02-28-00 PC Agenda
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, February 28,2000
7:00 P.M.
I. Approval of Minutes - January 24, 2000
II. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (Lot Consolidation)
Applicant:
Address:
Purpose:
Daniel and Debbie Grossman
1126 Florida Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota
To allow for the consolidation of two lots in order to construct a new garage to the
rear of the existing house.
III. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning
Applicant:
Address:
Purpose:
David Bernard Builders & Developers (a division of Rottlund Homes), Brookstone-
Van man LLP, Common Bond Communities and the Golden Valley Housing and
Redevelopment Authority
That portion of property bounded by Winnetka Avenue on the east, Golden Valley
Road on the south, Wisconsin Avenue on the west and Bassett Creek on the north
Rezone portions of the existing properties from Commercial to M-1 (Multiple
Dwelling) in order to construct townhomes/one-Ievel stacked condominiums and
affordable rental housing on the site. The southeast corner would remain commercial.
IV. Informal Public Hearing - Review of the Preliminary Design Plan for Wesley CommonslTown
Square, a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 86
Applicant:
Address:
Request:
David Bernard Builders & Developers (a division of Rottlund Homes), Brookstone-
Van man LLP, Common Bond Communities and the Golden Valley Housing and
Redevelopment Authority
That portion of property bounded by Winnetka Avenue on the east, Golden Valley
Road on the south, Wisconsin Avenue on the west and Bassett Creek on the north
The proposal is to construct 130 town homes/one-level stacked condominiums; a
38,000 sq.ft. office/retail facility; and 25 units of affordable rental housing for families
-- Short Recess --
V. Reports Oil Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
VI. Other Business
VII. Adjournment
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Commission will
recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Commission's determination of whether the
proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not,
adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood.
The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals
are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will
be used by the Council, along with the Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision.
With the completion of the informal public hearing(s) there will be a short recess before the Commission continues with the
remainder of the agenda.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission will utilize the following
procedure:
1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff. Commission members may
ask questions of staff.
2. The applicant will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the Commission.
3. The Chair will open the pUblic hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands.
The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire
to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments.
4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember, your questions/
comments are for the record.
5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions.
6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak
initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal.
7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action.
.
.
.
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 24, 2000
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council
Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota on Monday, January 24,2000.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00 pm.
Those present were Chair Pentel., Commissioners Eck, Groger, McAleese, Shaffer, and
Rasmussen; absent was Hoffman. Also present were Director of Planning and Development
Mark Grimes and Recording Secretary Heidi Reinke.
I. Approval of Minutes - January 10, 2000
Commissioner Shaffer indicated an error on page 7, the second paragraph should read "this
proposal", not"this project". Secondly, the second paragraph on page 7 should read,
"Additional members ofthe commission emphasized that this proposal does not necessarily
follow the code definition of a P.U.D."
Other corrections include: Condition #7: A time limit will not be set for removal of the fuel tank.
Condition #4: Breck School should continue to monitor and hire off-duty Police Officers/Law
Enforcement Persons to control traffic in the peak morning and afternoon periods if necessary.
Flexibility should be allowed as to which officers are hired for monitoring.
Grimes noted that prior to the informal public hearing for the Basset Creek Montessori School,
Commissioner Shaffer stepped down as a Planning Commissioner as he is the architect for this
proposal. After the informal hearing, Shaffer rejoined the Commission to complete the meeting.
McAleese added that he wanted to clarify his argument on the issue of Breck School and the
P.U.D. He asked for permission to extend and amend his comments on the issue. McAleese
would like to add an addendum to the January 10, 2000 Planning Commission minutes. The
addendum would specifically be McAleese's ideas and would not reflect that these ideas and
opinions came from other members of the Commission. He would like to attempt to reorganize
his ideas, not fix the minutes from the January 10, 2000 meeting. The addendum would be
attached to the minutes and submitted to the City Council. He noted that the addendum would
be sent to Mary Dold, Planning Assistant, on Wednesday, January 12.
Grimes, Pentel, and Shaffer agreed that if the addendum were simply a recommendation to the
Council and not a correction to the minutes, the addendum would be allowed.
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by McAleese, and motion carried unanimously to approve the
January 10, 2000 minutes with the above revisions.
II. Informal Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit (No. 80-01)
Applicant:
General Mills
Address:
1 General Mills Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 24, 2000
Page 2
Purpose:
To allow the operation of a day care facility in the industrial zoning district
by Conditional Use.
.
Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, explained the application .for a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) in order to operate a day care facility in an Industrial zoning district. The day
care facility would be located on the west side of the General Mills campus, in the Bell Tower
building. The facility will be locat~d on the first floor level and use approximately 4,000 sq.ft. of
the existing building. The day care center will serve only General Mills employees. This on-site
facility is being proposed for 36 infants, from 6 weeks to 16 months in age. The provider for the
day care center is Children's Home Society of Minnesota.
Grimes said the parking is not an issue for this proposed facility. Employees would drop off the
children and then park in the employee's main parking lot. The parking lot on the west side of
the campus is for those persons who may have health concerns and for designated employees
only.
Grimes said the applicant has demonstrated a need for the day care facility, saying there is a
waiting list for the use. The recommendations for the day care facility are as follows:
1. The attached site plan and floor plan prepared by General Mills, dated 1/6/99, shall
become a part of this approval.
2. The interior improvements shall meet all requirements of the building and fire code.
3. The enrollment of the site shall be limited to 36 children.
4. There shall be no more than 12 staff on-site at one time.
5. The hours of operation shall be 6:00 am to 6:00 pm.
6. The day care facility shall serve only those employees of General Mills.
7. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met.
8. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation
of the Conditional Use Permit.
.
Grimes suggested there may be some flexibility of these conditions in the case that the
applicant might want to expand the day care center. He suggested that the applicant, in the
future, may want to add more children and increase the age limit.
Pentel suggested that if the day care center meets state requirements, then flexibility with the
age limit should not pose a problem.
Groger suggested that recommendation 3, 4, and 5 could potentially be eliminated.
Tom Forsythe, Director of Communications for General Mills, stated that he would be open to
answering any questions. He said that the facility would be a good place for the employee's
children.
Forsythe addressed Eck's question of age limit. He said that the most pressing need presently
is for children within the "infant" age limit. He added that in the future it is possible that General
Mills may want to increase the day care center to accommodate older children. Forsythe .
commented that General Mills is aware that infant day care is the most expensive type of care
'.
.
.
.
Minutes of th~ Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 24, 2000
Page 3
to find. If General Mills were able to offer this service to its employees, it would solve many
problems for its parents. Forsythe added that with the number of staff at the center, there would
only be space at this time for 36 children. He requested some flexibility with the age limit and
staffing in order to accommodate more children at a later time if there deems to be a need.
Forsythe added that at this time General Mills is accepting infants only and would maintain a 36
infant limit.
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Chair Pentel
closed the informal public hearing.
Commissioner Rasmussen stated that she would like to see some flexibility with conditions 3, 4,
and 5. The commission agreed that conditions 3, 4 and5 could be removed altogether.
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Rasmussen and motion carried unanimously to recommend
to the City Council to allow the operation of a day care facility in the Industrial zoning district by
Conditional Use noting the following conditions:
1. The attached site plan and floor plan prepared by General Mills, dated 1/6/99, shall
become a part of this approval.
2. The interior improvements shall meet all requirements of the building and fire code.
3. The day care facility shall serve only those employees of General Mills.
4. All other applicable local,state, and federal requirements shall be met.
5. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation
of the Conditional Use Permit.
III. Report on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council,
Board of Zoning, and other Meetings
Pentel stated that no one attended the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting of
January 11,2000.
McAleese attended the City Council meeting of January 18, 2000. He noted that the item on the
agenda was the Allianz Preliminary Design Plan and the Council approved the plan. Several
items discussed were traffic and aesthetics of the building. He added that few citizens were in
attendance for the meeting.
IV. Other Business
Pentel questioned when a City Planner would be hired. Grimes said the City was in the process
of hiring a planner. This person would work with focus groups, town meetings, and
neighborhood feedback,
Grimes addressed the issue of acqUiring the Olympic Printing property. He would like to see
the City buy the property to ensure that it is used appropriately. The property is approximately
7 to 8 acres in size.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 24, 2000
Page 4
,
"
Grimes stated that the Council held its yearly retreat on January 22. He said the Council
assigned two items to the Planning Commission, that of reviewing the Olympic Printing site and
the 1-394 corridor. There was some support from the Council to make a new redevelopment
along the 1-394 corridor.
.
Grimes said that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority asked the Planning Commission to
look at the Olympic Printing lot. It will eventually be developed and is on the market now. The
Commission should think about what type of land use would be complementary to the adjacent
commercial and residential zoning. Grimes noted several other issues to be considered on this
site: parking (the area is now over parked), drainage concerns if morepaved parking is created,
screening and landscaping, and design aesthetic.
Pentel asked Grimes for a map and footprint of the surrounding buildings. and streets to better
evaluate the area.
McAleese noted that the area would most likely be developed at a much higher density than it is
presently. Developers tend to overbuild sites to maximize the profit, therefore careful planning
for this site must be considered.
Pentel suggested that the Commission inquire to what the neighbors would like to see in their
community. Through a charette, the designers in the community could present their ideas and
hear what the community would like to have. Once several ideas have been created, they can
be presented to the H. R.A. .
Grimes said in the past, the Commission has talked about continuing education. He said that
because not all members of the Commission can attend the national conference, periodic
continuing education would be beneficial for everyone. He suggested having someone come in
on either a Monday night the Planning Commission does not meet or when there is a small
agenda. Some of the topics of discussion could be the budget cycle, public works, conflict of
interest, sign ordinance, setbacks, and parking requirements. He suggested that all
commissioners be involved in continuing education sessions when they become available
v. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8: 16 pm.
Richard Groger, Secretary
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
.
.
