Loading...
10-24-05 PC Agenda AGENDA Golden Valley Planning Commission Joint Meeting with the Environmental Commission Design Standards Presentation and Discussion Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room Monday, October 24,2005 6pm I. Design Standards presentation and discussion by Barry Petit, Petit & Associates Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting 7pm I. Approval of minutes October 10, 2005 Joint Planning Commission and Environmental Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - PUD No. 65 Amendment #2 - Golden Valley Shopping Center Applicant: Trach Properties Address: 505 Winnetka Ave. N. Purpose: To allow the applicant to convert the freestanding building (former bookstore) at the south end of the Golden Valley Shopping Center to additional retail space. III. Reports on meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other meetings IV. Other business V. Adjournment . . . lIey Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: October 19, 2005 To: Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Presentation by Architectural Design Consultant Barry Petit to Planning Commission and Environmental Commission Barry Petit will be meeting at a joint meeting of the Planning and Environmental Commissions on Monday, October 24, 2005 at 6 pm. He served as mayor of Wayzata for 8 years up until a year or so ago. Prior to his service as mayor, he served on the Wayzata City Council and Planning Commission for 11 years. Barry is trained as an architect although he no longer is providing standard architectural services. He is now a design advisor for cities. During his service to Wayzata, he had a profound impact on the redevelopment of Wayzata. He is very committed to helping cities to come up with design principals in order to help guide future public and private development. Barry will share his thoughts and ideas about how cities can help to guide and.shape design in their communities. .t : . Joint Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission and Golden Valley Environmental Commission October 10, 2005 . A joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Environmental Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, October 10, 2005. Planning Commission Vice- Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 6 pm. Those present were Guest Speakers Barb Senness, Planning Director f Plymouth, Londell Pease, Associate Planner for the City of Blooming Mlazgar, owner of R.L Mlazgar Associates, City Council Member n Commissioners Eck, Hackett, Keysser, Schmidgall and Waldha a Commissioners Baker, Hill and Pawluk. Also present was Dire Development, Mark Grimes, Environmental Coordinator, AI Assistant, Lisa Wittman. I. Joint meeting with the Environmental Co Discussion of Lighting Regulations. Grimes explained that the current City Cod the City Council has directed the Commi and come up with a lighting code. lighting regulations and that e other cities ordinances Pentel asked if the standards wil and industrial properties. Londe attorney has said that they can have policies regard' ntial street lighting as well as commercial ity loomington, stated that their city hting standards for public property, but that they y lighting. Barb Senness, City process that Plymo examples of g an ordinance, thei ti lighting p discuss.ed '%;11'\ many oft; , ave a PowerPoint presentation and explained the h when writing their ordinance. She showed some designs and discussed the purpose of their lighting , aximum wattage/shielding, maximum mounting height, light trespass limitations, and prohibited lighting. She Dark Sky (IDA) Model Lighting Ordinance and stated that r ordinance came right out of the IDA Model. h att formula and stated that there will suddenly be brighter light as light fficient if the watt formula is used. Baker stated that the ordinance would nged as light bulbs become more efficient. Grimes asked Senness if Plymouth requires lighting plans to be submitted with applications. Senness said yes, applicants have to submit alighting plan. Senness talked about some of things Plymouth has learned throughout the process of writing their lighting ordinance. . Pentel asked about regulating office building interior lighting. Senness stated that Plymouth has not addressed interior lighting or residential lighting because they've only . . . " Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 2 had issues in their commercial and industrial areas. Pentel stated that as the City reconstructs its residential streets she thinks we'll encounter issues regarding street lights. Baker referred to the wattage formula versus footcandles and stated that they ought to be concerned about reflection. He said he thinks there are some issues that will be missed if footcandles aren't used. Senness explained that all the elements of the ordinance are looked at all together so that doesn't happen. Hill asked Senness if Plymouth requires developers to come to them now and not just the state electrical inspector. Senness explained . a developers to submit an as-built survey to the City as well as th te so they can do enforcement. oposals quires . pector Pentel asked Senness if Plymouth deals with remodeling pro they deal with any project where more than 50% of th . e is Pease discussed the City of Bloomington's Iighti tated that Bloomington SL has had their lighting ordinance in place for 11 y~,ws. He.ted th t developers in their City can't do anything without a plan review ,~}Jd t't they r' uire any fixture being replaced has to be replaced with a code 4W(t'pi" r. explained that Bloomington also uses the wattage formula becaus Ii and evenness in lighting. He stated that Bloomington's ordinanc s is the maximum allowed in a residential area and that they re n-essentiallights