11-26-01 PC Agenda
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday,November26,2001
7:00 P.M.
I. Approval of Minutes - November 12, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
II. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - Carousel Porsche Audi - Amendment to
P .U.D. No. 95 -
Applicant: Carousel Automobiles
Address: 9191 and 9393 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN
Purpose: The P.U.D. Amendment would allow for the construction of a new parking lot and
storm water retention pond on a triangular piece of property at the new Carousel
Porsche/Audi automobile dealership that is currently under construction.
-- 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
.
"j
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 12, 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,
November 12, 2001. Vice Chair, Shaffer called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
Those present were Commissioners Eck, Groger, McAleese, Ras
Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark
Dan Olson, and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. Absent
Commissioner Hoffman
and Shaffer.
'ty Planner
ntel, and
I. Approval of Minutes - October 22, 2001 Planni
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Groger and motio
October 22,2001 minutes as submitted.
nimously to approve the
II.
Continued Informal Public Hear.
ode Text Amendment
Applicant:
.
Address:
rial, Industrial, Business and Professional
utional Zoning Districts, Golden Valley, MN
Purpose:
t is requesting to add "Adult Day Care Centers" as a
se to the City's Commercial, Light Industrial,
siness and Professional Offices, and Institutional
dis ricts.
ring is a continuation of the informal public hearing held on
nd that he had done further research on Adult Day Care Centers
that Golden Valley use the State of Minnesota's definition of
enters.
He stated that this would be a change to the City's Commercial, Light Industrial,
Industrial, Business and Professional Office and Institutional zoning districts. He stated
that for parking requirements he is recommending 1 parking space for each 7 persons
cared for and 1 parking space for each employee.
.
Olson discussed the possibility of the using the term "daytime activity centers" instead
of "adult day care" but stated that upon further review, daytime activity centers are
considered quite different from adult day care centers. He recommended that after the
first of the new year, the Planning Commission review and discuss possible Zoning
Code revisions to daytime activity centers, day care and child care facilities.
.
Minutes of the GoldenValley Planning Commission
November 12, 2001
Page 2
"
.
Eck referred to the definition that Olson provided and stated that it refers to functionally
impaired adults. He stated that he got the impression from the applicant at the last
Planning Commission meeting that he wasn't necessarily talking about functionally
impaired adults, but in some cases, simply older, socially isolated adults. He asked
how that use would fit into the proposed definition that refers to functionally impaired
adults.
g support to
e felt that
< e State might
definition, or if their
o stated that the
their existing definition of
Olson referred to the proposed definition where it states that
maintain independence in the community was one of the c
socially isolated adults would fit into that category. Eck q
have some requirements in order to qualify under that s
clients might have to be functionally impaired in some
applicant has already received a license from the 5'~
an adult day care facility.
McAleese stated that he thinks it makes sens
schools part of the Institution Zoning di
the 1-2 and 1-4 categories of libraries,
intention was to allow these types
not necessarily be allowed to go .
stated he would rather change
where it doesn't belong.
is definition to the churches and
n't think it would work as well in
d parks. Olson stated that his
to be built in the Institutional District and
ing library or school or church. McAleese
rlying zoning rather than fitting it into a place
.
McAleese referred to oth
parking recommenda
was thinking of th r
stated that the PI
parking recommendations and asked Olson why his
ce for every 7 persons cared for. Olson stated that he
m the applicant and their existing parking conditions, but
mmission could change those numbers if they wanted to.
rt of a Conditional Use Permit one of the things staff looks at is
pace for dropping off clients.
t he would be inclined to require more stringent parking requirements.
Rasmussen asked for the definition of daytime activity centers. Olson stated that it is
not defined in the Zoning Code but the intent is more for job training and not social
functions.
Shaffer opened the public hearing.
Michael Tobak, Applicant, clarified that the state statute says that having substantial
difficultly in carrying out one or more of the essential major activities of daily living is .
considered an impairment such as requiring glasses to see or having to use a cane to
walk.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 12,2001
Page 3
Eck asked if applicant's facility would care for people who are basically physically
healthy but who are socially isolated. Tobak stated that their clients are all
handicapped in one way or another, but they must have some sort of physical condition
that would not allow them to work or learn normally.
Shaffer closed the public hearing.
f the staff concerns, including the location being in the floodplain
are addressed in the City Engineer's memo dated November 6, 2001.
applicant and the City Engineer would be discussing the need for
extra water s rage capacity on the site before the proposal goes on to the City Council
and that the Board of Zoning Appeals would also be looking at the proposal in regard to
setback issues. He discussed the parking requirements and stated he thought it would
be appropriate to have one space for every 500 square feet so they would need 23
spaces and they have provided 28 spaces. He stated the gas pumps will have
speakers and T.V. screens on them for internet connection, which will produce some
noise, but he doesn't think it will be a concern in this area.
usly to
are Centers"
I, Business and
on that the parking
ed for and one space
MOVED by Groger, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carri
approve the proposed change to the Zoning Code text to a 'll
as a Conditional Use to the City's Commercial, Light Indu
Professional Offices, and Institutional Zoning districts wi
requirements are changed to one space for every five p
for each employee.
III. Informal Public Hearing - Condition
Applicant: BP Products North
Address:
.
Purpose:
The Conditi ..
service sta
with a
e it would allow for the existing gasoline
r wash, and convenience store to be replaced
$~.coffee cafe, car wash, and convenience store.
ted November 7,2001 and stated that the applicant is
g Amoco gas station located at 600 Boone Avenue
4,200 square foot gas station/convenient store and a
ar wash. He stated that the surrounding properties are
ercial in use.
Grimes referred to his m
proposing to tear do
North and replac 't
792 square foot
mainly indus .
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 12, 2001
Page 4
It
.
McAleese questioned the language in item number 8 in the recommendation section of
Mark Grimes' memo dated November 7,2001 and stated that instead of saying this
proposal should be "acted" on by the Board of Zoning Appeals it should say the
proposal will be "approved" by the Board of Zoning Appeals before it is sent to the City
Council for action.
Jeff Wurst I Estate Manager, gave an overview of the operation and the
company. d pictures of how the new facility will look on the outside and
inside. est that they are attempting to do a very upscale design, something
different n aditional convenience store. He discussed the lighting concept and
the canopy ign. He discussed the technology incorporated into the design of the
store and stated the gasoline dispensers are internet connected and touch screen
activated. He discussed the Wild Bean Cafe that will be inside the store and stated
they will offer breakfast items and fresh sandwiches at lunchtime. He stated that the
cashiers are in the back of the store and that there are large windows all along the front
for safety and a feeling of openness.
applicant
ged.
