04-27-09 PC Agenda
AGENDA
Joint Planning Commission/Environmental Commission Meeting
6pm
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday,ApriI27,2009
7pm
1. Approval of Minutes
a. February 23, 2009 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
2. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 6210 Wayzata Blvd. -
CU-125
a. Applicant - Art Holdings
b. Address - 6210 Wayzata Blvd.
c. Purpose - To allow for the sale and repair of electric vehicles in the
Mixed Use zoning district
3. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding
Extension of Time for Submittal of Final PUD Plan
a. Applicant - City of Golden Valley
b. Purpose - To amend Section 11.55, Subd. 6(A) (Planned Unit
Development Chapter of the Zoning Code) to allow for Extension of Time
for Submittal of Final PUD Plan
4. Consideration of Resolution No. 09-02 Finding that the Redevelopment
Plan for the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Project Area Conforms to the
City's Comprehensive Plan
5. Short Recess
6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
7. Other Business
8. Adjournment
ent is available in ate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
006 (TfY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
e print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 23, 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, February 23, 2009. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka,
Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development
Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom, Assistant City Manager Jeanne Andre and
Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner McCarty was t.
1. Approval of Minutes
January 26, 2009 Regular Planning Commission
Eck noted a few typographical errors.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motio
2009 minutes with the above noted correctio . Com
from voting.
ve the January 26,
luchka abstained
2.
Informal Public Hearing - 2
e Plan Update Approval
Hogeboom explained that this'
the approval of the 2008 Com
presentation and discusst
Comprehensive Plan g.
comprehensive plan is t
Act. He stated tha fi
1959 and revisions
the Plan isa I
goals from E
inning of the public hearing process for
.!IJ'l. update. He referred to a PowerPoint
ound issues first. He explained that the
II vision for the City and the reason cities do a
d d by the Metropolitan Land Use Planning
rehensive plan in Golden Valley was created in
every 10 years. He added that this 2008 version of
of past versions and it was written to incorporate the
n Valley and to provide electronic-based access.
at the process began with Envision Golden Valley. From
Commission, Environmental Commission and Open Space and
sion met once a month throughout 2007 to review the individual
ext step in the process was the open house held in spring 2008 and
it has b the City's web site for review and featured in CityNews since June
2008. He stated that the next steps in the Comprehensive Plan update are review by
City Council on March 17 and submittal to the Metropolitan Council on April 6.
Hogeboom showed the Commissioners a picture of what the Comprehensive Plan
will look like on the City's web site. Kluchka asked how many people are currently
using the link to the Comprehensive Plan on the City's web site. Hogeboom said he
didn't know exactly how many people have used the link, but he knows the Plan is
being reviewed because he has received questions about it.
Keysser asked if a counting mechanism could be added to the City's web site.
Hogeboom said he would look into the possibility of adding a counting mechanism.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 23, 2009
Page 2
Kluchka asked if there are any trends in the types of questions staff has received.
Hogeboom said the typical questions tend to be very specific to a certain area or
certain specific aspect of the Plan such as items that show on a map but aren't
specifically addressed as a goal in the Plan.
Eck noted that there is a projected population increase of almost 4,000 people in the
next 20 years. He asked if the City knows who these people are and what kind of
housing they are going to need. Hogeboom explained that the projected population
number comes from the Metropolitan Council and that staff initially tried to dispute
that number. He stated that the projected number involves future birt deaths,
regional migration, housing trends, gas prices, etc. He added that e
accommodation for future growth will be in the 1..394 Corridor are .I;ck as what
types of housing the City could provide for an additional 4,00 op Klu said
he thinks the issue is addressed in the Plan itself and add mber
is a good goal for the Plan to address, but it will be drive arke . imes
explained that while this is a plan for the City it is also art the
Metropolitan Council uses to ensure that existing r rc fficiently as
possible.
Hogeboom discussed demographic informati
availability along freeway corridors indic
2010 Golden Valley is projected to h
expected to grow by approximately
that the future land
mployment numbers. In
the number of jobs is
e next 20 years.
Hogeboom showed a propos
Golden Valley is comprise
commercial properties
for 8% of the total land
land and major higpways
and chart showing how land use in
I pro rties account for 48% of the total land,
of the total land, industrial properties account
recreational account for 25% of the total
nt for 6% of the total land .
issues and challenges including the integration of
ing style of development in Golden Valley, preserving
suburban architecture unique to first-ring suburbs,
neighborhoods while promoting business and tax growth,
ity hopping and service options, considering quality mixed use
evelopment, working to connect to regional destinations, and
propriate placement of high density development.
Hogeboo ferred to Chapter 4 of the Plan titled Special Planning Districts. He
explained that currently this chapter only includes the 1-394 Corridor study with the
possibility of amending the Plan in the future to include the Douglas Drive Corridor
study.
Hogeboom referred to Chapter 5 of the Plan titled Housing. He stated that housing
consumes 3,195 acres in Golden Valley and of that 81.4% is owner-occupied.
Golden Valley has 6,430 single family homes and a total number of 8,450 rental
units. Cera referred to the 81.4% owner-occupied figure and asked if that was 81.4%
of single family homes or of total housing units in Golden Valley.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 23, 2009
Page 3
Hogeboom said it is total units in Golden Valley. Grimes stated he thinks the number
8,450 listed for rental units is incorrect and that the number 8,450 represents the
total number of housing units, not rental units. Hogeboom agreed. Keysser asked
how senior housing is figured into the numbers. Hogeboom said it depends if the
units are owned or rented.
Hogeboom discussed housing factors including: lifecycle housing, inclusionary
housing and housing maintenance issues. He referred to a map that illustrated the
age of the housing stock in Golden Valley.
Hogeboom stated that other chapters in the Plan include: Parks, T
Wastewater, Water Supply and Surface Water. Grimes added
Plan is the Capital Improvement Program.
and
ded that if
is ed to have the
proposed
Cera asked if an update of the Plan is done every ten ye
added that the next full update of the Plan will occur in 2
the Plan is amended before the next required upda the
Metropolitan Council and neighboring communif
amendments.