be turned off one hour after a ,business closes. He dis e obstacles Bloomington faces and some of the changes they aking to their lighting ordinance such as the wattage per square foot ai. rking spaces. Senness added that Plymouth is starting so see more and~ s and that they will be taking a look at those requirements. Mark Mlazgar, represents 50 r with out 10 Counci thought lea~ed abo won'€1 ul b seriou need to '1<<,+ ar Associates, a lighting company, stated that he darers. He explained that there are ways to get uniformity owed the Commissioners a light meter and stated that the level of 50 footcandles with good uniformity. He said he ~9d t olden Valley is talking to these other cities about what they've r~,tjng ordinances. He added that the watts per square foot formula is se"'of the energy savings and that it is important that cities are getting Senness added that the Model Ordinance is good because cities don't lighting expert on staff because it uses more formulas. Baker asked what light he sees when he looks up in the night sky even when he is located a couple hundred feet away from streetlights and highway lights. Mlazgar stated that it is called sky glow and it is uplighting produced from all the lights in a metro area. Baker said that is why he is concerned about not using footcandles as a measure and thinks the ordinance should be tailored to address reflectivity. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 3 . Grimes asked Pease how Bloomington deals with. car dealerships. Pease said that their ordinance allows 20 footcandles for car dealerships. Grimes asked Pease and Senness how their police departments feel about their lighting ordinances. Pease stated that their police department is not involved in the lighting reviews. Senness said that theirlighting consultant showed their police department a lot of examples of various properties which really helped them accept their ordinance. Baker asked Pease and Senness if either of their ordinances address Iigh.n up guy wires or cell towers. Pease stated that those types of issues fall under lations. 0,,,,he City needs two Planning Commissioners to be on the Sidewalk sl<ed for volunteers. Keysser and Eck said they would volunteer., Grimes erre to the 1-394 Corridor Study Draft Principles and stated that the consultant made afew changes based on the last Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Keysser and motion carried unanimously to adopt the 1-394 Corridor Study Principles dated October 10, 2005. invent Eck said it is frustrating to him because it seems like every comm the wheel. Pease explained that every community wants somet Senness stated that for the most part Plymouth maintained t~ .. there were things that were unique to Plymouth. Mlazgar sta~~ are really dynamic, not static and need to be frequently revie "1'} The joint Environmental Commission and Planning I. . Approval of Minutes September26, 2005 Plann' MOVED by Eck, seconded by September 26, 2005 minut n carried unanimously to approve the II. e Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City ppealsand other Meetings III. . IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 pm. \\ I, .. Hey PI,anoing, 763-593-8'095 I 76~.5~3~1 09 (fax) Date: October 20, 2005 From: Golden Valley Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development To: Subject: . ., Informal Public Hearing on Amendment No.2, Planned United Development . . (PUD) N(). 65, Golden Valley Shopping Center to AlloW Expansi()n of the Freestanding Building at 505 Winnetka Ave. N. (now .vacant. and former loca~ionofa bookstore) for the Purpose of Providing Additi()Oc;l1 Retilil Space-Trach Properties, Applicant ' .' , . . . TrachPropertieshas requested'an amendment to PUDNo.65 in order that the existing buUding at 550 Winnetka Ave. N. (former bookstore. and now vacant) may be expanded to provide additional retail space in the shopping center. The 550 Winnetka bUilding 'now' has a buUding footprint of 4900 sq. ft. After expansion, the building footprint would,be 9,390 sq. or about4500 additional sq; ft. The 550 Winnetka Ave. building was used as a bookstore for more than 20 years until it closed earlier this year. Prior to being a bookstore, the building had been used asa bank with a drive-up lane along the west side of the building. In 1995, a planned unit development (PUD) was issued to the Golden Valley Shopping Center. It was determined at that time thata PUD would be the most appropriate land use category for the shopping center.. The.PUD status eliminated some of the nonconformitiesthat'existed on the site including five buildings on a single parcel of land, two zoning categories (Commercial and Business and Professional Offices), landscape and setback issues and number of parking spaces. The PUD also reflects the new property lines after the widening of Winnetka Ave. in the mid-1990's and additional property obtained from MnDOT along TH 55. (I am including the PUD permit and maps from the 1995 PUD amendment process for your review.) . In 2002, there was an application for Amendment No.1 to the, Golden Vall.ey Shopping Center PUD No. 65 that would have permitted the construction of a TCF bank at the far west end of , the site. The plan included 6 drive-up lanes. Although the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 4-2 vote, the City Council denied the PUD amendment in September 2002. A copy of the resolution denying Amendment No.1 is attached. As indicated in the resolution, the main reasons for denying Amendment No. 1 related to traffic concern, elimination of green space within the PUD by the construction of the TCF bank and lack of improvement of the pedestrian circulation system within the shopping center with the Amendment No.1 plan. . . . The 505 Winnetka Ave. building