Loading...
01-26-09 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, January 26,2009 7pm 1. Approval of Minutes a. January 12, 2009 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing - Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat- Southwest Quadrant of 1-394 and Highway 100 - The Towers at West End a. Applicant: Duke Realty b. Address: Southwest Quadrant of 1-394 and Highway 100 c. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a 4,000 space (approximate) parking structure in Golden Valley. This will support up to 1.1 million square feet of proposed office space to be built adjacent to the ramp in St. Louis Park. 3. Short Recess 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 5. Other Business 6. Adjournment Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 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, January 12, 2009. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom, Director of Public Works Jeannine Clancy and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes December 8, 2008 Regular Planning Commissio MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Eck and m approve the December 8, 2008 minutes as s 2. Informal Public Hearing - C Water Management Plan E n Amendment - Surface Applicant: Purpose: pproval the Surface Water Management Plan mprehensive Plan Hogeboom introd Comprehensi I Management Compre . handler from Barr Engineering. He explained that the 'al review stage however the Surface Water s as a stand-alone document as well as a chapter of the therefore needs separate approvals. !!i~ too late to suggest changes to the plan. Hogeboom said no, the rat form and changes could still be made. Eck re 0 the staff report and noted that the plan needs to be approved in 120 days which is rapidly approaching. Clancy explained that staff is going by the Minnehaha Watershed District approval date so they are still within the 120-day approval deadline. Chandler explained that the proposed surface water management plan has already been reviewed as required by the Bassett Creek and Minnehaha watershed districts and also by the Metropolitan Council. Chandler referred to a PowerPoint presentation and stated that she was going to give an overview of the Surface Water Management Plan, talk about the approval process, regulatory requirements, key issues and policies and implementation. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 2 Chandler discussed the overall purpose of the plan including: communicating water resource policies, providing technical information as a resource for staff, residents and officials, addressing redevelopment issues and opportunities, planning and budgeting and fulfilling regulatory requirements. Chandler stated that there are six chapters in the Surface Water Management Plan and discussed three of them as follows: the Executive Summary, the Goals and Policies and Implementation. Chandler stated that the Surface Water Management Plan is also other requirements such as MN Pollution Control Agency requir Council requirements and MN Department of Health require map of impaired waters in the City and showed a table listi impaired. She discussed the implementation plans to im I to meet etropolitan rred to a ers are ality. Chandler referred to the key issues affecting the City in quality and quantity standards and solving existin redevelopment, rehabilitation, city improvem some of the key goals and policies include: recreation habitat and shoreland managem to improve surface water quality inclu stormwater system, developing a p the system and to implement, alo 1-394 Corridor study which inv green roofs, etc. Cera stated techniques used everyw area. Chandler said th but there is a focus on h nce. She stated that , ams, flood control and lained that some of the ways erformance of the existing ically inspect, clean and repair r'.~tidor, "Guiding Principal 8" from the act development, permeable pavement, Ii see low impact development , not just on parcels in the 1-394 Corridor urages these techniques throughout the City, em in the 1-394 Corridor. Chandler discusse developing a agreeme ,re develo manag 'es in the plan that will improve runoff quality such as: ge, monitor and enforce private stormwater facility nual phosphorus loading, require runoff from new e watershed treatment standards and develop a stormwater e. at another important goal of the plan is to improve or maintain the ater bodies in the City by identifying opportunities to maintain the water qu of Twin Lake, achieve management goals for Sweeney Lake and cooperate in preparing TMDL studies and implementing recommendations. The next goal Chandler discussed was improving the quality and reducing the volume of stormwater runoff that reaches Bassett Creek by reducing impervious surfaces through ordinance changes and best management practices, updating creek inventory for erosion problems and encouraging restoration of streambank areas. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 3 Chandler referred to a flood inundation map and discussed the goal of flood control. She discussed some of the ways to reduce flooding including: controlling rates during redevelopment, enforcing the flood plain management ordinance, consider dedicating funds to purchase homes currently in the floodplain and prohibiting new obstructions in the floodplain. Chandler discussed the goal of recreation, habitat and shoreland management and improving the quality and aesthetics of water resources by developing buffers on city property and encouraging buffers on non-city property. Chandler discussed the implementation tools including the Stor Prevention Program (SWPPP), stormwater utility, ordinances permits, Wetland Conservation Act administration and mai the Watersheds also have tools to help implement this pi improvements and maintenance, studies, taxes (Ad Va and leading TMDL studies. Kluchka asked about the funding sources for stated that money for some of the projects Management Commission and from propert owners pay utility fees which help fun d in this plan. Chandler e sett Creek Water ncy added that all property ell. Kluchka asked if there is any risk constraints. Clancy stated tha the Capital Improvement Pia etting done in the case of budget e approved on an annual basis through Cera referred to page control construction si recycling progra require a certain a disposed of a ..L9n which discusses implementing a program to e qtfestioned if Golden Valley will be setting up a 'on site debris. Grimes said staff is looking at ways to cling and to make sure construction site debris is ssible. ific things are changing that might impact the work of the I . Clancy explained that there aren't projects specifically geared g Commission but more toward the City in general such as the working with the Minneapolis Park Board regarding the water quality protecting Twin Lake, Lake Hiawatha and Lake Pepin. She added that the Plan Commission will also be involved in writing ordinances that use more "green" technology such as solar and wind energy and collecting rain water. Grimes stated that as projects are reviewed staff will address a lot of the issues that are in the Surface Water Management plan. Kluchka referred to page 10-10, number 19 regarding the guiding principles from the 1-394 Corridor study. He asked how those principles can have a broader impact in the City other than just in the 1-394 Corridor area. Hogeboom stated that staff has formed a "Green Team" to look at new ordinances and incentives. Cera suggested striking the last four words "for the 1-394 Corridor" in number 19. Grimes asked if the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 4 Commissioners would rather have it say "throughout the City". Clancy said she doesn't see a concern with amending the last sentence but that she would like to have the opportunity to talk to the rest of the staff before changing it. Waldhauser said when she was reading this plan she was looking for a shift from encouraging water retention and pond maintenance to encouraging infiltration and she did notice a subtle shift. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried recommend approval the Surface Water Management Pia Comprehensive Plan to 3. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Us' Avenue South - CU-124 Applicant: Address: Purpose: Grimes explained that square feet of the buil and maintenance the past for autom . proposing to use approximately 10,000 21 Hampshire Avenue South for the repair ehicles. He noted that this property has been used in businesses. y was previously zoned Industrial but as of December 1, zoned to Mixed Use. The application was submitted before It can be considered under the Industrial zoning district that there will be no auto body work allowed. He noted that according to the ap ant, the cars will be stored inside the building. There will be 5 to 10 employees, and the hours will be 9 am to 9 pm. Grimes said that staff is in support of this proposal. Keysser asked about the length of the lease. Grimes said that the applicant has a three-year lease. Keysser asked what would happen to the Conditional Use Permit if the applicant's lease is not renewed after three years. Grimes explained that the Conditional Use Permit would continue with the property as long as the same type of Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 5 business goes in the space and there is not more than a 6 month gap between owners. Keysser asked Grimes if staff has any environmental concerns with this use. Grimes said no because the building is already set up to be used for automotive repair. Kluchka asked if the Conditional Use Permit is issued to the property owner or to the applicant. Grimes said it is issued to the applicant, but that the owner of the property signed the application giving the applicant permission to ask the City for a Conditional Use Permit. Kluchka asked what would happen to this proposal if the applic applied after December 1, 2008. Grimes explained that if ther between owners the applicant could have opened his busi approvals. He added that the City Council delayed the a zoning district, in part, to offer business owners the ch Zoning Code changes went into effect. roposal was submitted ed in the Mixed Use Kluchka asked what potential impacts there W in 2009. Grimes stated that this proposal wo zoning district. Kluchka asked if there have been a requirements of the Mixed Use z first proposal in the Mixed Us turned away due to the es stated that this has been the Kevin Tan, Applicant, ex automotive repair and to. He reiterated that t and that there will ere is a unique market to do high end d that is the type of customer they will cater e no ars parked outside, other than employee cars dy work. he is going to be buying and selling cars too. Tan said g maintenance and repair. I t if this is a new business for him. Tan stated that he has pe of work on the side, but having a separate business will be e already has approximately 120 customers. Eck aske out the exhaust system in the building. Tan said there is a full exhaust system in the building. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. McCarty said he is in support of this proposal. Eck said it is interesting that if this proposal was brought forward today it would not be allowed but the building has been used as a transmission shop for years. He said Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 6 he is in support of the proposal because this use in this location won't impact anyone. Cera agreed. Waldhauser said her only concern is what might be adjacent to this property in the future especially if it is residential. Kluchka said he thinks this will be a good transitional use and he is in support of the proposal. He added that hopefully Borton (the building owner) will think about other mixed uses in the future. 