Loading...
12-13-10 PC AgendaAGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, December 13, 2010 7 pm 1. Approval of Minutes a. October 25, 2010 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing -Minor Subdivision - 5360 and 5380 Lowry Terrace - SU03-01 a. Applicant: David and Sandra Raley b. Address: 5360 and 5380 Lowry Terrace c. Purpose: The applicants are requesting that the property line between the two properties be moved 9 feet to the east 3. Informal Public Hearing -Planned Unit Development Amendment -Final Design Plan - 6800 Wayzata Boulevard -Menards - PU-75, Amendment #3 a. Applicant: Menard, Inc. b. Address: 6800 Wayzata Blvd. c. Purpose: The applicant is proposing the replacement of the existing Menards store with a new 2-story Menards home improvement center. 4. Short Recess 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment Th2s cac~~r~~rntis availaf}fe in alter~~ateformatsupan a 72-hour request. Pleasecall '~~ ~ 7G3-593-800b (TTY: 763-593-3968} to make arequest. Examples of aiternate farmats ~ ~ ~N. ~.,.~ ~::i f~r~~v include ia~~ge print, electronic. Braille, audiocassette, =~e. ::_. .. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 25, 2010 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, October 25, 2010. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present was City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes October 11, 2010 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Eck noted several typographical errors. Kluchka referred to the paragraphs on Page 6 regarding PUD amendment criteria and stated that he did not hear a resolution on whether the PUD criteria apply to amendments or not. Hogeboom said he would provide further clarification. 2. Informal Public Hearing -Minor Subdivision - 941 and 2021 Angelo Drive - SU07-10 Applicant: Paula Pentel and Warren & Kim Rottman Address: 941 Angelo Drive and 1021 Angelo Drive Purpose: The applicants are requesting that the property line between their two properties be redrawn to correct a gazebo encroachment Hogeboom referred to a location map and pointed out the two properties involved in this subdivision request. He explained that the applicants are proposing to redraw the property line between their properties because of the encroachment of a gazebo at 941 Angelo Drive. He stated that this subdivision proposal meets all of the requirements of the Subdivision Code. Hogeboom explained that the applicants went through the subdivision process several years ago with the same proposal but the Final Plat was not recorded with Hennepin County so the approvals expired which is why they are going through this process again. He stated that Staff is recommending approval of this Minor Subdivision request. Paula Pentel, Applicant, stated that she put up a fence where she thought the property line was and then built the gazebo five feet away from the fence. She stated that once the property was surveyed, it was discovered that the property line in question was not where she thought it was, so she is proposing to redraw it as proposed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 25, 2010 Page 2 Warren Rottman, Applicant, stated that this is basically a property swap. It won't affect how the property is maintained and it makes sense to subdivide the property the way they are proposing. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision request for the properties located at 941 Angelo Drive and 1021 Angelo Drive subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. The City Engineer's email, dated October 4, 2010, shall become part of this approval 3. The Preliminary Plat submitted by the applicants, dated. September 9, 2010, shall become part of this approval. 3. Presentation of Capital Improvement Program 2011-2015 -Sue Virnig, City Finance Director Sue Virnig, Finance Director, explained that the .:Planning Commission reviews the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) because it is an appendix in the City's Comprehensive Plan. She explained the various sections in the CIP and stated that the City Council has reviewed the document once already and they will be reviewing it again in November. Eck referred to the golf course section and asked how the interest earnings estimates were figured. Virnig explained that the money is pooled and the interest earnings are distributed based on the average cash balance for the year. She noted that the numbers are evaluated every year. Eck referred to the Park Improvement Fund and asked if the Hennepin County sports grant revenue is ongoing. Virnig stated that the City received a sports grant from Hennepin County and it is only a one year program to make improvements to the Little League fields near Honeywell. Kluchka asked Virnig to highlight any major changes in this document. Virnig stated that one change is that the City no longer has Valley Square tax increment. She explained another change is that the Douglas Drive project has been put in the CIP because the franchise fee ordinance has been approved. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 25, 2010 Page 3 Kluchka asked what impact the current economy has had on this five-year plan. Virnig stated that the size of the 2011-2012 Pavement Management Program has been reduced and extended over a longer period of time. She added that the City is also trying to stay level on its equipment replacement costs. Waldhauser referred to the state aid fund shown on page 13 and asked why the balance is carried at such a high level. Virnig stated that the fund builds up until there is money to fund various projects. Eck referred to the franchise fee recently approved and asked why it is being applied to Excel and not to Centerpoint. Hogeboom stated that the main purpose of the fee is to bury Excel's power lines in order to make room for improved sidewalks. Kluchka added that it is also a convenient tool to raise revenue to pay for the long term project. Waldhauser asked about the project planned for Scheid Park in 2014. Virnig explained that the Scheid Park project has been delayed several times because there is a house that would have to be removed. Waldhauser referred to the funds regarding playground equipment, paths, benches, shelters, etc. and asked if the budget is shifted as the demographics of the community change and many playgrounds get less use. Virnig explained that a lot of the playground equipment replacement projects have been delayed and that the demographics and use are considered by staff and the Open Space and Recreation Commission before equipment is replaced. Cera referred to the demolition of two buildings on Xenia Avenue shown on page 94. He asked if the City will tear down the buildings. Virnig explained that the City will tear down the buildings once there is a payment plan agreement with the property owner in place. Waldhauser referred to the expenses for wetland restorations and said she assumes the expenses listed in the CIP are for ponds or treatment areas that are owned by the City. Virnig said yes and referred to the explanation on page 15. Kluchka asked how the projects in the CIP are prioritized. Virnig said the projects are prioritized by staff and by the City Council based on need, safety concerns and the impact on taxpayers. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Program as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. --Short Recess-- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 25, 2010 Page 4 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Hogeboom invited the Planning Commission to attend the November 9 Council/Manager meeting where a representative from the Three Rivers Park District will review the proposed new Bassett Creek regional trail alignment in the northern part of the City. Schmidgall reported on the Senior Housing Summit he recently attended. He discussed the various topics of the Summit such as the need for more senior housing units and the increasing need for a larger variety in the type of senior housing. 6. Other Business No other business was discussed. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 pm. Lester Eck, Secretary Golden Valley Date: November 23, 2010 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Planning 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Minor Subdivision of Property at 5360 and 5380 Lowry Terrace -David and Sandra Raley, Applicants Summary of Request David and Sandra Raley, owners of 5360 and 5380 Lowry Terrace, are proposing to redraw the property line between the two properties. This action would result in increasing the size of the 5380 lot (the westernmost lot) and decreasing the size of the 5360 lot (the easternmost lot). Property records indicate that both residences were constructed in 2001. Qualification as a Minor Subdivision The proposed action qualifies as a minor subdivision because the properties are part of a recorded plat. In addition, this proposed subdivision will produce fewer than four lots and will not create need for public improvements (such as street construction). The applicants have submitted the required information to the City that allows for the subdivision to be evaluated as a minor subdivision. Staff Review of the Minor Subdivision In addition to the Planning Department, the City Engineer and the Fire Chief have reviewed this request. The City Engineer has submitted an email dated November 24, 2010 regarding recommendations from the Public Works Department concerning this request. In this case, the Public Works Department's only comment is that new easements be consistent with City Code. The City Engineer's email will become part of the recommended approval for this request. According to Section 12.50 of the City's Subdivision Regulations, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions with staff comment related to this request: 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. Both proposed lots, upon the moving of the property line, will meet the requirements set forth by the R1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not buildable. There are already existing homes on the proposed lots. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems by the addition of the new lots. Sewer and water lines currently serve both homes. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the City. The final plat must show all necessary easements as required by the City Engineer. 5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor subdivision, the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has been sent notice of this action. MnDOT has provided no comments to the City. 6. The City may ask for review of title if requires by the City Attorney die to dedication of certain easements. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements. No park dedication fee is recommended to be assessed to either property, as this request does not create any new lots for development. Recommended Action The Planning Department recommends approval of the minor subdivision with the conditions listed below: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. The City Engineer's email, dated November 24, 2010, shall become part of this approval. 3. The Proposed Sketch, submitted by the applicants, dated March 18, 2002, shall become part of this approval. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Email from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated November 24, 2010 (1 page) Proposed Sketch (1 page) ~...... ~ s~13 ~.~ . 502 aszi ~` _ ~ 524n ~~~ `~~-~ ~_ 3320 x321 &~- ~~~~ 5227 32an o ~2a5 v a2as1 a 32ai 3230 4 ~~~ Subject Properties 3218 l / i f ,~ ~ ~ / ~' ~~~/ i 3211 . 5380 ~ 53GQ,i 53x0 5336 , 5300 52#1 /~ ~~ : ~1,~~;' i 5220 5139 32x9 ~2aa ~za5 ~ 3241 3232 X231 322n 3221 321n 3211 elan 52n ~~_ LCIWRYTEk .__-___.___ _ __ . _ _._.........,~___,_,,,__ l 5325 5315 530D j 31tki ~3afl ? x~art}r a irk ~ ~ ~~ ~ '.. 59711 ! 533U i r z i ~ ~ ~_._ _.... ,,.