is one of five separate buildings in the8.69acrePUD. The zoning of the great majority of the shopping center is commercial (about 90%). Only the west .7 acres where the violin store is now located in zoned Business and ProfessionaLOffiyes. The General Land Use Plan Map guides the entire shopping center as commercial. The proposed expansion of the 505 Winnetka Ave. building is consistent with both the zoning and the General Land Use Plan map designations for the shopping center. . Amending the Golden Valley Shopping Center PUD Any change to an approved PUD requires a PUD amendment. The amendn'lentprQCedure is essentially the same as the process to obtain an original PUD. This.includesthesubmittalof a revised site plan showing changes to the property. In the case of PUD No. 65, the PUD permit specifically states that the permitted uses allowed include 85,710 sq. ft. of building space in five different buildings. The usesinthos~buildings are limited to general retail (including restaurants), office and service retail. The proposed expansion of the 505 Winnetka Ave. building would expand the squareJootageofspace in PUD No. 65; therefore, the PUD amendment is required. The proposed use of the expanded 505 Winnetka Ave. building for retail and restaurant space would be consistent'Niththeuses permitted in PUD No. 65. (No drive-up or drive-through facilities are proposed as part of the PUD amendment.) The approved site plan that is partofPUD No. 65 does indicate that there are a total of 401 parking spaces for all uses within the PUD. Thispropo::;al will reduc.e the amount of parking in the PUD by 12 parking spaces (401 to 389). Description of Proposed Building Expansion The 505 W.innetka Ave. building is currently vacant. It was occupiedbyabookstoreforover 20 years before the doors closed earlier this year. The building is locatedatthe.southeast corner of the site with direct access to Winnetka Ave. via two driveways. The planistoexpand the existing building from its current footprint of 4900 sq. ft. to about 9380 sq. ft. This is done by adding to the west and east sides of the building as indicated on the site plan. The future tenants of the building will probably include restaurant and retail uses consistent with those permitted by the PUD permit. (At the informal public hearing, the owner or representative may be able to reveal the specific users for the building.) There will be no drive-up or drive-through windows with the businesses. The site and building plans indicate the changes that will be necessary for the new construction. The changes include a new faCf8de for the building. Also, therewiUbechanges to the parking lot around this expanded building. This includes the creation of an outdoor plaza for dining and additional green space south of the building. There are several issues that staff would like to highlight for Planning Commission review. These issues are listed below with staff comment: 1. Parking-The original PUD permit .for the Golden Valley Shopping Center indicates that the number of parking spaces should noUall below 401 spaces for the entire 8.68 acre site. The amount of parking has been more that adequate for the shopping center because of the mix of tenants that includes offices, service retail, retail and restaurants. The existing parking ratio is about 4.7 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of space. 2 . . . T, hi~"I','.."a,t"iOjS, '"slightly below the C, ity's cO,de requirement',o" f one ,space for each 1 $0 sq, " ft. of retail f1oor$p~ceandthe benchmark used by many cities of5spacesper 1000 sq. ij. ofretail space. Because many of the uses in the shopping center are not straight retail,'the4.7spaces per 10aO,sq. ft.haspr()venmore than adequate. ' ' ' , ,Thesiteplahthat has been submitted indicates the revised parking plan for the southeast' corner of the site to provide for the expanded building and 'new parking layout. As indicated on theJargersiteplaQ,therewill be a new parking layout for the southeast corner area of the site. The parking will be reduced by about 12 spaces (from 92 to 80) 'in that area. The City's traffic er1gineer, GlenVanWormer, PE, of SEH Inc., has indicated that the revised plan should work, with minor revisions. Also, Mr. VanWormer believes that the amount of parking in the area to serve the expanded building ,and the existing shopping center should be adequate,. Planning staff has been to the site numerous times over the past few weeks to view the parlqing situation. ,It appears that there will be adequate parking for the new building with the revisions shown on the site plan and with the excess parking, that is, available' in the shopping, center parking lot'o the. west of the building. Staff believes it is best to have a shopping center with adequate parking to meet the needs of tenants and is vibrant. It appears that the 390 " parking spaces in the shopping center adequate to meettheneeds of the tenants i'n the center. 2. Access and Traffic-It appears that the proposed expansion as per the site plan will actually have some, positive effects on traffic and access to the shopping center. The letter reportfrom Glen VanWormer, PE,dated October 4,2005is attached for yourrevif3w.'The letterindicates thatthe planwill work from an access and traffic standpoi,ntwith some minor revisions. City EngineerJeff Oliver, PE, has also written a memo dated October 18, 2005 that indicates that the PUDamendmentis conceptually acceptable with some additional information needed~(Please note that Mr. Oliver's memo states that the building will be torn down. This is incorrect. The existing building will be expanded.) 