The URL can be used to link to this page

06-11-01 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, June 11, 2001 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - May 14, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - General Mills - P .U.D.No. 94 Applicant: General Mills, Inc. Address: 1 General Mills Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The P.U.D. would allow for the expansion of General Mills existing office facilities, including the construction of new office buildings and parking ramps. -- Short Recess -- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings IV. Other Business A. Presentation of Telecommunications research - Bill Thibault, Thibault Associates B. Discussion of Planning Commission ethics information from National APA Conference, New Orleans and information from C. Gregory Dale C. Planning Commission Round Table hosted by the City of Richfield, September 11, 2001 D. Discussion of July 9, 2001 Planning Commission meeting V. Adjournment Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission . May 14,2001 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, May 14,2001. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I. Approval of Minutes - April 23, 2001 Planning 1 an, g and rks Jeannine Those present were ChairPentel and Commissioners Eck, Grog McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Direct Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson, Directo f Clancy, City Engineer Jeff Oliver and Recording Secreta Groger stated that in the first line on page 8 the ~ page 14, second paragraph, third sentence, t 'se~ be stricken. as misspelled and on use of the word "and" should MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by Ec April 23, 2001 minutes with the abov carried unanimously to approve the e II. Continuation of Inform Hidden Lakes P.U.D. ring -- Preliminary Design Plan - endment Applicant: Address: lock 9, Outlots F and M, Hidden Lakes PUD No. 74, Valley, MN .U.D. would allow for the construction of 7 single .family omes on Block 5, and 10 single family villa homes on Block 9, utlots F and M. Pentel sta t she would like to have a discussion on the specific items that the commissioners had questions about from the previous public hearing. Grimes stated that Public Works Director Jeannine Clancy, City Engineer Jeff Oliver and Ray Wuolo from Barr Engineering were present to act asa resource to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have. It Pentel stated she wanted to learn more about the process of running the utilities under the lake and the sewage system that's required in this type of development and the capacity ofthe system that is currently located under the bridge. Jeff Oliver stated that the existing system there now is an old, private system with a small 6" service, which is smaller than the currentminimum accepted sanity sewer for a gravity sewer, so it does Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14,2001 Page 2 need to be replaced. He stated that as far as installing the utilities under a water body it is a very common practice. He stated that a carrier pipe is placed under the water body and the new utilities are slid through with access on either end to allow for repairing and replacing. He stated it is the same type of process that is done with highways, major roadways and railroad tracks. Pentel asked if the system would go underneath the lake or if lies on the bottom of the lake. Oliver stated it would go under the bed of the lake. Pentel asked how that is done. Oliver stated it is done wi or directional boring. Groger asked if it was the same technolo ed to go underneath Bassett Creek at the entrance to the Hidden L ent and asked if there have been any problems with that. Oliver stated t en no problems. Shatter asked about the City's wetland regulations. Oli Golden Valley has adopted the Wetland Conserva setbacks <are for wetlands. Oliver stated that t outlined in the Wetland Conservation Act but foot butter zone, either created or existing, ar hat the City of hatter asked what the ific wetland setbacks they do encourage a16 1/2- nds. referred to the materials they I technique so that water is being treated particular proposal it sounds like the f the peninsula fairly far to the first rain garden sula. She asked how the piping system h acity the wetland is going to have to have for d that rain gardens are an emerging technology in d rain gardens area modified infiltration basin for e pros and cons to the proposed rain gardens, but e ability to locate the rain gardens where they are proposed, tation and trees, and staying outside the wetland limits, he hat works well. Pentel asked about the proposed rai received stating that rain gardens not far from where it lands. She water will be piped from the so that sits along the east side compared to an open sw ditterent rain events. Oliv water quality treatme storm water. He st given the constralPf with minimal' thinks it's ut the individual sewage pumping systems that are needed for homes n the peninsula. Oliver stated that in order to reduce the extreme deep cuts t would be required through the high point on the peninsula for installation ofgravity sanitary sewer, the developer approached the Public Works Department with a request to install low pressure, individual force mains or grinder pumps and force mains that can follow the same alignment as water mains which are 7 % to 8 feet underground which can change elevation with the contour. He stated the manufacturer of the product came in and met with him and presented information and performance curves and it appears they would work satisfactorily. Oliver stated he's requested that the developer contact the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services to find out if there are any specific regulations regarding individual sanitary sewer treatment systems or conveyance systems in a fully sewered community. . e e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 3 He stated he has not yet heard from the regulatory agencies but it appears that this technology will greatly reduce the amount of area that needs to be disturbed'or excavated in order to install the utility. Instead of a 15-foot wide trench to install the proposed low-pressure force mains gravity system, the City would probably be looking at a trench somewhere between 40 and 60 feet wide through the high point on the peninsula. He stated that anytime there is work close to awater b here are additional concerns for erosion. He stated that he feels the pro I porth by the developer addresses that issue well. t" eveloper and ~ey are designed s is that it is ideal to to infiltrate. Hoffman referred to the rain garden plans that they recei asked if the plants mentioned were what grew best in t to protect the lake. Oliver stated his understanding of ra plant water friendly vegetation and that will help all e Shaffer stated that the way the current devel outlots with easements over them for city utili up into seven parcels and the road will will have an easement over the lots t would be better way of dealing wit maintenance perspective, the C' are owned and maintained by t the City has over the prope et up all the streets are on e peninsula they've divided it ugh them, which means the City . He asked if an outlot for the road er stated that from a roadway ~alley would not be involved. The roads n Lakes Association. He stated the easements i1ity purposes and to allow access to the utilities. Shaffer asked who contro individual lift stations stated that that th r understanding is manufacture type of sy themselves keep eral dividual grinder pumps. Oliver stated that the e would be the responsibility of each homeowner. He valves that will prevent backflow into the homes and his stem will shut down ifthere is a plug. He stated the that there is a very low incidence of plugging due to the d the individual homeowners would own the pumps eveloper has indicated that the homeowners association would itional pumps in stock if an individual pump failed. Pentel state at the width of the road on the south end of the peninsula measures 16 feet to the outside of the curbs, which makes the width of the road 14 feet. She asked if the City thinks that width would be sufficient for emergency vehicles and if it could handle the traffic it will be required to handle. Oliver stated that based upon the extremely low trip generation it is acceptable, however during the winter months it will be difficult. Pentel asked about the need to have a building permit for the retaining wall and stated she was concerned about sticking with the City's regulations in terms of not building e structures closer than 75 feet to the ordinary high water line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 4 She asked why a 12-foot high retaining wall that requires a building permit is not considered a structure and is allowed to be at the 50-foot setback. Oliver stated the primary reason the retaining wall is classified as a structure and requires abuilding permit is because it's over 4 feet high and in order to ensure the integrity and to make sure it is builtand engineered properly it would require a building permit. Pentel asked if there were other structures that require a building permit that are ' nsidered "structures". Oliver gave the example of decks and bridges and se require permits, but are not occupied, primary structures. He stated r are installed immediately adjacent to water bodies very frequently all ov Pentel asked Oliver if he was comfortable with the fact that the base of all sits right at the 1 OO-year flood mark. Oliver stated that if the wall is {it a constructed properly that it's not a problem. Rasmussen asked what the definition of disturb_ AlP importance on the peninsula. Oliver stated th'" the relates to a development project is an area th ee contour or profile of the earth is change it means anything that is not entirely i is a threshold level for disturbed ar the water quality policy of the B Pollution Control Agency. He s that threshold. Rasmusse be considered disturbed. the infrastructure phase 0 on the individual lots for the home con ruc the trenches are it's then con IS why it's of critical nition of disturbed land as it o be graded and where the e stated others might argue that ate or is disturbed. He stated there r quality improvements in compliance with r atershed and with the Minnesota this case if it exceeds % an acre it would pass area that would be trenched for utilities would t that area would be