Loading...
12-17-01 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, December 17, 2001 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - November 26, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Plan Map Amendment Applicant: Carlson Brown Investments Address: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 2 Spring Green South Addition (5411 Circle Down), Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting to change the General Land Use Plan Map for 5411 Circle Down from Semi-Public Facilities to Office so that the building can be occupied by an attorney's office. III. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning of Property located at 5411 Circle Down Applicant: Carlson Brown Investments Address: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 2 Spring Green South Addition (5411 Circle Down), Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from Institutional (1-3) zoning district to Business and Professional Offices zoning district so that the building can be occupied by an attorney's office. -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings V. Other Business VI. Adjournment , . , . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26,2001 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 26, 2001. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. hat the conditions from BP onnect. He referred again legally attach conditions to a issue with the City Attorney. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Grog McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Direct Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson, and Re Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - November 12, 2001 Pia McAleese referred to page six of the minutes an the staff memo be added to the motion for ap to page six and asked if the Planning Commi subdivision. Grimes stated he would be . MOVED by Eck, seconded by Hoffm November 12, 2001 minutes with carried unanimously to approve the noted correction. Informal Public Hear. Amendment to P. minary Design Plan - Carousel Porsche Audi - Applicant: Address: 393 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN .U.D. Amendment would allow for the construction of a new arking lot and storm water retention pond on a triangular piece of roperty at the new Carousel Porsche/Audi automobile dealership that is currently under construction. . Olson showed the location of the site and referred to his memo dated November 21,2001. He stated that this request is to amend an existing PUD to allow for a new parking lot with 67 parking spaces and a storm water retention pond. He stated that the setback requirement of 35 feet is not being met in a small area along Miller Street and the setback along the east side of the property next to the St. Louis Park nature area has a proposed setback of 10 feet instead of the required 25 feet. He discussed the tree preservation plan and stated that they are leaving the trees in the setback areas, as well as replanting several new trees and taking some trees down. He stated that the environmental coordinator, AI Lundstrom, has reviewed the plans and agrees that they are meeting the tree preservation ordinance requirements. , Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 2 . Olson stated that the area would only be for the storage of new cars and that no large semi drop-offs of cars will occur in that area. He stated that there will be some lighting in the area for security purposes but it will be much less intense than what is on the main sales area of the site. Pentel noted that the proposal indicated 18-foot long parking stalls and asked if that is considered adequate. Olson stated the requirement is 9 feet x 20 Grimes stated that the City likes to see larger parking spaces when they are u tomer parking but since the proposed use is for the storage of cars only it sh roblem. Eck questioned the use of the word "display" on page tw clarified that the parking spaces in question would only Olson Eck stated that when the Planning Commission re remembered the applicant stating that it was u triangular piece of property and questioned h explained that there is going to be a pond on the site and an additional pond on the tr" original proposal he t a retention pond on the e able to do it now. Grimes iece of property for that part of just for south part of the site. Groger stated that using the setba the display of cars on the north side of the . road was an issue the last time i ommission reviewed the proposal and noticed that on this proposal th nt is showing display area within those setbacks. Shaffer referred lans and stated that the previous proposal had an additional area along t a hey wanted to use for display, but that this proposal doesn't have tha nal space. Hoffman referred operation would property. 01 property a hours a day allighting being proposed and asked if the hours of ng or if the applicant was going to start selling cars on that t there would be no sales of cars on the triangular piece of ated that there has to be some sort of lighting on the site 24 ~,;,c safety purposes. red to the site plan and asked if the ten-foot setback area abuts a wall. Olson state at it does abut a wall. Rasmussen asked if the City currently has any ordinances regarding outside storage. Olson stated that in the Industrial Zoning district all outside storage is supposed to be screened. Grimes stated that the sale of cars is permitted in the Industrial Zoning district and that this is a different situation compared to other types of industrial uses where screening would be required. Jon Baker, 100 South 5th Street, Minneapolis, architect for the project, referred to the site plans and discussed the various variance requests. He reviewed the landscaping plan and stated that they intend to add several four-inch caliper trees to the site, which . are 20 feet in height to start with and would grow to be 40 to 50 feet in height. He . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 3 stated that the triangular piece of property is exclusively for the storage of cars and discussed how this proposal is different from the original proposal. Pentel asked what the height of the light poles would be on the triangular piece of property. Baker stated that they haven't done a precise lighting plan yet, but that he guessed they would be about 14 feet tall. Pentel stated that would be two feet higher than the wall and asked if there would be lights would be on 24 hours a day. Baker stated there would be low- level security lighting on 24 hours day but it would be minimal. Pe sked the applicant if it would be a hardship to have 12-foot high light pol of the proposed14 feet high light poles. Baker stated that he wasn't s oles come in that size, but stated that they could try to stay in that range , 8989 Wayzata Blvd., President of Carousel Automobiles, state de a pledge to the neighbors that the lighting will be cut-off from their p ey won't be able to see the glare of the lamps. Baker described the type ure being proposed and stated that he would do a detailed footcandle ~'W, Pentel opened the public hearing. itted a petition from the residents ern of the residents is that this e stated that her house is on a hill and g right at the Carousel Audi parking lot. osal at first, but she didn't realize to what uildings. She stated that she never would have see TH169, TH394 and Carousel Audi and that he only things that serve as a barrier. She asked the re proposing to plant. Baker referred to the he various types of trees and landscaping that they ated that she is concerned about the lighting from the ining into her living room window. Beth Dahl, 1311 Flag Avenue S., St. Lo in the neighborhood and stated that t development will remove the barri when the trees are gone, she w She stated she did not oppose degree she would be looki bought her house had sh the trees that are there n applicant what kind 0 landscape plan a d' would be plantin parking lot a Denise Car 21 Flag Avenue S., St. Louis Park, stated that she thinks there shoul a b r maintained because of what she has seen with the fate of some of the trees i~Qm .......1 first part of the construction. She stated that there is nothing left 'MII1i%i!i9Y there of the"'vegetation except for a few scrawny trees along Miller Street. She stated she doesn't have much faith that the applicant is going to save the trees that are still there and that the loss of the trees are going to significantly impact a lot of people in the area. She stated she would be able to see lights from the businesses, the Audi Dealership and TH394 and that's not a pleasant view. She stated she was concerned about the impact on traffic on Miller Street and having an entrance on that street could be a detriment. She stated that if the applicant is intending to use the triangular piece of property for secured parking that it seems to her that planting a heavy series of trees and vegetation along the street would be against their best interest and negate what they are doing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26,2001 Page 4 . Pentel closed the public hearing. Pentel stated that she would not support any development on this piece of property that encroached on the setbacks. She stated that she felt the 10-foot setback proposed on the east side should be 25 feet according to City regulations. She stated she appreciates the increased vegetation, but the pond itself and the e ation of the pond is going to remove a lot of the trees that act as a buffer to the n . d. She stated that this proposal is different from the previous one the mmission saw but it is still not keeping setbacks that the City Code re Groger asked if there would be any si " Hansen stated that the only signs the stickers on the cars, which Ii property is large n half an acre is a applicants have to meet o ave to build the pond to re than half an acre is being Groger asked if the pond is a legal requirement and if t enough that is requires a pond. Grimes stated wheneve being disturbed in the Bassett Creek Water Manag'@"; water quality standards. He stated that the ap . the requirements of the Watershed District b disturbed in this case. . particular piece of property. be on the triangular piece of property are tions. . Hansen commented about trees on the north part of, approved there weren't a for re-grading and so reserve to the ea referred to sever wall. He sta hoped the setback alo does t th rs concerns about them cutting down all the tated that in the original plans that were turbed areas and the whole site had to be disturbed He stated that he talked to the manager of the park s fine with the 10-foot setback being proposed. He operties along the wall that are closer than 10 feet to the -foot setback is assuming there is no wall there and he ould take that into consideration and that having a 25-foot II wouldn't really help the neighbors. He clarified that the pond U1rements of the City and the Watershed District. Rasmussen ed if ponding was required for water quality or if they could put in a storm sewer for drainage. Pentel stated that the ponds are used not just for drainage but also for the settling of solids. Rasmussen asked the applicants if there was any way they could make the neighbors happier with the screening and still use this piece of property. Baker stated that working with the shape of this piece of property and the setback requirements has been a challenge. He stated that they have met with the neighbors and it was his understanding that their concerns had been satisfied in regards to the setback changes, . landscaping and lighting design. He stated that this is a minimal layout from what they had originally anticipated and he can't think of any way to make it better. He stated that . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26,2001 Page 5 . in contrast, with the zoning that this property exists under, a building, or something more obtrusive to their visual site lines, could be built there. Rasmussen asked if the large trees would have to go in any of the scenarios they looked at. Baker stated that most of the larger trees are spread throughout the property and the whole site has to be re-graded. Pentel stated that she is impressed with the quality of the construc . far. . Shaffer agreed with Eck and state within all the setback lines they which would take out all the tre neighbors at all. He stated doesn't have a problem variances, but they are not ssible to do bors in some ighbors can't be that the architect has ent on the neighborhood east side of the property n't see that there is any easing the setback on the south Eck stated that this is an unfortunate situation where it is e anything with this piece of property that is not going to im way and without totally denying the owner the use of th totally insulated from some impact of this development. done a good job to try to minimize the impact of th~{i~ to the south. He stated that having a 10-foot s against the retaining wall does not bother hi negative impact in reducing that setback, in f and supports the proposal as is. applicant were to put the parking lot fully t the pond within the 50-foot setback area, eet all of the guidelines, but not help the q.'eposal pushes the setback along the wall, but he He'1tated the City would be allowing a few small and it is the best compromise in his opinion. MOVED by McAI Amendment No. construction of property under const ed by Hoffman and motion carried to approve . No. 95 Carousel Porsche Audi which would allow for the 'ng lot and storm water retention pond on a triangular piece rousel Porsche/Audi automobile dealership that is currently The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. r the Carousel Porsche Audi development shall meet the reqUl ents for automobile dealerships in the Industrial zoning district. 2. The recommendation of City Engineer, Jeff Oliver found in his memo to Mark Grimes dated November 21,2001 shall become part of this approval. 3. The height of the light poles should be limited to 12 feet in height. 4. The landscape plans should be reviewed to help alleviate the impact to the neighbors to the south. 5. The landscape plans should include some vegetation along the east wall. . Chair Pentel voted against the proposal. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2001 Page 6 w . -- Short Recess -- III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Shaffer discussed the next Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8: 1 0 pm. cember 17, IV. Other Business Grimes stated that there would be a Planning Commission 2001 and cancelled the meeting scheduled for Decembe V. Adjournment . . . ~: '. " . . . Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Hey To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearings on Amendment to General land Use Plan Map from Semi-Public Facilities to Office; and Zoning Map from 1-3 (Institutional) to Business and Professional Development-Carlson Brown Investment, Applicant Date: December 11, 2001 BACKGROUND Carlson Brown Investments has requested two planning actions in order to convert the former Good Samaritan nursing home at 5411 Circle Down to an office building for the Brown and Carlson Law Firm. (The Brown and Carlson Law Firm own Carlson Brown Investment.) The proposed use for the nursing home building will include the demolition of a portion of building on the south side and the expansion of the parking area along the south side of the building. The nursing home has been vacant for over one year. Without the two planning actions, the building may only be utilized for a use that is permitted in the 1-3 zoning district. These uses include nursing homes and other group living facilities. Carlson Brown has also requested several variances to permit the rezoning to go forward. These variance requests were unanimously approved by the BZA at their December 11, 2001 meeting. A copy of the BZA staff report is enclosed. The minutes are not yet available. These variances relate to parking lot setback (both existing and proposed parking areas) and number of parking spaces. These variances had to be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals (or City Council on appeal of a negative decision by the BZA) in order for the General Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map amendments to be approved by the City Council. (The City cannot rezone a parcel unless all the requirements of the zoning code for the district in which it is to be rezoned are met. In this case, the only way to meet that requirement is for the existing non-conformities to be made legally non-conforming assuming that the rezoning to Business and Professional Office.) The property at 5411 Circle Down is currently guided on the General Land Use Plan map for Semi-Public Facilities (such as nursing homes) and zoned 1-3 (Institutional). In 1957, the nursing home was constructed on the site. Several additions to the nursing home have been made since that time. The general land use plan map and zoning map reflect the institutional use of the property. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL Carlson Brown Investments intends to convert the existing nursing home to an office building for the Brown Carlson Law Firm. The building is about 15,300 sq. ft. and the building would be all converted to office space. The site is about 1.5 acres in size with about 412 ft. of frontage on Circle Down. The nursing home was constructed around 1957. In that year, the City Council rezoned the property from Open Development to Institutional. No variances were required at the time of construction. The City Council approved the building permit. Since its construction, there have been several additions to the building that have required variances. The first addition was done in 1962. This addition expanded the building about 110ft. to the east and allowed for additional nursing home rooms. In 1967, a dining room addition was built on to the east side of the south wing of the building adjacent to the existing dining room/kitchen. In 1978, a kitchen addition was added to the west side of the south wing. In 1993, another kitchen addition