Loading...
06-25-01 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, June 25, 2001 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - May 21,2001 Joint Meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission; June 11, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - Carousel Porsche Audi - P.U.D. No. 95 Applicant: Carousel Automobiles Address: Property west of 8989 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The P.U.D. would allow for the construction of a new Carousel Porsche Audi automobile dealership on property formerly owned by General Mills. -- Short Recess -- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings IV. Other Business V. Adjournment \ e Discussion of Golden Valley Section 11.55 of the City C Mayor Anderson asked City Att Ordinance and then for the cons of the suggested ch Minutes Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room May 21,2001 7:00 p.m. " e A joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission. Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden V e Minnesota, on Monday, May 21, 2001. The meeting was Anderson at 7:00 p.m. he Golden Iden Valley, by Mayor Mary Those present were Mayor Anderson, Council Me Commissioners Eck, Pentel, McAleese, Groger, Council Member Bakken was absent. Also pr Planning and Development, Dan Olson, City recording secretary Lisa Wittman. ns ,LeSuer, Micks, and Hoffman and Shaffer. < e Mark Grimes, Director of nner,'.'lIen Barnard, City Attorney and I. ..,,.it Development (P .U.D.) Ordinance - lien Barnard to give a brief history of the existing PUD potential changes and then try to list the pros and e Barnard stated that had ever used its PU Plan from 1973 1982, the La stage with . discussed study as. Barnard s , e Ordinance was originally approved in 1970 and was designed as if it were for large-scale developments in new developing communities. He stated that in 1982, the PUD Ordinance was substantially revised and the language in the Ordinance, and in the PUD Permit, was tightened up. He stated that at various times over the years the flexibility and scope of the Ordinance has increased. He stated that there is always a legal issue as to whether or not a PUD is really a zoning ordinance or not, or whether or not it's kind of an overlay, whether it's more like a conditional use permit or is more like establishing a real zone for an area. He stated that many city's PUD ordinances provide that it doesn't change the underlying zoning and for many years Golden Valley did not change its underlying zoning because of the language in the PUD Ordinance. He stated that for the last several years Golden Valley has changed the underlying zoning when necessary. go the question was raised whether or not Golden Valley e for housing projects. Barnard referred to the Land Use referred to PUD's for residential use even then. He stated that in lked about how Golden Valley had reached a fully developed ining for residential, commercial or industrial usage and again PUD's. He stated that at that time, Valley Square and Golden Hills were ( Minutes of the Joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting May 21,2001 Page 2 Barnard stated that many of us have been critics of Golden Valley's use of the PUD and questioned when it's supposed to be used. He stated that the PUD Ordinance has provided the City with flexibility because zoning codes don't have any flexibility at all. He stated that in Golden Valley the PUD Ordinance started out as a tool to handle large developments, but it does give the City a tool, which provides flexibility to deal with new development. He stated that for this reason, he doesn't have a lot of changes to the PUD Ordinance. e LeSuer asked when the original laws were passed, was i behind them and if PUD's are a suburban tool. Barnar history, but thought that both developers and cities were PUD's are used both in cities and suburban areas development. Pentel stated that the PUD tool suburban areas in development and redevelo Rasmussen asked if economic pressure rs is an underlying factor. She referred to the Hidden Lakes Develop asked if that had to be a PUD and why it couldn't just have been developed homes without having to use the PUD Ordinance. Barnard said that de uldn't have been developed the way it was without a PUD. Pentel stated t was already a PUD there because of the mixed use e with the respiratory care fac' . idential together. Rasmussen asked if the high price of land is driving the use es stated that the overall density of Hidden Lakes is less than three units per ich is less than the normal single family zoning district and the PUD was used t slopes and wetlands and to create ponding among other things. read, she's noticed Mayor Anderson stated that in the other city's PUD Ordinances there was always some accommodation for flexibility. :i' ities, or both that was fCln't know that kind of b ehind the laws and that uSe and commercial equally used in cities and ond sentence of the Golden Valley PUD Ordinance. He asked e ordinance are supposed to be part of every PUD. BarnC;lrd f the ordinance that Eck referred to is a part of the purpose clause e. It is just a statement of what the overall purpose is. Eck referred finition section, item two where it states that one of the ways a PUD can elopments is if there are two or more principal structures on a single parcel of land. He stated that it didn't seem to him that the purpose of the PUD Ordinance was to permit the development of large and expensive, single family homes on lots in a higher density configuration than what would otherwise be permitted under normal zoning. He gave the example of the Lions Park Development