4. o iew and be constructed d by the Building Official. cept when bringing vehicles MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Eck and motion carried unan' recommend approval of an auto repair/maintenance business a Avenue South with the following conditions: 1. Imola Motorsports Inc. will operate in the south 70 building at 721 Hampshire Ave. S. 2. All signage shall meet the requirements of the zoning district. 3. If there is an outside dumpster, it must b of material compatible with the building 4. The applicant will keep the overhe into the building. 5. The memo from Deputy Fire is attached and his recom (Please note that the Dep auto body work and p 6. Only auto repair sh permitted. 7. All other appli 8. Failure to com revocatio son and dated December 8, 2008, II become a part of this approval. r I mistakenly thought that there would be by Imola.) mola. No body work or painting shall be al and federal requirements shall be met. more of the above conditions shall be grounds for Put) c Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Paved ''i,tio Setback Requirements in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the R-1 Single Family Zoning District in regard to paved surface/patio setback requirements Hogeboom stated that staff is recommending the zoning code be amended to require that patios and paved surfaces be required to be setback 3 feet from side yard property lines as are driveways. He explained that the reason for this requested amendment is because there was recently an applicant at the Board of Zoning Appeals who wanted to replace his existing driveway and call a portion of it a patio Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 7 so that he could construct it right up to the property line. He stated that he asked several cities about their requirements for paved surfaces and the most common response was a 5-foot setback requirement for paved surfaces. He stated that staff is asking that the Planning Commission to recommend approval of requiring a 3-foot setback for all paved surfaces because that would be consistent with the driveway requirements. Keysser asked how the proposed ordinance language would allow for pervious pavers. Waldhauser reminded the Commission that pervious pavers were discussed during the "infill housing" discussions they've had in the past. At th . e it was agreed that only 40% of the front yard may be covered with con inous pavement, or pavers. Hogeboom stated that staff will be looki ents for pervious pavers separately. McCarty said he would p ck eet away from r g. Grimes added k requirements as the e width of the lot. Waldhauser stated that she would like to see patios ha requirement because decks and accessory structures a the property lines and 5 feet would allow enough that if a deck is attached then it has to follow principal structure, which is more than 5 fee Kluchka suggested using the same se structures. Grimes stated that a sid. on the height of a structure and t he would like to have different ts that are used for d be up to 20 feet depending hardship on many lots. Cera said ements based on the width of a lot. Grimes stated that on so it is going to b different setbacks driveways andl'; av narrower ts. pa os is that they don't require a building permit late these setbacks. Grimes suggested requiring t widths such as requiring a 5 foot setback for on lots over 100 feet in width and a 3 foot setback for n favor of requiring a 3-foot setback as recommended by staff. s loned if sidewalks should also have a setback requirement. Waldhau asked about the side yard setback requirements for parking pads located next to garages. She reiterated that she would like the setback for paved surfaces to be 5 feet so there is enough room to provide for some screening. Keysser referred to the proposed ordinance and suggested paragraph A just reads "driveways shall be paved", the word "bituminous" can be removed and the word "sidewalk" could be added. McCarty suggested saying "paved areas in the R-1 zoning district shall be governed by the following provisions" because that would include every paved area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 8 Kluchka asked about gravel and if a homeowner could "gravel" their entire side yard. Grimes said yes, people could use landscape rock or gravel in their side yards, but driveways have to be paved. McCarty referred to paragraph A regarding materials and suggested that the word "driveways" be replaced with the words "paved areas". Schmidgall stated that the word driveway needs to be in that paragraph because driveways are required to be paved. Kluchka asked about the requirement for air conditioner pads. Grimes stated that air conditioning units have to be located in the side or rear yard, not th ont yard. 1. e located t all. The etback tback 3 feet from Eck questioned if an area made of gravel or wood chips coul property line. Keysser said yes because those are not pav suggested language saying that driveways, patios, side closer than 3 feet to the property line and not mention' commissioners agreed that only paved surfaces would requirements. Grimes suggested saying all pave the property lines and all driveways must be Kluchka suggested defining "paved areas". the beginning defining paved areas a bituminous pavement, or pavers. P paved. Paragraph 8 would be th Paragraph C would be about suggested language right at tructed of concrete, tate that driveways must be ents for all paved areas and Keysser opened the pub' Keysser closed the pu eeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, MOVED by Cera, recommend a ro regarding pa s Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to the language in the R-1 Single Family Zoning District setback requirements as follows: ved areas as follows: paved areas are those constructed of s pavement, or pavers. 2. (A) states that all driveways shall be paved. 3. Subd on 19(8) states that paved areas shall be setback 3 feet from a side yard property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 9 5. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding Definition of "Building Height" Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To amend the definition of Building Height in the City Code Hogeboom stated that staff is asking to amend the zoning code's definition of building height. He explained the reason staff is asking for this amendment is because recently there was a home that was torn down and the bu' . department's policy establishing the grade for a new home was' zoning code's definition for establishing the grade. Grimes ad elevation of a garage needs to be two feet above the cente to provide for proper drainage. In this particular case the than the street and the zoning code (with the new infill that the grade for a new home can only be raised 1 foot the former home. He stated that there are some sit . be brought up more than 1 foot to provide for Waldhauser said she thought there was an allowed staff to decide if the grade co drainage. Kluchka stated he reme regarding infill development that enough. the zoning code that cessary to allow for proper during the discussions increased grade would be Cera said he would like t an exception could be homeowner couldn't s drain properly. Gr' proper draina e is to remain as is with the addition of saying that o allow for proper drainage. That way a to add 10 feet of fill in order to make the lot hinks allowing for an exception when needed for aff is trying to accomplish. to fill a lot more than 1 foot could be considered a that in this case the homeowner wasn't asking to put in g them they had to bring the grade up in order to get proper sted requiring the homeowner to obtain a variance or adding languag the code that requires staff to make a finding when the City requires. the grade to be increased more than the code allows. Keysser said he would be comfortable keeping the language as it is with the addition of allowing the Director of Public Works to decide if there needs to be an exception to allow for proper drainage. The Commissioners agreed. McCarty noted that the last sentence in the definition of building height is redundant to definition 8.5 and should be struck. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 10 Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to amend the definition of Building Height in the City Code as follows: 1. Add language stating that the Director of Public Works can set the grade of a lot where a house has been demolished higher than 1 foot above the previous grade if drainage issues exist. 8. ntto 2. The last sentence in definition 12 should be struck becau definition 8.5. -Short Recess- 7. Reports on Meetings of the Housin Council, Board of Zoning Appeals pment Authority, City gs Kluchka noted that at the last Plannin consideration of the Redevelopmen Project Area, but they neglected the Planning Commission did details of that document wer just supposed to decide i Grimes stated that the they will be reviewing eting they tabled the las Drive Redevelopment !i1iP:ecific date. Waldhauser added that he power to table that item and that the ning Commission to review they were .stent with the Comprehensive Plan or not. . cussing this item at their next meeting and g Commission discussed. ners that Duke Realty is having a neighborhood open t 6:30 pm regarding their West End Towers development. 9. The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 pm. Lester Eck, Secretary Hey Planning 763.593.8095 I 763.593.8109 (fax) Date: January 21, 2009 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing-Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan and Preliminary Plat for The Towers at West End-PUD No. 107-Southwest Quadrant of 1.394 and TH 100-Duke Realty, Applicant BACKGROUND Duke Realty is proposing to construct a phased 1.1 million sq. ft. of office space in up to four buildings at the southwest quadrant of TH 100 and 1-394. The office development is called The Towers at West End. This office development is part of the overall West End development that includes 330,000 sq. ft. of retail and entertainment space, 33,000 sq. ft. of second story office space above the retail, a 130 room hotel, associated parking structures, indoor and outdoor public areas, and green space. The total West End development that spans from Park Place Blvd. on the west to TH 100 on the east is 48.5 acres in size. The Towers at West End will be located on the east 13 acres. Of the 13 acre site for The Towers, 7.5 acres is located in St. Louis Park and 5.5 acres in Golden Valley. The City of St. Louis Park has already approved a Planned Unit Development that includes the West End development without The Towers site. At the present time, the retail, office, entertainment space is under construction with opening planned for late 2009. The hotel is not yet under construction. Infrastructure improvements are underway including the construction of 16th Ave. extended to Utica Ave. Utica Ave. will be reconstructed during the summer of 2009 in order to be ready for the retail opening. The phasing of the retail development is explained in the "Overall Master Development Summary" prepared by Duke and submitted with this PUD application. The approval process for The Towers development is somewhat unique. Both cities will be going through a similar PUD process for the 1.1 million sq. ft. office development. However, each city will approve only that portion that is within their city. In the case of Golden Valley, only the seven level parking deck and connections to the office buildings are located in