February 24, 2000
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Mary Dold, Planning Assistant
Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (Lot Consolidation for
Lots 409 and 4.10) -1126 Florida Avenue North - Daniel and Debbie
Grossman, Applicants
Daniel and Debbie Grossman, owners of the property located at 1126 Florida
Avenue North (see attached location map), are requesting a minor subdivision-
lot consolidation of lots 409 and 410. in order to construct a two-stall garage
behind the existing house. There was an existing garage (see attached survey),
located on Lot 409,2.35 feet from the rear property line and abutting the side
property line. Due to its deteriorating condition, the property owner demolished it.
The applicants have submitted a sketch of the proposed garage and is attached
for your review.
In order for the Grossman's to proceed in constructing a conforming detached
garage, Lots 409 and 410 must be consolidated. According to the property
owners, the new garage would be placed in an area at least 10 feet behind the
existing house and at least 5 feet from the rear property. Detached garages must
be at least 5 feet from a side property line, unless it is. a street, then 35 feet. This
particular garage would be placed over the now existing lot lines. The applicants
cannot. place the proposed garage on Lot 410 because this would constitute an
accessory structure on a lot without a principal building.
Considerations for approving or denying minor subdivisions are set out in City
Code Section 12.50,Subd. 3. Staff findings on each of the nine points are as
follows:
1. Proposed lots must meet requirements of the applicable zoning district-
the subject property is zoned for single family residential use. The new lot
would exceed the minimum lot size requirements of 80 feet in width and
10,000 sq.ft. in area.
2. Buildable portion of any new lot must not be excessively encumbered by
steep slopes or wetness - there is no problem on either of these counts.
3. Public sewer and water connections must be available - they are.
4. Applicant must grant all necessary easements for public purposes per
the City Engineer -the new lot will have to reflect standard utility and
.
drainage easements of six feet along side and rear lot lines, and ten feet
across the front.
5. Other public agencies with some form of jurisdiction over the area of the
subject property may apply their own conditions of approval - this
property abuts a city street and no other agencies are involved.
6. The applicant may have to submit to title review and agree to resolve
any issues that arise - the City generally requires title review for complex
plats and may require it for plats where land or easements are being obtained
from private property. This minor subdivision is quite simple, and a review of
title by the City Attorney is not believed to be necessary.
7. Applies only to nonresidential minor subdivisions.
8. A park dedication fee must be paid for any additional lot created by the
minor subdivision - since the subject property is going from two lots to just
one, no fee is required.
9. Refers to additional requirements applicable only to minor subdivisions
for double bungalows
.
Staff Recommendations
Staff believes this is a quite simple lot consolidation request and recommends
approval of the proposed minor subdivision (lot consolidation), subject to the
following condition:
· The final plat shall reflect standard easements along property lines and such
additional easements as the City Engineer may find desirable for public
purposes.
Attachments: Location Map
Survey - Site Sketch
Garage Building Plan
.
2
-e
~
l..
f
-.
c(~"\
Of
~
'\j~,-,-'E.i .~
"1
'\I-
.
~Oj
,
:. ~
w
:. ~~
'x",
D',~
.:E
. .....
. lo)<t
: ~x
. D'E. ~
GO'-
PROPOSED PROPERTY
1126 FLORIDA AVE. NO.
/.,01-> '"
.~
...
~
ClO
....
o
o
o
C)
:z
__ c::.......
e-
~
..
"
..,
e- ;~ ~ I~ ~
7.". ~'4 f ~
IZ" It';1
-I
~
. ,,'
'S"OA-
tf' \ ~.."
cot1' "..
t~ 'Ait'1~$111
(fl\JfI tt. It e
proc f'"
~
\ ~--<Vl
~ \.- \..- :
1"'\
~
..... .
....
.
~oe
1!fUP
C
Q 0
--.
~ ~
o
...I
I&..
~
.~o
, fy~
/fJ '.
~
~
('001
\.
Subject Property: Lot Consolidation
Lots 409 and 410
1126 Florida Avenue North
Daniel and Debbie Grossman, Appl.
-
o
o
o
C)
;z
. ...,.;.....- .
__.~..._..:..-":-... ~~.l.. ~_' . ...J...t
~ . .;;... _ J. :. .:
--- Soo'
..-" !
. '\.
'. ..:
.
.
-
~
,.....
t!/"-
..en
~o61 ~
.
.....v'
: .
...1...
:0..
.. ,.,
. . .
"_'~ ..1
On #' 47638
.Take this sheet to the Building Materials counter to purchase your materials. ***
(0] selected a garage with these options:
241 Wide X 381 Deep X 101 High
Gable roof w/ 6/12 pitch truss construction.
I;). II
1211 gable/" eave overhangs.
1/211 Pine Plywood Wall Sheathing.
1/211 Pine Plywood Roof Sheathing.
30 yr. Prominence, Driftwood Shingles.
Cedar Soffit.
Cedar Fascia.'
Royal Brown Aluminum Regular Roof Edge.
Cedar overhead door jamb.
811 Cedar Lap Siding.
. Truss Design and Installation
.I..nstruction Packet To Be Submitted
. Or On Site For Framing InspectiQ~.
Front View
OJ m OJ
','. ~_~...J....._.___~_y
~ ~\J
.J: ~I(
I'J ;~
C' r: -4
. ~ ;~
~<'<l
f\v
II:
t...
r-
....
"'t.-'
l'""
~
-I
"",
11/3/1999
BUILDING CFFICIAl. REVIEW AND
AUTHORIZATION RfOUlREOPRlOR TO
CHANGES, MODlfICAT!Of':S OR ALTERATIONS J
APPROVED SET OF DRAWI1\1GS TO BE ON JOB
~!;~r,~~~O,6~}TSTlMES. DESTROY PREVIOUS
fA final inspe.ction must be obtained
before this structure is occupied.
--
WOOD EXPOSED TO GROUND, WEATHER
OR LOCATED Oi'~ CONCRETE SHALL BE
OF NATURAL RESISTANCE TO DECAY OR
TREATED.
1) f} }oJ IGL 6R- 0 SSJ1./\.tJ
I \J..t:, fiD~t(}A tWf3 rJ
ICE ANO\;VATER INSPECTION REQ'D.
Back View
2t.f'-rl2.uS"S- :J.'o"oc
m m m
v
)
.
.
.
~
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
February 24, 2000
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes
Director of Planning and Development
Amend Zoning Map from Commercial to M-1 (Multiple Dwelling) for
that Portion of Area B in the Valley Square Redevelopment Area that
will be Utilized for Multiple Family Dwellings - David Bernard
Builders and Developers (a division of Rottlund Homes), Brookstone-
Vanman LLP, Common Bond Communities and the Golden Valley
Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Applicants
The Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has entered into
a development agreement with the development team of David Bernard Builders,
Brookstone-Vanman LLP, and CommonBond Communities to redevelop Area B
in the Valley Square Redevelopment Area (see attached location map). The
redevelopment of this approximately 12-acre site would create a new mixed-use
residential and retail village at the northwest corner of Winnetka Avenue and
Golden Valley Road. Approval from the City for this redevelopment would occur
through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. In order to allow the PUD
review to begin, the zoning of the property must be consistent with the uses
proposed in the PUD~ The existing zoning of Area B is entirely commercial. The
proposed redevelopment plan calls for multiple-unit housing over about 10 acres
of the 12-acre site. Only the southeast 1.7 acres will be used for commercial
purposes (see attached).
'rhe existing Commercial zoning of the Area B site has reflected the previous uses
on the 12-acre site that was previously dominated by a grocery store and retail
uses along Winnetka Avenue. The current plan for Area B, as stated in the Valley
Square Redevelopment Plan (last amended in 1997 for Area B), is for the creation
of a mixed-use redevelopment. The plan submitted by the development team is
consistent with the goals outlined in the Valley Square Plan. The proposed
redevelopment of Area B is also consistent with the ideas developed for the area
by the Area B Task Force appointed by the City Council in 1997.
In 1999, the City Council approved a new General Land Use Plan map for the
City. This Plan Map indicates that Area B is guided for High Density residential
uses with the exception of the northwest corner of Winnetka Avenue and Golden
Valley Rd. The corner is guided for commercial uses. When the Plan Map was
approved by the .City Council is 1999, the staff was already working with the
development team on the plan for Area B that is now being considered. The
.
guiding of Area B on the Plan Map was done in a manner consistent with this plan
proposed by the development team.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff believes the rezoning of the above-mentioned properties is appropriate and
recommends approval of the proposed zoning map amendment. This amendment
would change the zoning designation on about 1 o acres of the 12 acres in Area B
from commercial to M-1 Multiple Dwelling, with the exception of the southeast
corner of Area B that would remain Commercial. This proposed zoning is
consistent with the General Land Use Plan Map adopted by the City Council in
1999, the Valley Square Redevelopment Plan approved by the City Council in
1997, and the recommendations of the Area B Task Force. The change is also
consistent with the redevelopment plan submitted by the development team and
now being considered as a PUD.
Attachments: Location Map
Portion of General Land Use Plan Map
Portion of Zoning Map
.
.
2
.
I " ' o.
\ !
i
1..<
I ~ '<;.-' -.
i Z!"i
\ !\../,
\z .\' ~\ ',.....
~l
----/ ~ 0
, '~'-J--\ i_CiQkQE..~'~'f S' ~
'\ .\, {~'\ I, ~;;l ~ c \>
~ ",'" \ ity ~a" ____ '" r
. t:-i-~--_L\ '~<~~:~s!n~7 '~i~ :5f~U
\! rGo1ii'en\;;llieyi II ~\
~r-- 104 -"-.--.r--___j a: i..__~<:'_'!'!!'~ns j ~i
all E:MORIA.L HW'" ~, ~\
h.:\! r '14
i - -~-I_~ O:L
L,
~!
i
.1 \
I
I
!
zl
~
<J
~'-'-----"-'---_. ~~ --
.. ...... ........ ....... -'~.' -'-"'r-. ---------'--l..
. .' \ \ \
I ' ,
[_10TH AVE\, fL-. ------, 0
. I ! ,
i; i ,--
--
r
.