Keysser asked if staff has received any
Hogeboom stated that they have rec
Rivers Park District and that all com
communities are included in Go
Valley's Plan has been very
rrounding communities.
mments from the Three
ponses from surrounding
al. Grimes added that Golden
urrounding communities.
Cera asked if Golden V
Hogeboom said he ha
ed any surrounding community's plans.
lans from surrounding communities.
Keysser opened t
Keysser c10s
ing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
important to help people understand that this is a long
rily specific to their individual property. He suggested
ments and questions on the City's web site.
chka, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously' to
proval of the adoption of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update.
3. Continued Item - Consideration of Resolution No. 09-01 Finding that the
Redevelopment Plan for the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Project Area
Conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan
Assistant City Manager Jeanne Andre, reviewed the history of the Douglas Drive
Redevelopment Plan. She explained that the HRA, in response to an application
submitted by United Properties for senior housing at Douglas Drive and Golden
Valley Road, was going to consider a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district for
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 23, 2009
Page 4
some of the parcels. As part of creating a TIF district there has to be a
redevelopment plan in place. She stated that United Properties has not proceeded
with their plans since the Redevelopment Plan was last reviewed by the Planning
Commission. However, the City Council and the HRA are still interested in going
forward with the Redevelopment Plan at this time.
Andre said she understands the Planning Commission's concerns were that the
proposed redevelopment area was too small and that the Plan defined specific uses
rather than just defining the existing conditions. She said the Plan went back to the
HRA with the Planning Commission comments. She reported that th RA would
like to proceed with the smaller area originally presented to the PI
Commission. She suggested that the reason the HRA wants to
smaller area is that there are infrastructure issues to address
for a sidewalk or trail on the east side of Douglas Drive be
to the Luce Line trail. She added that sometimes a rede
place in order to apply for funding.
and explained that the previous
n e Redevelopment Plan but this new
om ch the year, is only regarding the
at according to state statute the Planning
ecide if it is compatible with the
tep is to bring the Plan to the City Council for
Andre referred to the Planning Commission's se
uses rather than just defining the existing con
titled Development Opportunities has been a
purpose of a redevelopment plan is to i .
hypothetically happen and the directi
Andre referred to the resolution
resolution referred to both the
resolution, which has been
Redevelopment Plan. S
Commission is to revie
Comprehensive PI n. T
approval.
Keysser asked'
changed
h ed in Section 6 in the plan. Andre explained what
in goal is to focus on the infrastructure in that area.
r evelopment plan is targeted for areas where the City wants
ke place and how the City addresses not identifying areas that
ntly developed or areas that we know don't need development. He
address why there are areas defined and not specific properties.
Andre sal e used Valley Square as a guide for this redevelopment plan. She said
typically the items that aren't changing are addressed in the text of the plan and the
map shows the boundaries. She explained that redevelopment areas are also about
public infrastructure as well as private developments and that redevelopment doesn't
always involve removing a building and constructing something new in its place.
Keysser asked if United Properties were to come back with their Applewood
proposal how it would fit in with this redevelopment plan and if the properties would
have to be rezoned. Andre stated that the properties would have to be rezoned and
the project would have to be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 23, 2009
Page 5
Keysser suggested that the resolution be changed to say that the Redevelopment
Plan is compatible with the proposed 2008 Comprehensive Plan, not the City's
current Comprehensive Plan.
Kluchka asked Grimes to describe how this Redevelopment Plan is compatible with
the Comprehensive. Plan. Grimes explained that the properties in the Douglas Drive
Corridor area are designated for either medium density or high density residential
from Golden Valley Road all the way to the rail road tracks to the north. The
properties to the north of the rail road tracks are all designated for office or
commercial. Andre added that the parcel to the south of Golden Valle oad is
designated Industrial.
Kluchka suggested writing a list, siml
plan is consistent with the City's
address that in his memo to t
that
Waldhauser stated that she recalls the Comprehensive Plan
says the City wants to see increased retail/commercial de
intersections and more opportunities for multi-family hou
neighborhoods so she thinks the Douglas Drive Redevel
the Comprehensive Plan.
Keysser reiterated that he would like the reso
"2008 Comprehensive Plan as currently reco
review the language with the attorney w
to include the words
ndre said she would
s, sating how this redevelopment
an. Grimes stated that he would
MOVED by Eck, second
the Redevelopment PI
conforms to the Co
and motion carried unanimously finding that
s Drive Redevelopment Project Area
nsive Ian and to approve Resolution 09-01.
4.
- Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding
'Iding Height" and "Average Grade"
To amend the definition of Building Height and Average Grade
in the City Code
Hogeboom reminded the Planning Commission that they reviewed this item at
their January 12,2009 meeting. He explained the reason he is bringing it back to
the Planning Commission now is that staff has added language to the ordinance
regarding criteria that would be considered by staff to allow the average grade to
be more than one foot higher than the previously existing grade if there are
drainage issues with the property. He added that there was also language in the
building height definition that referred to average grade so that language has now
been moved to be made a part of the "average grade" definition.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 23, 2009
Page 6
Keysser asked if the proposed new language would apply to a property where the
grade was already above the elevation of the street. Hogeboom said no, the
proposed new language would only apply to properties where the grade creates a
drainage issue. Grimes added that staff needs language in the Code that allows
for dealing with extenuating circumstances.
Waldhauser referred to the first paragraph in the definition of "average grade" and
asked if the language means that the average grade for a property facing two
streets would be taken at six points. Hogeboom said he would clarify the language
in the first paragraph.
Keysser opened the public hearing.
ee and four in
ne and two are
Rich Baker, 224 Janalyn Circle, stated he thinks criteria nurtlbers
the proposed new language are quantitative, but criteria~umq
not.
Seeing and hearing no
hearing.
t,gether because staff
Iminimum driveway
Iso quantitative because
s added that every time
molition in order to
Keysser explained that criteria numbers two an
needs to know the elevation of the street in on
grade of 3%. Kluchka added that criteria num
it establishes where measurements are
a home is demolished elevations are
establish the grade for a new house.