Golden Valley. All four proposed office buildings are located in St. Louis Park along with small portions of the parking deck. The dual PUD process is the one chosen by the Golden Valley City Council. Over the past year or two, the staffs from both cities have considered alternate approval processes including a joint powers agreement to give St. Louis Park all zoning approvals and to share the property tax revenues from the development. In the end, Golden Valley believes that providing two planning approvals for The Towers is most appropriate. In this case, both cities have about the same timing for a PUD approval. Each planning commission gets to review the proposal at a preliminary and final phase. The city councils each approve both a preliminary and final phase. There will obviously have to be cooperation between the cities to make this development work. Already, the fire and police departments have met to discuss how fire and emergency calls will be handled. In addition, the building inspection departments have talked about how to handle the building review process. Over the years, Golden Valley and St. Louis Park have cooperated on many services. The staff of both cities believes that the office development will work well despite the boundary issue. In terms of assessing value to the property for property tax purposes, the assessor for each community and Hennepin County will deal with this issue. The County Assessor has told the City of Golden Valley that it is possible to divide the value of the site based on the boundary line. The property is currently guided on the General Land Use Plan Map as Commercial/Office. The proposed office development is consistent with that land use designation. The property is also zoned Commercial. Within the Commercial zoning district, offices are considered a permitted use. Up until the past couple of years, this property was used for several low rise office buildings. The review of the General Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map indicates that the property in Golden Valley directly to the east is designated for Low Density Residential uses. This property is east of TH 100. The property to the north in Golden Valley is designated for Mixed Use development. This property is on the north side of 1-394. The properties that are west and south of The Towers is within the borders of St. Louis Park. These St. Louis Park properties are used for office and retail uses. The two freeways provide a significant barrier from any nearby residences. DESCRIPTION OF PUD PROCESS There are two stages of approval for all PUD applications. This is the first or preliminary PUD 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 Final PUD Plan or the final stage of approval. Preliminary plan approval does not guarantee that a proposal will become reality. It gives an applicant some assurance of being on the right track, and some guidance on how to proceed. In the case of the Planning Commission in particular, the limitation of the preliminary plan approval is clearly laid out. City Code Section 11.55 Subd. 5(C) states that: The Planning Commission shall hold an informal public hearing and consider the application for consistency with the Intent and Purposes provisions and other PUD requirements and principles and standards adhered to in the City. The Planning 2 Commission's report to the Council shall include recommended changes, conditions, or modifications. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The proposal presented by Duke Realty for The Towers is best described in the attached "Overall Master Plan Summary" submitted by Duke. This summary does an excellent job of going over the details of the development. Due to the unique nature of this development spanning the border between two cities, both cities must issue a PUD permit for the portion of the development within their respective city. Therefore, Golden Valley's review is limited to the parking deck and its impact. Information has been provided to the City of Golden Valley on the entire development in order to understand the context of the entire development. Within this section, staff will call out certain issues for consideration. As stated in the summary submitted by Duke, The Towers development will be phased. The first phase is the construction of the south office tower and the south portion of the parking structure that is primarily within the City of Golden Valley. The office building will be 9 stories with a total height of 145 ft. It will have about 277,000 sq. ft. of office space. The office building is totally within the City of St. Louis Park. The parking deck will be seven levels with a total height of 75 ft. to the top of the stair or elevator shaft. The main portion of the parking deck will be about 55 ft. high. If and when additional buildings are constructed, the parking deck will be expanded as per the submitted plans. The future phases will probably consist of three additional office buildings of about the same size as the phase one building. However, there is a possibility of reducing the number of buildings to three with one building up to 20 stories in height. The parking deck would remain the same for any combination of buildings. The parking deck will provide parking at a ratio of one space for each 250 sq. ft. of office space. This is the City of Golden Valley's parking standard. The stall size is proposed to be 8.5 ft. by 18 ft. rather than the 9 ft. by 18.5 ft. required by the City's parking code. However, the parking code does allow a variance from this size requirement in parking decks due to the cost of parking decks. It allows the Director of Planning to allow reductions. In this case, the size reduction is minimal and is acceptable. In terms of bike parking, the number of bike parking spaces will exceed the City of Golden Valley's requirement of 5% of the spaces required for vehicles. Duke has chosen to meet the City of St. Louis Park requirement that is 10%. They are proposing a proof of parking on 50% of the bike spaces which means that half of the spaces will be built now and the other half when they are needed as determined by the City. The parking deck is designed to blend in with the proposed office buildings they will serve. The parking deck will be made of architectural pre-cast concrete panels. The color is shown on the attached renderings submitted by Duke. Duke has submitted a shadow study indicating that shadows from the buildings will not have an impact on any adjacent residential areas. The parking deck will be tucked close to the east side of the property with only a ten ft. setback from the side of the parking deck to the Wayzata Blvd. frontage road or private road that is located south of the point where Wayzata Blvd. goes under TH 100. Within the 3 10ft. setback and street right-of-way will be located a standard size sidewalk and landscaping as indicated on the submitted plans. (Please note that in the City Engineer's memo he is recommending that a sidewalk be placed along the entire length of the parking deck to connect to the existing pedestrian system that exists south and west of the parking deck.) The PUD chapter states that buildings shall be located at least 15 ft. from any internal roads. In this case, the parking deck is located only 10ft. from the private road south of where Wayzata Blvd. goes under TH 100 and within 10 ft. ofWayzata Blvd. Staff believes that this 10ft. setback is acceptable in this location due to the adjacent land use (TH 100) and the landscaping that is proposed next to the deck. The PUD chapter suggests that the overall hard surface for developments be 90% for Commercial/Retail uses and 80% for Business uses. The overall hard surface coverage of The Towers is 82%. This is in the range of the guidelines in the City code. As stated above, the City Engineer has written a detailed memo regarding site plan, traffic and pedestrian connection issues. Planning staff agrees with his findings and recommendations. Planning staff would like to highlight a couple of the engineer's findings. First, the parking deck access points to Wayzata Blvd. are limited to two points. In early discussions with Duke, there were four or more driveway openings shown on preliminary plans. The reduction to two driveways has been made as a result of conversations with staff and City Council. It is hoped that with only two driveway openings on Wayzata Blvd., fewer cars will use Wayzata Blvd. east of TH 100. Second, Duke has committed to finance certain traffic calming measures west of TH 100. These will be required to be in place at the time of parking deck construction. Third, there is a concern about the pedestrian walkway through the parking deck. Staff believes that there are safety concerns with pedestrians and bikers crossing parking aisles within the parking deck. At this time, staff would like to eliminate the pedestrian passage through the parking deck and see people use the proposed sidewalk around the parking deck in order to get to the retail in the West End. Also attached is a copy of a memo from the Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson that addresses various issues and his recommendations will be made a part of the recommendations in this memo. ELIGIBILITY OF APPLlCA liON PUDs are regulated under City Code Section 11.55. The staff has reviewed this section and has determined that the proposed development qualifies for review as a PUD. Duke has submitted all the necessary information for consideration as required by Section 11.55. It is the staff's finding that the proposal meets the Intent and Purpose section of the PUD chapter of the Zoning Code. Duke has met with City staff on numerous occasions to hammer out the details on this development. They have also held a neighborhood meeting on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 to introduce this development to the surrounding neighborhoods in Golden Valley and St. Louis Park. About 30 people attended and over 2000 were invited by a mailed invitation. 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the preliminary PUD plan for The Towers as proposed by Duke Realty. This is a development that has been planned for several years. This is one of the prime development corners in the Twin Cities. Duke Realty is treating it like a prime intersection by designating it for 1.1 million sq. ft. of Class A office space along with the retail that is part of the West End development. Staff understands that this type of location will be densely developed. Staff believes that Duke has committed to a development that will be good for the area and have minimized negative effects on surrounding residential areas. We all know that there will be an increase in traffic. The traffic management plan that will be developed as part of this development and administered by St. Louis Park will insure that the traffic impacts from this development will be consistent with the information submitted by Duke as part of the AUAR review done in 2007. As indicated in Duke's narrative, this is a phased development that timing will be determined by the market. Hopefully, construction could begin this fall. If not, Duke will ask for a delay in the consideration of the final plan similar to what OPUS had done on the site at the northwest corner of Xenia Ave. and Golden Hills Dr. The recommendation of approval is subject to the following conditions. 1. The parking deck shown in the plans for The Towers at West End prepared by Duke and Walsh Bishop Architects and dated 12/12/08 shall become a part of this approval. 2. The parking deck will be phased with the first phase consisting of about 1200 parking spaces on seven levels. 