-~`~ ~`-r~- .-~ ~ ~ ~~ s35tr r""_ .__"` ~ s2s5 seas ~.~-~ Saes ~5 ~~t \ /~~ '` 3ti3a I ~ ~ ~,~ 9065 ~ ~ /~~ ~~~1 3U55 ~ 5f4,~` ~ila~;~ { 5385 ~ 3nsd ;1"',.,'~ ~n~l 1 zz,s5 /! / ~\~ ~~ / ~tt3t1 { /' t^• ands?@£Nib.Sl .l^TVf4'JYU~i ~ 3 _. ~~ ~ '~"W ~~~ ~ VF ~`y ~~~~ .I ~ ~ "O ~. Hogeboom,Joe Subject: FW: Minor Subdivision (Lot Line Redraw) - 5360/5380 Lowry Terrace From: Oliver, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:16 AM To: Hogeboom, Joe Cc: Wittman, Lisa Subject: RE: Minor Subdivision (Lot Line Redraw) - 5360/5380 Lowry Terrace Our only comment is that there needs to be easements consistent with the Code. ~~ ~ ~~ Golden Valley City Engineer 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 763.593.8434 763.593.3988 (fax} joliverCcr~ci.goldenvalleymn.gov AS-EUILT SURVEY DESCRIPTION: Lots 4 & 5, Block 1, R.W. WORMSBECKERADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. LEGEND: o Denotes set iron pipe • Denotes found iron pipe 858.00 x Denotes existing spot elevation -~ Denotes existing surface drainage N Bearings are based on an assumed datum. Scale: finch = 30 feet Fora DA VI D RALEY IIVL JYL 1~ Y.~. 1 ,~~~ % i N 89'59'33" E „. ~ - 110.00 (Ptct) 857.21 ~ g58. i x / x 857.9 858, 9 l w 1~ 858.08 Q 3, ~ o ~~ 0 °f ~ ~ asa49 0 2^ 859.18 ~-~~~ ~,b/ z N 899'33" E /;~-~ss.7 110.00 (pror) found 1/1" 109.801N~rod) Found 1/: Open Iron. N 89 58'25" E open Pron. i~ . ~ Ti ~'~ ~'~'~ ~~ x857.9 M ~ n 4 1 /1T ~ ' 8571 L. V 1 ~~ ~ ~, ~x ~, 862.2 861.6 X8.4 x I 2d3 -~ Concrete ~ ori~e~y `~ Garage 3 « ~ =3 -- GAR. FLOOR-~ ~ S 86211 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6.1 861.5 ~h ~~~ ~p x ~p A 8574 x 8576 OO tO ~ 024.18 16,G w 861.6 ~ z' l~ize, - 1 boy„ ~~~,~~ rnT a._v! LJ 3~ ,3 R ~ ~~ h ~h ,~r ,. ~ o~ ~ h o~ A ~o co A °o `0 `~ °o 2 2 Existing House ~ i 861.3 w Existing House 3Q2 is.3o 1 !1 T A L.v! `h _ 8575 ~ J= 225 M~ 1.~2 ~5 34.6 8574 ~ '~ N 1 Story ~ 860.7 1 Story ,~ N LOWEST FLOOR N ~ LOWEST FLOOR Garage .~ ELEV.= 854.80 ELEV.= 854.70 N 857,6 GAR. FLOOR=8620 f5.4 861.6 127 ~ 17.3 34.8 861.5 25.1882.0 2R i r 15.8 r 32.9 16.24 861.6 621 859.72 ' Se 1/?` Iron. ~,d'i~ ~~, 60.9 m ~ ~" 859.87 I' ~~,~~; h~ ~ 881.6 x 861.2 ~ Bituminou8 ~ ~Q ~ Drlireway a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ,~ ~ L ~~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m ~ ,;~ ,I Found 1/2' S 8958'05" W ~° f ,~(~ >•L open Iron. 8576 110.11 (Measured) ~ 58.0 110.00 (PIatJ J ~rs7 110.00 (plot) ~ - - - N 90b0'00" W ~ ,i ~_ Concrete Curb- N 90'00'00" W 859,37 8.,8.85 ~~< 858.18 / - ~~ / ~ 85788 8577 LOA'RY 1 ~ ~~ `~~~~ TIS'f~R,4Cf' CERTIFICATION: ~ ~,p 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct survey of the above described property and that it was performed by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. That this survey does not purport to show all improvements, easements, or encroachments to the property, except as shown hereon. By: ~... Date: " ~ g " 62. Peter M Wagenaar, Land S eyor, License No. 12282 Golden Valley Planning 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: December 6, 2010 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing -Final PUD Plan -Menards PUD No. 75 - Amendment #3 (6800 Wayzata Blvd.) -Menard, Inc., Applicant BACKGROUND Menard, Inc. is in the process of amending its Planned Unit Development (PUD) permit for the purpose of demolishing the existing store and constructing a new, two-level store. Menard, Inc. began this process in the spring of 2010 by working with City staff to develop a plan that achieves design criteria, accommodates local traffic flow, and increases onsite storm water treatment. In October and November 2010, Menard Inc. appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council seeking preliminary approval of its PUD amendment. City Code requires Menard Inc. to now appear before both groups for a second time for final PUD plan approval. Upon final approval, the Golden Valley Menards store is anticipated to stop receiving shipments of goods shortly after the first of the year and close in mid-February. Demolition of the existing store is expected to occur in March. Construction of the new store and lot configuration is expected to last approximately one year, with the new store expected to open in the spring of 2012. Most of the current site plan is consistent to what was reviewed by the Planning Commission in October. However, per the Planning Commission and City Council's request, Menard Inc. has made several modifications. The plan modifications are as follows: • Menards has agreed to have the precast panels on the east, west, and north walls of the building be tinted the same "buff° color as those panels on the front (south) side of the building. Additionally, the panels on all sides of the building shall include abrick- stamped design. • Menards has reconfigured its parking lot plan to accommodate islands that would accommodate tree plantings. Menards has also added a line of trees on the back side of the property facing Laurel Avenue and other various trees throughout the site. In total, Menards has added 85 trees to its plan, increasing the total number of trees onsite to 185. • An additional driveway access point was added along Hampshire Avenue South. Menard Inc. is currently working with the Public Works Department to draft a Maintenance Agreement that will be in place during the demolition and construction process. The Public Works Department will work closely with Menards to ensure that all city requirements are met. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Final Plan for Amendment No. 3 to the Menards PUD No. 75. The proposal will result in the construction of an attractive, two-story building consistent with the City's desire to promote redevelopment in the I-394 corridor. The staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. These plans were prepared for Menards and include the following: existing pylon sign, front, rear, right, and wrought iron fence elevations, warehouse elevations, land survey, grading, drainage and erosion control plan, demolition plan, and utility plan. Z. Ali recommendations and requirements set out in the memos from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated October 5, 2010 and December 6, 2010 shall become a part of this approval. 3. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated December 1, 2010 shall become a part of this approval. 4. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. The existing pylon sign may remain but cannot be moved or expanded. 5. If the amount of parking on the site is inadequate as determined by the City Manager, Menards will take immediate steps to convert a portion of the outside yard area to the north or east of the store building to create additional parking. 6. Menards shall stop storing snow on site if the amount of parking on site is inadequate, as determined by the City Manager. Evidence of inadequate parking may be shown by customers parking on the street and not parked in designated spaces within the parking lot. 7. The precast panels on the east, west, and north sides of the building shall be the same buff aggregate as and brick stamped design as the panels facing Wayzata Boulevard. 8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Aerial Photo (1 page) City Council Minutes dated November 3, 2010 (2 pages) Planning Commission Minutes dated October 11, 2010 (7 pages) Memo from Mark Grimes, dated October 6, 2010 (5 pages) Memo from Jeff Oliver, PE, dated December 6, 2010 (4 pages) Memo from Jeff Oliver, PE, dated October 5, 2010 (5 pages) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated December 1, 2010 (2 pages) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson, dated September 21, 2010 (3 pages) Existing PUD Permit #75 (3 pages) Applicant's Narrative, dated November 9, 2010 (3 pages) Exhibit "B" Variances and Explanations (3 pages) Final Site Plans (10 oversized pages) f I ! ~ I I I 85 84'l ~,I ssa5 ~d'rtitt iib 110 115 110 ~ 58~EM 105 1i0 ~ }.- 6~~4 5920. _.`(j 3o LI [llt5 P~Irk 704K1 7000 5940 5960 100 55 44 45 , ~no , ~ ' S50b ~~ ~ ~ IS i` . WESTERN ILVE,, ..._, ~~ ~- ~ , _GLEFi1NOC1DAVE _ .... _ - ~ ~- 35 '~ --- 70 ~ 75 ~ 55 ~ ~ 5579 6530 55v0 6530 Ioo 105 5491 ~ 195 _5237 1~ a. 55 5a ~ 120 1i0 ~' ~ ' 110 c 115 ~' txsRtlAWN wt ~ _. xw, ~ :~.ss ~yD 1~as ~~~~ ~ ~' 115 1~0 ~ 1'15 ~ ; '~ > ~5 ~~ ~I~xs a ~ ~ ~s7~ ~ 6525 s5o9 ~ `,~ 125 -, --~ : ~ 135 us , 133 13E1 ~ ~--~--~-- 209 ---~. ' I ~~ ~ ~. 130 155 150 155 150 ~ i45 assa5sao ~~~ IUD 35 i74 175 ~ - 21D ~ -C ?s ' GtSRTLAWH CSR S 2~ 1~! , .170 175 215 210 ~ 215 210 " S i ^--r .. i" -i-TT'1 I+SO 145 _-_.... /230 I .r 235 734 230 m ~ s 5555 ~1s1a565 6535 6s1s 6a95 1 _ 300 I 2is N 54756455 5445 210 ' i ~~ I I v 205 255 2~ 755 250 ~ ~ - ._...._„ i A ~ ~ ~~ :/ `~ S~ Y~{i 235 f . ~ i ~ ~.- _ . ~, ,yt ~~ 270 _ t`t?L'J ~t?A C R G .. .__ fi+ '". ~ 340 F West Ring Pond ~ \` '~ ~ _-` - ~ 135d --- r s, ~ §~ Subject Property: Fonc,, ; East R~n Pon ~ !' L;iulc•I C~.vi'. Gri=ur~btlt E ~ W Rln{ i'gl7i~s '' g -~~ 6800 Wayzata Blvd. -----' __ _. .... _ .. _ LAUREL 1tVE . ~~~ ._ __.... . _ - ---- ~ 701 6401 o 0 0 ~ 4 V! 702 o a T00 ih. a o a ° +a 85D 751 801 ~/ j1 ~' ~ 0 7440 0 0 d f , , t7 6~ ~. .; E.... ...... ~4A#[K.ET57.. ... ... ,\ ' ~ 905 s50 5925 ~ x955 > 400 ... 7100 ~ 401 '~ 54~ 5650 a : 5444 '; 55~- 5440 a4tt9 •x 9011 ~ ~ ~ _ _ ... ~ ~~ _... ' -^-~-- w,a ~--. ;~ _ W6 1~~a ro ~xSIAVtN~r{ A ~Tp ~ 5~'-5x0 _. _ ... _ _ a "`^~ ~ INTE@L'S'i"ATE X94 S ANA E39d .. __ _ 240 L1HIi I AVE STOE'0 _ 58 }J~ - ~~.....,•-..fi~~~~t~~.._ #t 5l1 ~~~S.~r (rte -~ ~~t - .2;50 ' ' 1 YY 0 1 Laurel Ave Greenbelt (E & W Ring Ponds) 1+ f Fast Ring Pond LJ (` V t I ~.. LAUREL AVE m t i ~~! ~-, J Corilawn Pored sis i if '- Laurel Ave Greenbelt (Cortlawn Pand) ~-~: , ~ I r ,~ --- ~~* ~'__~ Subject Property: - --~-~ 6800 Wayzata Blvd. w~ f ,~ 4Y F t ! ~ .. ~•~ ~ ~ ~ a~R ~ ~~ ~ / s r ~ - ~, ` 701 f ; r f ~ C 6901 ~ ~~f ~ f.. f u ~ ilcde.. I ~...~~...r,... r - .u w s _ :. ~ 4, ~ ~ . ~ rt . tom. t . , , ...__.~. `~" ° ~ 'f ~ ~ j ~ _ !I 02 ~. !^~ ~' ~~ :§ !• 7lMfN~'K! T~~~FIFr'FP~ ~ -f~ T~ ~ s _ }._T~-. _.:: ~ f,; tNthlll~~ ~. ~. f_; ..: t e, -* ^''F •: i ? r~riN. ~ ~ - iH ~ iN + RI 6600 ~' - W ~y ~"' ...h^r .~_~_~~~ ` J ~ r rr.ti~ `~ p~90s n 8~ ~.. •o-' r , ~ t l i I ~:~ r'Iw 6925 ~: ~ r ( r '~ ~ i r ~ 1~ ©0 J ~ j v .+.. ~ . ~= .r ~'-11~ f ~`-- _'~~.~~~`: ~1 fHpi~~If- H£MFYM ~ .900'x' . r~ ~~ 901 ~--- '--~ I ''tt c. ~ ~8 ~ 4 ^ ii s ~. I ~ ` f A ,~ ,~ ' ... r ~ r I -.RI! :.. F. f P 6K2~r t s~, '~~ '~~ 1 f e~ ~ ~! ~ ~ f f 6660 1 T • .~ ~.r ~ ,, fJ,' (7 ~ - 6939 ~ i ~ r f ~ ~ ~.~ - ~ ,.,,, w~. r+ 6620 - ~ .. N f -- -.- - ~ ~-~,~.- - " ~_ T T-. T - T - I T T ~ J ~ _ -- - _ ___ - _. -- ..-- ~_- -----_ _- i r ~. . _. Y ~. -=~ ___ "}r i ~ ~ , ' ..~.. HeI~F~ L fem. Regular Meeting of the City Council November 3, 2010 Page 3 ecei t f Se tember 2010 Ge eral Fund Bud e1 MOV by Pentel, seconded by reiberg and motion file the tember 2010 General and Budget Repo Member Pentel introdu nanimously to receive and resolution and moved its adoption: ~' SOLUTION 10-66 RESOLUTI ~ES RIC VEHICLE STOPPING, STANDING, OR P ING O A PROTI .NOBLE AVENUE NORTH The motion for a adoption oft foregoing resolution wa onded by Member Freiberg and upon to being taken the on, the following voted in favo reof: Freiberg, Loomis entel, Scanlon and Sh ffer; and the following voted agains a same: none, whe pon said resolution was Glared duly passed and adopted, sign y the Mayor a her signature attested by the ity Clerk. Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan Approval -PUD #75 -Amendment #3 - 6800 Wayzata Boulevard - Menard Inc. Applicant Aaron Morrissey, Real Estate Representative, Menards, presented the .plan and answered question from the Council. John Kluchka, presented the Planning Commission report and answered questions from the Council Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council. The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Hearing and seeing no one, the Mayor closed the public hearing. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried to approve the Preliminary Design Plan, Menards PUD No. 75, Amendment #3 subject to the following conditions and findings: Conditions: 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. These plans were prepared for Menards and include the following: existing pylon sign, front, rear, left, right and wrought iron fence elevations, warehouse elevations, land survey, grading, drainage and erosion control plan, demolition plan and utility plan. Regular Meeting of the City Council November 3, 2010 Page 4 Public Hearina -Preliminary Design Plan Approval -PUD #75 -Amendment #3 - 6800 Wayzata Boulevard - Menard Inc. Applicant -Continued 2. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, and dated October 5, 2010 shall become a part of this approval. 3. A final landscape plan shall be submitted with the Final Plan of Development and be reviewed and approved by the City's Environmental Coordinator. 4. All signs on the property shall meet the requirements of the Gity's Sign Cade. The existing pylon sign existing on the site may remain but cannot be moved or expanded. 5. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, and dated September 21, 2010 shall become a part of this approval. 6. The precast panels on the east, west sides of the building shall be the same buff color as the panels facing Wayzata Boulevard. The look of the warehouse wall along Laurel Avenue shall be enhanced. 7. If the amount of parking on the site is inadequate as determined by the City Manager, Menards will take immediate steps to convert a portion of the outside yard area to the north or east of the store building to create additional parking. Evidence of inadequate parking may be shown by customers parking on-street, number of cars parked in the parking lot, and cars not parked in designated spaces within the parking lot. 8. The driveway access points shall be further studied to determine if there can be another access added along Hampshire Avenue or have only one access on Hampshire Avenue and one access on Wayzata Boulevard. 9. The amount of parking stalls shall be further studied to determine if some of the stalls can be removed so more landscaping can be included on the site. 10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal and local ordinances, regulations or laws with authority over this development. 11. Bike racks for 20 bikes shall be provided. 12.A sidewalk shall be placed on Hampshire Avenue South adjacent to the site. 13. No snow storage shall be allowed on-site. 14. Proof of parking plan showing potential employee parking in the yard area north of the building. Findin s: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 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. Council Member Shaffer voted no. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 2010 egular meeting of the Planning C mmission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, C cil Chambers, 7800 Golden V ley Road, Golden Valley, M' ota, on Monday, Octo ~.~11, 2010. Vice Chair Wald user called the meeti^ ~ order at 7 pm. Those pres ere Planning Cor and Waldhause . so present wa City Planner Joe Ho oom and ~ Schmidgall was absent. 1. Approval of Minute s" "~` August 9, 201 egular Eck referred a first paragra used twic oneously in the fi ! by Eck, seconded by C~ 9, 2010 minutes with the issioners Ce , Eck, Kluchka, McCarty, Segelbaum Director ~.~ 'arming and Development Mark Grimes, nini ~ ive Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Wing C fission Meeting n page 6 and nthat the words "found in" were :ntence. ~~ and motion carried unanim ~' ~ ~ ~ to approve the rve noted correction. 2. Informal Public Hearing -Planned Unit Development Amendment - Preliminary Design Plan - 6800 Wayzata Boulevard -Menards - PU-75, Amendment #3 Applicant: Menard, Inc. Address: 6800 Wayzata Blvd. Purpose: The applicant is proposing the replacement of the existing Menards store with a new 2-story Menards home improvement center. Grimes explained the applicant's request to amend their existing PUD in order to tear down the existing building and construct a new 2-level store on the same site. He gave a brief history of the property and stated that Menards has been at this location since 1981. Grimes referred to a site plan of the property and explained that the existing store is approximately 128,000 square feet in area on one level and the proposed new store would be approximately 250,000 square feet on two levels. The applicant is also proposing a 42,000 square foot warehouse area along the north property line and a garden center with both indoor and outdoor display areas on the east side of the store. The garden center will eliminate the need to sell Christmas trees and landscape material in the front parking lot as allowed in their current PUD Permit. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 2010 Page 2 Grimes noted that this property is currently zoned I-394 Mixed Use. However, it is the City Attorney's opinion that, because Menards is already an existing PUD, they can go through the PUD amendment process with this proposal. Grimes explained that one concern regarding this proposal is the issue of parking. He noted that the size of the parking lot will increase by only 23 parking stalls for a total 376 spaces which is significantly fewer than what is required in the Zoning Code. Menards has stated that they feel 376 parking spaces will be adequate but staff is proposing that if they need more spaces some of the yard space behind the building will have to be used for additional parking. Grimes referred to the proposed landscaping and discussed storm water quality for the site. He noted that staff has met with the applicant regarding Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission standards and they've agreed to meet the Level 1 standards for water quality. He explained that Menards doesn't have their storm water plans finished yet, but they will be available by the time the Final PUD Plan is approved. He added that Menards has proposed the creation of bio-filtration ponds and an underground storage system to help meet the Level 1 standards. The installation of the bio-filtration ponds will require some trees to be removed along Market Street, Wayzata Blvd and Hampshire Ave. He added that Menards will also have to do a tree preservation plan and probably mitigation. Grimes referred to the signage on the site and explained that the current pylon sign is an existing non-conforming use so it can stay. However, the signage on the building will be reduced by several hundred square feet. Grimes referred to the elevation drawings and said that staff would prefer if all of the sides of the building were done in the same finish material as is being proposed for the front since all four sides of the property are visible. He added that staff is recommending approval of this proposal with the conditions listed in his memo. Waldhauser stated that in the I-394 Corridor Study one of the long-term goals was to have another east/west street between I-394 and Laurel rather than having a "zigzag" access to the business. She asked who would bear the cost if the City wanted to split this property in half with a new east/west road. She suggested removing the frontage road and having the warehouse and lumber yard on one side of a parkway/road and the retail on the other side. She questioned the feasibility and the cost of such a configuration. Grimes agreed that the I-394 Corridor Study does suggest an additional east/west connection and ideally that is what the City would like, but at this time the City could not pay the acquisition and utility costs. Waldhauser questioned the re-use of this property as something other than a big box store if it is not split. Cera stated that ideally one might want to match the plans in the I-394 Corridor study but the Commission also has to look at what is realistic. He asked if variances can be approved within a PUD or if they are subject to the same requirements as other variance requests. Grimes stated that PUDs are a zoning issue and because this property is Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 2010 Page 3 already a PUD it can continue to be a PUD and they have the right to ask for an amendment. He added that a PUD also allows the City to require certain things it may not otherwise be able to, such as water quality improvements. He explained that there is currently minimal storm water management on the Menards site so this proposal will be a significant improvement in that regard. Cera asked why the number of curb cuts on the east side of the parking lot has been reduced. Grimes stated that reducing the curb cuts created more space for parking stalls and also having fewer openings creates less confusion in parking lots. He added that the City Engineer feels the proposed number of curb cuts will function well. Segelbaum expressed concern regarding the driveways on Wayzata Blvd. He stated that he agrees they may not need additional parking stalls, but they may need additional access. Eck agreed. Aaron Morrissey, Real Estate Representative, Menard, Inc., Applicant, referred to the condition in Mark Grimes' report regarding the front facade material being mimicked on all sides of the building. He stated that he thinks he'll have a hard time getting Menards to go along with that, especially on the north side along Laurel, because it would be a substantial cost and that side of the property won't be highly visible. Cera asked about changing the east and west facades. Morrissey said he thought that might be feasible. He referred to the site plans and noted that there will also be 14-foot high pallet stacking fencing around the yard area to serve as screening and security. Grimes added that the Zoning Code requires outdoor storage to be screened. Segelbaum questioned if the fencing has to be 14 feet in height and asked if it could be 8 feet in height on the east side along Hampshire Ave. Morrissey said the 14-foot fence height is consistent with what they currently have and it allows for storage as well. McCarty noted that size of the store is doubling. He asked Morrissey if they are planning on doubling the types of products they carry or if they are going to double the amount of the products they already sell. Morrissey said they are definitely going to increase the variety of products they sell along with having a grocery segment, a showcase area for kitchens and bathrooms and a garden center which is one of the main reasons for redeveloping this property. Eck asked Morrissey if the objective is to do more business with the same customers or of they are hoping to attract new customers. Morrissey said they are hoping to keep their existing customers and attract new ones. Eck questioned how adding only 23 new parking spaces would be acceptable. Morrissey said he finds most zoning codes require too much parking and that they typically ask cities for parking variances. He stated that Menards doesn't have as many customers as a retailer like Target or Walmart. They have a more steady flow of customers but not a large number of customers at certain times of the year. He added that they have done parking studies in the past and typically their stores require approximately 250 parking Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 2010 Page 4 spaces. Eck asked Morrissey if .the current store has more parking spaces than they really need. Morrissey said yes. Segelbaum asked about Menards' plans in the event they don't have sufficient parking. Morrissey said they would probably allocate employee parking spaces in the back yard/warehouse area. Grimes noted that Menards could also have an off-site parking arrangement with nearby businesses if needed. Waldhauser asked if the footprint of the