Baker asked if a person could
said this ordinance would n
order to raise the grade up. Keysser
to speak, Keysser closed the public
MOVED by C
recommend a
(Building
aldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
ing definitions 8.5 (Average Grade) and 12
n 11.03 of the City Code.
--Short Recess--
5.
on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Kluchka asked about the February 10, 2009 Council/Manager meeting where the
Douglas Drive Corridor study was discussed.
Hogeboom stated that he gave an update to the City Council regarding the status of
the Douglas Drive Corridor Study. He stated that Transit for Livable. Communities
(TLC) has more grant money available and they would like Golden Valley to reduce
the number of lanes on Douglas Drive from four lanes to three lanes, the center lane
being a turn lane, from Medicine Lake Road to Golden Valley Road. Changing the
lanes would allow for bike lanes or shoulders on both sides of the street.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
February 23, 2009
Page 7
Grimes added that three lanes seem to work well and one benefit is if doesn't work
out it the lanes can be repainted or changed in the future. Hogeboom said the next
steps are to prioritize which infrastructural improvements have priority.
6. Other Business
Waldhauser noted that more and more documents are being put on the City's web
site and questioned if there was a way to make PDF documents smaller or
somehow easier to download for people with a slower internet connection.
Hogeboom said he would talk to the Communications staff about wh ould be
done. Kluchka stated that the PDF format is a standard format an ended
that the City not change the way documents are being put on th.e site.
Grimes stated. that the Comprehensive Plan will also be a
rding the
ecollection
e R- zoning district
s and heights
that proposed new
e future.
Waldhauser asked about the progress of amending the z
height allowed for buildings in the R-4 zoning distri i
of previous discussions is that allowing a height
is too much. He thinks the intent was to allow
above that would require a variance or a PU
language will come back to the Plannin
7. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourne
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
April 21, 2009
To:
Planning Commission
From:
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit (CUP-125) to
Allow for the Sale and Service of Electric Vehicles at 6210 Wayzata Boulevard-
Bruce Bahneman (Representative, C. Chase Company on behalf of Art Holdings,
Inc.), Applicant
Background
Mr. Bruce Bahneman, representative for C. Chase Company, has requested a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) in order to allow for the sale and service of electric vehicles at 6210 Wayzata
Boulevard. The property is located in the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. Section 11.47 of City
Code allows conditional uses which, in the opinion of the Council, are compatible with
conditional uses specifically described in the Commercial Zoning District. Staff has determined
that the sale and service of electric vehicles in a mixed-use building is compatible with other
functions of the District.
Art Holdings, Inc. is the owner of the property at 6210 Wayzata Boulevard. B2B
Segway/Segway of Minnesota will occupy approximately half of the building. The proposed
sale of electric vehicles would pertain to Segway-branded products, which could include
electric cars, electric scooters, and personal electronic mobility devices. C. Chase Company is
currently representing B2B Segway/Segway of Minnesota.
Proposed Use
In addition to being located in the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District, 6210 Wayzata Boulevard is
guided for 'mixed use' development in the Comprehensive Plan. In its Conditional Use Permit
application, C. Chase Company explains that the proposed use would involve the storage of
electronic vehicles outdoors during business hours. In contrast to traditional automobile
dealers, the applicant claims that this dealership will provide more personal service to a
smaller number of clients.
The proposed use would occupy approximately one half of the upper level of the building and
approximately two fifths of the building's lower level. In total, approximately 7,500 square feet
of interior space would be dedicated to the proposed use. The facility will include amenities
standard for a sales and service operation.
The applicant is not proposing to add additional parking stalls to the site. However, the
applicant has expressed interest in extending and improving city sidewalks on the location.
Prior to any upgrade or construction of a sidewalk, the applicant would meet with the Public
Works Department and discuss grading and building issues.
Analysis of Ten Factors
Per City Code, the Planning Commission must make findings on ten factors whe(l reviewing a
CUP application. They are as follows with staff comment:
1. Demonstrated Need of the Use: The City requires that an applicant identify a legitimate
need for a Conditional Use Permit. B2B Segway would need a CUP to perform automotive
sales in the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The General Land Use Plan Map depicts
the proposed site as long-term mixed use development. A facility that sells and services
electric vehicles does not conflict with this vision.
3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: Staff does not believe the approval of this permit
will affect property values in the area in any way.
4. Effect of Use on Traffic in the Area: The applicant has estimated that no more than
twelve employees would occupy the site at anyone time. In addition, the proposed
business does is not expected to attract a large number of clients at anyone time.
Therefore, staff feels the proposed use will not impact traffic in the area.
5. Effect of Increases in Density or Population on the Area: The proposed use will not
increase the population of the area. Since this use is non-residential, only the daytime
population of Golden Valley would be (very minimally) affected.
6. Increase in Noise Created by Use: Noise impacts created by this proposed facility should
not extend beyond the site.
7. Any Dust, Odor or Vibration Caused by Use: No such problems are expected to be
caused by this proposal.
8. Any Increase in Animal Pests Caused by the Use: The nature of this facility does not
contribute to the existence of pests in any way.
9. Visual Appearance of the Use: The exterior of the building will not be significantly altered
for the proposed use.
10. Other Effects of the Use: Staff does not anticipate any negative effects of the proposed
use.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit allowing B2B Segway/Segway of
Minnesota to operate an electronic vehicle sale and service operation located at 6210 Wayzata
Boulevard. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit is subject to the following conditions:
1. All signage must adhere to City sign guidelines for the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District.
2. The number of employees on the site at anyone time shall be limited to twelve.
3. The hours of normal operation shall be Monday through Saturday from 8 am to 7 pm.
4. All improvements to the building must meet the City's Building Code requirements.
5. All requirements must be met for the installation of fire safety equipment.
6. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times.
Attachments:
Location Map (1 page)
Applicant's Narrative (2 pages)
Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson, dated April 9, 2009 (1 page)
Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, dated April 17, 2009 (1 page)
Site Plans (2 pages)
0 0
0
0 VI
102 ~
0 0 <
0 !
