Loading...
10-23-06 PC Agenda e e e AGENDA Golden Valley Planning Commission Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, October 23,2006 5:30 pm I. Storm Water Management Discussion with City Engineer Jeff Oliver Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Council Chambers 7pm I. Approval of minutes September 25, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting II. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - Colonnade Phase II - PUD No. 53-A2 Applicant: Minnesota ND Properties Inc. a corporation owned by Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of New York Address: 5500 Wayzata Blvd. Purpose: To allow for a 240,000 square foot office building with two additional levels to the existing parking ramp. III. Reports on meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other meetings IV. Other business Discussion regarding Infill Housing VI. Adjournment Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission . September 25, 2006 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, September 25,2006. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, McC and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Develop and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Kluchka 2. s ence was ted that he would like variances allowed on 1. Approval of Minutes September 11, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Eck referred to the first paragraph on page 2 and stat incomplete. He referred to the second paragraph the last sentence to read that there will be no "f any homes being built as a part of this Subdivisi MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Cer September 11,2006 minutes with the unanimously to approve the ections. . Informal Public Hearin Ave.N. Applicant: se Permit #113 - 2500 Mendelssohn (Stephen Saunders) onal Use Permit would allow the applicant to drive-through window in the existing building located ommercial Zoning district e applicant, Lena Enterprises is requesting a Conditional Use Permit em to install a drive-through window for a proposed restaurant addition. location map and noted that the property is located at Highway 169 and Road in the northwest corner of the City. Grimes referred to a site plan and stated that the existing building is approximately 3,900 square feet in size and currently has two uses: a small grocery store and a small liquor store. The applicant would like to add a third use within the existing footprint: a restaurant with the drive-through window. . Grimes referred to a survey of the property and stated that currently there are approximately 28 parking spaces located on the site. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 2 . The Zoning Code requirement for the proposed restaurant use is one parking space for every 40 square feet of gross floor area or 23 spaces. Grimes stated that the applicant will be going to the Board of Zoning Appeals to ask for a parking variance since there are only 8 sit down spaces in the proposed restaurant. He added that the required 23 spaces is probably too many and that he feels there is adequate parking on the existing site for the proposed restaurant use along with the other uses in the building. Grimes stated that the applicant will be required to screen any dumpsters from view and it must be constructed of material compatible with the building as determ' he Building Official. Also, if the proposed intercom system becomes a p ill be asked to turn the volume down. Schmidgall noted that the Grimes stated that the a ted on the east side of rimes said yes. He go through the site and Keysser asked Grimes if staff is recommending approval of th Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Grimes stated that staff recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Keysser asked if the proposed drive-through wind the building therefore, causing headlights from referred to the site plan and showed the directio where the menu board and speaker would . Waldhauser asked if there was any co stated that staff feels that this will room on the site for cars to stac posed driving patterns. Grimes sity of traffic and there is enough rough lane if necessary. 4 sit down spaces inside the restaurant. there will be 8 sit down spaces. McCarty asked if th can be placed, etc. dinances regarding menu boards such as where they that menu boards are exempt from the sign ordinance. ny rees along the southern border that would help shield tial area to the south. Eck said that there is currently no ern border. Grimes stated that the Planning Commission n 0 approval regarding landscaping along the southern border to om the signs and headlights. Stephe rs, Lena Enterprises, 3948 11th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Applicant, stated his is to keep the liquor store and grocery store and to add the proposed restaurant with a drive-through window. He stated that there are people interested in the site and that they are just waiting for approval of the Conditional Use Permit. . Keysser explained that some of the Planning Commissioner's concerns are lighting and noise. Saunders said he is willing to work with the City regarding these concerns. Keysser added that his main concern is protecting the housing area to the south. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 25, 2006 Page 3 . Waldhauser asked if traffic to the site comes from Medicine Lake Road or from the south entrance. Saunders said that most of the traffic comes from Medicine Lake Road through the gas station parking lot. Keysser asked about the signage on the site. Saunders stated that the Sign Ordinance will not allow him any additional signage. Grimes stated that there is a sign that can be seen by people driving north on Highway 169. McCarty asked if th Nitzschke said yes, his Eck asked the applicant if the grocery market located right next door to Saunders stated that there are four small markets on that corner. Keysser asked how much foot traffic the store receives. Saund traffic is vehicular but about 10% comes from foot traffic. Waldhauser asked"the applicant if he is planning to change t Saunders said they are going to be using photocell Iig Garen Nitzschke, VSI Construction, contractor f lighting won't change, but the type of bulbs will added under the canopy in front. Waldhau residential area. Nitzschke said no. ~ect, stated that the here will be some lighting ting would shine toward the . Keysser asked Grimes if the propo time this project is constructed. approved by the time constructi the proposed lighting ordin be angled to face toward ,inance would be approved by the ew lighting ordinance might be he would give the applicant a copy of e added that the menu board and speaker will not toward the residential area to the south. ny lighting located above the drive-through window. canopy over the window and it might be back lit. out the landscaping concerns. Nitzschke said he thinks ern edge of the site is a good idea. He said that the could offer some sound dampening as well. He added that the bject property is located a good distance away from the apartments stated that he also wants the neighborhood to the south to realize picked up as early as 7 am at this site. Keysser 0 d the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. . Keysser said he would like to add a condition regarding the landscaping concerns. Eck agreed and said it is clear that the headlights from this drive-through addition will interfere with the apartments to the south. Waldhauser added that she didn't think the whole length of the south edge of the property would need to be densely landscaped but definitely where the cars make their turns needs to be denser. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 25,2006 Page 4 Grimes suggested the following language for the condition regarding landscaping: the applicant shall submit a landscape plan prior to final City Council approval. McCarty asked if they should allow the applicant the option of installing a fence or landscaping. Grimes stated that they may also want to require a dumpster plan and a plan for some landscaping around the dumpster before the proposal goes to the City Council. Schmidgall said he thinks this is a great proposal and that a landscape plan would be helpful. He said it would also be helpful if there were a better plan showing the traffic flow. He added that it would be nice if this proposal were consistent with the the proposed new lighting ordinance as well. 3. Cera said he would also like to see a bicycle rack added to the a bicyCle rack should also be added as a condition of approva MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carrie the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-th located at 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North with that 1. A new site plan reflecting the actual proposa approval. 2. All signage shall meet the requireme district. 3. If there is an outside dumpster, . material compatible with the 4. Installation of a drive-thru in residents to the south. I business due to the problem. 5. The memo from attached and his 6. A detailed win 7. A landscapi 8. A bicy 9. All ode for the Commercial zoning . from view and be constructed of ined by the Building Official. t t is constructed to minimize noise to protect plaint regarding noise from the operation of system, the applicant will work to mitigate the arshal Ed Anderson and dated August 25, 2006, is ions shall become a part of this approval. drive lanes shall be submitted before final CUP approval. I e submitted and approved by staff before final CUP approval. dded to the site e, local and federal requirements shall be met. --Short Recess-- on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City , Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Waldhauser reported that URS, the planning consultant for the 1-394 Corridor Study, will have a draft report of the study ready for review soon. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 25,2006 Page 5 . 4. Other Business '" Keysser stated that there will not be a Planning Commission meeting on October 9,2006 due to the lack of agenda items. Keysser stated that City Engineer Jeff Oliver will be attending the October 23, 2006 Planning Commission meeting from 5:30 pm to 7 pm to discuss stormwater issues. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm. . . . . >, Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: October 18, 2006 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing Preliminary P1an for Colonnade Amendment No.1, Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 53, Minnesota NO Properties, Inc., Applicant Background Minnesota NO Properties, Inc. a corporation owned by Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (TIAA) of New York, have applied for an amendment to The Colonnade PUD No. 53. CB Richard Ellis, represented by Kim Ihle, is the local contact person and has coordinated the application process. They are proposing an amendment to PUD No. 53 that would permit the vacant two acres at the southeast corner of Xenia Ave. and Golden Hills Dr. to be used for the construction of a 240,000 sq. ft. office building rather than the approved 250 room suite hotel. Also, the amended PUD would combine the existing four lots (about 7 acres total) into one lot. Additional parking would be provided on site by the construction of a 7 level, 747 space parking ramp and two additional levels added to the existing 1100 space parking ramp. (The 240,000 sq. ft. office building would be constructed on top of the 7 level parking ramp.) The original PUD also permitted the construction of the Colonnade building that has about 328,000 sq. ft. of net rentable space and a total of 369,000 sq. ft. on 15 levels. Also approved was the construction of the existing 1100 space parking ramp connected to the Colonnade building that is 5 levels in height. The existing PUD permit allows one level to be added to this parking ramp. Colonnade PUD No. 53 was approved by the City Council in 1986. The developer was Trammel Crow, a national developer of office and industrial space. The development of the Colonnade was made possible with the help of the Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). The HRA helped by assembling the property and selling it to the developer. The HRA and City also were involved in certain public improvements that made the site development possible. Much of the acquisition and public improvements were paid for through tax increment financing, a public financing tool made available to City's by the State Statute. As stated above, the original plan for development of PUD No. 53 had two primary uses. The first was the 15 story Colonnade building that was completed in 1988. The second primary use was the proposed 250 room suite type hotel that was to be constructed by a hotel developer. . The hotel and the office building were to share the parking ramp. 1 The hotel site remained in the ownership of the HRA because the hotel developer defaulted on the commitment to build the hotel. Eventually, the hotel site became the property of the owner of the Colonnade office building and is now owned by TIM. . PUD Process for Amendment The proposal to amend the PUD to permit an office building to replace the 250 room hotel is considered a major amendment to the PUD. In order to amend a PUD (except if considered a minor amendment); the process is the same as processing a PUD. It is a two step process including consideration of the preliminary plan by the Planning Commission and City Council after public hearing, and the consideration of the final plan by the Planning Commission and City Council after public hearing. If the City Council votes to approve the final PUD plan, the existing PUD permit is amended reflecting the changes to the PUD and new requirements established by the City Council. The staff has reviewed the plans and materials submitted with the preliminary plan materials for the PUD amendment. The staff has determined that the materials are complete. In this case, a copy of a draft Traffic Management Plan has been submitted by the applicant as required by the 1-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance. This traffic management plan is required in order to reduce the PM peak hour traffic generated by the parcel. The applicant has also held two neighborhood meetings for all property owners within 500 ft. of the Colonnade site. The report on the neighborhood meetings are addressed on page 11 in the PUD narrative submitted by the applicant. . The role of the Planning Commission at the preliminary plan stage is to hold an informal public hearing. After the hearing, the Commission required to make a recommendation to the City Council that may include recommended changes, conditions, or modifications to the preliminary plan. Planning Issues The applicant has done a good job in providing information regarding the PUD Amendment. The Narrative attached to the application goes into great detail regarding the project design and traffic issues. Staff will not repeat a description of the project in this report. However, there are several issues that staff would like to highlight for Planning Commission review. They are as follows: 1. Size and Height of Office Building Compared to Hotel-The existing PUD permit allows for the construction of a 250 room suite type hotel on this site with minimal conference and restaurant facilities. As indicated in the applicant's narrative, they believe such a hotel is not feasible in today's market. The exact height and size of the hotel was never specifically outlined in the PUD. In one staff report from 1986, the size was said to be in the 10 story range. The parking for the hotel was to be accommodated in the parking ramp shared with the Colonnade. It was determined by a traffic and parking study done by the City in 1986 that the 1100 spaces in the ramp would be adequate to handle both the 328,000 sq. ft. office building and the 250 room suite type hotel with minimal conference and restaurant facilities. In 1986, the hotel was planned to be an Embassy Suites, similar to others constructed throughout the country. Embassy Suites remains operating in several markets including downtown St. Paul. . 2 . . . The plans that are part of the original PUD permit (attached) do indicate the location for a hotel and a building elevation study showing the 15 story Colonnade building next to the hotel. This elevation study does show that the hotel is significantly shorter than the Colonnade building. The proposed 240,000 sq. ft. office building is proposed to be an 8 story building constructed above a 7 level parking ramp. Two of the parking ramp levels would be wholly or partially underground. The total height of the office building would be 202 ft. at it highest point on the north side. It is comparable in height to the existing Colonnade building that is a 15 story building. The proposed five level parking deck was permitted to be 52 ft. in height as indicated on the attached PUD plans. However, the five level ramp was not constructed to be that high. With the construction of two additional levels, the parking deck will be in the neighborhood of 56 ft. in height or about 8 ft. per story. The applicant has done a shadow study to indicate the effect of the building height from the 240,000 sq. ft. office building on the adjoining neighborhood to the east. This will be presented at the Oct. 23, 2006 informal public hearing. The proposed building is designed by the same architect that designed the original Colonnade in 1986. The applicant believes that the design of the second office building is very similar to the original Colonnade building. Traffic and Parking Planning staff will not repeat the information in the memos from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, and the City's consulting traffic engineer Mike Kotila, PE, of SEH, Inc. The City staff has spent much time reviewing this and other plans in the Golden Hills area. Based on our studies and conversations with the owners and developers of property in this area, the staff has determined that significant public improvements will have to be made in order to allow for traffic to flow in and around the Golden Hills area at an acceptable level. Also, there must be a limit on the PM traffic generated from Colonnade site due to anticipated traffic levels in the area. Staff has suggested to the applicant that reducing the size of the building will reduce the PM trips to an acceptable level. (The acceptable level is 541 trips outbound trips from the site in the PM peak or a building about 200,000 sq. ft. building.) However, they have balked at this suggestion and believe that they must build a 240,000 sq. ft. building. This 240,000 sq. ft. building would generate 603 trips in the PM peak hour. In order to manage the traffic to the acceptable 541 PM peak hour trips, the staff is recommending that the occupancy of both the Phase I and Phase II office building be limited to 1600 persons. The staff is recommending that each year, the owner of the office building would have to verify that the building is occupied by 1600 persons or less. In addition, the traffic management plan would have to be implemented as written with the changes recommended by the City's consulting traffic engineer. The traffic management plan would become a part of each lease in the Colonnade Phase I and II buildings. As indicated in the narrative submitted by the applicant, the proposed parking ratio for the Phase I and II buildings will be 4 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of office space. This is the City's code requirement. 