considered disturbed during pment and the area in and around the building pads nsidered disturbed during the time of custom grading ussen asked if it's returned to its original grade and ver if it's not considered disturbed anymore. Oliver stated d. i1i~ City has decided in this instance to adopt the DNR Shoreland rule ~",. to be 40,000 square feet and asked why the City is not then taking the ount stating that structures should be no more than 25 feet high in a shoreland i ct area. Oliver stated that his understanding of the shoreland ordinance which the City of Golden Valley has adopted says, eventually we will be required to adopt the height rule, but that now the DNR just works with cities and asks that cities comply, they don't require that all cities comply with all aspects of the ordinance. Grimes added that he spoke with the City Attorney and his opinion is that the City has an adopted shoreland ordinance, which met the requirements of the Department of Natural Resources. He stated that the DNR has rules and regulations now, but the City is not subject to those rules because we already have an adopted ordinance. Pentel referred to the cross sections of the various houses and asked about the excavation of the basements in regards to disturbed land. . e e . e e Minutes of the GoldenValley Planning Commission May 14,2001 Page 5 Oliver stated any time there is excavation done, in order to have a safe working environment, there is typically over excavation done larger than the footprint of the home. He stated that in this situation they would have the ability to review individual grading plans for each home as the building permit is applied for because these lots are not mass graded. Pentel asked if the developer would be required to build the lots in any kind of a sequence such as requiring them to start at the sout Oliver stated he's not aware of those types of restrictions being applied, but t rket and time schedules would be what would drive the building sequence. atthe Commission could discuss and recommend those kinds of Groger referred to the retaining wall and the additional above the retaining. wall itself as a barrier for traffic. He additional two feet of wall or if it could be accompli minimize the impact of the retaining wall, or if t sure that any water run-off is diverted in the p off that falls on the roadway itself would be c into the storm sewer system and be del" wall would help direct additional run- purpose. He stated that barrier is numerous other forms of barrier wall that extends ere is a need for the a curb or railing to ssary in order to make tion. Oliver stated that any run- hin the roadway and would flow in gardens. He stated that the et, but it is not necessary for that rash barrier, however, there are tpleet the safety requirements. Pentel referred to the gradi directed to the fronts of th captured. Oliver stated th grading process and would be impossi e street. Q asked if precipitation is going to somehow.be o ... at all of the water can go into the street to be can strive to capture the run-off through the custom home design itself, but he stated with certainty that it . e run-off from the roofs of the homes directed to the Pentel ask the propert PUD. supposed to be native planting around the ponds that are on liver stated he did not believe that was a requirement of the original Groger ask or clarification on the lot size requirement of 40,000 square feet. Grimes stated that the PUD permit requires that the lots meet the requirements of the shoreland regulation (20,000 square feet) and that the average size of the lots be twice that size. Rasmussen asked for clarification on how the retaining wall would be screened. Grimes stated that it's his understanding that the wall will be a poured, textured wall with a neutral color so it blends in and doesn't draw attention to it. He stated there would be some natural landscaping along the wall as well. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 6 Pentel referred to page 4 of the seeps and springs hydrology report from Barr Engineering and asked about the view that the source of the seeps is from wetlands to the south of the peninsula. She asked how certain we are the excavations for the basements and roads are not going to somehow hit the water table and if they have to do some dynamic compaction to make sure they will have a stable surface. Oliver stated compaction under the building pads and roadways can be a plished with routine back filling and compaction methods. He stated density equired in disturbed areas and trenches to minimize the threats of any f t nts. Pentel asked if there have been any properties in the Hidden Lak ev t that have had issues with slippage of their foundations. Oliver stat e 't know of any, but the building official would be the best person to ans"tion. . Pentel asked about the seeps and springs and wa cuss the various theories of how water moves through the area. Ray W logist, Barr Engineering, who has been hired by the City stated that th e are theories on how the seeps and springs exist. The first theory is that the infiltr n 0 e peninsula itself is responsible solely for the seeps and springs. He st ink that it was in dispute that all the water that infiltrates on the penin ay to the lake and that a portion of the seeps and springs probably de . of its from water from infiltration on the peninsula. He stated what is at n ether all the seep and spring flow is from infiltration on the peninsula or if another source. He stated the consultant for e the developer has another at a portion of the water source is coming from wetlands to the south of n win Lakes with flow approximately in a north or northeast direction and in ninsula and discharged into the lakes. He referred to a graph that showed that all the infiltration on the peninsula is responsible for the seeps. Hlr~ <'e infiltration on the peninsula is probably making its way as seeps and spriR .ts also probably making its way into the lake as flow underneath t r at the lake level that is not seen as seeps and springs. er graph showing infiltration falling on the ground surface where tlon, as in the other concept, infiltrates into the ground and makes its table, but some of it ponds up in wetlands where it stays wet most of the year an eeps into the ground at a constant rate and provides an area of mounding underneath the wetlands that can drive flow for some distance. He stated there are merits to both hypotheses. He stated that there are Some things indicated in his studies that show this is occurring to some extent. One of the things is that the water chemistry of the seeps and springs shows a high iron content which indicates that either its had a long time underground where it can lose its oxygen and dissolve iron or because there is a lot of organic material in the area in which it flows. He stated that his indications show it's because the water has a long flow path. . e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14,2001 Page 7 He stated that when he first looked at the idea that thewetlands would contribute to the seeps and springs he thought that was a bit farfetched because regional ground water flow in this part of Hennepin County is west to east toward the Mississippi River and the flow would have to be more south to north. He stated when he did further studies he did find some flow that would go to Sweeney Lake and Twin Lake. He stated that there are still some outstanding issues as to whether or not the flow ma all the way up to the central part of the peninsula and then discharges to areas w eeps and springs occur. e Pentel asked with all the development south of Highway areas that would be causing the infiltration. Wuolo stat area that have been identified and referred to two partic water most of the year and stated they could be t could be infiltrated. t.there were etlands in that ds that have ponded I sources fot water that Eck referred to the proposed villa homes and about that area as he does about devel development on block 9 was anticipa already. doesn't have nearly the concern ~" peninsula. He stated here is development all around it Pentel stated she is concerned area. She stated she mour exists and stated there m golf balls from Theodore proposed is that ther is notas disturbin as e loss of trees and green space in the upland f the oak trees and the little bit of vista that ture issues with the homes being in line with rk but that one positive thing about the homes being street parking provided. She agreed with Eck in that it ent on the peninsula. eveloper could do better, visually, than lining the homes up as struck by the irony that one of the reasons they are lined up f utilities that are immediately in front of the properties that don't omes to be staggered and in a sense it belies the concept of a elopment and that the planning of a couple of years ago has resulted in the forcin these homes to line up in a row. Grimes stated there are different elevations and the homes will follow the topography of the land and there will be vertical changes. in the elevations. e Shaffer stated he is not in favor of the houses being in a straight line and that it is kind of ironic because now the houses are just stuck there and it's not possible to move them around. He stated it's not much different from the original carriage home plan that was proposed in 1997 except now there will be ten feet between them instead of zero so in some way that is better. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 8 e Groger stated originally the plan allowed for twelve homes, so ten does seem reasonable and there are some trees that will be saved. Pentel stated she would like commissioners to make comments about the peninsula development and figure out what kind of recommendation the Commission would like to make to the City Council. the seven es as a narrow . anner that is as '$\fs objective. He redit to the City, and Eck stated that he sincerely believes that the developer is pro large single family homes on the peninsula through the use street, retaining walls, rain gardens and conservation eas environmentally responsible as it is possible to be and stated he believes the developer wants the developmen to the surrounding property owners. Eck stated that although the language of the ance does not specifically preclude it's application to large single family sizeable lots, it seems clear to him that the intent of the residential aPR ' ordinance is to facilitate the construction of higher than normal de ial structures on designated parcels of land to provide alternative types ng or and use to meet community housing goals such as affordable, minim ce, or life cycle housing. He stated that _ he does recognize that in the c developed area of the PUD,there are a number . of large and very expensiv izeable lots, but they are contained within or are on the perimeter of th r the PUD, adjacent to much higher density homesites. He stated 81 e "peninsula" is sufficiently removed from the rest of the PUD and should d as a separate area and be judged on it's own merits. He stated a developer is entitled to reasonable economic development of e peninsula is a very environmentally and aesthetically controversia . rty, and it's development must be carefully considered. ,ifcareful review of all the input he has received on this project, it oper to him that the PUD Ordinance should be used to facilitate the rge, single family homes in a sensitive area, which would not otherwise b ossible if conventional zoning code standards were applied. . He stated there is clearly a benefit to the developer, but questioned what, other than property tax revenue, is the benefit to the City of permitting this development and questioned what housing goals were being fulfilled. Eck referred to the recent request to the Planning Commission to approve the use of the PUD Ordinance to permit a higher than normal density of expensive single family homes to be built on the lions Park Development property at Harold and Louisiana Avenues, and the commission voted unanimously against it as an improper application of the PUD Ordinance. The developer subsequently changed the density to conform to e standard zoning requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 e Page 9 He stated that although the illustration is not an exact parallel to the peninsula situation, given the size of the proposed Jots on the peninsula, the principal involved is the same. He recognized that there is already one home on the peninsula that has been there for many years and stated it is not his intent to deny all further development opportunity, but the City should recommend approval only of what can be accomplished without the use of, or with only the most minimal use of the PUD Ordinance. Groger stated he has struggled with his decis peninsula in its entirety, but stated that 1997 and see what is reasonable for City Council minutes from June of owner does have some rights to he would hate to see lost, but ~ still be environmently cauti impact. d parcel of e it is not. He in 1997 when He stated he e Commission based conditions that were a. Groger stated he understands Eck's comments but stated it's land and he doesn't see how it can be viewed as a separat stated the commission is in an awkward position becaus the PUD was in some respects approved with this parca thinks the decision that was made in 1997 somewhat co upon the criteria that were placed by the City COUn!f placed upon further approval of development e uld like to preserve the Ifut' ok at the conditions set forth in on the peninsula as it says in the stated this is private propertyand the erty. He stated the peninsula is a place it is possible to have some development and ect the integrity of the lakes and minimize its Groger stated he's n ' osed to development, but would be in. favor of the proposal with so e r and some changes including, minimizing the height of the retaining wall t, changing the road width to 20 feet for safety and a height restriction for: uilt to minimize the visual impact. He stated that some restriction e number of lots that can be developed, but thinks that the City's action in some ways obligated the commission to seriously consider devel ent ng as the developer met the conditions set forth by the Council. He stated fo to have told the developer that they should go ahead with the developmen the rest of the PUD and the City would then look at the development of the peninsula once they've done all these other things and then for the City to pull it back and say no, we're not going to let you develop the peninsula would not be fair. He stated that if the City had no intention of allowing development on the peninsula they should have said so in 1997. He stated he feels some obligation to work with the developer to approve something that is reasonable and he would be in favor of the proposal with some further conditions. e McAleese stated that he thinks the peninsula is part of the overall PUD and in this case the argument is strong that this does qualify as a PUD. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14,2001 Page 10 e He stated he disagrees with Groger becausethis proposal is an amendment, and under Subd. 120f the City's PUD Ordinance, it is like starting over with the PUD. He stated the City didn't make any promises in 1997 that development could occur on the peninsula, but the City did state they would consider certain things in the future and that is what's being done. McAleese stated that he feels development on the peninsula is developers can do things that he finds to be stupid and they do that. He stated development of a limited sort is appropr" development that is being proposed is a little more dens stated he favors a strict application of the standards tha ordinance and would require the 75-foot structure setba retaining wall qualifies as a structure under the Ci to push the wall back which would make a cou developable. He stated, because of the uniq strict standards and stated the developer cou apply for variances. pid idea, but lute right to insula, butthe a ... ught to be. He i~e shoreland > thinks the proposed code and that they ought posed lots not So , the City should apply very Board of Zoning Appeals and McAleese stated he's not comforta plans that have been proposed but feels the conditions that were set fort 7 been met. He stated he felt the rain gardens were a very good idea, hard to find detailed information because it is . such a new tool, so the Cit ake sure that the rain gardens can adequately handle the water. He sta s Id be some mechanism in place that assures they are working the way wants them to be working. He stated the roads are fairly narrow, and woeast 20..foot wide roads. He stated that if the height is limited too much e sprawl of the structure. He stated he favors somehow control gets built, but is not sure height restrictions will solve the visual impac Shaffer stat e of the things he looks at when he reviews a PUD is how it's appro ed. re erred to the Lions Park Development where they wanted a PUD, but the on thought they could do it under standard zoning if they did it correctly. tated that the developer for the peninsula just sliced it up into seven pieces, making sure they had the average 40,000 square foot lot size and protected a few trees as a token gesture to the City. He stated concern that the developer went about it in such a way to fit within what he considered the critical aspects of our zoning code and to push the other aspects. Shaffer referred to the City's Shoreland Ordinance where it states roads and parking areas should meet a setback of 75 feet from the Ordinary High Water Line where feasible and practical. e e e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 11 He stated the developer took feasible and practical to mean that in this case it's not feasible and practical because they couldn't get seven lots in if they did that. He stated he did some math to using the 75-foot setback, 20-foot roadway and 20-foot setback from the road to the houses and found that he came up with about 5 buildable lots. He stated that the PUD Ordinance is there to protect something for the City, or to give something to the City, not just for tax dollars and seems to him tha . is just the developer trying to fit seven lots onto a small piece of land. Shaffer stated one of the things he asked for from the deve really get, was a plan showing how much of the peninsul graded and moved around. He stated that if the penins\ areas that were going to be destroyed, it would be so m amazed. He stated that part of his review of the peJ' . negative impact upon the City of Golden Valle 'I' allowing certain things to happen from the de per City's standpoint. He stated the developer r 'ded approach that they were trying to get a good. ey didn't going to be out into all the pie would be sk, is this going to have a this proposal will by tandpoint and not from the of information, buttook the can instead of doing something Rasmussen stated she believes in the direction of supporting so developer has satisfied the development is done in a should be applied very st buildings and stated development in t stated concerns setback to th home dev not disturb a could addr uage did lead the Planning Commission lopment on the peninsula. She stated the s and has made great attempts to make sure ally sound way. She stated every standard he stated she is concerned about the height of the this property as a buffer between the intense of Hidden Lakes and the rest of Golden Valley. She roadway and stated it is minimally adequate and it should be ount. She stated she could probably support a four or five e peninsula, which would be enough to develop it but would tvJand as the current proposal. She stated her specific concerns d' by strictly applying the rules. Hoffman st that he read the Council minutes from 1997 and they were very specific about what the developer needed to do. He stated this property could generate over one million dollars in tax revenue and hoped that this money could help improve the area. He stated he is also concerned about the width of the road. He stated he favors going ahead with the project. Pentel stated the Council did indicate that there would be some development that would be looked at on the peninsula. She stated she could not support this proposal and would not vote in favor of this PUD amendment. She stated she's concerned about the roadway and the setbacks and sees it as pushing the envelope in a very sensitive area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 12 e She stated having the road set 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark is not appropriate and that 75 feet is more appropriate. She stated that having three houses on the north end would not cause too much disturbance to the entire peninsula and stated that she appreciated the developer setting aside the lot with the grove of oak trees. She stated the rain gardens are a wonderful idea but is concerned about the piping of water before it is allowed to infiltrate. She is concerned the rebuilding of the bridge and stated that the staff report mentioned that the bri be tested to see how strong it was going to be but then the applicant came, talked about a new bridge being built. She stated she's disturbed with t' .... ading that would have to take place and suggested sticking with th ;C4j'he t restriction. She stated she agreed with Eck in that it's not clear what th the City. She stated that she doesn't feel the need to have any public n the peninsula and sees no problem with having the land be private. that the proposal before them has too many homes and it would be viol zoning and setback ordinances. Groger stated that the one of the condit" ouncil minutes from 1997 specifically states that the 50-foot set aintained and asked if it now would be a problem to change that reco n to a 75-foot setback. Pentel stated the Commission is not changing wh o' said, they are making their own recommendation to the City Co that the Planning Commission does not have . to lock step with what the C Shaffer stated he feels the 75-foot setback is the requirement, not the and referred to the shoreland ordinance. 