~
(II
~
8
~
6100
100
o
o 01nO 0 0
.
o
840
I Subject Property I
\
U'l
6400 ~
i
l1J
g
w;
o
00
o 0 0 00
o
)1105
o
o
o
o
6440
6300
o
o
10
llVte__
"'.OIl"1ii 394
(1)
~"'__~s C~iC'!.OGlSGlS:lm5
II
\If
I.AIJR~I,Avr;,
BOO
o
o
o
GOLDI'!N HlU.S DR
SlI20
PAJU( PlAGaJLVO.~ TO we Bt4
INTe~ATtl394
I!B lB4 TO 58 HWY100 S
3ll6i1
NARRA TIVE
(828 Segway)
Art Holdings, Inc.("Art Holdings")(6210 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN), wishes
to lease out approximately half of its current building to B2B Segway/Segway of
Minnesota ("Segway"). Segway will occupy approximately one-half of the upper floor
which it will utilize as a showroom for its line of electric transportation devices which
include electric scooters and electric cars. Segway will occupy approximately two-fifths
of the lower level where it will assemble and conduct service on electric vehicles. The
lower level will also be used as a standard warehouse/storage facility for various items
and parts related to Segway's core business.
Segway would like the opportunity to display vehicles on the buildings sidewalk (located
on Art Holdings parcel) as well as on the side of the building. These display vehicles
would only be displayed during normal business hours and would be brought back into
the building each night for overnight storage. The company would like the opportunity
to extend the same sidewalk (located on parcel) around the East side of the building or
to partially widen the existing sidewalk.
Segway would also like to have the option of storing up to twelve (12) electric cars on
the lot on the backside of the Art Holdings Building. The building currently meets all city
parking ratios. Generally the standard procedure for the company would be for it to
move any electric vehicles into the building at night for protection from the elements.
Thus any outside storage of vehicles is believed to be quite minimal. The company
would also like the opportunity to ramp up a drive-in door to one of its current dock-high
doors. The ramp would be a standard metal style ramp which would be utilized by
Segway to transfer vehicles into its service area. The hours of operation will be roughly
8:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Monday-Saturday). The number of employees on site is not
expected to exceed twelve (12) people. Segway is to be distinguished from a standard
automobile showroom. They do not cater to big crowds and a large proportion of their
business is corporate accounts. Segway will not be catering to the public at large or
anticipating large dealership style events. Segway has become a highly desired tenant
for municipalities across the country.
This area of Interstate 394 has historically been home to a number of car dealerships.
In light of the recent zoning changes that effect the Property, we feel it is logical to ask
the City of Golden Valley for a Conditional Use Permit to allow this type of dealership
and light service use. Especially due to the overall"green" and renewable energy
aspects of this electric vehicle line. Segway presents the type of highly desirable use
that several other municipalities have shown a great deal of interest in landing. We feel
that Segway vehicles are the future and that renewable energy is an area of great
concern to cities across the entire State of Minnesota. In closing this is a use that will
benefit the City of Golden Valley and position them on the forefront of renewable energy
and alternative forms of transportation. We premise that this would be a highly
complementary use to the other neighboring dealerships and commercial businesses in
the area. We are more than happy to address any concerns that the Planning Staff or
City Council might have with Segway.
Public ~U~Y
Memorandum
Fire Department
763-593-8055 I 763-512-2497 (fax)
To:
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning
From:
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
Subject: Conditional Use Permit - 6210 Wayzata Blvd.
Date: April 9, 2009
The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the application for the Conditional Use Permit for
the proposed sales, service and storage of electric vehicles located at the Arts Holding building
located at 6210 Wayzata Blvd. The Golden Valley Fire Department's following comments are focused
on the reasonable level of life safety from the hazards of fire or dangerous conditions in the building
structure and provide safety to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.
1. The demolition and remodeling of the interior proposed space shall be in accordance with the
Minnesota State Fire Code.
2. The impairment of the fire suppression system during the demolition and remodeling of this
proposed site shall be in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code. Also the impairment
of the fire suppression system shall not affect the day to day operations of the other tenants
located in this same building.
3. The impairment of the fire alarm system and the fire alarm notification devices during this
proposed construction and remodeling for this site shall be in accordance with the Minnesota
State Fire Code. This impairment of the fire alarm system shall not affect the day to day
operation of the other tenants in the same building.
4. The relocation and additional installation of the fire suppression system and fire alarm devices
shall be in accord.ance with the Minnesota State Fire Code and the Golden Valley City
Ordinance.
5. The interior storage and charging of batteries for the electrical vehicles shall be in accordance
with the Minnesota State Fire Code and the National Fire Code Standards.
6. The proposed repair/service area located in the lower level of the building shall be in
accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code.
7. The proper placement of fire extinguishers throughout the building will be required in
accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 763-593-8065 or e-mail,
eanderson@cLgolden-vallev.mn.us
alley
Me rand
Public Works
763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax)
Date:
April 17, 2009
To:
From:
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer'"
CU-125 Art Holdings Building
Subject:
Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed Conditional Use Permit for the Art
Holdings building, which is located at 6210 Wayzata Boulevard. Based upon this review
staff has identified the following issue:
. The proposed sidewalk and loading dock construction may require a Grading,
Drainage and Erosion Control permit. The applicant must submit plans to the
Public Works Department for review and comment.
Based upon this review, Public Works staff recommends approval of the proposed
Conditional Use Permit.
C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Mitch Hoeft, Graduate Engineer
Gary Johnson, Building Official
G:\Developments - Private\Art Holdings CUP\CUP Review 041709.doc
, ,
"
","," ',~, ',' ~
'::'" ::' ,": :' '
'd' '
, '
" :,,"
i
':.:
, '" c', ,:. ' b,
.. ',"., ",," ',':"', [""
"':', ,f: ;',:':' "i;~"~;f' -ti:..f1 ""i ""~' :~:l"~:
,',' ;" ".',','" ,"," i,,; ,
;',> ,', ,'[ ;, ,:.
'", " ','.'.
,':' :',' ,',,', ,::,
, "I" " "
',", , ' i " '
, ': :.;' ,',c:, :", , ,,'
I ,:".1 ' " :.