DlElV
rYAlfLfLIE'J[
GENERAL LAND USE PLAN
RESIDENTIAL
D Low Density (Less than 5 units per acre)
h~:~d Medium Density (5 to 11.9 units per acre)
_ High Density (12 or more units per acre)
COMMERCIAL
L:J Office
.. Commercial (also includes Office)
INDUSTRIAL
[~~~~I Light Industrial (also includes Office)
~f~ Industrial (also includes Office)
III Open Space - Public and Private Ownership
o Schools and Religious Facilities
D Public Facilities - Miscellaneous
.. Semi-Public Facilities - Miscellaneous
_ Open Water
o Wetlands National Wetland Inventory - not field verified
(MInor adjustments made to some wetlands)
~ Railroad
Existing Local Trail
Proposed Local Trail
Regional Trail
Proposed Regional Trail
Pedestrian Bridge
Road Rights-of-Way
----
_PED
Municipal Line
1 inch = 1,833 feet (l)
Thibault
ASSOCIATES
--
--
-
-
Comprehensive Plan 1999 - 2020
Surface Water Management Plan
.
.
.
"
EXISTING ZONING
"COMMERCIAL"
; ,-,,'~'!~~c'4.:..p.'~"
'~'~"fl''''' ..,.... "lre;~
:..:I'.t',~ "r
.:;.1': r' .'.1.1..
. "(1.., h .~,q.j
~i-):rt~"~~f
... ,,"'-."^~;"':-~l\.c('
~
PROPOSED REZONING
"M-l MULTIPLE DWELLING
AND COMMECIAL"
t.,...., ,-
!..:I""~
~;;,c . r . ,'.
7-- ;(.'<'a, ..>;.::2.
ffit, ..."1{" ("1'1
~ . ,....'~:_r~~
1 ;.... _0 "'1'" ..
.
.
.
..
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
February 23, 2000
. Golden Valley Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes
Director of Planning and Development
INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN FOR
WESLEY COMMONSITOWER SQUARE, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD NO. 86) - DAVID BERNARD BUILDER AND
DEVELOPERS, BROOKSTONE-VANMAN LLP, COMMON BOND
COMMUNITIES, AND THE GOLDEN VALLEY HRA, APPLICANTS
Background
The development team of David Bernard Builder (a division of Rottlund Homes),
Brookstone-Vanman LLP, and Common Bond Communities has applied for a
Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Golden Valley HRA is also an applicant
because the HRA currently owns the land and will have a long-term interest in the
land due to a land-lease with Brookstone-Vanman LLP and the temporary
operation of the Tower Square shopping center. The purpose of the PUD is to
allow for a mixed-use development that includes 130 for-sale townhomes and
stacked flats by David Bernard. 25 affordable rental units by CommonBond. and
about 40,000 sq.ft. ofretail and office space by Brookstone-Vanman LLP. The
PUD will be a staged development in that the existing Tower Square retail center
will remain on Area B until the new retail/office building is completed. After the
new building is complete, CommonBond will buy from the HRA the property
where the existing Tower Square shopping center is located.
David Bernard would like to begin construction of the townhomes and stacked
flats in spring/summer 2000, with completion of some of the units by spring. 2001.
The townhomes and stacked flats would be built out as quickly as possible.
depending on sales. Construction on the retail/office building is anticipated to
begin in spring. 2000 with completion in 2001. The construction of the
CommonBond townhomes would begin in 2001, after the retail/office building is
complete.
The proposed development is located on a 12-acre site now owned by the HRA.
The site is designated as Area B in the Valley Square Redevelopment Plan. In
1997. the City Council updated the Valley Square Redevelopment Plan that
indicated that a mixed-use development would be the best use for the site. In
1997, the City Council also appointed an Area B Task Force to come up with
.
ideas for a mixed-use developmentfor the site. The Task Force developed a
concept plan for a mixed-use development. The City adopted this concept plan.
This plan was the basis on which the existing development team was selected by
the HRA.
The proposed PUD is consistent with the General Land Use Plan for the City that
indicates high density and commercial uses. The development team has asked
the City to change the zoning of Area B from Commercial to M-1 (multiple
dwelling) for the entire site with the exception of the 1.7 acres at the northwest
corner of Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road that would be used for the
Brookstone-Vanman retail/office building.
The. proposed development qualifies as a PUD because:
.1... The proposed development is in a redevelopment area.
2. The development has two or more principal use structures located on two
or more lots either in single or multiple ownership and the entire area is
greater than one acre in size.
.
Description of Proposal
This proposed mixed-use development is a much different kind of proposal than
the City has ever seen. The maps and information that are attached with this
memo better describe the development than I can in words. I recommend that
you go over the plans and attached information in detail to better understand the
proposal.
As the staff got more into the review of the site, it became apparent that the
density of development originally intended by the Task Force could not be
supported on this 12- acre site. The are several physical constraints that limit the
sites development capacity including the creek, the unique shape, the location
along a minor arterial street, and the requirements for storm water ponding. After
analysis of the site by the development team and staff, the density had to be
reduced. Even with the reduction in units on the site, the site plan remains tight
but a good plan. It provides for both 130units of owner-occupied town homes and
stacked flats (at over 16 units per acre) and 25 units of affordable rental
townhomes for families (at over 20 units per acre). There is also 40,000 sq.ft. of
retail and office space.
The following are issues that staff would like to highlight in reviewing the proposal:
1. The development does help meet some of the City's housing needs and
goals by providing affordable housing and more lifecycle.housing. David
Bernard is filling a need for more owner-occupied townhomes in Golden
Valley. The staff gets frequent calls from residents who would like to sell their
house and move to a townhome. Unfortunately, there are few townhomes
available. Of the 130 town homes and stacked flats, 115 would be sold at
market rate ranging from $150,000 to $220,000. Because the City received
Livable Communities Funds from the Metropolitan Council to help subsidize
the development, a portion of the for-sale townhomes must be affordable to
families making 80% of the metropolitan median income. David Bernard has
agreed to sell. 15 units that would be considered LivableCommunities
affordable. (At the current time, that price is $135,000.) The CommonBond
.
2
.
development will provide 25 affordable townhome units aimed strictly at
families. The families in this development will make 50% or less than the
metropolitan median income. Funding for this development comes from the
Federal tax credit program. (The HRA has also contributed greatly to this
development through the use of tax increment financing. This financing has
been used to purchase the property, make site improvements, including
Winnetka Avenue streetscape improvements and utility relocations. Overall,
the use of these tax increment funds has made this development possible.)
2. David Bernard has asked for flexibility in determining the future mix of the
130 town homes and stacked flats. At this time, the plan to construct 56
"urban town homes" in three buildings and 74 stacked flats in four buildings.
Depending on sales, they would like the flexibility to change the mix. This
would be possible because the buildings are about the same width. The staff
believes that this flexibility is reasonable in order to better serve the market.
3. Parking is an issue that comes up with every development in Golden Valley.
In the case of this PUD, the development would not meet the parking
requirements that are outlined in the M-1 (multiple dwelling) and Commercial
zoning districts. Each unit in the town homes and stacked flats has two
parking spaces in an underground garage. There are a total of 260
underground spaces. The Zoning Code would require 209 underground or
garage spaces due to the mix of two and three bedroom units. However, the
Bernard town homes have only 33 non-enclosed spaces for all the units when
the code requires 130. (This amount will be reduced to 31 with the reduction
of two parking spaces on the private street adjacent to Golden Valley Road -
see City Engineer Jeff Oliver's memo dated February 22, 2000.) The staff has
been concerned about this lack of non-enclosed spaces. There will be no on-
street parking permitted along Golden Valley Road. The only on-street
parking that would be permitted is on Wisconsin Avenue. All on-street parking
is subject to the requirement that cars must be moved if it snows. As part of
the PUD permit, the townhomedwellers will have the right to park on the lower
level of the shopping center (about 50 spaces) between 5:30 PM and8:00
AM, Monday through Friday, and anytime on weekends or holidays.
The proposed non-enclosed parking for the Bernard development is located
on the private streets and in a couple of small parking areas.
The Common Bond townhomes would have 52 underground or garage
spaces. This exceeds the code requirement of 41.5 underground or garage
spaces for this size townhome development. In addition, they would be
providing five (5) aboveground spaces. The code requires one non-enclosed
space for each unit or 25 spaces. In total, CommonBond would provide
57spaces or 9 spaces less than required by code. In order to provide
additional parking, the Common Bond tenants may use the Brookstone-
Vanman parking for visitor parking with the exception of the parking in front of
the commercial building from 11 :30 AM to 1 :30 PM.
Town Center, the new retail/office building, will have 147 parking spaces.
Surface parking in the front and sides of the building would provide 55 stalls
for customer use. Surface parking below the deck at the rear of the building
would provide 45 spaces, mainly for employees and destination-oriented
customers. This area would also provide parking for the overnight guests of
.
.
3
.
adjacent homeowners and renters. Parking on top of the deck would total 47
spaces and be used primarily for customer parking, employee and limited
short-term parking for CommonBond renters.
The Town Center is just less than 40,000 sq.ft. in area. About 17,000 sq.ft. is
retailspace, about 11,800 sq.ft. is office space and about 10,000 sq.ft. of the
lower level is retail, storage, and production space. The Zoning Code would
normally require about 167 spaces based on one space for every 150 sq.ft. of
retail space and one space for every 250 sq.ft. of office space. Staff believes
that the 147 spaces would be adequate to meet the demand generated by this
type of retail/office building. The City does have the experience with the Area
C shopping center that has fewer spaces than required by Code. The parking
in the Area C center has worked well due to the different types of retail users.
Based on the uses proposed in the Town Center space, staff believes that
there are complimentary uses that would permit fewer spaces to be built. With
the combination of office, storage and retail space that have different peak
hours, the number of spaces should be adequate, even with some shared
parking for the housing.