3. The memo and recommendations found in a memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, to Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, and dated January 21, 2009 shall become a part of this recommendation. 4. The memo and recommendations found in a memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated January 9,2009 shall become a part of this recommendation. 5. The Preliminary Plat of The Towers at West End is acceptable with changes recommended by the City Engineer. Attachments: Location Map ( 1 page) Applicant's Narrative (12 pages) Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, dated January 21,2009 (8 pages) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson, dated January 9,2009 (2 pages) Memo from Jean Hughes Leveque and David Leveque, 1415 Fairlawn Way (1 page) Project Renderings (9 oversized pages) Preliminary Plat (2 oversized pages) Site Plans (32 oversized pages) 5 Subject Properties ~ ~~17 ~- ~ '- ~ ~ \. , '" ~ ; ES 1394 TO.rm HWYlll0 S S8 HWYl00 S TO EB f394 . City of St. Louis Park <l) t~a~'",+m,lIt-',.jtJS'" C~\fliKCr lootSOfS~2\ (l _! . . . Duke REALTY CORPORATION The Towers at West End Preliminary PUDI Plat 16th Street & Utica Avenue . St Louis Park, MN - Golden Valley, MN 12/12/08 Submitted and Prepared by: Duke Realty Corporation 1600 Utica Ave S - #250 St Louis Park, MN 55416 - 1 - OVERALL MASTER DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY The West End is a 35-acre mixed-use development located in St Louis Park and Golden Valley, Minnesota at the southwest quadrant of 1-394 and Highway 100. The project is bounded by Park Place Boulevard on the west, Highway 394 on the north, Highway 100 on the east and Gamble Drive on the south. The proposed master development plan includes approximately 1.1 million square feet of Class A office space, 350,000 square feet of retail and entertainment space, 33,000 square feet of second story office space above the retail, a 130-150 room hotel, associated parking structures, indoor and outdoor public areas, and green space. The planned development will add a vibrant and dynamic retail and entertainment alternative to the community as well as a premier Class A office park. The retail portion of the redevelopment is currently under construction while the office portion of the development site is currently underutilized with surface parking. Previous uses in the project area included an abandoned tennis club, warehouse and lab space, and three older low-rise office buildings. These uses surrounded two Class A office towers and two restaurants. The West End master plan demonstrates the opportunities that can be achieved when parcels are developed with a cohesive and integrated vision. Project integration offers advantages in the areas of traffic management, stormwater management, area wide transit services, improved pedestrian connections, public spaces, and reduced parking needs. The proposed development will be phased. The retail construction began in December 2007 with a proposed grand opening of September 2009. The infrastructure improvements are also being constructed in phases. 16th Street is being constructed as part of the retail project and Utica Avenue will be reconstructed in the Summer of 2009 to be completed at the time of the retail grand opening. The construction of the first of four office towers (277,555 square feet) and the hotel will start based on market conditions. The West End master plan is in compliance with the findings of "The West. End Final AUAR" prepared by URSI Kimley-Horn and adopted by the City of St Louis Park. The AUAR incorporated the results of the "Minneapolis West Redevelopment Traffic Analysis" prepared by SRF Consulting Group. Several formal and informal public participation meetings were held in conjunction with the AUAR process and The City of St Louis Park also conducted a public retail visioning process. The western retail portion of the master development has been platted and is known as The Shops at West End. The eastern portion of the master development is known as The Towers at West End. A full description of the Preliminary PUD and Plat request for The Towers at West End follows both in text form and the submitted plans and exhibits. - 2- SITE ANALYSIS. EXISTING CONDITIONS The West End Final AUAR by URS/ Kimley Horn contains extensive description and analysis of the site and the proposal. Below are general summaries pertaining to The Towers at West End. Legal Description/ Ownership The existing legal descriptions and overall project boundary survey is attached to this application on the Preliminary plat and Existing Legal Descriptions document. Project location County: Hennepin City/Township: City of St. Louis Park SW~ SW~ Section 30 Township 117N Range 24W The applicant, developer and fee owner of the land and buildings for the proposed offices on the east portion of the project is Duke Realty L.P. The owner of the existing 1600 tower, Moneygram tower, Chili's land and Olive Garden land on the central portion of the project is Duke Realty L.P. Existing Building Configuration/Coverage The eastern side of the overall site consisted of three small office buildings (70,523 square feet), and surface parking lots. These office buildings have been demolished in preparation of redevelopment. The central portion of the site consists of two Class A office towers (totaling 533,000 square feet) and the existing Chili's and Olive Garden restaurants. These buildings will remain as part of the proposed development. Vegetation/Surface Water The site is currently undeveloped with paved parking lots and associated landscape areas. There are no sensitive cover types. Open, grassy areas are limited to parking lot islands, roadway medians, landscaped commercial areas, and small lawns associated with office buildings. The larger existing greens paces were created as older office buildings were demolished. Topography/Slopes The topography on the plan is in I-foot intervals. While the site is relatively flat, the parcel generally drops 8-10 feet in elevation from south to north where the proposed buildings, road and parking will be located. - 3 - Surface Drainage - (Minnehaha Creek Watershed) The proposed master plan will not result in physical or hydrologic alteration of any surface waters. Grading operations are intended to perform soil corrections to make the site pad ready for future buildings. All corrected areas will be seeded to provide temporary erosion control. Soils Current site soils are varied, are noted in the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluations by AET, and are available upon request. Soil borings indicate that varying fill and pockets of peat are present on site in depths up to 23 feet with compaction ranging from loose to very dense. The principal naturally occurring soils below the fill are sand mixes with occasional pockets of clay. Soil correction and dewatering will be performed to remove all the existing non-structural fill and buried organic soils. Based on the recommendation of soils engineers it is anticipated that office towers can be constructed on spread footings up to a height of approximately 12 stories. If market conditions warrant taller buildings, deep foundation systems will likely be necessary. The slabs on grade will be supported by engineered fill placed in accordance with the recommendations of a soils engineer following appropriate soil corrections. Ground water on the site is encountered at depths from 12 to 19 feet below grade. The groundwater is sufficiently deep that it should not affect the performance of the building foundations and slabs, based on the proposed floor elevations. Existing Utilities The site is served by City sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer in Park Place Blvd., Gamble Drive, Wayzata Blvd, Utica Avenue, and the border of Golden Valley. Private utilities also are in place throughout the site. Existing utilities are shown on the existing ALT A Survey as well as the proposed Utility and Storm Sewer plans. Easement Vacation Several utility easements will require vacation and rededication over proposed alignment of the internal roadways, future utility lines and lot lines. This will occur at the time of final platting. The existing easements are shown on the AL T A Survey and in general include: . A City sanitary and water easement (SLP) running along the City boundary lines (St Louis Park! Golden Valley) along with private utilities. . Private driveway easement along Utica Avenue. (Health Partners) . Gas easement serving 5219 Wayzata Blvd office building. (SLP) . Communication easement running through the middle of the office site. (SLP) - 4- There is an existing Watermain easement on east property line of office site serving Golden Valley. (GV) This easement is not anticipated to be changed by this project. PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Infrastructure construction including soil correction, utilities, and roads will adhere to the previously submitted and approved West End Conditional Use Permit by the City of St Louis Park. As part of The Shops at West End project, utility and street construction of 16th Street is approximately 1/2 complete and will be finished in early Summer 2009. Utility relocation and street construction of Utica Avenue is scheduled to start Spring 2009. In general this work consists of relocating existing utilities, soil corrections, new utility construction and new street construction. Both the City of St Louis Park and the City of Golden Valley have issued Grading permits for this infrastructure work and St Louis Park has issued a Utility and ROW permit for the 16th Street improvements. Additional Utility and ROW permits will be submitted to St Louis Park prior to commencement of the Utica A venue improvements. Preliminary public improvement streets cape design and architecture are presented in this application. The design, plan production, review, and construction responsibilities are outlined in the Public Improvement Phasing Plan as well as the St Louis Park Redevelopment Agreement. Associated reciprocal easement and maintenance agreements are also outlined in the Redevelopment Agreement. Minor street adjustments will ultimately need to be made to Wayzata Blvd at it exits from under the Highway 100 overpass to provide for safer vehicle and pedestrian use. These . improvements are anticipated to be constructed at the time of the first building's Final PUD and Plat application. ROWand Utility permits will be applied for with the City of Golden Valley at the appropriate time with this future application. A temporary pedestrian bituminous walkway will be constructed to connect the intersection of 16th Street/Utica Ave to the sidewalk at the underpass to Hwy 100 at Wayzata Blvd. This sidewalk will be maintained by Duke until the final sidewalk connections are implemented. - 5 - THE TOWERS AT WEST END - PUD PROPOSAL Project Description The objective of this proposal is to provide a high quality Class A office park that complements the retail development currently under construction to create a premier mixed use destination immediately west of downtown Minneapolis. The specific proposed building layouts and corresponding square foot data are provided on the submitted architectural and civil site plans. In general the areas are approximately as follows: Office 1,176,833 1,110,220 Gross SF Net Rentable SF (94% - 277,555 SF x 4 Buildings) 4442 - 4755 Parking Stalls 167 Parking Stalls (Office - dependant on final parking ramp design) (existing Health Partners easement - may not construct) 4609 - 4922 Stalls Total Development Phasing Development of the site is anticipated to occur mostly within the next 3-10 years. The first