,:'.:l!: , ' '
"
",.:',' ,
..,. ~', ;r.- C,-:-", ' ,', " . t,' :
,,' ,', ,.' ~<.... I " ", ,
, , " :.',' ,,:, ' , ',:',' ','
.',- "-~'~;~<:'" .,' , ' ""'-
:,;., .,~'~'- '," ,',.i:: ',' ,:,' "." '
"';:'A' ", ',.,,:' 'c"- ,," " , '" ',". I~' -:T, ",',D,f ", ':
"',", " i,,' :e" :' .': .
',c; "', " :" ''',' .'." ' : ' " " '.: '::,
;,'.. ,:,,':,''' :. ,,' :':"" "C, ' " -;, '" ,
.,', ' -i;': .;. .'\ t' l::"" .
',', ',',' .:' ',', :', =r ~:. ,1 ' , '1z ',f'
;',T ' . ,,' , " J ',..... : I : j. '"
" ,"," , ' , , I'
'" ;,.'
:
-""
,,',
"
" "
"" ",",
E,-,l!OQ.OO -"
" ";,
:: " , '
,
"" ',:,'
, .
I
I ' ". -:-
" -:~', "_~', ',",'" '1" \"~ II
~\_ .~ -.'~ ,.,~", : ' ,', , ' " _\_ - - u.- I
," "~._' ", "" . , _7
, , ',,' " ,,' "" ," . ': ',' ,
,'"." ' ' ',~
,; ',"',: .',' "COLORA,DO AVE Sp ," .
,::.' > ~.-:.,. -- -- ~ ---- ""
,", .:', ,', '
"' '" ',-'
"
"
" ,
'" ,,' ..
,
Pl,liZ ,
~h'i c ~,'
, ac"l c,',
i~ ~ i '
~;
.n
: : :,!
.
I
, I
k
"
'....
" ';;', ,
"" :. ",'",
, ,,' ", ' '
",,:, ,",. ' . ,'"
: '
f"; ,.'
,',r,;
.
RAMP ON ----+
SHARED SPACE
(1450 SF)
RAILING
~
TENANT #2
3680 SF)
1 LEVEL 1
GAS MAIN
MAIN ELEC
PANEL
2 LEVEL2
...,..._"'R~""',.""
"oSouth...._7<~fluo;
_....,.,llo. ""0" SHO....,.
~u.YS...,.. .........n..
---
<<>
en w O~
""I en > In
"'<( ..Jz
Z W W~::2.
Cl .....J O~ >-
6 ~ O:>-~
:c <( en~ ~
L- Z oZ
r- W ~w
0: NO
<( ~ <<>5
(!l
TENANT #2
3850 SF)
=~~~d!:!~==~
'GAA~~~R
2007065
Project Status
JM '".is
FLOOR PLANS
A101
Hey
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
To:
Planning Commission
From:
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to Section 11.55, Subd. 6(A)
(Planned Unit Development Chapter of the Zoning Code) to Allow for
Extension of Time for Submittal of Final PUD Plan
Subject:
Date:
April 10, 2009
The City Attorney and Planning staff is recommending that the zoning code be changed to
specifically allow for an extension of the period of time when a Final PUD plan must be
submitted. Currently, a Final PUD plan must be submitted for approval within 180 days of the
approval of the Preliminary PUD plan approval. There is no provision for an extension of that
period although extensions have been granted by the City Council in the past. Because there
is no specific language permitting an extension, the City Attorney and staff believe that
amending the language in Section 11.55, Subd. 6(A) to permit an extension of up to 180 days
by the City Council is appropriate with the understanding that the extension is at the sole
discretion of the City Council and that the City Council may add conditions at the time of
granting the extension.
Staff believes that these extensions may be appropriate in certain situations. The staff has
been contacted by Duke Realty and they have indicated that they may ask for an extension
for a period of 180 days unless they have pre-leased a substantial portion of one of the office
buildings. In this economic climate, a request for an extension seems reasonable as long as
the City Council has the right to determine if additional conditions should be added.
The City Council did grant a 180 day extension for the submission of the Final PUD plan to
OPUS for the Xenia Ridge project. This 180 day extension goes until May 1, 2009.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of the attached language that would specifically allow for up to a
180 day extension of the time period for which a Final PUD plan must be submitted.
Attachments:
Proposed Language for Section 11.55, Subd. 6(A) (1 page)
9 11.55
2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable
portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive
environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks,
wetlands and open waters.
3. Efficient - Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use
(which includes preservation) of the land.
4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with
adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
redevelopment plans and goals.
5. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving
the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City.
6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose
provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions.
Subdivision 6. Application Procedure - Final PUD Plan
A. Application and Final PUD Plan Requirements. Unless the applicant has
obtained City Council permission under Subd. 5(A) hereof to develop a
project over more than two (2) years, Once the City Council h~s approved ~n
applic~nt's Prclimin~ry PUD PI~n, the applicant shall submit 'vVithin one
hundred eighty (180) d~ys a complete FinZlI PUD PI~n. a complete Final PUD
Plan within one hundred eighty (180) days of Preliminary PUD Plan approval.
Such one hundred eighty (180) day period may be extended by the City
Council in the exercise of its sole discretion subject to such additional
conditions as it deems appropriate. A The Final PUD Plan shall be submitted
.....hich meets ~nd is consistent with the Preliminary PUD Plan approved by the
City Council, as well as the PUD Intent and Purpose provisions hereof., The
standards and other f1tJ9 provisions of this section aA6 shall include, but not
be limited to, the following:
1. Site Plan/Development Plan. Plans of the proposed PUD development
which identify all land uses and proposed square footage, the location of
buildings, existing and proposed roadways and accesses, pedestrian ways
and sidewalks, proposed parking areas, traffic volume projections, areas
to be preserved, public and common areas, building elevations including
height and materials, preliminary utilities plan, the location of the parcel's
boundaries, the net and gross density of the development, the total area
occupied by the development, the amenities to be provided and the
development schedule.