building is staying the same. Morrissey said the new building's footprint will be similar to the existing building's footprint. Waldhauser said she would like to see more trees on this site and that she doesn't understand why there can't be trees located in the bio-retention ponds. Morrissey explained that the bio-retention ponds have drain the buried underneath engineered soils. He added that the ponds can't support a tree's root structure and only specific plants will be used to help filter the water. McCarty questioned why the parking lot in front of the store isn't using the same underground storage tank design that is being proposed in the back lumberyard area. Morrissey stated that the bio-retention ponds are preferred by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission and there isn't enough room in the lumberyard area to install bio-retention ponds. Grimes added that the soil types in the lumberyard area are more suitable for the proposed underground tank system and the soil types in the front of the store are more suitable for the bio- retention ponds. He said it is his understanding that the way the project is proposed is the best way to get to the Level 1 standards for water quality. Grimes stated that the Planning Commission could suggest that the parking areas be reduced by 10 to 15 percent in order to allow for additional landscaping and to get the space required to allow for another driveway access to be installed along Hampshire Ave. Waldhauser referred to the building materials proposed and asked if Menards has given any thought to splitting or combining the types of materials used in order to break up the facade. She asked if the wooden posts with the flags in the front of the store are necessary. Morrissey stated that the building proposed is Menards' prototype and has the identifiable Menards entryway. Waldhauser said the store is out of place in the city and will look like Fort Apache. She said she would like to use any leverage the Planning Commission has in order to get an attractive asset to the community. Morrissey stated that this is a financially fragile project and discussed the high costs involved due to the soil conditions. He said Menards is proud of the look of their stores and he would appreciate some leniency regarding the aesthetics. He added he is willing to use the brick stamped concrete on the south, east and west sides of the building which is an upgrade. McCarty said he would be happy if the sides of the building were at least the same color as the front and not necessarily brick stamped concrete. Cera agreed that he'd like to see the buff color on the entire building and more trees. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 2010 Page 5 Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Grimes noted that the Commissioners' concerns seem to be additional landscaping, an additional driveway on Hampshire Ave., and the aesthetics on the east and west sides of the building. Waldhauser agreed and reiterated that the Commissioners concerns could probably be addressed if Menards is able to reduce the number of proposed parking spaces. She added that she would like to see center island plantings with large trees as well. McCarty stated that he is overwhelmed by the size of the lumberyard/storage/garden center area and the 14-foot high fence. He suggested that area be reduced in size. Morrissey referred to the site plan and explained that there needs to be adequate space for cars to maneuver in the garden center area. Segelbaum agreed that the proposed fencing will make the site look very enclosed. Waldhauser suggested installing a different type of fencing along the east side of the building which would allow people to see through to the garden center. She added that the Laurel side of the property is a parkway and she doesn't want it to look industrial. Cera said he feels the Commission has given Menards some good general guidance but they don't need to micro-manage where the fences are located. Grimes reminded the Commission that they are making a recommendation to the City Council and that Menards can make the changes suggested by the Planning Commission or not. Kluchka said he thinks the I-394 Corridor study has been set aside for this proposal and he won't vote in favor of it without addressing how it aligns with the study. Segelbaum expressed concern about the safety hazards of having two curb cuts along Wayzata Blvd. and suggested having one driveway access on Wayzata Blvd. and one driveway access on Hampshire Ave. Waldhauser reiterated that she would like some trade-off regarding toning down the color and updating the store to an urban setting. Kluchka stated that Golden Valley is competing in this area with the West End Development in St. Louis Park which is a very high end development. He asked how the store in Eden Prairie was able to have its facade changed. Morrissey stated that the Eden Prairie store is anon-prototypical store. He explained that they didn't have to deal with the soil conditions in Eden Prairie that they are dealing with in Golden Valley which is taking away a lot of dollars that could be used elsewhere. He added that the store in Eden Prairie was also started in a better economic climate and reiterated that the Golden Valley project is an economically fragile project. Waldhauser reviewed the Zoning Code criteria used when considering a PUD. She said she feels that the access to the site and the storm water treatment methods being proposed are improvements and this proposal will be keeping a viable business in Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 2010 Page 6 Golden Valley. She stated that there is nothing inconsistent with this proposal considering what is currently in the I-394 Corridor but it does not meet her criteria for the planned land uses in the Corridor. She stated there is not much the City can do to preserve trees on this site and there is no positive enhancement, but the adjoining wetlands are being preserved. She stated that this development precludes the construction of any type of housing development or mixed use development in the future which is something they can't control because it is an existing use, but it doesn't add to the objectives for the area. She stated the proposal works and is functional, but she doesn't see anything creative about it and it doesn't do anything to move the City toward its mixed use vision. Rather, it is a big box with a stockade around it. She stated that the proposal uses the existing infrastructure but it doesn't provide any open space or enhance the street alignment. Kluchka added that any developer of property around Menards could potentially say they don't have to use quality materials because of the precedent Menards would set. Waldhauser said this development is helpful in that they are proposing to build up with two stories rather than rebuilding a new one-story building that wouldn't fit in with the community. She stated that the development isn't consistent with the City's redevelopment plans and goals but it does create a building that is energy efficient and encourages sustainability with the water retention and filtering. Grimes reminded the Commission .that this is an existing PUD so the criteria for meeting the objectives to become a PUD don't really apply because this is an amendment and they met the objectives when it originally became a PUD. He added that what Menards is proposing is a legal use that is essentially the same use that has been there for a long time. Kluchka said he feels the same criteria should be considered for an amended PUD. Grimes noted that part of the I-394 Corridor study states that the City does not want businesses to leave, rather it wants to help businesses enhance their property. He added that the proposal on this site will improve the storm water management issues in the Corridor. Kluchka stated that this is a large development in the Corridor and it bears a lot of thought. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Eck and motion carried 4 to 2 to recommend approval of the request by Menards -PUD 75, Amendment #3 to replace the existing Menards store with a new 2-story Menards home improvement center with the following conditions. Commissioners Kluchka and McCarty voted no. 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. These plans were prepared for Menards and include the following: existing pylon sign, front, rear, left, right and wrought iron fence elevations, warehouse elevations, land survey, grading, drainage and erosion control plan, demolition plan and utility plan. 2. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated October 5, 2010 shall become a part of this approval. 3. A final landscape plan shall be submitted with the Final Plan of Development and be reviewed and approved by the City's Environmental Coordinator. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 11, 2010 Page 7 4. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. The existing pylon sign existing on the site may remain but cannot be moved or expanded. 5. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, and dated September 21, 2010 shall become a part of this approval. 6. The precast panels on the east, west sides of the building shall be the same buff color as the panels facing Wayzata Blvd. The look of the warehouse wall along Laurel Ave. shall be enhanced. 7. If the amount of parking on the site is inadequate as determined by the City Manager, Menards will take immediate steps to convert a portion of the outside yard area to the north or east of the store building to create additional parking. Evidence of inadequate parking may be shown by customers parking on-street, number of cars parked in the parking lot, and cars not parked in designated spaces within the parking lot. 8. The driveway access points shall be further studied to determine if there can be another access added along Hampshire Ave. or have only one access on Hampshire Ave. and one access on Wayzata Blvd. 9. The amount of parking stalls shall be further studied to determine if some of the stalls can be removed so more landscaping can be included on the site. 10. This approval is subject to all other state, federal and local ordinances, regulations or laws with authority over this development. --Short Recess-- Reports on Meetin of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Wing Appeals and other Meetings Hogeboom inded the ommissioners ere will be a presentation by Hennepin Cou at the tober 12 Council/Manager meeting regarding the Bottineau Transi Stu y. Segelbaum discusse tember 28 Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meeting and informed th nni C fission that the BZA would like them to review the language in oning ode re ing the setback requirements for structures built prior to (Section 1 .21, Subdi ns 13 and 14). He stated that the BZA woul so like the Plan ing Commissio help clarify the definitions for porches, s ps, landings and d ks and the setback ssociated with them. ~o~den Valley Date: October 6, 2010 Planning 763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing-Preliminary PUD Plan for Amendment No. 3 to Menards PUD No. 75 (6800 Wayzata Blvd)-Menard, Inc., Applicant BACKGROUND Menard, Inc., represented by Aaron Morrissey, has requested a third amendment to the Menards PUD No. 75. The purpose of the amendment is to allow for the demolition of the existing store and the reconstruction of a two-level store on the same site. The plan is to stop operation of this store early in 2011 and build a new store that will open in 2012. According to City files, the existing store is about 128,000 sq. ft. in area on one level. There is also a warehouse along the north property line along with storage of product outside. This warehouse is not heated. The proposal is to construct a two story store with about 250,000 sq. ft. of floor space on two levels. There would also be a 42,000 sq. ft. warehouse along the north property line. There would also be outside storage of product north of the store that is accessed from Hampshire Ave. New to this store is a garden center with both indoor and outdoor display areas located along the east side of the building. This garden center will eliminate the need to sell Christmas trees and landscape material in the front parking lot. The site would have 370 parking spaces or 23 more than the existing store. The property is currently guided on the General Land Use Plan Map for Mixed Uses. This Mixed Use category was created by the City several years ago after the I-394 Corridor Study was completed. As a result of the Study, the City Council created a new I-394 Mixed Use zoning district with three subdistricts. The Menard property is located in Subdistricts B and C. The front (south) third of the property is within Subdistrict C that permits high rise structures up to 10 stories. The rear two thirds (north) portion of the property is within Subdistrict B that permits mid rise structures up to 6 stories in height. However, since the Menards property is located within an existing PUD, it has been determined by the City Attorney that the applicant may amend the PUD to allow for a new Menards store on the site. According to the City Attorney, they are not subject to the requirements found in the Mixed Use zoning district. They have the right to amend the existing PUD to allow for the rebuilding of a similar type of store on the site. The review of the General Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map indicates that all the property north of Laurel Ave. is designated on the General Land Use Plan Map for Open Space (Laurel Ave. ponds). North of the ponds, there is a single family neighborhood. The properties to the west and east of Menards are guided for Mixed Use and zoned I-394 Mixed Use. Across I-394 is St. Louis Park where the land uses are commercial or office. The PUD was first issued to Menards in1997. Menards has been at this location since 1981. The building was previously a car dealership and converted to the Menards store. When Menards purchased the property, it was zoned Industrial. The zoning changed to Mixed Use several years ago. Within the Industrial zoning district, lumber yards and building supply stores were considered a permitted use. Menards subleased a portion of the building to other users, including COMB (catalog/warehouse business), Zeo's computers, a patio furniture store and MGM Liquor Warehouse. At the time of the 1997 PUD application, only MGM sublet space. At that time, Menards was told if they wanted to expand their store, they would have to get a PUD that would permit two uses on the same parcel. Also, the City insisted that the PUD phase out the MGM store by 2001. In 1997, the Menards store was about 104,000 sq. ft., not including the unheated warehouse. In 1998, Menards received its first PUD amendment in order to permit a reduction in the size of the building additions permitted by the original PUD. (The additions permitted by the original PUD were not started at the time the 1998 amendment was issued.) The 1998 PUD amendment permitted Menards to expand to a building of 128,191 sq. ft. In 2009, Menards received a second PUD amendment to permit the use of a portion of their parking lot for a plant but in order to sell live plans from April to September of each year. The plant but was located at about the same location of the Christmas tree sales area. With the new store, there will be no temporary sales within the main parking lot. DESCRIPTION OF PUD PROCESS and PUD ELIGIBILITY There are two stages of approval for PUD approvals with the exception of minor PUD amendments that may be approved solely by the City Council. This amendment proposed by Menards is not a minor amendment so it must be approved by the two stage process. 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 Purpose provisions and other PUD requirements and principles and standards adhered to in the City. The Planning Commission's report to the Council shall include recommended changes, conditions, or modifications. 2 PUDs are regulated under City Code Section 11.55. In this case, Menards is included within an existing PUD that has been amended twice. Since it is an existing PUD, it has already been determined that it is considered to be eligible to be a PUD and can amended with approval of the City Council. It has been determined by staff that Menards has presented all information that is needed for consideration of the Preliminary PUD plan by the City. This information is a part of the information attached to this memo. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The proposal indicates that the existing Menards structure and site will be demolished. This means that the buildings will be removed and the parking lots removed as shown on the demolition plan. After the site is cleared, Menards plans to construct the buildings shown on the attached site plan dated September 8, 2010. The main store has a building footprint approximately the same size as the existing building (about 125,000 sq. ft.). However, the new store will be two levels with 218,000 sq. ft. of floor space. In addition, the site will have a 42,000 sq. ft. warehouse along the north side of the lot. This warehouse is for the storage of materials sold to customers. The back area will be accessed through the yard gate along Hampshire Ave. The new store also has a yard and garden center that is located along the east side of the store. The two level store has been chosen for this site because the 12.4 acre site is considered small for a new Menards store. The two level design allows for the store area to be expanded by about 100,000 sq. ft. The proposed store is a carbon copy of the Menards store that is located in St. Paul at University Ave. and Prior Ave. I have been to that store many times and find it to function well. The two level store was chosen for that site because of the small site. The information that has been submitted by Menards gives the information and background needed to review the site. There are two memos that are attached from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, and Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson regarding their review of the site. The recommendations from each memo will become part of the recommendation for approval of the preliminary PUD plan. Planning staff has several concerns that need to be highlighted as part of this review. They will be addressed in the following paragraphs: PARKING-The size of the store has been increased by about 100,000 sq. ft. but the size of the parking lot has been increased by only 23 parking stalls to a total of 376 spaces. According to the City's parking code, over 700 spaces would be required to meet the parking standard. Because Menards has been in this location since 1981, the City does have experience with the parking needed for this type of store. Based on discussions City staff has had with Menards, staff will recommend the amount of parking indicated on the site plan (376 spaces). Staff thinks that the layout of the parking is better than the existing parking lot and that the limiting of access points to two driveways from Wayzata Blvd. will make it safer and better functioning lot. However, staff will recommend that if there is inadequate parking on the site evidenced by illegal on-street parking or parking in unauthorized locations within the parking lot, the City will require that additional parking be created within the outside yard area by eliminating some of the display or storage areas. 3 The amount of additional parking necessary shall be determined by the Director of Planning and Development. LANDSCAPING-The new site has essentially the same amount of landscaping as the existing site. However, there are fewer trees on the site due to the creation of bio-filtration basins along the setback areas along Market St., Wayzata Blvd. and Hampshire Ave. Due to the nature of the bio-filtration basins, no trees can be planted in them. As stated in the City Engineer's memo, Menards is required to meet the Basset Creek Water Management Commission's Level 1 standards for water quality. The bio-retention basins help meet these high standards. With the same amount of impervious surface today as there will be with the new plan, the Level 1 standards are met. At the current time, the site does not come close to meeting Level 1 standards because the great majority of the runoff is directed into the storm sewer without any treatment. BUILDING DESIGN-The proposed new buildings are typical for a new Menards. The front of the building facing Wayzata Blvd. is proposed to be made of precast concrete wall panels with a buff aggregate and brick imprint finish. The standard green used by Menards will be used for accent colors. The other sides of the buildings will be precast concrete wall panels with a wide rack finish. Staff would like to see that the rear and two sides of the buildings have similar precast concrete wall panels to the front help improve the visual appearance of the buildings. This is particularly critical along the Hampshire Ave. and Market St. sides that are visible from those two streets. The building will be taller than the existing Menards. As shown on the plans, the building will be up to 36 ft. in height. However, this is much less height than is now permitted in this area by the Mixed Use zoning district (either 6 or 10 stories). The rear of the site will be screened from view by the warehouse building that will be constructed along the north property line parallel to the railroad tracks. The rear wall of the warehouse building will be about 26 ft. high and provide screening from Laurel Ave. similar to the existing fence that now screens the Menards rear yard. Menards is also proposing a 14 ft. high treated lumber fence around the outside storage yard area to screen it from view from the east and west. This is the same height fence that now exists on the site. SIGNAGE-Staff has met with the City Attorney and Menards about signage for this redeveloped property. Menards will be leaving the existing pylon sign along Wayzata Blvd. "as is". The sign is considered to be nonconforming but it can remain as long as it is not moved or expanded. Menards will meet the sign code requirements for the remainder of the site. On the existing building there is now a total of 706 sq. ft. of wall signage. Menards will reduce this to 382 sq. ft. of wall signage on the new building. Staff encourages this net reduction in signage for the site. Menards believes that the reduced signage will still give them good visibility. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the preliminary PUD plan for Menards, PUD No. 75, Amendment No. 3. The proposed redevelopment of the site will result in the construction of a new two-level store with an additional 100,000 sq. ft. of building space. However, the site plan does not show an increase in the amount of impervious surface from the existing 11.2 acres. The proposed site will have the exact same imperious surface area. (The total site 4 size is 12.4 acres.) In addition, the development will meet the Level 1 water quality standards established by the Basset Creek Water Management Commission resulting in a benefit to the water bodies downstream. The recommendation of approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. These plans were prepared for Menards and include the following: existing pylon sign, front, rear, left, right and wrought iron fence elevations, warehouse elevations, land survey, grading, drainage and erosion control plan, demolition plan and utility plan. 2. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated October 5, 2010 shall become a part of this approval. 3. A final landscape plan shall be submitted with the General Plan of Development and be reviewed and approved by the City's Environmental Coordinator. 4. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. The existing pylon sign existing on the site may remain but cannot be moved or expanded. 5. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, and dated September 21, 2010 shall become a part of this approval. 6. The precast panels on the east, west and north sides of the building shall be the same buff aggregate and brick stamped design as the panels facing Wayzata Blvd. 7. If the amount of parking on the site is inadequate as determined by the City Manager, Menards will take immediate steps to convert a portion of the outside yard area to the north or east of the store building to create additional parking. Evidence of inadequate parking may be shown by customers parking on-street, number of cars parked in the parking lot, and cars not parked in designated spaces within the parking lot. 8. This approval is subject to all other state, federal and local ordinances, regulations or laws with authority over this development. Attachments: Location map (1 page) Aerial photo (1 page) Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, dated October 5, 2010 (5 pages) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated September 21, 2010 (2 pages) Applicant's Narrative, dated September 9, 2010 (3 pages) Exhibit "B" Variances and Explanations (3 pages) PUD Permit for Menards Addition PUD No. 75, Amendment No. 2 (3 pages) Preliminary Plans (7 oversized pages) 5 'Golden Valley a Public Works 763.593.8030 / 763.593.3988 (fax) Date: December 6, 2010 To: ~Ulark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Subject: Planned Unit Development 75, Menards Amendment 3 Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed plans for Amendment #3 of Planned Unit Development 75, Menards. The proposed development includes demolition of the existing store on site and reconstruction of a new store. The proposed redevelopment is located north of Wayzata Boulevard, south of Laurel Avenue, east of Louisiana Avenue, and west of Hampshire Avenue. The comments contained in this review are based upon the plans submitted to the City on November 12, 2010. Site Plan The current site plan has been modified to address issues from the preliminary PUD approval process, and based upon review by City staff. Among the changes is the relocation of driveways to the site. The current proposal includes two driveways onto Wayzata Boulevard; one driveway from Hampshire Avenue into the parking lot, one driveway from Hampshire Avenue into the outdoor storage area, and an emergency access on to Market Street. The location of these driveways as proposed is acceptable. The preliminary site plan included the construction of a southbound right turn lane from Hampshire Avenue into the outdoor storage area. Based upon the number of trips accessing the storage area from the north and the existing width of Hampshire Avenue, staff has determined that the proposed turn lane is not needed and can be removed from the plan. As discussed in the October 5, 2010 Public Works review of this proposed development, there are concerns about the potential for congestion on Hampshire Avenue from northbound traffic that is accessing the outdoor storage area. If future structural or pavement marking modifications are deemed necessary to accommodate traffic accessing the storage yard from Hampshire Avenue, the developer will be responsible for financing these changes. G:\Developments - Private\Menards\Final PUD 120610.dac The City Council included a condition during its review of the preliminary PUD that a sidewalk be constructed on the west side of Hampshire Avenue to improve pedestrian access to the site. Staff has reviewed this condition and determined that construction of the sidewalk on Hampshire Avenue will result in a loss of water quality volume in Bioretention Basin #1, with results in the development proposal falling short of the water quality requirements of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). In addition to the impact to the water quality treatment volume, staff has several other concerns relating to the proposed sidewalk on Hampshire Avenue. These issues include: • Pedestrian facilities are not identified for Hampshire Avenue in the City's sidewalk and trail plan. • The concrete rail crossing on Hampshire Avenue extends to the back of curb on Hampshire, which would result in extension of the crossing or forcing pedestrians into the roadway in order to cross the railroad tracks. • Installation of another mid-block pedestrian crossing on Laurel Avenue will likely have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the signing and striping for the existing crossings at Florida and Colorado Avenues. Based upon the above discussion, staff recommends that a sidewalk not be constructed on the west side of Hampshire Avenue as part of this PUD. The developer will be required to acquire a City of Golden Valley Right-of-Way permit for the proposed utility cuts, and driveway removal and relocation required for this project. As such, these facilities must be constructed according to City standards and specifications. In addition, the developer will be required to construct pedestrian ramps at all points where the existing sidewalk on Wayzata Boulevard crosses driveways, and at intersections. These pedestrian ramps must be constructed to current City standards. Utilities The utility plan submitted as part of the PUD is acceptable in concept. The developer will be required to submit complete utility and site .construction plans and specifications for review and comment by the Public Works Department. Staff reserves the right to require modifications to the utility layout based upon this review. The developer will be required to enter into a maintenance agreement with the City for the watermain and storm sewer systems on site, including the water quality facilities. G:\Developments -Private\Menards\Final PUD 120610.doc Stormwater Manaaement This development is located within the Sweeney Lake sub-district of the Bassett Creek watershed. Therefore, the site must comply with the water quality requirements of the BCWMC. The water quality improvements shown on the PUD plans meet the BCWMC requirements. The plans have been reviewed by the BCWMC and may be subject to minor modifications based upon the BCWMC comments. The water quality improvements for the site include the installation of biofiltration basins to treat stormwater runoff from the parking lot on the south side of the building, and a series of below ground filtration basins (trade name StormTech) for the north, east, and west portions of the property. As discussed earlier in this review, the developer will be required to enter into a maintenance agreement with the City for the stormwater quality facilities on site. This agreement will incorporate the BCWMC standards for water quality improvements, as well as the manufacturer's recommended maintenance measures for the StormTech units. In addition to BCWMC approval, the developer will be required to obtain a City of Golden Valley Stormwater Management permit, and a NPDES Construction Activities permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control,Agency. Tree Preservation This development is subject to the City of Golden Valley Tree Preservation Ordinance. The developer has submitted the required Tree Preservation Plan, which complies with the ordinance. Summary and Recommendations Public Works staff recommends approval of the proposed PUD 75, Menards, Amendment 3, based upon the comments contained in this review, which are summarized as follows. 1. The southbound right turn lane to access the outdoor storage area must be removed from the plans. 2. The developer will be responsible for any future modifications, including structural or pavement markings deemed necessary on Hampshire Avenue to accommodate traffic into the outddor storage area. 3. Based upon the discussion contained in this review, the developer should not construct a sidewalk on the west side of Hampshire Avenue between Wayzata Boulevard and Laurel Avenue. G:\Developments -Private\Menards\Final PUD 120610.doc 4. The developer must submit construction plans for all site and utility improvements to the Public Works Department for review and comment. Staff reserves the right to require modifications to the plans based upon this review. 5. The developer must enter into a maintenance agreement for all sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, and stormwater quality facilities on site. 6. The developer must obtain the appropriate permits from the City and other agencies as discussed within this review. 7. Subject to the comment of other City staff. Please feel free to call with any questions regarding this matter. C: Tom Burt, City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Mitch Hoeft, Engineer AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Gary Johnson, Building Official Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal G:\Developments -Private\Menards\Final PUD 120610.doc Golden galley Date: October 5, 2010 t: Public Works 763.593.8030 / 763.593.3988 (fax) To: l~Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Subject: Planned Unit Development 75, Menards Amendment #3 Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment # 3 submitted by Menards, Inc. for the construction of a new two-story home improvement center at the location of their existing store. This site is located at 6800 Wayzata Boulevard, which is south of Laurel Avenue, west of Hampshire Avenue South, and north of the I-394 Frontage Road (Wayzata Boulevard). Site Plan Access to the existing Menards store is provided by three driveways onto Wayzata Boulevard, and two driveways onto Hampshire Avenue, one of which is the access point to the outdoor yard area on the north side of the building. In addition, there is an existing emergency access driveway onto Market Street on the west side of the building. This emergency access is currently controlled with a gate to limit the driveway use to emergency vehicles. The proposed site plan includes elimination of one of the driveways onto Wayzata Boulevard and relocation of the two remaining driveways away from Hampshire Avenue and Market Street. This relocation will improve sight lines and conflicts between turning vehicles and is an overall safety improvement to the public streets. As discussed above, the parking lot access onto Hampshire Avenue is being eliminated as part of the reconstruction. Therefore, the only access onto Hampshire Avenue is into the yard area. This yard area is the location of semi-truck deliveries and customer pick up of large merchandise. The gate and security building for the yard entrance are proposed to be approximately 65 feet from the west curb line of Hampshire Avenue providing limited stacking area for vehicles entering the yard. While the proposed construction of a right turn lane for southbound Hampshire Avenue will provide some staging space, there are no accommodations for northbound traffic turning left into the yard, which may result in queues on Hampshire Avenue, which is posted as No Parking on both sides of the street. Based upon this discussion, staff recommends that the gate G:\Developments -Private\Menards\Preliminary PUD Amendment Review # 2.doc and security building be located as far west as possible to maximize the number of vehicles that can stage far entrance. The proposed site plan also includes reconstructing the emergency driveway onto Market Street in its current location, which is acceptable as shown. All work within the right-of-way for Wayzata Boulevard, Hampshire Avenue, and Market Street must be performed in accordance with the City's Right-of-Way Management Ordinance and City construction standards and specifications. This includes pedestrian ramps, commercial driveway aprons, sidewalk, subgrade