3 . The Phase I building was constructed with a parking ratio of about 3 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of office space. The applicant anticipates a higher rate of occupancy for the Phase II building so additional parking is needed. If the number of occupants is limited to 1600, the staff questions the need for 2271 parking spaces. If the number of parking spaces were reduced to 1600, this would be more than adequate to serve the populations working and visiting the buildings on a daily basis. The applicant is opposed to limiting the occupancy of the building to 1600. They believe that stating that the PM peak hour trips leaving the site should be limited to 541. They have said that they will manage the traffic to keep it at the 541 level. As part of the traffic management plan, the applicant has agreed to limit the trips out of the parking ramp if the number of trips exceeds the 541 level. The staff is uncomfortable with this approach. It would be best to not get to the 541 level because limiting traffic leaving the ramp would be very unpopular. Staff believes that it would be very difficult for the owner of the Colonnade I or II building to turn down potential tenants who might cause the 541 level to be exceeded. An alternative method of controlling PM peak hour traffic would be to limit the total number of parking spaces on the Colonnade campus to a total of 1600 spaces. The applicant could then build the 240,000 sq. ft. Phase II building with the reality that more of the tenants would have to be in a managed traffic mode, for example, using transit, biking, car pools, or extended working hours. . (The City is trying to maintain for the short and long term an acceptable level of traffic in the Golden Hills and surrounding area by managing traffic levels. At this time, the area is not fully developed and it is sometimes hard to see that there is a traffic problem. But when the property in the Golden Hills area and south in St. Louis Park are fully developed, the City wants to be sure that there is adequate capacity for all uses in the area. Therefore, traffic studies are based on assumed levels of development for property in the area.) Public Safety Review Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson and Fire Chief Mark Kuhnly have extensively reviewed this proposal and have outlined their concerns in the memo from Mr. Anderson dated October 18, 2006. These recommendations will be made a part of the Planning staff recommendations. Due to the size and location of the building on the site, the recommendations must be made a part of the final plan for the amended PUD. Public Improvements City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, has submitted a memo to me dated October 17, 2006. This memo clearly states the recommendations of the Public Works Department and they will also be made a part of the Planning Staff recommendations. His report states that therewill have to be numerous public improvements made in the area to accommodate this Colonnade and other developments in the area. Prior to approval of a final plan for the PUD, the developer will have to enter into an agreement with the City to outline the developer's share of the total costs of the improvements. Mr. Oliver's memo also recommends several changes to the site plan that are necessary to accommodate larger trucks and fire department apparatus. These changes will have to be incorporated into the final plan for the PUD. . 4 . Recommended Action The development of this vacant two acre parcel at the southeast corner of Xenia Ave. and Golden Hills Dr. is inevitable. It is a very desirable location for development and the City wants to see it developed. The Colonnade Phase I building is now a landmark in the City that continues to provide good jobs and tax base. Despite early concerns by the surrounding neighborhood, the Colonnade has worked well at this location. The applicant has told the City that the approved use for the vacant site, a hotel, is not economically feasible due to low market demand for a hotel. The applicant has made it clear that they believe that the corner would best be utilized as a Class A office building similar to the Colonnade. The staff has been working with the applicant for several years on this matter. It is no secret that traffic is the major sticking point. First, how much additional traffic can this area handle and, in particular, the Golden Hills Dr. and Xenia Ave. intersection, handle before it drops to an unacceptable level of service and what improvements are needed in the area to accommodate existing and future traffic from the Colonnade and other traffic generators in the area. Second, the City is always concerned about the spillover traffic from development in the 1-394 corridor. How much traffic from the 1- 394 area goes through the residential areas and what level is acceptable? Sometimes if feels like we are doing a balancing act on top of a crystal ball. Staff recommends approval of the amended PUD No. 53 to allow the vacant two acres at the southeast corner of Xenia Ave. and Golden Hills Dr. to be used for a 240,000 sq. ft. office building (8 story office on top of a 7 level parking deck). The amendment also would permit the existing parking deck to be expanded by two levels and the PUD be consolidated into one lot from the existing four lots. The recommendation has the following conditions: . 1. The Colonnade Phase II Plans prepared by Edward Farr Architects, Inc. and dated 10/21/06 shall become a part of this approval. 2. The total number of employees in the Phase I and Phase II buildings shall be limited to 1600. 3. The Traffic Management Plan prepared for ND Properties and the City of Golden Valley covering the Colonnade Phase I and II and dated September 2006 shall become a part of this approval. 4. The memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, dated October 18, 2006, shall become a part of this approval. Recommended changes shall be reflected in the final plans for the PUD. 5. The memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, dated October 17, 2006 shall become a part of this approval. Recommendations found in his memo shall be addressed by the applicant and made a part of the final plan for the PUD. Attached to his memo is a memo from the City's consulting traffic engineer, Mike Kotila, PE. His recommendations .shall be reflected in changes to the final plan and to the final draft of the Traffic Management Plan for Colonnade I and II. 6. As required by the 1-394 Overlay Zoning District, a Traffic Management Fee shall be paid for both Phase I and II as outlined in the ordinance. . Attachments Location Map (1 page) Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated October 17, 2006 (9 pages) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated October 18, 2006 (2 pages) 5 . . . Preliminary PUD Application (4 pages) Applicant's Narrative (12 pages) Traffic Management Plan (12 pages) The Colonnade PUD No. 53 Permit dated December 16, 1986 (5 pages) Site Plans from 1986 proposal (18 pages) Site Plans prepared by Edward Farr Architects Inc. dated October 21, 2005 (19 oversized pages) 6 . ?;g> Gbl Valley Memorandum Public Works 763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax) Date: October 17, 2006 From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer ~ Colonnade Planned Unit Dev~nt #53, Amendment To: Subject: . Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed plans for an amendment to The Colonnade P.U.D. No. 53. The proposed development is located east of Xenia Avenue, south of Golden Hills Drive, west of Turners Crossroad and north of Interstate 394. The original Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved by the City in 1986, and included the multi-story office building that currently exists on the site and a hotel on the northwest corner of the property adjacent to Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive. The proposed PUD amendment includes construction of a seven-story parking ramp and 240,000 square feet of office space constructed on top of the new parking ramp. Public Improvements The proposed development of this site will require modifications to the roadway and utility systems adjacent to the property. These improvements include utility services to the proposed office building, turn lanes, traffic signal modifications, medians and roadway modifications to accommodate the traffic generated by the PUD. The City has determined that the improvements resulting from this development and other development in the area will be performed as a public improvement project. Therefore, the developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the City for the public improvements that will include the Colonnade's anticipated cost participation and funding. Additional discussion on what is included in the public improvement project is included within the text of this review. The estimated costs will be developed concurrently with the final PUD plans for this site and other development sites in the area. Site Plan The proposed PUD amendment includes access to the site from two locations. The first location is the existing circular driveway from northbound Xenia Avenue, which is currently, and will remain, a right-in/right-out access point. The second access point will be into the existing parking structure from Golden Hills Drive. Access into the new parking structure will be through the existing facility. . G:\Developments-Private\Miner Site\PUDAmendMemo1 01706.doc . . . The proposed service vehicle access to this site is also proposed to be from Golden Hills Drive. As shown on the site plan, service vehicles will enter a one-way driveway approximately 150 feet east of Xenia Avenue. The driveway extends eastward to a point where trucks can back into the loading dock area. This service access appears to be designed to accommodate single-axle trucks, and not semis. The plans must be modified to show the truck turning movements into the proposed loading dock area. The City has been working with this developer regarding the traffic generated by the proposed PUD amendment, and the roadway improvements needed to accommodate the development. (Discussion of the traffic impacts from the PUD amendment will be discussed later in this review.) The site plan submitted for review does not include the roadway improvements to Golden Hills Drive that have been determined to be needed for the development. These improvements include two westbound left turn lanes, a single westbound through lane and a single right turn lane. The outer lanes for westbound traffic must be 14 feet wide, and the internal lanes must be 12 feet wide. The additional lanes will be included in the public improvement project discussed above. The additional lanes discussed above will require modifications to the traffic signals at the intersection of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive. These modifications will also be included in the public improvement project. A concept plan of the public improvements anticipated for Golden Hills Drive and Xenia Avenue is attached to this memorandum for reference. This concept plan illustrates the lane layout discussed above. However, it does not address the ability for fire department apparatus or semi trucks to turn from northbound Xenia Avenue onto eastbound Golden Hills Drive. The developer must include turning movements for these vehicles on the site plan. The proposed plans include a retaining wall and landscaped area between the loading dock driveway and Golden Hills Drive. Because emergency response access to this site is limited, this landscaped area must be modified to facilitate emergency response. The area must have a paved surface with acceptable access for the Public Safety Department. The developer will be required to dedicate, at no cost to the City, any right-of-way or easements determined to be necessary by the City to construct the public improvement project as discussed. The developer previously dedicated a walkway easement to the City of Golden Valley for the completion of the sidewalk system on the east side of Xenia Avenue. This easement, as well as any other easements on site that are dedicated to the City, must be shown on the site plan and all other applicable plan sheets. . . . Traffic The City of Golden Valley has been working with the developer of this site, and with developers of adjacent sites, regarding traffic impacts at the intersection of Golden Hills Drive and Xenia Avenue for several years. The City has determined that the subject intersection must operate at a Level of Service "D" or higher following all development in the area. This traffic management goal has been included in multiple traffic reports for this area. The City's consulting traffic engineer, Mike Kotila from Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH), has reviewed the proposed PUD amendment for traffic generation and consistency with previously established goals for the subject intersection.,A copy of the SEH memo, dated October 13, 2006, is attached to this review for reference. As discussed in the SEH memo, in order to maintain a satisfactory Level of Service at the intersection during the PM peak hour, trip generation from this site must be restricted and the410adway improvements discussed within this review must be constructed. In order to limit the number of trips generated, it has been determined that the total employee occupancy for the entire PUD (the existing and proposed Colonnade buildings) must be limited to 1,600 persons. The developer will be required to submit a certified report annually, or more frequently as directed by the City, that includes terms of each lease within the PUD and the number of employees in each leased space. Previous discussions with the developer have included a City requirement that a metering system, including a barricade gate, be installed at the exit points from the Colonnade parking ramps. This metering system will be similar to the system installed by Allianz, and will be connected to the traffic signal system at Golden Hills Drive and Xenia Avenue, and will automatically close the gates from the parking ramp if PM peak hour trips exceed the maximum volume allowed. The developer has proposed that this system be installed in the future if congestion at the intersection occurs. It is recommended that this metering system be installed as part of the new parking facility. The connection to the traffic signal system will be included in the public improvement project. As required by City Code, the developer has submitted a traffic management plan for the proposed PUD Amendment. This plan outlines measures to be implemented to reduce the traffic generated by the development, including carpooling, transit and flexible work hours, and other measures. This traffic management plan is discussed in the October 13,2006 SEH review. The developer must make the modifications discussed in the review. Utilities Sanitary sewer and water service to this PUD amendment is proposed through extension of services from existing mains in Xenia Avenue. The installation of these services will be part of the public improvement project discussed within this review. There is adequate capacity within the City sanitary sewer and water systems to provide service to this development. . . . Additional fire hydrants must be included for the proposed PUD. A hydrant must be included on the north side of the Xenia Avenue access point to the site, and along the north boulevard of Golden Hills Drive near the loading dock. These hydrants will be installed as part of the public improvement project and will be financed by the developer. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control The proposed PUD Amendment is located within the Sweeney Lake sub-district of the Bassett Creek Watershed. Therefore, the development must comply with the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals. As outlined in the BCWMC requirements, the development of the site will require the implementation of storm water Best Management Practices, including the construction of nutrient and sediment removal ponding based on the BCWMC standards. However, when the City of Golden Valley constructed Xenia Avenue north of Laurel Avenue, a regional storm water pond was also constructed. This regional pond provides the runoff rate control and water quality volumes for this development. Therefore, no additional on-site storm water ponding is required. Because the disturbed area for this development exceeds one acre, the developer must obtain a NPDES General Storm Water Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. A copy of the permit application, and a copy of the permit when obtained, must be provided to the Golden Valley Public Works Department for its records. The developer must submit a revised grading, drainage and erosion control plan that is prepared according to Golden Valley standards. A copy of these standards is available in the Public Works Department. The final PUD submittal will not be considered by the City until a satisfactory grading, drainage and erosion control plan is submitted. The developer will also be required to obtain a City of Golden Valley grading, drainage and erosion control permit. This permit must be obtained prior to the start of any work on site. Tree Preservation and Landscaping This development is subject to the City of Golden Valley's Tree Preservation Ordinance. However, based upon the Code, no tree preservation plan or permit is required. The landscape plan submitted for review must meet the City's minimum landscape standards, and will be subject to the review and comment of the Building Board of Review for compliance. Summary and Recommendations Public Works staff recommends approval of the preliminary design plan for the proposed Colonnade Planned Unit Development No. 53, Amendment No.1, subject to the comments contained in this review, which are summarized as follows. . . . 1) The developer must enter into a Public Improvement Agreement with the City for the construction of street and utility improvements as outlined in this review. This agreement will include the developer's financial participation in the required project. 2) The developer must submit revised plans with the General Plan submittal to incorporate comments contained in this review, including: a) The conceptual roadway improvements. b) Illustration of the turning radii for the loading dock and intersection of Golden Hills Drive and Xenia Avenue. c) An improved emergency response staging area in the vicinity of the loading dock to be shown on the plans. d) The utility improvements discussed in this review must be shown on the plans. e) A grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be submitted that is prepared to City standards. 