2. Setbacks. Setback measurements from buildings, roads, parking and high
use outdoor activity areas to the nearest lot lines shall be shown on the
Golden Valley City Code
Page 7 of 15
Hey
Memorandum
Housing & Redevelopment
Authority
763-593-8002/763-593-8109 (fax)
7800 Golden Valley Rd. Golden Valley, MN 55427
763-593-8014
Date: April 24, 2009
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jeanne Andre, Assistant Director, Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Subject: Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area
On April 7 the Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority reconsidered and
adopted a Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area
modified from the one it initially adopted on November 10, 2008. This reconsideration
reflected ongoing discussion and modifications recommended by the HRA and Planning
Commission during discussions that occurred in December, January and February.
The new plan includes the same geographic area, but is modified in Section 6 and a new
Section 7 has been added. Section 6 now only summarizes the existing conditions and the
new Section 7 outlines Redevelopment Opportunities. This approach was recommended by
the Planning Commission during its previous discussion.
To clarify the approval process the HRA adopted the new version of the plan and has asked
the Planning Commission to once again review its conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Commission adopted the 2008 Comprehensive Plan and referred it to the City
Council on the same night that it previously considered the Redevelopment Project Area
Plan. As the 2008 Comprehensive Plan has now also been approved by the City Council,
there is greater clarity to a Planning Commission determination of its conformance. Therefore
I request that the Planning Commission review its previous discussion of the Redevelopment
Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area, and adopt Resolution 09-02,
Finding that the Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project
Area Conforms to the General Plan for the Development and Redevelopment of the City
(2008 Comprehensive Plan).
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
April 24, 2009
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Findings Regarding the Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor
Redevelopment Project Area Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan
The Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority has adopted the Redevelopment
Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor Redevelopment Project Area and asked the Planning
Commission to determine if the Plan conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan. In previous
discussions the Planning Commission has suggested that staff develop findings on this matter.
The 2008 Comprehensive Plan recently recommended by the Planning Commission and
adopted by the City Council promotes increased commercial and retail development on major
corridors and supports multifamily housing on arterial streets, buffered from neighborhood
housing.
Guidance on parcels in the Redevelopment Plan, located on the east side of Douglas Avenue,
includes
1. Office and Retail Services on those parcels north of the CP Rail Line;
2. High Density Housing on those parcels between the CP Rail Line and Golden Valley
Road; and
3. Industrial on the parcel south of Golden Valley Road.
The uses proposed as "Redevelopment Opportunities" in the Redevelopment Plan conform to
the guided uses in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan.
Resolution 09-02
April 27, 2009
Commissioner
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 09-02
RESOLUTION OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING
COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR DOUGLAS DRIVE REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLAN
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF
THE CITY (2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN)
WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
(the "City") and the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority")
establish Douglas Drive Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"), and adopt a
Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area (the "Plan"), all pursuant to and in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Authority have caused to be prepared and
submitted the Plan to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") for review prior
to the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plan to determine its conformity
with the general plan for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in
the 2008 Comprehensive Plan for the City, as approved by the City Council on March
17 , 2009.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plan
conforms with the general plan for the development of the City as a whole.
Adopted this 27th day of April, 2009.
Chair
Attest:
Secretary
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: ; and
the following voted against the same: I whereupon said resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted, signed by the Chair and his signature attested by the
Secretary.
Exhibit A
Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor
Redevelopment Project Area
Consideration by Housing and Redevelopment Authority:
Resolution 08-03 adopted November 10,2008
Resolution 09-03, adopted April 7, 2009
Consideration by Planning Commission:
Resolution 09-01, adopted February 23, 2009
Resolution 09-02, adopted
Consideration by City Council:
Resolution
"
Redevelopment Plan for Douglas Drive Corridor
Redevelopment Project Area
Section 1. Introduction
As part of a goal-setting session in 2006 the City Council identified Douglas Drive
(CSAH 102) as a primary area of concern for the future of the City. As part of the 2008
update of the Comprehensive Plan, the City again identified the Douglas Drive Corridor
from Medicine Lake Road (CSAH 70) to Minnesota Trunk Highway (TH) 55 as a priority
for further study. There is significant through traffic from communities to the north and
the mixture of land uses along the corridor in Golden Valley adds even more traffic. The
volume of traffic combined with limited public right-of-way available for expansion will
present challenges to improving this corridor and its public infrastructure. Traffic is
heavy along the corridor due to its designation by Hennepin County as a minor arterial
corridor. Its mixture of land uses including single-family, multi-family, offices, retail,
schools, churches and industrial uses, some of which are blighted, could through
redevelopment, become a more vibrant, integrated community.
The initial focus of redevelopment will be the east side of Douglas Drive between Duluth
Street (CR 66) and the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The City desires to look at
this area in a comprehensive manner. The existing land use is a mixture of low-and-high
density housing, some relatively new and some blighted, as well as office, commercial
and industrial uses.
Section 2. Statement of Need and Public Purpose, Statutory
Authorization
The Authority finds that there is a need for development within the City and the Project
Area in order to provide employment and housing opportunities, to improve the local tax
base, and to improve the general economy of the City and the State. The economic
security of the people in the City depends upon proper development of property that
meets anyone of a number of conditions, including properties whose values are too low
to pay for the public services required or rendered and properties whose lack of use or
improper use has resulted in stagnant or unproductive land that could otherwise
contribute to the public health, safety, and welfare.
The Authority finds that in many cases such property cannot be developed without
public participation and assistance in various forms including property acquisition and/or
write-down, proper planning, the financing of development costs associated with
clearance, grading and soils correction, and the making of various other public and
private improvements necessary for development. In cases where the development of
property cannot be done by private enterprise alone, the Authority believes it to be in
the public interest to consider the exercise of its powers, to advance and spend public
money, and to provide the means and impetus for such development.
The Authority finds that in certain cases property within the Project Area would or may
not be available for development without the specific financial aid to be sought, that the
Redevelopment Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the
City as a whole, for the development of the Project Area by private enterprise, and that
1
this Redevelopment Plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the City
as a whole.
It is the intention of the Governing Body, notwithstanding the enumeration of specific
goals and objectives in the Redevelopment Plan, that the Authority shall have and enjoy
with respect to the Project Area the full range of powers and duties conferred upon the
Authority pursuant to the HRA Act, the TIF Act, municipal housing and redevelopment
authority laws, and such other legal authority as the Authority may have or enjoy from
time to time.
The HRA Act authorizes the Authority to exercise all the. powers relating to a housing
and redevelopment authority granted under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to
469.047, or other law.
Section 3. Background
When Douglas Drive was initially constructed, the surrounding land uses were more
rural in nature. Now a number of major employers including Honeywell, United Health
Care and Tennant Company have a significant presence in the corridor and the average
daily traffic on various sections of the corridor in Golden Valley range from 10,000 to
14,000 vehicle trips per day. The presence of numerous schools (Sandburg Middle
School, King of Grace Lutheran School and Perpich School of Performing Arts) and
recreational facilities (Sandburg fields, Honeywell Little League field, Seeman and
Hampshire Parks, and the Three Rivers Luce Line Trail) in the corridor increase the
need for improved safety for non-motorized transportation.
The Three Rivers Park District has constructed a portion of the Luce Line Trail through
Golden Valley that will connect French Park in Plymouth with Wirth Park in Minneapolis.
At the present time there are not safe north-south connections to this trail for bikers and
pedestrians. In order to improve these connections Golden Valley received funding
through the Non-Motorized Transportation Act to study this corridor and plan for future
improvements to pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections in this corridor. The
Principles for this study are outlined below.
Section 4. Principles
1. Improve connectivity and functionality for all transportation modes. Douglas
Drive, which is classified as a county state-aid highway in the Hennepin County
Transportation Plan and minor arterial road in the City's Comprehensive Plan, has
historically focused on motorized vehicles. Traffic volume has increased significantly
over the years as has the need for better, safer pedestrian and non-motorized
transportation and transit options. Intersection improvements at Highway 55/
Douglas Drive and other key major and minor intersections within the corridor are
critical to safer and improved movement for pedestrians, non-motorized and
vehicular traffic in the corridor.
2. Enable the corridor to maintain a diverse mix of land uses, including
residential, commercial and industrial. A mix of activities, uses and densities will
help to sustain the corridor through changing economic cycles, consumer
2
preferences and housing trends. Clustered and mixed uses can create synergies,
increase transit use and enhance the level of pedestrian activity.
3. Maximize integration rather than separation of land uses, where appropriate.
Many land uses can benefit from increased integration with one another, including
neighborhood-serving retail, multi-family and senior housing, offices, and low-impact
services. Non-residential corridor uses should be buffered from adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
4. Maintain the corridor as an employment center. Jobs within the corridor help
maintain Golden Valley's jobs-housing balance while sustaining commercial
enterprises. Retaining 'living wage' jobs should be a priority.
5. Improve the visual coherence and attractiveness of the corridor. Improvements
in streetscapes, landscaped areas, open spaces, building aesthetics and
parking/service areas all contribute to a more unified and visually appealing
environment, with an increased sense of identity. Buildings and other private
improvements should make positive contributions to the corridor and the broader
public realm, while public improvements should set the standard for private
investment.
6. Foster neighborhood-serving retail and services. Multimodallinks to commercial
development should be enhanced.
7. Foster sustainable development and work to establish a balance between
urban and natural systems. Encourage the application of green building and
infrastructure techniques. Examples include low-impact development that maintains
the natural functions of the land, encourages reduced stormwater runoff and fosters
resource conservation and the use of renewable systems in new construction.
Section 4. Goals and Objectives
The current hodge-podge of land uses, minimal right-of-way (63 to 100 feet), sometimes
minimal building setbacks from a high-traffic road, and the desirability of buffering
residential uses from the high volume of traffic make the corridor an ideal candidate for
broader redevelopment. Some goals of the redevelopment would be to provide for
additional right-of-way, consolidate corridor land uses and the number of access points
onto Douglas Drive. There are existing impediments in the right-of-way (electrical poles,
fire hydrants, utility boxes, railroad crossings, etc.) that complicate the infrastructure
needs for the area and impede pedestrian and bike access which could also be
addressed through redevelopment.
To achieve its mission of structured redevelopment, this Plan has identified six goals
with related objectives to encourage cohesive planning and structured redevelopment
within the corridor. It then outlines policies that will help to achieve the goals and
objectives.
Goal 1 - Improve vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian transportation.
Objectives
· Improved roadway with added pedestrian and non-motorized transportation facilities
3
· Complete streets that meet vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian needs
· Reduced impediments in the sidewalks
· Undergrounded utilities
· Consolidated access points onto Douglas Drive
Goal 2 - Redevelop obsolete properties.
Objectives
· Blighted, functionally obsolete, and/or economically unsustainable buildings
removed
· New uses compatible with existing uses
Goal 3 - Create jobs and life-cycle housing.
Objectives
· Increased high-paying jobs
· Housing stock that is maintained or improved
· Higher density housing
· Housing for seniors and young families
· Affordable housing
· Commercial uses that serve the community
Goal 4 - Require design that is sustainable and aesthetically pleasing.
Objectives
· Enhanced community identity through features which reflect Golden Valley.
· Visually attractive development that complements its surroundings.
· Buildings constructed with environmentally sustainable 'green building' practices
(Development that meets environmental criteria set forth by Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) and the United States Department of Energy).
· Active living criteria included in design
Goal 5 - Protect the environment.
Objectives
· Wetlands that are protected and enhanced
· Land free of soil and wetland contamination
· Arborous environments
· Natural features retained and native vegetation (re)established
· Co-located uses that reduce the amount of auto travel and corresponding air
pollution
· Best shoreline management practices implemented along Bassett Creek
Goal 6 - Maintain a regional framework.
Objectives
· Growth compatible with the Metropolitan Council development framework
· Public infrastructure designed in cooperation with Hennepin County, Three Rivers
Park District, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation
· Participation in grant programs available through Hennepin County, the Metropolitan
Council and other agencies
· A positive relationship with surrounding communities and governmental agencies
· Continued participation in cooperative traffic management strategies
· Improved transit options
4
Section 5. Policies
land Use
The City will study planned land uses to determine the need or desirability of individual
parcel or area-wide comprehensive plan or zoning amendments to accommodate
desired land uses.