was added along with a walk-in freezer/cooler. This addition was again constructed on to the west side of the south wing. The original building had a south wing that was built to within 7 ft. of the south property line. The three additions to this south wing have come no closer to the south property line than 7 ft. . As indicated on the attached site plan, the conversion will include the demolition of the south wing of the building that had been used for dining and kitchen space. This space is no longer . needed for an office building. This area south of the building will be converted to parking space needed for the office building. The nursing home currently has 31 off-street parking spaces. The proposed office building will have 59 spaces, with 6 of the spaces being "proof of parking" spaces. A trash enclosure will be constructed at the far southeast end of the parking lot. Access to the trash enclosure will be from Turners Crossroad. There is a basement under a part of the building that will only be used for storage. The new parking lot is proposed to have a setback of 5 ft. from the south property line adjacent to the Metropolitan parking lot. This 5 ft. setback is the same as the existing parking lot for the nursing home adjacent to the Metropolitan parking lot. If this property is rezoned to Business and Professional Offices, the parking setback is 10ft. from a side or rear property line. The existing parking lot does not meet the 35 ft. setback requirement from both Circle Down and Turners Crossroad. Also, the number of parking spaces to be provided is several spaces short of the requirement for the remodeled office building. These parking variances were approved by the BZA on December 11,2001. Access to the existing and new parking lots will be from Turners Crossroad or Circle Down. There will be no access to the parking lot from the private driveway east of the building that serves the apartments to the east. Signage will be developed to encourage those coming to the site to use the Turners Crossroad driveway. The entire parking area south and west of the building will be designed so that it drains to the west into the existing storm sewer in Turners Crossroad. . There are no plans for altering the existing landscaping in front of the building. Grass would be planted along the.five feet setback area adjacent to the Metropolitan parking lot. 2 . . . There are no changes proposed to the fa(fade of the building except for where the south wing is to be demolished and in areas where new sidewalks or ramps are to be installed. It is my understanding that there will also be new sidewalks from the parking lot to the front door. It will not be necessary to use any streets for parking due to the low parking demand for this type of user. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS There are no specific guidelines found in the City Code when considering an amendment to the General Land Use Plan Map and the Zoning Map. All that is discussed is the process for hearings and approval. This is quite different than other matters that the Planning Commission and City Council review, particularly conditional use permits and planned unit developments. In each of these matters, the City Code outlines specific items that must be considered before a decision can be made by either body. The effect of the change on the health, safety and welfare of the community is the one general consideration. In this case, the staff would like to look at the site from a performance perspective in order to compare the use of the site for an institutional use such as a group living facility or an office use. By making this comparison, the Commission can then better determine the effect of the change on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 1) Traffic - When the site was a nursing home, there were three shifts per day with a large employment base to meet the needs of the residents. This did cause problems for the people living on Circle Down because the street was used for staff parking. A 15,000 sq. ft. office building could have the same numbers of employees but most would work during normal business hours and not on weekends. With the proposed expansion of the parking lot to 60 spaces, the effect on the neighborhood is minimized because the parking will all be off-street. The lawyers who have proposed buying the building have about 30 employees. The office building will generate less than 100 trips per day. Most of these trips will enter the parking lot from the west end of the property from Turners Crossroads. Much less traffic would use Circle Down because no on-street parking will be needed. 2) Surrounding Uses - The properties to the north and east are guided and zoned for residential uses. The property immediately to the east is used for an apartment. The properties to the north are single family. The property to the south is commercial and the properties to the west and northwest are offices. The proposed office building (nursing home) does provide somewhat of a buffer between the residential area to the north and the commercial areas along 1-394. 3) Permitted Uses - The use of the property for a nursing home or other residential facility is a 24-hour a day business. The City has little if any control over the type of residences that would be in such a facility. Although offices may be open 24 hours per day, it is likely that the building would be primarily used Monday-Friday during normal business hours. If the site was rezoned to Business and Professional Offices and the building later torn down, only an office building that could meet the setback and parking requirements could be rebuilt. In effect, that new building would be smaller than the 15,300 sq. ft. office building that is proposed. 3 4) Visual Appearance - The proposed office conversion of the building would appear . different only on the south side where the new parking area would be constructed. This is facing the commercial area. There are no changes proposed for the front of the building along Circle Down. 5) Noise levels - The office building should actually have less noise levels due to fewer employees and less delivery traffic. 