The URL can be used to link to this page

02-13-06 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, February 13, 2006 7pm I. Approval of Minutes November 28, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - PUD No. 65 Amendment #2 - Golden Valley Shopping Center - Final Plan of Development Applicant: Trach Properties, Inc. Address: 505 Winnetka Ave. N. Purpose: To allow the applicant to convert the freestanding buildin9' (former bookstore) at the south end of the Golden Valley Shopping Center to additional retail space --Short Recess-- III. Discussion of Proposed Off-Street Parking Ordinance IV. Discussion of Revisions to the Multiple Dwelling and R-2 Zoning Districts V. Discussion of Increasing Permitted Square Footage for Accessory Structures, R-1 Zoning District VI. Discussion of Allowing Accessory Structures in the Business and Professional Offices, Industrial, Light Industrial and Commercial Zoning Districts VII. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings VIII. Other Business IX. Adjournment .. . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 28,2005 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, November 28,2005. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Commissioners Cera, Eck, Hackett, Keysser, Rasmussen, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, Finance Director, Don Taylor, Assistant Finance Director, Sue Virnig and Administrative Assistant, Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes November 14, 2005 Joint Planning Commission/City Coun Waldhauser referred to page 2 and clarified that she liked t dispersed in different "areas", not "buildings". Eck referred to the design guidelines section on should be inserted between the words "still" and MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldha the November 14 minutes with the vote because he did not attend t ried unanimously to approve es. Keysser abstained from the meeting. II. Presentation of Cap' Finance Director ent Program 2006-2010 - Don Taylor, City apitallmprovement Program (CIP). He handed out an ,rojects from the last year's CIP. the CIP and explained that this is where the future debt d and the bonded debt tax rate that the city will need to pay onds is shown. He referred to the bottom line and talked rate needed now, and in the future, to pay debt service and es imated total tax rate of the City to come up with the percentage of d to the total levy. He explained the percentage of the debt to the total starts to rise arily because of the Pavement Management Program. He explained that when the percentage gets in the 25% to 30% range of debt it gets to the point that city management and rating agencies worry that there won't be enough flexibility to raise money to operate the City. Taylor stated that in the next year or so, the staff will be looking at the Pavement Management Program to see if it may behoove the City to extend the program out past the scheduled .2014 completion date in order to extend the debt out and to maintain and/or lower that percentage. He said that staff is also going to be looking at the condition Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 28,2005 Page 2 . of all of the City's buildings in the next year also which could also add to the city's debt because repairs may be necessary. . . Taylor referred to page 16 and discussed the building fund which finances major building improvements such as roofs,.air conditioning systems, etc. . Waldhauser asked what the bonded debt tax rate has been in recent years. Taylor said it has stayed at about the same level. Keysserreferred to the current estimated tax capacity and said it is ho million and asked what the actual rate of increase has been. Taylor good and that it has gone up approximately, 7-8% total per year. Keysser asked about the city's bond rating. Taylor said the ci which is Moody's second highest rating. He explained that fund balance, per capita income, increase in market vaJuati City's ability to repay its debt. IsAa1 debt, general rmits and the Keysser asked if the City is getting feedback fro said they are concerned about the Golden Hills re-financing several bond issues andwor . its bond rating . Taylor nt District, but that the City is the Aa1 rating. Hackett.asked what the City does to the Pavement Management Prog extending the program a little fu though it would take longer t ~el below the 30%. Taylor referred to .nedthere is a debt issued every year so the levy to at least remain level even Hackett asked what impa that any growth adds over more value whic velop ent and increased density has. Taylor stated ally not a lot of new services so the tax levy is spread tax rate. ment Management Program and asked what percentage is nd what percentage is paid by the homeowner. Taylor said I assessment paid by the homeowners and 80% is levy. He I~. special assessment portion would also help with debt and is Id'be looked at in the future. Keysser ask the pavement management assessment amount is set by ordinance. Taylor explained that City Council sets the unit assessment each yearwhen it adopts the fee ordinance. Keysser suggested lengthening out the bond term, thereby lengthening the assessment term. Taylor stated that the bond terms have been lengthened in the past, but that the assessment terms have not in order to bring money in faster. Taylor stated that the city's pavement management program is really the way to go.in Golden Valley because streets have to be reconstructed and it is better to do three or four 4 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 3 . miles of street at a time, over a longer period of time, rather than doing them all at one time. He stated that Moody's recognizes that also. Eck asked if most people payoff their special assessments right away to save the interest. Virnig stated that approximately 40% of people have pre-paid their assessment in 2005. Eck asked if when the City goes out for bids on the various projects in the CIP what happens ifthey come in higher than what has been allocated. Taylor explained that bids go to the City Council and if there is a difference it comes out of the fu lance. Eck asked Taylor if, in general, he finds that what is allocated is sufficie aid that that most of the estimates are adequate but occasionally they need s t. -up ork, and the sortium. Rasmussen referred to the project to scan records. She ask system for city records. Taylor stated that records are bac network is backed up and stored of site at LOGIS, the City' Keysser asked what the City's policy or target is certain percentage of operating expenses in the talking to the Council about that currently. He st have the fund balance be somewhere ar e fund balance at a s. ylor stated that staff is the general fund, the goal is to xpenditures. . MOVED by Eck, seconded by Ras recommend approval of the 2006 with the Comprehensive Plan. carried unanimously to provement Program as it is consistent III. Approve a new P :,1..-394 Corridor Study '\{jJ- Grimes reminded the meeting held on (URS) add anoth sustainable rs that at their joint City Council/Planning Commission .;5 it was suggested that the planning consultants t list of Corridor Study Principles regarding "green" and e proposed new language is as follows: 8. development and work to re-establish a balance between urban s. Encourage the application of green building and infrastructure mples include low-impact development that maintains the natural functio land and reduces stormwater runoff, resource conservation and the use of renewable systems in the new construction. Eck referred to the proposed new principle and stated that the last sentence should read "Examples include low-impact development that maintains the natural functions of the land, reduces stormwater runoff, and fosters resource conservation and the use of renewable systems in new construction." . Cera stated that the word "re-,establish" should just be "establish". Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 4 . MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval ofthe additional Corridor Study Principle with the changes discussed. IV. Discussion of Proposed Off-Street Parking Ordinance Grimes stated that the proposed off-street parking ordinance went to the June 14, 2005 Council/Manager meeting for review. He explained that he made some changes after that review and would now like the Planning Commission to review it again so it can go forward to the public hearing process. He stated that all the reference arking that are currently in the individual chapters of the zoning code need to be ta ce this proposed ordinance is adopted. He added that URS Planning Co s t, Su ne Rhees has reviewed this proposed ordinance and suggested es that he will incorporate into the version that comes before the Planni r a public hearing. . Rasmussen referred to the chart located in Subdivisi 45, 60, 75 and 90 referred to. Grimes stated that at the numbers parking angles. Hackett asked about compact cars. Grimes refe percent of parking space to be designate contains 50 or more spaces. ivision U which allows 10 only if the lot, ramp or garage Keysser asked about the dimensi Grimes stated that a suitable pia be looked at on a case by c reduces the amount of pa aces for compact cars. be submitted to the City and they would ckett added that allowing smaller parking spaces Cera asked if the ordi snow in the winter mo parking lot will 10 p ses the number of parking spaces that are reduced to xplained that the assumption that is made is that a parking spaces in the winter time. d of Zoning Appeals should be made aware of this new I rification about the chart shown in Subdivision H. Grimes explained d that the City would like to see 9-foot wide parking spaces. Waldhauser suggested that applicants be given credit for on-street parking spaces. She referred to Subdivision 2(E) and said that the word "cars" should not be plural. Eck referred to page 297 of the existing zoning code and asked about the job titled Director of Zoning and Community Services. Grimes stated that used to be a position in the City, but it has changed so he will make the necessary correction. . Waldhauser said she would like to see a more positive statement about permeable parking lots. Grimes stated that the Met Council doesn't recommend permeable parking Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 5 . lots in this type of climate. He noted that there is some language regarding permeable pavers in Subdivision 2(F)(1). Waldhauser said she would also like to see more specific language about the minimal amount of interiorand exterior landscaping of parking lots~ Grimes suggested that he and Waldhauser talk to Environmental Coordinator, AI Lundstrom about the landscaping issues. V. Discussion about repealing sections of the Zoning Code regarding parking requirements after the adoption of a new Parking Ordinanc . Grimes referred to the sections of the existing Zoning Code that and stated that they will need to be repealed upon adoption of Ordinance. g issues VI. Discussion of Revisions to the Multiple Dwelling Grimes stated that this is another ordinance that working on for awhile. He explained that there i in the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Pia stated that staff has gone through the Zo zoning districts in order to be compara Residential) and R-3 corresponds w' Comprehensive Plan. R-4 and Se 12 units per acre and correspon He stated that currently the (Two Family Residential) . districts. He stated that th it clearer. mmission has been n the density numbers to the City Attorney. He come up with the following nsive Plan. R-2 (Two Family .;,nsity category on the Housing Zoning districts allow more than sity category in the Comprehensive Plan. as R-1 (Single Family Residential) and R-2 Dwelling District, which has several sub- ions would simplify the Zoning Code and make Rasmussen ask services refe t I Services Class I. Grimes explained that essential ires,cable wires, utilities, etc. posed R-2 Zoning District and asked about the reasoning for one kitchen and one kitchenette. Grimes explained that there have o ant to cre~te two kitchens in order to create a separate apartment . Waldhauser asked why mother-in-law apartments are not allowed. She said she would like to make them possible. Grimes stated that allowing mother-in-law apartments is creating a separate unit and that only one unit is allowed in the single family zoning district. He added that the Planning Commission could direct staff to look at allowing mother-in-Iavv apartments in the R-1and R-2 zoning districts. Keysser stated that he didn't want rental units to be permitted in the R-1 zoning district. Grimes stated that it is hard to enforce but that he would look into the possibilities. Hackett suggested that Grimes look at the City of Stillwater's requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 28, 2005 Page 6 . VII. Discussion of Increasing Permitted Square Footage for Accessory Structures, R-1 Zoning District Grimes stated that currently, the Zoning Code limits the size of accessory structures in the R...1 Zoning District to 1,000 square feet. He explained that the proposed ordinance would permit the following amount of accessory structure parcels up to 10,000 square feet in size would be allowed 1,000 square feet of accessory structure space, parcels 10,000 to 15,000 square feet in size would be allowed 1,250 square feet of accessory structure space and parcels greater than 15,000 square feet would be allowed 1,500 square feet of accessory structure space. . Cera stated that 1,500 square feet is as big as a house. Waldha ordinance say that accessory structures can't be bigger than t stated that atthe Board of Zoning Appeals issues come up W bigger accessory structures for storing cars or boats. Grim been trying to get people to store their things inside a struct that the reo She o build City has Keysser suggested lowering the proposed amou allowing.1 ,000 square feet of accessory structu in area and 1,250 square feet of accessory stru square feet in area. The Commissioners would change the language in the prop Commission for a public hearing. / age. Cera suggested o to 15,000 square feet for lots larger than 15,000 suggestion. Grimes said he bring it back to the Planning VIII. Discussion of Allowing Professional Office it Districts ctures in the Business and Light ndustrial and Commercial Zoning 'ng Code doesn't allow accessory structures in the ndustrial, Light Industrial and Commercial zoning been some requests from business owners in Golden ctures. He said that if accessory structures were allowed in ners would not be able to serve food or alcohol in them and ted 25 feet away from the entrance because the City does not structures to be tied to the smoking ordinance. there is some discrepancy between the language in Subdivision )(2). Grimes said he would take a look at the language. . Rasmussen suggested waiting a year until the smoking ban dies down. Grimes said if that is what the Planning Commission wants to recommend that would be fine. Eck asked why they would care if people smoke in these structures as long as they are 25 feet away from an entrance. Keysser said he wouldbe ok with allowing accessory structures in these zoning districts. Schmidgall said he is concerned about how the accessory structures will look. Cera said that allowing these accessory structures is creating outdoor smoking areas. Grimes said he would.make the changes that have been.discussed and br-ing it back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. IX. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings ion that the developer for the Olympic Printing site is having a on December 15 at 6:30 at Golden Valley Lutheran Church. He t he knew about their proposal. Grimes stated that they haven't submitted plication yet, but they have talked about building office, retail and condominium space. Keysser stated that he attended a meeting with the Chairs of all the City Council and thatthey need to make a couple of minor chan s said that the Council would also like to see an annual report fr h regarding issues they've discussed and issues they'd like to talked about the "McMansion" issue and lot coverage ratio into possibly changing the current lot coverage ratios. ns and the wS.He ns that they d like to look Schmidgall stated that the City of Bloomington h ability of large lots to be subdivided. Grimes sta restrictions on their lots with covenants or deed the interns do some research on what ot strictions regarding the e wners can put He stated that he will have e doing. . X. Other Business Rescheduling or Canceling t Meeting. 05 Regular Planning Commission The Commission dec' Grimes stated th December 27. Ke he would tal ing on having their holiday party on December 13 or es eo having the party on December 12. Grimes stated that out December 12. -'\jt> XI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9 pm. . . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: February 8, 2006 To: Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Final Review of Various Zoning Ordinance Revisions Prior to Public Hearing Staff has prepared the final draft of several zoning ordinance changes as listed on the February 13, 2006 Planning Commission agenda. Prior to these changes going to an informal public hearing in front of the Planning Commission, staff would like to have one final review by the Commission in order to catch any errors or omissions. After this final review, the informal public hearing would be held by the Planning Commission. After the informal public hearing, the Commission would vote on a recommendation on the ordinance changes so that the City Council could begin their public hearing process. ~ 11.TCrm . SECTION 11.70. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS. Subdivision 1. Purpose and Application. The purpose of requiring and regulating off-street parking and loading is to prevent congestions on public rights-of-way and private roadways and to promote the safety and general welfare of the public. The following minimums are established for off..street parking and loading based on the use of land and structures. If a change of use occurs, the new use shall comply with the off-street parking and loading requirements. . . Subdivision 2. Design Standards A. Site Plan. Application for construction of new buildings, expansion of existing buildings, reuse of existing buildings and establishing or changing the use of property, shall include a site plan or plot plan for parking which is drawn to scale and dimensioned which depicts the location and number of off-street parking spaces consistent with this ordinance and which includes provisions for storage and/or removal of snow. B. Access and Curb Cuts. All off-street automobiles parking facilities shall be designed with appropriate means of vehicular access to a street or alley and with adequate maneuvering area. Detailed plans may have to be submitted to the City Engineer for approval of all curb cuts or driveway openings before a permit will be granted. C. Use. Required off-street parking and loading areas and the driveways providing access to them shall not be used for the storage, display, sale or rental or repair of goods or for the storage of inoperable vehicles with the exception of garage sales. D. Lighting. 1. Where artificial lighting is provided in parking lots, it shall be directed perpendicular to the ground and arranged to reflect away from any residences, street or highway. AlIliQht fixtures shall minimize qlare and spillover from the site. E. Dimensions for spaces. All required off-street parking spaces shall be at least 9 feet in width and at least 18.5 feet in depth, except for handicapped spaces and compact cars spaces if allowed by the city. F. Surfacing- Construction Standards. 1. Parking areas and driveways shall be surfaced with an all- weather dustless material. Parking lots containing more than 6 spaces and access drives, except for landscaped areas, shall be covered with asphalt, brick, concrete pavers (including grass-crete or other permeable pavers where deemed appropriate) or concrete with proper surface drainage as required by the city. The finished surface shall be capable of carrying a load of 2,000 pounds per square foot. (Normally a 2-inch blacktop surfacing on a 4-inch base or 5 inches of portland cement will meet this requirement.) GOLDEN VALLEY CC G. Grade, Drainage and Curbing. I. 1. Grade. In general, grades shall not exceed 5% and shall. meet the following standard: Private roads, driveways (other than single family), parking lots, and loading docks exposed to the elements shall have grades of not less than .5 percent nor more than 4 percent in order to provide adequate drainage and maneuverability of vehicles. Grades in excess of 4 percent will be reviewed for approval based on: the amount by which the grade exceeds 4 percent, number of slopes, length of slopes, starting and stopping areas and their grades( angles and curvatures, traffic volumes, parking turn-over, turning and intersection factors, road-way width, lineal feet and/or number of spaces with grades over 4 percent, sight distance and obstructions and alternative routes. 2. Drainage. Off-street parking areas shall be designed to drain to properly dispose of surface water. Alternative methods such as "rain gardens" m3Y bo encour3ged by are encouraqed by the city. Detailed plans for drainage m3Y h3vo to be shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. \. 3. Curbing. Parking lots containing more than 6 spaces shall be delineated by a concrete box curb or concrete curb and gutter extending at least 6 inches above and 6 inches below the surface. The curb may have cuts for drainage. Exception: Some exception for "rain gardens" may be allowed provided suitable controls are provided to prevent cars from parking beyond the intended limits. H. Parking Layouts. Required off-street parking consisting of 6 or more spaces shall be consistent with the layout alternatives and dimensions specified below except handicapped spaces and, if allowed by the city, compact car spaces. Parkin" An"le to Curb or Lane Dimension Diagram 450 600 750 900 Stall width parallel to aisle * A 12.7 10.4 9.3 9.0 Stalllenath of line B 25.0 22.0 20.0 18.5 Stall depth C 17.5 19.0 19.5 18.5 Aisle width D 12.0 16.0 23.0 24 Stall depth, interlock E 15.3 17.5 18.8 18.5 Module, edoe of pavement to interlock F 44.8 52.5 61.3 63.0 Module, interlockino G 42.6 51.0 61.0 63.0 Module, interlock to curb face H 42.8 50.2 58.8 60.5 Bumper overhana (typical) I 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.5 Offset J 6.3 2.7 0.5 0.0 Cross aisle, one-way L 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 Cross aisle, two-way L 900 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Minimum inside turning radius for fire lanes -- 45 45 45 45 Parking or drive aisle setback to principal 0 10 10 10 10 structure Landscape Traffic Islands P See Diaoram_ Landscaped Islands Q See Diagram . Parallel parking: Stall width (8.5 or 9 ft.) Stall length (22 or 23 ft.) GOLDEN VALLEY CC i. . . *Required handicap stalls and ramps shall be per State Code. *Some minor deviations from this table may be allowed in special circumstances related to the number and percent of spaces involved and site-dimensional constraints which support a minor deviation. 1. Traffic Islands. Traffic islands shall be provided based on the circulation system, number of spaces, frequency of use (turnover rate) and other relevant factors. Traffic islands can be landscaped to meet interior landscape requirement. I. Landscaping-internal and external. The minimum required landscaped areas, within which there shall be no parking or drive aisles (except driveway access from street) in Multiple Dwelling, Institutional, Business and Professional Office, Commercial, Light Industrial, Industrial and Terminal Warehouse Zoning Districts, shall be: 1. External Landscaping (a.) Front Yard - 35 Feet (see M on diaqram) (b.)Side and Rear Yards- One-half (1/2) of the required building setback. (see Nand K on diaqram) 2. Internal Landscaping. Parking lots designed and constructed for more than 40 off-street parking spaces shall have at least 4 percent of the interior of the parking lot landscaped (live vegetation includinq shade trees) with each landscape break occurring approximately every 24 spaces. Such landscaping is expected to be in traffic islands, other islands or other areas used for drainage or light standard or exclusive landscape islands located within the interior portion of the parking lot. Such landscaped areas shall not be considered as impervious if essentially the ground is left open. A landscape plan shall be submitted as part of the site plan as required in Subdivision 2(A).The landscape plan shall be approved by the City Manager or his designee. All landscaping shall be guaranteed with a financial security for a period of two full growing seasons. J. Setbacks. Dimension Front ard setback of arkin to lot line Side and rear yard setback of parking to lot line 900 Diagram K** K** 450 ** Joint of combined parking facilities on separate lots as authorized and when constructed adjacent to a common lot line separating two (2) or more parking areas are not required to observe the parking area setback from such a common lot line GOLDENVALLEY CC \. . . Sample Parkina Diaaram . . - - . - . . 'f~t L; iiu Y" - . - - . .1 $* LotllM ---+1. . -. _ .. ... _ . _ _ IIiI -.. _ . __ _ -.. ,. _ .' . _ .. .. _. ""' .. . . --' From: Plymouth Ordinance GOLDEN VALLEY CC . ,e e . -. --.-.. 'F;~L;ii.Y._.' -..1 . . ~ tAtl.lM --')>1 I . . --, ""..,. ---.. _ --.. '" -,.. ...-.. '" -. - _;w............ III _...... _..... N <. lallii' tAt L._~ . ; .. - . . - . . - . .- . . -.' ~h''''''A' ...... . J nI aU11 i SSOClales Sel up 10 use wilh lable ab ve K. Fire Lane. Off-street parking lots may have to be designed to include fire lanes as determined by the Fire Marshal. L. Spaces Delineated. All required off-street parking areas consisting of 6 or more spaces shall be delineated by durable painted stripes at least 4 inches wide unless walls or columns are used to provide an equivalent means to delineate the spaces such as in an underground garage. M. Buffers. Boc::luse !f off-street parking lots are afteR located on the periphery of sites and in view of adjacent and nearby properties, the city m::lY roquire pmking Jet will require them to be screened with trees, shrubs, fencing, decorative walls, berms or some combination of these in setback areas along one or more lot lines. N. Location. Required off-street parking shall be located on the same lot as the use it serves, except where parking spaces cannot be reasonably provided on the same lot as the principal use, the city may permit such required parking spaces to be locate on other property in a similar or heavier zoning district located within 500 feet of the permitted use, measured along lines of public access. GOLDEN VALLEY CC !. O. Parking Ramps and Underground Parking. Because of the cost of such spaces and more control over environmental factors, the Director of Planning may allow some reduction in the 'width of the aisle and spaces in parking ramps and underground parking. P. Plowing and Snow Storage or Removal. Required off-street parking plans shall include provisions for snow storage and/or removal. Q. Pedestrian access/provisions. Provisions for pedestrian circulation to and from, and in some cases through, parking lots shall be required as determined appropriate by the city. Patterned pavement, decorative lighting and associated facilities shall be provided as may be appropriate. ADA requirements shall be met. R. Maintenance. Off-street parking areas including spaces, accessway, strjping, landscaping and, required buffers and fences,. shall be maintained in a neat, safe and adequate manner. Potholes, deteriorated pavement, and striping must be repaired or restored in a timely manner by the owner of the off-street parkinq. . S. Handicapped Parking. Handicapped parking spaces shall be provided pursuant to Minnesota statutes. T. Signs. Small informational-direction signs may be allowed or required in off-street parking facilities to identify handicapped parking, compact car parking, traffic flow, and similar information essential to safe and efficient operation of the facility. U. Compact Vehicles. If an off-street parking lot, ramp or garage contains 50 or more spaces, the City may will allow up to 10 percent of the spaces to be designated compact cars only, provided a suitable parking plan for such spaces is submitted and approved by the City. V. Joint Use of Parking. Off-street parking facilities for a combination of one or more structures or uses may be provided collectively in any District, except the Residential District and Two-Family Residential District, provided the total number of spaces shall not be less than the sum of the separate requirements for each use. W. Potential Reduction. The city may allow up to 3Q 50 percent reduction when joint use or combined parking is provided for uses which have substantially different parking demands and peak parking needs such as a daytime use with a nighttime use (e.g. office and movie theater) or a week day use with a weekend use (e.g. office and a church). Such reduction may require and agreement between the uses and an agreement between the owners and city. Such agreement may also be subject to proof of parking. X. Bicycle parking. Bicycle racks or a similar facility to park/store bicycles shall be provided in a location accessible to residents in residential developments having more than 12 dwelling units and employees and to the public in other developments atthe rate of 5% of parking required for vehicles with a minimum of 4 spaces. . GOLDEN VALLEY CC . . . Subdivision 3. Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces USE REQUIREMENT RESIDENTIAL Single Family 2 spaces per dwelling No building permit shall be - issued for the construction of a single family dwelling not having a two-stall garage unless the registered survey submitted at the time of application for the building permit reflects the necessary area and setback requirements for a future two stall (minimum) garaQe. Cluster Housing 2 spaces per dwellinQ with at least one enclosed Two Family 2 spaces per dwellinQ with at least one enclosed Townhouse 2 spaces per dwellinQ with at least one enclosed Multiple Family 2 spaces per dwellinQ with at least one enclosed Rooming House -1 space per each 2 persons Congregate and/or Elderly Housing (Senior Housing) .5 to 1 space per unit dependinQ on circumstances Assisted Housing 1 space per 5 units/beds Nursing Home 1 space per 5 beds PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL Adult Day Care 1 space per 5 persons cared Group Nursery Day Care 1 space per 6 participants Group Home 1 space per 5 beds/participants Community Center An adeauate plan. City Hall 1 space per 250 sJ. of gross floor area Library 1 space per 300 sJ. of Qross floor area Museum Art Gallery 1 space per 400 sJ. of aross floor area Park Playground An adequate plan Golf Course 1 space per 5 patron holdinQ cap Golf Driving Range & Archery 1 space for each tee/target Miniature Golf 1 space per hole Fire Station 1 space per 500 sJ. of gross floor area or an adequate plan. Ball Fields/Other Rec. 1 space per 4 seats based on design capacity or 1 per 4 members using the facility. Religious Institutions 1 space per 3 seats in the main assembly area. Cemeteries Adequate off-street parking shall be provided. Elementary School- Junior High 2 spaces per classroom HiQh School 2 spaces per classroom plus 1 space per 6 students ColleQe - University 1 space per 4 students based on desiQn capability Hospital 1 space for every 350 sJ. of Qross floor area COMMERCIAL Animal Hospital - Kennels 1 space per each 300 sJ. of gross floor area Bank - Financial Service . 1 space per 200 sJ. of gross floor area Bed and Breakfast 2 spaces plus 1 for each room to be rented Trade and Trainina School 1 space per 3 students based on design capability Bakery 1 space per 25sJ. of customer area. GOLDEN VALLEY CC . . Clubs/Lodqes 1 soace per 2.5 seats based on desiqn caoacitv.- Convention/Exhibition Hall 1 space per 3 seats . Hotel or Motel 1.5 spaces per unit olus oarkinq for other uses. Places of Lodging See Hotel Service Station (Motor Fuel Station) 8 spaces plus 4 oer service stall. Motor Vehicle Service Repair 4 spaces for each service bay. Offices 1 space per 250 sot. of aross floor area. Mortuaries 1 per every 250 s.f. plus 1 space for every 5 seats. Car Wash . 8 spaces plus 4 oer service stall. Medical Clinic (Offices) 1 space per 200 s.f. of gross floor area Open Sales or Rental Lots . 1 space per 2000 s.f. of display area Printing 1 space per each 100 s.f. of customer service area. Bowling Alley 1 space per each 6 seats or 300 s.f. of gross floor area, whichever is areater. Pool Hall/Arcade 1 space per 50 s.f. Skating Rinks 1 space per each 6 seats or 300 s.f. of gross floor area of rink area, whichever is qreater. 1 space for every 200 s.f. of gross floor area of non- Sport & Health Clubs court area plus 2 spaces for each court plus 1 per 50 s.f. deck area for swimminq. Theater and/or Gymnasiums (Auditorium) 1 space per 4 seats or 1 space per 400 s.f., whichever is oreater. Restaurant- Class I (Traditional-No Liquor) 1 space per eo 100 s.f. of gross floor area Restaurant - Class II (Fast Food) 1 soace oer 40 s.f. of oross floor area Restaurant -Class III (Restaurant W/ Liquor) 1 space per 60 s.f. of floor area plus 1 space per 25 s.f. of bar area. Retail Store or Service Establishment 1 soace oer -1-8(} 250 s.f. of oross floor area Shopping Center 1 space for every 200 s.f. of gross floor area. (5 spaces per 1000 s.t.) Studio 1 space per 400 s.f. of gross floor area Storage (See Warehouse) Temporary Retail Sales .. An adequate plan. INDUSTRIAL Manufacturino - Fabricatino 1 soace per 500 s.f. of oross floor area Outdoor Storage 1 space per 20,000 s.f. of storage area Post Office/Parcel Distribution 10 spaces plus 1 per 500 s. f. plus 1 for each vehicle on site. Self Storage Facility 1 space for every 10,000 s.f. of storage area Sales Showroom (Motor Vehicles, machinery, 1 space for every 1000 s.f. of gross floor area of boats, etc.) display area plus 1 space for every 5,.000 gross s.f. of outside displav 1 space for every 400 s.f. gross floor area of show Showrooms Other (e.g. furniture, appliances) room, plus 1 space for every 5,000 gross square feet of outside disolav area. Warehouses and Storage 1 space for every 3,000 s.f. of gross floor area. Truck/Van Terminals 1 space per 3,000 s. f. of moss floor area. Lumber Yards or Bldg. Material Yards Outside areas 1 space per 2,000 s.f. of material disolav f. MISCEllANEOUS Seasonal Farm Produce Sales An adequate plan GOLDEN VALLEY CC . . . Christmas Tree Sales An adequate plan Radio TV Trans. An adequate plan General Requirement. For any and all uses or structures not specifically provided for, such parking space as the City shall determine to be necessary shall be required, considering all the parking generating factors involved, OTHER Mixed Uses. In the case of mixed uses, the parking facilities required shall be the sum of the requirements for the various individual uses, computed separately in accordance with this Section. Parking facilities for one use shall not be considered as providing the required parking facilities for any other use. A. Required Ratios. Where the number of required parking spaces is measured by seating capacity, such seating capacity shall be determined for maximum capacity. B. Compliance with Current Controls. New buildings erected after the effective date of this Section, and old buildings altered after the effective date of this Section, must comply with all applicable off-street parking requirements in effect a the time that said buildings are constructed or altered, as the case may be. Subdivision 4. Proof of Parking. When the required off-street parking is 20 or more spaces, the owner is only required to pave and stripe 75 percent of the required parking spaces if the following.conditions are met: A. A parking plan drawn to scale for the property is submitted to the Zoning Administrator and the plan indicates that the site complies with the total parking requirements stated above and the parking lot is designed to the standards required by this Ordinance. B. The portion of the site which is not paved and is capable of containing the amount of parking equal to the difference between the total amount of required parking and the amount of parking required to be paved (known as the proof of parking area) is suitably landscaped and curbed to meet the requirements of this Ordinance. plan for the site. C. The proof of parking area shall be clearly delineated on the parking D. The paved portion of the parking area shall comply with the pertinent sections of this Ordinance. E. The proof of parking area is not used to satisfy any other landscaping or other requirementand is not located in an area occupied by a building. F. The property owner is responsible for informing any subsequent owner of the proof of parking area and parking status of the property. GOLDEN VALLEY CC . . . G. The city may, at its sole discretion, require at any time that the proof of parking area be paved and striped in such a way that it meets the requirementsJo provide the total number of required parking spaces on the site or a percentage between 75 percent and 100 percent if so determined by the city. H. Agreement. The city may require the owner to enter into a proof of parking agreement specifying the requirements and restrictions and stating that the owner developer and successor shall be responsible for making improvements to meet the code at the time the city requires such action. Subdivision 5. Loading Regulations A. Design Standards 1. Location. Truck docks for loading and unloading goods or wares shall be provided on the same lot or parcel to be serviced. When truck docks are provided inside the building such area shall not be included in the total floor area used for determining the required number of such docks, nor for parking space requirements. 2. Size. Loading docks shall be sized and provided with maneuvering space to adequately meet the needs. 3. Surfacing. Minimum 7-ton capacity. 4. Lighting. Where artificial lighting is provided in loading or unloading areas, it shall be directed perpendicular to the ground and arranged to reflect away from any residence, street or highway. B. Minimum Number of Off-Street Loading Docks Required. USE Business and Professional Offices Retail and Commercial Uses Light and Heavy Industrial Uses (Manufacturing-Fabricating, Warehouse and Stora e, and Showroom Institutional Uses REQUIRED OFF-STREET LOADING DOCKS Adequate rovisions to meet needs. Ade uate rovisions to meet needs. 1 off-street loading dock per 40,000 sJ. of gross floor area. GOLDEN VALLEY CC .. . . . Add the following definitions to the Zoning Code, Section 11.03: 30.5 - "Dwelling - Senior and Physical Disability Housing" - A multiple dwelling building with open occupancy limited to disabled or handicapped persons and/or persons over sixty (60) years of age. No more thanten (10) percent ofthe occupants excluding disabled or handicapped persons, may be persons under sixty (60) years of age (spouse of a person over sixty (60) years of age or caretakers, etc.). 33.5 - Dwelling Units - A single, secure dwelling space providing independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. 52.3 - Kitchen- A kitchen shall be any room containing cabinets, shelves, countertops, and any two of the following: a sink, a kitchen range, or refrigerator. 52.6 - Kitchenette - A kitchenette shall be any room containing both an operable sink and a refrigerator measuring not more than 6 cubic feet. Delete the following definitions to the Zoning Code, Section 11.03: Delete #35 Elderly (Senior Citizen) and Handicapped Housing). - A multiple dwelling building with open occupancy limited to disabled or handicapped persons and/or persons over sixty (60) years of age. No more than ten (10) percent of the occupants excluding disabled or handicapped persons, may be persons under sixty (60) years of age (spouse ofa person over sixty (60) years of age or caretakers, etc.). Section 11.22. Moderate. Density Residential Zoning District (R-2). Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the R-2 Zoning District is to provide for single and two-family dwellings at a moderate density (up to 8 units per acre) along with directly related and complementary uses. Subdivision 2. District Established. Properties shall be established within the Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.22, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.22 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter. . . . Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses. The following uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Residential Districts: A. Single-Family dwellings. B. Two-Family dwellings. C. Townhouses. D. Foster family homes. E. Home occupations, as regulated by Section 11.21, Subdivision 15. F. Essential Services - Class I Subdivision 4. Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Zoning District: Chapter. A. Accessory structures, including private garages as defined in this Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses. A. Residential facilities serving from seven to 25 persons. B. Group foster family homes. Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots. In the R-2 Residential Zoning District a lot of a minimum area of 11,000 square feet shall be required for any principal structure. A minimum lot width of 100 feet at the front setback line shall be required. No more than one kitchen area and one kitchenette shall be permitted in each dwelling unit. Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility. All structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision 8. Easements. No structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 9. Building Lot Coverage. No lot or parcel in the R-2 Zoning District shall have a lot coverage of more than 40 percent. This requirement excludes swimming pools. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within 30 feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be 20 percent of the lot depth. 3. Side Setback. The required side setback shall be 15 feet. 4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the rear yard setback, use the longer lot line. To determine the side yard setback, use the shortest lot line. . B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District to exceed a height of three (3) stories or 36 feet as defined in the City's building code, whichever is less. C. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback. D. Decks. Decks over eight inches from ground level shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure. Subdivision 11. Accessory Structures. Accessory structures shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-2 Zoning District: 1. Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to the front setback as the principal structure. If an addition is built on an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing garage or accessory . structure would notbe completely to the rear of the addition to the principal . . . structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long' as there is at least 10 feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or accessory structure as long as the 10 feet of separation can be met. ~ 2. Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 35 feet from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 3. Side and Rear Setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 5 feet from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between Structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 10 feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. B. Height Limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning District to exceed a height of 10 feet. The height shall be measured from the surface of the floor to the bottom of the sill plate. C. Provision for g3r3go. Garaqe Construction Required: No building permit shall be issued for the construction of a new principal structure in the R-2 Zoning District not including at least a two stall garage. D. Accessory structures including detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses and gazebos shall be limited in size to a total of 650 square feet per dwelling unit. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. E. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory buildings shall meet the same setback requirements for accessory buildings. F. Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location requirements for accessory structures. G. Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall not be allowed in the front yard of any single or two-family dwelling. . . . 11.23 R-3 Medium Density Residential Zoning District (R-3) Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the R-3 Medium Density Residential Zoning District is to provide for medium density housing (up to 10 units per acre with potential for 12 units per acre with density bonuses) along with directly related and complimentary uses. Subdivision 2. District Established. Properties shall be established within the R-3 Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.23, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.23 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the R-3 Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses. The following uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-3 Zoning District: A. Townhouses. B. Two-family dwellings. C. Multiple-family dwellings of 12 units or less per acre. D. Foster Family Homes. E. Essential Services, Class I. Subdivision 4. Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses and no others shall be permitted in R-3 Zoning Districts: A. Enclosed parking structures similar in construction and materials to the principal structure. B. Accessory structures. C. Private indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, including but not limited to swimming pools and tennis courts. D. Underground parking structures. E. Storage structures similar in construction and materials to the principal structure not exceeding 500 square feet in area or 10 feet in height. . . . Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. Residential facilities serving 25 or more persons. B. Group Foster Homes. C. Principal structures in excess of 4 stories or 48 feet. D. Retail sales, Class I and II restaurant establishments, and professional offices within principal structures containing 20 or more dwelling units when located upon any minor or major arterial street. Any such sales, establishment or office shall be located only on the ground floor and have direct access to the . street. Subdivision 6. Corner Visibility. All structures in the R-3 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision 8. Easements. No structures in the R-3 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. Subdivision 7. Principal Structures. Principal structures in the R-3 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required .for principal structures in the R-3 Zoning District. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 25 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. Open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within 17 feet of a front property line along a street right-of- way line. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. When directly abutting any R-1 Zoning District, the required side and rear yard setback shall be 30 feet. In all other instances, the required side and rear yard setback shall be 20 feet. B. Lot Area. No primary structure shall be built upon a lot of less than 15,000 square feet. C. Maximum Density. Dwelling units shall not be built at a rate greater than ~ 10 units per acre. D. Height. No building shall exceed 4 stories or 48 feet in height, whichever is less. E. Lot Coveragebv Structures. No lot or parcel in the R-3 Zoning District shall have a lot coverage of more than 40% for a lot or parcel equal to or less than one (1) acre in area or of more than 35% for a lot or parcel over one (1) acre in area. This requirement excludes outdoor swimming pools, patio areas, aM parking lots~ or parkinq structures. . . . Subdivision 1-~. Enclosed Parking Structures and other Accessory Uses. Enclosed parking structures and accessory uses in the R-3 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for all enclosed parking structures and other accessory uses in the R-3 Zoning District. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 35 feet from any front property line along a street right-af-way line. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. The required minimum side and rear setback for enclosed parking structures shall be 3a 30 feet when abuttinQ any R-1 Zoninq District and 20 feet in all other instances. The required minimum side and rear setback for other accessory uses shall be 15 feet. Subdivision 1-~. Density Bonus. Apartments providing sidewalks on all street frontage2-.shall be granted one or more exemptions from item C, Subdivision g 7(C). as follows: A. Underground parking. The provision of one or more underground parking space per dwelling unit shall increase the maximum allowable density by two (2) units per acre. B. Public Transit. Scheduled public transit route within 1000 feet of the primary entrance by public sidewalk shall increase the maximum allowable density by one (1) unit per acre and reduce required parkinq to 1.5 per dwellinQ. C. Recreation. Indoor or outdoor recreation facilities such as swimming pools, porches, tennis courts, or other facilities requiring a substantial investment equaling at minimum five percent of the construction cost of the principal structure shall increase the maximum allowable density by two (2) units per acre. . . . 11.24 R-4 High Density Residential Zoning District Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the R-4High Density Residential Zoning District is to provide for high density housing (over 12 units per acre) along with directly related and complimentary uses. Subdivision 2. District Established. Properties shall be established within the R-4 Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.24, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.24 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as. fully as if set forth herein. In addition the R-4 Zoning Districts thus established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as provided in Section 11.110f this Chapter Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses. The following uses and no others shall be permitted in the R-4 Zoning District: A. Multiple-family dwellings. B. Senior and Physical Disability Housing. C. Foster Family Homes. D. Essential Services, Class I and II. Subdivision 4. Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses and no others shall be permitted in R-4 Zoning Districts: A. Enclosed parking structures. B. Storage structures similar in construction and material to the principal structure, not exceeding 500 square feet or 10 feet in height. C. Underground parking structures. D. Private indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, including but not limited to swimming pools and tennis courts. Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter: A. Residential facilities serving 25 or more persons. B. Group Foster Homes . C. Retail sales, Class I and II restaurant establishments, and professional offices within principal structures containing 20 or more dwelling units when located upon any minor or major arterial street. Any such sales, establishment or office shall be located only on the ground floor and have direct access to the street. Subdivision 6. Corner Visibility. All structures in the H-4 Zoning District shall meet the "requirements of the corner visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code. Subdivision 7. Easements. No structures in the R-4 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public easements. . Subdivision 8. Principal Structures - Multiple-Family. Multiple-Family Dwellings in R-4 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. . Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-4 Zoning District. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 25 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. When directly abutting any R-1 Zoning District, the required side and rear yard setback shall be 40 feet. In all other instances, the required side and rear yard setback shall be 20 feet. B. Height. No building shall exceed 8 stories or 96 feet in height, whichever is less without a Conditional Use Permit. C. Lot Coverage bv Structures. No structures, including accessory structures, shall occupy more than forty (40) percent of the lot area. This requirement excludes outdoor swimminq pools. patio areas, parkinq lots and parkinq structures. . Subdivision 9. Principal Structures - Senior and Physical Disability Housing. Senior and Physical Disability Housing in the R-4 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for principal structures in the R-4 Zoning District. 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be 25 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. When directly abutting any R-1 Zoning District, the required side and rear yard setback shall be 40 feet. In all other instances, the required side and rear yard setback shall be 20 feet. C. Height. No building shall exceed 14 stories or 168 feet in height, whichever is less. . . . D. Lot Coverage. No structures, including accessory structures, shall occupy more than forty-five (45) percent of the lot area. Subdivision 10. Enclosed Parking Structures and other Accessory Uses. Enclosed parking structures and accessory uses in the R-4 Zoning District shall be governed by the following requirements: A. Setback requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for all enclosed parking structures and other accessory uses in the R-4 Zoning District: 1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be da 25 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. 2. Side and Rear Yard Setback. The required minimum side and rear yard setback for enclosed parking structures shall be 40 feet. In all other instances the setback shall be 20 feet. The required minimum side and rear setback for other accessory uses shaH be 15 feet. . B. Location. No enclosed parking structure or accessory use shall be located closer to the front property line than the principal structure. Subdivision 11. Density Bonus. Pursuant to a Traffic Management Agreement and the provision of sidewalks on all street frontages, apartments may pursue one of the following density bonuses: A. Underground parking. The provision of one stall of underground parking per unit shall result in a 10% reduction in the number of required parking spaces. B. Public Transit. Public transit available within 1000 feet of the primary entrance bv public sidewalk may result in a 25% reduction in the number of required parking spaces. . . . Replacement of Section 11.21. Subdivision E E. Size Limitations. Each parcel shall be limited to a total maximum size for the following accessory structures: detached and attached garages, detached sheds, greenhouses, and gazebos. Swimming pools are not included in this requirement. The total maximum size shall be as follows: 1. Parcels up to 10,000 15.000 square feet in size shall be limited to 1,000 square feet of accessory structures; 2. Parcels gre3ter than 10,000 squ3re feet in size but less than 15,000 square feet in size sh311 be limited to 1,250 square feet of 3ccessory structures; and 3.2. Parcels greater than 15,000 square feet in size shall be limited to 4,aOO 1.250 square feet of accessory structures. . . . 