3) The developer;,must agree to dedicate all right-of-way and easements deemed necessary to construct the public improvements discussed in this review. 4) The total employee occupancy for both phases of the PUD must be limited to 1,600 persons, and the owner must submit an annual report to the City detailing the number of employees. 5) The developer must install the meter and gate system discussed in this review at the exit points from the parking structure with the construction of the new structure. The connection to the traffic signal will be installed as part of the City's public improvement project. 6) The traffic management plan must be revised to address the issues raised in the October 13, 2006 SEH review. 7) The development is subject to the review and comment of the BCWMC. 8) Subject to the review and comments of the City Attorney, Building Official, Deputy Fire Marshal and other City staff. Attachment C: Mike Kotila, SEH Tom Burt, City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator Eric Eckman, Pubic Works Specialist Gary Johnson, Building Official Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal . . . ~ SEH MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff Oliver, City Engineer City of Golden Valley FROM: Mike Kotila, Traffic Engineer DATE: October 13,2006 RE: Colonnade Phase II PUD Amendment Site Plan and TDMP SEHNo. AGOLDV9801.00 14.00 I have reviewed the Colonnade Phase II site plan and Travel Demand Management Plan and provide the following comments and questions. Site Plan and Building Drawings Sheet A 1.1 - Site Plan . The street configuration shown does not represent the latest concept developed. The City will design and construct the street improvements - the site plan needs to reflect the design the City intends to build. . Golden Hills Drive needs two westbound left turn lanes, one westbound through lane and one exclusive westbound right turn lane. Lanes should be 12 feet wide with an additional 2 feet of width for lanes adjacent to inside or outside curbs. The eastbound lane departing from Xenia should be a minimum of 16 feet in width. . Public sidewalk improvements should be shown on the site plan. . Truck turning movements need to be demonstrated with the revised geometry. . Right of way dedication will be needed to accommodate the wider roadway described above. . Setbacks from the new right of way line will be different than those shown in the drawing. SheetA13 . The site signing plan infers that the loading dock accessed from Golden Hills Drive is for small delivery vehicles. Large tractor trailer combinations being served by the existing dock on the east side of the Phase I building. Turning movements for each use should be demonstrated to and from the streets and within the site. . If large truck deliveries occur at the east side of the existing building - how are goods shuttled to the freight elevator of the new building? . The TDMP suggests that gates might be needed at all exits from the parking ramp. If gated operation is agreed upon, additional signing might be needed to reinforce a gated operation. Sheet A2.1 through A2.6 - Parking Ramp . If gated operation is agreed upon, the plans should indicate potential gate locations. Gates would also be necessary on entrances to restrict wrong way movements when exits are closed. Loop detectors for gate operation and for counting entering exiting vehicles should be shown. . Preferential parking spaces dedicated for car pools should be identified on each level and in existing ramp . Handicap parking spaces should be identified . Bike locker and rack locations should be identified Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 200, Minnetonka, MN 55343.9301 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 952.912.2600 I 800,734.6757 I 952.912.2601 fax Colonnade Phase II October 16, 2006 Page 2 . Sheet A2.6 through A2.9 . Leasable space and non leasable space is identifiable. A floor by floor breakdown of leasable versus non-leasable space and summary of gross floor area should be provided. . Iflower floors will house uses other than office space (i.e. retail, restaurant, bank, etc) these uses should be identified. Trip reductions should then be acknowledged in the TDMP. Trip Generation Analysis Comments The TDMP correctly reflects a general understanding that a 200,000 gross square foot office expansion resulting in 541 pm peak outbound trips would result in a total traffic demand that can be served in combination with existing and other new traffic generators at the intersection of Golden Hills Drive and Xenia A venue. This assumes that street and signal improvements are made consistent with the capacity shown in concept drawings prepared by SEH for the City. The development proposal suggests that traffic demands from a 24~O,000 gross square foot office expansion will be managed to the equivalent impact of the 200,000 gross square foot building. A maximum of 541 outbound pm peak hour trips is proposed as the intended operational goal. If more than 541 trips outbound trips are generated in an hour, they propose to close the egress points from the parking ramp by using gates. This would be an extraordinary measure that could result in non-compliance and extreme dissatisfaction by building tenants. Rather than allow the opportunity for the development to generate a traffic condition that requires extraordinary measures such as gates, it would be better to reduce the trip generation potential ofthe site. . The following was submitted by the developer: . The site is proposed to be occupied by 1,800 employees (Phase I plus Phase II) . The Phase I building is occupied at a density of330 square feet per employee . Phase I has 328,000 lease able square feet . Phase II is proposed to have 225,000 lease able square feet The following can be derived from the above developer provided data: . The Phase I building is proposed to be occupied by 994 employees (328,000 divided by 330) . As proposed, the Phase II building would house 806 employees (1800 minus 994) . The proposed Phase II density would be 279 square feet per employee (225,000 divided by 806) ITE trip generation rates used previously have been based upon gross square feet. The 541 outbound pm peak hour maximum flow was calculated based upon actual (counted) Phase I demands plus 20% to account for unoccupied Phase I space at the time the data was collected plus pm peak hour outbound trips expected to be generated by a 200,000 gross square foot Phase II expansion. This goal will provide confidence that westbound delays and queues on Golden Hills Drive at the Xenia intersection will not create driveway blockages for the office complex on the north side of Golden Hills Drive or create unreasonable delays for other users of the public streets that dead end beyond the Colonnade site. As noted above, the Phase II office space is proposed to be occupied at a higher density than the Phase I space which is of concern considering that the developers stated intention is to manage trips generated by the Phase II operation to similar rates as the Phase I operations. The number of employees/occupants of a site is a better indicator of trip generation than gross floor space. This proposed occupancy information was not previously available for consideration. ITE trip generation methodology based upon the . . . . Colonnade Phase II October 16, 2006 Page 3 develoBer proposed 1800 employees results in 603 outbound pm trips - 62 more than calculations based upon gross floor area that result in 541 trips. Based upon ITE employee based rates, the 541 outbound pm peak hour trips would be generated by a Phase II expansion resulting in a total occupancy of Phase I and Phase II of 1600 employees. I recommend that this 1600 employee limit should be used as an occupancy threshold for purposes of managing outbound pm peak hour trips. Page 5 - Components of Traffic Management Plan These additional general ideas and specific requirements should be reflected inthe TDMP. 1. Promote Ridesharing - A minimum number of preferential parking spaces for carpools (10) and vanpools (5) is provided. This number of spaces should be provided in both ramp structures for easy access to eitheJ:Jmilding from the preferred spaces. The number of preferential spaces allocated for each ramp shou'ld be reviewed periodically and increased as needed to ensure availability of spaces for the program to grow. Preferential parking for motorcycles should also be added. 2. Promote Transit Use 2nd bullet - Should strengthen the commitment to require the owner and/or tenants to provide a minimum of 30% subsidy for the purchase of bus passes by employees on a pretax basis. This subsidy should be made available to employees agreeing to commute by bus at least three days per week. 6th Bullet - The bicycle amenities (locker rooms, ~howers and bike racks) should be situated in the building and/or ramp to provide convenience and. security for bicyclists. This should also show up on the site plan drawings. 3. Promote flexible work hour arrangements - Strengt hen language from "discuss the benefits" of flexible work schedules to "actively promote flexible work schedules and telecommuting". 4. Advertising .and Communication - Add an informational kiosk or other convenient and visible location for employees to pick up transit maps, purchase bus passes, arrange car pooling, etc. 5. Promote tenant and employee survey and plan reports - Add that the building owners will provide building occupancy information to the City on an annual basis, or as otherwise agreed to by the City. The occupancy survey should be performed by an independent third party certifYing the accuracy of the report. Implementation Plan and Follow Up Operations Page 8; Item 4.a - The report at 75% occupancy is good. Volume counts should also be provided via loop detectors tied into the signal controller on Xenia/Golden Hills Drive. The loop detectors will be embedded in exit lanes from the ramp. Data would therefore be available for any day needed. Add a new item - Building occupancy count should be performed annually certified by an independent third party. 1600 tenants should be the operational limit, corresponding to the 541 pm peak hour exiting trips as previously discussed. p:\fj\g\goldv\980100\colonnade\colonnade ii site plan & tdmp cpmments.rev1.doc . Public ~U~Y 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 Amendment for the Colonnade Phase II Project Date: October 18, 2006 cc. Mark Kuhnly, Fire Chief The Golden Valley Fire Department has reviewed the application and the proposed site plan for the PUD amendment for the Colonnade Phase II Office Tower and the additional levels added to the existing parking ramp. The Fire Department's concerns are listed below: . 1. The fire department access for fire apparatus and equipment proposed for this building does not meet the requirements as set forth in the Minnesota State Fire Code and the Golden Valley Fire Department Fire Code Standards on access and turning radius. 2. A fire department access road shall be required for every facility building or portion or the building. The access road shall extend to within 150' of all portions of facilities or any portion of the exterior walls measuring to an approved route around the building. If the fire department access road cannot be installed due to location on the property or other conditions, an approved alternate means of fire protection or safeguard will be required for the building. Safeguards would include, but not be limited to, the following: fire protection equipment, automatic smoke/fire detection systems throughout the building and increase location of Class 1 wet and/ or dry standpipe systems for the parking decks, ramp and the building. 3. The fire department access road for this site shall be in accordance with the MN State Fire Code. The fire department access road shall have a minimum, unobstructed width of 26' in the middle of the facility of any building or portion of the building more than 30' in height. 4. The fire department access road shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13'6". . 5. All fire department access roads shall have a 45' inside turning radius for all fire apparatus. . . . 6. The proposed plan does not indicate locations of any fire hydrants for the site. Fire hydrants will be required for the entire area. The installation of the fire hydrants will be in accordance with the requirements from the City of Golden Valley Engineering office. 7. The proposed office tower life safety system will be designed as a high-rise occupancy including, but not limited to, the fire department communication systems, elevator master control boards, and other items indicated in the Minnesota State Fire Code requirements. 8. The additional two-parking deck levels for the existing parking ramp shall be designed for additional fire protection equipment and requirements as set forth in the Minnesota State Fire Code and recognized fire code standards. 9. The proposed executive parking area for the Phase II office tower fire suppression and protection shall be designed in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code. 10. Provide a structure engineer report and documentation on the weight capacities for the fire apparatus vehicles placement on the front drive circle area of the existing and the proposed building and the parking deck and ramp areas. . If there are any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065. P.U.D. Number 53 " . City of Golden Valley Application for Consideration of Planned Unit Development Ordinance Preliminary Design Plan Date of Application: September 19. 2006 *Fee Paid $300.00 ($300.00) Receipt No. All information - including agendas. staff reports and hearing notices will be sent to the Authorized Representative. Applicant Information Name: Minnesota ND Properties. Inc., a corporation owned by Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of New York (Individual, or corporate entity) Daytime Phone: . E-Mail Address: Fax: Authorized Representative, if other than Applicant: Name: Kimberly K. Ihle Mailing Address: CB Richard Ellis 5500 Wayzata Boulevard. Suite 125 Golden Valley. MN 55416 Daytime Phone: 763-591-2212 E-Mail Address:kim.ihle@cbre.com Property Owner: Minnesota ND Properties, Inc.. a corporation owned by Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America Fax: 763-591-2210 Mailing Address: 730 Third Avenue. New York NY 10017 Street Location and/or Address of Property in Question: Southeast Quadrant of Xenia Avenue . and Golden Hills Drive, a/kfa 5500 - 5600 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, MN 55416 Legal Description (Attach separate sheet if necessary): Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. Block 1, The Colonnade P.U.D. No. 53, accordinq to the recorded platthereof, and situate in Hennepin .countv, Minnesota, toqether with the appurtenant easement(s) contained in Document No. 5248926. 15 copies of the site plan must accompany the application. Type of Proposal: Small Area: Residential: Business & Professional Office: x Large or Complex Area: Commercial: X Industrial: x Institutional: Mixed Use: Redevelopment Area:~, Golden Hills Redevelopment District Present Zoning of Property: Commercial/Business/Professional Proposed Use of Property (Attach additional pages if necessary): · Changing from a 250 room suite hotel use on the Phase II parcel to a 240;000 gross sq. ft. / 225,000 rentable sq. ft. office building use, and · Adding two additional levels to the existing Phase I parking ramp instead of one additional level permitted in the original PUD. . Number: 3 Type: 1). Office - 328,000 rentable sq. ft. (existing) 2). Parking Ramp - 1 ,424 stalls (1,100 existing). 3). Office - 225,000 rentable SQ. ft. above 747 stall parkinq structure Structures: Height: 1 ) 230' 2) 202' 3) 56' Number of Stories: 1) 15 2) 15 3) 7 Amenities and/or Recreational Facilities (Le. Tennis Court, Pool, etc.): Retail and service uses compatible with office use, scaled ot accommodate Class A office clientele includinq, but not limited to restaurants. cafeteria, bankinq, convenience store, travel aqency, etc. Number of People Intended to Live or Work on Premises: Adults: 1,800 Children: Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Proposed: Enclosed (Garage or Parking Ramp): 2,271 Non-Enclosed: . Total Acres of Land in P.U.D.: 7.0 (approx.) Density (No. of Units per Acre): n/a ~ Indicate the Following Data by Percentages: . Area Covered by Structures: . Area Covered by Interior Streets: 51 % Area Covered by Outside Parking: 0% % Area Landscaped: 35 % Natural Area and/or Open Space: % Ponding Area: % Zoning Variances: List below all variances from the standard zoning requirements that will be requested as part of this P.U.D., and the justification for granting said variances (attach additional sheets if needed). IV. PUD Flexibility: .Deviations from underlying Section 11.45. Business And Professional Offices Zoning District requirements. The design and construction associated with the Phase II project will comply with the requirements of Business and Profes~ional Office requirements except: Subdivision 4. Building Height. No building in this zoning district shall exceed (3) stories in height at the front or street grade level, unless a Conditional Use Permit has been granted allowing such building or structure to exceed three (3) stories in height. The total height indicated for the proposed Phase II addition is 202'-0" on the north side and on the south side it varies between 189'-6" at the lobby entrance point on the east end to 196'-0' on the . west end. The west side of the building has an average height of 196'-0". This would approximate a (15) story building with a 13'-0" floor-to-floor height. This is comparable to the adjacent Phase I building and not inconsistent with other multi-story office buildings in the immediate vicinity. Subdivision 5. Yard Restrictions. A. Front yard Setbacks. Front yards shall be provided for all buildings as follows: 1. No building or other structure in the Business and Professional Offices district shall be located closer than 35 feet from the property line along any abutting street. The 35 foot front setback as described above shall all be landscaped. The proposed Phase II addition has a minimum setback dimension of 35'-3". 2. In the case of a building over three (3) stories, the front setback shall be increased five (5) feet for each additional story over three (3) stories or each additional ten (10) feet above the height of thirty (30) feet. . 4 " . If the Phase II addition adhered to these guidelines, our fifteen (15) story building would require a setback of approximately 83 '-0'+ 35'-0"= 118'-0" which would not allow our project to move ahead in the approval process. I hereby declare that all statements made in this request, and on additional material, are true. Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Property Owner Date . . Narrative for PUD Amendment Application . The Colonnade - PUD #53 5500 - 5600 Wayzata Blvd. Golden Valley, MN Contents I. Overview II. Traffic Impact Report Summary III. Project Design IV. PUD Flexihility: Deviations from underlying zoning requirements V. Neighborhood Meeting I. Overview The applicant requests amendment to the current PUD #53 Use Permit previously granted by the Golden Valley City Council on December 16, 1986. CB Richard Ellis is making application on behalf of Minnesota ND PropertIes, Inc., (Owner), a corporation owned by Teachers Insurance and Annuity. Association of New York. The Golden Valley City Code, Section 11.55, subd. 12 requires that this amendment request follow the procedures required for a new use permit. The PUD's Land Use Components are proposed to be amended as follows: . Changing from a 250 room suite hotel use on the Phase II parcel to a 240,000 gross sq. ft. /225,000 rentable sq. ft. office building use, and . Adding two additional levels to the existing Phase I parking ramp instead of one additional level pemlitted in the original PUD. . The PUD's Subdivision Component is proposed to be amended as follows: · Lot consolidation from four separate lots to one lot. No amendments are proposed for the remaining PUD Use Permit components except that the various plans referenced therein will be changed to reference current plans. During the last several years, the applicant has had numerous meetings and discussions with City staff regarding the proposed amendments previously described. At the beginning of these communications, it was determined that traffic implications of the proposed changes would need to be addressed. As a result, extensive traffic studies have been performed both by the City's consultant, SEH, Inc. (SEH) and by the applicant's consultant, Benshoof & Associates, Inc. (Benshoof). In their report dated July 7, 2004, SEH concluded that the affected intersections could adequately accommodate traffic projections associated with the proposed Phase II office building, provided that the traffic signal timing at several intersections is optimized and that the traffic lanes on westbound Golden Hills Drive approaching Xenia A venue are redesignated. Benshoof generally agrees with SEH's findings and, further, has suggested a measure to alleviate a concern expressed by SEH regarding queues for westbound traffic on Golden Hills Drive approaching Xenia Avenue. The need for a change in land use stems from the fact that a suite hotel concept has not been, and is not forecasted to be, a viable business opportunity at this location. The hotel parcel of this PUD has sat vacant for 15 years, as evidence of this reality. Rather, an office use is consistent with this area's growth and long-term market demand trends. . 2 The motivation for requesting the second additional level to be added to the Phase I parking ramp is to increase the ratio of parking stalls to office space. This will improve parking capacity for both Phase I and Phase II. - . The need for lot consolidation relates to building code requirements. II. Summary of Traffic Analyses and Traffic Management Program A. History of Traffic Studies As mentioned in the overview, the proposed change in use from a suite hotel to office created a need to reexamine potential traffic impacts. During the past eight years, extensive traffic studies have been performed to ensure that roadways in the Golden Hills area will continue to provide effective long-term operations. Starting with the most recent report, major such studies are as follows: . a) 1-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance Development Update, SRF Consulting Group, Inc., December 13, 2004. This report was referenced in the packet for the July 25, 2005, joint City Council meeting (Cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park). The purpose of this report was to provide an update on development characteristics and traffic implications relative to the 1-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance. This report accounted for a 239,000 sq. ft. phase II office building on the Colonnade site. b) "Traffic Study Update, Golden Hills Area," SEH, July 7, 2004. Like the previously referenced report, this report also accounted for a 239,000 sq. ft. phase II office building on the Colonnade site. c) Traffic analyses performed by Benshoof in 2001 and 2002 regarding traffic implications of a 239,000 sq. ft. phase II office building for the Colonnade site. d) "Golden Valley Office Development EA W, Technical Traffic Report," Benshoof, October 1999 (included in the EA W for the Allianz office development). e) "Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Traffic Study," SEH, Pebruary 1997. B. Existing Traffic Conditions The "Traffic Study Update, Golden Hills Area," which was submitted by SEH to the City in July, 2004, includes several statements that existing traffic volumes are lower than expected and, as a result, that the quality of traffic operations is better than anticipated. Four such statements are: . Page 1 - ". .. recent observations of the traffic operations at the intersection of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive have revealed that traffic through these intersections are operating better than what the previous traffic models had predicted." . Page. 4 - "... the Colonnade office building is currently generating approximately 39.4 percent less traffic during the AM peak hour and approximately 41.7 percent less traffic during the PM peak hour than was originally anticipated. . 3 : . Page 4 - "... the Golden Hills Office Building is currently generating approximately 18.9 percent less traffic during the AM peak hour and approximately 15.1 percent less traffic than was originally anticipated during the PM peak hour. - . . Page 5 - "... the Allianz office building is currently generating approximately 8.1 percent more traffic during the AM peak hour and approximately 2.5 percent less traffic than was originally anticipated during the PM peak hour. The lower than projected traffic generated by the existing Colonnade building is mainly due to the excessive amount of building common area. It also includes area that does not exist, which is related to how the building was originally measured by the developer, Trammell Crow. The total gross building area (recorded with the City of Golden Valley) is allocated as follows: Net Rentable Area Phantom Area Building Storage Area Total Gross Floor Area 328,865 SF 30,800 SF* 9.674 SF 369,339 SF * The Phantom Area represents the excessive building common areas over and above that which is included in the Net Rentable Area (NRA). It also includes unallocated space - or space that does not exist due to the developer's inaccurate measurement of the building. The Phantom Area is a directly related to the lower traffic generation because it is space that cannot be leased or occupied by tenants. The building storage area is also disproportionately large compared to the total building. The Net Rentable Area includes the total tenant usable area plus an allocation of the building common areas. This figure more accurately describes the . building area in terms of traffic generation. This information was presented to the Hennepin County Assessor in 1997, in an effort to reduce the assessed value and related taxes payable on the property. Effective that year, the Colonnade's Net Rentable Area was reduced from 359,665 sq. ft. (Net Rentable Area plus Phantom Area) to 328,000 sq. ft. The assessed value now better represents The Colonnade in terms of tenant rentable area and the rental income stream which can be generated on this rentable area. For confirmation of the revised Net Rentable Area, which is used for purposes of valuation and real estate taxes, please contact Hennepin County Assessor, Chris Bennett at (612)348-7821. C. Trip Generation with Proposed Office Building, as Compared to Previously Approved Hotel Page 4 in the SEH report dated July 7, 2004, indicates that the existing Colonnade office building originally was projected to generate 499 vehicle trips in the a.m. peak hour and 460 trips in the p.m. peak hour. Table 2 in the same SEH report indicates the 250 room hotel that has been approved for the site would generate 140 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 148 trips in the p.m. peak hour. Thus, the full office and hotel development that already has been approved by the City originally was projected to generate 639 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 608 trips in the p.m. peak hour. . As presented on page 4 of the SEH report, recent traffic counts demonstrate the existing office building actually generates 302 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 268 trips in the p.m. peak hour. Using data presented in Table 2 of the SEH report for a potentia1239,000 sq. ft. phase two office 4 building and accounting for the 1,000 additional sq. ft. in the current proposal, the proposed 240,000 sq. ft. phase two office building would generate 379 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 348 trips in the p.m. peak hour. Thus, using the actual counts for the existing building, the total expected trip generation upon completion of the phase two office building is 681 trips in the a.m. . peak hour and 616 trips in the p.m. peak hour. Comparing the trip generation results in the two preceding paragraphs, the current full development trip generation is just slightly greater than the expected trip generation for the development already approved - 42 trips (6.6%) in the a.m. peak hour and 8 trips (1.3%) in the p.m. peak hour. These trip generation differences are so slight as to not cause any perceptible difference in traffic conditions on nearby roadways. D. Forecast Traffic Conditions For p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts that include a 239,000 sq. ft. phase II office building on the Colonnade site, level of service results presented in SRF's report dated December 13,2004, and in SEH's report dated July 7, 2004, are summarized in the table below: . INTERSECTION P.M. PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH FULL BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES SRF REPORT DATED SEH REPORT DATED JULY 7, DECEMBER 13, 2004 2004 Xenia Ave. and Cl N.A. Glenwood Ave. Xenia Ave. and Laurel C C Ave. Xenia Ave. and Golden D2 D3 Hills Dr. _._---~. Xenia Ave. and 1-394 D Satisfactory performance, with north ramps no specific LOS value given, upon completion of signal optimization Xenia Ave. and 1-394 C Satisfactory performance, with south ramps no specific LOS value given, upon completion of signal optimization 1 With installation of northbound left turn lane. 2 With improvements recommended by SEH plus westbound right turn lane. 3 With eight phase signal operation, instead of split phase, and redesignation oflanes on westbound approach. E. Difference in Trip Generation for 240,000 sq. ft. Office Building, as Compared to 239,000 sq. ft. Office Building . As previously mentioned, both the SRF report dated December 2004 and the SEH report dated July 2004, account for the trips generated by a 239,000 sq. ft. phase II office building on the Colonnade site. Since this application is for an office building with 240,000 sq. ft. gross floor area, an obvious inquiry is to determine whether the 1,000 sq. ft. increase in size would have any significant consequences. Using the same trip generation rates as applied in SEH's report dated July 2004, this increase of 1,000 sq. ft. would result in two additional trip ends during the p.m. peak hour. With 240,000 sq. ft., Benshoof concludes the new office development would 5 . III. . . generate 59 entering trips during the p.m. peak hour, which is the same as presented in the SEH report, and 289 exiting trips, which is two greater than presented in the SEH report. This trip generation increase is less than one percent and, thus, would not cause any perceptible difference. F. Conclusions Regarding Ability of Roadway System to Accommodate Traffic Projections with a 240,000 sq. ft. Phase II Office Building on Colonnade Site With application of reasonable mitigation measures, both the SRF report dated December 2004 and the SEH report dated July 2004 indicate the roadway system can adequately accommodate a 239,000 sq. ft. phase II office building on the Colonnade site. This satisfactory outcome also would occur with a 240,000 sq. ft. phase II office development because p.m. peak hour trip generation for the site would increase by less than one percent. G. Traffic Management Plan The owner's property manager, CB Richard Ellis, has been working with tenants during several past years to manage traffic conditions around the Colonnade property. Such traffic management coordination with existing tenants continues. A formal Traffic Management Plan is part of this application. Project Design A. Major Project Components The Phase II project consists of four primary components: 1. A 225,000 rentable sq. ft. / 240,000 gross sq. ft., 8 story office building, sitting above a 7 level, 747 stall parking ramp (l-2Ievels below grade, 5-6 levels above grade), 2. A 2 level, 424 stall parking ramp addition to the existing 1,100 stall Phase 1 ramp, 3. An on-grade pedestrian link between the two office towers. The project is designed to attract Class A office tenants, in keeping with the quality and performance of Phase 1 Colonnade. To make the project feasible in the market, it needs a certain scale and density to attract large corporate users, as well as requiring an 'economy of scale' from a construction cost / rental rate standpoint. These market factors, combined with the small 2 acre site, led to our unique 'urban design' solution of putting the office tower above the parking ramp, not next to it. Consistent with Metropolitan Council policies, the project design heightens density to maximize efficient land utilization adjacent to a major regional transportation corridor, 1-394. Utilization of this freeway-adjacent location for office density reduces the potential for high traffic volumes on City neighborhood streets and increases the potential for transit usage. B. Site Plan The site plan retains the original PUD's concept of a shared entry drive feature that both buildings utilize. The main entries of the two office towers will be connected with an on-grade pedestrian link, also contemplated in the original PUD plan; this link will offer and promote tenant cross-circulation between the towers and sharing of common area amenities. Phase II's site work will match the formal, sculptured plaza detailing and planting types that exist around Phase I. 6 No new curb cuts for automobile access from either Xenia A venue or Golden Hills Drive are proposed for this development. Cars will enter at one of the two existing points of entry to the development: the main entrance along Xenia A venue (northbound traffic -only), or the Phase 1 parking ramp entrance along Golden Hills Drive. As such, access to and egress from the . Phase II parking ramp is only available by driving into and through the Phase 1 ramp. The only new curb cuts proposed are for truck access serving the new Phase II loading dock along Golden Hills Drive. To avoid having trucks use the public street for their back-up maneuv~r into the dock, the design provides a 'truck entry only' driveway to allow easier turning and maneuvering at the dock without having to use the public street. Phase II needs its own truck dock since there is no feasible route to link with the existing Phase 1 loading dock along Turners Crossroad. Sidewalks are proposed along Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills. Drive to allow and promote pedestrian circulation in the neighborhood, as well as gaining access to the new bus stop on the west side of Xenia. These sidewalks would also connect to the exiting walks along Xenia Avenue on the west and Golden Hills Drive on the north. . C. Building Design The facade of the Phase II development is very similar to that of Phase I, to be compatible with the intent of the original PUD for high-level finishes. One important design effect is the facade treatment of the parking ramp facing south at the main entry. The monumental limestone 'colonnade' base of the building wraps around from Phase 1 to 'hide' the new Phase II parking ramp, giving the impression that the office tower really rests on grade. This design effectively screens the parking ramp from the primary vehicular views coming north along Xenia Avenue from 1-394. Since the first floor of the new office building is 7 floors above grade, the building features a dramatic street-level entry lobby to greet visitors at the circular entry driveway, which fits neatly into the 'colonnade' marching along the facade. The Phase II office tower uses the same silver-grey reflective glass and frame color as Phase I. Granite-chip polished precast panels match the polished granite of Phase I. A distinctive arched roof form crowns the tower, complementing the pyramid top of Phase I. This rooftop feature also screens the mechanical equipment and elevator penthouse for a clean skyline. The proposed new parking ramp is a three aisle, seven level post tensioned concrete structure designed to be compatible with the existing ramp. Yet, the parking structure has a distinctive architectural image that reduces the visual impact of this structure through efforts to reduce the overall scale of the building. The exterior concrete parapet panels will be the same size as the existing Phase 1 ramp and their texture, color and detailing will be as similar as possible to the existing panels. The top of the parapet panels for the new deck will be approximately 46 ft. above grad,e on the north side while the ramp height on the west side will be 40 ft. The additional two levels added to the existing Phase I ramp will raise its total height to approximately 56 ft. Visual unification between the Office Tower and the ramp is being accomplished by incorporating a substantial amount of the architectural facade treatment of the Office Tower into the south and west elevations of the ramp. . 7 In addition to adding two levels to the Phase I ramp we are also adding infill precast panels at its entry point along Golden Hills Drive. This location becomes the principal entry point to the contiguous ramp structure so the goal is to provide improved visual emphasis to this important functional feature. A glass and aluminum framed appendage over the entry will be internally lit . at night to provide a visual destination point. The northwest comer of the new ramp that faces the intersection of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive will be softened by placing a strong emphasis on appropriate landscaping elements that softens the comer, reducing its scale and creating a visual interest with both evergreen and deciduous trees along with colorful annual plantings for the grqwing season. This comer of the ramp will also contain an exit stair that is contained by a similar glass and aluminum framed enclosure that is featured at the entrance to the parking structure. This feature will also be internally lit during the nighttime hours. The metal roof finishes on both the barrel-vaulted roof covering the Penthouse on the Phase II tower and the sloped roof area on the Pedestrian Link connecting the Phase I and II buildings will have a similar color and finished look as the existing metal used to clad the pyramid roof of the Phase I building. . D. Civil Engineering 1.) Grading and Erosion Control - The site will be mostly covered by the new building and parking structure, which are physically connected to the existing Phase I structures. This requires the new floor elevations to functionally relate to the existing floor elevations, and grades will be established accordingly. The site will match existing grades at the front driveway area on the south and will slope down towards Xenia Avenue to the west. Approximately one-half of the existing trees near the front driveway will be saved. On the north side, a retaining wall with berm will screen the loading dock driveway, which will be depressed approximately four and one-half feet below street level. At the northwest comer, grades will slope up to a low decorative wall. An erosion control fence will be established around all sides to prevent sediment from leaving the site during construction. 