states that the buildings all meet setback requirements; I find the only exception to this statement is the building at the corner of Winnetka and Golden Valley. I scaled this building to be about 30 feet from the proposed new right-of-way line - not the minimum 35 feet required. (Please note that the plans are half scale, therefore double the number of feet indicated on the scale when measuring at the 40-scale.) . . . Memo for P.U.D. No. 65, Trach Properties June 23, 1994 Page Two Code requires that there be a 35 foot green space along all areasadja- cent to streets. The GVSC lacks this requirement along all streets with the exception of Wisconsin Avenue. Review of Site Plans -- The applicant has submitted four maps for consideration. Review of these maps reveals many of the issues to be considered as part of the P.U.D. approval process. The first is marked Site Plan-P-1 indicating the new Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road right-of-way with the revised parking area along Winnetka Avneue. It also indicates where parking has been lost due to the widening of Winnetka Avenue and where the new driveway locations are on Winnetka Avenue (reduced from four to two). This map shows the existing parking and driveways on the MnDOT easement for TH. 55. The second plan marked Demol it ion: PUD-P-2 i ndi cates the changes that are necessary to the GVSC property to accommodate the wi deni ng of Wi nnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road. This indicates the location of existing parking and driveways on the site and the areas that have to be removed. {The City has reached agreement with David Trach, owner of the GVSC, regarding the necessary acquisition of expanded right-of-way for Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road. This new expanded right-of-way will be shown on the P.U.D. Plat for the GVSC. The third plan marked Site Plan PUD-MnDOT ALTERNATIVE P-3 shows the new parking and driveways along Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road plus illustrating how the GVSC site would loOk if the owners were required by MnDOT to pull the parking spaces and driveways off the current MnDOT easement. If this were done, the park i ng spaces woul d be reduced to 361 spaces or 40 spaces fewer than if MnDOT continues to allow the encroachment on thei r easement. Th is plan is the one the City will ~ave to accept as part of the P.U.D. approval. The fourth plan marked Future Demolition: PUD MnDOT Alternative P-4 simply shows what changes woul d have to be made if MnDOT requi res the GVSC to no longer encroach on their easement. Discussion on Parking and Driveways 2ll MnDOT Easement Staff has required the applicant to prepare the site plans indicating what the GVSC would look like if MnDOT would require the GVSC to cease the encroachment. As a condition to getting Hwy. 55 built through Golden Valley, the council was required to adopt a resolution promising "that it will never permit or suffer, within its corporate 1 imits, any encroachment of any kind whatsoever" into the highway right-of-way. A current survey of the Golden Valley Shopping Center property indi cates that a porti on of the perimeter dri veway and a coupl e of parking spaces do extend into the right-of-way. The property owner's attorneys were made aware of the situati on and of the City I S agreement. Staff made sure that MnDOT was contacted with regard to this matter. Should MnDOT come back to the City with the determination that the situation constitutes an encroachment, action will be taken. Meanwhile, it must be made clear that the City's approval of this P.U.D. is limited to the site plan labelled MnDOT Alternative P-3. The . . . Memo on P.U.D. Trach Properties June 23, 1994 Page Three only reason the City has not taken action so far is that there is some uncer. tainty as to what const{tutes an encroachment. The resolution lists some speci- fic examples, all of which are structures of some sort, but does not make that list all-inclusive. Staff also wishes to note that there is no suspicion on the City's part that the property owner intentionally undertook to encroach on the ri ght-of-way. There is also a question regarding the inclusion of the current easement area for TH. 55. in the P.U.D. Plat. They have requested that this be held out of the P.U.D. area. The staff is recommending that the easement area be included in the P.U.D. Permit and the P.U.D. Plat. The City has sent the P.U.D. plan to MnDOT for their review. They have not yet responded. If MnDOT does not care if it keeps the TH. 55 right-of-way by easement, it can continue to be shown to be an easement. If MnDOT would prefer that the current easement be dedicated to the State, the City must indicate it in the plat as dedicated right-of.way. In any case, if MnDOT continues to ignore the encroachment by the GVSC on their easement or future dedicated right-of-way, the City will not object to the use of this area for parking and driveways. However, the approval of the P.U.D. by the City must be limited to the plan marked P-3 because it indicates the future if MnDOT chooses to expand TH. 55. (At th:rs-time the City is unaware of any plans that would require this easement area to be used.) Wisconsin Avenue Access The owner of the