6) Effect on Surrounding Property Values - With no changes proposed to the north side of the building and decreased traffic on Circle Down, there should be no negative effect on property values in the area. 7) Demonstrated Need - The need for nursing homes has been reduced over the past several years due to changes to state law. It would be unlikely that a new nursing home would be found for the site. They have also marketed the building for other types of residential facilities during the past year with no success. There does appear to be a need for small office building for companies wishing to own their own space. When comparing these two uses side by side, it would appear that the office use would provide as good or better buffer to the residential properties to the north and east than a residential facility. The office use would actually have less traffic than a typical nursing home or residential facility. The appearance of the office building on this site would not be greatly . different from a nursing home due to the restrictions found in the Zoning Code for the Business and Professional Offices zoning district. Overall, the staff believes that the change of the General Land Use Plan Map to Office and the Zoning Map to Business and Professional Office will not have a detrimental effect on the health, safety, or welfare of those living or working in the area. Recommended Action The staff recommends amendments to the General Land Use Plan Map from Semi-Public Facilities to Office; and the Zoning Map from 1-3 (Institutional) to Business and Professional Offices. The proposed land use map changes would allow the reuse of the existing building on the site for a small office. The actual effect of the changes on the existing neighborhood and area appears to be positive because it will provide for a better buffer between the residential area to the north and east and the commercial area to the south. Attachments: BZA Staff Memo from Dan Olson dated December 5,2001 Oversized Site Plans . 4 . . . Memorandum Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: 5411 Circle Down (Map 9) (01-12-59) Carlson Brown Investments, Applicant Date: December 5, 2001 Current Variance Request Carlson Brown Investments, with property located at 5411 Circle Down, is requesting variances from the Business and Professional Offices zoning code (Section 11.45). Currently, the property is zoned Institutional (1-3), but the applicant is applying to rezone the property to the Business and Professional Offices zoning district and amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from Semi Public Facilities to Offices. This rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 17, 2001 and by the City Council on January 15, 2002. The variances requested will be contingent on the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment being approved by the City Council. In addition, the Metropolitan Council will need to approve the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. The applicant has approached the City to convert the building from a nursing home use to an office for attorneys. This involves demolition of some portions of the existing building, as well as providing new paved parking areas. Attached for your review is a site plan for the project. The existing building meets all building setback requirements under the Business and Professional Offices zoning district. However, the parking lot requires variances from parking lot requirements. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. Therefore, staff did not require the applicant to obtain neighbor's signatures on the variance application. Below are the current requested variances: . The first requested variance is from Section 11.45, Subd. 5 Front Yard Setbacks. City Code states that parking lots shall be setback at least 35 feet from any front yard property line. The requested variances are for 21 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 14 feet for the existing parking lot at its closest point to the front yard property line along Circle Down; and for 18 feet off of the required 35 feet to a distance of 17 feet for the existing parking lot at it closest point to the property line along Turners Crossroad. . The second requested variance is from Section 11.45, Subd. 5 Side and Rear Yard Setbacks. City Code states that parking areas shall be setback at least 10 feet from any property zoned Commercial. The requested variance is for 6 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 4 feet at it closest point to the south side yard property line for the . proposed parking lot. . The third requested variance is from Section 11.45, Subd. 3 Loading and Parking Requirements. City Code states that in the Business and. Professional. Offices zoning district, one parking space is required for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. Based on this requirement, staff estimates that the required number of parking spaces is 61. The variance requested is to reduce the number of required parking spaces to 57. . The fourth requested variance is from Section 11.46, Subd. 7 (F) Loading and Parking Requirements. The requested variance is to reduce the size of the parking spaces from the required 9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth to 9 feet in width and 18 feet in depth. The conditions for approval of these current variances are as follows: 1. The variance approval is contingent upon the City Council's approval of the rezoning of the property to Business and Professional Offices and the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Map from Semi-Public Facilities to Offices. 2. The variance approval is contingent upon the Metropolitan Council's approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Semi-Public Facilities to Offices. 3. The recommendations of City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, as found in his memo dated . November 21, 2001 become a part of this approval. 