9 11.30 Subdivision 10. Accessory Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in the Commercial Zoning District: A. Essential Services - Class I B. Accessory Structures. The following regulations and setbacks shall be required tor accessory structures in the Commercial Zoning District: 1. Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure. It an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least 10 feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing accessory structure as long as the 10 feet of separation can be met. 2. Front setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback tor the Commercial Zoning District from the front property line along a street right-ot-way line. 3. Side and rear setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for principal structures in the Commercial Zoning District from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 10 feet from any principal structure and trom any other accessory structure. 6. Height limitations. No accessory structure sheill be erected in the Commercial Zoning District to exceed a height of one story. 7. Cornices and eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback. 8. Size of accessory structures. No accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. Each property is limited to a total of 1000 sq. ft. ofaccessoiy stn.Jctures. Accessory structures include storage buildings, detached sheds, greenhouses, gazebos and othershelters. . . . 9. Design. All accessory structures constructed after the construction of the principal structure must be designed and constructed of similar or complimentary materials as determined by the City Manager or his designee. 10. Building Permits. All accessory buildings located in the Commercial Zoning District require a building permit. 11. Parking structures and garages. In the Commercial Zoning District, parking structures and garages shall not be considered accessory structures if they are used to meet the required number of parking spaces. (Sections 11.31 through 11.34, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) . . . S 11.46 Subdivision 10. Accessory Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in the Institutional Zoning District (all sub-districts): . A. Essential Services - Class I B. Accessory Structures. The following regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the Institutional Zoning District: 1. Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least 10 feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing accessory structure as long as the 10 feet of separation can be met. 2. Front setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for the Institutional Zoning District from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 3. Side and rear setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 25 feet from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 10 feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. 6. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the Institutional Zoning District to exceed a height of one story. 7. Cornices and eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback. 8. Size of accessory structures. No accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. Each property is limited to a total of 1000 sq. ft. of accessory structures. Accessory structures include storage buildings, detached sheds, greenhouses, gazebos and other shelters. 9. Design. All accessory structures constructed after the construction of the principal structure must be designed and constructed of similar or complimentary materials as determined by the City Manager or his designee. . . . 10. Building Permits. All accessory buildings located in the Institutional Zoning District require a building permit. 11. Parking structures and garages. In the Institutional Zoning District, parking structures and garages shall not be considered accessory structures if they are used to meet the required number of parking spaces. (Sections 11.47 through 11.54, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) . . S 11.45 Subdivision 10. Accessory Uses. The following. are permitted accessory uses in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District: A. Essential Services - Class I B. Accessory Structures. The following regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning ~~ct . 1. Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least 10 feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing accessory structure as long as the 10 feet of separation can be met. 2. Front setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for the Business and Professional Qffices Zoning District from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 3. Side and rear setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for principal structures in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District from a side or fear yard property line. 4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 10 feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. 5. Alley setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 10 feet from an alley. 6. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District to exceed a height of one story. 7. Cornices and eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback. .. 8. Size of accessory structures. No accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. Each property is limited to a total of 1000 sq. ft. of accessory structures. Accessory structures include storage buildings, detached sheds, . greenhouses, gazebos and other shelters. . . . . 9. Design. All accessory structures constructed after the construction of the principal structure must be designed and constructed of similar or complimentary materi.als as determined by the City Manager or his designee. 10. Building Permits. All accessory buildings located in the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District require a building permit. 11. Parking structures and garages. In the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District, parking structures and garages shall not be considered accessory structures if they are used to meet the required number of parking spaces. . . . 9 11.35 Subdivision 11. Accessory Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in the Light Industrial Zoning District: A. Essential Services - Class II B. Accessory Structures. The following regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the Light Industrial Zoning District: 1. Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as long as there is at least 10 feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing accessory structure as long as the 10 feet of separation can be met. 2. Front setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for the Light Industrial Zoning District from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 3. Side and rear setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for principal structures in the Light Industrial Zoning District from a side or rear yard property line. 4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 10 feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. 6. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in. the Light Industrial Zoning District to exceed a height of one story. 7. Cornices and eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback. 8. Size of accessory structures. No accessory structureshall be larger in size than the principal structure. Each property is limited to a total of 1000 sq. ft. of accessory structures. Accessory structures include storage buildings, detached sheds, greenhouses, gazebos and other shelters. . . . 9. Design. All accessory structures constructed after the construction of the principal structure must be designed and constructed of similar or complimentary materials as determined by the City Manager or his designee. 10. Building Permits. All accessory buildings located in the Light Industrial Zoning District require a building permit. 11. Parking structures and garages. In the Light Industrial Zoning District, parking structures and garages shall not be considered accessory structures if they are used to meet the required number of parking spaces. . . . S 11.36 Subdivision 11. Accessory Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in the Industrial Zoning District: C A. Essential Services- Class II B. Accessory Structures. The following regulations and setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the Industrial Zoning District: 1. Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely to the rear of the principal structure. If an addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create a situation where an existing accessory structure would not be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing accessory structure may remain and be consid.ered conforming as long as there is at least 10 feet of separation between the existing principal structure with the addition and the accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing accessory structure as long as the 10 feet of separation can be met. 2. Front setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for the Industrial Zoning District from the front property line along a street right-of-way line. 3. Side and rear setbacks. Accessory structures shall be located no less than the required setback for principal structures in the Industrial Zoning Districtfrorn a side or rear yard property line. , 4. Separation between structures. Accessory structures shall be located no less than 1 o feet from any principal structure and from any other accessory structure. 6. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the Industrial Zoning District to exceed a height of one story. 7. Cornices and eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches .into a required setback. 8. Size of accessory structures. No accessory structure shall be larger in size than the principal structure. Each property is limited to a total of1 000 sq. ft. of accessory structures. Accessory structures include storage buildings, detached sheds, greenhouses, gazebos and other shelters. . . . 9. Design. All accessory structures constructed after the construction of the principal structure must be" designed and constructed of similar or complimentary materials as determined by the City Manager or his designee. 10. Building Permits. All accessory buildings located in the Industrial Zoning District require a building permit. 11. Parking structures and garages. In the Industrial Zoning District, parking structures and garages shall not be considered accessory structures if they are used to meet the required number of parking spaces. II" f . . . Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: February 6, 2006 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Final Plan for Amendment No.2, Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 65, Golden Valley Shopping Center to Allow Expansion of the Freestanding Building at 505 Winnetka Ave. N. for the Purpose of Providing Additional Retail Space- Trach Properties, Applicant At the November 15, 2005 City Council meeting, the Council unanimously approved the Preliminary Plan for Amendment No.2, Golden Valley Shopping Center. This amendment would allow for the building at 505 Winnetka Ave. N. in the Golden Valley Shopping Center to be renovated and expanded. The approval was subject to 11 conditions as outlined in the attached minutes from the November 15, 2005 City Council meeting. The Planning Commission reviewed this Preliminary Plan at the October 24, 2005 Planning Commission meeting and unanimously recommended approval to the City Council. The City Council accepted each of the recommendations of the Planning Commission and added Condition No. 11 that requires that the landscape plan be amended to include additional landscaping along the south side of the renovated building. Since the approval of the preliminary plan, Trach Properties has prepared the necessary plans forthe final plan submission that address the 11 conditions placed on the approval of the preliminary plan. The final plans are attached along with a letter from Dave Clark, AlA, and architect for Trach Properties. Staff has reviewed the final plans and finds them to be acceptable. The plans include increased landscaping along the south side of the renovated building, a marked pedestrian connection between the existing shopping center to the north and the renovated building, a turnaround for the parking bay northeast of the renovated building, a connection between the sidewalk along Winnetka Ave. and the outdoor seating area east of the renovated building, and additional information required by the Public Works Department related to utilities, storm water drainage and grading. The letter from Mr. Clark indicates that the new dumpster enclosures for the two west buildings in the Gold~n Valley Shopping Center will be of cedar fence material of a height sufficient to screen the dumpsters. These enclosures must be constructed by June 1, 2006 and the design approved by the Director of Inspections. 1 . Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson has reviewed the plans and finds them acceptable as noted in the attached memo to me dated January 20, 2006. The final plans were changed to provide an adequately sized water line for the required fire suppression system. City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, has written a memo to me dated February 6, 2006 regarding his final plan review. He indicates that the submitted plans are acceptable. However, there is some additional survey information that is needed regarding underground utilities. The applicant is aware of this requirement and will provide it to the City prior to any utility work for connections to the expanded building. The City Engineer has also requested additional landscaping along Winnetka Ave. After further review by Mr. Oliver, it has been determined that the landscaping shown on the final plans are adequate along Winnetka Ave. Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the final plans for PUD No. 65, Amendment No.2, Golden Valley Shopping Center. The final plans indicate the changes that were requested by the City Council and Planning Commission when the preliminary plan was approved in late 2005. The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. . 3. 4. 5. The site plans for the expansion of the Golden Valley Shopping Center prepared by WCL Architects and dated 11/23/05 shall become a part of this approval. The final landscape plan that is part of the site plans shall be approved by the Building Board of Review. The building and elevation plans must be approved by the Building Board of Review prior to issuance of any building permits. The recommendations of City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, found in a memo to Mark i Grimes dated February 6, 2006 shall become a part of this approval., I. i All dumpsters on the shopping center property shall be screened from view from Golderil Valley Road. Dumpster enclosures shall be utilized and dumpsters placed within the enclosures. All dumpster and recycling materials will be kept inside the 550 Winnetka Ave. N. building. 6. Dumpster and recycling container enclosures shall be constructed for the existing westernmost buildings on the Golden Valley Shopping center campus. They shall be constructed no later than June 1, 2006. They shall be constructed of cedar fence material sufficient in height to screen the dumpster areas. Gates will be provided only if the trash containers are visible from Golden Valley Rd. The Director of Inspections shall approve the plans for the enclosures prior to construction. All dumpster and recycling containers shall be kept within the enclosures at all times. 7. The overall parking for the shopping center campus is reduced from 401 (as approved in the original PUD No. 65) to 387. 8. The total signage for the renovated 550 Winnetka Ave. N. building (including signage on the pylon sign) shall be limited to the amount permitted in a Commercial Zoning District. The amount of signage for the remainder of the buildings within the shopping center shall remain "as is" as per the existing PUD permit. 9. The recommendations of the Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson found in his memos to Mark Grimes dated October 16, 2005 and January 20,2006 shall become a part of this approval. . 2 . . . Attachments: Minutes from the November 15, 2005 City Council meeting (2 pages) Minutes from the October 24,2005 Planning Commission meeting (6 pages) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated January 20,2005 (1 page) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated October 6, 2005 (1 page) Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated February 6,2006 (3 pages) Applicant's narrative and application (5 pages) Site Plans submitted byWCL Associates, Inc. dated November 23,2005 (10 oversized pages) 3 ~ -. . Regular Meeting of the City Council November 15, 2005 Page 3 Elliott Hendrickson Inc. for Penns Ivania Dave Clark, Architect, reviewed the plans and answered questions from the Council. Cathy Waldhauser, Planning Commissioner, presented the Commission report. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council. Thomas Burt and Jeannine Clancy answered questions from the Council. . The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Anne Dykstra, 2620 Major Avenue North, stated she uses the shopping center but feels it is difficult to turn onto Winnetka from the parking lot; also thinks the traffic pattern within the parking lot is difficult to maneuver; stated people driving through the parking lot to get to the closest parking spot causes problems and suggested reconfiguringthe lot. Mauno Silpala, 2000 Rhode Island Avenue North, wanted to know if a grocery store could be included in the downtown area; stated the only store is Byerly's; stated now that people are moving into the downtown area it would beneficial to put a grocery store downtown so people could walk there. The Mayor closed the.public hearing. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Grayson and motion carried unanimously to approve the Preliminary Design Plan Amendment, Amendment #2, PUD #65, Golden Valley Shopping Center subject to the following conditions: . 1. The site plan for the expansion prepared by WCL Architects and dated October 13, 2005 shall become a part of this approval. 2. The landscape plan prepared by WCL Architects and dated October 13, 2005 shall become a part of this approval and be reviewed and approved by the Building Board of Review. 3. The building and elevation plans must be approved by the Building Board of Review. - . R~egular Meeting of the Cityc:;()~ncil November 15, 2005 ~ Page 4 Public Hearin~ - Preliminary Design Plan Amendment Approval- Golden Valley Shopping Center - PUD #65 - Amendment #2 - Continued . 4. The recommendations of the City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, found in a memo to Mark Grimes dated October 28, 2005 shall become a part of this approval. 5. All dumpsters on the shopping center property shall be screened from view from Golden Valley Road. Dumpster enclosures shall be utilized and dumpsters placed within the enclosures. (This means that new enclosures shall be constructed for the exposed dumpster for the two westernmost buildings on the shopping center campus.) All dumpsters and recycling materials will be kept inside the 550 Winnetka Avenue North building. 6. The overall parking for the shopping center is reduced from 401 (as approved as part of the original PUD No. 65) to 387. 7. The total signage for the 550 Winnetka Avenue North building (including signage on the pylon sign) shall be limited to the amount permitted for a commercial building of its size in the Commercial Zoning District. The amount of signage for the remainder of the buildings in the shopping center shall remain "as is" as per the existing PUD permit. 8. Dumpster enclosures must be constructed for all dumpsters on the shopping center by June 1 J 2006. The Director of Inspections shall approve the enclosure design. The dumpster enclosure design will be submitted with final plan approval. All dumpsters shall be kept within the dumpster enclosures at all times. 9. The recommendations of the Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson found ,n his merT)o to Mark Grimes dated October 16, 2005 shall become a part of this approval. . 10. Additional fixed pedestrian access will be included between the new building andl the existing shopping center. 11. Landscape plans will be amended to add screening on the south side. . - Amendment to Section 10.62 airin of Buildin s s GRAYSON - YES LOO IS - YES PENTEL - YES SHAFFER - YES . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 24, 2005 A regular meeting of the Planning C mmission was held at the Gold Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Va ey Road, Golden Valle . nesota, on Monday, October 2 , 005. Chair Keysser cal d the meeting to r at 7 pm. I. aid hauser, seconded by ck and motion carried unanimously to approve er 10, 2005 minutes as submi d. 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. Grimes explained that this is the second PUD amendment request for this property. The first proposal was for a TCF Bank to be located at the far west side of the site. The City Council denied the proposal due to traffic, pedestrian circulation and setback issues. He stated that the specific part of the property addressed in this current proposal is the former bookstore building situated at the southeast corner of the site. Since the building is currently vacant the applicant is looking for new uses for the building. Grimes stated that the proposal is to keep the existing building and to add on to it. The building would go from 4,900 square feet to 9,300 square feet and be made up of a number of smaller units. He stated that the City Council has concerns about drive-through businesses at this location and that this proposal does not include any. It would most likely be smaller retail spaces including a small restaurant and/or coffee shop. Grimes stated that one of the biggest challenges with this site is traffic and access. He said that the City's Traffic Engineer consultant, Glen Van Wormer has reviewed the plans and has said that he feels the proposal would work well, if not better, than how it is now. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 2 Grimes discussed some of the proposed changes such as a better turn around to the north, 8,700 square feet of added green space and a better connection to the existing pedestrian bridge. . m. He stated that the overall shopping center has less parking than required by code, but there seem to be many vacant parking spaces throughout the day. He added that he doesn't think this proposal would have a dramatic impact on the parking and traffic and that adding some different uses would be good for the shopping center and the area and will hopefully trigger more changes and updates to the shopping center. Grimes stated that he is concerned about the existing screening of the trash enclosures on this site, especially from the residential area across the street. He noted that the new proposed building would have all of its trash enclosures inside the building but he would like to see all of the other trash dumpsters enclosed. Grimes referred to his staff report and stated that the number of parking spaces would be reduced from 401 spaces to 389 spaces. He explained that the signage on the remodeled building would have to meet the same sign code requirements as any other Commercial building its same size. Eck referred to Mr. Van Wormer's review of the angled parking on the east side. He said he did not see angled parking on the east side shown on the plans. Grimes stated thCit the angled parking must have been on a different version of the plans, but that the plans the Commissioners received were the most current. Waldhauser asked why the existing parking lot bumps out into Winnetka Avenue. Grimes explained that it is the design that MnDOT and the County came up with in order to channel traffic. Eck asked about the purpose of the proposed small median in the north entrance. Grimes said it is to help direct traffic and it allows for a right turn in. Eck said he thinks it looks hazardous. Grimes said he would talk to the City Engineer and the Traffic Engineer and have them take another look at it. Dave Clark, WCL Architects, Minneapolis, stated that he has been working with Trach Properties for the last couple of decades and when the book store became vacant they had the option to lease it as is or to do something special. He referred to a rendering of the proposed building and stated that it would have new facades, a new roof and lots of glass. He stated that they would like the building to be a symbol at that corner and that hopefully it will begin the effort on redeveloping the rest of the shopping center. Keysser asked Clark about the proposed median right at the north entrance. Clark said that that entrance is problematic because there are too many different turns happening at that intersection and that the median would subdivide the outgoing and incoming traffic. Hackett asked Clark to describe the types of materials being proposed for the new building. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 24,2005 Page 3 . Clark explained that the building will be brick where it touches the ground, with brick pilasters and a lighter color brick or EIFS (a stucco-like material) toward the top, it would also have a rounded metal entry with a tall metal fin through the middle of it. Keysser asked if the vertical sign on the new building will replace the existing pylon sign. Clark said that their plan is to keep the existing pylon sign. Cera asked Clark. if he would be amenable to removing it so that there would only be one tall sign on the site. Clark said he would like to keep the options open right now. Cera asked Clark if they are planning on remodeling the rest of the shopping center. Clark said that they are hoping this will be a catalyst to redoing the shopping center. He said that it would be hard for the local tenants to afford million dollar changes and if that were the case, they'd probably have to have national chains become tenants. Keysser asked about delivery trucks going to the new building. Clark referred to his site plans and showed the delivery entrance and trash enclosure area. Keysser asked how many tenants they are envisioning. Clark said there would probably be a maximum of six tenants and the units would be from 1,200 squarefeet to 1,400 square feet in size. . Waldhauser asked how many restaurants they think will have because any type of restaurant is going to bring in a lot of noon time traffic. Clark said possible two out of the six units could be restaurants. Waldhauser asked Clark if there were plans to resurface the whole parking lot. Clark said he wasn't sure. Waldhauser asked about the payback period of the new building. Clark said that the current buildings have been there for 40 years and that the new building will probably be there for 10 to 20 years. Hackett referred to Envision Golden Valley and said it is a reoccurring comment that the citizens really have a problem with the general unkempt nature of the site. He said one problem is the signage and that there are a few simple things that could be done such as benches, plantings, more organized signage, etc. He said he worries that the same sort of attitude will continue with the new building. Clark stated that he thinks they have a real advantage with the new building because each tenant will receive a sign package with guidelines so there will be a more uniform look to it. . Hackett said this proposed new building is important because it is a gateway so he has concerns about what it will look like. He said the building should have a certain simplicity and encouraged Clark to approach it sensibly and carefully because it has the opportunity to be special. He added that he is happy to hear about the signage requirements on the new building and the added green space. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 4 Rasmussen asked Clark if when he thought about the design of the proposed new building he thought about the totality of the other shopping center designs in the area. Clark said he doesn't think the new building has to match the other shopping centers in the area and. He said he wants to make the building more of a showpiece. Cera asked Clark about adding an addition pedestrian connection in the general shopping area. Clark said he would love to that, but he is governed by parking regulations. He said he would look into moving some of the parking spaces in front of the shopping center over a bit and adding a sidewalk. Keysser stated that people have a strong affection for the shopping center and nobody wants to see the local tenants be replaced by national tenants but with a modest investment the center could be spruced up. Clark said he is hoping this new building is a first step. Waldhauser referred to the dumpsters and asked why they are not being screened. Clark said he thought maybe the dumpsters are not being pushed back in properly. Waldhauser said she would like to see a decorative fence installed all along Golden Valley Road and not just screened dumpsters because it is our main street. Grimes said that the problem with fences is that they require a lot of maintenance and they can have a "fenced in" feeling. He added that there is not much room on this property to allow for fence. Keysser asked if there are any environmental issues on this site. Clark said. there are none that he is aware of. Grimes asked Clark what is planned for the existing basement area. Clark said it would just be used for storage. Hackett referred to the. plans showing the existing pedestrian bridge and asked about possibly creating a more direct route to the southeast corner of the shopping center. Clark said he didn't think that would a problem. Keysser opened the public hearing. Kathy Barnes, 625 Wesley Commons Drive, stated that she is encouraged to see new development in the area and she is pleased to see what is being proposed. She referred to the proposed signage and said she is worried about holes being punched in the metal when signs need to be replaced. She suggested installing a low profile wall instead of fence along the back side of the shopping center. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Hackett suggested to Clark that during his final presentation he could address a maintenance process that would allow for repair when tenant signs change. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 5 . Waldhauser said her initial concern is that the proposed new building seems so out of character with the rest of the area. She said maybe there could be some adjustment in the design that could make it some kind of an offshoot of what's there now. Grimes explained that this proposal will have to go the Building Board of Review and at this time that is all the City has in regard to design standards. Eck said he thinks the whole concept is a great way to better utilize and enhance the site, but he does not care for the metal "fin" sticking up. Keysser asked if they are planning to stripe the parking lot. Clark said it was recently striped. Cera said the proposal is an obvious improvement to what is there. The signage should be looked at and he'd like to see more pedestrian sidewalks and would really like to see the whole center updated. Schmidgall said he thinks the proposal is a nice improvement to the shopping center. He said that when the existing pedestrian bridge over Highway 55 was put in it should have been moved down further to the west. He said he is pleased with the outdoor space and that this is a step in sprucing up the shopping center. . Rasmussen said she agreed with Waldhauser's concerns and added that it is really an important piece in Golden Valley and people really do use it. Keysser said he likes the architecture even though it is a little different and since Golden Valley doesn't have a design code right now so it's a personal thing. Grimes asked Clark how he would be sure about the upkeep of the new signs. Clark said they will have a signage packet for each lease that covers style, lettering, location, etc. He clarified that the metal part is really on the corner piece and that 5 of the 6 signs would be on the stucco surface which is easily repaired. Rasmussen asked if adding more pedestrian connections should be made a condition of approval. Keysser said yes. Cera suggested that condition number 10 in Grimes' memo could say that an additional pedestrian access be added between the new building and existing shopping center. Hackett added the recommendation that there more direct access from the landing of the pedestrian bridge to the new outdoor seating space so people don't have to go back to the corner to get access. Rasmussen added the recommendation that the proposed median in the north entrance be reviewed. . Waldhauser suggested that alternatives for screening on the north side be looked at, maybe something small, just as a separation. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Page 6 Grimes stated that there is not a lot of room along that property line and there may be easements along that area as well. He said he would talk to the City Engineer about their concerns. MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve amendment #2 to PUD 65 with the following ten conditions: 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 shall become 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 dumpster for the two westernmost buildings in the shopping center.) All dumpsters and recycling materials will be kept inside the 550 Winnetka Ave. buildings. Dumpster enclosures must be constructed for all dumpsters on the shopping center property by June 1, 2006. The Director of Inspections shall approve the enclosure design. All dumpster shall be kept within the dumpster enclosures at all times. 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 Commercial zoning district. The amount of signage for the remainder of the buildings shall remain "as is" as per the existing PUD permit. 8. The recommendations of Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson found in his memo to Mark Grimes dated 10/6/05 shall become a part of this approval. 9. Additional pedestrian access should be added between the new building and the existing shopping center. -- Short Recess -- . Memorandum Fire Department 763-593-8055 I 763-512-2497 (fax) To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning & Zoning From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Subject: PUD 65 (A-2) Golden Valley Shopping Center Final Plan Comments Date: January 20, 2006 cc: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections I have reviewed the revised site and utility plan submitted from Landform Engineering for the Golden Valley Shopping Center project. The revised site and utility plans have been revised to meet the Golden Valley Fire Department's concerns and comments as indicated on a memorandum dated October 6, 2005. . If you have any questions feel free to get back to be at 763-593-8065. . . Public ~H~y Memorandum Fire Department 763-593-8055/ 763-512-2497 (fax) 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 plans for the Golden Valley Shopping Center PUD Amendment. The outbuilding located in the south parking lot is proposed as an increase in the building footprint. Listed below are the fire department's comments. . 1. 2. 3. 4. The installation of the fire suppression system for the proposed building will be designed in accordance with the current fire code standards. 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. The fire suppression system shall be monitored by a central station alarm company. 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 on 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. . . . . ~ Memorandum Public Works 763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax) alley Date: February 6, 2006 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer ~ Subject: PUD No. 65, Amendment No.2, Golden Valley Shopping Center Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed plans submitted for redevelopment of an existing commercial site at the Golden Valley Shopping Center, Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 65. This proposed PUD amendment is located in the northwest corner of Winnetka Avenue and Trunk Highway 55. Site Plan The site plan included in the Final PUD Amendment is acceptable as proposed. There are no additional modifications to the parking lot layout or site access required at this time. The October 18, 2005 Public Works review of the preliminary plans for this PUD amendment discussed the need for additional survey information on the site. In specific, the previously submitted plans did not include the upgrades to Winnetka Avenue that were completed in the mid-1990s, and there was insufficient information on existing underground utilities on and near the site. Although some additional information has been provided on the plans submitted with this PUD amendment, a significant amount of information is still needed. The required utility information must be provided prior to excavation in order to be in compliance with current laws regarding excavation. Therefore, the developer must provide a new topographic and utility survey of the site, and extending a minimum of 50-feet in all directions surrounding this site. The information included on this survey will be used to resolve several utility service and storm water drainage issues that are discussed later in this review. No permits for any work onthis site will be issued until this survey has been provided, and the utility and storm drainage plans based on the survey, have been approved. The developer has agreed with staff to include additional enhancements and completion of the Winnetka Avenue streetscape adjacent to the site as part of this PUD amendment. However, a landscape plan outlining this proposed work has not been provided. Therefore, a landscape plan must be submitted for reviewand comment. This plan must include manufacturer information and material specifications. G:\Developments-Private\G V Shopping PUD Amend\Final PUD Review.doc ;: . . . Golden Valley Shopping Center Page 2 Utilities The existing sanitary sewer service for the subject building must be shown on the plans. The City information regarding this sewer service has been forwarded to the developer's engineer. The proposed PUD amendment plans indicate removal of the existing four-inch water service to the building and replacement with a six-inch diameter service. The upsizing of the water service will require an open-cut of southbound Winnetka Avenue, which will likely require a complete closure of the highly traveled county road. It is our understanding that the developer has not submitted flow calculations to determine if the existing four-inch service is capable of meeting the fire flow requirements for the expanded building. If the existing service must be upgraded to a six-inch pipe, the developer must investigate providing the service from an existing water main within the Trunk Highway 55 right-~Oay at the southeast corner of the site. In order to determine if providing water service f om this location is feasible, the developer must shown the location of all existi g underground utilities on the plans. A Hennepin County or Minnesota Department of Transportation permit for utility construction will be required for the water main work, depending upon the location of the service extension. A City of Golden Valley right-of-way permit will also be required. GradinQ, DrainaQe and Erosion Control The proposed PUD amendment is located in the Sweeney Lake sub-district of the Bassett Creek Watershed. The development is therefore subject to the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission's (BCWMC) Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals. Because the PUD is located within the City's Valley Square redevelopment area, storm water management on the site must comply with the redevelopment criteria, which requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) on site, and water quality ponding will not be required at this time. However, water quality ponding for the entire PUD, including the portion of the site being redeveloped now, will be required. Staff has determined that the BMPs required for this site include the standard erosion control measures, and the installation of an environmental manhole. This environmental manhole must be placed within the storm sewer system on site prior to discharge into the storm sewer system in Winnetka Avenue. As discussed previously, the existing utilities in this portion of the site must be shown on the plans in order to determine the best location for the environmental manhole. The developer will be required to enter into a maintenance agreement for the environmental manhole. Staff will prepare the agreement and forward to the developer. G:\Developments-Private\G V Shopping PUD Amend\Final PUD Review.doc Golden Valley Shopping Center . Page 3 . . The proposed plans must be approved by the BCWMC prior to start of any work on site. However, the plans must be approved by the City prior to being forwarded to the BCWMC. In order to comply with City standards, the grading plan must be modified to include the location of the environmental manhole, to include a key with all line types and symbols clearly shown, and to include standard detail plates of all erosion control measures implemented on site. Because the site disturbing activities on this site are greater than one acre, a NPDES General Storm Water Discharge permit will be required from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The developer must submit a copy of the application for this permit, and a copy of the permit once received, to the City. Summary and Recommendations Public \/\Jorks staff recommends approval of Amendment No.2, Planned Unit Development, Golden Valley Shopping Center, subject to the following conditions: 1) The developer must prepare and submit an updated survey for the site and revised site plans based upon the survey information. The survey must include accurate existing utility information and existing topography on site and a minimum of 50-feet beyond the site in all directions. No permits will be issued on site until the plans based upon the new survey have been approved by the Public Works Department. 2) The developer must submit a landscape plan for the upgrading and completion of the Winnetka Avenue streetscape adjacent to the property. 3) Flow calculations to determine the size and location of the water service of the property must be submitted. The size and location of the water service to the site will be based upon the flow test results. 4) A revised grading plan is submitted and approved. The plan must incorporate the comments contained in this review, including the installation of an environmental manhole. 5) The plans must be approved by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. 6) Subject to the review and comments of other City staff. C: Dan Lessor, Landform Tom Burt, City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator Eric Eckman, Engineering Technician Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Gary Johnson, Building Official G:\Developments-Private\G V Shopping PUD Amend\Final PUD Review.doc . . . December 29, 2005 Mr. Mark Grimes City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Final Application for PUD Amendment Dear Mark, Please find attached 15 copies of our final submittal for this PUD Amendment. The amendment deals with the expansion and remodeling of the "book store" building that sits in the parking lot on the south side of the Golden Valley Shopping Center. This submittal consists of the following revised documents: · Civil plans and details · Architectural plans and elevations · Landscape plan The documents show the following revisions as requested by staff and or Planning Commission/City Council: · Existing utility information for the book store · Final grading and storm water drainage . Addition of a turn around area in the row of parking adjacent to Winnetka and the main site entry · Addition of a sidewalk between the parking linking the renovated shops building to the main shopping center · Additional trees on the south face of the retail building. During the public hearing, city staff added a condition to the approval regarding the construction of new trash enclosures for the shopping center (2 thus) and one for each of the 2 westerly buildings. As noted in the approved notice from the City Council, the director of inspections shall review and approve the details of the enclosures prior to construction. The dumpster enclosures shall be complete by June 1, 2006. The enclosures will be constructed of cedar fence materials sufficient in height to screen the dumpster areas. Gates will be provided only if the trash containers are visible from Golden Valley Road. ~I~ ~ WCL ASSOCIATES, INC. Architecture Interiors ~ ~~ 1433 Utica Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55416 Fax (952) 541"9554 Phone (952) 541-9969 . . . The plans have been submitted to the Bassett Creek Watershed for their review. Our understanding is that because of the minor site disruption, the approval will be administrative only, with no public hearings required. With regards to the comments from MNDOT regarding the Winnetka site access, please see my letter of December 13, 2005. Thank you for your help with this project. We are anxious to get the project started. Please let us know when the project will be schedule in front of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Sincerely, 1& David Clark, AlA Principal WCL Associates, Inc. cc: Ronald Trach - Trach Properties P.U.D. Number t# 'S . City of Golden Valley Application for Consideration of Planned Unit Development Ordinance Final Plan of Development Date of Application: 1"2., -t.. Of . .te-e- ~. . *Fee Paid ($300.00) All information - includina aaendas. staff reports and hearina notices will be sent to the Authorized Representative. Name:Tf2--~'-\ ~F-T\ ~ Mailing Address: 4-0 20 N\ ,~ ~ E..l~ iLA ~L.VC>. 0"'-- Leu l S P' Kf2-fL- (Y\ t--.J -=7<7 -4- { <.0 Daytime Phone: '15"Z ~ /p - 7" 2./ E-Mail Address: 't >2 72 ~ - 7~ 2. 'Z. Property Owner: ~ ~. Mailing Address: . Street Location and/or Address of Property Included in P.U.D.: ~~ VA-'V~ 9~c.-. Legal Description (Attach separate sheet if necessary): Type of Proposal: Small Area: Residential: Business & Professional Office: Redevelopment Area: v Large or Complex Area: Commercial: v Industrial: Institutional: Mixed Use: ~.l-r~ ~ . lG' f( ~;::7. General Plan Requirements (For all areas): Complete Site Plan: v Landscape Plan: v .comPlete Plans for Sidewalks to Service Parking, Recreation, and Service Areas within the Proposed Development:./' Complete Plans for Storm Water and Surface Water Drainage System: v Preliminary Architectural Plans: v' Information Indicating Exterior Wall finishes for All Principal and Accessory Structures: ecomPlete Data as to Dwelling Unit Sizes: Preliminary Plat: Final Plat: Development Agreement: v Twelve (12) copies of the above material, with all required supplemental information appropriately signed by a registered architect, registered engineer, or registered land surveyor where required: Copies of all covenants, by-laws of owners association, and Abstract of Title or Registered Property Certificate submitted to City Attorney for examination: Present Zoning of Property: fU b h-1/V\ ~TA::..--o i CLt7i ~.. Proposed Use of Property (Be explicit, attachadditi()nal pages if necessary): flE-\~L / ~~~ : e.)<.p~c> ~l. ~eNA-rE. , ~~L- e-u-r~ILt::::;N~ F~ 4.q~7f To 9'~~r Number of Structures: Type: C7TL I ~ / ~~ i Height: } ~ (Ft.) No. of Stories: e(Le. Pool, Playground, Ballfield, etc): Amenities and/or Recreational Facilities 1-) /~ Number of People Intended to Live and/or Work on Site: Adults: J..-'/A . Children: ~A' Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Proposed: Enclosed: ~ t'?t--9t=: . Non-Enclosed: 40( . Total Acres of Land in P.U.D.: g,(o~ Density (No. of Units per Acre): Indicate the Following Data bv Percentages: Area of P.U. D. Covered by Structures: ..z '2. c;, % Area of P.U.D. Covered by Outside Parking (non-enclosed): "8,2 % Area of P. U. D. Covered by I nterior Streets: % .rea of P.U.D. to be Landscaped: Natural Area and/or Open Space: 1.2. % % Ponding Area: % . . . . 12/29/05 11:44 FAX 952 541 9554 WCL ASSOCIATES. INC. 14I 004/004 Zoning Variances: . Ust below all variances from the stand~rd zoning requirements that will be requested if this P .U.D. is approved, and the justification for the City Council to grant such variances (attach additional . sheets if needed).' . .' A-vv\~~ To ~ ~(Z-- fY\t~F-: , . ~~ (~'~~6. I hereby declare that all statements made in this application, and on additional material, are true to the best of my knOwledge. . --r ~. sr~ ~ s~~ ttL2Jf/~ ~fh~'# ~d!l(JeQ.'tC~':1U:3 ~-\~~~tp~~ I~/;~~~ ate o Ide~wagouen~!I~ y DRAFT Has Not 8 ONL \I San A T IJProVSd . February 13, 2006 TO: The Honorable Linda Loomis, Mayor Councilmember Freiberg Councilmember Pentel Councilmember Scanlon Councilmember Schafer City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 763c 5 9 3-8000 763-593-8109 (f:JX) 763-593-3968 (TOO) RE: Mayor and Council 763-593-8006 City Manager 763-593-8002 Public Safety 1 ) Police: 763-593-8079 Fire: 763-593-8055 763-593-8098 (tax) rAWorks 7KH030 763-593-3988 (tax) Inspections 763- 59 3-8090 763-593c3997 (tax) Motor Vehicle Licensing 763-593-8101 Planning and Zoning 763-593-8095 Finance 763-593-80]3 Assessing 763-593-8020 Park and Recreation 2) 200 Brookview Parkway Golden Valley, MN 55426-1364 763-512-2345 763- 512-2344 (fax) 763-593-3968 (TOO) . Planning Commission Annual Report for 2005 The Planning Commission is pleased to present this Annual Report for 2005 to the City Council. The Planning Commission met nineteen times during the year. Three of our meetings were held jointly with the City Council, and included topic-specific meetings on design guidelines. We also instituted this year the idea of periodic joint meetings with the Environmental Commission, both on specific topics of mutual interest, and an annual meeting to explore a general range of topics. This year, we met jointly with the Environmental Commission on the issues of lighting standards, and general land use principles. The Vice Chair of the Planning Commission, Cathy Waldhauser, continued the existing practice of serving as Planning Commission representative to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Two members of the Planning Commission (Chair Don Keysser and Vice Chair Cathy Waldhauser) were part of the 1-394 Study Group, and met several times during the year with the consultants and other City participants on this Study. Two members of the Planning Commission (Chair Don Keysser and Commissioner Les Eck) met twice with the Sidewalk Committee. The Planning Commission conducted seventeen public hearings, on topics that included: the PRISM development; a change in the ordinance on Sexually Oriented Businesses; the expansion of the Allianz property; . Planning Commission Annual Report February 13, 2006 Page 2 the expansion of the Lupient Infinity property; the redevelopment of the Luther Toyota property; the Applebee restaurant development; several rezonings (including one permitting the 85-unit rental building constructed on Turnpike); several subdivisions (including on Lawn Terrace, Douglas, and Cutacross), and the proposed housing development on Xenia, at the site of the former tree farm operation. 3) The Planning Commission participated in one text change to the Zoning Code during the year, the section limiting Sexually Oriented Businesses. Other elements of the Zoning Code on which we worked included: a Lighting Ordinance establishing standards of outdoor lighting in commercial/industrial areas; revisions to the Parking Ordinance; revisions to the Accessory Structures ordinance; and revisions to the Multi-Family Ordinance. 4) The Planning Commission lost one member during 2005, Kevin McAleese, and gained one new member, David Cera, joining us from his previous tenure on the Board of Zoning Appeals. At the start of 2006, we lost another member, Peggy Rasmussen, who was replaced by John Kluchka. . 5) As we consider our on-going role in working with the City Council to guide the development and land-use within the City, we want to point out several issues that we think will continue to require our focus and attention: A) Design Guidelines. We have talked at some length about the feasibility and usefulness of establishing design guidelines in commercial! industrial developments. While there are good arguments both for and against this concept, it is an area that we think needs continued discussion and review, particularly as we consider some of the larger-scale developments coming into the City (e.g., Colonnade 2, Olympic Printing, 1-394 corridor). We recommend that this be a specific topic of discussion in 2006 between the Planning Commission and the City Council, including a joint session, with the goal of reaching a consensus on whether or not to develop design guidelines, and if so, to begin drafting them. B) Subdivisions and In-Fill: We saw a number of cases this year (in particular, Lawn Terrace, Cutacross Road, and Xenia tree farm) where the question of subdividing large existing residential lots into smaller housing sites, and in- filling vacant lots with new residential developments, has become visible and politically charged. The reality is that we are a first-ring suburb, . . . . Planning Commission Annual Report February 13, 2006 Page 3 and considered a very desirable place to live. Development pressures will continue and most likely increase in the future, and we will have more of these subdivision, in-fill (and tear-down) issues to resolve. We recommend a combined Council/Commission look at this issue, to determine if our current standards and practices (e.g., minimum lot size, minimum lot width, maximum lot coverage ratio, maximum height) are appropriate and sufficient to achieve a reasonable balance between the need (and desire) by the City to accommodate more residential growth and the desire by existing property owners to maintain the existing charm and style of this community. We may find that our current system is appropriate and that there is no reason to change our ordinances. But given the repeated and political nature of this issue, it merits another review. C) Density: We are all aware of several potential projects that are likely to emerge in the near future, and that will again challenge us to think creatively about the need to participate in accommodating the region's growth, while recognizing the issues of traffic congestion and neighborhood resistance to denser development. We do not have any specific proposal to offer here, other than our observation that this will continue to be one of the most challenging issues facing our community, and our leadership. We would like to express our appreciation to the City Council for its continued strong support of the Planning Commission's role as a significant and pro-active participant in guiding the City's development. We also want to express our appreciation to the City staff for their outstanding work and support of our mission, especially Mark Grimes and Lisa Wittman. Respectfully submitted, Don Keysser, Chair Cathy Waldhauser, Vice Chair David Cera, Commissioner Les Eck, Commissioner Gregg Hackett, .Commissioner John Kluchka, Commissioner Steve Schmidgall, Commissioner