3. Setbacks-The 505 Winnetka Ave. building will be expanded to both the east and the south. The expanded building will be about 75 ft. from the Winnetka Ave. right-of-way line and about 30 ft. from the TH 55 right-of-way line. The existing building is now located about 95ft. from Winnetka Ave. and 37 ft. from TH 55 at its closest point. The amount of greens pace along Winnetka Ave. between the new parking area and the sidewalk will increase from about 4 ft. to about 8ft Along the south and east side of the building that is now all pavement, a greenspace and patio for outside dining will be created that will be about 8000 sq. ft. in area. Because of thisnewgreenspace, the reduced distance between the expanded building and TH 55 compared to the existing building will be mitigated. 4. Other Engineering Issues-As indicated in Mr. Oliver's memo dated October 18, 2005, , there are several other issues of concern regarding utilities and grading, drainage ,and erosion control. Mr. Oliver's recommendations will be made a part of the staff recommendation. 5. Dumpster Enclosures-At the time the TCF proposal was considered, one of the areas of concern was the construction of dumpster enclosures along the Golden Valley Rd. side of the PUD.Thedumpster enclosures do exist. However, the actual dumpsters are not completely within the enclosures. 3 w . . . This should be remedied. Also, there should be dumpster enclosuresconstru9t~dfor the two buildings at the west end of the property. The enclosures should be closed to view of the properties south of Golden Valley Rd. 6. Signage- The PUD permit for the shopping center states that the amountofsignage for the shopping center is limited to the amount that was on the site as of the issuanceofthe PUD permit in 1995. The permit states that the shopping center is limited two existing pylon signs (one for the shopping center and one for the 550 Winnetka Ave. building). There is also the right to have a monument sign at the far west end of the site to identify the shopping center. This has not yet been constructed. Staff recommends that the totalsignagefortheexpanded 550 Winnetka Ave. building be the amount that is permitted fora buildingofitsSi.zeJn the commercial zoning district. The pylon sign for the building (which now has no 'E:)ttE:)ring) may remain. However, the amount of signage that can go on th~ pylon sign shallb~>includ~din the amount permitted for the 550 Winnetka Ave. building. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval ofthe expansion of the 550 Winnetka Ave; building as indicated on the attached site plans. Although the overall parking for the shoppingcenterwiUdecrease by about 12 spaces, the revised layout is improved over the existing. situatioq..AISo, the overall parking for the shopping center is more than adequate to provide for the mix of retail, service retail, restaurant and offices in the shopping center. The increased green areas along Winnetka Ave. and TH 55 near the 550 Winnetka Ave. building'will beanoverallbenefittothe site. More than likely, there will be a patio for outdoor dining that adds to thevibrancyofthe Valley Square area. The staff is recommending the following conditions to approval:. 1. The site plan for the expansion prepared by WCL Architects and dated 10/13/2005 shall become a part of this plan. 2. The landscape plan prepared by WCL Architects and dated 10/13/2005 shallbeeome a part of this plan and be approved by the Building Board of Review. 3. The building plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Board of Review. 4. The recommendations of the City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, found in a memo to Mark Grimes dated October 18, 2005 shall become a part of this approval. 5. All dumpsters on the shopping center site shall be screened from view from Golden Valley Rd. Dumpster enclosures shall be utilized and dumpsters placed within the enclosures. (This means that new enclosures shall be constructed for the exposed dumpsterforthetwo westernmost buildings in the shopping center.) All dumpsters and recycling materials will be kept inside the 550 Winnetka Ave. buildings. 6. The overall parking for the shopping center is reduced from 401 to .389. 7. The total signage for the 550 Winnetka Ave. building (including the signage on the pylon sign) shall be limited to the amount permitted for a commercial building of its size in the 4 ... . ~ll1ll1etCi"lzonin9district.. The amount of signagefor the remainder of the buildin9S shall . relllain"as.i~". as per the existing PUD permit. :,,::' .',' ' i-i:,_'<:':',_,: _', ,',':,."_ ", ,'," ',", ,', """ I " , ' , , ' ' 8. iDumpsterenclosures must be constructed forall dumpster on the shopping center property byJune1,2006.The Director of Inspections, shall approve the enclosure design.' All' dumpst~rshall be keptwithin the dumpster enclosuresatall times. 9. The recommendations of Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Andersonfound inhis memo tbMark Grimes dated 1 0/6/05 shall become a part of this approval. " . . . Attachments: Location' Map (1 page) Applicant's Narrative (2 pages) , . Memo from City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, dated October 18, 2005 (3 pages) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal, Ed Anderson, dated October 6, 2005(1. page) Memo from SEH Transportation Engineer, Glen Van Wormer, dated October 4; 2005 (2 pages)' , ExistingPUD.permitandsmallsite plan from 1995 (5 pages) . , ' Picturesofthe Sit~(17pages) ,..' Resolution No. 02-57, dated September 3, 2002,denyingTCFsproposal(1 page) .' ' Surveys, site plans, building plans and landscape plans for expansion dated October 13, 2005 (6 pages) I 5 ~ "C~ ,. . f ''\..' . ; , . . . " .' ! . --_...< .. I ~ Z i 130 i I ~ Z \ ! \ \ 100 tMOl 8301 I- i z 8200 7101 .,,~ ',0""" ........, ..... ~"""""4: . 11 . . . ~. &; p,,'~ I, S~pt~rnber9, 2005 ,<' ....