1ect and stated the City used retaining walls that are a in that instance to allow for the development to occur. at development is bringing the City affordable housing, is a th commercial and is meeting other City ob1ectives. Grimes referred to th within the shorelan 41',.. Paula agreed but 'lit mixed use d Groger stat s thinking that the commissioners are in agreement about some develo~ ent t at there isn't a huge difference in thinking. Shaffer stated the develop 0 ave to come back with new plans in order to define a recommen n to the Council. Grimes stated that one option would be to ask the developer jf they would like the opportunity to redesign their plans based on the Commission's feedback and come back, or that they could just vote one way or the other. Groger asked which option would be most helpful to the Council. Grimes stated that the more information they could give the better. Hoffman asked if it were possible to break the recommendation into two parts, the golf villas and the peninsula. Pentel stated that it should be left as one and it should be noted they don't have issues with the golf villas, just the peninsula. e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 13 McAleese stated he tends to favor an up or down vote and that the best approach is to express their views a'ndwhythey feel the way they do and to bump the proposal up to the decision makers. MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by Groger to approve the preliminary design plan of Hidden Lakes PUD No.7 4 Amendment One. Commissioners Mc e, Pentel, Rasmussen, Shaffer and Eck voted against the proposal. Applicant: II. Informal Public Hearing- General Land Use PI 08) and Property Rezoning (Z013-05) Address: 5431 Glenwood Avenue Turners Crossroad South Valley, MN rs Crossroad South; east half of to these two lots, all in Golden Purpose: The applicant. Map for 543 South from Faciliti to th Land g to change the General Land Use Plan venue and for 21 Turners Crossroad nsity Residential to Schools and Religious east half of Turners Crossroads South adjacent , e applicant is requesting to change the General n Map from a vacated right-of-way to Schools and i1ities. ' e plicant is requesting to rezone the properties at 5431 ood Avenue and for 21 Turners Crossroad South from dential to Institutional (1-1). For the east half of Turners rossroads South adjacent to these two lots, the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from a vacated right-of-way to Institutional (1-1). e Olson referred to his memo dated May 9,2001 and showed a location map of the site. He stated the proposal is to rezone two parcels of land adjacent to the church from Residential to Institutional (1-1) and to change the General Land Use Plan map from Low Density Residential to Schools and Religious Facilities. He gave some background on the properties and stated that the two adjacent lots were formally the sites of two single family homes. The lots were purchased by the City as part of the Xenia Avenue reconstruction and in 1999 both of the homes were demolished by the City and the property is now being sold to the Church to be used in the future as a parking lot. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 14 e Pentel asked if the parking lot would have access off of Glenwood Avenue. Grimes stated that it doesn't have access off of Glenwood and stated it was reconverted to a sidewalk and all the access would come off at Turners Crossroad. Hoffman asked if the resident located adjacent to the property on "[ been notified of this public hearing. Olson stated yes, they wer asked if the Church knew when Xenia Avenue was formed th become available. Director of Public Works, Jeannine Clancy stated thatfy, a representative from the Church was on the Xenia Avenue Advisory Co d stated that the property was purchased by the City for several reasrt e stated there was discussion about building a pedestrian bridge n Avenue. There was a need for transit facilities and the City wanted ely sever the connection between Turners Crossroad and Glenwood A wanted to also create a berm to guide all pedestrians to the intersecti Glenwood. She stated that when the pedestrian bridge was not r to the City Council by the advisory committee, the two lots became re cels. She stated the City looked at the parcels to determine what the m te use for these lots was and stated that since they don't want access 0 ood and they want to protect the berm and want e to protect all the pedestrian d all of the work they did to guide people to the intersection at Xenia and. . 0 re was very few uses that were acceptable. One was to adjoin it with cent property and one was to adjoin it to the Church. The Church came to asked if we would be interested in selling it to them. ike. Road had Hoffman ere going to Pentel asked wh screening re there is no . has req uest perty becomes a parking lot if there would be a berm or ct the residential uses abutting this parking lot. Olson stated y Code that would require screening, however one resident ning. the Church intended to build anything on the lots in the future. Olson stated the rch has indicated that at this time, they intend to leave it as open space and eventually they hope to make it a parking lot. Grimes stated one of the. issues is that there are utilities in the Old Turners Crossroad right-of-way that have to be maintained, so there can be no construction over those utilities. Grimes stated there is a strict setback requirement of 50 feet from any institutional use. to a residential use and no parking lot can come any closer than 25 feet to a residential use and that it has to be a landscaped area. Groger asked if the lots are currently buildable. Grimes stated it would be pretty difficult because of the setback requirements. Groger asked if the City foresees a lot e consolidation ultimately on these lots. e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 15 Clancy stated that one of the difficulties with these lots, even if they're consolidated, and if they are not associated with the church use, or with the single family home to the east of these properties on Glenwood is that they are not going to be provided access off of Glenwood, so they would have to gain access to the private access off of Turners Crossroads that goes into the church. e Pentel asked the applicant, Dick Remdy, what the Church's u i property. Remdy stated that right now they have no long t property and stated that with the closing of Turners Cros parking by about 40 spots. He stated that long term th additional parking, but right now they intend to keep it g are for this velop the anded their ~he land for Pentel asked if the property were to be develo problem for the church to provide screening f isn't a regulation. Remdy stated he didn't thi kind of screening or plantings. ,Q a ing lot if it would be a , cent neighbors even though it be a problem to provide some Rasmussen questioned why there parking lot abuts a residential ar requirements, but if it were a n plan to the Building Board screening requirements for when a tated that there are just setback opment, they would have to show a landscape d, stated that her property is right below the two lots in at she is concerned about the moving of the land and stated being done on Turners Crossroad her house was moving e has water problems. She stated she is very much against oncerned about the aesthetic value and the property value of her u onto a parking lot and she's concerned about how the parking lot e Larry Klick, 5415 Glenwood, also representing Charles Clark, 5405 Glenwood stated he sees three possible 'solutions for the proposed property. One is the Church and the only flaw he sees with that is that if there isn't a moratorium on any kind of construction the people in the neighborhood are going to be upset. He stated the new sidewalk and berm that were just put in last fall would have to go if the church puts in a parking lot. The second solution is residential with access and driveway onthe vacated Turners Crossroad. He stated it doesn't make sense to take out a corner lot for a parking lot or a building. He stated the third option is to leave it as green space and he said the City took the green space across the street and is now building gymnasiums. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 16 e Pentel asked what portion of the driveway into the Church does the Church own. Clancy stated thewest half of Turners Crossroad has been vacated and has gone to the Church. The east half of Turners Crossroad has been vacated up to 220 feet south of Glenwood and that has been vacated to the properties in questions. She stated Hennepin County and Staff would not support a separate access to Glenwood. Groger asked if residents were tol these lots would remain green s the only thing he recalled was t the potential pedestrian ov Frances Nemet, 5423 Glenwood stated she is very opposed to when the City built Xenia Avenue she was told in letters and i going to be green space. ot and stated ns it was Diana Dearring, 5 Turnpike Road, stated she wanted e screening and buffering zoning regulations that are appl to have the same developments. Pentel asked if this was a case of the City tryin the Church approached the City to buy these Clancy stated no, Pentel closed the informal public hearin Xenia Avenue project was done that I stated she didn't recall. Shaffer stated roperty was purchased by the City because of would have used that area. e Clancy clarified that the p permanent easemen sidewalk and tran . . map and showed agreement that it currently being considered has a a so that the improvements made such as the berm, nts made would be maintained. Clancy referred to the e improvements were made. idth of these lots is. Clancy stated they are about 100 feet o square feet. Groger asked if the setback for parking lots along y ines is 25 feet. Grimes stated yes and the ordinance requires that be landscaped. Pentel asked if a developer had come forward to the Council and suggested putting in a house that would have been on the tax roles, if that offer would have been entertained. Rasmussen stated it was prudent for the Church to want the vacant property next to them. She asked if the City was currently maintaining the property. Grimes stated yes. Pentel asked if the purchase agreement goes through, would the Church be required to maintain the easement area or if the City would still maintain the easement area. Clancy stated the Church would maintain the easement area, but the City would . maintain the sidewalk, as is required by the sidewalk policy. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14,2001 Page 17 She stated she wanted to make it clear that the purchase agreement was subject to the purchaser receiving rezoning on the property. McAleese asked if the property were not rezoned and it remained residential in character, could anything be built on that property, under our zoning code without any problems and if it met the other requirements of the residential po' f the zoning code. Grimes stated all lots have to have frontage on a public s stated he would have to talk to the City Attorney about that, but the Cit~h the right to have access on Glenwood. Groger asked if the Church would have to do would go over the lot line. Grimes stat property line, but a parking lot is not Rasmussen stated that it seems like the proposal is a b be nice to leave the area as green space. Grimes state more to churches in Golden Valley. They need to so if they want to stay in Golden Valley they ar rand that it would s ppening more and eir parking as they grow, d additional parking. lidation because the parking lot 't build a structure over the tructure e MOVED by Hoffman, seconded Plan Map from Low Density Re properties located at 5431 from Right of Way to Sch half of Turners Crossroad Crossroad and to ap and 21 Turners Cro s ~ <-. located at the eas' and 21 Turn McAleese, Commission approve revising the General Land Use I to Schools and Religious Facilities for the venue and 21 Turners Crossroad South and R ious Facilities for the property located at east adjacent to 5431 Glenwood Avenue and 21 Turners . g the properties located at 5431 Glenwood Avenue h from Residential to Institutional (1-1) and the property urners Crossroad South adjacent to 5431 Glenwood Avenue from Right of Way to Institutional (1-1). Commissioners , haffer and Hoffman voted in favor of the proposal, ussen and Pentel voted against the proposal. feels for the neighbors and stated that if the property was advertised by the City green space it should be rezoned as green space. She stated she is not in favor of the proposed rezoning and as institutions expand they get closer to neighborhoods. Shaffer stated he also feels for the neighbors, but he is looking at the long-term aspects of the proposal and likes the idea of trying to keep churches in Golden Valley. He stated he would be in favor of the proposal. e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 18 e Eck asked for clarification from the Church on their parking requirements. The representative from the church stated they had no plans to develop the two lots into a parking lot, but Grimes stated sometimes the parking lot is full and they have to park on the street. Remdy stated that occasionally there is an overlap in services but right now is fine. Eck stated that it seehls to him to be a logical property and supports the proposal. Purpose: rally the parking or proposed Rasmussen stated she is not in favor of the proposal be deserve some degree of certainty. V. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Tffc Applicant: Premier Investments, LL Address: The applicant' Centers" as districts. g to add "Trade schools or Training I Use to the City's Light Industrial zoning e Olson discussed his me are allowed as a permitte Use in the Industrial . text amendment d" Use Permit. He the parking s is recomm ,2001. He stated that currently trade schools n the Commercial Zoning District and as a Conditional ~1Ct. He stated that at this point it is only a zoning code oved the applicant would have to apply for a Conditional applicant is proposing to open a dental academy and that Iy there would be adequate for that use. He stated that staff al of this proposal. Hoffm hat the hours of operation would be. Dan stated he thought there were da ning classes but didn't think the classes would go past 8:00 or 9:00 pm. McAle clarified that the Commission isn't discussing the specific school at this time, they are just discussing the changing of the Zoning Code to allow this use. Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one Pentel closed the public hearing. MOVED by Hoffman, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approve the Zoning Code text amendment as purposed. e . e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 19 VI. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - KQRS, Inc.- P .U.D. No. 93 Applicant: KQRS, Inc. - ABC, Inc. Address: Lot.1, Block 1, KQRS 2nd Addition (917 North Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting to subdivid parcels in order to create an office b ' antenna towers on the other lot. Grimes referred to his memo dated May 9,2001 an was going to be a rezoning of the front parcel t keep the radio and television zoning district f location of the building did not meet the zonin professional office zoning district it was appropriate. Grimes referred to the s' construction project and how it has that will provide access on eithe Grimes stated they are recomm memo. hat originally this proposal professional offices and rs. However, because the ents for the business and pplying for a PUD would be iscussed the MnDOT Highway 100 is property. He discussed the new road ay 100 for the frontage road system. approval based on the conditions listed in his Pentel asked where the p the bridge and acces KQRS Drive goes to. Grimes stated it goes under age road. Pentel asked if p the City only any new u tion would be an issue in this proposal. Grimes stated that dedication when there is a new use created and there aren't th this proposal. Groge ated ems like this proposal is a benefit to the property owner, but question nefit to the City. Grimes stated that KQRS still uses the towers that are on the Sl and forthem to sell the building and maintain the towers they have to . divide the property. Grimes stated an advantage to the City would be that it gets to keep an office building, with adequate parking. Groger stated that he doesn't feel that it's a benefit to keep the office building where it is, because it's in a bad location. He stated thatthe City has granted KQRS variances in the pastand now they are selling it and trying to get their money out of it and all the City is left with is an office building in a bad location. Grimes stated KQRS is asking the City how they can sell this as an office building and maintain the use of the antennas and the only way they can do it is to apply for a PUD. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14, 2001 Page 20 e He stated that the Commission doesn't have to recommend approval but then the only thing the property could be used for is radio and television. Larry Martin, applicant, stated he didn't have a lot to add to Grimes narrative but stated he brought a number of consultants with him to answer any questions. He stated KQRS is now in the process of trying to mitigate damages arising f the taking and are involved in a lawsuit with MnDOT. He stated the proposal i de to market the building and if the proposal were approved they would be e office building and thereby reduce the damages in the lawsuit. Pentel asked the applicant if they had a neighborhood had not. Grimes clarified that the City just recently swit rezoning to a PUD. Attin stated that they plication from a Eck asked if KQRS ended up moving becaus the situation with MnDOT. Martin stated that the property that was taken by MnDOT. sites in Golden Valley but none of the ed more space or because of of KQRS was to expand onto y had looked at several other Rasmussen asked if the applica regardless of whether or not th antennas to stay where they are approved. Martin stated that was correct. e McAleese referred to so asked what the purpose stated they would be certificate of occu a ires that are coming out of the building and rage being converted into a mechanical unit is. Martin ove the wires to the existing garage, before. a e granted. Lindsay Street stated that what the applicant is proposing wouldn't neighbors. He stated that another office building in the area wouldn't r bother anybody. Renee Bergquist, 5620 Lindsay Street stated she was concerned about what kind of business would go into the building and what kind of hours they would keep. She stated she has concerns about the traffic on her street. Carol Evans, 5525 Lindsay Street stated that she has no problems with the proposal and stated she would like to see the back property kept as it is with the antenn~s because of the wildlife that isthere. Arlene Dietz, 5640 Lindsay Street stated she is also concerned aboutthe traffic and e what kind of business would be on the property. . e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 14,2001 Page 21 Leo Anderson, 5625 Lindsay Street asked if Lindsay Street would tie into the new service road. Dave Rally, MnDOT, stated Lindsay would be tied to Lilac Drive. Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Pentel stated the City couldn't control who leases or buys the ottic stated that any business wanting to move there would have to fi Professional Offices Zoning District. Eck stated the alternative to not approving the PUD woulGl and questioned if that is the highest and best use of the going to vote against the proposal due to the closeness highway. He stated this is nothing that the Commi' situation and that he would rather see it torn d would be more in conformance with the City' City were to go on strict zoning they wouldn't located now. e building down oger stated he is dentiallot line and Id approve in any other e ed in some other way that ode. Grimes stated that if the put a building where it is Shaffer stated that if this proposal would be no way it would get ap used as an office building. e to the Board of Zoning Appeals there e reality is that it's there and it could be MOVED by Shaffer, seco KQRS, Inc. PUD No. 93. proposal. ussen to approve the preliminary design plan of 'ssioners McAleese and Groger voted against the -- Short Recess -- VII. mgs of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City {tjld of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings VIII. Other Business No other business was discussed. IX. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 pm. e e e Hey Planning 763-593-8095 1763-593-8109 (fax) To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes. Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing-Preliminary Design Plan for Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 94-General Mills World Headquarters Campus-1 General Mills Blvd.-General Mills, Applicant Date: June 6,2001 Background General Mills (GM) is requesting a PUD in order to allow for the additional construction of two office buildings totaling about 600,000 sq. ft., an employee service center and a structured parking facility for up to 3000 vehicles at their main campus at 1 General Mills Blvd. There is currently 685,000 sq. ft. of office space on the campus with no structured parking. GM has been located in Golden Valley since the mid-1950's when they moved their headquarters from downtown Minneapolis. Over the years, GM has added buildings and improved the 83.5-acre campus. (Please note that this PUD only covers the GM property south of Betty Crocker Dr. and north of 1-394. The GM property north of Betty Crocker Dr. will not be a part of this PUD. The preliminary plat and final plat submitted with this PUD application mistakenly included the property north of Betty Crocker Dr. These plats will be changed to reflect only the property south of Betty Crocker Dr. when the preliminary design plan goes to the City Council.) The GM campus is designated on the General Land Use Plan Map for Industrial uses that includes offices. The Land Use Plan map also indicates that a portion of the GM campus is designated as a wetland. These wetland areas will have to be protected as part of the overall plan. The Zoning Map designates the GM campus as Industrial. This Industrial zoning permits office space; The site has been designated Industrial since the 1950's when GM acquired the site. If a PUD is granted to GM for this campus, the use of the campus will be limited to those uses existing and planned for the corporate headquarters. In other words, the most "industrial" use permitted by the PUD permit would be test kitchens and the gas service station at the north end of the site. The City has not required a PUD for GM until now although the staff believes that the existing use of the campus qualifies as a PUD. The major construction done on the GM campus predated the PUD ordinance. The plans for additions to the campus now include three new buildings and a parking structure. Even though these buildings are connected by walkways or skyways, the staff and City Attorney see these as separate buildings. Without a PUD, only one principal building can be on one lot. . e There are two stages of approval for every PUD. This is the first, or preliminary design plan stage. The purpose of this stage is two-fold: to give broad concept approval to the proposal and to call out issues that must be addressed in detail as the proposal moves ahead to the General Plan stage. Preliminary plan approval does not guarantee that a proposal will become reality. It gives an applicant some assurance of being on the right track, and some guidance on how to proceed. In the case of the Planning Commission in particular, the limitation of the preliminary plan approval is clearly laid out. City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 6.0 states that: The Planning Commission's consideration of the application shall be limited to a determination of whether the application constitutes an appropriate land use under the general principals and standard adhered to in the City and, if necessary, its report shall include recommended changes in the land use planned by the applicant so as to conform the application or recommend approval subject to certain conditions or modifications. Summary of Proposal GM intends to improve their existing campus by the construction of new office space, an employee service center and a parking structure. The plans also include changes to the internal road system and an additional access point to the site from Betty Crocker Dr. The plan is illustrated on the Overall Site Plan dated May 21,2001. The plans indicate the location of the existing buildings and roads and the location. of new building and roads. The plan is to construct the buildings in two phases. The first phase would include the first stage of the parking structure that would hold 1750 cars, the construction of the 6-story, 324,000 sq. ft. office building along the TH 169 side, and the construction ofthe employee service center. A future phase would include the construction of a second office building that would be 270,000 sq. ft. and a 1200 stall addition on to the parking structure. At the current time, the timing of the second phase is not known. The second office building is planned to be in the 6-9-story height range. The surface parking areas would have to be reconfigured along the north side of the site that will create some new parking. Some surface parking would be lost with the construction of both phases of the parking structure. The site plan indicates that the proposed improvements will meet the City's setback requirements for the Industrial zoning district with only on exception. The existing parking area west of the 10-story Bell Tower is closer than 35 ft. to TH 169. Also, the new road that will be built south of the entrance to the main building will be closer than 35 ft. to TH 169. The new parking area alone Betty Crocker Dr. north of the gas service station will be constructed 35 ft. from Betty Crocker Dr. even though the site plan may indicate that it is closer. The employee service building will be the location of the cafeteria, company store, fitness center, and other services such as the credit union. Currently, these services are now located within the existing buildings. The existing gas station at the north end of the site will also remain. The service station is for both the benefit of employees and the company. e Vehicle repairs are done at this service station. 2 Access to the campus will be about the same as it is today with one additional driveway access from Betty Crocker Dr. There will have to be additional ponding areas on site to meet the requirements of the state and watershed district. . Eligibility of Application PUD's are regulated under City Code Section 11.55. Four subdivisions ofthat sectibn come into play when screening PUD applications for eligibility. Each is discussed below. After considering the GM PUD application in view of all four subdivisions, staff finds that the proposal is eligible and may enter the preliminary design stage of the PUD process. PUD Definition-PUD's are defined in City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 2. This proposal clearly meets the terms of Subd. 2.A.2, which allows PUD's for developments having two or more principal structures on a single parcel of land. In this case, the attached preliminary plat of PUD No. 94 indicates that there will be one lot for all the buildings on the GM campus. PUD Purpose and Intent-Applications must also meet the general purpose and intent of PUD's in Golden Valley as set out in City Code Section 11.55, Subd.1. According to Subd. 1, the PUD process is designed for use in situations "where designation of a single use zoning " district or application of standard zoning provisions are too rigid for practical application." In this case, it would be difficult for the proposed use of this site to be utilized without a PUD due to the clustering of the buildings in the middle of the 83-acre site. The division of the campus into standard lots would be difficult if not impossible. e Standards and Criteria for PUD's-City Code establishes basic requirements for different types of PUD's in Section 11.55, Subd. 5. Industrial uses are discussed in Section 5.C. There are eight items covered under the basic standards for industrial and commercial PUD's. The list is as follows with staff comments: e 1. The tract shall have not less than 100 ft. of frontage on a public street. In this case, the tract has public streets on four sides with well over 100 ft. of frontage. 2. Public water, sewer and fire hydrants must serve the development. Public utilities and hydrants currently serve the site. 3. The surface drainage systems shall be constructed according to a plan approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has reviewed the attached plans and his comments are in his attached memo. 4. The entire site shall be utilized for the PUD. In this case, the entire 83.5 acres is part of the PUD. 5. The off street parking spaces shall be painted on the surface and in a manner approved by the City Council. The final site plans will indicate the location of all parking spaces and they will be painted. 6. Provisions shall be designed for off street loading to service the business and such spaces shall have easy access and not be designated for other uses. The site plan indicates service and loading areas that are only to be used for that purpose. Such loading areas exist on the site today. 