The City and HRA will assure that its review processes, zoning, and building regulations
will promote desired development projects.
The City will assure that new uses in the redevelopment area are compatible with
existing development and the City's land use plan.
The City and HRA will review existing corridor properties to consider their long term
viability and/or options for alternative uses.
Land use plans will promote mixed use developments and increased density where
appropriate, in keeping with the Metropolitan Council's regional growth strategy.
Financing
The City and HRA will identify criteria to target redevelopment funds such as tax
increment financing, tax abatements, Livable Communities, Community Development
Block Grants and other funding made available by the legislature or other agencies or
governmental units.
The City and HRA will consider providing public assistance to redevelopment projects
that serve a substantial public purpose, remove blight, or mitigate contamination.
The City and HRA will consider using land write-downs to subsidize redevelopment
projects.
Redevelopment funding will be paired with other funding options such as assessments,
based on the Golden Valley Special Assessment Policy.
The City will consider franchise fees and utility surcharges to underwrite the cost of
utility and infrastructure upgrades.
Design and Environmental Standards
The City will promote best practices to meet the highest environmental standards.
The City and HRA will identify approaches and/or incentives to promote a corridor
beautification program. This program will include both public and private components.
The City will monitor ongoing research on sustainable development initiatives to guide
redevelopment and future updates of this plan.
Transportation
The City will work with Metropolitan Transit to monitor transportation needs of area
residents and workers and identify ways to improve transportation services including
5
improving transit routes, and working with area businesses to develop transportation
management plans.
The City will work with Hennepin County, the State of Minnesota and other agencies to
design and seek funding for an improved roadway with added pedestrian and non-
motorized transportation facilities that meet city, county and state needs.
Section 6. Redevelopment Area Defined
In 2008-09 the City is studying the full length of Douglas Drive from Medicine Lake
Road on the north to Trunk Highway 55 on the south. Until that study is completed the
Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area will include the Douglas Drive street right-of-way
and parcels on the east side of the street from Duluth St. to the Union Pacific railroad
right-of-way to the south. This area has limited sidewalks in the west right-of-way and
no sidewalk or trail on the east side, which has a significant number of multifamily
housing units.
The full Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area is identified on Map A. The area is divided
into three subsections, based on land use.
Area A-1
Area A-1 extends from Duluth Street south to the Canadian Pacific Railroad and is
guided Commercial and Office. It has three parcels, with the following land uses: two
gas stations and a multi-tenant office.
Area A-2
Area A-2 extends from the Canadian Pacific Railroad south to Golden Valley Road. It is
guided High Density Residential and Railroad Right-of-Way. Existing land uses range
from single family, duplex, and triplex units to three- to five- story rental apartment and
condominium buildings and railroad facilities. The Metropolitan Council has identified
this rail corridor for a regional, mixed-use trail on its 2030 Regional Parks System Map.
Area A-3
Area A-3 extends from Golden Valley Road south to the Union Pacific Railroad/Luce
Line Trail. It has only one parcel which is guided Industrial. A CenterPoint Energy
peaking plant and maintenance center currently occupies this site.
Common features for all of the areas include inadequate or no sidewalk and electrical
poles and overhead lines that would impede the development of sidewalks. There is
pedestrian access on intersecting east-west roads including sidewalks on Duluth St.
and Golden Valley Road and the new Luce Line Trail along the Union Pacific right-of-
way.
Section 7. Redevelopment Opportunities
Infrastructure
A main objective of redevelopment is the provision of public infrastructure, including:
road improvements that accommodate existing and future development along the
corridor while limiting direct access to the road; sidewalk, trail and bicycle facilities in
conjunction with the roadway or in the CP Rail corridor that bisects and runs adjacent to
6
the Redevelopment Area; ponding and storm sewer facilities that meet current
environmental standards; and water and sanitary sewer upgrades to meet current and
future needs.
Area A-1
Proposed land uses for Area A-1 include commercial and office development consistent
with its location near the key intersection of Douglas Drive and Duluth St. The goal of
redevelopment would be to provide high-quality uses and reduce the number of access
points on both Douglas Drive and Duluth St.
Area A-2
The focus of Area A-2 would remain residential, but in keeping with the 2009
Comprehensive Plan, higher density housing could replace existing single-family,
duplex and triplex housing. The goal of replacement housing would be to provide high-
quality life-cycle housing that provides a greater range of housing options for Golden
Valley residents and to reduce the number of access points on Douglas Drive.
Area A-3
In Area A-3 the objective would be to maximize CenterPoint's use of the site while
keeping access points on Douglas Drive to a minimum. Expanded CenterPoint facilities,
such as a customer call center, would complement its existing peaking facilities at this
site and would increase the intensity of land usage, enhance the tax base and bring
additional employees to the corridor.
7
'i L_Ji1 /~. ~.I
..... "'l~:~~ Area J;
:=T'-,;, ~: L: IIIIlI i "
, "1 . oO!: <<1:, , . .'. '
~ '--,1~ ','
'. >----; A. A :..., "fT!i e- ~ ,- ':
i. I/~~~. .00 : 0 'KJ~ I- 1m'. I;
, ,~( ~ bo f--,I'\. g;t 1
: : i;::-~ =r ~ ::~~. f r,,:-> ~_J;
HA!\1PSJURIlI.N1"' -e - 0 u
d~m:", J1 :'- :~mD \ _lj;j~~'J am r '~_:~~ :
~IArea~-~}: ::1 \\ ~,l !r-- mt):\,
m"."-H_H.:~~lr;, : ~ 11 i ; F-/. /'"'~ J{i
l' DIllI ~ am I ~r-:,'
- -<~~,.. 'i =
-7 f-3: ,I..-^ '.,~~ \\'
:t~,.. :yP, - .,~ "...~
:1< Areaty.3'~ =:;. ___~==msA~I~~!
!~ I ~I, : .:r-;--'
~__,_!,,~L_ .' , \. ~ -'"* r 'r:
MapA
Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area