where the developer wanted to put more homes on that parcel than would be permitted under normal zoning. The Planning Commission said it would not be a proper use of the PUD Ordinance and he came back with a less dense configuration. He asked if in fact, the Commission and the Council agree that the intent and purpose of the PUD is not supposed to be used for the economic benefit of the developer. He asked if they could put some language in the Ordinance that _ would discourage developers from putting large homes on small parcels of land where the ., developer couldn't do it without a PUD. He asked what purpose it serves for the City to put these million dollar homes on parcels of land that would otherwise not be able to be developed with that large of a structure on it. . j e e e Minutes of the Joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting May 21,2001 Page 3 Groger stated that sometimes it is appropriate to use a PUD in certain situations that are at odds with the zoning code and setbacks. He used the example of clustering the homes in order to save some trees or gain some green space or a pond. He stated that on the Lions Park Development there was no other purpose than the economic benefit to the developer, but in other instances there are times where the City might want to have flexibility. Barnard stated that large and expensive homes aren't factors that~re in the PUD Ordinance or in any laws. He stated that the current Land U n presumes using residential PUD's and talks about clustering homes and using of housing, which Hidden Lakes does. Pentel referred to page 301 of the St. Louis Park PUD Or e it states that an applicant for a PUD seeking modifications to the codes trate how the proposal will enhance, support and further a set of listed s. Pentel stated she noticed in several of the ordinances that developerf~! ired to have a packet that is much more complete at the Planning Commis . e what Golden Valley requires. She referred to Brooklyn Center's rairie's Ordinances and discussed what they require from applicants. Shaffer asked if there would be any w Commission, prior to the 60-day rul what they are thinking. Barnard also like to seethe applicant's i is some danger in that beca like giving them the go a out ideas and details. icants could come to the Planning ct, to show the Commission an idea of what staff does. LeSuer stated he would he eginning of the proposal. Pentel stated there f the details are known in the beginning and that is ed that it is better placed with the city staff to sort Micks discussed the the tone for why U stated he liked t the City's co rk Ordinance and stated she really liked it because it sets equired. LeSuer referred to the Eden Prairie Ordinance and ated it was in harmony with the goals, purpose and intent with plan. e 297 in the St. Louis Park Ordinance where it states, no PUD shall roperty located in the single family residence district. Anderson stated she think ight be too limiting and stated that she has apprehension in setting up too many strict rules and guidelines which would then not enable the City to do something different and creative. Grimes stated that the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning district should be looked at before the PUD process and then the effect on the neighborhood would already be known. Barnard stated that right now the comprehensive plan and rezoning is changed at the General Plan Approval stage. Rasmussen stated she would like to see applicants show the scale of the project because it's hard for citizens to envision what the developments are going to look like. Micks asked if the City requires the applicant to do a traffic study. Grimes stated that he thought it should depend on the scale of the project. " Minutes of the Joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting May 21, 2001 Page 4 l' LeSuer stated that he thinks the Planning Commission and Council have to be able to tell people, when they question changes in their neighborhood, why a proposal is a benefit to the City and that it's not just for a developers financial gain. Pentel stated thpt PUD's are about erasing the rules and trying a new way, however, she feels it js up to the applicant to justify how the erasing of the rules is going to be a benefit to the City. Grimes stated that developers, if they can, avoid doin . Dand for the most part, try to do normal zoning. e uld like to see any kind of rewriting of the PUD ordinance involve a d stated that the benefits of what the City is getting needs to be ere is a perception that PUD's help the developer. Rasmussen stated that maybe best way to educate the community would be to state why the City is approving the project and what the City is getting and to reiterate the positives. Olson stated that as part of the education process the City could require a neighborhood meeting in the ordinance. ys there has to 2297 in the e stated he liked the hing and everything. Pentel referred to page 2299 in the Maplewood Ordinance be written justification for any PUD deviations. Groger re Maplewood Ordinance and stated he liked the purpose idea of a more clear purpose for a PUD so it's not just 0 Johnson stated that she noticed in a couple of t to aesthetics and that PUD's should be comp She stated she thinks it's important to put so about aesthetics and design compatibilit . she read that they referred the design of the neighborhood. the Golden Valley Ordinance ing houses. Grimes stated that there is no prope could put townhomes. He stated there is no other method to use Valley. ed in Golden Valley where a developer s forced developers to use PUD's and that to put them if we want town homes in Golden e McAleese referred to Sub standards and stated that we can do PUD's in t stated the langua e issue of building that was pro Iden Valley Ordinance where it talks about general the problems with providing flexibility is that the City says reas. It doesn't say PUD's can be done everywhere. He updated. Eck asked why Subd. 5 doesn't address the townhomes and only refers to apartments. Barnard stated that nguage from the 1970's and should be updated. Grimes asked, "what does the City get?" mean. Pentel stated that if the City had a living comprehensive plan and a living vision for the City that it would be easier to site in the proposals what the City is getting. Shaffer stated that citizens complain that the developer gets everything and the only thing _ that the City gets is tax dollars. He stated that if a developer is providing something above ., and beyond just getting something for themselves, then it is a benefit to the City. " e e e Minutes of the Joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting May 21,2001 Page 5 Rasmussen asked how the Planning Commission, without making it a combative situation, could say to people at public hearings that these are the kinds of things the Commission would consider; Anderson stated that if they stuck to the land use issues as the ordinance says, that would help. Barnard stated the reason the Planning Commission looks at PUD's in the preliminary design stage only, is because the Planning Commission's job is to look at the land use element and not to have to worry about the other details. He stated if the public discussion was limited to just the land use, it would be a lot easier for them. Anderson suggested that the Planning Commission say right up ublic hearings what they are able to consider and recommend, however, com be limited, they can be noted and passed on to the Council as recommend a . ommission is not responsible for responding to all the public comments. Pentel stated that in no other ordinances she looked at Commissioners hands being tied to looking only at,t!~e la Planning Commission were to only look at land use'lffe. the public hearing process. lanning u ; he stated if the Id be doing a disservice to She stated she also noticed in other ordinan Planning Commission more information' found at the Planning Commission st gotten to the Council stage. She st issue people would get very frus other issues except at the Cou tied then it's a very perfunc ore the proposal comes to the stated that often times issues are not get the same hearing had they the Commission only stuck to the land use e there would be no place to talk about tings and if the Planning Commissioners hands are along of the status quo. McAleese agreed with Pe increase the scope 0 where the Planning C Micks stated she ordinance. stated that in the ordinances he's read the trend was to . g Commission review. He referred to several other cities ~ is more involved. lIy like to go in the same direction as St. Louis Park's ~he concept of a PUD is not the same thing as regular zoning and that es only testifies about all the variances in a proposal and doesn't look o what the city is getting. Anderson asked staff to list the changes that have been discussed and suggested another meeting to list the pros and cons and to go over the proposed changes to the existing PUD Ordinance. Below is the list of the items that were discussed: . Findings required in Eden Prairie . Need for alternative housing, i.e. townhomes . Applicant demonstrative of how they will meet city objectives (page 301 of St. Louis Park code) . Brooklyn Center (page 47), Eden Prairie page (11-42) both give more specific information for preliminary plan . Require pre-app'lication discussion in front of Planning Commission meeting? . Tension between needing more criteria, but not limiting creativity/flexibility Minutes of the Joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting May 21,2001 Page 6 r e . Developers should show scale of the development . City of Maplewood (page 2299) justification of PUD . City of Maplewood (page 2298) purpose section . Aesthetic criteria so the proposal fits in neighborhood . PUD's only in "transitional areas" - revise language . Subd. 5 - "onlv apartments" - revise language The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 e e l ~ . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 11, 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, June 11, 2001. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Purpose: leese, Rasmussen s, City Planner Dan Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Hoff and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Olson and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman I. Approval of Minutes - May 14, 2001 Planning Commiss Eck stated that page 17 is out of order and that the disc after. have been before the motion, not MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Eck and motio minutes with the above change. mously to approve the May 14, 2001 II. e Informal Public Hearing - Prelimi Plan - General Mills - P .U.D. No. 94 Applicant: General Mills, In Address: w for the expansion of General Mills existing office facilities, ns ruction of new office buildings and parking ramps. Due to a potentiate chambers and did st Commissioners Shaffer and Hoffman removed themselves from the art in the discussion and/or action on this agenda item. Director of Pia evelopment Mark Grimes presented the applicant's request for the construction of tW buildings totaling about 800,000 sq. ft. He showed the general location and the site plan. He ~~~ted the property General Mills .is on right now is zoned .1ndustrialand both office and industrial uses~re allowed in this Zoning District. Grimes clarified that this proposal is only for the area south of Bettyerocker Drive and stated. that he has asked. theapplic811t to anlend the plat to reflect this before it goe~t~the City Council. Grimes stated that the currentGen~ralrv1i11s property l~ not a PUD, but the proP8sed>expansion includes new buildings and a parking structure connected by walkways,which.thestaff~ndCity Attorney see as separate buildings.and without a PUp, only one principal building carlbe on one lot. Grimes stated the land Use Plan.~asalso designated this area as Industrial, so therefore,..the uses planned for this expansion are consistent with both the land Use Plan eMaP and the Zonin~ Map. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 11. 2001 Page 2 e Grimes referred to the site plan and showed where the proposed new office buildings and parking structure will be. He stated they are proposing to add another driveway off of Betty Crocker Drive and stated the City Engineer doesn't have any concerns with that. Grimes stated that this proposal does qualify as a PUD because of the number of buildings on the property. He stated it meets the required area, lot width, and lot coverage. He stated that the building height in the Industrial Zoning District is typically limited to 45 feet and referred to the existing Bell building, which i O-story building. He stated the proposed 6-story office building would exceed the 45400t hei Grimes discussed the setbacks in the Industrial District and stated t here the setbacks aren't met in this proposal is in the southwest corner along TH16 rking area, which already exists, but is being rebuilt. Grimes discussed the parkirlK ts and stated that the proposed PUD indicates that there will be 3500 parking stalls aft phase of construction and after the second office building is completed another 1200 '11 be added for a total of 4700 spaces. He stated that based on the City's parking re 'f~;_~pt pace for every 250 square feet of office space, the parking requirement would be 5115 ces. herefore, they have a little bit less parking than what would be required under normal zo es stated he is confident that the amount of parking that they are proposing woul rking demand. He stated that General Mills would be doing a traffic management pi y have adequate space on their campus to build more parking if necessary. Grimes st g ected to .indicate in his staff report that this proposal is within the 1-394 zoning overl ever, it does not qualify to require a traffic .. management plan because it doesn't ensity requirement which is 6/10 of square foot of office-' space for every square foot of land ated that General Mills is however, committed to creating a traffic management plan due th rns expressed in the EAW. Grimes stated that a landsca tree preservation and gra City. ave to be approved by the Building Board of Review and a n control plan would have to be submitted and approved by the Grimes stated that as indicated that they would put in traffic signals at their main entrance on Betty C ive and General Mills Boulevard and along the entrances to 1-394 and at Boone Avenu d H ay 55. Grimes stated that the traffic reports done by the City's traffic engineer and General Mil ngineer did indicate that there is capacity in the system with the improvements that a eing proposed at these intersections. He stated that they've met with the Metropolitan Council and they've also confirmed that there is capacity on the local street system, but they. had concerns about the mainlines and freeways, but at this point in time there is nothing the local government can do other than note that there is an issue for the Metropolitan Council for future decisions about the metropolitan road system. Grimes stated he is recommending approval along with the conditions listed in his report, the City Engineer's report and the Deputy Fire Marshal's report. e . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 11, 2001 ege3 Eckreferred to the EAW and stated it made a point of improving the Highway 55 and Boone Avenue intersection. He stated that the City Engineer's report stated that the improvements mustbe done as soon as possible. He asked what is involved in getting it done and if it could drag onfor years. Grimes stated that because it is a State highway, MnDot has to approve the plans, which takes time and that funding is also an issue. Groger referred to the roa corner of the proposed n stated that there wou visitor parking for t was also going to b would be a m ent proposing any c but no exterior chan d for the additional e a need for a slight seeking any public this project. Pentel Pentel asked if there would be adequate right-of-way for the additional I lane going north. Grimes stated that the City believes that there is, but increase on the north side, but nothing significant. Pentel asked if subsidies for this proposal. Grimes stated they are looking at tax, asked Grimes to explain tax abatement. Kenneth Horns, Civil Engineer, HGA, Architect and Engine~~1 any questions the Commission might have. Pentel asked Horns if any computer images have bee building would look like in relation to the existin and that more complete images would be sub page of their proposal, which shows two co .e existing buildings and the proposed Pentel asked where the 1 OO-year fl showed the 1 OO-year floodplain t stated there is an elevation establ" t would show what the height of the rns stated that some have been done of the next phase. He referred to the cover ges of the General Mills Campus and discussed eing impacted. Horns referred to a diagram, which s g Bassett Creek north of Betty Crocker