7. Private roadways shall be constructed according to a plan approved by the City Engineer as to type and location. The City Engineer has reviewed the site plan and his comments are in his memo. 8. Landscaping shall be provided according to a plan approved by the Council in accordance with City landscape standards. A landscape plan and tree 3 e e e preservation plan has been submitted along with the preliminary design plan. The landscape plan will have to be approved by the Building Board of Review prior to issuance of any building permits. The tree preservation plan will also have to be approved by the City. General Mills has always done an admirable job with the site landscaping on all properties in Golden Valley. Completeness of Application Packet-The final screening of any PUD proposal for eligibility based on City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 6.A, which establishes the various components that must be submitted at the preliminary design stage of application. The City is in possession of each of the items that is outlined in this section of City Code. Planning Considerations The types of issues that come up in connection with PUD applications vary based on the type of development and the specific characteristics of the development. In this case, staff has identified no particular concerns beyond those that generally accompany a PUD application. The staff highlights the following issues: Zoninq- The "Purpose and Intent" paragraph of the PUD requirements make it clear that a major intent of the PUD process is to "permit design flexibility by substantial variances from the provision of the zoning chapter, including uses, setback, height, parking requirements and similar regulations." Thus, to some extent, variances are a given with any PUD; that is part of what the process exists to do for a qualified PUD application. Despite the basic intent of the PUD process with regard to variances, the City must ensure that each proposal does not exceed the bounds of good design practices in the type and extent of variances being requested. To that end, it is useful to have an understanding of how any proposal varies from normal zoning standards. Because this property is located in the Industrial zoning district, the comparison is made to the regulations found in the Industrial zoning district. The following comparison is made with staff comment: 1. Permitted Uses-Offices are considered a permitted use in the Industrial zoning district. 2. Lot width-There is no lot width requirement in the Industrial zoning district. This site is 83.5 acres in area with over 2400 feet of frontage on 1-394. 3. Lot Area-There is no lot area requirement in the Industrial zoning district. This lot is 83.5 acres. 4. Lot coverage-Buildings or structures cannot cover more than 50% of a lot. In this case, only 12% of the site is covered by structures. 5. Building Height-The Industrial zoning district limits height to 45 ft. In this case, the existing Bell building is a 10-story building. The proposed 6-story office building will exceed the 45 ft. height maximum found in the zoning district. Staff believes that this is a good location for taller buildings due to the location near major highways and the small number of buildings on the large campus. Also, there are tall buildings located to the east in St. Louis Park on the west side of TH169. 6. Setbacks-The setback requirement in the Industrial zoning district is met with this PUD application except for where the parking area and new road at the southwest 4 . e corner of the site is closer than 35 ft. to TH 169. The parking area is an existing parking area that is being rebuilt. Prior to the 1-394 expansion in the mid-1990's this area of the GM campus did meet setback requirements. 7 . Parking-The proposed PUD indicates that there will be 3515 parking stalls after the first phase of the construction. If and when the second, 270,000 sq. ft. office building is completed, an additional 1200 parking spaces will be built on to the.structured parking for a total of 4715 spaces. Based on the City's parking requirement of one space for every 250 sq. ft. of office space, the parking requirementwould be 5115 spaces. GM is confident that the 4715 spaces would be more than adequate to meet their parking demand. If additional spaces were needed on site, more surface or structured parking would have to be built. There is more than adequate space on their campus to build more parking. However, staff does not want to see any more parking constructing than is necessary in order to provide more green space and minimize runoff from parking lots. GM plans to have one space for each employee on site. At the current time there are 2000 employees on the campus. The first new office building will add another 1500 employees. GM indicates that there will be 3500 spaces on the campus when the first phase office building and employee service building opens. 8. Access driveways-The proposed site plan exceeds the City's minimum requirements for access driveways. 9. Landscaping-The Zoning Code requires that a landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Building Board of Review. A preliminary landscape plan has been submitted as part of the preliminary design plan. The tree preservation plan must also be submitted and approved by the City of Golden Valley Park Dedication-Because the site is currently developed, the City has not required park dedication. If this were an undeveloped site, the City's policy is to require a park dedication as outlined in the Subdivision Code. EnQineerinQIConstruction Issues-A memo is attached from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, dated June 6, 2001. This memo outlines his recommendations on page 4. These recommendations will be made a part of the recommended approval of the preliminary design plan, Mr. Oliver's memo does indicate that the GM development did have an Environmental Assessment Worksheet done for it as required by state law due to the size of the proposed office additions. The City Council did review the EAW and the Council found that no additional environmental study is needed in order to let the development proceed. The Planning Commission did receive and copy of the EAW and the members may want to review it again for information purposes. GM has committed to the adoption of a traffic management plan to help reduce peak hour trips to and from their site. This will encourage transit use, carpooling,vanpooling, flexible work hours, biking, and other techniques to reduce peak hour traffic. As indicated in the EAW, there is adequate capacity on the local street systems for this additional development with certain improvements. However, any reduction of peak hour trips is helpful to relieve e roads and highways that are already congested at certain times. 5 Public Safety Department Concerns-A memo from Assistant Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated May 30, 2001 is attached for your review. His comments will also be made a part of the overall approval of the preliminary design plan. e Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for the General Mills World Headquarters Campus. The proposed development shows the GM commitment to provide a quality development while still increasing development. GM is located on an underutilized 83.5 acres site that has the capacity for additional development. Even after the development, only 12% of the site will have structures located on it. GM is committed to providing green space and private open space to enhance the overall attractiveness of the corporate headquarters. The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. e 5. 6. The preliminary PUD plans for the General Mills World Headquarters Campus prepared by HGA and dated May 21,2001 shall become a part of this approval. The preliminary and final plat shall be. changed to reflect only that property south of Betty Crocker Dr. The memo and recommendations of City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, dated June 6, 2001 shall become a part of this approval. The memo and recommendations of Assistant Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated May 30, 2001 shall become part of this approval. The day care center for employee's children now provided on the campus may stay in its existing location or be moved to the employee service center. A traffic management plan shall become a part of the final PUD approval. The traffic management plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to final PUD approval. e 6 . e e Memorandum Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) alley Date: June 6, 2001 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Jeff Oliver, PE. City Engineer ~ Preliminary Design Plan Review. General Mills Planned Unit DeveloPment From: Subject: Public Works staff has reviewed the Preliminary Design Plan for the proposed General Mills World Headquarters Campus Planned Unit Development (PUD). The General Mills campus is located north of 1-394, east of Trunk Highway 169, south of Betty Crocker Drive and west of General Mills Boulevard. This proposed PUD consists of adding an additional building and structured parking at the existing General Mills campus. As shown on the plans, the PUD also includes a second new office building and a corresponding increase in the size of the parking ramp. This review focuses on the overall concept of the PUD, and is intended to identify issues that must be addressed with the General Plan review and approval for each phase of development. Preliminary Plat: The Preliminary Plat, titled General Mills Second Addition PUD No. 94, includes the campus area south of Betty Crocker Drive, and additional property between Betty Crocker Drive and Trunk Highway 55. The area north of Betty Crocker Drive is proposed to be platted as two separate lots and blocks, with the existing North Office Building, fronting General Mills Boulevard, on Lot 1, Block 2; and the remaining undeveloped land platted as Lot 1, Block 1. The proposed preliminary plat indicates several existing easements across the General Mills campus. Staff is currently reviewing the status of these easements to determine if they are all still needed. Any easements determined not to be needed will be vacated along with the. final plat for the PUD. Site Plan: The Site Plan reviewed for this PUD includes two new office buildings, a p~rking ramp near the central portion of the site, and reconstruction of several of the existing parking lots and driveways on site. Access to the General Mills Campus is currently provided from two entrances from Betty Crocker Drive and a single entrance from General Mills Boulevard. The PUD includes the addition of a third entrance onto Betty Crocker Drive. This proposed new access is located approximately 480 feet east of the existing driveway (near the service center). Based upon the intersection spacing and sight lines at this location, it appears that the proposed new access is acceptable. . . e General Mills PUD June 6, 2001 Page 2 The Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the PUD included a detailed traffic analysis. The conclusions of the traffic study identified specific traffic improvements that need to be implemented in order to accommodate anticipated traffic increases generated by the PUD. These specific improvements include: 1. Installation of traffic signals at the intersections of General Mills Boulevard and the ramps for Interstate 394. 