~ Mr. Mark Grimes Director of Planning City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: PUDAmendment Golden Valley Shopping Center Dear Mark. Asdiscussed.at our previous meetings, Trach Properties would lik~ to apply'for an amendmentto the existing PUD in place for the Golden ValleyShQPpitlg , Center.iThe area affected is only the small outbuilding.. .the old bookstore.. .in the parking lot south of the main shopping center building. Since the bookstore's lease expired, the Owner has had many opportunitiesto lease the building as is, to new tenants., However, becal,.lse of th~ buildings' importance, the "corner landmark" to the site, the OVl(ner, has decided to create an entirely new image for this building., In an attemptto offset some of the costs of renovation, the Owner has expanded the building footprintfrom 4,900 s.1jo 9,0005.1. The newspace wraps the existing building on both the east and west sides,giving us th~>opportunity to change the look of the building completely. As you can see from our plans, we have increased.th'esize of the building but at the same timewe have: . Increased the landscape area by 8,700 s.1. . '. Created a better link to the pedestrian overpass with a small plaza area and new landscaping. . Added an outdoor sitting area off the retail for patrons ofthe anticipated coffee shop. . Reduced the overall ,area of asphalt surface but also increased the parking 5tallcount by 7. . Redesigned the main drive access on Winnetka Avenue to reduce traffic conflicts on site and create more stacking space for cars leaving the site. In general, the site lighting, building utilities and storm water management are unaffected by this project. The Owner has requested a distinctive style element incorporated into the huilqing. In lieu of the typical but ever-popular "clock tower" approach, the Owner has requested a softer look, curves and forms that may evoke a reminisince of art deco. This was the inspiration for the curved tower forms at the main building corner. .G:\2005\41_GV BORDER BOOKS\LETTERS\L_909GRiMES.DOC ~ ~, ,WCL', ASSOCIATES, INC. " Architecture Interiors ~ 1433 Utica Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55416 Fax: (952) 541-9554 Phone (952) 541-9969 .I As mentioned, we are now eager to pursue this PUD Amendment. I . attached 15 copies of the plans. Please let me know if anything else is Sincerely, . . tZf2 David Clark, AlA Principal wCt Associates, Inc. cc: Ronald Trach - Trach Properties Enclosure G'\2005\41_ GV BOROER.BOOKS\LETTERS\L_909GHiMES.OOC ~ . . . .. .' .Memorandum Publi.c Works 763.593.8030 1763.~93;398a (fax~ "Valley Date: Octop~r18,2005 .To: Mark 'Grimes, Director of Planning and Development" . '. J<lfj'OIiVer. PE. City e:n9ineer~ R~View9f~endment fu pu&lUlden.valley Shopping .Cent~r. . From: subject: I Public Worksst~ffhasreviewed the plans submitted for the proposedAr1lendmen~ to . Planned Unit Development(PUD) 65, Golden Valley Shopping Center., The proposed PUD amendm~nt includes demolition and removal of an existing retail building and ' constructionofane,wbuilding. The existing PUD is located north of Trunk Highway 55, west ofVVinnetka.Avenue North and south of Golden Valley Road. Based upon this review, staff has determined that the proposed PUD Amendment is conceptually acceptable, but additional information i.sneeded prior t6~nalapproval' of the proposal. . Site Plan The proposed PUD amendment consists of removing the existing retail building in the southeastcorner ofthesiteand constructing a new building in the same location. In addition, revisions to the parking lot layout and landscaping along Winnetka Avenue and TH55 are included with the proposal. The proposed site plan was forwarded to the City's consulting traffic engine~r, Glen Van WormerofSEH, for review of the parking lot revisions, traffic patterns within the development and access onto Winnetka Avenue. The site plan review, dated October 4, 2005, is attached to this review for reference. Mr. Van Wormer's review concludes that the. proposed revisions appear to improve some aspects of traffic within the site and eliminate potential turning conflicts near the northern site access onto Winnetka Avenue. The proposed layout includes an isolated parking area between the two driveway accesses onto Winnetka Avenue. As outlined in the SEH review, a vehicle turn-around or."back out" must be provided at this location. G:\Developments-Private\G V Shopping PUD Amend\Memo101805.doc . . . The site plan submitted for review does not include any information regard i rig the existing public and private utilities on site. There is an existing MCES sanitaryse'N.E;!r force main that parallels TH 55 and crosses the extreme southeast corner of the site,. . Without this sanitary sewer shown on the plan, it is not possible to determin~ifthe proposed building expansion, which is southward from the existing building footprint, will conflict with the force main or the easement covering the facility. In addition,th~ developer proposes installation of a gas service and a transformerwithintheviciniiYof the easement over the force main. In order to determine if there areanypot~ntial conflicts, all public and private utilities and easements must be shown on the plans. The proposed development is subject to the review and comments oftheHerinepin County Public Works Department and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The developer has submitted a plan that indicates that landscaping willbeinstaltedin the southeast corner of the site. Additional plans and specifications regarding this landscaping must be submitted with the final plans for the PUD amen(bnent. Utilities The existing building on the development site is currently served withciiYsanitary sewer and water. However, the existing services are not shown on'the proposed plans. Additional information