Grimes stated that if the Board of Zoning Appeals denied the re
could appeal it to the City Council, but agreed the wording sh u
Eck asked about the future improvements to Boone Ave
and asked if he was referring to the intersection at Boo
Grimes stated he was referring to all the improvements
problems with flooding in the area. Eck asked if th
the elevation of the intersection so that it will n I~.
.
ongoing problem, but this proposal will help t itua
capacity and easements for right-of-way ex a 'on.
in es spoke of
And Highway 55.
o Avenue because of
plans in place to change
s stated that has been an
with extra water storage
Shaffer asked if the Planning Commi
recommendation saying the City is
area. Grimes stated the applica
something to their recommend
ut something in their
or anything due to the flooding in that
the existing situation, but they could add
ey wished.
.
Shaffer stated that the pr
the intersection and aske
stated that the applic .
Engineer and tha t
best.
tr ce on Golden Valley Road seems too close to
proposal would make that intersection worse. Grimes
t a lot of time with the Traffic Engineer and the City
as the best way to do it and the way it would work
Shaffer asked if there would be outdoor speakers on the site and if so, what they would
be used for. Wurst stated that the speakers wouldn't be used for music or for .
promotions but rather for communication with the customers on an as needed basis or
for any safety issues.
co
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 12, 2001
Page 5
Eck asked if the cashier located in the back of the store creates more problems with
drive-offs. Wurst stated that with the glass windows all along the front there is a clear
line of vision and all the cars would be in full sight.
Grimes asked if they intend to put signs in the windows. Wurst stated they might want
to put some signs on the glass but it would be at the top of the win
don't want to defeat the open look of the store.
.
John Kosmas, KK Design, discussed traffic pattern":
he proposed a different traffic pattern but in wo ith Traffic Engineer they
evaluated the count and the existing traffic in are nd came up with the proposal
they have now. He stated that BP has agree an ii, ement on the property, which
will help accommodate a sidewalk and s~@f the right-of-way area. He
discussed the outdoor speakers and y will not be in the canopy, but
rather at the individual pumps. He e entire site would be monitored by video
cameras.
Rasmussen asked the applicant to discuss the traffic flow
that they have provided as much parking as possible ad'
to get customers to park close to the store to keep the
hat the proposal is attractive and that he is in favor of it. He stated he
ns about the traffic, but given the existing situation and the busy
intersection, ything going in at that site would cause problems with traffic. He stated
he is not opposed to the outdoor speakers being proposed at this location and stated
he has no strong objections to signs going in the upper part of the windows, but is
concerned about signs being placed all over the windows.
indgren, 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza, representing
plic concurs with all the recommendations made by
lowing outdoor speakers. Also, she stated she is
storage on the site would be worked out before the
il.
Linda Fisher, Larkin, Hoff~l~
the applicant, clarified tha~116
staff with the exception of na:
confident that the de
proposal goes to
Seeing and hearing no one he closed the public
.
Grimes stated that the City can limit the applicant to just the sign bands that have been
proposed across the top of the windows and that no signs would be allowed below eight
feet. He mentioned that the staff is in the process of reviewing the sign ordinance.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 12. 2001
Page 6
MOVED by Groger, seconded by Eck, and motion carried unanimously to approve the
Conditional Use Permit which would allow for the existing gasoline service station,car
wash, and convenience store to be replaced with a gas station, coffee cafe, car wash,
and convenience store with the conditions that there be no signage in the window
below seven feet and the speaker use is kept within a reasonable volume and are
placed on, or in the gas pumps and not overhead in the canopy.
IV. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (SU 09-0
Applicant: Joe Silitz, Mary Youngren, and Will Fi
Address: Lots 21 & 22, Block 2 Spring Gree
Road, both in Golden Valley, MN
Purpose:
The applicants are requesti
land in order to redraw t
This property line chang
encroachments to b
Turnpike Road to
. .on of the two parcels of
line between these parcels.
for driveway and retaining wall
d for the property owner at 609
stall garage.
ed that the applicants want to redraw the
t orrect some driveway, shed and retaining
s and to also allow the homeowner at 609
,"~isting garage without having to get variances.
tions for a subdivision is that itmust meet the
oning district so this proposal would require a variance
cause there are nonconformities at each property.
y lines are redrawn the only nonconformity at 609
that would not meet the accessory building requirements of
ecommended that the applicant be required to move it to
ack requirements. The nonconformities at 613 Turnpike include a
at does not meet the required 35 feet and the north side yard
not meet the 15-foot requirement. He stated that staff is
pproval of the requested subdivision.
Olson showed the location of the
property line between their two
wall encroachments on their
Turnpike to build a third st
He stated that one of the
requirements of the a rop
from the subdivision
He stated that aft t
Turnpike would be
the Zoning
conform to
front y rd set
setbac t d
recomme
McAleese asked if the Planning Commission could attach conditions to a subdivision.
Grimes stated that generally the Planning Commission doesn't, but in this case it seems
to be a reasonable request. He stated that when the applicant comes in to get a
building permit for the garage he would also be told at that time that he would need to
move the shed as part of building permit procedure.
..
.
.
.
..
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 12, 2001
Page 7
Rasmussen stated that it seems like a gain to City, because then the applicant wouldn't
require variances to build the garage. Grimes stated that if the property ownerat 613
Turnpike ever wanted to add on to their house in the future, they would then need to go
to the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances. He stated that approving this proposal is
simply allowing the subdivision.
Shaffer opened the public hearing.
Purpose:
use, with
e and they
Will Fisher, 613 Turnpike Road, stated that the house is a ce
cement block floors so therefore, they can't really do anyth'
don't intend to add on to it in the future.
MOVED by Eck, seconded Rasmussen and motion carr"
requested minor subdivision with the following cona'lf'i'
Turnpike Road be relocated on the property to
requirements in the Residential Zoning distric
such a title review is necessary prior to aR
Survey submitted by the applicants, da
approval.
n ously to approve the
The existing shed at 609
WI ccessory Building setback
ity Attorney will determine if
inal plat. 3) The Certificate of
, 2001 shall become a part of this
.
V.
Informal Public Hearin
al Use Permit Amendment (CU-90-01)
Applicant:
Address:
emorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN
would amend the existing Conditional Use Permit to
for indoor sales of used automobiles in a Commercial zoning
Olson show ation of the site and stated that this request is to amend the
recent rant onditional Use Permit to allow outdoor auto sales. He stated that this
request i . {~"i~>{ the indoor sale of twenty automobiles. He stated that the Deputy
Fire Marsha(has reviewed the plans and feels it is feasible to display that number of
automobiles in the building. He discussed the parking requirements and stated that
they are required to have 10 spaces, but are providing 15.
.
Eck stated there was an indication when they requested the original Conditional Use
Permit that they would want to provide an inside showroom and asked why this wasn't
requested originally and done in one action. Olson stated he didn't know the specific
reason why the applicant chose to wait but stated that he recommended to the
applicant to apply for both indoor and outdoor sales Conditional Use Permits at the
same time.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 12, 2001
Page 8
"
.