Drive. He 88.5 that the watershed is managing. und the southwest corner of the property up to the southwest g and asked if that is a garage entrance or a loading 'dock. Horns entrance on the lower level for executive parking and also some nd a drop-off/delivery point for the main entry. Groger asked if there :.off point at the new employee service center. Horns stated that there bt:>y, bus stop and a drop-off/delivery point there. Grogerasked if they are r the existing buildings. Horns stated that there would be some remodeling, s are planned. Pentel opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one Pentelclosed the public hearing. MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the P.U.D. to allow for the expansion of General Mills existing office facilities, including the construction of new office buildings and parking ramps with the conditions listed in the staff reports. tiommissioners Hoffman and Shaffer returned to the dais. -- Short Recess -- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 11,2001 Page 4 -- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Shaffer gave an update from the Board of Zoning Appeals. He discussed the Perkins request and stated that they decided to grant their variance requests, but not to let the e two buildings on the site during construction. A. Presentation of Telecommunications research - B IV. Other Business Bill Thibault, Thibault Associates, gave a review of his Telec," ations Towers and Antennas Study and Ordinance. He discussed the history of the 1 ation Act of 1996 and stated that local zoning controls and local rights-of-way are left i ct e though the Telecommunications Act is a Federal Law. He stated that the demand for servic as i eased and the technology has changed, so therefore, more facilities are going to be nee .~ ed to page 5 of his report and showed an antenna on top of an electrical tower and dis rious places where antennas can be placed. Pentel asked for a ballpark figure usually about $12,000 to $15,000 t , djacent cities and discussed Golden Valley's e nity should have a tailor made ordinance. Thibault reviewed several ordinances fro current Ordinance. He stated that each earned from these towers. Thibault stated that it is cities water towers for antennas. Eck referred to Thibault's rep tower. Thibault stated tha . ed if above mean sea level meant the height of the top of the ground. Pentel asked what should have a strate of what's most ort next. Olson sug IS in rewriting Golden Valley's Ordinance. Thibault stated that the City 'on where they go through a brainstorming process and a ranking process o what's least important. There was a discussion of when people should meet Iy 9,2001. B. Discussion of Planning Commission ethics information from National APA Conference, New Orleans and information from C. Gregory Dale Olson referred to the ethics materials he gave to the Commissioners. Pentel asked the Commissioners if there were any issues the Planning Commission needs to address. Eck commented on initial and ongoing training. Pentel asked Olson if he had copies of the handouts that new commissioners receive. He stated he did. e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 11, 2001 ege5 C. Planning Commission Round Table hosted by the City of Richfield, September 11,2001 Olson stated that Golden Valley received an invitation from the City of Richfield to attend a round table discussion on the following topics: how development is affecting our communities, how this has posed new challenges and roles for planning commissions, the role of the plannin commission in community development, community engagement, community education and the pia mmission, interaction and relation of the planning commission to the city council. D. Discussion of July 9, 2001 Planning Commission m Olson stated that there would be a regular Planning Commissio discussed a few months ago that there would be a City Co 'I. changed. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 e e n July 9, 2001, It was ing on July 9, but that has been . e e ~ j' Hey Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Planning Commission Dan Olson, City Planner From: Subject: Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan for Carousel Porsche Audi, P.U.D. No. 95, Property located just west of 8989 Wayzata Boulevard, Carousel Automobiles, Applicant Date: June 20, 2001 Background This Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary Design Plan is the first step that the applicant needs to take in order to gain approval for the construction of a new Carousel Porsche/Audi automobile dealership on property formerly owned by General Mills. A location map is attached showing the location of the proposed PUD. The PUD process will now begin to establish the exact requirements under which the development would be built and operated. There are two stages of approval for a PUD proposal. This is the first, or the 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 of Development stage. Preliminary Plan approval does not guarantee that a proposal will become reality. It gives the applicant some assurance of being on the right track, and some guidance in how to proceed. In the case otthe Planning Commission, in particular, the limitations of Preliminary Plan approval are clearly laid out. City Code Sec. 11.55, 6.0 provides 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 standards 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 Carousel Porsche/Audi is requesting a PUD for a development that contains two buildings for an automobile dealership. This dealership will replace the existing Carousel Porsche Audi ~~ currently located just.~t of this property at 8989 Wayzata Boulevard. According to the applicant, this existing dealership will be leased to another automobile dealership. The overall development is 9.87 acres. It is located south of Interstate 394 and east of State Highway 169. Attached is a copy of the site plans. Each building would house the sales offices and service areas for Porsche and for Audi. The Porsche building is 13,400 square feet in size and the Audi building is 38,000 square feet in size. The applicant has stated that they may enlarge the Audi building by adding an additional 1, 760 square feet of building space to the north side of the building. This addition would eliminate the 19 parking spaces on the north side of that building. The underlying zoning classification for this property is Industrial. The parking space requirements for that zoning district are as follows: at least one (1) parking space for each three (3) employees, plus at least one (1) parking space for each 1,000 square feet of automotive display area (inside and out). Based on these requirements, 126 parking spaces would be required. The site plans show these requirements are being met. In addition, the applicant is providing for 477 outside parking spaces for automobile display. Since this development fronts on two state highways, the site plans were forwarded to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for their review and comments. To date, those comments have not been received. Also, since the property abuts St. Louis Park's boundary, a copy of the Hearing Notice for the Planning Commission meeting was sent to the City of St. Louis Park. Eligibility of Application City Code Section 11.55 regulates PUD's. Four subdivisions of Sec. 11.55 come into play when screening PUD applications for eligibility. Staff has reviewed these eligibility requirements and found that the proposed development qualifies as a PUD. Therefore, the proposal may enter the preliminary design phase. PUD Definition This development clearly meets the terms of Subd. 2(A)(5) that "developments having two or more principal use structures located on two or more lots in single or multiple ownership, provided the combined area totals one or more acres and the plan submitted includes the entire area to which the planned unit will apply". PUD Purpose and Intent Applications must also meet the general purpose and intent of PUD's in Golden Valley as set out in Section 11.55 Subd. 1. Staff believes the purpose and intent have been met. , Carousel is proposing a PUD for this site because the PUD offers "an optional method of land use regulations which permit design flexibility by substantial variances from the provisions of the Zoning Code, including uses, setbacks, height, parking requirements and similar regulations". Standards and Criteria for PUD's City Code establishes basic requirements for different types of PUD's in Sec. 11.55, Subd. 5. Business and Industrial uses are discussed in Subd. 5 (C). There are eight items covered under the basic standards for these types of PUD's. Staff will comment on each of the eight items: 2 . e e . e e 1. All business or industrial PUD's must have at least 100 feet of frontage on a public street. This development has approximately 1,024 feet of frontage on Miller Street. The development also fronts on Interstate 394 to the north and State Highway 169 to the west. 2. Public sewer and water must serve all developments. Fire hydrants must be installed according to a plan approved by City staff. Please refer to the attached memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE to Mark Grimes, dated June 20, 2001. Also, refer to a memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, to Dan Olson, dated June 18, 2001. 3. The surface drainage system shall be constructed according to a plan approved by the. City Engineer as to the type of materials used and location of facilities. Please refer to the attached memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE to Mark Grimes, dated June 20, 2001 for comments on the drainage system for the site. 4. The entire site shall be utilized for the PUD. This requirement has been met. 5. The off-street parking spaces shall be painted on the surfaced area according to a plan which has received approval of the Council. This requirement will be met. 6. Provisions shall be designed for off-street loading to service the business and such space shall have easy access and not be designated for any other use. 7. Private roadways within the project shall.be constructed according to a plan approved by the City Engineer as to type and location. This development has no private roadways. 8. Landscaping shall be provided according to a plan approved by the Council in accord with the City landscape standards. In addition it shall include a detailed planting list with sizes indicated. The applicant has submitted a Woodland Survey, Tree Preservation Plan, and a Preliminary Landscape Plan as part of the Preliminary PUD Plan. Please refer to the attached memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE to Mark Grimes, dated June 20, 2001 for comments on these plans for the site. Completeness of Application Packet Staff has determined that the packet and application submitted by Carousel Automobiles is complete. Planning Considerations The types of issues that come up in connection with PUD applications can vary based on the PUD type and on specific characteristics of each PUD. In this case, staff has identified no particular concerns beyond those that generally accompany business or industrial PUD's. They can be grouped into the categories of zoning trade-offs, park dedication, and miscellaneous engineering/constructions issues. Each category will be addressed in the following paragraphs: Zonina The "Purpose and Intent" paragraph of the City's PUD requirements make it clear that a major intent of the PUD process is to "permit design flexibility by substantial variances from the provisions of the zoning chapter, including uses, setback, height, parking requirements, and similar regulations." Thus, to some extent, variances are a given with any PUD request. 3 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 extent, it is useful to have an understanding of how any proposal varies from the normal zoning standards. Staff would like to point outthat the site plan shows a zero foot setback along Miller Street for a parking area in front of the Audi building. This area would be used to create an automobile display which would be located up to the southern property line along Miller Street. Normally, a 35 foot setback is required for parking areas along a right of way. The City's 1-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance is in effect for those developments which contain more than .6 square feet of gross floor area per each square foot of land area within a lot or parcel. Since the proposed buildings on the site do not meet these square footage requirements, the Ordinance's regulations are not applicable. . Park Dedication As a commercial development, the Carousel Porsche Audi PUD is subject to the City's park dedication requirement of land or its equivalent cash value. The plans show no land reserved for a public park within the development. The staff will wor.k with the City Attorney to determine an appropriate fee park dedication fee. Enqineerinq/Construction Issues Comments from the Public Works and Inspections Department are attached. Since specific construction details generally do not come up until quite late in the development process, the e comments of the Inspections Department are brief. Traffic According to City Engineer Jeff Oliver, this development would not generate enough traffic to have any negative impact on the area. The existing local street system has the capacity to handle the additional trips generated by an automobile dealership. Staff Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Carousel Porsche Audi PUD No. 95. The recommended approval is subject to the following recommendations: 1. Any park dedication recommendation the city staff deems appropriate. 2. The recommendations of City Engineer Jeff Oliver as found in his memo dated June 20,2001 become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations of Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall, as found in his memo dated June 18, 2001 become a part of this approval. 4. All signs for the Carousel Porsche Audi development shall meet the requirements for automobile dealerships in the Industrial zoning district. 5. The notation of "P.U.D. No. 95" shall be made a part of the plat name. e 4 . e e 6. Proof of recording for the plat must be provided to the City before any construction permits are issued. Attachments: Location Map Memo to Mark Grimes from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated June 20, 2001 Memo to Dan Olson from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated June 18, 2001 Oversized Site Plans (11 sheets) 5 e · 7S)i4-'-, r----r-'11"" 1- f---f ~ I~ f-- I --I 1 f- T Lj'lI1J-LIID ~, ---! (----r---t '-J i r--, i ---j 1- ,---i ~1 ~-=l~l ~~,~-w . ____''/ r ~LL1J 11l~~H . ---/ / , i i~ ~ ! ,-----.J c, i I t,"', --~-", i 1'-----,- ,I N ' ! I j I I. i I ,\ I ! I - ,'-~-\ ~ r---1 .'. ;,_-1-----1 \ L-J L-l - , i Ii-------;, " ' i I I' I ! ' ! f-----( I -] lLJ tD:=;J ). rilI1 ~ e e . .. Memorandum Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Date: June 20, 2001 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Jeff Oliver, PE, City Enginee~ Preliminary Plan Review: Carousel Automobiles Planned Unit Development From: Subject: Public Works staff has reviewed the preliminary plans that were submitted for the proposed Carousel Automobiles Planned Unit Development. This proposed development is located south of Interstate 394 and east of US Highway 169. This review discusses the issues that have been identified that must be addressed as part of the development. Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat must include the locations of al/ existing and proposed easements on the site. Flag Avenue South is adjacent to this PUD on the east side of the property. This portion of Flag Avenue was recently vacated by the City and is being conveyed to the property owner. Therefore, the vacated Flag Avenue right-of-way must be incorporated into the plat. The existing water main easement along the north and west property lines of Lot 1, Block 1, should be vacated when the final plan is approved. This easement must be replaced with a drainage and utility easement that extends ten feet to the south and east of the water main. This drainage and utility easement must be shown on the preliminary and final plats. A drainage and utility easement must be dedicated over both ponds to a point one foot above the 1 OO-year water elevation. Preliminary Site Plan: The preliminary site plan shows that curbing and pavement will be placed in the water main easement along the north and west property lines of Lot 1, Block 1. Should utility work ever need to be done in that easement, the City of Golden Valley will not be responsible for any curb or pavement replacement. G:\Developments-Private\Carousel Automobiles\Review1.doc " " Carousel Automobiles June 20, 2001 Page 2 e The site plan must be modified to identify truck access to and from the site. This is needed to insure that adequate turning radii are provided to minimize truck maneuvering that could potentially impact traffic. It is anticipated that this proposed PUD will not have any negative impact to traffic patterns in this area. This is based upon the capacity of the existing roadways and the trip generation patterns for automobile dealerships. In all cases where proposed driveways are to cross existing sidewalks, pedestrian ramps will need to be installed to City standards. Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan: This proposed development is within the mainstem subdistrict of the Bassett Creek Watershed. Based on the size of the project, it will be subject to the Water Quality Policy for Bassett Creek. The Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan must be approved by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission prior to beginning any work on site. The developer will also be required to obtain a City of Golden Valley Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control permit prior to beginning work on site. The grading plan submitted for review for the General Plan must be revised to address the following issues prior to issuance of the City permit: e 1 ) The City of Golden Valley Engineering Standards require that existing topography extend a minimum of 100 feet beyond a proposed development. The preliminary Grading Plan for this site does not meet this requirement. 2) The outlets from the ponds must be submerged outlets in order to provide the skimming required by the BCWMC Water Quality Policy. A detail of these outlets must be included with the plans that include the type of casting used for an emergency overflow. 3) The standard detail plates for all erosion control measures to be used on site must be included on the grading plan. 4) In Lot 1, Block 2, the spot elevation labeled "98.4" appears to be too high. The developer will be required to enter into a storm water maintenance agreement with the City for the ponds. e G:lDevelopment5-Private\Carousel Automobi/es\Review1.doc . e e . Carousel Automobiles June 20, 2001 Page 3 The developer must obtain a General Storm Water Discharge Permit (NPDES) from the MPCA for this project. A copy of the permit application and the permit, once obtained, must be forwarded to the City. The developer must also obtain a City of Golden Valley Right-of-Way Permit for all work within the right-of-way or City easements. Preliminary Utility Plan: The preliminary utility plan appears to be acceptable as proposed. The City of Golden Valley reserves the right to revise the plan or require additional fire hydrants, valves, manholes and other appurtenances based upon further review. A table must be added to the plan that indicates the casting types for each structure. All pipes that are to be removed need to be labeled on the plan. The contractor will be required to obtain the appropriate sewer and water permits from the Public Works Department at the City of Golden Valley prior to any utility work beginning on site. Tree Preservation: The preliminary tree preservation plan included with this submittal appears to be in compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance. A final plan, and the required removal/mitigation computations, must be submitted with the General Plan submittal for the PUD. Recommendation: Public Works staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for the proposed Carousel Automobiles Planned Unit Development based upon comments contained in this review. Approval is also subject to the comments of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission and other City staff. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Joe Paumen, Engineering Technician Gary Johnson, Building Official Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal G:\Developments-Private\Carousel Automobiles\Review1.doc e Memorandum To: Dan Olson City Planner From: Ed Anderson Deputy Fire Marshal Date: June 18, 2001 Re: Plan review comments for the Carousel Automobiles PUD 95 Listed below are the plan review comments for the Carousel Automobiles PUD 95. e 1) Fire Department access road shall be maintained during construction and the access road shall be 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 department at all times. 2) Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code and the requirement of the City Engineer Office of the City Of Golden Valley. 3) All access roads shall be providing with no less than 45 foot inside turning radius. .. . 4) Fire access roads more than 150 feet in length shall be provide with provision for turning around of fire apparatus. 5) Posting of "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall posted throughout the site complex in accordance with the City of Golden Valley City Ordinance and the Golden Valley Fire Department Standards. 6) The Installation of Fire/Automatic Sprinkler System will be installed in the building. Plans and permit application will be required. 7) A Post Indicator Valve (PIV) will be requiring for the automatic sprinkler system water supply line. The installation of the water supply line will be installed in accordance the requirement form the City Engineer office of the City of Golden Valley. e 1 June 18, 2001 8) A Fire Department lock box or boxes will be required on the building. The A lock box will be used for rapid entry into the building by the fire department. . 9) Address numbers will be required on the building. The numbers will be visible and legible from the roadway or street fronting the building. 1 O)Audio and visual devices will be requiring throughout out the interior of the building. If you have any questions please call me at 763-593-8065 _ 2_