correction, curb and gutter, and pavement. The developer will be required to obtain aRight-of-Way Permit for this work. Utilities There is adequate capacity in the City's sanitary sewer and water distribution systems that currently provide service to the site to accommodate the proposed land uses. There is one existing sanitary sewer service extended into the subject property. The existing service must be removed from the property line to the existing Menards building and capped at the property line as part of the site demolition. The remaining portion of the sanitary sewer service is subject to the City's Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) Ordinance. In order to become compliant with the code, the developer must have the existing sanitary sewer service inspected by the City and make any repairs deemed necessary following inspection. The I&I Certificate of Compliance must be obtained prior to occupancy of the new building. The existing water services for consumption and fire protection are extended into the site from Hampshire Avenue. The demolition plan indicates that these service lines will be removed, but the Utility Plan does not include the installation of new services. The developer must include the location of the new service lines on the Utility Plan submitted for the final PUD approval, and must utilize the existing service lines if they are sized appropriately. The Fire Department has identified the need for hydrants for fire protection within the development site. Based upon this need, Public Works staff is recommending that the existing 8-inch water service on the east side of the property be extended to the west in front of the new building to connect to the City watermain in Market Street. A minimum of two fire hydrants must be installed in the front parking lot. The location of these hydrants must be shown on the Utility Plan submitted for final PUD approval. City records indicate that an 8-inch diameter water line was extended under the railroad tracks and into the subject property near its northwest corner in 1988. This service line must be shown on the Utility Plan. In addition, the developer must install a fire hydrant in the yard area north of the building utilizing this water service. The location of the hydrant is subject to the approval of the City and must be shown on the Utility Plan submitted for final PUD approval. G:\Developments -Private\Menards\Preliminary PUD Amendment Review # 2.doc The new watermain and fire hydrants to be installed as part of this redevelopment will be owned and maintained by the developer. The developer will be required to enter into a maintenance agreement for this watermain. This agreement will be prepared by the City and recorded by the City, and the agreement must be signed by the developer prior to forwarding the PUD Amendment to the City Council for final approval. The developer will be required to obtain the appropriate sewer and water permits from the Golden Valley Building Department for installation of the sanitary sewer and water services to the new building. Stormwater Management The property being redeveloped is located within the Sweeney Lake subwatershed of Bassett Creek. The redevelopment is therefore subject to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission's (BCWMC) Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals, which requires water quality treatment be provided to Level 1 standards. The developer must submit the plans for this project to the BCWMC for its review and comments. The developer must modify the plans in accordance with the BCWMC comments and submit the final plans to the City for its records. Due to the size of the property and the lack of land availability for a traditional water quality pond, the developer is proposing to meet the water quality goals for the site using alternative methods of treatment that are included in the BCWMC water quality standards. The proposed alternative methods include "bio-filtration basins" and proprietary below ground "water quality units," or sedimentation basins. The stormwater runoff from the parking lot in front of the building currently leaves the site with no nutrient and sediment removal. The proposed plans include surface drainage of the parking lot to the perimeter, where it will drain into the proposed bio- filtration basins. These basins will have amended soils to facilitate drainage and a sub- surface drainage system that will convey the filtered runoff into the existing City storm sewer system surrounding the site. The basins, as shown on the plans, will be located in the boulevard between the parking lot on the south, east, and west sides. The stormwater runoff from a portion of the roof and the emergency driveway on the west side of the building currently flows into a constructed water quality pond on the property to the west. This drainage and treatment will be maintained following redevelopment. Stormwater runoff from the yard area north of the building currently leaves the site with no water quality treatment. The developer has proposed the construction of underground sedimentation basins in several locations to provide the required nutrient and sediment treatment. Based upon the above discussion, it appears that the BCWMC Level 1 water quality treatment standards will be met for this redevelopment. G:\Developments -Private\Menards\Preliminary PUD Amendment Review # 2.doc The stormwater system being constructed by the developer will be owned and maintained by the developer. Therefore, the developer will be required to enter into a stormwater maintenance agreement for this system, including the water quality improvements. This agreement must be signed prior to City Council consideration of the final PUD. This redevelopment is also subject to the City's stormwater Management Ordinance. Following approval from the BCWMC, the contractor must apply for a Golden Valley stormwater Management Permit. This permit must be approved before any land disturbing activities can be completed on the site. The demolition plan submitted with PUD application indicates that all paved surfaces will be removed.. However, the plan is not clear as to the timing of the pavement removal. Staff recommends that the majority of the pavement on-site be left in place during building construction to minimize the potential for tracking mud and materials onto the adjacent street system. Construction of the new parking lots must be scheduled to minimize the tracking of materials off-site and must be illustrated on the stormwater management plan and the construction plans for the improvements. Following construction, the developer will need to submit construction record plans for the City to retain for its records.. Tree Preservation This redevelopment project is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. The developer must submit a tree preservation plan and removal/mitigation calculations as part of the final PUD approval. Summary and Recommendation Public Works staff recommends approval of this proposed Planned Unit Development subject to the comments contained in this memorandum, which are summarized as follows. 1. The developer must relocate the gate and security building at the material storage yard entrance as far west as practical in order to address the potential access issues discussed in this review. 2. The sanitary sewer service to the property must be in compliance with the City's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building. 3. The developer must construct all improvements within the right-of-way for Wayzata Boulevard, Hampshire Avenue, and Market Street in compliance with City standards and specifications and according to the Right-of-Way Management Ordinance. G:\Developments -Private\Menards\Preliminary PUD Amendment Review # 2.doc 4. The developer must submit a revised Utility Plan that incorporates the water service and fire protection discussed within this review. This revised plan must be included in the final PUD submittal. 5. The developer will own and maintain the watermains, water service lines, fire hydrants, and gate valves within the property boundaries, and must therefore enter into a maintenance agreement for these facilities. 6. The developer will own and maintain all storm sewer catch basins, manholes, lines, and water quality features within the site boundaries and must therefore enter into a maintenance agreement for these facilities. 7. Subject to the review and comment by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. 8. The developer must comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance and must submit a tree preservation plan with the final PUD submittal. 9. Subject to the review and comment of the Fire Chief, City Attorney, and other City staff. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Tom Burt, City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator Mitch Hoeft, Engineer Mark Ray, Engineering Technician Gary Johnson, Building Official Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall G:\Developments -Private\Menards\Preliminary PUD Amendment Review # 2.doc Ci~~~ 4f „~ Q ~~ ~, ~ ~ sA~tr. ~ Fire Department Fire D e p a r e n t 763-593-8Q65 1763-593-80981fax) To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Subject: Final PUD Application Review For Menard's Date: December 1, 2010 The Golden Valley Fire Department staff has reviewed the final PUD application submittal packets for Menard's, located at 6800 Wayzata Blvd. Listed below are comments. SITE PLAN 1. The proposed installation of the fire hydrants and water mains associated with the fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the City of Golden Valley design and installation standards. 2. The proposed location on the site map of the fire hydrants shall be protected by vehicle impact. protection (guard posts) in accordance with Minnesota State Fire Code. 3. The installation of "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and stationary posts shall be installed in accordance with the Golden Valley City Ordinance and Minnesota State Fire Code. 4. The fire department access roads to the rear yard shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet - 6 inches. 5. The turning radius for the fire department fire apparatus shall be a minimum of 20 feet inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be a minimum of 40 feet. 6. The proposed fire department access gate located on the east and west side shall be a minimum width of 20 feet. Gates should be of a sliding or swinging type. Construction of the gates shall be of material that allows manual operation by one person. 7. Posts, fence, vehicles or landscaping materials shall not be placed or kept near fire hydrants, fire department connections or any other external fire control valves. UTILITY PLAN 1. The proposed installation of the water supply system for the fire suppression system shall be installed in accordance with recognized fire, health and plumbing code standards. 2. The proposed fire sprinkler control room located on the southwest section of the building shall be installed in accordance with recognized fire code standards. The installation of approved sprinkler control room will eliminate the installation of a post indicator valve for the main building. 