regarding sewer and water location and sizing must be submitted with the final plans for the PUD amendment. In addition, the utility plan mustprovide information on utility cutoffs and removals during demolition ofthe existing building. City staff reserves the right to require additional domestic or fire protectionwater. services, hydrants, valves, manholes or other utility appurtenances based upon review of the final utility. plans. Gradina. Drainaae and Erosion Control The proposed development is within the mainstem sub-district of the Bassett Greek watershed. Therefore, the plans are subject to the review and comment of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC). No permits to begin work on site will be issued until the BCWMC has approved the plans. The proposed development must comply with the Bassett Creek Watershed Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals. However, because the proposed plans disturb less than two acres of area, the installation of nutrient and sediment removal ponding is not required. The developer will be required to provide storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs) for this site. Staff reserves the right to require BMPs, including erosion control measures and environmental manholes based upon a review of the final plans. 2 .. .. . .. . l'hed~veloper will be required to submit a grading, 'drainage and erosion control plan, prep~redinaccordance with City specifications, with the final plan submittal 'for the PUD ' 'ame9dO'l~nt.Theplans will not be forwarded to the BCWMC for its approval until staff has apprQved the grading plan. " ' ':' ' SUnlmarv.andRecommendations Public Works staffrecommends approval of the preliminary plans, for the,pr()posed amendment toPUD65, Golden Valley Shopping Center, subject to the commen,ts contained in this review. The issues that must be addressed as part'c:>fthe final plan submittal include: 1. The site plan must be revised to include the locati,on of all City and private utilities, and easements within the site. " ' 2~ Installation of a turn-around in the parking lot b~tween the two ~ccess points onto Winnetka Avenue, as discussed in the October 4,"2005 review by SEH. 3. Subject tothe.review and comments of the Hennepin, County Department of Public Works and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. I 4. SubjecrtotheJeview and comments of the BGWMC. 5. Subject to the developer submitting a final utility plan and grading, ,drainage and erosion control plan, as outlined within this review. ' 6. ThEl developer must submit final plans and specifications for the landscaping adjacent to Winnetka Avenue. 7. Subject to the review and comments of other'City staff. G: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator Eric Eckman, Engineering Technician Ed Anderson, Fire Marshal Gary Johnson, · Building Official Mark Kuhnly, Chiefof Fire and Inspections 3 ~ . Public ~U~Y Memorandum Fire Departme...t 763-593-8055 I 763-512-2497 (fa,c) To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning & Zoning From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Subject: PUD Amendment for 550 Winnetka Avenue North Date: October 6,2005 cc: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections The Golden Valley Fire Department has received the proposed development plansfortheGold~n Valley Shopping Center PUD Amendment. The outbuilding located in the southparkinQ.lotis proposed as an increase in the building footprint. Listed below are the fire department's comments. 1. The installation of the fire suppression system for the proposed buildingwiUbedeSilf'ledin accordance with the current fire code standards. . 2. The proposed building and site shall have the required fire department access road and the installation of no parking fire lane signs in accordance with city ordinance. 3; The fire suppression system shall be monitored by a central station alarrncompany. 4. The main water line for the fire suppression system shall be a minimum 6 inch diameter to provide the proper water supply for the sprinkler system or provide calculations 0/1 the water supply demand for the building. 5. Provide a post indicator valve for the fire suppression system. The post indicator valve shall be electronically supervised by the fire alarm control panel. If you have any questions please call me at 763-593-8065. Thank you. . CC - IO!Jl3/0S m,kJ~ RECtD OCT 5 2005 RE: Golden Valley, Minnesota , Golden Valley Shopping Center ,Proposed Reuse of B. Dalton Bookstore SEHNo A..('rt)LD\T~,R01.00 1400__ Ms. Jeannine Qancy Public Works . Director City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley" MN55427-4508 Dear Jeannine: , ...) We have reviewed the concept site plan dated September 12, 2005 for the proposed redevelopment of the B. Dalton Book$ellerbuilding in the southeast comer of theGoldenYalley Shopping, Center. T1J.e proposed redevelopment provides that the existing building be expanded and 'reused, for, retail with modifications made, to the parking lot and landscaping area south and , east of the building. . , We previously reviewed sketch plans for this concept and pr.ovided aletter dated June 29, 2005 with our comments. Acopy of that letter is attached. In that letter, we made, a few specific comments relative to some minor traffic. concerns with the circulation and parking. patterns. These have generally been addressed in the site plan. We commented thatthereis a mixture of angle and 9(kiegreeparking onthe west side of the building. This ..has ,been. modified so that ,all parking is fora one-way, northbound roadway from the south to the north side. of the proposed building. This means that any traffic traveling west on the north side of the - building must turn right. This should not be a problem and the islands