GVSC has asked the City to work with MnDOT to reopen Golden Valley Road to Wisconsin Avenue as indicated on P-1. This action would allow for another means of ingress and egress to the GVSC from the west. The City has agreed to consider this request. This access is off the GVSC property so it is not a part of the P.U.D. consideration. Signage The owner ?f the GVSC is asking that the type and amount of signage on the site remain as 1S. This would be written into the P.U.D. Permit. For instance, the two pylar signs will remain on the site and they can be replaced but only with signs with the same or less square footage. The same is proposed for signage on the buildings. The size of the signage on the building will not increase. They are also proposing to have one monument sign at the. west end of the site. This would be low to the ground and provide some identification for the future access from Wisconsin Avenue. Recommended Action The request for the P.U.D. has its advantages for the City of Golden Valley and the property owner. It el imi nates the non-conformities that were di scussed ear- lier in the report. It recognizes the existing center and its inconsistencies with tOday'srequirements. (This shopping center was built starting in the early 1950's. It was one of the first strip type centers in the Twin Cities.) It also gives the City some control over the future development of the area be- cause no size changes to the buildings can be made without approval of the City. . . . Memo for P.U.D. No. 65, Trach Properties June 23, 1994 Page Four As part of the approval of the P.U.D., I would suggest that the following be included in the eventual P.U.D. Permit. 1. Site Plan P-3 be the accepted plan indicating 361 parking spaces. The City real izes that the GVSC may continue to use the MnDOT easement area as long as they do not object. Based on current usage, the 361 spaces is adequate to serve this type of community shopping center. 2. The existing TH. 55 easement area be a part of the P.U.D. Plat and P.U.D. Permit. 3. An inventory of the existing signage be done and be given to the City prior to approval of the P.U.D. The amount of the existing signage would be used as a benchmark for future sign changes. The site would be limited to two pylar signs (as there are today) along with one future monument sign in locations indicated on the site plan. The size of the future monument sign shall be established in the sign inventory. 4. The setback of buildings and parking areas shall be as shown on Plan P-3. These setbacks have been existing for years with the exception of along Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road where new road improvements are being done. The City staff believes that the widening of Winnekta Avenue and Golden Valley Road along with improved landscaping will be an enhancement to the GVSC. 5. Because GVSC has fewer than the required parking spaces currently allowed by code, I would like the Planning Commission to consider if the City should somehow 1 imit the uses allowed in the shopping center. For instance, would another sit down restaurant be acceptable due to the amount of parking or would it be best left to the owner of the center to control his tenant mix? The owner of the GVSC has done a good job controlling the mix so as not to cause parking problems in the shopping center. At a minimum, I would suggest that the shopping center uses be limited to general retail, offices and service. MWG:mkd Attachments Letter (and attachments) to Mark Grimes from David Clark dated March 7, 1994 Location Map Site Plans . . . Golden Valley Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Memorandum To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Date: June 6,2002 Re: Plan review comments for PUD 65 Amendment TCF Listed below are the plan review comments for the PUD 65 Amendment for Twin City Federal site located at 8224 Olson Highway. 1) The fire department access road around the building shall be a minimum of 20 feet access road for the fire apparatus and 45 foot inside turning radius or provide and install a fire/automatic suppression system for the entire building. 2) The fire department access road shall be posted "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and stationary posts in accordance with the City of Golden Valley Ordinance and the Golden Valley Fire Department Standards. 3) The fire suppression system for the building will require (PIV) post indicator valve. The PIV shall be installed in accordance with recognized standards. A low voltage tamper switch will be installed on the PIV. 4) A low voltage audio and visual devices will be installed inside the occupied areas of the building. 5) Fire extinguishers will be required for the interior of the building. If you have any questions please call me 763-593-8065 or e-mail eanderson@ci.golden-valley.mn.us , . A . . . .~~e"t., ~;;Jl;r (I,d/iiniIIT, "lginuTill.~ tn v ir07lT1lcrli a l fransportario11 March 19, 2002 RE: Golden Valley, Minnesota Golden Valley Shopping Center Proposed Bank wi th Dri ve-)o SEHNo. A~GOLDV9801.00 Mr. M4:lrk Grimes Director of Planning and Development City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4508 Dear Mark: We have completed :l brief traffic study of the potential traffjc impacts of converting the free~ standing building at the west end of the Golden Vi:llley Shopping CelHer to a bank with drive- through lanes. ThE: traffic.: $tudy does nOI indicate any significam traffic problems, but the bank lraffic wilJ add [0 some of lhe existing traffic concerns. The bank should generate approximately 1,600 to 1,800 vehicle nips per day. We anticipate that there could be up \0 250 loral PM Peak Hour trips a~~oc.;jated with the bank. We have noted that many banks currently seem ro have fewer customers in the PM Peak Hour than in past studies which may be a change related 10 the growth of electronic banking. However, we do not have any, studies or documented clara [0 back up this apparent reduction 1n trips. By comparison. jf the building were instead a free-standing successful speci:llty retail center of 4,500 square fect, the total daily trips may be as high a~ 2,000 with a peak hour volume of 200 to 225 trips. The bank is designed for seven drive-up hmes. This is a significant number compared to many other banks. This should handle the volume of bank tr<lffic and should result in minimum back-ups from the lanes. There is room for two to three vehicles behind each of the drive-through lanes and room to ,stack approximately seven or eight additional vehicles in the driveway. Since the access road is a dead-cnd" slreet, there should be little impact even jf the drive-up Janes back out to the entrance from the street. Circulation for all traffic around the bank building is reasonable. The <lrive-through traffic enters its own access poinl to lhe west side of the bank and lhen has a driveway on the south side returning it to the parking lot and connecting it back [0 the Golden Valley Shopping Center area. Some traffic will travel back through the bank parking lot which is only a small problem. Traffic rraveling only to the parking spaces on the easl side of the bank should be clear from any back-up of the drive- through traffic lanes and will only have some of" the returning traffic from the drive-through lanes to contend with. Shari Elliotl Hendrickson Ine. Your Trlll'led Resource Equal Opportunity employer .. "CI VVy' VVy , l 1 Mr. Mark Grimes & March 19,2002 Page 2 . Traffic traveling from the bank back through the Golden Valley Shopping Center area will contend with the fairly undefined aisles and parking areas. This however i5 nor a problem unique to the bank use of the building. II also appears That the drive-through area is encroaching on MnJDOT right-of-way unless there is some type of easement which does not show up on the survey. This needs to be checked closer by the City Engineering Department. The parking area does have some unique characteristics and the site plan should be carefully designed to reflect the need for some channelizing islands to provide for proper alignment of parking and some of the problems which currently exist with the sileo In summary, we do not find any 5ignificant concerns with the conversion of the building to a drive- through bank both in terms of relative traffic volumes compared to retail use and to the general circulation. If you helve any questions, or need any further information, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, snORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. . ~~;/~ Glen Van Wormer, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer sah \"I'I;I"'Z'''.'1''l'''~wr'''lI'ljc~,,'I:''IJz''IU' \OSO I "''I<ril1'll:' ml9 .~.c . ': .. ~ .' . . . , Hey Memorandum Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Date: June 18, 2002 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer ~ Subject: Preliminary Design Plan, Amendment to PUD 65, Golden Valley Shopping Center Public Works staff has reviewed a site plan for the proposed amendment to PUD 65, Golden Valley Shopping Center. The proposed amendment includes conversion of an existing commercial building (currently being used as a yoga facility) on the west end of the PUD into a bank with multiple drive-through lanes. The Golden Valley Shopping Center is located north of Trunk Highway 55, south of Golden ValleyRoad, west of Winnetka Avenue and east of Wisconsin Avenue. The subject building is immediately south of Golden Valley Drive, a cul-de-sac off of Golden Valley Road. Site Plan: The proposed PUD amendment includes reconfiguring the parking area on the east side of the building to provide additional parking. This revised parking area will be connected to the rest of the PUD parking lots by a driveway in the southeast corner of the bank site. An existing parking lot interconnect adjacent to Golden Valley Drive will be eliminated as part of this proposal. The connections are acceptable as proposed. The proposed drive-through lanes are located on the west end of the building in the existing lawn area. The driveways are proposed to be installed up to the property lines on the north and south sides of the site. The City's consulting traffic engineer from Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH) has reviewed the proposed site plan. This traffic review identifies minor concerns relating to the internal function of the parking lot. The traffic review further points out that traffic generation from the site will be similar to that generated if the site were developed as a commercial use. There are no negative traffic issues anticipated as a result of this development proposal. The site pl.(in indicates that portions of the parking .lot will not have concrete curb and gutter installed as part of the project. Because City Code requires the installation of concretecurb>and gutter on all parking lots, it must be installed on the entire parking area for th~J)roposed bank. ': , . . . . \ The developer must demonstrate that the parking lot can accommodate the turning movements of a 45-foot long single-axle fire truck. A City of Golden Valley right-of-way permit will be required for the proposed work within the right-of-way of Golden Valley Drive. Any work within the Trunk Highway 55 right-of- way will require permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). The Golden Valley Shopping Center PUD is in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road. The three other quadrants of this intersection have extensive streetscaping that has been installed by the City as part of the upgrading of Winnetka Avenue and other projects. This streetscaping has not been installed on the subject property, but must be included as part of this amendment. The developer must submit a plan for the installation of this streetscaping as part of the General Plan submittal for the PUD amendment. Utilities: The proposed bank building is currently served by municipal sanitary sewer and water. Sanitary sewer service is provided to all of the remaining buildings in the PUD, but water service is only provided to the building at 8200 Olson Memorial Highway and the portion of the shopping center housing Godfather's Pizza. The remaining spaces in the shopping center receive water from an internal well system that is monitored monthly for usage. The building managers submit the pumping records to the City, and sanitary sewer usage is calculated from these numbers. Based. upon the above discussion, staff is currently investigating the regulatory requirements as well as the public health and safety issues relating to potable water from private wells in commercial settings. Based upon the results of this research, staff may make a recommendation to the City Council to require connection of all portions of the PUD to the municipal water system. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control: This site is within the Mainstem sub-district ofthe Bassett Creek Watershed. Development of the site must comply with the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) Water Quality Policy. A preliminary analysis of the proposed site work indicates that water quality ponding is not required. However, Best Management Practices for protection of water quality must be incorporated into the site. The developer must provide documentation of the surface area being disturbed with this proposal in order to permit a final determination of measures needed to conform to the Water Quality Policy. This development is subject to the Golden Valley Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Ordinance. As required by the ordinance, a grading plan prepared to City standards must be submitted for this project. This grading plan must be included in the General Plan submittal for the PUD amendment. Following review of the plan, staff will forward the materials to the BCWMC for its review and comment. No work is to begin on site until approval is received from the BCWMC and the Golden Valley Public Works Department. G:\Developments-Private\G V Shopping PUD Amend\Prelim Design Memo.doc . t. . . . . . 1 The site plan submitted indicates that storm water runoff from a significant portion of the site drains into the TH 55 ditch via a storm sewer just west of the existing building. Because the development proposal includes an increase in the impervious surface, and a corresponding increase in the runoff volume from the site, the grading plans must be reviewed by MnDOT. Summary and Recommendations: Public Works staff recommends approval of the preliminary design plan for the proposed amendment to PUD 65, Golden Valley Shopping Center, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer must demonstrate that the proposed layout is satisfactory to accommodate a single-axle vehicle that is 45 feet long. 2. Installation of concrete curb and gutter on all existing and proposed parking Jots and driveways. 3. The developer must submit a plan and schedule for the installation of streetscaping in the southwest quadrant of Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road. This streetscaping must be of similar materials and quality as the city streetscaping in the downtown area. 4. A Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, prepared according to City standards, must be submitted for review and comment. 5. The review and comment of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. 6. The developer agrees to comply with the City's determination on the connection to the municipal water system throughout the entire PUD. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Gary Johnson, Building Official Ed Anderson, Fire Marshal G:\Developments-Private\G V Shopping PUD Amend\Prelim Design Memo.doc . . . . Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Dan Olson, City Planner Informal Public Hearing on Minor Subdivision of the Lots at 1807 and 1811 Noble Drive - George Wessin, Applicant Subject: Date: June 19, 2002 Background George Wessin of 1801 Noble Drive, is requesting that the property line between 1807 and 1811 Noble Drive be revised so that a new home could be built at 1811 Noble. Qualifications as a Minor Subdivision The lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the properties are part of an existing, recorded plat, creates fewer than four lots, and do not create the need for any additional public improvements. The applicants have submitted the required information to the City that allows for the subdivision to be evaluated as a minor subdivision. Staff Review of the Minor Subdivision Since this minor subdivision is located on existing platted streets with access to utilities, the application is pretty straight forward. The properties do not lie within a floodplain. The City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, PE has reviewed this minor subdivision and has submitted the attached comments. The site plan submitted by the applicants have all of the required information as stated in City Code Section 12.50. According to Hennepin County's property database, the home at 1807 Noble Drive was built in 1932. The lot at 1811 Noble is currently vacant. Section 12.50, Subd. 3 of the Subdivision Code states that lots in a minor subdivision must meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. In this circumstance, the Residential zoning district requires that all lots must be 10,000 sq. ft. in area, have at least 80 ft. of width at the front setback line, and meet building setback requirements. After the proposed minor subdivision, these lots will meet the requirements of the Zoning Code, with the exception of one requirement for the detached garage at 1807 Noble: the . . . Zoning Code requires that accessory buildings be located completely behind the home. In this case, a small portion of the garage is not located behind the home. The existing vacant lot at 1811 Noble is 17,734 square feet in size. After the subdivision, the proposed lot will be 11,500 square feet in size with 100 feet of frontage. The proposed home will be required to meet building setback requirements. Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision According to Section 12.50 of the City's Subdivision Regulations, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions: 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the reauirements of the appropriate zonina district. In this case, the existing detached garage does not meet the requirements for accessory buildings in the Residential zoning district. Because of this nonconformity, a variance from these conditions must be approved by the City Council in order for the minor subdivision to be approved. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Enaineer determines that the lots are not buildable. In this case, the City Engineer has determined that the lot at 1811 Noble Drive is buildable. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined bv the City Enaineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utilitv systems bv the addition of new lots. In this case, sewer and water lines are available to provide service for both homes. The existing street system is more than adequate to provide access to both homes. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may reauire the arantina of certain easements to the City. The final plat would show all necessary easements as required by the City Engineer. 5. If public aaencies other than the City have iurisdiction of the streets adiacent to the minor subdivision, the aaencies will be aiven the opportunity to comment. In this case, no other agencies have any jurisdiction. 6. The City may ask for review of title if reauired bv the City Attornev due to dedication of certain easement. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 7. The minor subdivision may be subiect to park dedication reauirements. The policy of the City has been that a park dedication fee will be required if the new subdivision creates any new lots for development. The applicant will be required to pay this fee at the time of the Final Plat approval. 2 . . . Variance Criteria from the Subdivision Code As stated above, the approval of this minor subdivision will require a variance to the Subdivision Code. The Subdivision Code states that the Council may grant variances as long as there is a finding that the following conditions are met: 1. There are special circumstances for conditions affecting said property so that the strict application of the provisions of the Subdivision Code would create an unusual hardship and deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Economic difficulty or inconvenience shall not constitute a hardship situation for the purpose of this Code. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which said property is situated. The Code states that the City shall consider the nature of the proposed use of the land, the existing use of land in the vicinity, and the number of people who will reside in the subdivision, and how traffic conditions will be affected by the additional development in the subdivision. The City may prescribe conditions to the variance. The Planning Commission is expected to make a recommendation on the variance request. Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision and the subdivision variance needed to permit the non-standard lot. It would seem to be in the best interest of the City to allow a new home to be built in the city. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision and Subdivision Code variance with the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. The recommendations of City Engineer Jeff Oliver as found in his memo dated June 12, 2002 become a part of this approval. 3. Park dedication fees be paid at the time of Final Plat approval. Attachments: . Location Map . Existing and proposed property lines . Photographs of the properties . Certificate of Survey for the property at 1807 Noble Drive · Memorandum from Jeff Oliver PE to Mark Grimes dated June 12, 2002 3 . EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES - 1807 AND 1811 NOBLE DRIVE '-!r.2 01. ..,>> ~ Nt o - . . . " . . ,...~.....:;.,,~ ,'~ ',~ ~ ", __...;;:J;, . . . . /2./ r .-l..~ 11<4- ~~~~~~~ NO.~ SCALEI"~ 0- DENOTES IRON LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND 8tlRVEYORS IIEGIS1'ERED UNDEa LAQ OF STATE OF MlNNEIIC1l'A 160~ '13rd A...... NtlIlh I6Ooa088 NiuapaUo._ 511428 hnJrJllhl GInttfUm Dole Van Beek 1"7 N,ble D,.,".J & "./1', eI Denotes Bltisting P1evaticn Elevation dat\D assuaed / , i -il./S~ 0-. -------...--... I..~ ffle- . "'I 4It( w,,'~ (:> f I i ~~ _ r ;:l~ ~C "I j ; . .~.ij. I "1"',+ .1~'2... .'''1-.& .,# ~-P. u" ~~~ ,~O. () t,. ,<(.' " .,:- ".."',.... ( o"',f'lt/e- ~~,,;.., e,-{I} '\\C.) ....... .14.1, -...ni:;,..... .......e .....: - --.... _. - rl1~ Cl4- PLt.T '1.2.42. _.~ ~~-r 4-' HB;;'4-Z'\I.-' ......,,-.-- --7 I Tract G, Registered lAnd Survey No. 1104, files ~ the Registrar of Titles .in and for Hennepin Comty, Nirmesota together With that part of Lot .!, Alrlitor's SubdivisiOn No. 330 described as follows: Beginning at the northwest Con)e':r of .taid Tract G; thence nOf"titJeSterly alOll8 the westerly =en5im of. the northerly line of said "fract G.e distance of 71.15 feet; th<<tce south 172.13 feet to an intersection ~th the westerly cxtension of the southerly line f1i said Tract C at ~,point 10.65 feet fTOll the :southwest' corner oF. said Tract ~; thence easterly alCIIg said westelry enensiOl. 70,65 'feet to the southwest <:ornerof said Tract G; thence northerly t.o the POint .of bea:in1li.ng. ~anIy--"""_oI_orln_lon_br WtheNbycerttty 1hat.....1s .IrUIIl'idCOtrlCl.......lonof.aurveyof the ................--......................-........ IbIe tncIWChmenta.lf 11'11, from 01' onllkl'-1 ~br.....~..... Nov"",o.r 19 90 2~~./L 8Ipod . /v. ,.---:- R A. -. Minn. Rog. No. 8743 r ,~ . . . Hey Memorandum Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Date: June 12, 2002 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer ~ Minor Subdivision at 1805 No~e From: Subject: Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed minor subdivision at 1805 Noble Drive. The proposed subdivision is located on Noble Drive, south of Golden Valley Road and west of Sweeney Lake. This minor subdivision includes splitting Lot 10, Block 1 of the Heathbrooke Addition, and combining it with a portion of TractG, RLS No. 1104, to the south. There is an existing home on Tract G. Based upon this review, staff has identified the following issues that need to be addressed during the final platting of this minor subdivision: . There is an existing storm sewer within an existing drainage and utility easement on the north line of Lot 10. This easement must be preserved on the final plat · Easements on both newly platted lots must be consistent with the subdivision ordinance. · Municipal sanitary sewer and water services have been previously installed for the vacant lot (Lot 10). The existing home is connected to sanitary sewer, but not to municipal water. Staff recommends that the existing home on Tract G be required to connect to municipal water within 60 days after it becomes available to the property. . Construction within the subdivision must conform with the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Ordinance and the Tree Preservation Ordinance. · Reconstruction of Noble Drive is tentatively planned for 2009 as part of the Pavement Management Program. The developer will be required to post an escrow for the street improvements as prior to final plat approval. This escrow will be based upon the 2002 special assessment rate of $2,600.00 per unit for each of the two lots. Therefore, the total street improvement escrow due with the platting is $5,600.00. As a result of this escrow, these lots will not be subject to G:\Developments-Private\1805 Noble Drive\PreJim Memo.doc , . . . the standard special assessment at the time the street is reconstructed. However, because Noble Drive is a concrete roadway, it is possible that these lots may be subject to additional special assessments if the concrete paving is replaced according to the Pavement Management Policy. These additional special assessments are not covered by the required escrow and would be levied against the lots at the time of the improvement. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works