2.) Drainage - Stormwater runoff will be directed to the City's storm sewer system and into a regional pond north of the site, so no additional on-site ponding is required. 3.) Utilities - Sanitary sewer and water services will connect to existing public utilities to the west, in the west side of the Xenia right-of-way. Existing service stubs do not appear to be in place, so new services must be constructed under Xenia Avenue. 4.) Paving - Relatively little pavement will be constructed. Paving needed for the loading dock driveway on the north side of the project will be designed for the heavy loads it must support. A small amount of pavement will be added to the existing entry circle to the south where some modifications to existing curbs will occur. New pavement will match the color and section of the existing concrete pavement. . E. Landscaping The concept for the landscape utilizes a plan that accommodates for varied seasonal interest while reinforcing the relationship between the proposed building and the site. Proposed plant materials include a variety of perennials, evergreen trees and shrubs, and deciduous trees chosen for their varied seasonal interests, exhibited through flowering, fall color, and winter textures. Plant material size and placement took in consideration the need to emphasize the formal 8 entrance and to provide a sense of establishment around the foundation of the proposed building. Thirty four additional trees were added around the proposed building and an existing thirteen trees will remain, exceeding the City Code requirements. . . The earth berming and the concentration of plantings at the base of the new ramp is a design solution that tends to lower the height impression of the structure and provide a visual interest to both the pedestrian as well as the motorist. It also effectively reduces the visual impact of the truck drives and dock area. . F. Signage The signage plan is summarized as follows: 1.) The site is in the 'Business and Professional Office' zoning district. As the combined floor area of the Phase I and Phase II buildings is greater than 45,000, the site is allowed 150 square footage of signage. 2.) A new pylon sign is proposed for the northwest comer of the site near the intersection of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive. This sign will give directional information for car parking and delivery trucks. It is the intent of this sign to direct vehicles that are approaching the Office Park from the north, west and southern directions. Although 8' shorter, the design and quality of the sign will be similar to the existing Phase I pylon sign, which was recently upgraded. 3.) Directional signage to be provided as noted on the plan. The applicant has had on-going discussions with City staff to determine the amount of signage area that is already allocated to the existing Phase I site, and will continue to work with the City to determine the signage area available for Phase II. It is the intent to fully comply with the City's signage ordinance and thus, no variance is being requested. G. Parking Phase II construction will accomplish an increase in the current parking ratio for Phase I to approximately 4 cars per 1,000 rentable sq. feet. The original PUD permits a lesser ratio, with provision for more parking being added later. Parking counts are proposed as follows: Phase I i Phase II I Totals 34iuoOORSF122s'..oo'o'RsF 566'OOORSF E;~~~!~~llS....._..._ .' ....-.- ...J~~~~t--'~"_~=141t.~.._~=t.~. ~.~. ~e~~~.S!(lll~_~ ."..~_.~..~_.n2.~lj_"..._..._~~__J.~+-~...,.,~.~~~__ . 0 Total Stalls 1 368 ; 903 ! 2,271 New Parkin Ratio :411000 RSF :4/1000 RSF4/1000 RSF !* ~~e stali~_JQr.J>h't~~ I!Q!!U~jD:&..'Yjll!;>~il1.I>l1ase ! l=,l1TIP~_u . Phase I Ramp: 1100 exist. + 424 (2 new levels) = 1524 - 156 cars reassigned to Phase II use, so 1368 are designated for Phase I Phase II Ramp: 747 new on 7 levels, plus 156 assigned in Phase I ramp = 903 designated for Phase II. 9 Phase II parking ramp abuts and connects to the existing Phase I ramp so that cars can drive back and forth at each level. This makes both phases of the parking ramp functionally integrated. IV. PUD Flexibility: Deviations from underlying Section 11.45. Business And Professional . Offices Zoning District requirements. Section 11.55, Planned Unit Development, of the City Code is intended to "permit design flexibility by substantial variances from the provisions of this Chapter, including uses, setbacks, height, parking requirements, and similar regulations." To the extent noncompliance with underlying district requirements is identified, a variance under this PUD provision is requested and justified by the small parcel size designated for Phase II in the original PUD. The design and construction associated with the Phase II project will comply with the requirements of Business and Professional Office requirements except: Subdivision 4. Building Height. No building in this zoning district shall exceed (3) stories in height at the front or street grade level, unless a Conditional Use Permit has been granted allowing such building or structure to exceed three (3)' stories in height. The total height indicated for the proposed Phase II addition is 202' -0" on the north side and on the south side it varies between 189'.6" at the lobby entrance point on the east end to 196'.0' on the west end. The west side of the building has an average height of 196'-0". This would approximate a (15) story building with a 13'.0" floor-to-floor height. This is comparable to the adjacent Phase I building and not inconsistent with other multi-story office buildings in the immediate vicinity. . Subdivision 5. Yard Restrictions. A. Front yard Setbacks. Front yards shall be provided for all buildings as follows: 1. No building or other structure in the Business and Professional Offices district shall be located closer than 35 feet from the property line along any abutting street. The 35 foot front setback as described above shall all be landscaped. The proposed Phase II addition has a minimum setback dimension of35'-3". 2. In the case of a building over three (3) stories, the front setback shall be increased five (5) feet for each additional story over three (3) stories or each additional ten (10) feet above the height of thirty (30) feet. If the Phase II addition adhered to these guidelines, our fifteen (15) story building would require a setback of approximately 83 '-0'+ 35'.0"= 118'-0" which would not allow our project to move ahead in the approval process. . 10 . .- . Subdivision 6. Area Restrictions. No building or other structure in this zoning district shall occupy more than 40% of the tract of land on which it is located. An additional 20% of the tract of land shall be allowed for the construction of a parking structure. Total Site Area: = 304,920 sq.ft.= 7.0 Acres (approx.) Building areas: Existing Colonnade I - (footprint) Tower = 23,295 sq.ft. Atrium/Dock = 15,146 sq.ft. Ramp = 65,000 sq.ft. SubTotal = 103,441 sq. ft. = 2.37 Acres = 34% (approx.) ofthe total site Proposed Colonnade II - (footprint) PedestrianLinkl Ramp Core = 2,991 sq. ft. Ramp = 49,234 sq.ft. *Sub Total = 52,225 sq.ft. = 1.2 acres = 17% (approx.) of the site *30,000 sq.ft. footprint for Phase II office is not included in this subtotal area because it is above the ramp. Project Totals: Existing Colonnade I - (footprint) = 103,441 sq.ft.= 2.37 acres = 34% Proposed Colonnade II - (footprint) = 52,225 sq.ft. = 1.20 acres = 17% Total = 155,666 sq.ft. = 3.57 acres = 51% Therefore, the Colonnade as a whole complies with these lot coverage ratios. v. Neighborhood Meeting On Wednesday, August 4th, 2004, our project team hosted a neighborhood meeting at The Colonnade I building for interested citizens, to discuss the elements of this Amendment request and to respond to any questions or concerns. Informational graphics, including the original PUD plans, our proposed Phase II site plan, building elevations and color renderings, were on display. A presentation of the development by the design team, touching on key project elements, was concluded with a question and answer session. Two general questions / concerns heard from the neighbors were: . Traffic concerns from the Circle Down residents - they feel isolated and cut off from the adjacent residential district to the north, ever since Turner's Crossroad was terminated in a cul-de-sac at Golden Hills Drive. They want to maintain reasonable access to their street, through the sole access point at Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive. We discussed the additional office occupants for our building, projected traffic volumes, projected traffic levels of service and reviewed the intersection improvements recommended for Golden Hills Drive and Xenia Ave. . Building height questions -We discussed the heights of the Phase II office building as well as the two additional levels of the Phase I parking ramp. 11 . , . . . We also discussed the design and function of the two-office complex and responded to all inquiries from those who attended. The project team hosted another meeting in earlier this year to reacquaint the neighborhood with the proposed development. The attendance was good and there were no issues posed by the neighbors at that time. 12 ". .... . TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE COLONNADE PHASES I AND II 5500-5600 WAYZATA BOULEVARD GOLDEN VALLEY, MN Prepared for: ND Properties, Inc. and The City of Golden Valley . Submitted by: The Building Owner and its Building Manager 5500 Wayzata Boulevard Golden Valley, MN . September 2006 . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND ... ................................................. .............................1 PRIOR AND CURRENT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCES AT COLONNADE ... ..... ........... .... .......... ............... ...... ............ ..........2 GOAL AND SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE MEASURE FOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN ...3 COMPONENTS OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .....................................................5 IMPlEMENTATION"OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FOllOW -U P OPERATIONS.......... ......... ................................................................8 1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND . This document serves as the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for the Colonnade Development in the City of Golden Valley and is presented as part of the PUD amendment application for Colonnade Phase II, a 240,000 square foot office building, which will complement the existing Colonnade office building. As expressed in this document, the applicant, The Building Owner is committed to applying this TMP to the existing office building, as well as the proposed Phase II building, upon approval of the PUD amendment application by the City. The Colonnade development, consisting of the existing office building and the proposed Phase II building, is located in the southeast quadrant of the Golden Hills Drive and Xenia Avenue intersection. The Colonnade property is within Zone A of the 1-394 Overlay Zoning District, established by the Cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park. The owner and owner's property manager wish to cooperate and participate in efforts to effectively manage traffic in the area, and this TMP document defines specific commitments by The Building Owner to fulfill its responsibility towards an overall satisfactory traffic outcome. . The Colonnade PUD #53 Use Permit granted by the Golden Valley City Council in 1986, defines a two-phased development. Phase I, the existing Colonnade, was developed in 1988 and consists of a 340,000 SF office building and attached structured parking ramp. Phase II, a parcel of vacant land consisting of 2.05 acres, is approved for use as a suite-type hotel or interim surface parking. The owner of The Colonnade is interested in developing additional office space on the vacant site, rather than developing a hotel. The owner has conducted a number of studies to determine the best future land use of the site. The studies have concluded that a hotel development is not a viable development for the owner today or in the future, and rather, additional office is a viable development, which will complement the existing Colonnade development and overall area. . 1 PRIOR AND CURRENT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCES AT . COLONNADE The Building Owner and its Building Manager has been successful in managing traffic levels to and from The Colonnade Phase I development since it opened in 1988. Based on the Golden Hills Area Traffic Study Update completed by SEH, and dated July 7, 2004, the existing Colonnade office building is currently generating approximately 40% less traffic during the AM peak hour and approximately 41 % less traffic during the PM peak hour than the number of trips that had been predicted in earlier studies. One important reason for this reduced level of trip generation is that the Colonnade is a Class-A office building with high end finishes. This high quality character has attracted larger, upper-scale tenants providing management, investment, financial, and real estate~'services. The typical tenant office space in The Colonnade consists of large private offices, conference and board rooms and spacious interior common areas. With the current tenant base averaging 330 square feet per employee, the occupant density of the Colonnade is very low according to industry standards. This low occupant density is one reason for the lower trip generation rates. . Another trait of many Colonnade tenants, which contributes to lower peak hour trip generation, is flexible work schedules. Based on a recent tenant survey conducted by The Building Owner, nearly all Colonnade tenants promote and have implemented alternate and flexible work schedules (i.e. spreading the 40 hour work week outside the typical 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. weekday) for their employees, regardless of position. A key finding from the survey is that over 40% of all employees work flexible work schedules year round. A copy of the surveys completed by each tenant is available for review in the Colonnade's management office located at 5500 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 125. In addition to the above factors, The Building Owner and its Building Management staff has implemented the following measures in an attempt to limit peak hour impacts caused by motorists traveling to and from the Colonnade development: . Zip code sharing with the neighboring Allianz organization to promote van/car pooling (2004, 2005) . Promote van/car pooling to existing Colonnade tenants.(2003 and ongoing). . Installed van/car pool signage in ramp - near building entrances (2003) . Hosted commuter fair in conjunction with Metro Transit (2001, 2003) . Provided cash incentives for 'employees who used van/car pools (2001) . Provide covered bicycle parking areas (on-going since 1990) . Promote "wellness at work" by providing state of the art fitness equipment, locker rooms, and showers (on-going since 1988). . 2 GOAL AND SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE MEASURE FOR TRAFFIC . MANAGEMENT PLAN We understand that the City's fundamental goal is to maintain effective, long-term trdffic operations in the Golden Hills area. With such an outcome, motorists traveling to and from businesses in the Golden Hills area naturally will use principal roadways in the area, e.g. the Xenia Avenue/I-394 interchange, instead of diverting to local roadways. In order to effectively achieve the preceding goal, we understand the following two performance measures are particularly important relative to the Colonnade Phase II Development: a) Limitation on the number of vehicles exiting from the Colonnade site during the p:m. peak hour. b) Satisfactory performance at the Golden Hills DrivelXenia Avenue intersection. Three specific performance measures that the City desires to achieve during the p.m. peak hour for this intersection are: . . Level of Service D or better operations for the overall intersection. . Critical traffic movements to be served during each signal cycle (typical movement level of service in D to E range). . Westbound Golden Hills Drive approach to Xenia Avenue should serve its demands without excessive blocking of the westbound through lane or blocking of accesses for the Golden Hills Office complex. Three operational characteristics that are important to achieve this result are: Approximately 70 seconds of delay (LOS E) for the westbound left turn movement Average queues for westbound left turns to be accommodated within the storage area for the two westbound left turn lanes. Blocking of the westbound through lane to be limited to no more than 5-10% of the time during the p.m. peak hour. As described further below, CB Richard Ellis is committed to restricting exiting traffic from the Colonnade site during the p.m. peak hour to a maximum of 541 vehicles. CB Richard Ellis also is committed to assisting City staff to achieve the performance measures mentioned above for the Golden Hills DrivelXenia Avenue intersection. . On behalf of the City, the firm of SEH, Inc. submitted a report in July 2004 (the SEH Report), which addressed the ability of roadways in the Golden Hills area to accommodate a 240,000 square foot Phase II office building on the Colonnade site plus other potential development in the area. As presented on pages 4 and 7 and in 3 . Table 2,this report anticipated that the complete Colonnade development (existing building plus a 240,000 square foot Phase II building) would generate a total of 667 trip ends during the p.m. peak hour (90 vehicles entering and 577 vehicles exiting). The report proceeded to identify several needed improvements and then concluded that adequate levels of service would be provided at the affected intersections, provided that the recommended improvements were implemented. A report prepared by the firm of SRF, Inc. in December 2004 for the Cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park corroborated findings presented in the SEH report. This SRF report also concluded that affected intersections would provide adequate levels of service, provided that certain improvements were implemented. In a memorandum to City staff dated March 2, 2006, SEH staff expressed concerns about potential traffic impacts caused by the Colonnade Phase II development, especially associated with trips exiting from the development during the p.m. peak hour. In subsequent discussions, City staff said that these concerns would be eliminated and adequate traffic outcomes would be achieved if the p.m. peak hour traffic generation would be reduced to that associated with a Phase II building of 200,000 square feet. . As noted in its PUD Amendment application, The Building Owner and its Building Manager are proposing that the size of the Phase II office building be 240,000 square feet. However, through this TMP, The Building Owner and its Building Manager accepts a trip generation limit associated with a 200,000 square foot Phase II building. Specifically, The Building Owner and its Building Manager commits that the traffic volume exiting from the Colonnade development during the p.m. peak hour will not exceed the volume associated with the existing building plus the volume that would be generated by a typical 200,000 square foot building. The maximum exiting volume described above translates to a commitment by the building owner and its management company, which is currently CB Richard Ellis that the p.m. peak hour volume of traffic exiting from the Colonnade site upon completion of the proposed Phase II office building will not exceed 541 vehicles. This p.m. peak hour exiting volume of 541 vehicles has been determined through the sum of the following components: . 242 vehicles counted exiting from the existing Colonnade office building (page 4 in the SEH Report) . 48 vehicles, a 20 percent increase over the existing volume as accounted for in the SEH traffic forecasts and analyses (page 7 in the SEH Report) . 251 vehicles generated by a 200,000 square foot building (using the same methodology as presented in Table 2 of the SEH Report) . 4 . . . COMPONENTS OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN Based on past experiences and utilizing resources provided by Metro Commuter Services and Metro Transit, a comprehensive set of transportation management measures has been established. The Building Owner and its Building Manager is committed to working with tenants and other participants to implement these measures in the best manner possible. As previously stated, The Building Owner and its Building Manager is committed to limiting traffic exiting from the development during the p.m. peak hour to a maximum of 541 vehicles. If traffic counts reveal that this limit is exceeded and if other measures described below are unsuccessful in reducing the volume to a level at or below 541 vehicles, The Building Owner and its Building Manager will install a system of gates on the parking ramp exits to prevent the p.m. peak hour exiting volume from exceeding 541 vehicles. Major components of the transportation management program that will be implemented byThe Building Owner and its Building Manager are as follows: 1. Promote ridesharing . The Building Owner and its Building Manager will designate a minimum of 10 preferential parking spaces in the ramp for registered car pools of two riders or more and 5 preferential parking spaces in the ramp for van pools of at least 5 riders . The Building Owner and its Building Manager will continue to work with Allianz, matching tenant/employee zip code information and promoting van and car pool participation. There are currently four tenants from The Colonnade Phase I utilizing van/car pool sharing with employees of Allianz. . The Building Owner and its Building Manager will work with entire tenant base and assist in researching viability of establishing van pool service through Metro Commuter Services' Van-Go Program 2. Promote transit use . The Building Owner and its Building Manager will sell public transportation passes directly to their tenants. . The Building Owner and its Building Manager will encourage tenant principals to pay a portion of the cost of a bus pass for interested employees. . The Building Owner and its Building Manager will investigate the viability of implementing the Metro pass and Transit Works! Programs, both offered through Metro Transit. 5 . . The Building Owner and its Building Manager will work with the City of Golden Valley and Metro Transit to endeavor to improve transit services to the Colonnade site. . Coordinate a commuter fair or a speaking forum to provide employees with information on their commuting options. Prizes and a free lunch will be used as an incentive to encourage tenants and their employees to attend. . Provide bicycle amenities similar to those offered by Colonnade Phase I including bike corrals, shower and locker room facilities (see photos attached) . Provide on-site services/amenities to reduce travel - provide options for dining and shopping in the building. Provide other services including concierge services, license plate tab purchases, etc. 3. Promote flexible work hour arrangements . . The Building Owner and its Building Manager will continue to meet with tenant principals of Colonnade Phase I and Phase II to discuss the benefits to both employee and employer by allowing flexible work schedules to employees. 4. Advertising and communication . The Building Owner and its Building Manager will implement educational and marketing strategies to induce tenants and their employees to reduce vehicle trips. In partnership with the Metro Transit, The Building Owner and its Building Manager will hold an information forum to review benefits of transportation demand management, including the benefits of telecommuting. . The Building Owner and its Building Manager will act as the primary contact for all tenants, the City of Golden Valley and the neighborhood for issues relating to transportation. 5. Promote tenant and employee surveys and plan reports . . On behalf of the owner, The Building Owner and its Building Manager, in conjunction with neighboring businesses, will perform ongoing zip code mapping by surveying tenant's employees. Metro Commuter Services will also assist with this by offering zip code matches from other commuters in the area. 6 . . On behalf of the owner, The Building Owner and its Building Manager will conduct on-going surveys of the entire tenant base for information on all transportation initiatives. The surveys will seek feedback on what is working and where improvements can be made. 6. Establish a Transportation Management Organization (TMO) . On behalf of the owner, The Building Owner and its Building Manager will work in conjunction with the City of Golden Valley, nearby property owners, nearby businesses and other appropriate agencies to facilitate the establishment of a TMO that will help implement and further develop the strategies included in this TMP. The TMO will seek to enhance transportation accessibility for the area through multiple measures, including: a) Improving the effectiveness of carpooling efforts by increasing ride matching possibilities. b) Teaching commuters about alternatives to driving alone during peak periods . c) Involving developers and business owners in making sound transportation decisions d) Working with governmental agencies to create solutions to addressing transportation problems . The owner will pay a one-time traffic management administrative fee of $.10/SF of combined gross floor area for Colonnade Phase I and II, in accordance with the City of Golden Valley Ordinances. This fee totals $58,000 ($24,000 required by ordinance and $34,000 voluntary contribution) and will be pooled with other fees generated by the ordinance to develop and support the TMO. . 7 IMPLEMENTATION OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FOllOW-UP . OPERATIONS . . The responsibility of The Building Owner and its Building Manager to implement the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) presented in this document will commence immediately upon approval by the Golden Valley City Council of the Phase II component of the Colonnade development. Principal steps that The Building Owner and its Building Manager then will accomplish to apply the TMP are: 1) A person will be designated to serve as the on-site transportation coordinator for the entire Colonnade development. 2) The transportation coordinator will build upon past transportation man'agement initiatives by implementing all appropriate measures from this TMP for the existing Phase I portion of the Colonnade development. 3) The transportation coordinator will inform new tenants about the TMP and will seek their participation in accordance with provisions in the TMP. 4) When the Phase II portion of the Colonnade is about 75 percent occupied, the transportation coordinator will accomplish the following two surveys: a) Count of all traffic exiting the Colonnade site during the p.m. peak periods on two typical weekdays. b) Questionnaire survey of tenants. 5) The average "raw" traffic count for the p.m. peak hour from above 4a) will be adjusted as follows to account for anticipated full occupancy of the Phase II building: Anticipated exiting volume with full occupancy of Phase II ( 340,000 (Phase I) + 240,000 (full Phase II) ) == actual count 340,000 (Phase I) + occupied portion of240,OOO The adjusted volume, together with the "raw" counts, will be provided immediately to City staff. The key point to address is whether the adjusted volume is below the maximum exiting trip limit of 541 vehicles. 6) If the adjusted volume from step 5) exceeds 541 vehicles, the transportation coordinator will meet with City staff to discuss the situation and to establish a follow-up action plan that will be implemented by the transportation coordinator to reduce the p.m. peak hour exiting traffic volume. 8 . 7) When the Phase II building reaches full occupancy, all traffic exiting from the Colonnade development again will be counted during the p.m. peak period on two typical weekdays. A determination will be made whether the average exiting volume during the p.m. peak hour is below the limit of 541 vehicles. The results immediately will be provided to City staff. If the exiting volume exceeds the 541 limit, the transportation coordinator will meet with City staff to determine whether further transportation management measures can be implemented to reduce the exiting volume to a level below 541 vehicles. 8) The transportation coordinator will continue implementation of the transportation management measures identified in this TMP and will provide ongoing coordination with City staff. . . 9 . . Locker Room Showers Locker Room . Locker Room Showers -L-r' T - . . J 1Z;-l".\ .1. t ~: ~ f\ : , 1\ ;/;', ';> :. .' 1,1',' If: \ .,/ i I" ;'\,:1 i . L,,'f .:\ \ ; .';\"'~ II .....'. \' , I J . , ~J1r.~g\' '.~f...!..I>'./..'... ~.... ........ ~. ':""",..~ " ,~, :,~!";.' "/'.' ':.:"'~::~7--()911572006 ,>:"'.:::f"~~~J;t Bike Rack "('" ... . . . P.U.D. #53 City Council Approval: December 16, 1986 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NAME: ADDRESS: The Colonnade 5500 - 5600 Wayzata Boulevard and 700 Turners Crossroad. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 1, The Colonnade P.U.D. No. 53 APPLI CANT: ADDRESS: Trammell Crow Company 8400 Normandale Lake Blvd., #375 .~~.,. OWNERS: Bloomington, MN 55437 The Colonade Limited Partnership 8400 Normandale Lake Blvd., #375 Bloomington, MN 55437 and ZONING DISTRICT: PERMITTED USES: Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Commercial and Light Industrial Uses permitted in this Planned Unit Development are an office building, hotel and shared parking ramp. COMPONENTS: A. Land Use Component: 1. Land uses within P.U.D. 53 shall be as follows: a) An office building 15 stories in height comprising 409,000 square feet of gross office space and 360,000 square feet of leasable office space. b) A suite hotel with minimal conference and restaurant facilities comprising up to approximately 250 suites. - 2 - . c) A five-level parking ramp 52 feet in height providing 1124 parking spaces with potential for addition of a sixth level providing an additional 225 to 230 parking spaces for a total of approximately 1350 parking spaces. . d) Retail and service uses compatible with the office and hotel uses. Retail and service uses shall be scaled to accommodate the office and hotel clientele. Uses may include, but shall not be limited to, the following: Day care, health club, restaurants, cafeteria, postal substation, banking facilities, car wash, convenience store, travel agency, secretarial service, barber shop, beauty shop and tanning booth. e) Potential interim use of the hotel site for surface parking. 2. The Concef)t Landscape Site Plan, prepared by Arteka Landscape Architects/ Contractors, dated February 20, 1986, shall be revised to conform to the Overall Site Plan, Sheet No. C 1.1, prepared by Wilson/ Jenkins and Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1986, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Bu~lding Inspector. Landscaping, as shown on the approved Concept Landscape Site Plan, shall be completed within 210 days following completion and occupancy of buildings. 3. Landscaping of the median in Xenia Avenue South in accordance with the Concept Landscape Site Plan prepared by Arteka Landscape Architects/ Contractors, dated February 20, 1986, shall be optional subject to the final decision of the office building developer. If the office building developer elects to landscape the median, it shall be the responsibility of the developer to obtain approval from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for the landscaping, to coordinate the landscap- ing with MnDOT median construction, to install landscaping materials, and to maintain the median landscaping. If the median is landscaped, the office building developer shall provide a sprinkler service connec- tion for maintenance of the landscaping. 4. The foundation for the parking ramp shall be constructed in such a manner as to accommodate future addition of another level of parking if required. 5. The office building developer shall be responsible for site preparation, including demolition and grading, of the entire PUD site, including the hotel site, prior to construction. 6. Special precautions shall be taken during and after construction to protect against erosion, silting, excessive grading, or any other conditions detrimental to the area. Grading and excavation for footings and other construction needs shall be done in an manner so as to avoid dirt storage, disturbing of trees, or other activities beyond the prescribed construction limits. . i . . . - 3 - B. Circulation Component: 1. The office building developer shall be responsible for installation of sidewalks on the office, parking ramp, and common entrance sites and adjacent street right-of-way as shown on the Overall Site Plan, Sheet No. C 1.1, prepared by Wilson/Jenkins and Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1986. The hotel developer shall be responsible for instal- lation of sidewalks on the hotel site and adjacent street right-of-way as required. 2. The City of Golden Valley shall maintain sidewalks wholly or partially on. street right-of-way along Xenia Avenue South, Turners Crossroad, and the frontage road. The office building owner shall maintain all sidewalk located entirely on private property on the office, parking ramp, and common entrance sites. The hotel owner shall maintain all sidewalk located entirely on private property on the hotel site. 3. All green areas adjacent to parking and access areas shall be pro- tected b~,concrete curb. 4. The developers shall participate in transit planning for the 1-394 corri dor. C. Subdivision Component: 1. Sidewalk easements shall be provided by separate instrument for sidewalks partially on street right-of-way and partially on private property along Xenia Avenue South, Turners Crossroad, and the frontage road. D. Services and Facilities Component: 1. All utilities shall be underground. 2. All mechanicals on roof or ground shall be screened with Inspection. Department approval. 3. The structure and grading shall meet all the requirements of the Golden Valley Fire Marshal, Engineering Department and Sanitarian. 4. All waste generated by the occupancy shall be stored internally until removed from the premises. E. Construction Order Component: 1. A bond running in favor of the City of Golden Valley as obligee in an amount to be determined by the City Engineering Department shall be provided for all bituminous surfacing and concrete walk as indicated on the Overall Site Plan, Sheet No. C 1.1, prepared by Wilson/Jenkins and Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1986. The bond shall be executed and delivered to the Golden Valley Inspection Department prior to issuance of building permits. a. ; . . . - 4 - 2. A bond running in favor of the City of Golden Valley as obligee in an amount of $105,000 shall be provided for landscaping in conjunction with first phase development of the office building, parking ramp and common entrance sites and shall run for two (2) full growing seasons after installation of landscaping materials and until released by the Golden Valley Inspection Department. The bond shall be executed and delivered to the Golden Valley Inspection Department prior to issuance of building permits. 3. A bond running in favor of the City of Golden Valley as obligee in an amount of approximately $75,000, subject to review and confirmation or adjustment by the City Building Inspector, shall be provided for landscaping of second phase development of the hotel site and shall run for two (2) full growing seasons after installation of landscaping materials and until released by the Golden Valley Inspection Department. The bond shall be executed and delivered to the Golden Valley Inspection Department prior to issuance of building permits. F. Maps and Repdtts: 1. The project shall be constructed in conformity with the following approved plans: a) Overall Site Plan, Sheet No. C 1.1, prepared by Wilson/ Jenkins and Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1986. b) Site Plan, Sheet 1, prepared by Wilson/Jenkins and Associates, Inc., dated April 28, 1986, for indication of approximate future hotel footprint and location on site, updated for remainder of PUD site by the above Overall Site Plan, Sheet No. C 1.1, prepared by Wilson/Jenkins and Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1986. c) Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan, Sheet No. CE 2.1, prepared by Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc., dated October 14, 1986. d) Utility Plan, Sheet No. CE 2.2, prepared by Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc., dated October 14, 1986. e) Elevations prepared by Wilson/Jenkins and Associates, Inc., including Sheet 10 West Elevation, Sheet 11 West Elevation- Front Entry and East Elevation-Rear Entry and Loading Dock, and Sheet 12 South Elevation/Section-Atrium and North Elevation/Section-Atrium, dated April 28, 1986. / f) Addendum #3, prepared by Wilson/Jenkins and Associat~s, Inc., dated November 18, 1986. g) Concept Landscape Site Plan, prepared by Arteka Landscape Architects/Contractors, dated February 20, 1986, to be revised, subject to approval of the City Building Inspector, ... . . . - 5 - to conform to the above Overall Site Plan, Sheet No. C 1.1, prepared by Wilson/Jenkins and Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1986. It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City Council approval granted on December 16, 1986 relative to Planned Unit Development #53. THE COLONADE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY: Crow-Colonade, Inc. Its Managing General Partner WITNESS: ~LJ r;,.~~ BY: --:o~ IJ-~ X'i3 .. I/P '1/2..1 If7 DATE: GOLDEN VALLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT i\UTHORITY WITNESS: WITNESS: ~ '-f7~ . BY: Ray ~'fJ1. VAMUfrAND: WARNING: This permit does not exempt you from all other City Code provisions, regulations and ordinances. ;;; "'" ;;,.<,. ,~li~t~~~~i!~~}~W0il~:~f.~f.~~~~r~f~-{::si' > . . , '.-_. .. '. . . . ',' . . ...-. l~~f.~~~.i~it~~ ,.' .. '-., Oi I GOLDEN HILLS REDEVELOPMENT GOLQEN VALLEY, MN. A Trammell Crow Company Developmen Wilson/Jenkins & Associates, In ARCHITECTS / ENGINEERS / PLANt'lER . THE COLONNADE 5500 WAYZATA BLVD. GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA A TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY DEVELOPMENT WILSONI JENKINS Ie ASSOCIATES, INC~ ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS/PLANNERS . -~ r, . . . .;: . ..,.,-~ .-, ......... . . :'~" ....... :.: .. ~. :..... -l I I a .. . i I .;'.. :.:~.I ...... .... -- .. ...:, . .... > ~.' . :;.~~: ~ ] 1 :.'.' .... :.:..~. J'. --- -- u-- ~. i~ . .... % t i I . I II W Q <C Z z 9 o (.) I . I I . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ c::==. -- --- . ~ I 'i ~~ . . I = I I . . ;; . I I LLI Q <C Z Z 9 o o (I) :) '. 0":' , i I . . ..... I t, ! I Ii .. I ~ ~~ " " .. l :.. .. , ( . . . . I . . I . I I . . . . '1IUlII . . . LLI . . C .. . <C .. .' Z " Z . 9 0 0 :.'~ .. I . .... ~. K I .~.. ::-.. . . ..:..... . . I I . . I .. ~ . . . ! ......... I ...... . . . I ~ ;':;~' -.. . . . . . :..;. ~'.~(: ..,.... . . . . .. ! I I Il' ~! W Q c( Z Z 9 o o -- '-'-:- .....;... ';:>.:.':: . H::~:.. e- .' .,;.; _:.:~' ~.' .l!"., ::.::.'.~ ./,,' ....>~~: ~~~;.f~' ..,... .. .. '"1....- I _ r--b--f1-~.f"L.f1 n ~ . . il:: :=)J~rL L n rL --k ((' Ri J ~ I ~ - -;- '- ~ I r I'V7Ig _ .... 2. --/l _:- - - .r! ~~ J I .- [ _ L I' \1 --, ..I I ~I I ., "'L,-t- r I ., i ! ~ ~, - ~ e-: .-. - - --j ~ ~ l . J. ' -V--'1 + I i I ,.J ., ~ ~IL., ! L[' ~ ; , .....1 ; -u-- I I ! , ! ! 1 t-- , . I ! ! , i I , I I ...I T '-- "l.. L I J<:: 10 Il II T c c tatni^ _i:J1 II JII'If\I \ . ~I r8J ~ -"-"f r r --..--tJ - ~ rx1t) ~l~ ~ ~ ..~ . 11 Q_'___' I i -=-: : : _-41 - ~ . :~~- : v ! ...i -t- ~1 . I~ d; t I ~- -_ i._ - ~ : n n I r -- Wit I '1 I I I I o...------.J o I~ I~ .... 'g~1 IS I -1--rl'-- - - ~'":1 i I . : 'i .__Ir E ~--L : L... : T , i..J ~ ! :_~~ ~: I~ '}~'~-f ,L H -;.- -+--1-....,...... H- +-~ ' : I: ,1,...3 .),. I i '- _ '~'++-T"_/..J. I . I _ ~ I ..,lL- ..j i-r-n I I I)) ..L;# U . l 1.. ~_~ T' I ~ .+-'" ~r\ ~ 1Ar~ 1 I I 1 l..____~ 91 -I i ~ ~ . . I c I W Q c( Z z 9 o o ........ :.:.::..... . :.':'.' . '0. :.-' >:-....... r--1- ...n. ..n. '-fo- r lJ C .f"l n ~f01~. n -... .1l....JL.J'J.... ..J'""1 .. L,......~ " I ] ......, ~ ~ .... ~ " r j- ~tnL c:, ~ i'~ .~ IAr-.r 1 1 0 ..,' c [] : ~ 0 . ~ f\.D D ~ .' === ~ .. ../ . ",,1 " t.... ..... ~4 I, r L .~ I r-IX I ...L. -...I lit ,. " ~ " ::. 11"" ~ , " . iL-~1 (- .J.! L 1::::::::1 ~ r~ ! ~ & .. rL., I ~ ~i ~ ,J~ ~ r"" ~ ~ r"j , ......~ -..f l . ......... .: ~~~ ;0"' I .... I ~ - - I J \ 7 - ~ It ..... .J I . -- I I 100.. :~ , 1Ar'~ --J Cx~ 16--: Cl I: I I I I b 4D . I . I UJ Q <C Z z 9 o CJ :.....- ..~ ;:~:(:r~ :.::-....::. . ....... ::: ~:':' . ... ..' ." ... >~:~ ;."....J . :;.;'" . I '. .'.4," _,'J." ".". '. . -'. ,'. :.. ~ ...n J"L ..1'1- 11. J'L...JL...J1.. ...n. ...n... ,.- . . .~ , I ~ ~ ~ c r ..., c:: .,.I '-..... ~ ~ ~ ., S .J ~nmt~ L 1E3 E3 :' ~ / ~ 'y ~ , \ C \ , c:. ' , .,<: ".: ..... o , '. \ '. , '1...ll ~ r~ . J- ~L ~1 II N-.. J 1 " Lr"' ~" Di~ o D === .. .;;;.. .'" , ' . . L..I LI [J i~ID ~ ~"- ~ I\.. l.; .... .... I 11 . I ------------~------------- ~~ I ! I I J'L.JL-r- L,.- ~ , tJ ~ ~ r -{ 1 ~ ~ IJ Ll r'-J ~'j&I" ~ ~ !~ ~ 1'\ '~IX w- X ~ I-- I-- ~ b.f II ~ = r ~ ~ rl, .... ~ ra.., ...... ! :J I ji ::! ... ... , I . i w Q c( Z Z 9 o (.) ....:..... :{;;.~:. . ~p. RoO . ~~. :~:.. :;:.~:.. .= " .../ .... '" ,. ...-. "- ~ -iM1 ~ i I ! i ; i i I ! ... 1 ~ 1'".'1'",' L -' · i I '~~~~~ - D ~ -;J-L : . ! :r 'l1li ,;j''''.. . lI!-J 1 ; < " .;... . - - . - . r I . . . I ~T . .1 I, ~:l to ... . . I ! ! - - I "'" . :.:.--: I i I . ! I .. .. 1 ... I - i I I - II "- IU... lJ ~ {: .L J.. ~II:'~ ~ l.. -. -----.::, I....--- __n___ .':":'..:. . ':'.' ., .' ~ 0, '...". .. :-':. ~. ..:::~~. - ~~~:~ . ..-:::.... ~f. ! ! .. I It I I ~i C) + M I . I w Q <C Z Z 9 o (.) ::;;,:::.~~ .;:~:;~ . ..::.... .;:..... -1. L ~c~~ I aL g= L- .. ," ~'. . ;.p" . . I 1 I - I . L -J I-L-- ~- ~ -,- -1-.1---1 ""'[....,....! :~ . ..... .... ..~..:. ~:'-'.~. ...... '~;";~' ,.:::.. - 1 .. I ....., I 1 I I_T ~ 1T1 I 'J I 1 I ''l'-n ~11 I II 'l1li I ~:;: 1 II I- I ~ ,J 'k; '11 ,I L.: ~ - /.:.t _ _, Li j ..: ~. ~: ;i ~~ .,~ 1: r' [;- J. - f-I~ ~ ... '-lJ., i: . ~ '" I" --"' -r I I. " . ' ii.... -:-. I I ~ L I I 1 ! ! .. . ~i M I .. I I w c <( z z o .... o o ." :~:~~~.'::: . .:-,;. ::-:.... ...... . : .~..~:.. . ., >?~~ . ~ ~ :t;.~~ - .:. .~:.~~;~ .~. ~~:;:~: .;."- <t;;l~ ~:.: .:~. " . I I I I 5e ~ , Ii W Q <C Z z 9 o (J ." - " :- . I .:. ':" .... ::" :~~; 1:. .~) ....~ .;". ....:. -.::,:.: ... J LL--' LL.....J lL.-J __ . II I I I I I I' I I I I I J I I I \. /I " /1 \. / /A \ / /// I \: \.~ I \. '\. 'i " \ ~ L4MI :: J - i j f . I I 1111 ~ I IT 1111 l:s · II I II I I IT 1 I rr J c I IT 1 1/ ] II IT 1 IT II I ! II III IT , 1111 . I I 1111 II IT Tnll II I 1111 III II I" II I I H I II . ...... ..... - II I I In II II II ~ rr I ! I If I ~ '-- ....J == I l- ..... I i I I 5 It f I' I .. I I . I 5~ Ii LLI Q c( Z z 9 o o ""~ . '.. .--. ,~. ..... :':.~.;:: ........ . , . :..... . :':-.5~ .. . ~, . ~ :'~:'.~ . ~..' ", . . .... '.~ ? 1: - - J III II I I I III II I I I - - ,...- I 1 I I I ,.... - -- = .. .. I - I - = L..- - = - ! ...... - ----. ., 'I = . --. L..- .- ;;;;;;;; I L..- I 1 [ "'I'" :--I I I T I I I po. ~ = =,f I I 5 I~ ~ ~ ! 4~l I I T III 01 I II 111 -, ~, ;1- ......: .. ,"'" t~ -,- - . -+ . . 1-1 e=;.- -j! H 1....l:L.. . "'--l - .. I _..~ tr .rL,- I I II I I [ . I I I ~ - i "l ...-..- 1lK 6 I i ..... I i~ = I ~ , I I ~ .. I c . w C <C Z z 8 o CJ .' . . :::,'.... ~~~ . . Q I I :.:. I . . I I~ I: c. c. ...... .:. ..;. .... ... .'. '.:-- :'~'. .- .- . " ~:;:: .,::.. C I I I~ c. C') f ... . . i I . I . I w Q <C u Z I Z 10 M ..J t 8 "- >.~.:_~:.~: - ..... . .:.... ..... - ~ .:"". . - --. . ..... ':::;:-.::. .,:.." :;.;.~:: .... . ~~:6~: ..... '. . . . II . . C I I i I! I~ i I 'lit .. . I .. i ' w C <C Z Z 9 o () .. . .' ,/:~. . .'..- ~.'.>. .:..;: .... . ." ,~.~. . .' ..- '. . ~- I ".\ ...... . .~::. ....~~. ... ..... <i:.': . , - - [ 0 - - 00 0 0 0 J ~[ I.i o 00.0 0 ] .[ o 0 0 0 0 ~[ ] ~ ] 0 [ 0 M I .. I c . Co) I I I I . :: ~ ~ g 5 I ! I ! I I ~ I ft :It I~ IT T I I I I I I " II ,II I I ..t ...I I UI '" ~- I ~...1 .J ~ I UI LII ..I ...I I ., LII I I ~.- - 'D III I I I I T I ~ 5 J -- ~ ~ .-- .. ...... - - - - - - ] [ ~ W Q <C Z Z 9 o o .. · f ... 4 ,r' :/:.:>: , ..... ..... ........ i f ~ ~ I I ! i 3J ~ ~ ~ 5 '.-' "" " I .. . . . .. .' , D ;.: :..... :. ..... .":.~ ','.: ." :.. ' ?:.~ B ! i w 'e I <c iZ I z 9 o o s ; . :~oooo. I i I '.. ," .... "'.... ". '." '. Wittman, Lisa _,~~,~~..v,w"',~v",vm_.w..~.,.~..~,..,,,,,.,,,n~~."~"'"_'N""""'W"~"",w~.w~,".-A",.~.,~,'.n~.~'"_~""""",,,,"""".."m'~".'~'~~"'~__"__''''"'V'''''~',''''''''~''V^_''.'..,..,.,.V,^''"..,...._.".~m'_ff"_"'V.,V,,.,.,"____W._^'~...m,'.~..'~.~~..,.,"~~V_.~___._._....,~.".^'.._..,___~Wn'_^~..."'''u..,....m___~"'''.~"'-"'_'^""~_'_'~"""~'''''.AA'_'_~V''''~''_~'''~ From: Don Keysser [mailto:donkeysser@gmail.com] tI. Saturday, October 14,' 2006 12:52 PM era65@yahoo.com; Cathy Waldhauser; Dean McCarty; Grimes, Mark; John Kluchka; Les Eck; Wittman, Lisa; Steve Sc idgall Subject: tear-down development If you guys want to see an interesting example of tear-downs in St. Louis Park, fo to 27th Street, in the first block west of France Avenue (by Cedar Lake). Three very interesting examples, side-by- side, of either tear-downs (in at least one case) and/or major expansion of an existing home. At least one of them must have required a very significant side-yard setback variance. Mark, would it be possible to ask Adam what he knows about those homes? I would be interested in knowing how they analyzed those developments and variance requests. Assuming we are still on for a meeting with Jeff Oliver this coming 10/23 at 5:30, regarding storm- water management, let's start discussing some of our thoughts on the report the Council has asked us to prepare. I would still like very much to shoot for a deadline of end-of-the-year for getting this to the Council. Call if you have any questions; otherwise, see you Monday 10/23. . . 10/20/2006 Wittman, Lisa "~,_,,,,"~~"__,~^,W.VN,,,,^,^.~.,...,,,,,="mN"=,,~,,,,,..,..,.'"mh"""'~"''^'''''''~''''_'''''''...",.",m_"m""'._..,,,.,,''''~''m"""..''m,..w.",..~",~.,.,,,,,,.,,~_,_.,~.._,.,,w'm,,,.......,.,._~..,,,,.,,_'W~_"''^......,.~'...,.'''''''"'''''''-~,,,'~............,,..._,...-......,--..,,_."....'.""m."""..............,""__.~'''''_''''''''......,..,-,.,......,.-~_._.---,.,_..-._..,.,. Hey Lisa, I~ally sorry I took all week to get this to you. However, I hope this will be of some help. The basic r~rements for this area are: R-1 Zoning District Min. Lot size: 9,000 sf Min. Lot width: 75 feet The zoning review for this shows that there are 3 new lots created from one. The three lots are: Lot 1 - 9459 sf Lot 2 - 9770 sf Lot 3 - 12669 sf New ROW - 450 sf The houses look really crammed on the site because they are big houses. We permit 30% lot coverage in this area; because of the topography of this site, it looks like the houses are covering practically all of the site. Adam W. Fulton 952-928-2841 . . 10/20/2006 . =::~~~~';- ".f,""""f;'_~_""_""""-"_"~--"_ . =====r...:=:==~':==-""~-=-~ m~.=..-=e=:-_~:::::'~-'~; _-..-...""UCS ---- --'"= ~..~~___.....-:.:&:i"" ;;:.'=0..... --- ll/lII'-'"= .. .:,_'-~-~I1iiR' ;;;r.::;.~ -- l..";lI.'=~~:r~ 9.'=!:!::e==--== ~e:~~-;-" ~ -- ~. ~--_.."'---"-.......- ;;;c::..~ -- E::..-=~""'----~==-~~~ ....- .......,~-..,...... ~L~""""""'------":"'''- If ,~~__ _-....__0III0lr.__ ~-~.b...-~._=r--....IM- - '......... ........................ ~III......._~ - ---- PIlI!CI$ION e1JRIIEVS.INC. . BILTMORE ADDITION eo ~ I I ,.h. I \ c .~ - ') '0 ~ ..... I ,. "'&llJ I ..... ::. ,.... I '" ~ ..... , I ,. -.; c I c I '" <> \ ,- \!; '" ..' I '" 6 'C 2 .?. \ 0-. C ;~ \ " :r. _-1 -, I I 26tH StRF.Et WEst .. 1- - -.- - - - - - - - " I \ I \ ;;,\ =-'~~ o =::U'::=IL.. ...~ ~ ==---='oq .. ,).... S' -.,---.,... ====:'.:f" ~,J: R. T. DOC. NO. '" <> c: Z ""', 'OM\ ....-< '" ;,0. ~AI ",'" ". '" '" :>- < oz. r., 9 <:. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ c: '" ...., ...t f~ ~ ~. __H~. =====~ . ........ I.IiND 8UI\VEV(lf$ Of . . ,1;11 ~ III Ii - -- -.= -- ---== --..... ..,~.S' ...-w... =~' - ~ - - .- I ~ -- - -- ,........................-.w..........________.... ____~'iM'~ ___ .~.......~~ ............. Wfl~ III ~ ~ : ~- .r..~..... =..................... '..,...Jll~~__..._.- ~~~...... I 4__.4____ .~~..............:=_...I': Ill'll ~ .. Jf.~~~~'~ ~ii~f~.......... ~I~~~~ ~j~ii_" t~=: - Z~~~ - . .----~.... :.==......=.:.:z:..liilIliiiiiiiii t~"""_ ~-n ..-~~ ~____"""II"Ir lUll. ..... ~ ..----.... ~. . :......~=-~-....- :a===.... .........~.. ff't ....._~ - - -~ ~.=~ :-m:.'i . ~, '- F = - ....... ........- - - ..... --- ...-- ............. .GIIdIIl--- ... - ........ ..... ....- ..... fioooi . - -. . ................... . --==- - -- f<!) ---- oIIl<U_ ~. L102 . . .' . . . . . . alley Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: October 20, 2006 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: St. Louis Park Infill Stud The City of St. Louis Park recently completed an R-1 Zoning District Study. It is attached for your review. The R-1 zoning district is one of several residential zoning districts. It is the largest lot zoning district in St. Louis Park. I believe that the study was requested because there was a perception that there are a large number of lots in the R-1 district that could be subdivided and this subdivision could have a negative impact on specific neighborhoods. The Recommendation and Conclusion are found on page 19. I think that Golden Valley should look at the methodology of this study and determine if it would be helpful our infill research. . . . R-l Zoning District Study October 11 , 2006 ,.. Image Courtesy of the Metropolitan Design Center, University of Minnesota Prepared by: City of st. Louis Park Community Development Department City of St. Louis Park Planning Commission 1 · Introduction In July 2006 the Planning Staff was directed by the City Council to conduct a study of the R-1 zoning district. The following process was outlined: R-I Zoninq District I. Collect and study data: a. Review lot data in the R-I zoning district related to lot size, lot width, floor area ratio, etc. b. Identify specific areas to study more closely based on distinguishing characteristics (i.e. larger lot sizes). Clearly the Lake Forest and parts of Fern Hill will be key areas. Other areas may be identified as well. c. Analyze specific lot information within the specific areas - such as floodplain; location of house on lot; value of building to land; ability to subdivide, etc. d. Evaluate the potential impact of changes to city ordinances on move-up housing opportunities. 2. Determine and present options related to creating a new, larger lot zoning district. . PUBLIC PROCESS: On August 2nd, August 16th, September 6th and September 20th the study was discussed at Planning Commission meetings. Staff presented the work completed as shown in the outline above. Property owners were welcomed to participate and several attended the meetings; a formal letter was sent to affected neighborhoods for the August 16th and September 20th meetings. OPTIONS: After collecting the information as shown in the attached report, the Staff looked at the options of changing the zoning for two areas, Lake Forest neighborhood and a portion of the Crestview neighborhood. The options presented included: a) keeping the 9,000 square foot minimum lot size; b) increasing the minimum lot size to 13,500 square feet; or c) increasing the minimum lot size to 18,000 square feet. PUBLIC INPUT: Public input was primarily from citizens of the Lake Forest and Crestview neighborhoods; homeowners in both neighborhoods were invited to the formal September 20th meeting. Staff presented the study and citizens were encouraged to provide comments. Input was mixed, with some property owners wanting a change to the R-1 lot size and some requesting it stay at the 9,000 square foot minimum. . 2 I f'/lap 1 . R-1 Zoning District 3J447 Single Fafnily R-1 Parcels Citywide r""'''.'''''' J"":-.:t$.l- -. 1 i ~.u:;--,-,-,_.,_u"'''''---==-IJ- ~'=-=::~"'''-''~'""l;;;;;;;: ~ ( - ( I .f';' ~ ~~ .., 'I '- - - "'~I-l)~ .:1'"-- "7 "r . u.;.' - . l. I l '1 ' .. - J .1..l":'._..-_......~ III 1" I .j~. ~ J '2::0 _ ' ! - 'I It C ff -.1 I " f.... l' I ...-..- 100 1 . '..fl,l ... I in ~~-4. .,- : ~ - ~ (' . I //"'" ---- h..Y!- _ /T ~ .' i ~ ....1 ,.'<"... J r"" "ll - '/il ,....- ':r :Ir Jr.'.f l~, ==:;: fI JI ..... t~' r ~ '7. ',-,'" .., ,~- '::lI'L u I'.,'/'...." Ij, , - . ~ -1_..' ~..'~I'1 ~I.L, ,J J .. !5. 'q ",,' i ... ':'. S. ; ~ -1 ~,~ ....w ~'" '~~''1 I q. , . r r- I I~> -- II..' ~ _....~ .c;:~ .I I > i II" -'::;1:.u 1'1 ~I~f" l!:, 'J~I "11, .....-', , 'I", _ II .1 tI ,I I ~I,:::: I"' ~~ ,l"t< i "'I' I~I' .-~ ~ -..... "'" · ...I _ .u. "" ~=t- :.',~~1.. ,.f. I, I ,,/.~1-- T ..." -J" " D . f! - ~ I. : III '!! \. ~ j .," (1) , '-t l". -, II 1 / r iJ,:.:, r~ " I I ~ : ~ ~ _ . '." i .,d - !'.' r J .....r' A:. ell' fI l~" ~ i~ \ I )' 'I... if ~q '0 ' i ~ ,- _ ~k - J ; / ~~ ;,> I! I;.r 11,0:: \ - 1 ~l · ":" -'~ - ,\ i;~ --t _ _ - ~ : \. ., II I ,-".......~~:.I..::.-.-1JI.t . oJ' ........~~'r i . TT" " ~ /l-~L · ! ~ .. P._:.;J..~~ i I I'. .. : : L ~.t . I ..... I -. I. i-...-4 1.-.. II - . I I " : '. . J I "'''--'' . I \ --.. u_"--'-"r J September 12. 2006 1 '.~--.. Prepare-d by th-e St. Louis Park Community Development Department Legend D R-1 District [:=J ()t,her P-dO:ls . N A I n Ir.ce~ 1.4 o :~ 0_1 Within Sf. Louis Park, there are a total of 13,868 individual parcels of land. Of these 13,868 parcels, 3.447 are located in the R-1 Zoning District. The primary use within this district is single-family homes; however, there are also schools, churches, parks and golf courses located in the R-1 District. The R-1 parcels, as depicted in the map above, are primarily located in the northeast, northwest, and southern portions of the City. . 3 . Ie. "'~ .:..;fj'~ 1,..../' 1ftJ~ '. _ [/ "'I,, ),! "._ .11 q'. J ,.. - if: (..::Ii il I: I:" -II .. " ... II I "'ll .I'_~ _n. I ~ - ,........_._~_..............t_..... """" - - - . --- ~ .f--- ) ~iP i R.1 Zoning District 1 63 total lots potentially available for SUb~iviSion :t~ -- ~"' ~ _ -.l.-. - _ \ ' . _'" --..-.--n.-r.-- ................\ .__....._til~......:...;.-"_.~~.)=-f '-... l<" 1 f -:<411 I ,I "1 I II;'" pail'" :r. , II I '-'--......_....~._.... ,I - .. ~I ! """ I Ie:";l ... ,/ '/1 /" ~-;_:;:; i li II ~\ I --4. _ ~~ ""'~ . ~ I r t!....1 ,J _ J . r _ ". ~-.~ ~I I :"11 ~ __ ' c- I ., ,a I, . ~ I _.16-, 1- ~ _ ~~ \ 1~ P 'I I Ll ~ I .d. IL 11'1 'Ii' If L;f I'rr! .- -. .::. 1 ~'1I jl :- _ t .1 I I I 1 ~',~-~ ,. ''';h lto II 1 ,;- ,if i~ ,- ~I... .i. J [,!, 0,,_,1.. !.. r- - 11 ~r " II " ) - Ul!.. . II _t.. 'II I u.......~ :-~.'I- I -- I 1[1 f. 1 '" ;:-1 ... j', .":: . I~ .' r.... ~ _ ~I.. l;:. j f..:I-- · '!' I.t i I 1,- .1 I r . ~.. .. ~I r-'.'.."---" ! i i .. . II" i ____:i~ ' 'I. \ _______.,_~:-...J S<eptember 12, 200B I . Prepare-d by the St.louis Park Community l?eve~opment Oepartmem Map 2 . -, II I' I , I n.. , , / .~ , l.o , l ::- "\. , ~, ~ l: I I - I' II Legend I I. ii l D Not a'\'e:lable for S'JbOMsIDll IrltI Po1e,r.11a.:y a\'~I:lIE for sutlD1\'lsIDll D OthEr Parcels ~:1 '1 IF N A I o OJ o.e Ilaln 1.2 To subdivide property in the R-1 zoning district, the initial basic requirements would require at least 150 feet of lot width and at least 18,000 square feet of lot area as required by the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. A corner lot requires an additional 1 A' of lot width. . After reviewing all lots within the R-1 district, there are 63 potential lots available for subdivision. The 63, indicated above in orange, are scattered throughout the City; however, clusters do exist. These clusters were studied in greater detail to ascertain the existence of unique identifying characteristics within particular areas of the R-1 district. 4 . R.1 Zoning District Map 3 1 Floodplain location: 55 lots available for ~~bdiViSion ", L :-c. } 1.- --... ~7"~~~,w~}""'::-1" =r -1-"='~,"~~,~-:'~~'-~\. ':::f~-;, . ~0:%"@' -.., t,l 'I ~ "I ' if /,,1.,.' II~~ 2'/~~ 41~1 ~,~",:?l ;: r <., Jl'Li, , ,. I 'J.," /;.1i.. . , l,j ~ _ -r....-_......,_.., .' I ,/,~..r. t ~ I "I : ~~IJD' %;'./.... I -~ "'....?1 f I ~ '=' t '~,r" "t.... ;. \. I tr- 1i/:/?r/,~~ -, _', J r; ~ ..~-- '~ ~ v'I f" X';~.0)',: -I" ..I} I '~~ ac.. J ~@k' l .' rO ...~ "! ~~. I , " _ ... 't2m,W..aZi~< · @/."f...~..-/.. " -"I !', '- -- ..... ,~ ..i <i .-t%~ I if. ~Jij-.-=- -..,..; 4 ~ ;.. f I' ~, I I ..'(j,:~" J · L -I - r/I'/:; - -',' I ~" tV~ I, T,;~/~I '_"~.::'I- I " ~I llll ~F ..~.... I~' ~.."",~~{f: 1 I . '"u II II I, ~\I' i~ II '~;'oh - ~ 1 li'!" 1 ~ 'I' ,I ' Ii i I t./....& ~ --t '1',," I '-,,~ --, I : 'Ill i !i .=1 · ii ~ -::-.I.L a; Uti '. 1. '" !:,:, -':..=.' -i.. h.'-:F,....?, 1ft I' 't1r -Ill .. ' /' ~ _ ' ,_ I, ""'I 1I~1~ > ~" ' 1,.1; <;/, J "'i -1= \I' ;/," -, ,I __" ". /I(.~<~ jt;.c <l ..,.-~ . V' ,~~ if ;1; j, I i I \ .,~. ,r t J -" · I · I. 1'~r' .(! LJ'1 ~ T'iM i , I 1:. It ~, \ ,I- ~ I..~ I " ij );;~;1>:r~i -r~ ~ Y.; / T r / <'/h"~ ,1 ~,' l'll c7~,/~ I II,,' ~'~,.~ J,' ~~1~~~ ',1- h ,I. V?J,. ~...:!: r" ",-..~I.'._""'q~::_,-~ ~:.t \;f;~"'" ,:'., I - -,r. - - . v., \ .'/,'/ - I. ./"/.>"X!,' ' I 'I Legend '( ;<;;'~~ I I' ~ ~ 1I1l " I ....."t- O Not a'lall;U)[e klr sutldlvlelon :< -r: "f1?- I ... r-..........., fe>:/. ., .., I i _ Pot,=nllally a'/allao;e ~ liulldl'l1elon :- V/-1 .... i,.Jk I / , '%';,.. ': ,) Ir 1 ?~ ,~::?h ," I (0 '~0, ~/;I:,... , II i, J! ri r~&0i~ ~...~, , II \ ) 'X/)//X<r?.. lufIV".. '''I'' '.\ .-----........-.-... ~L.._.._~...:;, September 12, 2006 I Prepared by the St. louts Park Community i?eve5opment Oepartme nt . D ml1er paroets ~ FlooCJplal1i '(- ~ ~ N A I [; cw o..e lI~s 1.2 Prior to setting areas for further study. floodplain information was used to determine whether any R-l lots are impacted by the 1 DO-year floodplain. From this analysis. it was determined that 8 of the 63 lots are impacted by the floodplain, restricting the ability to subdivide. This reduced the number of lots potentially available for subdivision to 55. . 5 . R.1 Zoning District IMap4 -1 ' "~ouse ~ocation: 21 lots available for su?division ~ yT ....~ ---=:L- ~ J ';;:;-"-:-ff'W"--'r=-.---,-._..=.._"'=_..~-~ - ~ I "@:~~.m ~' {I / J ~ - -~ ......i\ I} ,<r...? 'L. -, n ";~9/l 1'-' II y,l/?Ji ilL ~ ./) ~ ,. . ~ - \I~'~i''''' ~/' :, t "'u .. I' "/,,) ..!O'j J ~ l ' , -..:;.--.............-.-.., tll'<~ " .~0'J. I" " ...-- ;~l-' ~-.! I' i ~\~. ~! >>!A I ~. . '- - .....-/..2.~h.l -\. I'''''' ~'? i I~ ~ ',' t,~" J1 . P.f: /~{/,1 -, _ J . ./~ .~ ~ r' ~ 1 ;1 J :0/7';,; J ~ #l J ~ I tJ!~. 'I'. - "YP- ~%@;~J{f/ Mr~;?~' .11 !.~? _. _.~ .1-...'" -~.. ~ $~~ , I_'~~/:- -- tf,<'. r II ~I '. I' "I l~:J I 1..1 Q.... '~-b-A ;~ .:.. 1,1" II II .. T '&\ ..! , .' ':? (;0'f'. I II h . I II II 1. t " I \. I f~C d" ~ . >f.-] /. 'I .. lr:! : It -,1 I i!1r I ,. ,-<~ 11 - I - ..:~- 1 ~ -' II - -. ...... ~ -~tt:rH ~- ,~ ! h.'" ,71...~... lJ:~ ,;, II ~;kl' 11) , II ,pi !~ II ? /' . -LioIt -.!-.l ~ - ~l- 'i::'~~ ;" ~ I ..1 :: J: ' .. - . .... i.:l..L/..... _,r, v .. ... . l~''l -:.-...-; ~ lr I ,,1 - - I y~' ~ I If I l..~ 'r I '" J .., I I :.:+.~ ': 'f, .1' - II I \ "1': I t.( c zjZ! i ~r~ ' ,a,'. If"" !1'.'" ~~,<~;1/~/..i [..Ii'".. ~ r;.,~ II "'- I .1' , .' '1((<" ~~ '// . I~ w 11 :v:~,.. ~,... _ _ -" _ _ ~ ~ .' I i... ~'.:;( t- -. JI l~ .' .~ I I;; . I t'/ "/!>Io .,..:,.-- I _ I . I It'J ... I ,.. 'IJ..L. ~--- r:r' 1 ".,.._~......~-:..~~........... v.. ~ 71) ..,J. I. ~ I _ ._ ~- --.- '., ..t. ./fZ:-;; - ~ Legend :/"""~<~f' 'II." I .1'.... / ~ ~.. II/Ill. .~, D ~ ~.I', ~f -" .... r......'.-H. Ln.-eLy ~ ayallable ror SUbdh,olsloo ~ ':,r.~. I H \ i W4 LD.-eLy il\'a:.Jble for subClt\'lsloo r _ ~~. ~ -1J =! i I /,? -... 1 ! D Oillo:r ParcEls r2 it}~... t:! ~ ..%~r...~ ,.)J- I' a I ~ Floo:lplaln /.0:/-" ,/..~.~ ,'" , 'I c-i /:.?';?/;/...y. B\ :'" . I I \ 'l'- ~ t' .. J..~.'l /;z-. /-',.~ II "j' ""-_._""" ----, ~_....._.. September 12. 2006 t Prepare'd by the 51. louis Park Community 1?evel<:lpment Department N A I l: I 0.1 I OJ.: II.I.II~: 1.2 . . In the initial study plan, house location was included as an aspect to be taken into account when determining which lots are potentially available for subdivision. The analysis indicates that there are 34 lots of the 55 lots where the house is located such that subdivision is unlikely without removing the house. This results in a total of 21 lots potentially available for subdivision citywide without tearing down a house. In further consideration of this aspect of the analysis, 55 lots was the number used because economic conditions could make it possible to subdivide some nf thA ~!i Infs. 6 . R-1 Zoning District -t _ Of 55 available lots, 3 areas of conce~tration .:t r- - ., . 1 -_... ~ ~-- ~.J: - - L I .~%"#~;-.-rJ.:-'.-I--~W-.:.._". 7~iV; ;: .._ .. ":~~~.& =--lI";E' ~,;;, . r 'I~; ~ "I ,~ Yo ~ '/ 'Vh I ~ I ~_,_"..,.,_" Ilo f . 1/':' "'. - . 'I -- Iii' ,.-0.. i, i I I ~ "'fJ''.t -l'\ tZ{)1 ~~ v....,... ,?flij//., J --:':'l'- Ll' ~L'. 'X~$2 . _I t- .# (~~.. tt..'. J W0''' /", "'-. Ir"'! ~ ;t; [I - ff~' 7~t~". ~...%~.;.~ /ih,J'~.i 1~,.~;:1t _ 1_ · . .~__ ;) ,E.....J < /' ~ c.a ...... I ~ . / ,.... I ~Ii" - _- _.',~_~' I' I I i{:.J' r .... ... .. IIUi?;-; l; :... ;.ql;~ , ,~. ~ .' l! III, I~ :'.1 rr po{0 ,,, '-~ ~>'~~', .,?~ \ ,I" __ ~ I ~~ . I t "f ~i . .Q';~~:1t' .- -T IJ. ~I ~ - ,:]. "I U;~ .:.. 1."/'..7, ~.i Ib" -- rl.~, 'il'l; Iltl: "!: 'l- ~.. I _... .<.~, ir - Ii .,,.. WI ~ II ,,/ - '.... ll~r 1"',: , .~ '1 J . ~ ,. k' 7/ .......~(~. " II . . /,- -:" - 1".,r 'r .."":.I ii' II 'I /,.... J ,I · - fi" I' I ~ I M7 \, I' " ;;. - I' 1 ". i,.. f-C ~ P !'. (1. I / I _ _ I~I , 0: .L'.., ...l_ !:], ~.. ::, . .:?~,/ ..r.;;~ " _II . V/: 1'1J".- _ ..,.,....._~~-!..._ ttIIiif""".........;...." _.- T . "... Map 5 . ., I "i ~'. i i I '~l :'! -;..~ ~. I i i . , .,.~ ~ ;,-"11./ ~ . ~ ';..',{ti - ii ':'t......--::~ F, ~'''''''i ~;.~fV'.6 W 'I. o ~ ;. II .< . -F I . I J..o::: \ jf{.... 1. I. _ I I! >, ~~?* ~ I ~~ ~ II ~~i/IC1-:~ It l "~...........l';'~ CJ No1 a'lall..tlfe ~r 51111dlVlelon ;./ I~/.<' ,., r I IilVAII PoesnJly ii\'C::abJe for euball'l5lCrll ; ;;1) ,~ ~ ., 'ill ~IL =Ii r4II~ ," /' .v//' 111'1 -:I'I~- i. r-. O;''1er Parcels. ,...././ L-I /~"/"/ <<.. . I ~ F]oo~aln :/;:9. /%m?% z,}X' I~. U I. }' c.i I L"" ~/;I,~'//~;;0, ~.' I, \ .... ~ ~ L t -.. - ,I; .. 'I"~ It" ) \. ~ "" _~,;~i..i~/... I .' ';. ~__M_'_'.'_ J Legend N A September 12. 2006 Prepare-d b)' the 51. louis Park Community Development Oe-parlme nt . I II O~ I J.S IWe, 1.2 Three areas were selected for further study. These areas, shown above, include portions of the Cobblecrest and Crestview neighborhoods and the entire Lake Forest neighborhood. Other neighborhoods not included, such as Fern Hill and Cedar Manor. were eliminated from consideration because they lacked uniform characteristics that could be applied when creating new zoning regulations. . 7 ~ ':~. Portion. Cobblecrest Neighborhood .' t'r , , 7 lots potentially available for subdivision ,.()J ~," /'~'//~~'/0~~':~0'~.~~l /.. ,,/-.' -"~- ~'~.. ....'%<~~z~';9y ~~ ./~~. " '/.;,.......... ,,~, ~ / .' :..-z.:.-. '.Yo Z!. "'.. .'~' /,. . ..' , ",,,,'/ "./ i/'/,> .'f ;> ~ " ,,> / ' ~L////;I . --- ----- . ~~. ~',..? ,oj; ~.~ ~~ ~ Legend ,.~. c:=J Not 3vallall4e 101 SUbcn'l1SlOO ~,. .' ..,. POSSIIli,' Ciyalla::tle for S'Ubdl\'lslon .,./, CJ otn.er PiiSceJs ii: ~ FIoodplam 1: ~ .". .t ..... ..- '4.. .//:., /./i" /-Y/r/" ./.J "~jl'" I.' ~'''- .~/ - .'. ..' ". .j' ... ~/ /'"..." ),. //., 1'51 ,....'// #/'.r' .... Map 6 " '/.~~. /~. ,":% ~;:;(;~~~'/W;}!/ · 1~'",,;,~~/. J)5-%{~~2j% .' I,;~ m:--'" .~:j7 '/7~ ~h./ ~i /,l t'..:'l!-- ~Z/// ~ ~/' rJJ ---- " .-- September 12.2006 Prepared by the S,- Louis ParJ.: Community De,,'elopment Deparlment ~"Ue!:> o IMI~ O.OS 0.12 This portion of the Cobblecrest neighborhood shown above was chosen based on the large lots along Minnetonka Boulevard. To avoid selecting an arbitrary area, 1000' on either side of Minnetonka Boulevard from Flag Ave. S. to the railroad right-of-way was included for analysis. . 8 . 45 40 ' 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 9000 . . Cobblecrest Neighborhood 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000 19000 20000 21000 22000 23000 24000 25000 26000 28000 29000 31000 33000 35001 The table above shows the lot sizes within this portion of the Cobblecrest neighborhood. Each lot has been rounded up to the nearest thousand and charted by size. The following statistics apply to this portion of Cobblecrest: . Average lot size: 15.856 square feet . Median lot size: 12.188 square feet . Mode: Approximately 12.000 square feet . Maximum lot size: 94.799 square feet . Minimum lot size: 6.989 square feet This portion of the Cobblecrest neighborhood is notable because of the unusually large lots along Minnetonka Boulevard. Plat data indicates that this area of the City was platted in 1955: however. several residences were already in place at that time. While there are several large lots along Minnetonka Boulevard. the remaining lots in the area are of a more typical size for the R-1 district. Of the 7 lots available for subdivision in this area. 4 were impacted when considering the location of existing homes on lots. One additional lot was impacted by the location of the floodplain. This area is typical of the R-1 district, featuring a wide variety of architectural styles. Based on this analysis. the Cobblecrest neighborhood was eliminated from the study. More specifically. it was eliminated because it lacked the uniform characteristics demonstrated by the Crestview and Lake Forest neighborhoods. 9 I I Map 7 . Portion - Crestview Neighborhood 10 lots potentially available for subdivision .'~'0 ~ ~ ,'''..'/.: 4)~?<~:f~ ~"~' .~/%I~.. ~/"./:~~. ~, .~~%/ ,/.'/ ~-: ~f_{r'/.;/ ,:/:.'/. 7'~ ~.~.~I.:f./.~~~~..~~~ V;;9z,,'r~;~ ~7/ '%::"01/;;'i".% ',f/;,# <;:''l//~*~~?''4? l '~~j-' i ~w - I I I . /"/~'''. / "" ... '; ,'///"/. // i'/ ..~".~-"". 1'/:...... .-...,,,: //'l .';...' ../"/,,.I').'/','.J: ~ . ',l'..../ "-...,, ." . . "..-"."-".-'-'-."."nl . Legend C=:J Not a....anabIe fo.r subl2Ms.lcfl /:/:~... ~~~)r.%;;~.,.::?Z%~z,.:fi ~~ . 'i'..w~' 'Y//0/f)ifL ,/}':@%" IPAI Possllliy available for s.ubtlMEilor. ..;;~. w;; %~>:Z..-:,.~~W/~?/:-;- c=l O1/ier Parcelo ~~',-;i~~0'~~~~~i~; ,/,. ~ FTocdpla!n mg'~'~;'w~~~~z>00~~f.~ ~' .. ~ /;:(1/Y"'~~/, ~'/""" , ~ $- rt ~;~.~~kjW%>>/Z{ff(j~~ -:;. , ~ /~~/'/;~~ ..';'i'~//~I/l/ .,/,'/- :/.;;:/ N Septemb er 12. 20GB A Prepared by ihe St. Louis Park Community Development Department I I I I~~ o 0..0:> 0.0; ('.12 This portion of the Crestview neighborhood shown above was chosen for further study because of its unique characteristics. The average lot size is over 22,000 square feet, for example. This average is the result of severallarger-than- average lots, and a uniformly large lot size throughout much of the area. . 10 . 10 9 8 7 6 5 - 4 3 - - 2 crestvieW~~igh~~r~~~ :~ o 11000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000 1900020000 210002300024000 2500026000 270002800029000 300003100032000 3300034000 350003600036001 . The chart above shows the lot sizes within this portion of the Crestview neighborhood. Each lot has been rounded up to the nearest thousand and charted by size. The following statistics apply to this portion of Crestview: I . Average lot size: 22,467 square feet . Median lot size: 23.707 square feet . Mode: Approximately 24,000 square feet . Maximum lot size: 35,979 . Minimum lot size: 10,581 Of the lots available for subdivision, all but three were impacted by the house-location analysis. This area is located in a topographically high location, so none of the lots in the neighborhood are impacted by the 100- year floodplain. Architecture in this area is predominately rambler-style houses built in the 1950s and early 1960s. The entire area was platted in 1945, and has changed very little since that time. . Lake Forest Neighborhood 16 lots potentially available for subdivision Map 8 . .---J f /11 W , ' Il f if' L !. I 'I " -~--rT"---''''''~'''-' l/J II J _.._".......__....._-.___._.._.~._"___....,.II..,_.._i_.._.._'" . J . 1/ I:, i J'I '/ J'/ I 1, I --- ~ //L_-- r / ~// ~ - . ')- -"'. .I~ " ~~/ Y4 " .- ...,.-J .\ ~- .ff . I .".7...."'" --"', ;/ "~;j ~.J.. /.. ~ " ~ ~ ~, l ~ ~.. ./0'.1 ..J'j~ '1.,. Legend c=J Not a't'alIatA:: fO{ sulXlh1:E.JOO ~ 'J 11II POOSlbtl availablE tor e.ubdMEiIOI\ c=J O1Mf PUCE:S ~ FIoOdplGln \" ~ .t ~ i,; ~ ~/ , I , I { I l 1 ! II I ~~I i , - . I i ! '\ ! , i '\ ! \ ! II .... j \ t ~, . ., I:r..~ .,.. -,. . / ./( :%~ ~// ~ ~ ." ~ ~ /~ ~ )//', ..... L .,.../,,~ ",m ,;'/1..' ". / ~... I ,. N A ~",Y"""lj ..) Sep~emb&r 12.2{)05 Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Deveklpment Department ~r.oe5 D O.lJ45 D.09 0.1= \ I . The Lake Forest neighborhood as shown above was chosen based on a large number of lots potentially available for subdivision. a large average lot size, and a concentration of lots potentially available for subdivision. The average lot size in Lake Forest. 18,016 square feet, results from a substantial number of very large lots complemented by a relatively low number of undersized lots. IL .25 . . 20 -_. --,"- -. I Lake Forest Neighborhood I .- . , .----. I--- f~ - - f-- - - - .- - - - - f-- - - - - r- - - - I n _~_ n n _ n n - --. - 15 10 5 o # ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~#~~~~~#~#~#~~~~~## The chart above shows the lot sizes within the Lake Forest neighborhood. Each lot has been rounded up to the nearest thousand and charted by size. The following statistics apply to Lake Forest: . Average lot size: 18,016 square feet · Median lot size: 15,295 square feet . Mode: Approximately 15,000 square feet . Maximum lot size: 65,221 square feet · Minimum lot size: 6,686 square feet The Lake Forest neighborhood is impacted by the location of the 100-year floodplain. Several lots, including several that are potentially available for subdivision, may be impacted by the floodplain'. There are also lots that may be impacted by the location of the existing house on the lot. The Lake Forest neighborhood features a variety of architectural styles and lot configurations. Three plats were filed for the area; the first, Lake Forest Addition, Forest Tract was filed in 1939. Lake Forest Addition, Parklands Tract was filed in 1941 and Westridge Addition, covering the west side of the neighborhood, in 1952. 13 . . . Map9 Lake Forest - Subdivision Analysis Example 1: Potential lot combination and split . Lot Sizes: 1.25,785 sf 2. 20,630 sf 3. 12,849 sf 4. 11,989 sf 5. 56,8"10 sf 6. 56,850 sf 7. 29,668 sf 8.27,519 sf 9.35,183 sf ~J Sub Total 1: 277,283 sf New Road: 680' x 60' Sub Total 2: 236,883 sf Less Floodplain = Developable area N A Prepared by the City of 81. Louis Park Community Development Department September 12 2006 I I I I FHI , 0 120 24ll 490 This graphic provides information on a theoretical replat in Lake Forest. A. as requested by the Planning Commission, the possibility of combining several lots and re-subdividing them was analyzed. The table shows the total square footage of the lots. A road would have to be reconstructed to serve lots, using up some of the land. In addition, areas in the floodplain would be removed. Surveys would be required to determine the location of the floodplain, and would impact the amount of land available for development. Ignoring the impact of the floodplain, these 9 lots could theoretically be replatted to create 20 or more lots. 14 . Lake Forest - Subdivision Analysis Example 2: Potential lot combination and split . Prepared by the City of St. Louis Park Community Development Department September 12 2006 I I I I Feel . 0 120 240 4B::J Map 10 Lot Sizes: 1.65,221 sf 2. 43,517 sf 3. 15,275 sf 4. 16,590 sf 5.112,183 sf Sub Total 1 : 252,806 sf New Road: 600' x 60' Sub Total 2: 216,800 sf Less Floodplain = Developable area N A This graphic provides information on another theoretical replat in Lake Forest. As requested by the Planning Commission, the possibility of combining several lots and re-subdividing them was analyzed. The table shows the total square footage of the lots. A road would have to be reconstructed to serve lots, using up some of the land. In addition, areas in the floodplain would be removed. Surveys would be required to determine the location of the floodplain, and would impact the amount of land available. Clearly a very large portion of this site could not be used because it is in the floodplain. Virtually all of lot 5 is in the floodplain. Excluding lot 5 in the table above, there still is the potential theoretically to replat this site into 10 or more lots. . 15 10 13,500 sf . Crestview 8 7 6 5 18,000 sf 4 3 2 . . o 110001400015000160001700018000190002000021000 23000 24000 25000 260002700028000290003000031000320003300034000 350003600036001 25 13,500 sf Lake Forest 20 15 18,000 sf 10 # ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~~##~#~~#~~ The next step in the subdivision analysis involved the development of alternatives for lot sizes for these areas. The following alternatives were determined based on the natural statistical breaks in the data as shown in the charts above: . Retain existing 9,000 square foot R-1 lot standard. No action required. . Create a district with a 13,500 square foot minimum lot size. At this minimum, no subdivisions could occur except on lots greater than 27,000 square feet (indicated above). . Create a district with an 18,000 square foot minimum lot size. At this minimum, no subdivisions could occur except on lots greater than 36,000 square feet. 16 Portion · Crestview Neighborhood Map 11 . Potential Lot Splits 1601 1605 1600 U) 1607 w 16U ~ ~ 1621 0 m U) ::l 1631 11541 164D :f 1640 1001 1800 B3.0J 1 C) ~m1 rou lQ 1800 .- 0 lS10 Z 1810 1811 1811 1810 ?i ~ 1820 1820 1e21 1821 1820 C> :E lC30 (f) 1830 11;31 roiO 1~.JO ::) 1831 . Legend D Cannot be s.pti ooeier CWent Code o Polentlal1o spm a1 9,OO1} S1 m'illlnJm ~ Seu pat:r.':Iallo 6jX1t at 13.S0G e: rr~Jm I No IcrlS can be split at the 18,000 sf minimum N A: Prepared by the St. louis Park Communi,~' Development Department September 12. 200e 150 300 IFeel 5')) The various alternatives result in the following effects in the Crestview neighborhood: . 9,000 sf: . 13,500 sf: . 18,000 sf: 10 lots available for potential subdivision 3 lots available for potential subdivision o lots available for subdivision . 17 ~ ,. i ~ ~ Lake Forest Neighborhood Potential Lot Splits <> l:? ,. 1 ~ ~ Prepa",d by the St Louis Park COft!munhy Development Department N A 'nt '" Seplemb.., 12. 2006 The various alternatives result in the following effects in the Lake Forest neighborhood: . 9,000 sf: . 13,500 sf: . 18,000 sf: 16 lots available for potential subdivision 6 lots available for potential subdivision o lots available for subdivision . 18 . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended that the R-1 zoning lot size remain as is on a 4-1 vote. While not unanimous, reasons given for the recommendation were that the current minimum lot size does not appear to be a major issue; few lots are suitable to be subdivided; and, they were concerned about creating special zoning districts on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. CONCLUSION: The City Council reviewed the R-l Zoning District Study at a study session on October 9, 2006. At that time, the Council discussed the three alternatives provided in this Study and did not request that Staff bring forward any amendments to the Zoning Code pertaining to lot size. . . 19