There has been discussion regarding that parking is in front of the retail center
rather than behind. If all the parking were behind the center, the building
could be pushed to the street and give more of an urban feel. However, retail
experts told the Task Force that some parking is needed in front of the retail
spaces in suburban markets. Therefore, a small amount of parking has been
made available for short-term users.
Overall, the adequacy of parking for both the residential and commercial sides
of this development has been a concern of staff. There appears to be more
than adequate underground parking for the townhomes, stacked flats and
CommonBond townhomes. The non-enclosed visitor and short-term parking
is what appears to be most lacking for both the David Bernard and
Common Bond housing. The sharing of the retail/commercial parking would
have to take up much of this non-enclosed parking demand. As stated before,
there is very little on-street parking available and on-street parking has
restrictions, particularly in the winter months. David Bernard may want to
speak with. Marquette Bank regarding the non-business use of their parking
areas at Golden Valley Road and Wisconsin Avenue. An agreement with the
bank could help relieve a shortage in visitor parking on that side of the site. At
this time, staff believes there would be enough parking spaces in Area B;
however, it may take time for the residents and users of the area to get a feel
for a parking situation where there is "just enough" spaces to meet demand
rather than more spaces than needed tq meet demand.
4. As part of the PUD, the staff looks at the proposed setbacks and compares
them with the required setbacks for underlying zoning category. In. this PUD,
there are substantial setback variances on each of the components as the
outlined in the information provided to the Commission. In this case, the HRA
and City promoted the use of this site for more compact development that
would not meet the requirements of normal zoning. The idea was to get the
buildings closer to the streets and provide for a more pedestrian friendly
environment. As indicated on the plans, most of the buildings and parking do
not meet the required 35-foot setback from the public street. With these
smaller setbacks, the landscaping of the site becomes more important. It
.
.
4
.
appears that the applicants have paid special attention to landscaping around
the building fronts adjacent to the streets. (The City will be completing the
Winnetka Avenue streetscape in front of both the Common Bond and
Brookstone-Vanman buildings.)
Another significant variance. is from Bassett Creek. The Shoreland Chapter of
the Zoning Coderequires thatthere be no structures or hard surface areas
within 50 feet of the top of the bank. Staff has met with a representative from
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources about this matter. They have
told us that the trail (which is hard surface and up to 12 feet in width) may be
in the setback area. Because only the corner of the Common Bond building is
in the setback area, the DNR finds that setback intrusion acceptable. The
small parking lot between the two western-most townhome buildings is also
within the setback. If properly screened from the trail, this.parking area can
remain. The City will send the PUD site plan to the DNR for final review and
comment.
5. As part of the Livable Communities grant, the City said that live/work units
would be considered as part of the development. When the staff was
evaluating the different proposals for Area B, it became apparent that the
live/work units were not yet marketable in Minnesota. As an alternative, the
staff has suggested to David Bernard that the stacked flat units be allowed to
have certain types of home occupations that may not normally be permitted in
a townhome development. These home occupations would be limited to office
type occupations. The stacked flats could be purchased with "beefed up"
electronic capacity that would be helpful to someone running a home-based
office business. The staff will be working with David Bernard to come up with
wording on the types of home-based business that would be permitted. This
would be included .in the final PUD permit.
6. One of the important themes brought out by the Area B Task Force was
pedestrian connection to other parts of the Valley Square area. Recently,
Glen Van Wormer, traffic consultant for the City, presented a report to the City
Council and Area B Task Force outlining his recommendations on this subject.
This report indicated the location of pedestrian crossings in the area and how
they relate to Area B. The City, when implementing sidewalk and trail
improvements throughout the area, will use these recommendations. The
developer of Area B will be made aware of these connection points to help
enhance pedestrian safety.
7. Total build-out ofthis PUD will take several years. The Planning
Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council on the entire
Preliminary Design Plan. It is anticipated that there will be a master PUD
permit for the entire development addressing common issues such as cross-
parking arrangements, storm water management, utilities, access, and
maintenance. There will be three sub-permits that will address each of the
development areas.
For the Common Bond site, the sub-permit will state that prior to the property
being sold to CommonBond for housing in 2001, the HRA may use the
property for the continued operation of theTower Square shopping center.
(This shopping center will remain open in order to house the retail tenants that
are moving to the new retail center in 2001.) If the plans for the
.
.
5
.
Common Bond townhomes do not change from the Preliminary Design Plan,
the townhomes may be constructed without further review by the Planning
Commission and City Council. If there were significant changes to the
CommonBond plans, the PUD would have to be amended.
8. As part of the development of Area B, one of the requirements is that there will
be a trail along Bassett's Creek. The plans indicate such a trail. In the
attached memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver to me dated February 22, 2000,
it indicates that the trail would be 8 feet wide. In fact, the trail is planned to be
12 feet wide unless the width has to be reduced due to certain circumstances.
The developer is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the trail,
including re-vegatation of the trail corridor. Such plans still have to be
submitted and will be required as part of the General Plan of Development.
9. There are significant public works and engineering issues related to this
development. City Engineer Jeff Oliver has written me a detailed memo that
states that the preliminary design plan is generally acceptable. However,
several issues must be resolved prior to submission of the General Plan. This
memo will become a part of the staff recommendation on the Preliminary
Design Plan.
10. Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, has written a memo to me dated February
22, 2000 that covers public safety issues. As indicated in the memo, all
buildings will have fire sprinkler systems. This memo will become a part of the
staff recommendation on the Preliminary Design Plan.
11. Planning staff has been in contact with Building Official Gary Johnson
regarding building code issues. Mr. Johnson has indicated to the applicant
that there is additional information that is needed prior to submittal ofthe
General Plan of Development. This additional information is a code analysis
that indicates that the types of buildings that are proposed meet all building
code requirements.
12. During the construction of the townhomes and stacked flats, David Bernard
has asked to place a sales trailer on the property. The staff does not object
to this but it should be removed after a townhome or stacked flat building is
completed. At that time, one of the units can be used as the sales office.
13. There are no signage plans in the preliminary design plan application. As part
of the General Plan, the applicants should submit a signage plan that would
include both directional and private street signs. This should also cover the
signs for the retail/office building. Generally, the PUD permit will allow the
same signage as permitted in the underlying zoning district.
14.There are preliminary landscape plans for each component of the PUD.
Final landscape plans will have to be submitted to the Building Board of
Review as part of the building permit process. Staff has given a preliminary
review to the landscape plan. There are some additions that would have to be
added including re-vegatation of the creek slope. Also, the tree preservation
plan and the landscape plan will have to be coordinated.
15. The Common Bond property will include two playground areas for the
tenants. The playground area closest to the building would be for younger
children. The second playground would be located directly west of the parking
deck, about 50 feet southwest of the Common Bond building. This playground
.
.
6
.
would be located on the David Bernard property and open to all children in the
development. The only other public spaces in the development include the
trail and patio areas for eating outside the retail building at the corner of
Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road.
.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Wesley
CommonslTown Square, Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 86. The
applicants have made good efforts to meet the requirements of the HRA, City
Council and Task Force for the development of this difficult site. In this memo,
staff has not addressed issues related to the architecture of "the look" of the
buildings. The information submitted by the applicants illustrates the proposed
buildings. Overall, staff believe that the site plan works and wou.ld provide the
City with a number of benefits - more housing opportunity for varying income
groups, recreation opportunities for all with the trail along the creek, enhancing
retail and office opportunities (keeping several small businesses in the. area), and
completing the Winnetka Avenue streetscape.
This recommendation comes with a number of conditions that must be resolved
priortothe General Plan of Development approval. These include the following:
1. David Bernard, Brookstone-Vanman LLP and Common Bond have submitted
drawings and other plans. These plans become a part of this approval. The
Bernard plans were prepared by Pioneer Engineering and dated 2/4/00.
These plans include a cover sheet, site plan, preliminary plat, preliminary
grading plan, preliminary utility plan and tree plan. Brookstone-Vanman LLP
plans include a site plan, an illustrative drawing, a landscape concept outline
and drawing, and floor plans. These plans have all been prepared by Vanman
Companies. CommonBond plans were prepared by SMMA Architects and are
dated 211/00. These plans include a grading and drainage plan, a utility plan,
planting plan, site plan, floor plans and exterior elevations. A landscape plan
for the Bernard portion of the PUD has been prepared by Arteka and dated
2/15/00.
2. The memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver to Mark Grimes dated February 22,
2000, shall become a part of this approval. It should be noted that the trail is
to be 12 feet wide rather than 8 feet wide as noted in the Oliver memo. All
requirements outlined in this memo should be completed in the time frame
stipulated in the memo.
3. The memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes dated
February 22, 2000, shall become a part of this approval. All requirements
outlined in this memo shall be completed in the time frame stipulated in the
memo.
4. A building code analysis must be submitted to the Building Official in order to
determine if the structures meet the requirements of the Building Code. This
analysis shall be prepared prior to the submission deadline for the General
Plan of Development.
.
7
.
5. The location of pedestrian crossings across public streets should be in a
location that is consistent with the pedestrian circulation study prepared by
GlenVanwormer in February 2000.
6. An overall signage plan shall be submitted with the General Plan of
Development. This would include both directional signs and building signs.
7. Bernard may have a sales trailer on this site that is located no closer than 20
feet from any public street. The sales trailer must be removed within 30 days
after a certificate of occupancy is granted for one of the stacked flats or
town home buildings. At that time, a sales office may be located in one of the
units.
8. The applicants must prepare all cross parking agreements and other
agreements regarding joint maintenance and other shared issues as part of
the submittals for the General Plan of Development.
9. The Building Board of Review shall approve the final landscape plans.
10. In the future, the City may want to add a bridge across Bassett Creek to
connect to the creek trail between Wisconsin Ave. and Winnetka Ave. If the
City obtains the rights to build the bridge, and obtains the necessary financing,
the PUD permit will state that such a bridge may be built.
11. As stated in the City Engineer Oliver's memo, a Tree Preservation Plan must
be submitted as part of the General Plan of Development that meets the
requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
12. David Bernard may substitute town home buildings for stacked flat buildings
and visa versa as long as the footprint of the building remains essentially the
same and all building code requirements are met.
.
Attachments:
· Location Map
· Golden Valley Area B Design Concept Plan
· City Engineer Jeff Oliver's memo to Mark Grimes dated February 22, 2000
· Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson's memo to Mark Grimes dated February 22,
2000
· Variance and easement information (11 pages)
· Wesley Commons Booklet - February 28, 2000 - David Bernard Builders and
Developers
· Preliminary Landscape Plan for the townhomes/single family condominiums
· Site Plans for The new urban Townhomes (20 unit building), stacked flats (16
unitcondominiums), Golden Valley Town Square, Golden Valley Townhomes
(affordable units) -.aIl11' x 17"
· Oversized plans
.
8
.
\ \ <:;:
I I......:
I Z1""'~
In - I~~
IZ I j,.~ \~ "..,
~~-=:.~Qh@!'~ ; .."\"-,,- ;5'"
\: v'l J i ~~ \1 'r \..
\ i ~ 1 . !!! .! \1 : City Hall (""
.L -..-''/ 'l 'II \ ~ '"
: , '~~ ", r I : · ~./ . t GOWEN v'"-,~ ':;~ ,,-----~ \ \
J! ! S~~--~-_J_ ------- 1~~;~SEDsrrE. .I'~ ~ ( . ,uSPosi: i.
1_---..--- "1- '-. ~......__ . I. .. Office : zl.
t .,. .. . - ' ; ~ r ..-. ..,.".~ .J,.
..__....--- ..- - ---~._ -_._-...:~~~~~.~~~:::" ,-- f i jGoict"en-Valiey/ \ ~\
c> . .._"-'-'" . -______.. V O.LSOA. ---.-,..._. J i: . , Commons / \3'\'.
s! . -." ____ 'Y MEMo r--_._.. L --------. !!!.
.. i -----. 'RIAL H ..-.-........ n 8\.
CIlI' '. .---_... Wy . -""") :r.:
.rl -~ '-.-.._--.1 &%:1
i . . - . '
L r~=r
1."'j5! . '.... ..' .....".... -
a:, ' I.. :_. .<~'. _ _.
<
\
1 .' .f.~~,~,:7'::;"}j~~';-i I
I.'. ."
~ ...:....:.~-..
_..~
.. . .
. .
~. ~., :,'~:::
," 'moo'
9. . . . .:.
~. " ',-
.. '-.. -"
. .. f. _ -,- .
. ~ .~. .~~~~; ~';.:~~~ - ~;;:.. .
.
.
l
r
l
<::>
\'
.
A. l"'~ICClry
10.000 s.t.wlwucccial (rcsIIU(llJlI)
10,000 ..r. oCrrco
304 JUUClW'ed partial sI*"'et
D. two-stofy
11.600 t.l. ClOlWUUClaI
12.600 1./. alIil:ll
40 ,U'lXCWCd PartiPl !pICCJ
C. dJn:e..dDry
20.000 s.f. commcn:ioJ
44 dwelliDl wailS
60 suuclulal parki"lI: 'pM:eJ
O. . two-scory
121OwnbofUcs
2<4 sl.ructarcd pukiq Ipoc::I:l'
E.lW~skny
lOlovt1lbomes
20slluCtURd partiDa spcaccs
P. dvec'ltary'
7,000 d. col!llDm:lal
20 dwetlinl wailS .
34 saw:tun:d parkins spoccs
G~ Ifuee..tIDtY
13 U~wotkwUtl
10 towahoma
40 sl.rUcturcd llUttinS .puccs
.... tbft:e-ttory
60 dweU1aC urUb
GO .UUClUraI puUDI sp.:cs
I. tbRc'liOI'y
48 dweUiaS urdu
48 sU'UCNlCd putiltlsplCes
KeyNotes:
t. Drive 10 1o_III.e1 pm",
i =::~Ooocan lower
IeveUlS can upper level)
4. SudllCO parking (010 spaces)
,. NURP
6. Pedestrian bridee to lnduSlri1l1
OMceP:ltk:
1. Public ,ozcbo
8. BvenlJ pllu
9. Toclet
10., Banell Cceck Park ~bfic :tC<<;1
11. Bus stop
12. Bassett Creek tt:lilwit,
13., ~::~.:::rieatali;:onnectorlo
14,'Pocbl Park
1'. AddiLions to clluling ,hopPinG'
....or
16. P:utJ1Il rcmoyal of shopping cenlCf
17. 'New oudot building
lR. Proposed (vuKe lbcatct
19. Puuue portia.c ramp
10. Shared puking (or theater
11. T,.mc calmed inlcncetion
22. Mid~meetlAn<beaped bouleVlUds
'23. Pedeitria" overpw
24. Teminus icOn
Golden Valley
Area B
Design Concept
Qoldc:n Valley, MN
~J~~I~~~~~~lt:I~~~Y
1u1y 17. 1997
".
.
.
.
PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
~lley
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
February 22, 2000
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning a
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Preliminary Design Plan Rev. 0 Planned Unit
Development 86, Wesley Commons
Public Works staff have reviewed the plans for the Preliminary Design Plan for Wesley
Commons, Planned Unit Development 86. Wesley Commons is also known as
Redevelopment Area 8 and is located in the northwest quadrant of Winnetka Avenue
and Golden Valley Road.
In general, the preliminary design plan is acceptable from a Public Works perspective.
This review focuses on the site highlights and design issues that need to be resolved
prior to General Plan approval of the PUD.
Site Plan:
The proposed site plan includes high density housing with a commercial center at the
intersection of Golden Valley Road and Winnetka Avenue. All of the proposed streets
within the development will be constructed by the developer and will be privately owned
and maintained following completion. The primary east/west roadway shown on the site
plan is in approximately the same location as the existing Maren Lane. Maren Lane will
be vacated as a public street during the platting of this property.
There are multiple points of access into the proposed PUD. These access points
include the private streets discussed above and driveways off Golden Valley Road,
Wisconsin Avenue and Winnetka Avenue. The driveways into each of the residential
units will provide access to limited surface parking lots and into the structured parking
that will be included beneath each building. These driveways will be 26 feet wide with
no parking permitted other than in the designated stalls shown on the site plan.
A looped driveway off of Wisconsin Avenue is proposed for the two buildings on the
western edge of the site. This driveway is also proposed as 26 feet wide, with the intent
that the driveway serve as a pickup and drop-off area that includes short-term parking.
However, several factors make this proposed driveway very impractical. Among these
factors are the relatively narrow width, the very sharp curve radius and the need of the
Public Safety Department to post a fire lane on the building side of the driveway. These
. .
.
.
.
factors result in a driveway that will be blocked by as little as one vehicle parking. .In
addition, many larger vehicles will need to maneuver across the driveway in order to
enter or exit the limited parking spaces provided with the driveway. From the
perspective of total parking spaces provided, the development would receive an overall
improvement by eliminating this proposed driveway and utilizing the seven or eight on-
street parking spaces provided along Wisconsin Avenue. Any parking on Wisconsin
Avenue, or any other city street, must comply with all city parking and traffic ordinances.
A sight line analysis was performed along Golden Valley Road in order to provide the
maximum level of safety for vehicles entering the street from within the development.
This analysis indicated that the adequate sight distance is achieved for all driveway and
street locations provided that no parking is permitted on Golden Valley Road. The site
plan submitted for review is consistent with this recommendation.
The location of the main street (former Maren Lane) into the development is offset
slightly from the driveway into the bank across Golden Valley Road. The alignment as
proposed presents concerns regarding turning movement conflicts onto Golden Valley
Road. Every effort should be made to introduce a curve into the proposed street to shift
it into closer alignment with the bank driveway. This realignment is also important due
to the possibility of the City installing medians on Golden Valley Road.
The City is investigating the possibility of installing center-islands onto Golden Valley
Road. If these islands are installed the driveway between buildings 7 and 8 will become
a right in/right out access.
The primary north/south street into the development is proposed to be a 28 foot wide
roadway with parking allowed on the west side of the street. This proposal allows
adequate room for the anticipated use of the street. However, turning conflicts will most
likely occur between vehicles exiting building 3 and vehicles entering the development
from Golden Valley Road. Parked cars on the west side of the street will make this
conflict worse by limiting visibility and by creating further limitations on space for
vehicles to maneuver. There is a high likelihood that these conflicts will result in traffic
backing up onto Golden Valley Road. In order to lessen the impacts of this conflict,
including backup onto the city street, it is recommended that the two southern-most
parking spaces on the west side of this street be eliminated.
The radius.between Winnetka Avenue and the parking lot at the commercial building is
insufficient to allow turns without creating vehicle conflicts. Similar to the previous
discussion regarding GoldenValley Road, conflicts in this location will create backup
onto Winnetka Avenue that must be avoided. Therefore, the radius on the southside of
this driveway must be increased to allow adequate space for turning movements.
The site plan must include the locations of all trash enclosures and pickup areas in
order to insure adequate access to these areas.
F:\GROUPS\ENG\DEVELOPMENTS-HRA\AREA B\PRELIM DESIGN PLAN REVIEW. DOC
2
. .
.
A signing plan, showing the locations of all no parking and other traffic control signs
must be submitted for review and comment with the General Plan submittal.
In order to insure that adequate access is provided for customers, service vehicles and
emergency response, it is important to review the proposed layout for drive isles and
parking stalls as provided in the proposed parking structure at the commercial
component. This information must be included on the site plan for the General Plan
submittal. .
The site plan indicates that the proposed trail paralleling Bassett Creek will pass
between retaining walls in two locations. This trail will provide the only vehicle and
equipment access to the storm water pond for maintenance. Therefore, there must be
adequate space between retaining walls to allow for this access. It is recommended the
space between walls be a minimum14 feet.
The trail being constructed along Bassett.Creek will connect to existing sidewalks and
trails at Wisconsin and Winnetka Avenues. This trail will be 8 feet wide and will be
constructed by the developer.
The construction of a sidewalk must be shown on the site plan along Golden Valley
Road immediately west of Winnetka Avenue.
. Preliminary Plat:
The City of Golden Valley currently maintains one public street, Maren Lane, which
passes through the center of this site. This street is to be vacated as part of the
development of the site. A portion of this street alignment will be reconstructed as part
of the private street system within the PUD.
.
In addition to the street vacation, there are a number of easements across the site that
run in favor of the City of Golden Valley. These easements cover old lot lines, drainage
features and public utilities. In order to provide tracking of these easements and to
avoid future title issues, these easements must be vacated. The final plat for the PUD
will then include all drainage and utility easements that must be retained, and all the
new easements required for new features being added to the site.
The vacation of Maren Lane and the easements must occur concurrently with final plat.
The developer will be responsible for working with private entities such as utility
companies to vacate any easements across this site.
As required by City Code, all watermains on site must be placed within drainage and
utility easements. Although the easements shown appear to be adequate, the
developer's engineer must review the easements to insure that all watermains are
covered.
F:\GROUPS\ENG\DEVELOPMENTS-HRA\AREA B\PRELIM DESIGN PLAN REVIEW.DOC
3
.
.
The drainage and utility easement along Bassett Creek must extend upland to the 100-
year flood elevation (887.0) of the creek.
All easements along the exterior plat boundaries must be a minimum of ten feet wide.
A trailway easement must be dedicated to the City over the proposed trail along Bassett
Creek. Because trailway easements cannot be shown on the final plat, the developer
must submit a legal description for this easement. The City will prepare the easement
documents for signature and recording.
Preliminary Grading Plan:
The developer will be required to submit a final Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control
Plan as part of the General Plan submittal. This .final plan must be prepared to City
standards. Staff will provide a review letter on the preliminary grading and utility plans
to the developer's engineer to begin the process of preparing the final plans.
This site is within the Bassett Creek Watershed and must conform to the Bassett Creek
Water Management Commission's (BCWMC) Water Quality Policy. The storm water
ponding shown on the plan must be designed for a level 3 receiving water. The plans
for the development must be approved by the BCWMC prior to beginning any work on
site. The commission meetings are held the third Thursday of each month, and plans
must be submitted to the BCWMC engineers at least two weeks before the meeting.
The City of Golden Valley must approve the grading plan before it is submitted to the
commission.
The BCWMC's Water Quality Policy requires that the entire site being developed must
receive water quality treatment prior to discharge to the creek. The topography and
unusual shape of this site make it impossible to route runoff from the extreme western
end of the site into the proposed pond. However, there are two existing storm sewer
systems on Golden Valley Road that will be routed through the proposed storm sewer
system for water quality treatment. These two storm sewers provide drainage from
Golden Valley Road, a portion of Winnetka Avenue and some of the shopping center
(south of Golden Valley Road) that does not currently receive any water quality
treatment prior to discharge to Bassett Creek. Therefore, the overall area receiving
treatment by the proposed pond will be inc~eased following development.
All storm drainage quantity and quality calculations, including a drainage map, must be
submitted for review.
As discussed above, a portion of the proposed storm sewer system will accommodate
flow from the city street and property outside the development. This storm sewer,to the
point of discharge into the pond, will be owned and maintained by the City of Golden
Valley. Construction plans and profiles must be prepared for this storm sewer, and all
. other city utilities on site.
F:\GROUPS\ENG\DEVELOPMENTS.HRA\AREA B\PRELIM DESIGN PLAN REVIEW.DOC
4
.
.
.
Site grading and development of this PUD will be complicated by the volume of work
that will be occurring at the same time on site, and by the fact that the commercial
building in the northeast corner of the site will be used during construction. In order to
insure that access is adequate for all parties on site, and to provide the maximum
degree of protection against erosion, a phased site-grading plan must be submitted with
the General Plan submittal for the PUD.
The installation of pedestrian ramps at all sidewalk crossings must be clearly shown and
labeled on the final grading plan.
The developers will be required to enter into a Storm Water Quality Treatment Facility
Maintenance Agreement with the City. This agreement can be incorporated into the PUD
Permit for the site.
The Grading Plan indicates retaining wall and trail construction in close proximity to
Bassett Creek in the central portion of the site. The developer's engineer should review
these items and comment on the constructability of these features.
A General Storm Water Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will be
required for this site. The developer must provide the City with a copy of the application
form when mailed and a copy of the permit once it is received.
The location of protective fencing at the top of the retaining walls near the trailway and
proposed playground area must be clearly shown on the plans. In addition, detail plates
for the fencing must be provided.
Preliminary Utility Plan:
There are existing city sanitary sewer and watermain facilities within the development
site that need to be relocated as part of this project. The utilities that need to removed
or relocated are shown on the utility plan. The developer will perform this utility work.
As discussed earlier in this review, the developer will be required to prepare plan and
profiles for the city utilities and within the PUD. The final location of manholes, hydrants
and valves will be determined in review of this construction plan.
Following development, the City of Golden Valley will maintain some of the utilities on
site, while others will be the responsibility of the developer or his assigns. The
watermain that the City will be responsible for enters the site near the intersection of
Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road and proceeds north to the current Maren
Lane, thence westward within Maren Lane into Golden Valley Road. The city sanitary
sewer follows the same basic route but will also include the portion of existing sanitary
sewer that proceeds north and passes under Bassett.Creek. All other sewer and
watermains on site will be privately owned.
F:\GROUPS\ENG\DEVELOPMENTS-HRA\AREA B\PRELIM DESIGN PLAN REVIEW. DOC
5
.
Tree Preservation:
The developer has submitted a Tree Preservation Plan as part of the Preliminary
Design Plan package. This plan indicates that there is significant tree removal and
mitigation required. The details of this plan will be worked through with the developer
as part of the General Plan submittal.
Recommendation:
Public Works staff has reviewed the plans submitted for the Preliminary Design Plan for
Wesley Commons, PUD 86. The proposed PUD is acceptable in concept from a public
works perspective. However, this review did identify several issues. that need to be
addressed prior to forwarding the PUD for General Plan approval. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Wesley Commons subjectto
the following comments:
1) The proposed looped driveway off of Wisconsin Avenue needs to be eliminated from
the development due to lack of practical use and loss of potential on~street parking
spaces on Wisconsin Avenue.
4) The plans must be revised to provide adequate space for maintenance equipment
where the proposed trail passes between retaining walls.
5) Preparation of a Final Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan that is prepared
according to city specifications.
6) A staged grading and site construction plan must be submitted with the General
Plan.
7) Approval of the plans by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission.
8) Preparation of construction plans and profiles for the sanitary sewer, watermains,
storm sewers, trailways and private streets on site.
9) Preparation of a Final Tree Preservation Plan.
. 10)Preparation of a Signing Plan for submittal with the General Plan.
F:\GROUPS\ENG\DEVELOPMENTS.HRA\AREA B\PRELIM DESIGN PLAN REVIEW. DOC
6
. Approval is also subject to the comments of other City staff.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Jeanne Andre, Assistant to the City Manager
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Gary Johnson, Building Official
Ed Anderson, Fire Marshall
.
.
F:\GROUPS\ENG\DEVELOPMENTS.HRA\AREA B\PRELIM DESIGN PLAN REVIEW.DOC
7
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
February 22, 2000
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
Plan Review Comments for Wesley Commons (Area B) P.U.D. NO. 86
Listed below are my plan review comments for the PUD plan for the Wesley
Commons (Area B). This memo will identify the three different areas which
includes the commercial building, the stacked flats/townhouses and the
common bond building.
Commercial Buildina
1) An automatic/fire sprinkler system will be required for the entire retail/
office building and garage. The automatic sprinkler system shall be
installed in accordance with recognized standards. Plans and permits
will be required.
2) Post indicator valves (PlY) will be required and installed in accordance
with recognized standards.
3) The parking ramp for the commercial building shall have a dry class I
standpipe system. The installation of the standpipe system shall be
installed in accordance with recognized standards.
4) The installation of the fire hydrant shall be installed in accordance with
the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code and the requirement of the City of
Golden Valley's City Engineer.
5) A fire department key box will be required. The key box will be installed
on the building and the necessary keys for each tenant space would be
required. See the Deputy Fire Marshal for more details.
6) The Fire Department access road will be required during the
construction. The road surface for the fire department access road
shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire
apparatus in all weather driving capabilities.
7) The turning radius of the fire apparatus road shall be in accordance
with recognized standards.
8) Fire lane signs shall be posted with stationary post and installed in
accordance. with the fire department standards and the city ordinance.
9) The passenger elevator proposed for the building shall be installed in
accordance with Minnesota State Elevator Inspector requirements.
.
10) A fire alarm/detection system would be required. The installation of the
system shall be in accordance with recognized standards.
11) Audio and visual devices for the fire alarm system will be required
throughout the commons areas including office, restroom, retail spaces
and hallway/ corridors.
12) The fire department connection (FDC) for the sprinkler system and the
standpipe system shall be reviewed and approved for the location on
the building. The Deputy Fire Marshal shall determine the location.
13) All sprinkler control valves for the automatic/fire sprinkler system shall
be monitored electrically by the fire alarm system and transmit signals
to a central station alarm company.
14) The construction site and building under construction shall meet the
requirements as listed in Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Articles 87.
15) Provide address numbers for all buildings and tenants spaces. The
address numbers shall be position to be plainly visible and legible from
the street or roadway fronting the property.
16) Above-ground gas meter, regulators and piping exposed to vehicular
damage due to proximity to alley, driveway or parking areas shall be
protected in an approved manner.
T ownhousesl Stacked Flats
.
1) The buildings will be protected with automatic/fire sprinkler system.
The sprinkler system shall protect the entire building (Le. attic spaces,
garage, all-combustible areas, decks and patios).
2) A post indicator valve (PIV) will be required for all buildings. The post
indicator valves shall be installed in accordance with recognized
standards and the valves shall be monitored
electronically by the fire alarm system/central alarm company.
3) The location of the fire department connection (FDC) shall be reviewed
and approved by the Deputy Fire Marshal for all buildings.
4) Fire department access road will be required during the construction.
The fire department access road shall be de~igned and maintained to
support the imposed load of the fire apparatus and shall be provided
with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities.
5) The turning radius of the fire apparatus road shall be in accordance
with recognized standards.
6) Fire lane signs shall be posted with stationary posts and installed in
accordance with fire department standards and in conjunction with the
City. of Golden Valley City Ordinance.
7) The passenger elevator in the building shall be in compliance with the
requirements set forth with the Minnesota State Elevator Inspector.
8) A fire alarm system will be required in the common areas. Plans and
permit application will be required.
9) Audio and visual devices for the fire alarm system will be required
throughout the commons area and in all sleeping units. The audio/
visual devices shall be installed in accordance with recognized
standards.
10) All control valves for the automaticlfire sprinkler system shall be
monitored electrically by the fire alarm system.
.
2
',.
.
11) All garage tenant's space shall keep all combustible storage orderly
and in a control area. The control area shall be secured. Any type of
storage shall not be stored in exit or exit enclosures.
12) No persons shall store or use any barbecue grill, charcoal or any
lighter fluids, natural gas, LP gas fuel, torch or other similar heating or
lighting chemicals or devices on any balcony or patios.
13) Above-ground gas meter regulators and piping exposed to vehicular
damage due to proximity to alley, driveway or parking areas shall be
protected in a approved manner.
14) A Class I Standpipe system shall be installed in the underground
garage area. The installation of the standpipes system shall be
installed in accordance with recognized standards.
15) A new fire hydrant shall be installed on Wisconsin Avenue, north of
Golden Valley Road. This area is deficient for fire protection near
buildings number 8 and 9 on the site plan.
16) AFire Department Lock Box(es) would be required for all buildings.
The key box(es) will be installed on the buildings and the necessary
keys for each tenant space would be required.
Common Bond Buildinas
.
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
.
1) An automatic/fire sprinkler system will be required for the entire
building (Le. attic spaces, garage, all combustible areas, decks and
patios).
2) A Class I Standpipe System shall be installed in the garage area. The
installation shall be in accordance with recognized standards.
3) The location of the Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be
reviewed and determined by the Deputy Fire Marshal.
4) The fire department access road will be required during the
construction. The road surface for fire department access road shall be
designed and maintain to support the imposed loads of the fire
apparatus and shall be provide with a surface so as to provide for all
weather driving capabilities.
A post indicator valve will be required for the building. The post
indicator valve shall be installed in accordance with recognized
standards.
The turning radius of the fire apparatus road shall be in accordance
with recognized standards
Fire lane signs shall be posted with stationary posts and installed in
accordance with fire department standards and in conjunction with the
city ordinance.
A fire alarm system will be required in the commons areas. Plans and
permit application will be required.
Audio and visual devices for the fire alarm system will be required
throughout the commons area and in sleeping units. The audio/visual
devices shall be installed in accordance with recognized standards.
All control valves for the automatic/fire sprinkler system shall be
monitored. electrically by the fire alarm system.
3
.
.
.
,"
11) All garage tenant spaces shall maintain all combustible storage orderly
and in a control area. The control area shall be secured.
Any type of storage shall not be stored in exit or exit enclosures.
12) No persons shall store or use any barbecue grill, charcoal nor any
lighter fluids, natural gas, LP gas fuel, torch or other similar heating or
lighting chemicals or device on any balcony or patios.
13) Above-ground gas meter regulators and piping exposed to vehicular
damage due to proximity to alley, driveway or parking areas shall be
protected in approved manner.
14) The construction site and building under construction shall meet the
requirements as listed in the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Article 87.
15) Provide address numbers for all buildings. The address numbers shall
be position to be plainly, visible and legible from the street or roadway
fronting the property.
If you have any questions please call me at 593-8065
4
.1
o.
.
.
.
~.
DAVID BERNARD BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
ZONING VARIANCE ITEMS - ZONE P.U.D.
SECTION 11.25 MULTIPLE DWELLING ZONING DISTRICT
* = Variance Required
Subdivision 1. Purllose.
The overall density of the for-sale residential portion of the development is as follows:
Proposed: 16.32 units per acre
Required: 15 - 27 units per acre
Subdivision 4. Lot Area. Hei~ht. Parkin!!.
A. Lot Area
Required: 1-2 Stories, Underground Garage:
2500 S,F ./Unit x 130 = 325,000
Provided: 361,030
Note: Below is a breakdown on a per lot basis.
Lot 3: Required: 2500 x 16 = 40,000
*Provided: 1,976 x 16 = 31,616
Lot 4: Required: 2500 x 16 = 40,000
Provided: 3,531 x 16 = 56,496
Lot 5: Required: 2500 x 16 = 40,000
* Provided: 2,425 x 16 = 38,800
Lot 6: Required: 2500 x 26 = 65,000
Provided: 3,313 x 26 = 86,138
Lot 7: Required: 2500 x 20 = 50,000
Provided: 3,088 x 20 = 61,760
Lot 8: Required: 2500 x 20 == 50,000
*Provided: 1,843 x 20 = 36,860
Lot 9: Required: 2500 x 16 = 40,000
Provided: 3,085 x 16 = 49,360
:
...
.
.
.
B. Height Limitations
Project complies with Subdistrict M-l, maximum height 3 stories.
C. Parking Space
Required: 2 BDR units @ 1.5 spaces
3 BDR units @ 2.0 spaces
New Urban Townhomes:
56 total units
44 - 2 BDR@ 1.5 = 66 spaces
12 - 3 BDR@ 2.0 = 24 spaces (estimate)
90 total spaces
Stacked Flats:
74 total units:
58 - 2 BDR@ 1.5 = 87 spaces
16 - 3 BDR@ 2.0 = 32 spaces (estimate)
119 total spaces
Required: 209 spaces underground
Provided: 260 spaces underground
Non-enclosed:
Required: 1: 1
* Provided:
130 Spaces
33 Spaces
Summary:
130 units with 2 underground parking spaces provided for each unit. 2 off street parking
bays totalling 15 parking spaces. 18 additional on street parking spaces.
293 total parking spaces provided.
Subdivision 5.. Minimum yard requirements.
A. Setbacks for structures
Required
Front Yard: 35 feet
Side and Rear Yard: 50' when directly abutting a residential;
25' from any other zoning district;
35' along a public right of way.
Note: Setbacks are calculated from foundation to foundation, and foundation to curb.
The Wesley Commons development is one that has been guided by the Area B Task
Force and the Housing. and Redevelopment Authority. Setbacks are varied throughout
.
.
.
.
~.
the project and require variances in most circumstances. Please see the attached tie sheet
illustrating the various setbacks.
B. Setbacks pertaining to parking lots.
N/A
C. Relationship of Setback to Building Heil!ht
N/A
D. Lot Coverage
New UrbanTH's:
20 unit bldg. - 16,560 sq.ft.
16 unit bldg. - 13,363 sq.ft.
Stacked Flats:
16 unit bldg. - 14,113 sq.ft.
26 unit bldg. - 17,743 sq.ft.
Required: 35% Max.
Provided: See below
*Lot 3: 14,113/31,620.2= 44.7%
Lot 4: 14,113 /56,497.32 = 25%
*Lot 5: 14,113 /38,803.25 = 36.4%
Lot 6: 17,743/53,008.16 = 33.5%
Lot 7: 16,560/61,776.79 = 26.8%
*Lot 8: 16,560/36,860.47 = 44%
Lot 9: 13,363/49,357.84 = 27%
Subdivision 6. Accessory Uses.
A. Recreational facilities
There will be no recreational facilities incorporated into the PUD with exception of
an active play area behind the family housing building and a passive play area
between the commerical building and the for-sale residential housing.
In addition, the bituminous trail running along the south side of Bassett Creek will be
utilized by residents of the development and the Golden Valley community.
B. Shops and restaurants.
Brookstone, Inc.
.
.
GOLDEN
-vmr-r--'
ROAD I
.
I
-
I
,
I
.
I
I
i!'1
0::
o
z,
~I
z'
~I
<,
zl
(7S.
~I
0-
~l
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
II
~ I
(.-1:
II
II
II
II
II
II
/:
II
Ii
II
/1
:1
"
"
'I
"
"
1/
"
'i
"
)
I
1/
II
iI
/1
II
II
II
Ii
II
v . .
mttitO
%
~
r-\
GOLDE~ V~~~~2-,", "'lcr.~S':s."~ ly.:5l
~ Q~\~~
~'I~~~-<~
r "\
- - - - - -.- ---. - -
-..--------
.
..,.**
"'~&A
~ ..,.......Ing.. I....r:=:....--
* It- ~--.__. r'-''::==' 1.1.....'OIrtitJthotthJl.planWOllN\llPO'*lb)'.,....or.UftCMrm1c1ir~t
.. -- ----- =r1r&.T;:JUo.l~ ::-.::::. ~.':.~t~ :" ~~ .......... ProfftwianaI (ngMMr ....,
Dot. 2-4-00 I SHEET nTtE
~Plir
""'on PC
SITE PLAN
.....
........--
RNI"
OWNER DAVID-BERNARD
BUILDERS. AND DEVELOPERS
PROJECT
WESLEY COMMONS
~~ i
ill I
lJ ,
I
\
....\
1,
\\ :1
\ :~
I\!~
111<
I,
jO.,.. ,I: i!~.
lllW
II,Z
IIZ
111:f
II
III
II
lJ1
II
(;' ~
I I,
1/1
~ I
I I
\ I ~
I II
J.\ j
II
~
Illl
"I
.jill'
1 ~
1'1
II
1'1
II
111\
1'1
II
II
II
I'
II
~; -=
I-
I
.,
"
I'
ill
n\:
IIIII1
I II
u( I
nl' I
I. \ I
I 'I
I ,\1
u~ J
r
:1--
1
t
\ I
: I
r\ I
\ \ n I
II \ \ \ II
:IIIUI
ill I L
U/
I
I
~
0\
1---;;
~Il~
:11111 (( ~J
c
~ 100
,
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
98647-ST.OWC
.
.
.
Golden ValleyTown Square - Commercial Building
Parking Access Easements
It is agreed that the adjacent Rottlund Hom.es townhouse project and CommonBond
aparbnent project shall have the following defined access easements to the portions of
the commercial parking areas described below:
1. The Rottlund Homes townhouse project shall have an access easement to the bottom
level only of the structured parking on the northwest corner of the commercial lot,
for visitor parking, at all times except from 8:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday.
2. The CommonBond apartment project shall have an access easeme.nt to all areas of
parking created by the commercial project for visitor parking only I with the
exception of the parking immediately in front of the cODlmercialbuilding (along the
east and north sides), at any time except hom 11:30 a.m.-l:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday.
l . , .,~
.
.
.
. ...
~E""" eEl"'!;. T ;-==,:r) '\
\R,'" " ,~.A.r...-" \
\ GeT18 'S:J~9 .
U2Y:~ ..:::. -
1Jn~(Jl<a1ffflr~)
BROOKSTONE.INC.
October 15, 1999
7400 Metro Blvd.. Suite 212
Edina, Minnesota 55439
6/2.837.9167 phone
612.837.8010 fax
Mr. Mark Grimes
Director of Planning/Economic Development
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427
Dear Mark:
Per our last meeting, you asked me to provide the following information to you concerning
the proposed co:inmercial development on the Area-B site at Winnetka and Golden Valley
Road in Golden Valley.
. Total parking provided.
....':.,;
..<'. .;:.~ .
. Outline of pre-lease and targeted uses for the project. ,i/; .
. . . ,'. .~'t~:
. Variances in our plan from standard regulations in th~ommercial zoning district.
Total Parking Provided and Requir~d
Our current plan provides for parking in the follbwing thre:.,:~eparate areas:
.;:..t:' "
?f;';~:":'
A. Surface parking in the front and sides of the building will provide 55 stalls for quick
in-and-out retail customer use. .;....
B. Surface parking beneath the deck at the rear of the building will provide 45 stalls for
employees and destination-oriented customers, plus some off-peak usage by
overnight guests of adjacent homeowners and renters.
C. Parking on top of the deck at the rear of the building will provide 47 stalls for
overflow retail customer parking, some limited employee parking,. and limited
short-term guest parking (again, off peak) for CommonBond's project.
In total, we are providing 147 parking stalls and, I believe, thatthis will be sufficient given
the complimentary usage of parking by different users at different times. Essentially, the
peak demand by the office users will be between 8:30 a.rn. and 12-Noon, and 1:30 p.rn.-5
p.rn. Monday through Friday. The retail peaks are during the lunch hour Monday through
Friday, somewhat late in the' afternoon and early evening and on weekends. On a pure
code basis, and using 1 per 200 square feet for retail space, rather than 1 per 150 square feet,
we have a requirement for 167 parking stalls. Given the complimentary nature of the
parking usage, I feel comfortable with this gap. Another way to look at this is that at 1 per
200, including the basement retail, we would require 106 stalls and even atl per 150 and
again including the basement, we would require 141 stalls. Given that when there is peak
REAL ESTATE ADVISORY SERVICES. INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
/
.
.
.
...,
demand from the retail side there will be very little usage by the office side, and given that
we have more than enough parking to meet the total retail demand even at its maximum,
again, I feel comfortable with this parking ratio.
Pre-Lease and Targeted Users
We currently envision the final plan to incorporate the following square footages:
A. Ground floor retail space - 17,200 square feet
B. Basement retail space - 4,100 square feet
C. Basement small tenant storage -1,800 square feet
D. Basement production space (Photo Fast) - 3,600 square feet
E. Second level office space - 11,300 square feet
Of the square footage outlined above, the following pre-leasing is anticipated.
1. RetailSpace
Davanni's
Photo Fast
Best Wishes Floral
Custom Trim
Salon 6
Leslie's Alterations
Golden Valley Realty
Golden Valley Animal Hosp.
SUBTOTAL
4,546 square feet
3,287 square feet
1,200 square feet
648 square feet
912 square feet
432 square feet
301 squarefeet
2,700 square feet (Basement)
14,026 square feet
2. Office Space - We have a pre-lease accomplished with Vanman Companies, a
partner in the Area B project, for approximately 4,500 square feet, and expect the
balance to be leased to a variety of local professional and service firms including
chiropractors, dentists, attomeys, accountants, etc.
3. Of the basement retail space we anticipate pre-leasing 2,500-3,000 square feet to
the Golden Valley Animal Hospital, which is included above.
4. The production space of 3,600 square feet is fully pre-leased to Photo Fast and we
expect the other 1,800 square feet to be used for small storage by individual
tenants.
With regard to other targeted uses on the retail side, we, of course, want to be open and
flexible as we move forward with our leasing efforts after construction commences but
specifically, we have targeted some of the following:
. 6;r
'f
.
.
.
a. Take-out oriental food
b. Small coffee shop
c. Dry-cleaner
d. Travel agency
e. Nail! tanning salon
f. Optical
g. Financing services
h. Bakery outlet
i. Bike shop
Variances
The extreme tightness of the site in and of itself and in relation to the adjacent uses has
required that we design the site up to the property line. For this reason, we are requesting
the following variances from the standard set back requirements in the commercial district:
A. Front yard setback (Winnetka Boulevard) - The building meets setback requirement
of 35 feet but will be used for parking rather than landscaping.
B. Front yard setback (Golden Valley Road) - The building meets setback requirement
of 35 feet but will be used for parking rather than landscaping.
C. Rear yard setback (west side) - The parking deck is within 5 feet of west property
line but the west wall of the building on the south end is setback more than 30 feet if
we make the change in the property line as discussed at one of our last meetings. In
both cases, there is no landscaping where lh of such setbacks are to be landscaped.
I trust that this is the information you require, but should you require any clarification
please do not hesitate to call.
RVM/bb
.....-. -.. --
--
.
C{;W\~ l3twJ
-..-. --- . ~
ZON1NG VARIANCE ITEMS -ZONE P.U.D.
SECTION 11.25 MULTIPLE DWELLING ZONING DISTRICT
SUBDIVISION 4
A. LOT AREA
REQUIRED: 1-2 STORIES, UNDERGROUND GARAGE.:
2500 S.FJUNIT X 25 = 62,500
PROVIDED: GROSS AREA: 60.722 S.F.
*
B. HEIGHT LIMITATION: PROJECT COMPLIES WITH
SUBDISTRICT M-1, MAXIMUM HEIGHT 3 STORIES.
C. PARKING SPACES
REQUIRED: 2 BDR UNITS
GARAGE 3 BDR UNITS
.
PROVIDED: 52.5 SPACES
NON-ENCLOSED:
REQUIRED 1:1
PROVIDED:
1_5 X 17 = 25.5 SPACES
2-0 X 8 ~ 16.0 SPACES
TOTAL 41.5 SPACES
GARAGE
*
25 SPACES
5 SPACES
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: 66.5 SPACES
* TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 57-5 SPACES (9 SHORT)
SUBDIVISION 5. MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS
A; YARD REQUIRED PROVIDED
* NORTH - CREEK (SIDE) 50' 33'
SOUTH - P.U.D. (SIDE) 0' 22'
'* EAST- R.O.W. (FRONT) 35' 20'
WEST - P.U.D. (REAR) 0' 20'
B: ." PARKING (OPEN) FRONT 35' O'
c: · OTHER DISTRICT EAST 25' 20'
D: LOT COVERAGE MAX 35% 33%
. 19.820 I 60,722
* ;; VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR DEVELOPMENT.
Syml'll8s MaIn! McKee Anociel8s, Inc..
01'/27/00 12:.27 FAX ~12 332 ~J~;26
SYMMES MAINI & M~~tt
--.
.
.
.
GOLDEN VALLEY TOWNHOMES
GOlDEN VALLEY. MN
PROJECT DATA
UNITS
16 - 2 STORY, 2 BEDROOM TOWNHOMES
8 - 2 STORY, 3 BEDROOM TOWNHOMES
1 -1 STORY, 2 BEDROOM ACCESSIBLE TOWN HOME
25 TOTAL TOWNHOMES
PARKING
42 - FULL SPACES UNDERGROUND
8.5 - 17 HAlF SPACES UNDERGROUND
2 - ACCESSIBLE GARAGE
5 - SURFACE SPACES
51.5 TOTAL SPACES
SITE AREA
LOT ONE - 60,722 S.F. (1.39 A)
DENSITY -18 UNITS/ACRE
f.ROJECT #: 99422.01
DATE: 01126/00 - HO
Symmes Maini McKee A$$OCialllS. Inc.
..... .,... ....
.
.
.
.
VARIANCES REGARDING TOWN SQUARE
OF GOLDEN VALLEY
1. Winnetka Avenue (front yard) - 35' setback to be 100% landscaped. Building meets
setback however we have no landscaping in the setback area but we do in our
sidewalk area and in the city streetscape in the county right-of-way.
2. Golden Vallev Road (front yard) - 35' setback to be 100% landscaped. Building
meets setback but we have no landscaping in the setback area.
3. North Property Line Adiacent to CommonBond (side/rear yard) - 30' setback of
which % is to be landscaped. Building meets setback but none of setback area is
landscaped. Landscaping will be placed on sidewalk area along north side of
building.
4. West Property Une Adjacent to Rottlund (side/rear yard) - 30' setback of which % is:
a.
To be landscaped.
b. South side of west property line, building meets setback but is used for
driveway and sidewalk and incorporates no landscaping.
c. North side adjacent to deck - deck setback 5' and landscaping limited to
that area. '
--
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
February 8, 2000
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Mary Dold, Planning Assistant
Cancellation of Planning Commission Meeting for
February 14, 2000
Due to the lack of an agenda, there will be no February 14 Planning
Commission Meeting.
.
e