Rick Foreman, Applicant, stated that the reason they chose to wait is because they
were required to install a fire suppression system for the indoor showroom, which took
longer than they thought, but they wanted to open their business for outdoor sales and
not wait until the fire suppression system was installed.
McAleese asked the applicant what his plans were for signage in t
Foreman stated that he has no intentions for indoor window sig
using the existing pylon sign. Groger asked if they were goin
Foreman stated that only the stickers will be on the cars, b
the cars.
Shaffer opened the public hearing.
hearing.
indows.
t they are
on the cars.
s will be on
Groger stated the conditions for approval sho
Use Permit dated October 16, 2001 and not f
2001 due to the changes that were ma
n from the original Conditional
's memo dated November 7,
ginal request.
MOVED by Groger, seconded by R an motion carried unanimously to
approve the Conditional Use Per e 'w0with the following conditions: 1) The site .
be limited to the sale of 40 vehi thaiVi15 spaces be designated for employee
and customer parking. 2) eets the requirements of the City's sign
ordinance. There will beayed or painted in car windows. There will be no
signs painted or displaye indows in the building. 3) The recommendation of
Deputy Fire Marshal found in his memo to Dan Olson dated September
10, 2001 shall becom this approval. 4) The Building Official shall approve any
additionallightin t e. Lighting shall be turned down atter8:00 PM. 5) No more
than 8 emplo rk at the site due to parking constraints. 6) The hours of
operation f ars shall be limited to 9 AM to 8 PM Monday-Saturday. There
shall be no ehicles on Sunday. 7) No outside speakers shall be permitted on
the sit 8) AI applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met. 9)
Failure with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation e conditional use permit.
-- Short Recess --
VI. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
McAleese discussed the City Council Meeting he attended on November 7,2001 and
stated the Council unanimously denied the request for a Conditional Use Permit by .
Airport Taxi and Town Taxi.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 12,2001
Page 9
VII. Other Business
A. Discussion of December 24,2001 Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission decided to cancel their December 24, 2001 meeting.
VIII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:41 PM.
.
Hey
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/ 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 Amendment . Property located at 9191 and 9393 Wayzata
Boulevard, Carousel Automobiles, Applicant
Date: November 21, 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 to amend the original PUD Permit granted to
the applicant by the City Council on October 2, 2001. The Amendment would allow the
applicant to con~truct a storm water retention pond and a parking. lat an a small triangular
piece af property located across Miller Street from the new Carausel Porsche/Audi
automobile. deal~rship that is currently under construction~.I:\)ocati(m map i~...attaFh~p
showing the location of the proposed PUD Amendment. The PUD.Amendment p.rocessw..).U..
~.; .. .
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 Amendment proposal. This is the first, or the
Preliminary Design Plan stage. The purpose of this stage is two-fold: to give broad cancept
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 of
the Planning Commission, in particular, the limitations of Preliminary. Plan approval are
clearly laid out. Oity Code Sec. 11.55, 6.0 provides that:
The Planning Commission's consideration of the application shall' be limited to a
determinatian;bf whether the application constitutes an'appr6priateland use
under the general principals and standards adhered to in the City and, if
necessary, its report shall include recommended chahges'jn JhEr'land use
planned by the applicant so as to conform the application '. or recommend
approval subject to certain conditions or madificatians.. .
.
.
<\ ~"
Summary of Proposal
Carousel Porsche/Audi is requesting a PUD Amendment. The original PUD Permit was .
granted by the City Council for a new automobile dealership. on October 2,2001. A copy of
that Permit is attached for your review. Also attached for your review are the memorandum
given to the Planning Commission and the City Council for that PUD application, the Planning
Commission minutes for the June 25, 2001 meeting, and the City Council minutes for their
review of the PUD Preliminary Design Plan and the PUD General Plan of Development.
The PUD Amendment would allow the applicant to construct a storm water retention pond
and a parking lot on a small triangular piece of property located across Miller Street from the
new Carousel Porsche/Audi automobile dealership that is currently under construction. This
triangular piece of property was originally included in the PUD, but was removed from the
PUD site plan because of opposition to its development from residents of St. Louis Park who
live just south of this piece of property. Now, the applicant has made revisions to the site
plan for the triangular piece of property and has met with St. Louis Park residents to discuss
those revisions.
The triangular piece of property is 1.33 acres in size. It is located across Miller Street south
of the new Carousel Porsche/Audi currently under construction. Attached is a copy of the site
plans. The triangular piece of property would contain a storm water retention pond and 67
parking spaces for outdoor display of automobiles. These'~paces'would .be 'used"f~r
storage of new vehicles. As automobiles are sold north of Miller,Str~et, automobiles parked
on this triangular piece of land would be moved to the display area~ north of Miller. No large
delivery trucks will drop off automobiles to the triangular piece bf property. Instead, they will .
be driven to that parking area by Carousel employees.
d,
The underlying zoning classification for this property is Industrial. The parking space
requirements fOrtnat zoning district are as follows: at least. one (1) parking space for eClch
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, 120 parking spaces
would be required. The site plans show these requirements are being met. In addition,the
applicant is providing for 520 outside parking spaces for automobile display over the entire
site.
, ,.". '
Since this development fronts on two state highways, the site'pl,8ns were forwarded to the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for their rf:wiewand comments when the
original PUD was'received. Those comments were incorporated into that PUD Permit. AI~o,
since the property abuts St. Louis Park's boundary, a copy of tile Hearing Notice for the
Planning Commis.sion meeting was sent to residents of St. Louis Park.
Planning Consid~rations
The types of issues that come up in connection with PUD Amendment applications canvClry
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: .
2
.
.
.
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.
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.
The parking lot on the triangular piece of property south of Miller Street does not meet the
north and east yard setback requirements. In the north yard, most of the parking lot along
Miller Street meets the 35 foot required setback, except for a small portion in the northeast
corner of the lot. In the east yard, the applicant is proposing to reduce the 25 foot required
setback to 1 0 feet.
Enaineerina/Traffic Issues
The Public Work~ Department has given preliminary approval to this ;development. The
applicants are p~oposing to add some new lighting to the triangular piece of property for
security reasons, not sale of automobiles. This security lighting is less intense than lighting
used for sales. According to City Engineer Jeff Oliver, this development would nofgenerate
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.
According to Environmental Coordinator AI Lundstrom, this project meets the requirements
of the Tree Pres~{Vation Ordinance.
Staff Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Carousel Porsche Audi PUD
No. 95 - Amendment. The recommended approval is subject to the following
recommendations:
1. All signs for the Carousel Porsche Audi development shall meet the requirements for
automobile dealerships in the Industrial zoning district.. .