4. The site plan revised November 2, 2001 shall become a part of this approval. Previous Variance Requests The City's file on this property reveals that a permit was pulled in August of 1957 for the construction of the existing building, which first functioned as a nursing home. It has functioned in that capacity until recently. No other pertinent information was found in the file. Previously, this property received variances. The minutes from those meetings are attached for your review. Below are the details of those variance requests: . In January, 1962, the Planning Commission recommended denial to the City Council for several variances to build a building addition. However, the City Council approved the variances at their February 6, 1962 meeting. . In June, 1967, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), approved variances for another building addition. This variance approval was clarified at the July 13, 1967 BZA meeting. . In October,1978, the BZA approved a variance to allow a kitchen expansion along the south lot line. . · In June, 1993, the BZA approved a variance to allow another kitchen expansion along the south lot line. 2 . l' . . . GfD....................... ...../...i.; oBoldinVall ey Memorandum Public Works 763.593.8030 I 763-593.3988 (fax) Date: November 21, 2001 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer -; }::;f/K"" (~ Subject: Preliminary Design Plan Review for Planned Unit Development at 5411 Circle Down Public Works staff has reviewed the plans submitted for a proposed Planned Unit Development at 5411 Circle Down Oust east of Turner's Crossroad). The existing nursing home on site is to be remodeled and used as an office building. The plans also include some parking lot expansion in areas where the existing building is to be removed. Site Plan: The proposed change in use of the building does not include any revisions to the site access. Driveways will be provided onto Circle Down and Turner's Crossroad. Golden Valley City Code requires that all parking lots have concrete curb and gutter. The new parking proposed with this PUD is shown with curbs; however, it appears that there are portions of the existing lot where there is no curb and gutter. Therefore, concrete curb and gutter must be installed on the entire parking lot as part of this PUD. Utilities: The existing building on site is currently served by municipal sanitary sewer and watermain. The existing service will be adequate to accommodate the domestic use anticipated for the PUD. Additional watermain work may be required if the Building Official determines that additional flow capacity is needed for fire protection. A Right-of-Way Excavation Permit is required for the proposed excavation into Turners Crossroads. Gradina. Drainaae and Erosion Control: This PUD is within the Sweeney Lake subdistrict of the Bassett Creek Watershed. The proposed site improvements must comply with the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission's (BCWMC) Water Quality Policy. Based upon the work proposed, water quality ponding is not required for this site, but the implementation of Best Management Practices is required. Therefore, the plans must be reviewed by the BCWMC. No work is to begin on site until the Commission has approved the plans. This site is subject to the City of Golden Valley Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Ordinance. No work is to start on site until a permit has been issued. " Tree Preservation: Based upon the work proposed, this PUD is not subject to the City of Golden Valley Tree Preservation Ordinance. . Summary and Recommendations: This proposed Planned Unit Development consists of changing uses from an existing nursing home to professional office space. The proposal includes demolition of a portion of the existing building and expansion of the parking lot. Based upon our review, Public Works staff recommends approval of the proposed PUD subject to the following comments: 1. The installation of concrete curb and gutter on the proposed parking lot expansion and on all existing parking lot with no existing curb and gutter. 2. The review and comments of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. 3. The developer obtains the appropriate Grading, Right-of-Way and Utility permits from the City of Golden Valley. 4. 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 Inspection Gary Johnson, Building Official Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal ~ Olson, City Planner . . G:\Developments-Private\5411 Circle Down\Prelim Review.doc . . . . From: To: Date: Subject: "Schroers, Bill" <BiII.Schroers@advantek.com> "'Iwittman@ci.golden-valley.mn.us'" <Iwittman@ci.golden-valley.mn.us> 12/11/01 9:59AM To: Planning Commission (Property Rezoning for 5411 Circle Downs) > To: Planning Commission (Property Rezoning for 5411 Circle Downs), > > My name is Bill Schroers and I live at 721 Turners Crossroads S. I am not > able to attend the Dec. 17 meeting due to a family event, however I would > like to briefly state a slight concern that my neighbor Gary Hanson and > myself have. We were concerned about what type of clients the proposed law > firm would represent. I called Lisa Whittman with the city and she called > the law firm for us to find out. Thank you Lisa! They are insurance > defense lawyers. We are ok with that. However companies do grow and > expand and we are concerned that they might expand into criminal defense. > This site is in a residential area and is in the process of turning over > from the elderly to young families. Both targets for crime. Is there a way > we (the city) can zone the property so that they cannot practice criminal > law? Or at the very least, can it be brought up to the firm that the > residents in the area are strongly against them representing "alleged" > criminals and bringing them into the area. > > Thank you for your time, > > Bill Schroers > 721 Turners Crossroad S > GoldenValley, MN 55416 > H 763-546-7726 > W 952-938-6800 X126 > E-mail bill.schroers@advantek.com