3. The installation of a post indicator valve (PIV) for the fire suppression system for the lumberyard buildings will be required. The PIV shall be protected by vehicle impact protection in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code. 4. The post indicator valves shall be supervised and monitored electronically by the fire alarm control panel located in the building. FLOOR PLAN The installation of a rapid entry key box will be required to be installed for all fire department access gates and doors. The rapid entry key box can be purchased from the Knox Box Company, website of www.knoxbox.com. 2. The proposed high pile storage located inside and outside of the building shall meet the requirement set forth in the Minnesota State Fire Code. 3. Portable fire extinguishers shall be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code. 4. The fire suppression system for the interior of the building and the lumberyard buildings shall be designed and calculated for the type of storage and the type of commodity classifications as required by the Minnesota State Fire Code. 5. The mechanical ventilation system for the proposed high pile storage and the commodity classification storage shall be designed and calculated in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code and the Minnesota State Mechanical Code. 6. The requirements of a fire alarm system for this proposed occupancy shall be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065, or my a-mail address, eandersonCa~ci.clolden-valley.mn.us ealj 1 City "` eCC1{an~ "~ ~ gAFETy y en a V ~ Fire Department Fire Department 763-593-8065 / 763-593-8098 (faxl To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal cc: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Jeff Oliver, City Engineer Subject: PUD 75 Amendment #3 -Menards Date: September 21, 2010 The Golden Valley Fire Department staff has reviewed the application for the amendment PUD 75, Menards home improvement site located at 6800 Wayzata Blvd. This review will focus on the fire department requirements on demolition, fire department apparatus access, utilities, landscaping and reasonable level of life safety for hazards of fire or dangerous conditions and to provide safety to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations to the site. Demolition 1. The demolition of all the buildings located on the site shall be in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code and the City of Golden Valley requirements. 2. The existing underground fire suppression water service lines shall be removed, not to be salvaged or reused for this new development. 3. Removal of all existing fire suppression equipment located inside the building, the main building and outside storage building shall be in accordance with the recognized fire code standards. Utility Plan 1. The current document does not indicate water mains for the on site fire hydrants, fire suppression water mains or post indicator valves for this proposed site. Provide and submit to the Golden Valley Fire Department a utility plan to identify the location of on site fire hydrants and water mains. 2. The installation of the on site fire hydrants located on this proposed site shall be in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code and also in conjunction with the City of Golden Valley engineering department. The installation of fire hydrants shall not be installed near the building collapse zone area. 3. The underground water service for the fire suppression system and fire hydrants for the site shall be installed with due regard of the installation under the buildings and dead end water mains and fire hydrants. 4. The location of fire hydrants on the site shall not be obstructed in any manner or materials including, but not limited to, landscaping, electrical equipment, gas meters and other means that would hinder the fire department operation. Vehicle impact protection will be required to protect the fire hydrants and the post indicator valves. 5. The water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow water for the fire protection shall be provided to the premise upon which the facilities buildings or portion of the buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the City of Golden Valley. 6. The fire flow requirements for the building or portions of the building and facility shall be determined by an approved method by the fire code official. The fire flow requirements will be determined by the proposed facility building or portion of the building location, type of construction, type of use of the building and all floor levels. Civil Site -Provide and submit to the Golden Valley Fire Department a civil plan of the proposed site to indicate the following requirements. 1. The fire department access road for this proposed site shall be in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code. The fire department access road shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of the building more than 30 feet in height. The fire department access road shall be posted "No parking fire lanes" in accordance with the City of Golden Valley city ordinance. 2. The fire department access road shall be provided for every facilities building or portion of the building. The access road shall extend to within 150 feet of all portion of the facilities or any portion of an exterior wall measured to an approved route around the building. If the fire department access road cannot be installed due to location of the property or other conditions, an approved alternate means of fire protection or safeguards will be required. Fire protection or safeguards include, but not limited to, fire suppression systems, Class I standpipe systems, fire alarm systems and any other fire suppression or safeguard approved by the fire code official 3. The fire department access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. The fire department access to the lumber yard located on the east side of the building site will need to be reviewed by the fire code official for access into the lumber yard after hours. Emergency access gate may be required. 4. The fire department access road shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet -six inches. 5. The inside turning radius shall be a minimum of 20 feet, outside radius shall be a minimum of 40 feet, and shall meet approval of the fire department and the turning radius shall be identified on the submittal site plan for the fire department review and approval. 6. Dead end fire apparatus access roads exceeding 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turnaround for the fire apparatus. Please submit a site plan to the fire code official with the proposed selection(s) of fire apparatus turn around for approval. Landscaping Plan 1. The landscaping materials that are designed for this site shall not be placed or kept near fire hydrants. Fire department connections, post indicator valves or other fire protection and control valves in a manner that would prevent such equipment or fire hydrants from being immediately deterred or hindered from gaining immediate access. 2. The landscaping materials located on the proposed site shall not be obstructed in any manner or materials including, but not limited to, electrical equipment, gas meters, required building egress and/or other means that would hinder the fire department ground and aerial ladder operations. Please submit the information to the Golden Valley Fire Department for review. Miscellaneous Items 1. The fire department will require fire department rapid entry lock boxes for the proposed site. The rapid entry lock boxes will be installed on all fire. department access exterior doors and exterior gates, identified to this plan. The rapid entry lock boxes can be purchased from the Knox Box Company at www.knoxbox.com 2. The location of fire extinguishers throughout the proposed site will be in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code. 3. The proposed above ground fuel tank proposed for this site shall be designed, installed and maintained in accordance with Minnesota State Fire Code, City of Golden Valley requirements for private fuel dispensing. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065 or eanderson(a~ci.golden- valle,~. ea/jl Amendment No. 2 Menards Addition P.U.D. No. 75 City Council Approval: July 15, 1997 Amendment No. 1 Approval: June 23, 1998 Amendment No. 2 Approval: April 7, 2009 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Project Name: Location: Legal Description: Applicant: Address: Owner: Address: Zoning District: Permitted Uses: Components: Menards Addition, P.U.D. No. 75 6800 Wayzata Blvd, Golden Valley, Minnesota Menards Addition P.U.D. No. 75, Lot 1, Block 1 Menard, Inc. 4777 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, WI 54703 Menard, Inc. 4777 Menard, Inc., Eau Claire, WI 54703 Mixed Use Lumber yard and building supply store A. Land Use Component: 1. The site/utility plan prepared by Menard, Inc. and dated 5/27/98 shall become a part of the PUD approval. The building elevation plans dated 5/28/98, prepared by Menard, Inc. shall also become a part of the approval. These plans shall be kept in the official City files on P.U.D. No. 75 (Amendment No. 1), and these site and building plans shall be noted by City staff as the plans submitted as part of the General Plan approval. 2. The existing building and the additions to the building shall only be used by Menard, Inc. for use as a lumber yard and building supply store. 3. The landscaping/striping plan shall be completed as shown on the attached landscape plan prepared by Menard, Inc. and dated 5/27/98. This plan shall be submitted to the Building Board of Review for review and approval. Improvements and enhancements to this landscape plan may be made by the Building Board of Review. The final landscape plan approved by the Building Board of Review shall become a part of the General Plan approval. The screening structure shown on the landscape plan along portions of the north property line shall be constructed at the same time as the additions to Menards Addition P.U.D. No. 75 Page 2 the building. The Building Board of Review may require that upgrades be made to the existing fencing along Hampshire and frontage road. 4. The building addition shall be constructed as per the site plan and building elevations that are attached. 5. Any new, outside lighting for the parking or storage areas shall be approved by the Chief of Fire and Inspections. The Chief shall have the right to modify any lighting. 6. All signage on the site must meet the requirements of the City's sign code. 7/~. Menards may sell Christmas trees in the parking lot as long as no more than 20 spaces re used for the sales lot. 8. mendment No. 2 allows Menards to use a 36 ft. x 72 ft. area for live plant sales including a plant but as shown on the site plan submitted March 27, 2009. The plant sale is allowed to be held from April 1 to September 1 each year. 9. The westerly driveway going onto Market Street from the Menards site, as shown on the site plan, is to be gated and used only for City emergency vehicles. B. Circulation Component: 1. Access drives, parking and walkways shall be constructed as per the site plan. 2. If the Chief of Fire and Inspections determines that parking is not adequate for customers in the front (south) parking lot, Menards will be required to review its parking arrangement by changing employee parking areas or moving some employee parking off-site. C. Services and Facilities The drainage plan prepared by Menard dated 10/18/96 shall become a part of this P.U.D. Permit. Any new or future connections to the City's storm sewer system shall be done only with the approval of the City Engineer. 2. Any new sewer and water service connections shall conform to the City's utility standards. 3. No outside speaker system-shall be used to notify customers ar employees. It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City Council approvals granted on July 15, 1997, June 23, 1998 and April 7, 2009. Any changes to the P.U.D. Permit for Menards Addition, P.U.D. No. 75 shall require an additional amendment. Menards Addition P.U.D. No. 75 Page 3 MENARD, INC. Witness: By: ~ ~~~ ~l~~c Title: L~ O. ~ Date: ~~~,~ ~ ~~~~~ Witness: Witness: CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY B t Y~ Linda R. Loomis, Mayor Date: ~' ~ U' 0 By. Tho as D. /B~u1rt, y anager Date: ~~' ! ~/' U Warning: This permit does not exempt you from all other City Code provisions, regulations and ordinances.