office building will commence based on market conditions and the approval of the corresponding Final PUD and Plat applications. Re-platting of Land As part of this proposal Duke Realty proposes that the land be re-platted into a new lot and block configuration. A Final Plat was previously submitted to St Louis Park and approved along with The Shops at West End Final PUD. At this the time office portion of the master plan is platted as Outlot A in St Louis Park and retained the unplatted parcels in Golden Valley. A preliminary Plat Application is attached as part of this PUD submittal package. Land Use/ Zoning Existing Land Use Guide Plan: SLP - Office GV - Commercial Existing Zoning: Proposed zoning SLP - Office SLP - Office GV - Commercial GV - Commercial - 6- Offices and parking structures are permitted uses in both St Louis Park and Golden Valley under the current Zoning designations but there are several Conditional Use Permit and Variance requests that are included in this Preliminary PUD application including: St Louis Park: Required ProDosed Office Buildings Front Yard Setbacks Side Yard Setbacks 20' or Bldg Height 15' 10' 10' Golden Vallev: Required ProDosed Parking Structure Front Yard Setbacks Side Yard Setbacks Lot Coverage (Entire project) Building Height (CUP) 35' 20' 50.0% 3 stories 10' 10' 56.4% 7 levels Parking Stall Size (Ramp) Bay Size (Ramp) Parking (1/250 Gross SF) 9' x 18.5' 61' 4680 stalls (1/250 SF Gross) 8.5' x 18' 60' 4442-4755 stalls (4/1000SF Net Rentable) These variance and CUP requests are consistent with other Class A office developments that Duke Realty has constructed on other sites and are in line with current marketing and leasing requirements in the Twin Cities. Building: and Ramp Orientation The goal is to create a premier mixed-use development including a specialty Retail and entertainment experience as well as a Class A office campus. The orientation of the office buildings is dictated by the presence of existing properties including Chili's, Olive Garden, 1600 Tower and Moneygram Tower as well as the extension of 16th Street to meet Utica Avenue. The offices are located on the west side of the overall site and are situated to maximize the views of downtown Minneapolis. The office parking ramp is master planned as a shared facility that is tucked into the east portion of the site. This location uses the close proximity of the existing MNDOT highway exchanges to effectively screen some of the parking structure and minimize its presence. The plans provided anticipate a four building scheme but a three building scheme is a possibility depending on market and leasing conditions. The four building scheme is more restrictive in nature while a three building scheme offers the opportunity for more open space and possibly more surface parking. The four office scheme accommodates four towers at 9 stories each. A three - 7 - building scheme could either have a phased central building of similar 9 story heights or a have a larger building (20 story maximum) to provide for a large corporate tenant. Duke seeks to have flexibility under the Preliminary PUD and Platting applications to have the ability to adjust to changing market conditions. Duke understands that the overall project will need to comply with the recommendations of the final AUAR and that each final building will need to be submitted for Final PUD and Plat approvals. Exterior Building Materials The exterior materials of the proposed offices will be consistent with the design of the existing office towers, and may include architectural pre-cast concrete, aluminum window systems, metal panel, brick and stone. It is the intent of the developer that the proposed office towers integrate color, fenestration and materials of the existing towers (excluding granite) while moving forward with more updated architectural elements. Surface Criteria With significant vehicular traffic expected, design goals of pedestrian movement, access, connectivity, and safety are a priority in the development. Walkways and plazas adjacent to the office buildings and parking structures will be a mix of cast in place concrete and concrete pavers. In general, drive lanes will be constructed utilizing bituminous surfacing. Both the public and private roadways will be surfaced to comply with City roadway construction standards. Concrete curb and gutter will be provided throughout the site. Parking ramp surfaces will be concrete. Turf in green areas immediately adjacent to buildings and roadways will be established via sodding. Other larger turf areas may be established via seeding. All green-space areas and planting areas will be irrigated. Parking The office buildings as proposed for this site are Class A facilities responding directly to the demands of the commercial real estate market in this location. The bulk of the proposed parking is in a 7 level ramp (7 levels above grade - one below grade) that is situated at the far eastern portion of the office site. The location of the ramp is designed to minimize its visual impact by its proximity to the Hwy 100 freeway interchange and ramp overpass. The ramp has been redesigned and limits the access points on the east side to two driveways. A third access point has been added at the southwest comer to provide adequate level of service. Transportation Public transportation is an important element in the development. As part of The Shops at West End project a dedicated bus stop and layover area has been designed at the intersection of 16th Street and Utica Ave to serve the existing and possible future bus routes. Duke will continue to work with the City and Met Transit to develop the final service routes and bus stops. - 8 - Pedestrian Connections An important element of the project is pedestrian connectivity. A pedestrian walkway has been created in the parking ramp to provide an easy connection from Wayzata Blvd and Hwy 100 directly into the greenspace of the office development. This in turn directly connects to the sidewalk system of the retail development. This connection may move slightly dependant on the final development plans (Le. a four office building scheme vs. a three office building scheme) but will maintained as a required design element. This connection will be constructed at the time of the corresponding ramp construction and final PUDI Plat approvals. In the short term a 6' bituminous trail will be constructed as part of the Phase IA Utica Avenue improvements. This trail will directly connect the intersection of 16th Street and Utica Ave to the existing sidewalk system and Hwy 100. This trail will be maintained by Duke. Outdoor Spaces As required by St Louis Park City code a Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) plan and corresponding calculation was prepared and is attached for reference. This plan shows the locations of all the areas available for passive or active recreation accessible and suited to the needs of both the public and employees. There are no specific outdoor space requirements by Golden Valley. Outdoor uses and public spaces shall be designed to connect various buildings and promote pedestrian activity. Active use of the public spaces is desired to encourage the patronage of multiple establishments and longer stays within the project area. To further enhance the outdoor use aspects of the project, outdoor speakers, center directories, mobile signs, promotions, seasonal decorations on light poles, and retailing kiosks may be used to further create the vibrant urban shopping experience and outdoor strolling environment. Grading The site will be graded in accordance with both the Phase IA grading plans and the current site grading plans. Soil correction! grading activities on the office site will commence based on market conditions and pursuant to the approval and permitting of a Final PUD and Plat by both Cities. Stormwater St Louis Park, Golden Valley and the Minnehaha Watershed District are the Local Governing Unit's (LGU's) for storm water management. Both Cities have a standing policy regarding rate and volume control for redevelopment sites. The Watershed District regulates water quality for redevelopment sites. All LGU's will also require basic Best Management Practices as outlined in the NURP standards. - 9- Due to the high land values and subsequent density of the project, the proposed development will use subsurface pipe galleries for stormwater volume and rate controls. These galleries will be constructed at several locations throughout the site to better utilize existing City storm sewer access points. The pipe galleries will be perforated and wrapped in filter material to provide infiltration. This infiltration will reduce the overall volume of stormwater that enters the City storms ewer system. In general the project is reducing the amount of stormwater that enters the City system via overland flow by almost 40%. This is due to more new roof areas rather than surface area. The roof areas of the proposed development will be hard piped to the detention facilities and will not have any opportunity to pick up sediment or contaminants. Duke Realty, the City of St Louis Park, and the Watershed District are investigating additional BMP designs that may be integrated into the final construction plans. The Watershed District issued an overall site master plan permit on 11/14/07. Independent analysis of the master development infiltration design by the Watershed District concluded that the overall development, upon full construction buildout, will reduce the storm water runoff to Brownie Lake (downstream receiving waterbody) by 87% from the pre re-development conditions and also reduce phosphorus loading by 65%. These results exceed the Watershed District 2020 phosphorus improvement goals by over 4 times. Utilities New utility mains and service lines will be constructed throughout the project. These will connect to the existing City utilities at various points including Gamble Drive, 16th Street and Wayzata Blvd. Coordination with private utilities started in late summer of 2007 and Duke will continue to work with each provider to integrate their mains, service lines, and service areas into the overall streets cape and landscape design. Landscaping The overall design concept is to provide an inviting and safe environment for pedestrians. Landscape elements will be closely coordinated between the public and private portions of the project to ensure that the entire redevelopment area maintains a common theme. Landscape amenities may include raised and low planter areas, seat walls, greens pace, trees and shrubs, benches, and movable landscape pots. There are numerous gathering areas as are shown on both the landscape plan and the DORA plan. Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking and storage areas are proposed throughout the development including surface areas to serve the public as well as ramp locations to serve employees. Parking and storage will meet City code and will be based on 50% proof of parking that may be constructed as. the development matures. - 10- . Public Art Pursuant to the St Louis Park Redevelopment Agreement, the development has several locations for the City to display public art. These areas will be further defined in the Final PUD but may be located on the east side of Utica Avenue at the terminus of 16th Street. Site Lighting A preliminary site lighting plan has been prepared and is included with the submission. The lighting will meet the requirements of both Cities . and is intended to provide both aesthetic .accent and security. Final lighting design and fixtures will be provided in the Final PUD application. Signage Free standing, ground-lighted monument signs may be located at several locations throughout the development as noted on the site plans. Directional and way-finding signage will also be installed throughout the development. These way-finding signs are important to provide clear direction to the various parking structures. Final sign plans, details, specifications, and locations will be provided as part of the Final PUD application. Trash Enclosures Trash and recycling areas will be located both within building and freestanding areas. Trash receptacles will conform to applicable codes and ordinances. All trash areas are landlord controlled and will have on-site management. Roof Top Mechanical Screening Mechanical equipment located on the roof of each office building will be screened from view through the use of decorative screening if it is visible from ground level within the project site. LEED Certification The Redeveloper will use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) core and shell certification for all Phase.IIB and Phase III speculative office development; and in any event, will construct all office developments in Phases lIB and III in accordance with LEED standards in effect as of November 19,2007 (whether or not Redeveloper obtains actual certification). This commitment towards LEED efforts shall not apply to office buildings in which a single tenant is leasing at least 50% of the leaseable square footage (generally referred to as "build to suit"). General LEED strategies may include the following subject - 11 - _'""I I .1 to final determination based on design and cost determinations throughout the redevelopment process: * Sustainable sites: Site selection (redevelopment), development density, alternative transportation (public transit access, low emitting & fuel efficient vehicles), Stormwater design, Heat Island effect (non-roof), light pollution, and Tenant Design & Construction Guidelines. * Water Efficiency: water efficient fixtures * Energy & Atmosphere: Fundamental commissioning and refrigerant management * Materials & Resources: Construction waste management (divert 50% or more from landfills), Recycled content (20% or more post consumer + 10% or more post-industrial), Regional materials (30% or more extracted, processed & manufactured locally), and Certified wood (50% or more of lumber used). * Indoor Environmental Quality: Minimum indoor air quality, environmental tobacco control, outdoor air delivery monitoring, and low-emitting materials (adhesives & sealants, paints & coatings, carpet, and composite wood & agrifiber products). * Innovation & Design Process: LEED Education program, Green housekeeping, and LEED accredited professional participation. - 12- alley Memorandum Public Works 763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax) Date: January 21,2009 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Enginee'z!2!f!j' Subject: Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD 107) Review The Towers at West End Duke Realty Corporation has submitted plans for a proposed mixed use Planned Unit Development (PUD) located in the southwest corner of Interstate 394 (1394) and Trunk Highway 100 (TH 100). The majority of this site is located within the City of St. Louis Park. However, the eastern portion of the site is located within the City of Golden Valley, immediately adjacent to TH 100 and Wayzata Boulevard; the south frontage road for 1394. The proposed PUD includes the construction of parking ramps on the portion of the development within Golden Valley. Site Plan, Traffic and Pedestrian Connections The developer has submitted a draft plat of the PUD for review and comment. The final plat must include 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements adjacent to the Wayzata Boulevard frontage road on all portions within Golden Valley. All public sidewalk parallel to Wayzata Boulevard must be located within platted right-of- way or within dedicated walkway easements. If easements are required, the developer must submit legal descriptions with the final PUD. The City of St. Louis Park prepared an Alternative Urban Areawide Analysis (AUAR) for the proposed PUD. The purpose of the AUAR is to determine potential impacts from the development to adjacent facilities and to evaluate potential environmental impacts. The AUAR included a traffic analysis of the development. The City of Golden Valley's consulting Traffic Engineer, Mike Kotila of SEH, Inc., reviewed the AUAR for potential traffic impacts in Golden Valley. In addition, the PUD plans have been reviewed for consistency with the AUAR. A copy of the January 19, 2009 review from SEH is attached to this memorandum for reference. The proposed PUD plans include realignment of the Wayzata Boulevard at the point it curves to pass beneath TH 100. This proposed realignment creates a "tee" intersection G:\Developments - Private\WestEnd Duke\PrePUD Review 012009.doc with all-way stop control. The proposed street south of this intersection is a private roadway to be owned and maintained by the developer. However, because of the proposed tee intersection alignment, the private roadwayappears tobe the through street intended to carry the majority of the traffic. In order to address this issue, the developer must revise the site plans to provide through traffic on Wayzata Boulevard without stop control, and clear delineation that the roadway to the south is a driveway. These revisions must be part of the final PUD submittal to the City of Golden Valley. The proposed parking ramps have three primary access points. There is an access directly onto Wayzata Boulevard on the north end of the parking ramp at the Golden Valley City limits. A review of the sight lines for traffic entering Wayzata Boulevard at this location has shown that the sight lines are acceptable for the proposed layout if there are no obstructions such as landscaping placed in the sight lines. This sight line limitation must be incorporated into the final PUD plans. There is also a parking ramp access point from the private driveway paralleling TH 100, and a final access point in the southwest corner of the ramp that is serviced by the development's internal street system. The location of the parking ramp access points are acceptable to the City of Golden Valley and appear to be located to minimize the desirability of using Wayzata Boulevard east of TH 100. The City of Golden Valley owns and maintains a concrete sidewalk on the west and south side of Wayzata Boulevard. This existing sidewalk extends to the east under TH 100 to connect with the existing sidewalk on Wayzata Boulevard on the east side of the highway. The developer will be responsible for replacing any of the existing sidewalk that is damaged as part of the construction. The proposed site plan also includes construction of a sidewalk adjacent to the private driveway south of the Wayzata Boulevard underpass. The sidewalk currently extends south to a proposed walkway through the parking ramp. This sidewalk must be extended to the south end of the parking ramp, and then extend west to connect to the pedestrian system within the development. This proposed sidewalk will be owned and maintained by the developer. As discussed above, the developer has proposed extending a pedestrian walkway through the parking ramp to connect to the pedestrian system in the center of the proposed development. The proposed walkway will direct pedestrians between parked vehicles and across three drive aisles of two-way traffic. Because typical driver behavior inside parking ramps is not conducive to the potential pedestrian volumes generated by this proposed layout, a potentially hazardous situation may be created by the proposed layout. Therefore, the plans must be revised to provide pedestrian access from Wayzata Boulevard outside the parking ramp via the existing and new sidewalks as discussed in this review. The AUAR for the West End Development identified traffic concerns on Wayzata Boulevard (south frontage road) east of TH 100 due to this development, as well as G:\Developments - Private\WestEnd Duke\PrePUD Review 012009.doc potential measures to address these concerns. Discussions with the City of St. Louis Park and Duke Realty refined the traffic calming solutions identified in the AUAR. These traffic calming measures are attached to the January 19,2009 SEH review. The traffic calming measures will be installed by the City of Golden Valley public improvement project, with 100 percent of the construction and indirect costs paid by the developer. Details of the financing of the Wayzata Boulevard improvements will be included in the final PUD for the development. Utilities The proposed PUD will receive its sanitary sewer and water service from the City of St. Louis Park. There is an existing City of Golden Valley watermain located on the eastern edge of this site. The existing site conditions plan shows the location of the watermain, but does not include the extension of the watermain eastward under TH 100 and its connection to the Golden Valley system on Douglas Avenue. Because this watermain is part of Golden Valley's connection to the South Tyrol and Kennedy Addition areas, it must be maintained as a City facility. The developer must properly illustrate this watermain, including the crossing under TH 100, on the plans for the final PUD submittal. As identified in the plans, there is an existing easement over the watermain discussed above. This easement must be vacated as part of the platting of this PUD, and must be dedicated on the final plat. The new easement must be a minimum of 20 feet wide centered over the main, and must include all Golden Valley fire hydrants within the easement. As discussed above, the sanitary sewer service to the proposed PUD will be provided by the City of St. Louis Park. However, this proposed PUD is tributary to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) regional sanitary sewer interceptor 1-GV-461. This MCES interceptor sewer enters the City of Golden Valley at South Tyrol Park and proceeds northward to TH 55, where it flows to the east and leaves the City. The MCES and the City of Golden Valley draft Comprehensive Wastewater Plan have identified 1-GV-461 as having insufficient capacity. This capacity issue is important to Golden Valley because the point where potential overflows will occur is north of 1394 in . the vicinity of North Tyrol Park. The MCES has begun planning for a capital improvement project to construct a reliever to the interceptor line. This project is currently in preliminary design with construction scheduled fot 2010. Golden Valley identified the MCES interceptor capacity issue as part of the Alternative Urban Areawide Analysis (AUAR) prepared by Duke for this proposed PUD. The Golden Valley concern is based upon additional flows to the interceptor priorto completion of the MCES reliever project. Based upon discussion with the developer, G:\Developments - Private\WestEnd Duke\PrePUD Review 012009.doc .. MCES, and the City of St. Louis Park, a plan has been developed to monitor existing sanitary sewer flows to 1-GV-461. In addition, thresholds have been established for wastewater flows that would require the implementation of on-site retention until the MCES reliever project could be completed. The City of St. Louis Park will provide sanitary sewer base flow (pre-development) from this site to Golden Valley as it becomes available. Based upon the above discussion relating to 1-GV-461, Public Works staff recommends that the Preliminary Design Plan for this PUD proceed, but the Final PUD not be accepted for review until wastewater based flow monitoring has begun and Golden Valley staff has begun receiving base flow information. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control The property included in this proposed PUD is located within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. With the exception of the boulevard immediately adjacent to Wayzata Boulevard, the entire development site is tributary to the St. Louis Park storm drainage system. Storm water runoff from the boulevard areas adjacent to Wayzata Boulevard drains onto the street and into the storm sewer system owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The developer will be responsible for obtaining any approvals and permits required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. A City of Golden Valley Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Permit will be required for the portion of the site within Golden Valley. This permit must be obtained at the time the parking ramp is constructed. Tree Preservation There are no tree preservation requirements for the City of Golden Valley for this PUD. Summary and Recommendations Public Works staff recommends approval of the preliminary Planned Unit Development plans for the proposed Towers at West End development subject to the comments contained in this review, and the January 19, 2009 review by Mike Kotila ofSEH, summarized as follows: 1. Dedication of easements as required by the City of Golden Valley subdivision ordinance. 2. The final PUD plans are modified to address the sight line issues discussed in the SEH memorandum. 3. Modification of the intersection of the eastern private driveway and Wayzata Boulevard as outlined. G:\Developments - Private\WestEnd Duke\PrePUD Review 012009.doc .. 4. The plans are modified to address the sidewalk locations along Wayzata Boulevard and through the parking ramps as discussed. 5. The traffic calming measures on Wayzata Boulevard east of TH 100 are implemented as a public improvement project at the time of parking ramp construction. 6. The sanitary sewer base flow information for the PUD is submitted to the Golden Valley Public Works Department prior to submittal of the final PUD application. 7. Subject to the review and comments by other City staff. Attachments C: Tom Burt, City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Burt Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Mike Kotila, SEH G:\Developments - Private\WestEnd Duke\PrePUD Review 012009.doc ~ SEH MEMORANDUM TO: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works City of Golden Valley FROM: Mike Kotila, PE Senior Transportation Engineer DATE: January 19, 2009 RE: Towers of West End Preliminary PUD Review I have reviewed the Preliminary PUD /Plat drawings (dated December 12,2008) submitted by Duke Realty Corporation and offer comments on several traffic and transportation related issues. Wayzata Boulevard Intersection Configuration Wayzata Boulevard serves as a frontage road to 1-394 functioning as a minor collector. Currently the frontage road is configured with a fairly sharp curve on the west side of the TH 100 underpass. A private access road intersects with the frontage road on the curve immediately west ofTH 100. The private drive is controlled by a stop sign while Wayzata Boulevard traffic through the curve is not stopped. Sight lines from the private access are good and the curve tends to slow vehicles on Wayzata Boulevard allowing the intersection to operate safely. The PUD drawings depict the private driveway intersection with the frontage road to be reconfigured as a "T" intersection, presumably planned to be controlled as all-way stop condition. If constructed this way, the function of the frontage road as a collector route will be diminished and the private drive will have the appearance of a through street. The existing configuration with a curve in the frontage road and the private drive gaining access to it is preferable to the T intersection configuration shown in the PUD drawings. Opportunities to flatten the curve and improve the alignment to and from the underpass alignment should be considered (would require public roadway realignment and right of way dedication). The existing width ofWayzata Blvd underTH 100 is approximately 32 feet which will not accommodate the three lane configuration shown in the site plan. Widening of the frontage road under the bridge should include sidewalk along the south side which may require replacing the slope pavement with a retaining wall. More detailed plans for this area should be provided. Examine Need for Turn Lanes If Wayzata Boulevard remains a two lane roadway as depicted in the PUD drawings and the parking garage is constructed as shown, the opportunity for future street widening will have passed due to the physical constraints on both sides of the street. The developer should provide evidence that right and left turning traffic can safely and efficiently be served from the proposed access points along Wayzata Boulevard without unduly delaying other users of roadway. Parking Garage Access and Sight Distance Primary access to and from the parking ramps is oriented to Utica A venue and the number of direct accesses to the east side of the structure has been reduced from three to two. This is consistent with Golden Valley's objective ofminimizing traffic impacts on the Wayzata Boulevard east ofTH 100. The most northerly parking garage access onto Wayzata Boulevard has limited intersection sight distance. Satisfying AASHTO guidelines for 30 mph design speeds prescribe a 335 foot clear line of sight to the driver's right to safely make a left hand turn from a stop condition. Taking a right turn from a stop Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive. Suite 200, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9301 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 952.912.2600 I 800.734.6757 I 952.912.2601 fax Towers of West End Preliminary PUD Review January 19,2009 Page 2 condition requires a 290 foot clear line of sight. The PUD drawings indicate the parking garage structure will be the limiting factor in sight distance for a driver looking to the right and that the corner of Office Building # 4 would limit the sight line to the left. The AASHTO sight lines may be achieved, but only if no sight line obstructions occur between the buildings and the traffic lanes on Wayzata Boulevard. This includes the area between the buildings and the public sidewalk. This area would need to be kept clear of tall plantings or other fixed objects such as ground mounted signs. Snow storage behind the sidewalk would also become a sight obstruction. Public Sidewalk and On-site Routes Public sidewalk corridors serving users along the frontage road should be modified along with the Wayzata Blvd intersection configuration suggested above. The PUD drawings show a private pedestrian route planned through the surface lot in the short term and through the parking garage in the long term. In both cases, the route crosses multiple two-way drive aisles creating potentially hazardous conditions for pedestrians. Measures should be taken to eliminate the vehicular/pedestrian conflicts in or through the parking facilities or reroute the pathway around the parking areas. Any private sidewalk connections to the public walk included in the site plan should be designed to provide adequate levels of safety and security for users. Safety treatments should include, but not be limited to, open sight lines without obscured areas or hiding places, lighting of pathway and adjacent areas, security cameras and emergency call boxes, and alternative choices for users (escape routes). Wayzata Boulevard Traffic Calming Traffic calming treatments (bump outs and lane narrowing) have previously been defined and should be constructed to mitigate impacts of the proposed development. Occupancy of the planned office space and increased activity to and from the parking ramp structures are anticipated to be the traffic generators that have the greatest impact to demands along Wayzata Boulevard. Therefore the traffic calming could be a requirement that is related to that phase of development. Attached with this memorandum, is the traffic calming concept plan that was developed for this purpose. Attachment c: Mark Grimes, Planning Director Jeff Oliver, City Engineer plfjlg\goldv\980100\west end devltowers at west end pud memo doc Hey Mem randum Fire Department 763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax) To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning & Zoning From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Subject: PUD-107 Towers at the West End Date: January 9, 2009 cc: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the PUD packet and application for the Towers at the West End project located on Wayzata Boulevard. This PUD packet application indicates two parking ramp parking structures located adjacent to the proposed office towers located in the City of St. Louis Park. The Golden Valley Fire Department will focus on the fire department access, water supply and fire protection for this project. Fire Department Access 1. The fire department apparatus access road should be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of the fire apparatus and be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. 2. The fire department access road will be established and posted "No Parking Fire Lane" signage will be required. The installation of the "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and stationary posts will be installed in accordance with the City of Golden Valley city ordinance. 3. The fire department access road shall not be obstructed in any manner or by any materials including construction vehicles or other objects that would hinder the fire department operations or emergency responders during the construction of the building. 4. Dead end fire apparatus access road in excess of 150' in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. 5. The parking ramp structure shall be designed for vehicles low limit and shall be posted at both entrances of the parking ramp. Water Supplv 1. _An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fir flow for fire protection for the parking ramp and for the private parking area below-grade will be required. 2. The installation of fire hydrants will be required in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code and the City of Golden Valley. 3. Fire hydrants shall not be blocked or obstructed by any posts, vents, vehicles or other obstructions that would deter or hinder immediate access to the fire hydrants. Fire Protection 1. The installation of the Class I Standpipe System will be required through each level in each stairwell of the parking ramp and the lower level low-grade private parking garage. 2. The below-grade private parking garage area will require the installation of a fire suppression sprinkler system throughout the structure. The fire suppression system shall be installed in the proper temperature control climate at all times. 3. The fire department connection (FDC) for the Class I Standpipe System and for the fire suppression system shall be installed within 150' of any fire hydrant. 4. The fire alarm system for the parking ramp and structure shall monitor the fire suppression system and the standpipe system's water flow alarms. The fire alarm activation alarm signal shall be sent to the central station alarm company and the notification of that alarm shall be directly sent to the Golden Valley Fire Department. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at #763-593-8065. 1/20/2009 DAN I 22009 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Neighbors of Fairlawn Way & Avondale Re: Notice of Public Hearing on Duke Development & parking ramp Aurdrey Cox 1410 Fairlawn Way .