Attachments:
. ~pcation Map ..... ... ... .. .
· Planning Commission Memorandum dated June 20, 2001
· Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from June 25, 2001
· City Council Memorandum dated July 10, 2001
· qity Council Meeting Minutes from July 17 an,dAygust 2.1, 2001
. P:U.D. Permit No. 95 dated October 2,20010. .
. Lf~tter from St. Louis Park residents Beth and John Dahl
. Oversized Site Plans (10 sheets)
3
Hey
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax)
.
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Dan Olson, City Planner
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 of the 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 east 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 ofthe 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 S1. 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 PUf/Jose 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
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 out that 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
r(:)served for a public park within the development. The staff will work 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
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.
4
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
.
.
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 25, 2001
A ular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Ha I,
Coun hambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Mo
June 25, j. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Those present wer air Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Gro ~cAleese,
Rasmussen and Shaffe. Iso present were Director of Pia /' and Development
Mark Grimes, City Planner Olson and Recording etary Lisa Wittman.
Commissioner Hoffman was abs
I.
01 Planning Commission Meeting
Pentel stated that in th
"cite" was miss pel
MOVE" roger, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried un . ously to
ethe May 21,2001 minutes with the above correction.
MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to ap
the June 11, 2001 minutes as submitted.
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.
Olson referred to his memo dated June 20, 2001. He showed the general location and
proposed site plan. Groger asked if the proposal included the triangular shaped piece
of property located to the south, across the frontage road. Olson stated that the
proposal does include that piece of property.
Olson explained that the development would allow for the construction of two buildings
for an automobile dealership, and would be located just west of the property of the
current Carousel Porsche Audi dealership, which is at 8989 Wayzata Boulevard. He
stated the overall development is 9.88 acres and stated the size of the Porsche building
would be 13,400 square feet and the Audi building would 38,000 square feet.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 25, 2001
Page 2
.
He stated that the applicant may enlarge the Audi building in the future by adding an
additional 1 ,760 square feet of building space to the north side of the building which
would eliminate 19 parking spaces on that side of the building.
Olson stated that the underlying zoning classification for this property is Industrial. He
stated that the parking space requirements for that zoning district have been met and
that they would have 126 spaces. He stated that they would also have 477 parking
spaces for displaying automobiles.
Olson stated that since this development abuts two state highways, the site plans were
forwarded to MnDOT for their review and comments. He stated that to date, those
comments have not yet been received. He stated a copy of the hearing notice for the
Planning Commission meeting was also sent to the City of St. Louis Park since the
property abuts the boundary.
Olson explained why he didn't go into great detail about the setbacks required in the
Industrial Zoning District versus the setbacks listed on the site plans in his staff report
because the City Attorney recommended that this PUD should be considered as it's
own entity rather than getting variances from the Industrial Zoning District. Olson
referred to one area on the site plan, which showed a zero foot setback along Miller .
Street for an automobile display area in front of the Audi building.
Pentel stated that developers have always been asked to justify the variances they are
asking for when applying for a PUD. She asked Olson to go through the site plans and
explain what variances the applicant is asking for that they would not get under the
City's normal zoning regulations. Olson went over the site plans and discussed the
various setbacks. Pentel referred to the wall pictured on the site plans and asked if it
was inside or outside of the property line. Olson stated he believed the wall was
outside of the property and showed the Commission an aerial photo of the site. He
referred to the wall and the homes to the south of the wall and to the nature area to the
east. Groger asked what the setback requirement is from the nature area. Olson
stated the requirement would be 25 feet, but that the applicant is proposing 8 feet.
Eck asked if under normal zoning the triangular piece of property to the south would be
usable. Olson stated that it would be unusable because it would have a 35-foot
setback along Miller Street, a 25-foot from the nature area and a 50-foot parking lot
setback on the south side. Pentel asked if the proposal meets the 35-foot setback
along Miller Street. Olson stated that it does.
Pentel asked if it was all right if ponds go into the setbacks. Olson stated yes. Pentel
asked about the setbacks along Flag Avenue which is being vacated. Olson stated the
setback along Flag Avenue would be 10 feet and the setbacks along Miller Street, .
TH169 and 1-394 would be 35 feet.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 25, 2001
Page 3
Olson referred back to his memo and discussed the City Engineer's memo dated June
20, 2001 and stated that staff is recommending approval of the plan.
Pentel asked where the applicant was proposing to put the pylon sign. Olson stated
that would be a question for the applicant.
Rasmussen asked if there are public safety reasons for having the 35-foot setback
along Miller Street OJ if it is for aesthetic reasons. Olson stated it is mainly for aesthetic
reasons.
Jon Baker, 100 South Fifth Street, Minneapolis, architect for the project referred to the
site plans and discussed the general layout of the site and the parking setbacks. He
showed pictures of the proposed buildings and discussed the setbacks in various areas.
He showed the areas where they won't meet the setbacks and stated that part of the
reason for the variances is due to the odd angles of the lot. He then discussed the
traffic flow and showed where the customer and display parking areas would be and
where the trucks would load and unload.
.
Pentel asked if they were proposing one pylon or two pylon signs. Baker stated he
believed it would be one pylon and stated they would like to place a sign that would be
at the appropriate height in relationship to the rest of dealerships. Pentel asked what
the regulations are regarding moving board signs. Grimes stated that moving signs are
permitted in the City of Golden Valley, however, they have to show a certain amount of
public service items on them and that the applicant would have to follow the sign
ordinance. Baker stated that the design standards established by Porsche and Audi
are very strict and that the intent is not to have an animated sign.
.
Eck stated that he noticed that some of the fencing at the different dealerships in the
area has barbed wire at the top and that some areas are unfenced. He asked what
determines the kind of fencing used. Baker stated that some dealerships put fencing
where the customer's cars are stored. He stated he wasn't sure how much fencing they
would need. Jon Hansen, President of Lejune Investment, which is the owner of the
dealership stated that when they purchased the existing properties the fencing was
already up and that it's worked well for them so they've just kept it up. He stated that
because of the visibility at the proposed site, and the insurance liability, they would
prefer not to put fencing up, but they would like to see how it goes with theft and
possibly put the fencing up at a later date.
Pentel asked if they were to meet the setbacks required by the City on the piece of
property to the south how that would impact the proposal. Hansen stated that already
they are not getting as many parking spaces as they originally had planned for when
they purchased the property, and that anytime they lose parking spaces it is a concern.
He stated that they did look at putting the pond on that piece of property to south, but
then they would have to pipe water under the street.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 25, 2001
Page 4
.
Pentel opened the public hearing.
Lori Kirk, 1301 Flag Avenue South, St. Louis Park, asked if the City of St. Louis Park
received notification of this hearing. Olson stated that St. Louis Park was notified
approximately two weeks ago. Grimes stated he talked to one of the staff member at
St. Louis Park and they did say they got the notice, but it is their decision as to whether
they pass on the information or not. Kirk asked what the radius is for the hearing
notification for the people that are directly affected. Pentel stated that the radius is 500
feet. Kirk stated that she lives directly south of the wall mentioned on the site plans and
that she has received no notification of the proposal. She asked that the Planning
Commission table their discussions until the neighborhood has proper notification. She
asked if there was a precedent anywhere in the City of Golden Valley for granting
variances for parking lots being eight feet from residential areas and wetland areas.
Grimes stated that the City has allowed variances in several cases for parking areas
next to freeway walls and that's what they are proposing to do in this case.
Kirk asked if the City of Golden Valley is legally required to notify people in a 500-foot
radius of proposals like this. Grimes stated the position of the City of Golden Valley is
to notify the adjoining city and leave it up to them to notify their residents. Pentel stated
that it's a boundary issue and as a good neighbor, Golden Valley notifies adjoining .
cities, but that we don't have other cities resident addresses in our database and it's up
to the adjoining city to notify their residents. Kirk asked if she has a legal right to know.
Pentel stated she didn't know that, but she is assuming that she does have the legal
right to know because she lives within 350 feet of the proposal, but in terms of who is
supposed to give the notification she stated she thinks it's her own jurisdiction and that
Golden Valley's necessity ends with notifying the City of St. Louis Park. Grimes
explained that there is going to be two more hearings on this proposal and that when he
spoke to staff at St. Louis Park they've said they are going to send notification when
this proposal goes to the City Council. Kirk requested again that the proposal be tabled
and stated she is concerned about having a parking lot and truck noise eight feet from
her bedroom window.
Pentel closed the informal public hearing.
Pentel asked the commissioners how they felt about tabling the proposal. Groger
stated he thought Staff followed normal procedure in accordance to what the City
Attorney has recommended in regards to notifying people and thought the Planning
Commission should proceed. Grimes stated he would again talk to staff at St. Louis
Park and ask them to notify the residents within whatever they feel is a proper distance.
Pentel asked about the eastern boundary of the southern portion and how far it is to the
wetland edge from the wall and where the wetlands begin. Olson referred to the aerial .
photo and estimated that the wall is probably about 400 to 500 feet away from the edge
of the wetland.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 25, 2001
Page 5
Groger asked for clarification on the setbacks along the highway. Pentel asked if there
is also a variance from what the normal setback would be from MnDot property on the
north side. Grimes stated whenever abutting a right-of-way the setback is 35 feet.
Pentel stated she is disturbed about the bump-out display area for cars being in the 35-
foot setback area on Miller Street. She stated she doesn't like the variances that are
being proposed in the southern, triangular shaped property and stated concerns about
the two curb cuts, relaxing the City's setback standards, losing green space and the
natural infiltration that now occurs.
Groger stated he disagrees with City Staff on their interpretation of PUO's. He stated it
seems there is an opinion that once they've decided that there will be a PUD that
setbacks and other issues go out the window and it is just expected that there will be
substantial variances. He stated that if there is a benefit to City, that may be the case,
but in a new development that is being created from scratch he doesn't see a need in
allowing substantial variances to the City's setback requirements. He stated he's not in
favor of the proposal as it is, but that the land use is fine.
Shaffer suggested that the pond be moved to the southern, triangular piece of property
to keep the parking out of that area. Pentel stated she would be more comfortable with
the pond on the southern piece of property also. Shaffer stated the only setback he is
concerned about is the one along Miller Street. He then suggested different options for
ponds and parking. Grimes stated that they should talk to the project engineer about
these options. Chris Call, Landform Engineering Company, 510 First Avenue North,
Minneapolis stated that he did look at putting the pond on the southern piece of
property and that part of the problem is that the storm water from the site is picked up
by MnDot's storm sewer system which is located on the northeast corner of the site and
that is also the lowest part of the site and to put in on the southern parcel would be
working against nature. He stated that as far as piping the storm water under the street
to the southern parcel, he wasn't sure how the City Engineer would feel about that
considering it would have to be piped back up to the northeast corner. He stated that he
did some calculations regarding setbacks and they are giving an additional 352 square
feet of setback area along Miller Street to the City.
Rasmussen asked if the pond that is shown on the southern, triangular property could
be moved from the side to the bottom of the triangle to act as a buffer. Call stated that
again, the pond is on the lowest part of the site and berms would have to be built to
make it work.
Eck asked if the wall limits the view of the site, or if it's a noise issue rather than an
issue of seeing the trucks and cars parked on the site. Grimes stated that the noise in
the parking lot would not be any greater than the existing noise that is there now from
the freeways other than perhaps when they are loading or unloading cars.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 25, 2001
Page 6
.
Eck asked at what hours the loading and unloading of cars would occur. Hansen stated
that cars have to be checked in by staff so if it's the middle of the night, the drivers
would have to wait. Pentel asked if the trucks would idle while they waited. Hansen
stated in the wintertime they would. Grimes suggested putting something in the PUD
Permit about the loading and unloading of trucks could only occur on the west side.
Hansen suggested maybe decreasing the setback along Miller Street and increasing it
along the wall.
Eck stated that given the fact that the neighbors aren't able to see what's on the other
side of the wall it seems the primary concern should be noise. Pentel stated that there
is noise and there is also precedent in terms of what to do with the setbacks against a
residential area.
Grimes stated the biggest impact to the area would be cutting down the trees. Hansen
stated that the majority of the trees are going to be cut down whether it becomes a
pond or a parking lot and even if it were to stay green space they would still be cut
down because they are cottonwoods. Pentel asked about the size of the triangular
piece of property. Hansen stated it was 1.33 acres.
Grimes stated that parcel could stand on its own and there could be a building .
constructed there. He stated it's quite unusual to have a twelve-foot wall along a
property line and it was put there for a reason. McAleese stated that the wall is
irrelevant as far as variances are concerned. He stated there are two issues, one is
setting a precedent and the other is the noise. He stated the variances that are being
requested on the northern part of the property seem reasonable, but he doesn't like the
proposed bump-out area for displaying cars. He stated that the City should hold to
strict requirements on the southern parcel and supports the 50-foot setback for the
south property line and a 25-foot setback on the east property line on that southern
parcel.
Shaffer stated he's also concerned about the southern piece of property and asked the
architect if he had looked at other alternatives for getting the parking spaces there into
other areas. Baker stated they've looked at dozens of different layouts for this project
for both the north half and the south half. He stated it's an inefficient lot because of its
triangular shape and that putting the pond on the south half of the property is just not
feasible because of conflicts with utilities. He stated the only way to accommodate the
setback requirements on the south piece of property is to reduce the number of parking
space by approximately 50%.
He addressed the issue of the bump-out area and explained that it is there to allow
some sort of recognition of an element that has a relationship to the center of the
building and to reinforce where the entrance is to the building and to have some
continuity to the site.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 25, 2001
Page 7
He stated that it doesn't need to be as big as they've proposed but feels it is important,
architecturally, that there is a sign or some sort of site element there. Shaffer stated he
understands why the bump-out area is there, but thinks the presentation space could
be within the parking area without losing too many spaces. He asked since a lot of the
parking is for storage, if any of the parking could be tandem parking especially on the
south lot. Baker stated that they could consider that option in the south lot. Shaffer
asked if they could rearrange the parking configuration on the south lot so there would
only need to be one curb cut. Baker stated that if there were a condition that they
couldn't use the south lot for loading and unloading that would be a possibility.
Pentel stated that she doesn't want to see tandem parking across from Miller Street.
She stated that she wouldn't support any encroachment on the setbacks on the south
piece of property. She stated that the Planning Commission shouldn't be designing this
for them. Shaffer stated he was trying to look at different aspects of the project and
asking questions about other alternatives.
.
Rasmussen stated it's an appropriate land use but there is nothing that can be done
about the noise and that the land is still going to be used for parking. She stated that
she thinks tandem parking is a good idea and is in favor of passing it on, with the
Planning Commission's concerns, to the Council. She stated it is a commercial piece of
property and the screening had been looked at very carefully and that by sticking with
the setbacks on the southern piece of property, that's the best the City could do.
Grimes stated that if that wall wasn't there, the City would have looked at this very
differently and that there is no benefit to the green space against a wall. McAleese
stated he disagreed and that green space is beneficial virtually any place. He stated he
understands the rationale of the developer and that overall they have a good plan, but
he's concerned about preserving the green space on the south piece of land and would
like to make it a recommendation to the Council to preserve the normal setback
requirements on the southern parcel.
Eck asked if the vacation of Flag Avenue would allow for more parking options. Call
stated that there is a utility easement there. Grimes stated that the additional property
from the vacation would be going to the existing property and not to this new
development.
.
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to
approve the Preliminary Design Plan for Carousel Porsche Audi, PUD No. 95 with the
conditions listed in staff memos from the City Planner, the City Engineer and the City
Deputy Fire Marshal and also with the following recommendations: The loading and
unloading of trucks would occur north of Miller Street, an attempt to retain a 50-foot
setback on the south side and a 25-foot setback on the east side on the southern piece
of property and the bump-out north of Miller Street would not be allowed within the
setbacks.
Hey
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax)
.
To: William S. Joynes, City Manager
From: Dan Olson, City Planner
Subject: Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan for Carousel Porsche Audi, P.U.D. No. 95-
Property located west of 8989 Wayzata Boulevard - Carousel Automobiles, Applicant
Date: July 10, 2001
Background
At the June 25, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission unanimously recommended
approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary Design Plan. Carousel Automobiles is
requesting a PUD for a development that would allow for the construction of a new automobile
dealership facility for Carousel Porsche Audi. The overall development is 9.87 acres. It is located
just west of the existing Carousel Porsche Audi facility, which is located at 8989 Wayzata Boulevard.
Attached are the staff memos and Planning Commission minutes related to the Commission's review
of this PUD.
At the Planning Commission meeting, many members felt that the triangular piece of land south of
Miller Street should have larger parking lot setbacks that reflect those required under the Industrial
zoning district. Under the regulations for that zoning district, the south side yard setback is 50 feet
and the east side yard setback is 25 feet. The applicant has decided at this time not to revise the
site plans to reflect these larger parking lot setbacks. Also, since the Planning Commission meeting,
staff has received comments on the proposal from a staff person at MnDOT. Those comments have
been forwarded to the applicant and are attached for your review.
.
Zoning Variances for the PUD
The following are the variances requested from the Zoning Code for this PUD from the Industrial
zoning district:
· The parking lot on the northern piece of property does not meet the 35 foot setback along
Highways 394 and 169. Instead, the applicant is reducing the setback to 10.5 feet on the site
plan.
· Some portions of the parking lot along the north side of Miller Street do not meet the 35 foot .
setback requirement.
· The parking lot on the triangular piece of property south of Miller Street does not meet the
south and east yard setback requirement. The applicant is proposing to reduce the south
setback from 50 feet to 9 feet and on the east side from 25 feet to 7 feet.
Recommendations
,-he Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval of PUD No. 95. The proposal fits in
wtvell with the other automobile dealerships along Interstate Highway 394. The recommended
approval is subject to the following recommendations:
1. The recommendations of City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, as found in his memos dated June 20,
2001 become a part of this approval.
2. The recommendations of Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall, as found in his memo dated
June 18, 2001 become a part of this approval.
3. The recommendations of Jennifer Chaput, MnDOT, as found in her memo dated June 27,
2001 become a part of this approval.
4. The loading and unloading of trucks delivering vehicles to the dealership shall take place on
the property located north of Miller Street.
5. Lighting posts on the triangular piece of property south of Miller Street shall not be taller than
the sound wall located on the border of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park.
6. The notation of "P.U.D. No. 95" shall be made a part of the plat name.
7. Proof of recording for the plat must be provided to the City before any construction permits are
issued.
.
.
Attachments:
Staff Memos to the Planning Commission dated June 20, 2001 and attachments
Planning Commission minutes from June 25, 2001
Memo to Dan Olson from Jennifer Chaput, MnDOT, dated June 27, 2001
Photographs of site
Oversized Site Plans (11 sheets)
2
Regular Meeting of the City Council
July 17, 2001
Page 5
.
7. Prior to con ration of the General Plan of Development by the City C cil, General
Mills will enter in development agreement with the City of Golde alley that would
obligate General MI 0 pay for any public improvement c occasioned by the
General Mills PUD. The osts would include, but are Imited to, improvements
necessary to the street and . . . nals, lighting, traffic controls
and street reconstruction.
8. Prior to consideration of the General P
Mills will pay any cost incurred by the Cit d to the development and review of the
Environmental Assessment Worksh EAW) other planning approvals. These
costs would include the hiring of nsultants by the . to review the EAW and PUD
application.
9. Park dedication will be sidered as part of the General of Development and
brought back to the . Council for approval.
ON - YES BAKKEN - YES JOHNSON - YES LESUER - YES
Public Hearina - Preliminary Desian Plan Approval - PUD #95 - Carousel Porsche .
Audi (West of 8989 Wavzata Boulevard)
Jon Baker, Architect, reviewed the plan stating they have removed the triangular piece of
property south of Miller Street from the plan and answered questions from the Council.
Jon Hansen, Lejeune Investments answered questions from the Council.
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development introduced the agenda item and
answered questions from the Council.
The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were
afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon.
Ken Severud, 1331 Flag Avenue South, stated he would like to see the triangular piece of
property south of Miller Street left as green space.
Dennis Mulligan, 9420 West 14th Street, had questions regarding the lighting of the site as
they already get enough light in the winter from the existing dealerships.
.
.
Regular Meeting of the City Council
July 17, 2001
Page 6
Public Hearina - Preliminary Desian Plan Approval - PUD #95 - Carousel Porsche
Audi (West of 8989 Wavzata Boulevard) - Continued
Lorelei Duterte, 1308 Independence Avenue South, expressed concern and had questions
about the loading and unloading of cars at night, where the waste receptacles are located,
if there were any plans for fencing the site, use of intercoms to communicate to staff, test
driving of vehicles in the neighborhood and the security system.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Bakken and motion carried unanimously to approve the
preliminary design plan for PUD #95, Carousel Porsche Audi, subject to the following
conditions:
1.
2.
3.
. 4.
5.
6.
7.
The recommendations of City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, as found in his memo dated June
20, 2001 become a part of this approval.
The recommendations of Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall, as found in his memo
dated June 18, 2001 become a part of this approval.
The recommendations of Jennifer Chaput, MnDOT, as found in her memo dated June
27, 2001 become a part of this approval.
The loading and unloading of trucks delivering vehicles to the dealership shall take
place on the property located north of Miller Street.
The notation of "P.U.D. No. 95" shall be made a part of the plat name.
Proof of recording for the plat must be provided to the City before any construction
permits are issued.
Concur with applicants' exploration of alternative paging system and suggest they
proceed.
Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows:
ANDERSON - YES BAKKEN - YES JOHNSON - YES LESUER - YES MICKS - YES
.
Regular Meeting of the City Council
August 21, 2001
Page 3
.
*
MOVED ohnson, seconded by LeSuer and motion carried unanimously to receiv~.a
file the minu eceived as follows:
Public Hearin - Prelimina
staff report and
Planning Commissio July 23, 2001
Human Rights Commiss - July 12, 2001
Board of Zoning Appeals - 24, 2001
Bassett Creek Water Managem Commission - July 19, 2001
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and
answered questions from the Council.
Paula Pentel, Planning Commission
The Mayor opened the m g for public input and persons sent to do so were
afforded the opportunity express their views thereon. Hearing an
Mayor closed the pu. earing. .
nson, seconded by Micks and motion carried unanimously to ap '!Ie the
prelimin lat approval for 501 Meadow Lane North and the variance needed to
ion of two non-standard lots.
Public Hearina - Ordinance #257 - General Plan Approval - PUD #95 - Carousel
Automobiles (West of 8989 Wavzata Boulevard)
The following ordinances were MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Bakken:
ORDINANCE NO. 257, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Approval of General Plan of Development
Carousel Porsche Audi, Planned Unit Development No. 95
Carousel Automobiles, Applicant
Jon Baker, Architect, and Jon Hansen, Lejeune Investments reviewed the general plan
and answered questions from the Council.
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, presented the Planning Commission
report, reviewed the ordinance and answered questions from the Council.
.
.
Regular Meeting of the City Council
August 21,2001
Page 4
Public Hearina - Ordinance. #257 - General Plan Approval - PUD #95 - Carousel
Automobiles (West of 8989 Wavzata Boulevard) - Continued
The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were
afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Hearing and seeing no one, the
Mayor closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Bakken, seconded by Johnson and motion carried to approve Ordinance #257,
2nd Series. Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows:
ANDERSON - YES BAKKEN - YES JOHNSON - YES LESUER - YES MICKS - YES
Staff was requested to add a condition to the PUD permit regarding the outdoor paging
system.
Jeanne Andre I duced the agenda item and stated that staff is requesting
. be cancelled and re
.
The Mayor opened the me<' for public input and persons
afforded the opportunity to expre ~ eir views thereon. Hear'
Mayor closed the public hearing.
sent to do so were
and seeing no one, the
* A roval of Re uests for Beer and/or
MOVED by Johnson, seconded b eSuer and motion carried unanim
beer and/or wine at Brookvie ark.
MOVED by Jo on, seconded by LeSuer and motion carried unanimously to purchase a
multi-purpo tractor with cab and hydraulic front mount broom through the MnDOT
Division from John Deere Company for $41,110.76.
Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95
City Council Approval: October 2, 2001 .
City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
Use Permit
for
Planned Unit Development
Project Name:
Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95
Location:
Located south of Interstate 394 and east of State Highway 169.
Legal Description:
Lot 1, Block 1, Lot 1, Block 2 and Outlot A
Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95
Applicant:
Carousel Automobiles
Address:
8989 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN 55426
Owner:
Carousel Automobiles
Address:
8989 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN 55426
.
Zoning District:
Industrial
Permitted Uses:
Development shall be limited to not more than 2 new buildings for
the automobile service and outside display of vehicles on one lot.
Components:
A. Land Use Component:
1. Land uses permitted within P.U.D. No. 95 shall be as indicated on the approved site
plan prepared by Landform and dated 7/24/01, which is attached to the PUD permit
by reference.
2. Allowed uses for the two buildings on the site shall be for auto sales and service.
Uses other than specified above shall not be allowed except by amendment of the
PUD permit.
B. Construction
1. Proof of recording for the plat must be provided to the City before any construction
permits are issued.
.
Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95
Page 1
.
2. An as-built survey shall be completed for each structure as soon as the foundation
is substantially in place. If there is an incomplete match between lot lines and unit
walls, the developer shall either relocate the foundation or request City approval of
a PUD amendment to replat the affected lots. No certificates of occupancy will be
issued for a building that fails to align with an underlying lot boundary.
3. Except as otherwise specified in the conditions of General Plan approval, all phases
of site development shall be subject to the standards, approvals, fees, and other
requirements that would arise in connection with a similar project outside of a PUD.
4. The buildings shall be constructed as per the floor and elevation plans prepared by
Landform and dated 7/24/01, which are attached to the PUD permit by reference.
The building plans shall be reviewed by the Building Board of Review prior to
issuance of any building permits.
5. The developer shall comply with all instructions outlined in the recommendations of
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall, in the Inspections Department's General Plan
of Development review memo dated August 1, 2001.
6. All signs must meet the requirements of the City's sign ordinance.
.
7. The landscaping plans prepared by Landform and dated 7/24/01 shall be made a
part of the approved PUD permit, subject to final review and approval by the City's
Building Board of Review. If the Building Board of Review requires additional
changes to the landscaping plan beyond those indicated here, such changes shall
also be made part of the approved permit in narrative form or via an amended plan
sheet signed and dated by the City's Chief Building Official. The developer shall
provide a landscaping performance bond in the amount and for the period of time
established by the Building Board of Review.