2. Installation of traffic signals at the intersection of General Mills Boulevard and Betty Crocker Drive. 3. Addition of a second westbound left turn lane on Highway 55 at General Mills Boulevard. 4. Addition of a second southbound through lane on Boone Avenue (General Mills Boulevard) on the north side of Trunk Highway 55. The traffic signal improvements must be installed prior to the occupancy of the first phase of expansion. The proposed improvements at Highway 55 and General Mills Boulevard (Boone Avenue) are not expected to be necessary until the.second phase of expansion is implemented. However, this intersection is already beyond capacity during the morning and afternoon peak periods. Construction of the improvements in a timely manner will help reduce the existing congestion. It is recommended that the turn lanes be added at this intersection as soon as feasible. The General Mills campus includes a number of sidewalks and trails to accommodate pedestrians. The internal pedestrian facilities connect to an existing ag-lime trail on the north side of Betty Crocker Drive and a bituminous trail on the west side of General Mills Boulevard. The current layout requires that pedestrians from within the campus must cross Betty Crocker Drive to go east or west of the site. In order to provide a more complete pedestrian system in the area, it is recommended that the plans be modified to include an eight-foot wide bituminous path on the south side of Betty Crocker Drive between TH 169 and General Mills Boulevard. In addition, the existing trail on the north side of Betty Crocker Drive must be paved as part of the proposed improvements. The proposed improvements within the campus appear to function well and are acceptable as proposed. All reconstructed and new driveways or parking lots within the campus must have concrete curb and gutter installed as required by City code. Grading. Drainage and Erosion Control: This site is located within the mainstem subdistrict of the Bassett Creek watershed. The improvements on site must conform to the Water Quality Policy of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC). Accordingly, the grading plan prepared for the !3eneral Plan submittal must be submitted to the BCWMC for review and approval. No workis to begin on site until the BCWMC approves the plans. G:\Developments-Private\General Mills-Main\PUD\Prelim Design Plan.doc e General Mills PUD June 6, 2001 Page 3 This development must provide nutrient and sediment removal, and rate control ponding consistent with the BCWMC policies. Detailed drainage plans and computations for the pond sizing must be submitted with the General Plan submittal for the first phase of expansion. Based upon preliminary computations that were previously submitted, it appears that the ponding shown on the site is adequate to meet the BCWMC requirements. The applicant must confirm that the storm water ponds along 1-394, which were constructed by MNDOT as part of that project, are sized adequately to accommodate rate control and water quality for the campus. This site is also subject to the City of Golden Valley grading, drainage and erosion control ordinance. Accordingly, a final grading plan, prepared to City standards, must be submitted with the General Plan application. No work is to begin on site until the City permit has been issued. This project will also require a MPCA Storm Water Discharge Permit. A copy of the application form, and a copy of the permit once obtained, must be provided to the City. This expansion appears to impact the 1 DO-year floodplain associated with Bassett Creek. Any filling performed within the floodplain must comply with the BCWMC requirements regarding floodplain. A detailed cut/fill diagram and volume computations for floodplain must be included in General Plan submittals. e Utilities: The City of Golden Valley currently owns and maintains a trunk water main that passes along the western perimeter of the site. This trunk water main enters the General Mills campus near the TH 169 ramps and Betty Crocker Drive and parallels the highway to the south. This water main passes beneath 1-394 as it leaves the site on the southern boundary. All other water mains within the campus are private water mains that are owned and maintained by General Mills. Accordingly, all new water mains shown on the plans for construction with this expansion will also be owned and maintained by General Mills. Sanitary sewer service is provided to the General Mills campus via one public sewer main and one private main. General Mills owns and maintains a main that serves most of the office portion of the campus. This sewer main is in the vicinity of the main campus entrance from General Mills Boulevard. The City of Golden Valley has a 12-inch main on the northern portion of the site that provides service to the General Mills service station. General Mills is proposing to extend this main westward to provide sewer service to the new office buildings. This extension will be owned and maintained by General Mills. e The existing City sanitary sewer has a history of maintenance issues that must be resolved prior to use for the proposed extensions. The maintenance issues include a protruding service tap near the gas station, and a severe pipe settlement near the northeast corner of the site. General Mills must provide a television inspection of this sewer line to the Department of Public Works as soon as possible. Public Works staff will review this inspection and determine what repairs and improvements must occur to this main in order to provide the proposed service. General Mills will be responsible for making any needed repairs as part of the expansion work. G:\Developments-Private\General Mills-Main\PUD\Prelim Design Plan.doc e General Mills PUD June 6, 2001 Page 4 Final utility plans must be included with the General Plan submittal for the PUD. The City will review the proposed plans for final placement of mains, valves, hydrants, manholes and other appurtenances as part of the General Plan review. Tree Preservation: General Mills submitted a Tree Preservation Plan for review with the Preliminary Design Plan. This plan is acceptable in concept. However, a final Tree Preservation Plan must be submitted with the General Plan for the PUD. This final plan must be prepared in accordance with City standards. Summary and Recommendation: . Public Works staff has reviewed the plans for the proposed General Mills Campus Planned Unit Development. This PUD includes addition of office buildings and a parking ramp. Based upon this review, staff finds the Preliminary Design Plan to be acceptable in concept and recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Final grading, utility and tree preservation plans must be included as part of the General Plan submittal for the PUD. These plans must be prepared in accordance with the e standards and specifications of the Golden Valley Department of Public Works. 2. The traffic signal improvements outlined within this report must be constructed prior to occupancy of Phase 1 of the campus expansion. The recommended revisions to TH 55 and General Mills Boulevard/Boone Avenue must be constructed as soon as possible. 3. General Mills provides a videotape of the sanitary sewer inspection on the city owned 12-inch pipe on the north end of the site. General Mills will be responsible for any repairs or upgrades of this line, prior to occupancy of the Phase 1 improvements, based upon the results of this inspection. 4. An eight-foot wide trail must be provided on the south side of Betty Crocker Drive between TH 169 and General Mills Boulevard. In addition, the existing ag-lime trail on the north side of Betty Crocker Drive must be paved as part of these improvements. 5. Subject to the review and comments of the Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Planner and other City staff. Please feel free to call me Jf you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Joe Paumen, Engineering Technician Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Gary Johnson, Building Official Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal e G:\Developments-Private\General Mills-Main\PUD\Prelim Design Plan.doc . Memorandum To: Dan Olson, City Planner From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Date: May 30,2001 Re: PUD 94 General Mills 2nd Addition Comments Listed below are the plan review comments for the General Mills site plan for the PUD 94 comments. e 1) Fire Department access road shall be maintained during construction and the road shall designed to be all weather driving capabilities. The road shall also. design to support the weight of fire.truck and be available for use by the fire departm~nt at all times. 2) Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Code and the requirements of the City Golden Valley's city engineer office. 3) All access roads shall be provided no less than 45 foot inside turning radius. 4) Fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with provision for turning around ottire apparatus. 5) The fire department access to the existing three-story building has been terminated on the East of the building. The new fire department access road and access shall be on the South Side of the building. The canopy located on the South Side shall be a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches. The fire access road shall be a minimum 20 feet wide. 6) Posting of "No Parking Fire Lanes" signs shall be posted throughout the site/complex in accordance with the City Of Golden Valley City Ordinance and the Golden Valley Fire Department Standards. 7) The future office. building on the North End of the complex shall have a fire department access road around the building and installed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. . 1 June 5, 2001 . 8) Relocation of fire department sprinkler / standpipe system connections maybe required for fire department access for fire personnel; and fire apparatus. 9) Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Code and the City of Golden Valley's City Engineer for the parking ramps. 10) Fire Department access to the parking ramps shall be in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. If there are any questions please call me at 763-593-8065 e e 2