that are proposed will provide an area for placement. of proper signing. Our previous letter also mentioned some concerns with maneuvering for access by service vehicles at the southwest comer of.the building. The angle parking and removal of an island will make the maneuvering slightly easier. We do not anticipate that this would be a major problem given the type of trucks we expect with a retail building ofthis size. The parking lot layout on the east side of the building provides angle parking and should relieve some of the concerns with cut-through traffic, pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, and enhancements of the southwest comer ofthe shopping center. -- The site . plan also closes access from. the first parking aisle west of Winnetka Avenue to the main east- west roadway directly south of the main Golden Valley Shopping Center building. This would prevent the maneuver which City staff has seen, where southbound motorists make a right turn into the parking lot, cut through this parking aisle, and then make a right turn out of the second Winnetka Avenue driveway to continue south on Winnetka A venue in the right turn lane. The only problem with this concept is that it does not provide for a small backup area for vehicles leaving the northern most. parking stalls in this parking aisle. The backup area would be desirable in a configuration similar to that at the south end of the new parking lot on the east side of the revised building. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535Vadnaio: Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-5196 5tH is tin equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 651.490.2000 I 800.325.2055 I 651.490.2150 fax .' . . . Ms. Jeannine Clancy October 4, 2005 Page 2 There is also a new island placed on the entrance which would effectively prevent eastboUlld traffic from turning into the aisle on the east side of the shopping center building.. While weibelteve this aisle functions as a one-way northbound, the only access to it would be from Winnetka Avenue where the southbound right turn would be very tight, especially for any commercial vehicles, orthenorilibound left turn and immediate right turn from northbound Winnetka Avenue. This new i~landwillreduce.someof .. . .tne:-conffisioIrmdp6feiltiaJ.:coiiffiaS"iWThe=mters~~ifi_rW~li'.fiilm~-::mDunnndl~.1:t... circulation problems. With proper signing for turn prohibitions, the one"wayaisle.-island..delineatio~systemfor traffic circulation, and.parking should work well. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact me at 65 Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. ~lJktJtJ1ImM/ Glen Van Wormer, PE Senior Transportation Engineer nm Attachment c: Jeff Oliver, Golden Valley City Engineer Sue Mason, SEH John Hagen, SEH x:\fj\goldv\980IOO\l:onespoodeuceIcIancyIOO4OS.doc I, PROJECT 'ADDRESS: P.U.D., No. 65 City Council' Approva 1 February 7, 1995, , , CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY" MINNESOTA, USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT OEVELOPt1ENT Golden Valley Center Addition, P.U.D. No. 605 7901 Golden Valley Road, 505 Winnetka Avenue, 7860-8040, 8200, and 8224 Olson t1emorial High\'/ay, Golden Val1ey,>~1N' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1: That, part of the Northeast Quarter .ofthe South- east Quarter of Section 31"Townshipl18~Ran'ge211ying Northerly of the center line of the right 'of way of State" , . . .. , . . Trunk Highway No. 55 and Southerly of the center line of Sixth Avenue North except 'the Westerly 35 .00 feet . thereof and except that part thereof. which lies Easterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the East, line of said tract distant 487.25 feet North of the center 1; ne of sai d Trunk Hi ghway No. 55; thence run West at right angles to said East line,.fora distance of 45.00 feet; thence deflect left at an angle 90 degrees ,for a distance of 292.02 feet; thence deflect right along a tangential curve having a radius of 36.0 feet for distance of 35 feet more or less to the North line of said Trunk Highway No. 55 and there terminating, according to the Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Being registered land as is evidence by Certificate of Title No. 68467 1/2. Golden Valley Center Addition, P.U.D. No. 65 . . APPLICANT: ADDRESS: OWNER: ADDRESS: ZONING DISTRICT: PERMITTED USES: . Page Two Parcel 2: The Westerly 35 feet of the followin.g described tract: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the..SQuthE!a'stQuarter of Section 31, Townshi p 118, Range 21.1ying No.rtherlyof the cent,er 1 i neof the right of way of State Trunk Highway No. 55 and Southerly of the center -line ofSixtl1.AvenUeNorth, except that part thereof whi ch lies EasterlY<iof the.' follow- ing described 'line: Beginning at a pOint on the Eiast line of sa i d tract distant 487.25 feet Northofthe..certter 1; ne of said Trunk Highway No. 55; thence run West at right angl es to sai d East li ne for a di stance. of 45 feet; thence defl ect 1 eft at an. angl e of 90 degrees foradfstance of 292.02 feet; thence deflect right along a tangential curve having a radius of 36.0 feet for a distance of 35 feet more or less to the North line of said TrunkHigh~layNo.55and there terminating, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County~ Minnesota. Trach Properties 4020 Minnetonka Blvd., Minneapolis, Minnesota Trach Properties 4020 Minnetonka Blvd., Minneapolis, Minnesota Commercial and Business and Professional Office The permitted uses on thi s 85,710 sq. ft. shopping center in five separate buildings is limited to general retail (including restaurants), offices,and service retail. ..... ., Golden Valley Center Addition, P.U.D. No. 65 Page Three. . COt1PONENTS . . iA~ Land Use Components: 1. Land> uses within P.U.D. No. 65, ,shall be as indicated on.the approve.d 'site plan prepared by WirtanenClark !