8. There shall be no exterior public address system for any uses on the site.
9. The lightning in the main parking lot areas shall conform to the requirements of the
City's Inspection Department, and shall be deflected away from residential areas.
c. Utilities and Grading
1. Before any grading or utility permits are issued, the developer shall provide the City
with acceptable plans, information, and other submittals as identified in all points of
the "Utilities" and "Grading and Erosion.Control" sections of the Engineering
Department's General Plan of Development review memo dated August 14, 2001
. and attached to the PUD permit by reference.
Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95
Page 2
2. During and after construction, the developer shall comply with all instructions
outlined in the "Utilities" and "Grading and Erosion Control" sections of the .
Engineering Department's General Plan of Development review memo dated
August 14, 2001.
D. Circulation Component:
1. Access drives and parking shall be constructed per the site plan prepared by
Landform and dated 7/24/01.
2. There shall be no vehicle display areas within the setback areas of the site.
E. Services and Facilities
1. The hours of operation shall be from 7 AM to 12 PM, Monday through Saturday, for
the service department; and for the sales department from 8 AM to 9 PM, Monday
through Thursday and until 6 PM on Friday and Saturday.
F. Subdivision
1. In order to obtain plat approval by the City and the County (for recording purposes),
the developer has agreed to register the subject property which registration will
result in marketable title in developer or his (its) affiliate. No building permits shall
be issued until such title registration is complete.
.
It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City Council
approval granted on October 2,2001. Any changes to the P.U.D. Permit for Carousel
Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95 shall require an amendment.
Witness:
CAROUSEL AUTOMOBILES
By{::)- c.).L~._.
Title: P'''"s;cR ~~
Date:
)0 - 6 - 0 I
.
Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95
Page 3
.
.
.
Wltness:~, N ~
\~/
WItness: jft W; f-
By:
Date:
By:
Date:
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
Warning: This permit does not exempt you from all other City Code provisions,
regulations and ordinances.
Carousel Automobiles P.U.D. No. 95
Page 4
November 18,2001
1311 Flag Avenue, South
St. Louis Park, MN. 55426
.
City of Golden Valley
Golden Valley Planning Commission
7800 Golden Valley RD
Golden Valley, ~ 55427
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
As a resident along Flag Avenue, I was greatly concerned with the notice of public
hearing for design review for Carousel Audi to add a parking lot and drain sewer pond
on Lot 1, Block 2, P.D.D. 95, across from the construction site. This triangular piece of
land borders the wall along the Flag Avenue residences and the Westwood Hills Nature
Center. Currently, this land holds large stands of mature trees that provide a visual
barrier to 394 and 169, as well as a visual block of the new Carousel Audi dealership.
The current construction has already resulted in the removal of many trees that have
increased- exposure to 169 and 394. Now our living room window and front bedroom face
the dealership's building. We are greatly concerned about the impact of the facility's
parking lot lights pouring into our living room and bedroom. These trees serve as the last
barrier to both the dealership and the 394-169interchange. In addition these trees
provide a sound barrier in the summer when the trees are leafed. Our decision to purchase
this home 6 years ago, was significantly affected by the barrier these trees formed. Views
of the new Carousel Audi, 169 and 394 will significantly decrease the value of our
property.
.
In addition, I am greatly concerned about the impact of a storm sewer drain and parking
lot adjacent to the Westwood Nature Center. A variety of bird and wildlife inhabit and
enhance the neighborhood. The land currently under construction by Carousel Audi
frequently was visited by deer and provided an area for deer to "escape" from traffic
along the frontage road. This triangular piece ofland is the last refuge along this area.
Without it, I fear an increase in deer/car accidents as deer flee oncoming traffic.
I cannot attend the hearing on November 26, but I hope this letter will serve as an
opposing voice to this project and result in respect for the St. Louis Park residents it will
affect.
Swr~y, iLy
/~.~
Beth and John ~- .
Cc: Area residents,
St. Louis Park and Recreation Department
.
.
Hey
Memorandum
Public Works
763-593-8030 J 763-593-3988 (fax)
Date:
November 21, 2001
To:
From:
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Enginee~
Proposed PUD Amendment, Carousel Automobiles
Subject:
Public Works staff has reviewed the plans for a proposed amendment to the recently approved
Planned Unit Development at Carousel Automobiles. The proposed amendment consists of the
construction of a parking lot on the south side of Wayzata Boulevard, just west of the intersection with
Flag Avenue. The site is immediately adjacent to the south City limits.
Site Plan:
.
As discussed above, this proposed PUD Amendment consists of the construction of a new parking lot,
and a water quality pond, on a parcel owned by the developer that is adjacent to the original PUD.
There are no buildings proposed as part of the amendment.
Access onto the site consists of a single driveway that is placed immediately across from the main
driveway for the automobile dealership. The site plan is acceptable as proposed.
Easements on the parcel must be according to the Subdivision Ordinance.
Utilities:
Because there are no buildings proposed for the PUD Amendment, there is no need to extend
municipal utilities to the site.
Gradina. Drainaae and Erosion Control:
This site is within the mainstem subdistrict of the Bassett Creek Watershed and is subject to the
Water Quality Policy of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC). According to
the policy, water quality ponding is required. The ponding shown on the plans appears to meet the
requirements of the policy. The BCWMC must review and approve the plans prior to beginning any
work on site.
This project is also subject to the Golden Valley Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Ordinance. A
permit must be obtained prior to beginning work on this site.
. The grading plan submitted for review is acceptable in concept. However, minor revisions to the plan
are needed prior to approval and issuance of the grading permit. Staff will discuss these minor items
with the developer's engineer.
G:\Developments-Private\Carousel Automobiles\PUD Amendmenldoc
I>
.
.
The developer will. be required to enter into a Storm Water Pond Maintenance Agreement for this. site.
An agreement will be forwarded to the developer for their review. The agreement must be signed and
submitted for recording at Hennepin County prior to issuance of a grading permit for the site.
A Right-of-Way Excavation Permit is required for the proposed storm sewer connection in Wayzata
Boulevard. The developer will be required to patch the trail along Wayzata Boulevard according to
City standards.
Tree Preservation:
This PUD.amendment is subject to the City of Golden Valley Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Tree
Preservation Plan submitted for review appears to meet the standards outlined in the ordinance. The
developer must submit final plans and a permit application prior to beginning work on site.
Summary and Recommendations:
Public Works staff recommends approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment for
Carousel Automobiles subject to the following comments:
Approval of the plans by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission.
Submittal and approval of a final Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, and the
issuance of a City Grading Permit.
Submittal and approval of a Right-of-Way Excavation Permit, and the issuance of same.
Submittal and approval of a finalTree Preservation Plan, and the issuance of a City Tree
Preservation Permit.
5. Subject to the comments of other City staff.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
Gary Johnson, Building Official
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
Dan Olson, City Planner
G:\Developments-Private\Carousel Automobiles\PUD ArT\endment.doc