~. f'2C~~~~~ THE TOWERS AT WEST END lI'" ~. ~ ~ KNOW ALL MEN BY nIESE PRESENI'S: TIloll DoIke Realty LImiled Parrnership, 8ft Indiana LImiled Parrnership, foe owner oflbe 1OIIowin& detcribod properly situaleiI ia Ibe c-y ofHem1epin, S- ofMimelola, 10 wit: Outlot A, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, --.Iolbe ~pIatlhercof. and Tract I: Lot 1, IlIook 4, KAVLlS CEOAROALE ...hlll11 pa1 of"'vllClllOd alley ia said Block 4, Iyiac Easloflbe oem.r line !hereof and betwMD dlo ~ _ it ofdlo NeotIl and South 1iMs. of said Lot 1, -dins 10 Ibe recorded plat Iherco( Hem1epia CouDty, ~ Tract 2: That partoftllc NortIt 69Ull'ectefllle NoIlhnot Quorterofthe Soudtwest QuorterofSection 30, T0WJISIlip29, Ranle 24 lying Westerly aDd SoIIlherIy of Slate TnIRk Highway No. 100, IlIso knowu as tIIc Belt Line Hi;hway, Hennepin County, Mi_sota. EXCEPT lhat portioa laken loy tIIc Slate ofMiaaesola...-. PartlaI Fia8I CerIifkate -.Iocllu1y21, 1993 as ~No.240ISIO. aDd That part of vacated Raleiab Av_ andof__IJouaI4ls A_ all aeeGl'lIiaa1O dtoplatofKAVLIS CEOAROALE lying W~y oflbe WaIiIIIy ript ofway liMofSlate 1'NBIcHipwayNo. 100 as lklscribe4ia Ibe FinIII Certilkate _ded ill Book 412 of Mis ,....._ heords, ,., 148 ill the omce ofdle CoUDty R.e.:ol'det and Iyiaa Soutberly ofa line drawnltom Ibe Soulhwest_ of Tract E, ,,1sIor44 Lad Survey No. 164 and passing \hrouah a point 00 tIIc East liao of said Tract E ~ 11.18 I'ect NortII of1lle Soulltout _ of said Tract E, Hem1epia County, Miooesola. EXCEPT lhat portion laken loy the Slate ofMiausota JIIl'SUlIBlIll ParliIII FinIII CerIifkate -.Iocl July 21, 1993 as Ooeument No. 240 IS 10. and Lots 2, 3, 4 aDd 6, DIoek 4, EXCEPT th8tportien ofsakl Lets laken forBek Line HiJhway; Lots 7 III 12 inclusive, Binck 4 and lIllII part ofRa!ellh A_ VlItllIled Iyiaa Ioetwcea the W.-!y oxamion oflbe SoulIlIiae of Slid Lot 7 and Ibe NortII line ofsaid Lot 12 aDd th8t part of1lle vllClllOd alley in seid IJIoek 4lyiRe betwMD 1lle Easterly exleNions of'" North and South IiMs of said Lot 7 and Hlw_1lle South liae of seid Lot !l and the NortIt line of said Lot II and 1bat part oflbe West 112 of the vacated alley ill sai4 Block 4 IYiRe l>elween Ibe exleNions ofdle North 8ftd SoulIlIines of said Lot I and betweea tbe North and South lines of sai4 Lot 12, all ill KA VUS CEDAROALE, llCl:Ol'Itins III tbe recorded plat !hereo( Hennepin County, Minneso!a. That part oflbe tonowiRe deoeribed properly: TIllII part of vacated RaIei&b and DouJIas Av_ as $hoWII on tbe plat ofKA VLIS CEOAROALE Iyina between the exllllnsions across Slid Av_ ofdle South aDd Wo;st line. of Lot 7, DIoek 4 and 1bat part of said vacated Douaias Avenue ~ Lots 6 and 7, Block 4 of. plat Iyina lIet_ the Westerly JiaeofBelt Line Hlgbway and die exllllnsion __ said A_ oflbe Wo;stline of said Lot 1, Block 4, KAVLIS CEOARDALE, whieh lies Northerly of a otraiPt line e-.llD& l>elween tbo SoulhwClt_ ofT_ E, RqisIore4 Land Survey No. 164, Hem1epillCouDty, M.......... and Ibe W~y ript.of-way of Slate TnIRk Hlgbway 100,...m; throutIh a point onlbe East line of said Tract E ~ II.II*, NortIt oftbo SouIheaol_ of Slid T_ E as _d oJons said East line, Hennepin c-y, Minaosota. EXCEPT 1lllll portien laken loy tile Slate ofMiDMsota JIIl'SUlIBlIO PartlaI FiIlaI CerIifkate recorded July 21, 1993 as 00elmMat No. 240IS I O. and TIllIIpart oflbe South 60 *' ofllle Norlh 7S3.61 *' ofdto Nortiteast Quorter ofllM Southwest Quorter ofStction 30, TOWIIShip 29,..... 24, Iyin& Westofdle Belt Line Hlgbway, Hennepin CoWy, MiDMsota EXCEPT 1bat portioa taken by dle Slate ofMmn- """"""" 10 PartlaI Final Certifil'ale recorded July 21, 1993 as ~No.2401510. Have ~ dto _10 be lUlVayed and pIattod as' THE TOWERS AT WEST END, 8ftd do h<nby denote 8ftd de4ieate 10 11M public for pubIie _ lilrev<< Ibe pubIie ways, and Ille ........ and utility _ts as showIl on lhe plat. lit witnoss v.tleteof sai4 Dub Realty LImiled Parrnership has caused these presents 10 be signed by its proper officer Ibis _day of .200_. SIGNED: DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, .. Indiana Limited Partnership By: Dulc:e Realty CorporIUoot, .. htdiua Corporation, its sole pncraI partner By: Palrick E. Maseia, Senior Y* I'mideIII STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY 01' The........ ___ _.~ before me Ibis_ day of .200-, by Palrick E. Masola, SesIior ViGe Pmi4eJlI, Duke il.eIIty Cotporation, _Indiana corpomIion, lhe pncraI partner of Dub Realty LiIIIite4 P..-.IIip, ..lndiMa Iialiled plll'lnersbil/, on beiIaIf of the partnership. NoIary Public, My c-isslell Expires c-y, MimesoIa R.T. DOC. NO, I hereby eertilY 1bat thi. plat of THE TOWERS AT WEST END is a correct represeDWion ofdle boundary survey;1bat all mathemalicm data and labels are correctly ~ on die plat; lhat aJllIlOIIUIDeIItS depicted on lIIe plat have been or will be correctly sol within one year as indicated Oft lbe plat; that all water boUlldaries and wetlal1ds as ollbe date on the surveyor'. cettilication are shown 8ftd labeled on Ibe pIat; 1bat all public ways are shown and IabeJed on lhe pial. I further eertilY dlItI Ibis plat _ JlNplmI by me or lIIIdor my direct supe:vision and lIIat I 11m a doly licensed IaI1d surveyor lIIIdor \be laws oftlteSlate ofMianesota. Henry D. Nelson, Li<onsed Land Surveyor, Mim>esoIa License No. 17155 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNT\' OF The foresoin& ~ was acImowIe<lpd before me Ibis _ day of Nelson, a LicoDsed Land Surveyor. . 200-, by Henry D. NoIary Publi<:, My COIIIIIIission Expires CoUDty, Minnesota ST LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA This pial of THE TOWERS AT WEST END was approved 8ftd accepted by dle City Council oftbo City ofSt Louis Parle, Minnesota, at a nopIar mcetioa tbereot; iIeId Ibis _ day of . 20_. If oppIicabIe, tbo writtea comments and ~ of tile Commission<< ofTI'lIIISpOItalIe and Ibe CoUDty Highway EnaJoeet have been NClived by Ibe City or the preacribed 30 day period has IIapsed without receipt ofsuch _ and ~'. as provided IIy Minnesota ~s, Section 50S.03, SlIbdivisioa 2. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK By . its Mayor By . its CIerl< TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT Hennepin CoUDty, Minnesota I hereby cer1itY 1bat _ payable in 20_ and prior years have been paid for IaI1d described Oft Ibis plat. Dated Ibis _day of .20 li11 L. A1vmon, Hennepin County Auditor By . Deputy SURVEY DIVISION Hennepin County, M1IlfIelIOla PIlrsuaDlIo MINN. STAT See. )1)8.56S (1969), Ibis plat has lie", approved Ibis .20_. day of William P. Brown, Hennepin County Surveyor By, REGISTRAR OF TITLES Hennepin County, Minnesota I ilereby cer1itY 1bat dle within plat of THE TOWERS AT WEST END was filed in Ibis oftWe Ibis _ day of . 20---, at_o'cIoek_.M. Miebael H. CunIIift; ReJisttar ofTitIes By . Depuly McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEEllINo, PLANNING AND LAND SURVEYING SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS ~ ~ .,. THE TOWERS AT WEST END R.T. DOC. NO. ~t. -I I m I ~Ji .~ .... " ,I I'~ ~: >1 Ii ~" J. I .. I 'l \ ,.. 4( j ,- I I Vl I I I ~ l ,.. - z '\ ';-ear"Il.I.S... I , -1Ilo\CT "'~"Il.:\:.'''_. "'A '" h, --, ....!!:':._-- ". ,''',,'''''', .. ---"''If'~ - ".., ,,'" , c... -__ ~ ------J:1~ ....... "', .. -- ~----:::::::;::.... ~ 'v ~ ------,- " ~---_.. ......_.~.. ,~ ------ ~.........' '" "'-..,.... --------- \, '.~';l;."...... ~ ._. _ ''', ---- -... '.. ----,-- "-"'., It- - -. , ---- -, . - .... - '. .., ",''''-- ------ .."-.... :,' I ift I . --- ~ ~ , · ~-:~... , ""-- ------ - · >0>... ----.,1 .t..' \~ ~ I -- "" ~\",... 'i!".-' . . ------/ "-- - _.,: 1=' ....- .... -.( ...,.".. ~ .!-- 1 I -----_ - -.......::.;..;:i(lit~ _ _"" ___ - ~'" ---, ~, . ----l: ~--..---- II ' '- ......-.. -[~~--:--- - ---.l.A1..\.'j.~ -~ -,::::.:;..l I I I ------- ~ ~:::'::'::--,..._ ~ }~ h5---- ----J _ -; ::- _ _ _ _ " - -- : ~ ; ..MfT...... ..... I I ---_ ., _ _ &. 1_ ___... ," . _ _ _ '" --/ 6'O~ -... PDIOC.__ , ; I;: ';-___I~ __._ ,( I1Je.z,......... I :;_'__'_::,: :: ",'" -- -" . I .. ---- '. " ',,,,,:::,... ,:"'-- __ft. :~ _:: ....__.... ~- , I ____. ..... _ '-._, ,"_,_.__ . --- -' I I L___~ ~ --''-.'-/.. ____ ^" --- \ ./ I 1::- L - - - - - - - - T _ _ -r w . ....,.,. -- 7. I - -- =_ __==_ __ _ _ , 11f. ... - · , - - - - - - - T I.., If . '.' , ... t. I P- _ -, I ... " ..,~cj"' /...... , I F===-r--;; I I I. I::. .. ,:, ' - <I' ~ 1 B I ~ I l. I" 8 I / I ~ Ii t: . .:. ~,' ~ ~. LOT' I I I II) I ~! I I h~ g~ . ;). ....' 0 U T U I " I.~ .. I; '..' .<" I "" I" 118 I / ":II\. I I I I " I. : == I I "' I .."> ~ .i. , I ._ " t, ~~ .. 1:-'. .. .. I ~: ~ ..' "."~) ,'. .. ., -1 ---1 .0; ~ I I ' , t, '.: : I::; ".. ..L ..L _ _ _ _ _ I ~ .., " .'. . .' ~ - ~ - > · I I L _ L - - - - .L -<.. .,' - - .......::~: ~ -~ / I - - - ..1.... .....V::I.l.... _ _ _ _ ~ 1IO Ii - ," "TOn RALe,"n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , · I. , I ..'CA..... ___ r, 0 !__ " - - v ___..__ , ' """"...,"...._ _ L _ _ _ _ _ .. ___.._______________ , / . - - ~ - - - -..-..---....- ", ~ - - - - --.._--.. () , ,". - - - - - - - -......-------..--- , .:f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -----..---------- I., '. --- " ----..- ", . - - - , -------- , " I- ' , -....-- , . . . · ------------...,~.l-;;,;'lll'~'L , I !!i ---- --- .. , . ~.- , : ~ I , ! I I I I ". I I I I I I :...... I I ,-- ....t .,. .., 'v flI I 8 I i I . " ... 0 U T L 0 T A 8 . .. ., .. .. ~ I 2.1.?3 I .....02 '1 i , <0 A ". u. -- ... ---- 4. It-ofJI..4''IO'37''....;- ,~ 87 <<'-113..15 I.~t:. 1, 102.48 NClO"IlO'oo"t 212.17 NOO*4O'sn 117.18 .'- 13.110 --\L,-4&1' NOO'OO'OQ"E ._311.$5 ".7"f1I'fI6- II __ I ..... & to.: : : t... ,v" . .. P" ... .. ...~ ,4,1., v :: :..: ...: ::: ,.. ..~ .., .... .. .... I. " . ..'" ..~ .... .... . .. ----H:--- 21 10 100 o fJfNOTES 1/21NCl1 BY 14 INCH iRON MONUMENT$ETAND _ BY UCENSe NO. ~52. . llfNOT!$ 1/21NCl11R0Ij MONUMENT RlUNll. flIIl THE PIJI1PO$ES OFTltS !'lAT, THE wesnl~ OF IEClKIN~, TO'i'mIStiIP a,RANGE 241$ ~SlJMEO TO HAVE A BEARING Of NI)1"02'311'W. 1ICAUl1ll1II!T: 1_.10 I'RT McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERING, PLANNING AND LAND SURVEYING SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS ..,.. .E ~ v 00 ~ Cl)N ... (I) .. UJ C.J: C+, '-N ...... ~ ~ CI) ... CU ~.c ~cu~~ CI) U .- cu 50 ....J .........: Ct/) .......... ~~ CU~ ~~ O~ I-(!) CU ...c I- .~~ 4~::sg b~ -coco -0 00 c: cnN (1) .. C.c UJ C +' '-N ~ri ..... .... CI) ~.. Q) Q) .....c ~1J -J .....-: CV') .......... CI)>- ....(1) Q)~ ~g O~ ~0 Q) ~ I- ~~ 4~::S ~ b~ '" . " SPRING 3/21 3:00 PM FALL 9/21 3:00 PM / ~ ,I -- - - - - --- --- -- ~ WINTER 12/21 3:00 PM Shadow Studies DUKE: The Towers at West End 51. louis Park / Golden Valley, MN December 12, 2008 WALSH BISHOP The Towers at West End Golden Valley / St. Louis Park, Minnesota December 12th, 2008 . Duke II Ally (01'01'110" - UNDERGROUND PARKING THEATER/PARKING SECOND LEVEL I I II \\ 1'1 i I I I i:1 I. I' ^~,!\- Q 0: ~ i;Y ~ -. 0 III III :---. (.) :=~ :3 --- II. ll: ",10: f ~ 1\ o ,'b o o !} ~[L: . , , _. . . , ./7. -rIIt 0 00 \,.1-0 ,... 0 0 ... ~('.I UJ c: .. c:-= .-('.1 +-~r- CI) ~... Q; Q) ,-..0 5~~ >.8~ --I +- . cv; ......... CI)~ ....= Q)~ ~~ 10] Q) ...c I- .., ~~ 4~::1 ~ b~ ........ C to v-o ,.. 00 ... lG N UJ C .. c-:: '-N +-~r- CI) .. Q) ~...c ~Q)~~ CI) U .- Q) :JO o .....I +- . CVi ........... CI)>- L.,.Q) Q)~ ~~ IO~ Q) ...c I- ~g ..~::ja b~ ) ~ COO \J -0 ,.. 00 ... ~(".I UJ ~~.. '-(".1 ..... ~ r- ~ (I) .. Q) ~..o ~Q) cE ~ CI) u .- Q) :)0 o --I ..... . cv; .......... (1)>- .....(1) Q)~ ~~ 10] Q) ..c I- . ~ ..~ :::s b I ~ I. : F I. . . I, -c oeo -0 00 c: ~N c:: .. u.J c::...c: '-N ..... ~ ': (I) ..::I.... ~ ~CU~~ CI) Q) .:; Cl o --I .....-= CC/) ......... (1)>-" .....CU CU~ ~~ O~ ~(!) CU ...t: I- " " '1 ~~ "~::1 ; b~ ~ ~ '~ f!'I .'