-arsen Architects, Inc. dated 111Q/95. The site plan is attached.and become part of this ,Permit. 2. The five buildings that make up the shopping center may be' u,sed for the following uses: Office o General Retai 1 incl udi ng Restaurants Servi ce Reta il o Sale of Seasonal Farm Produce by Admintstrative Permit. If.the City. am,ends its ordinances to allow for the sale o,f seasona.l farm prodl,Jce by Administrative Permit in the Commercial Zoning District"the owner of the shopping center may applYfdrsuch Administrative Permit. lfsuch a Permit is granted, the saTe of se.asonal,farm pro- duce<mayoccur without amendment t.o the P.U.D. . o Other than those specified above \1ouldrequire an amendedP.U.D. 3. An inventory of sign age at the Golqen Valley Shopping Center-as of the date of P.U.D. approval is on file withthe City of Gol,den.Valley. The amount of sign age existing on the site at the date of P.U~D. approval shall be the amount permitted on the site. Any changes to thesignage on site shall not exceed the amount of signageatthe time. of P.U.D.approval. The site is limited to two existing pylon signs and a future monument sign at the west end of the site as noted on the site plan. B. C ircu 1 at i on Component : 1. Access drives and parking shall be maintained as indicated on the site plan. Any changes to the parking and access shall maintain a minimum of401parking spaces. C. Subdivision: The final plat of P.U.D. No. 65 shall be filed by the appl cant with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of any building perm ts. The appli- cant shall give to the City proof of such fil i ng. . . . Golden Valley Center Addition, P.U.D. No. 65 Page Four It is hereby understood and agreed that thi s Use Permit is a<part of the City Council approval granted on February 7, 1995 re 1 at i ve to Pl anned<Ul'lit Develop- ment No. 65. BY: ~!~SL~ DATE: 1/ ~ ?-J~ 17 9~- WITNESS: ~tl&.fJ1fJ . WITNESS :~ f(Jf & BY: DATE: WITNESS: 1rJwy. .rJPA. ~ BY: DATE: 'Ie -- ,.- yor -qr- 7--'4- ~. lty Manager Warning: This permit does not exempt you from a 11 other. City Code provisions , regulations and ordinances. . . n u !: ;! it i! ~i oc 6" iI ~e "' II y I I , 1 I I I / "/, "I'" ' i ., / ,/ I / j, , / ii ! i i / /l //,' / / ,i , I I , I 'j 'I / ' / " / / ,/ , ; i I (' .. I " , ,/ ..... i / ,/ 5i"i ,"/' !'i~ "j : nil: ; V :'1 ' i ' ii 1'.'1,',/ !li ;!I, jl! III ~ ......,.. ~""'I. ~ ~ I i ! I I . . I i . ! ! I 11 ' j' t r . ~ L II II F j, Ii I: I! Ii II I: Ii I: I' ji l' L" ,,-., -, ~ YlrG\'f' NJ5frCDSIM u B , j'. ,~V ~ o ~l>l>l>~ Ii s:::H Ilf~.~. . ~ i I- ! ~ 9 o i ! !e! ei~ ~=~ ;:;: I I~ I l l,~i:' I, "i~I;~I;_11I1 ~"I','-Q.' P ~ . J I ; ~I ,J ;1':' ! ~ . - :if !,' , ' i ~ i;liI c; J , .~ i ~~{f ~~ I, " ;!' , .1!!I! ; ill iI .1 i Ill;i Iii, z. S! ';i '!d ~!= ~-J E;~t ~iQ cig .!~r ;:~ g!~ iZIII ,-Xl'J ~~~ w !ii~ i 'i!~a < :I i i" :! o i . ~ ~ s' ~! !.i :~~ r~ 6 . :h Fi w~. !ii Ell II! ulililill,l,l,lll! II! III In;! ;Resolution02-57 September 3, '2002 . Member . introduced the following resolution a"d moved its adoption: . .' RESOLUTION DENYING THE PRELIMINARY Dr=SI(3N pLAN . ApPLlOATION FOR AMENDMENT NO.1, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) NO. 65, GOLDEN VALLEY SHOPPING CENTER' , , VVH~REAS,ataregular meeting of the, City, Council on September3,2002, th~ City Oouncil considered a request for a preliminary design plan to amend PUD No. 65 that would allowforthe construction of a TCF Bank with six drive-up lanes; "a'nd, ' ,WHEREAS,after the, Council verbally expressed its., rationale, ,it denied the, preHminarydesign plan application forAmendmellt No.1, PUDNo. 65. NOW THEREFORE, ,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, oftheCity,of GO,lden VaUey that it denies the Preliminary Design Plan for Amendment No.1,' PUD No. '65, Golden Valley Shopping Center and memorializes its rationale as follows:, " '. J,. , . 1. TheTCFtBankwith six drive-up Janes will generate up t~ 1 ,800.tripsper day; This additional traffic will further aggravate an already congested traffic.sit~a~ion, at. the intersection of Golden Valley Road and Golden VaUeyDrive, and at the intersection of Winnetka Avenue and the driveways into the Golden Valley Shopping Center. This additional traffic will also increase the potential of vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. 2. The preliminary design plans submitted as part of this PUD a.mendmentdonot show any improvements to the pedestrian circulation systems for the shopping center or the, Valley Square Area. One of the key components of, the, Valley, Square RedevelopmentPlan has been to enhance the environment for pedestrians in this mixed-use area. This is of particular concern because over 150 housing units have been or will be completed and occupied prior to the end of 2002 north of the Golden' Valley Shopping Center. These new residents need to have good and safe pedestrian access to the Golden Valley Shopping Center in order to reduce potential vehicle/pedestrian conflict. No such pedestrian ,circulation improvements have been shown on the preliminary design plans. 3. The existing Golden Valley Shopping Center (PUD No. 65) has very little green space. In fact, the most significant green space within the PUD would be practically eliminated by the TCF Bank development. The Golden Valley Shopping Center's street setbacks are virtually non-existent. These street setback areas generally provide green space to a site. It is importantto maintain some larger green areas on a site, especially when most of the entire development is parking lot or building. Linda R. Loomis,' Mayor ATTEST: . Donald G. Taylor, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk.