Loading...
01-11-99 PC Agenda . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 14, 1998 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, December 14,1998. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Martens, McAleese and Shaffer. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Plsnningand Development, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - November 9, 1998 MOVED by Groger, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 9, 1998 minutes as submitted with the correction of two typographical errors. II. Informal Public Hearing - Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map - Amendment Address: 800 Turners Crossroad, Golden Valley, Minnesota Request: Amend the Plan Map from Light Industrial to Business and Professional Office (B&PO) III. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning Applicant: United Properties and the Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Address: 800 Turners Crossroad, Golden Valley, Minnesota Request: Rezone the subject property from Light Industrial to Business and Professional Office (B&PO) City Planner Beth Knoblauch told the Commission that the Comp Plan Map amendment and rezoning were very similar in nature and requested that the discussion of these two hearing items be combined. Chair Pentel concurred. Knoblauch explained the request and reviewed a site map noting where the subject property was located and those businesses and residents that surround the subject property. She told the commission that in the 1950's the City did not have a Comp Plan Map and when this map came into existence it took on what the use was on the zoning map. She said the surrounding uses east and north of the subject property are predominantly residential, and south and west are predominantly business uses. Knoblauch continued by saying that if the proposal was not approved and the amendment to the comp plan map and rezoning were, the existing structure would be grandfathered in, but if the building on this site was ever demolished the new building would have to be an office use. She said staff believes the change from Light Industrial to B&PO Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 14,1998 Page 2 would be beneficial to the City and to the residents in the area because the Light Industrial zoning district allows other uses and the B&PO zoning district allows only office use. . Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Kapsner commented that even if the proposed six-story building would not be approved, he would rather see the land use as office vs. light industrial. Commissioners McAleese and Johnson agreed. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from Light Industrial to Business and Professional Office. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of a rezoning of the subject property from Light Industrial to Business and Professional Office. IV. Informal Public Hearino - Preliminary Desion Plan - Golden Hills Office Center, P.U.D. No. 81 Applicant: United Properties Address: 800 Turners Crossroad, Golden Valley, Minnesota . Request: Review of the Preliminary Design Plan for the Golden Hills Office Center, P.U.D. No. 81 that would allow for the construction of a six- story office building and one-story parking deck City Planner Knoblauch reviewed a colored site plan of the proposed site noting the roads that abut the subject property and the proposed right-of-way taking. She said the 7.5 acre site lies within the Golden Hills Redevelopment District. Knoblauch added the Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority had seen the proposal by United Properties when it was designated has developer for this site. Knoblauch next reviewed her report commenting that the proposal meets the definition of a PUD because it lies within a redevelopment area. She said that PUD's are a more detailed form of CUP's and staff felt that this is a preferable way to proceed because it allows variances where otherwise the applicant would need to proceed to another Board. Knoblauch next outlined the standards and criteria for a PUD that are specific to this proposal as found in her staff memo dated December 2, 1998. She found the application to be complete for this stage of preliminary design plan review. Knoblauch next reviewed planning considerations starting out with zoning. She noted that there are some variances requested in this proposal. A surface structure setback variance is required from the proposed cul-de-sac and a parking setback variance from Golden Hills Drive. She noted that the Colonnade is setback only 20 feet and the subject property parking area is 25 feet along Golden Hills Drive. Another variance is required along Xenia for parking along the proposed right- . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 14, 1998 Page 3 of-way after the widening occurs. Knoblauch said there were miscellaneous variances also, such as the retaining wall or loading dock. She noted that the ramp, at its closest point to Xenia, may be 15 feet from the front property line, but part of the ramp is below grade. She said another variance would be needed for the parking deck in that it exceeds the percentage of the allowed lot coverage, but the building is below its allowed percentage and there may be some flexibility that allows the City to say it meets the requirements of 60%. Knoblauch noted that the applicant has provided more parking than is required, but United Properties has told staff that parking is needed for the success of a project. They said that more offices are now using modular units than single offices, thereby generating more parking. Knoblauch suggested that the applicant could have reduced the setback along Turners Crossroad that would allow the whole site to be moved over or the parking lot could be redesigned. Staff believes the proposed buffer along Turners is a very important feature for the residents to the east. Knoblauch also suggested that the water feature could be more mote-like, as can be found along Hwy. 55 in front of Golden Valley Commons. Knoblauch next talked about the regional ponding across Laurel Avenue and said that this regional pond is not guaranteed until a vote by the City Council sometime in February on the Xenia Avenue Extension road design. She said the applicant would like to proceed and has provided a water quality feature on-site. If the regional pond should go through, then the applicant would be aSking the City to use the regional ponding system. Knoblauch reviewed the appearance/compatibility category saying the purpose of creating the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area was to eliminate blighting influences, upgrade the overall appearance of properties and take advantage of the increased tax base potential of properties close to Xenia Avenue and 1-394. She said because the proposal is direct!y across from residential on the east and north, this property should be treated differently than the standards set for the Colonnade. She said that an office use seems to be a better fit than an office/ warehouse use as allowed under the Light Industrial zoning district. Knoblauch briefly reviewed the proposal saying the project is for a six-story office building, with a one-story parking deck, that is being kept away from the residential area to the east that includes a buffer strip of a berm and plantings. There are no driveways onto Turners or Laurel Avenue. Several office related services could be located within the building, such as a snack bar, mailing center, day care for employees and possibly a locker room. None of these services would be advertised to the public. Knoblauch said that all these items fit under the PUD permit. Knoblauch talked about the parking deck that would face the residents to the east. It would be 10 feet in height with a four-foot parapet. She said the deck height should be specified in the PUD permit. Knoblauch commented that the parking deck height is not noted on the plans, but found in the application. She said the landscaping is subject to certain standards and would be reviewed by the Board of Building Review (BBR) after PUD approval. She noted that the City often recommends landscaping over and above City requirements, and in this case evergreen plantings may be the choice of planting along Laurel Avenue and possibly along Turners Crossroad. Knoblauch said the City Forester should review these plans. She commented on the water feature being an amenity and a storm water facility for the site. Knoblauch noted that because there is a dual purpose of the water feature, particular attention to landscaping in this area should be noted. She said there should be no outside storage and doesn't expect this in an office development of this quality. The PUD permit should note that all trash be kept inside except on pick-up day. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 14, 1998 Page 4 Knoblauch suggested the City may want to consider asking the applicant to provide screened, . under-deck storage. She said this is not a requirement, but a suggested recommendation by staff. Knoblauch commented that the NO.9 bus passes through this area from and to Minneapolis. She also said that the Xenia Avenue extension would include links to the City's pedestrian and bicycle trail system. She said that staff would expect sidewalks around the site, but added that the engineering memo stated that it may not be needed on all four sides. She also suggested that there be an internal sidewalk from the building to the bus stop on Xenia Avenue. The City would maintain the sidewalks around the site and the owner of the site would maintain the internal . sidewalk system. Knoblauch commented that people may use their bikes to get to work given there may be locker rooms in the building. She suggested that a bike lock-up be shown on the plans if it is to be located outside the building. She expects the signage for the site to meet the requirements of the sign ordinance. Knoblauch noted that the subdivision process for this site is very simple because it already is one parcel, does not abut a county or state road, nor impacts shoreland, floodplain or wetland areas. She said the plat should show additional right-of-way to be dedicated for Xenia Avenue and for the Turner's Crossroad cul-de-sac. The final plat should also indicate the standard 10-foot drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the site and any other easements the City Engineer finds necessary. The final plat should include "P.U.D. No. 81". Knoblauch next review engineering and construction issues noting that the preliminary landscaping . plan omitted where the right-of-ways are and this needs to be corrected by General Plan review. The City Engineer has asked for comments regarding sidewalks, street dedication, on-site storm water treatment and landscaping elements in the Turners Crossroad cul-de-sac right-of-way. The City Engineer has requested additional comments from the SEH consultant regarding traffic circulation to ensure the site is properly integrated with the design concept for the Xenia Avenue corridor. She said the grading, erosion and sediment control plans will need to be approved by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission prior to any construction. Knoblauch told the commission that staff recommends approval for a six-story office building and parking deck with 17 recommendations as noted in her staff memo dated December 2, 1998. Commissioner Groger questioned if the City will not know until February the outcome of an approval for the Xenia Avenue extension, how does the City know what right-of-way will be needed. Knoblauch said the engineering memo states that there must be right-in and right-out only on Xenia Avenue. She said that Xenia already carries an amount of traffic so there will need to be changes made. Groger asked if may be possible that the final plans for the Xenia Avenue extension would require additional right-of-way. Knoblauch said no more right-of-way would be required. Groger asked about no left turns out of the proposed site. Knoblauch commented that vehicles leaving the proposed site would need to go north on Xenia. She added that if outgoing traffic uses the Golden Hills Drive exit, then they could turn left to get to 1-394. Groger said it would be his preference to allow left turns on Xenia. He also asked if the median was part of the Xenia Avenue design. Commissioner Shaffer, who chairs the Xenia Avenue Design Committee, said that it was . part of the discussion. Grimes asked Shaffer if the committee was looking at a signal at Laurel and . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 14, 1998 Page 5 Xenia. Shaffer said there has not been any determinations at this time. Grimes suggested that if there were a problem with going north, some drivers would make a "U" turn at Laurel and then proceed south to 1-394. Grimes added that the median was a decision by the City to provide a "safe" situation in this area. Pentel asked how much traffic would be generated from this development. Knoblauch commented that the SEH consultant had studied this but she did not have the research with her. Grimes said the consultant used numbers that would be similar to the proposed office use and the report showed there would be adequate road capacity. He said there is a concern with AM and PM peak trips and how this will affect the ramps. Grimes briefly talked about the traffic overlay district with St. Louis Park and that certain density developments would need to provide a plan to show if traffic exceeds a certain level what they could do to help reduce peak traffic levels. Commissioner Martens suggested that the parking parapet be made of solid walls. Knoblauch said there was no indication that there would be anything different and because residential units are located to the north and east, the parapet wall should be solid. Martens asked about sidewalks on all four sides of the development and believes this should happen because it is a high-density area. Knoblauch commented that the engineering report suggests that sidewalks may not be needed on all four sides, but stated that a staff recommendation is for sidewalks on all four sides. She said that the Xenia Avenue Design Committee may be looking at this issue and Shaffer commented that they are also looking at Turners. Pentel agreed with sidewalks on all four sides of the proposed site. Martens noted the discussion regarding variances for the site and talked about the possibility of moving the building or curb line to eliminate some of the variances. Knoblauch said that there is approximately 50 feet of greens pace along Turners, except near the cul-de-sac, and staff believes it is important to have the landscaping, along the building, wide enough to support decent plantings. She said that she could not comment extensively because she is not a landscape deSigner and cannot determine whether there should be landscaping along the street vs. along the building. Groger asked about lighting for the parking ramp and may want to address this because it could affect the residents to the east. Knoblauch said code requires lighting to be captured on-site and the applicant would need to provide a lighting plan. It was suggested that lower poles be used and Knoblauch said she did not see Why this could not be recommended as another condition. Groger asked how the site works regarding loading docks and semi-trucks. Knoblauch said the applicant should address this question. She added because this is not a warehouse type building, staff does not anticipate semi-trucks coming to the site. Groger said he saw only one set of stairs from the parking ramp, on the plan, to the main building and that this goes out onto the parking lot. Knoblauch noted only one access to parking ramp. Pentel questioned if the parking deck could be attached to the building so pedestrians would not have to cross the parking lot to access the building. She added that if the deck were attached to the building, it would then be away from the residential area. She suggested that the parking structure could also be placed to the north of the site. Knoblauch commented that this would create more difficulties for employees and visitors to get in and out of the site, it limits the use of Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 14, 1998 Page 6 the building itself and would no longer have windows where the deck would attach to the building. . She said that she could not give an adequate response to this comment. Shaffer asked about the office support services and asked if a full-scale restaurant, located in the building, would not be able to advertise to the public. Knoblauch said that was correct and added that they could have a cafeteria that could be open to the public. She said that the Northrup King building on Hwy. 55 have a cafeteria, that is open to the public, but they do not advertise. Commissioner McAleese asked about the reference in the engineer's memo regarding a storm septer and that it does not work well removing phosphorous from the site. Knoblauch commented that in an unrelated meeting with Jeff Oliver, City Engineer, the storm septer was discussed and the comments were that storm septer's do not always have the same purpose in all storm water treatment facilities. She said it is important that treatment occurs when there is slow moving water because phosphorous provides nutrients that causes growth and growth in water usually does not occur if it is moving rapidly enough, at that point the sediment should be removed so it does not clog-up and not move so fast. Knoblauch said she interprets the engineering memo to say that because the water will be moving through the places where the storm septers are located, sediment should not occur. . Pentel commented that this is a tax increment district and questioned staff what the City's public investment for this project would be. Knoblauch said that she did not know. Grimes said the City is selling the property to the applicant for a fixed price. Pentel commented that the City would be floating tax increment bonds to this project. Grimes said that approximately $40 million was established for the entire area, but did not know specifically the amount for the subject piece of . land. Brian Carey, United Properties, said that the goal of the project was to design a class "A" office building that was functional and attractive. He said the perimeters of the building needed to meet the design of the tenant it serves and issues of the neighborhood and adjacent commercial building. He said with this design they focused on the affected neighbors on Laurel and Turners Crossroad and have worked hard to eliminate impacts. They designed a building that is compatible with other buildings, specifically the Colonnade. He reviewed renderings of the building and reviewed materials to be used for construction of the building and noted they would be similar to that of the Colonnade. McAleese asked if the plan shows a four- or six-story building in that it looks somewhat deceiving. Carey said that the two-window feature makes it look smaller than it is and that it is a six-story building. Carey next reviewed a rendering of the site showing the landscaping plan. He noted the size of the berm which could go as high as six feet. Carey said there would be no outside storage, but there is an outside trash compactor at the bottom of the loading dock which would be located fifteen feet down from the top of the berm. Carey said they would encourage tenants to use the bus stop which would be very accessible to them and the neighbors, and the shelter would be very attractive. He said if it would be a recommendation to build sidewalks all the way around the site, he would comply, but believes that . grass is better than concrete. He would agree that a sidewalk along Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive makes sense, and possible along Laurel. Carey said with a cul-de-sac on Turners there Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 14,1998 Page 7 . would be very little traffic and assumes residents on the east side would rather see grass than concrete. Carey said there are three stairways to access the parking deck. He added that they could incorporate bike racks under the stairwells. He said that United Properties is very concerned with a no left-turn in and out of the site on Xenia Avenue and believes it could cause more harm than good. He said this would force patrons to take the Golden Hills Drive exit across from where the Colonnade would be exiting causing congestion. He is also concerned how trucks would enter their site and is requesting a median break on Xenia. He said all parapet walls on the parking deck would be four feet in height and made of the same materials as the main building. Carey said he would be willing to work with staff on the lighting for the deck to eliminate it from shining into the residential neighborhoods. Carey said there would be very little semi-truck activity. Most traffic would occur when tenants are moving in or out. Other trucks coming to the site would be the size of a van or UPS truck and most would pull up to the door or use a parking space to unload using a two-wheeler. He said he would work with a civil engineer to make sure there is good turning radius. Carey said it is the intent of United Properties to use the Golden Hills pond for drainage for the northern portion of their site, but wanted a water feature to direct % of the drainage on the site to this area. He said they wanted a backup water feature in the case that the Golden Hills regional pond could not be used. . Pentel asked about traffic be generated from their site. Carey said he is not able to provide this information. He said this proposed building would accommodate approximately 800 to 900 people. He believes that many of these people would take the bus or not be in the building at the same time. He said he would be happy to have calculations available to staff or available at the City Council meeting. Pentel asked about snow removal from the deck. Carey said that this issue had not been addressed but believes it could be stored off the north side of the parking deck. Pentel asked about snow removal for the rest of the site. Carey suggested that it may have to be removed from the site. He added that there is more parking on the site than required, so if no problem arose, some parking spaces could be used for snow storage. Kapsner asked about the height of the trees on the berm. Carey showed a rendering of where the trees and berm are compared to the top of the ramp. He said the berm could be six feet in height. The parking deck, including the parapet, is 14 feet high and trees would range in height and variety . Pentel asked about the irrigation system. Carey said the entire site would be irrigated. Pentel asked if there would be a fountain in the water feat,ure. Carey said there would be a fountain, that he does not want tenants to look into a green and mucky water feature. . Shaffer said the shape seems to focus more toward the Colonnade and that the larger portion faces the residents. He believes from their view, they would be looking at a big block of a building. Carey said that he looks at it differently. The residents would only see one side of the "L". He said Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 14, 1998 Page 8 the alternative is to go with a rectangular size building, but believes that the proposed building is . nice and cuts down on site lines. Shaffer asked if the applicant had looked at putting the parking ramp along Laurel. Carey views those buildings across from Laurel as residential and there are more of them. Shaffer asked if he looked at attaching the deck to the building. Carey said it minimizes the leasable space of the building on both the first and second floors because there would be no windows on these floors and tenants would be looking at walls of the parking deck. Shaffer said that he is not sure that the design of the building relates to the Colonnade. He is concerned with the scale of the building. Carey said they did not try to match the scale of the Colonnade, but were trying to match the design features, such as the lime stone base and similar color of glass. The design was not to match the height of the Colonnade. but to have a feeling of stepping down to the residential neighborhood. Pentel asked if Unit~d Properties had met with the neighbors. Carey said no. Martens asked Carey what would happen if a left turn could not be made onto Xenia from the site. He said he was concerned with a lot of cars coming out of the site on one curb cut. Carey said they were not aware of the restriction and if it is put in place then they would like to have an access point onto Laurel. Kapsner said the business across the street from the proposed site has semi-trucks coming and going and they will not be able to enter their site, due to the median, from the south and will need . to come in from the north. He suggested that the Engineering Department visit this situation again. Grimes commented that the Engineering Department wants to eliminate the left hand turn because the driveway is too close to Laurel - only 150 feet. Pentel said she understood the reasoning for eliminating left turns out to encourage traffic north. She said that is why she is interested in the traffic counts. She said that before the preliminary design plan goes before the City Council, traffic counts and snow removal information should be available. Carey talked about providing additional green space on the site. He said office tenants are changing and buildings that have a parking ratio of 4/1000 are going to have problems because there will not be enough on-site parking available. Pentel asked if their proposal for parking is five cars per 1000 sq.ft. of space. Carey said not quite. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Bill Schroers, 721 Turners Crossroad, commented on the existing large greenspace on the existing site which the children in the area use. He noted the fire station also uses the site at times. He is concerned with noise pollution from cars coming into the site and the noise caused by cars using the parking ramp. He talked about noise in the area created by sweeping and snow removal vehicles. Schroers is concerned about the proposed parking deck lighting that it does not project into his house. He believes the building should be no larger than what required surface parking would allow, and the building should only be four-stories. He also talked about the access onto 1- . 394 and having to wait % hour get onto 1-394. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 14, 1998 Page 9 . Sonia Fortier, 408 Turnpike Road, is concerned with traffic this development will generate. She believes left hand turns should be allowed to keep vehicles out of the residential areas. Fortier said her concern is not the size of the building, but the amount of parking on the site. She also had issues of snow removal and vehicles getting in and out of the site and suggested that maybe this building should be five-stories in height. Carol Gohman, 621 Turners Crossroad, believes there should be sidewalks around the perimeter of the site except on Turners, and noted there is a sidewalk on the east side of Turners. She is concerned with snow removal and the parking ramp. She believes the site should only have surface parking and is concerned with traffic in the area and vehicles going up and down the parking ramp and pollution. Gohman suggested moving the ramp somewhere else on the site. . Linda Loomis, 6677 Olson Memorial Highway, is appalled that at the end of the residential neighborhood on Turners is this huge Colonnade building and is afraid of adding a six-story building on this site. She commented on the developer needing more parking than the code requires and believes the traffic count is vastly underestimated. Loomis commented that access at 1-394 is rated very poorly and questioned the amount of added congestion to this area. She said that if vehicles do not use the freeway, they will then go north or take Glenwood. Loomis is concerned with right-in and right-out only and how this will exacerbate traffic on Xenia A venue. She commented on the traffic'study and how the development affects it, and will there be a pedestrian bridge if the development is tying into the pedestrian trails. She asked about a stop light at Xenia and Laurel and is a pedestrian bridge recommended for this area. She believes the existing building is more desirable than the proposed development that needs four or five variances. She noted that the access to the proposed development is directly across from the Colonnade access and will this create a traffic problem. She said that she believes the City is bonding for $4.5 million for this site and questioned whether the City would be recouping the cost from the development. She asked why the City was providing general obligation bonds vs. TIF bonds. She believes it is the duty of the City to protect the'value of the single-family dwellings on Turners Crossroad. Katherine Peters, 209 Turners Crossroad, said she was pleased with the Xenia Avenue extension but is concerned with the additional traffic this development may produce and is concerned with the amount of greenspace being lost. She said the Roberts-Hamilton building is not attractive, but neither is looking at a six-story building. She is concerned that people using Laurel to Turners will try to cut through the residential neighborhood to get to the main roads. Peters believes there will be cut-through traffic through the church parking lot and then through to Turnpike Road. She is pleased with Xenia A venue, but believes the median interferes with what was trying to be accomplished through the extension. Sunny Fortier, 408 Turnpike Road, said she would rather look at the existing building across from her home than a six-story building and noted that there are one-story buildings being constructed in this redevelopment area. . Linda Loomis, 6677 Olson Memorial Highway, agrees that bus access is a great idea but there needs to be suggestions on how to make it easier for employees and visitors to access the building. Pentel asked about a stop light at Xenia and Laurel. Grimes said there would be a stop light if one were warranted. Pentel asked if there were plans for a pedestrian bridge; Grimes said no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 14,1998 Page 10 Pentel asked if it is possible to limit the hours when snow removal occurs. Knoblauch said this is difficult because lots needs to be cleared before employees arrive on the site. . Pentel asked staff to address one-story buildings vs. six-story buildings in the Golden Hills Redevelopment area. Knoblauch commented that buildings farther to the west, away from the interchange, were intended to be lower density. Martens asked what the comprehensive plan states. Knoblauch said to three-stories. Grimes commented on the traffic generation from the site and said that the building is proposed to be 180,000 sq.ft. which would generate approximately 360 trips at the peak hours. He said that Roberts-Hamilton probably generates 50 trips at the peak hours. Shaffer asked how many semi trips are generated. Grimes said he has not checked this, but added the property is zoned light industrial and is underutilized. Kapsner commented that there is concern with internal traffic flow and internal snow removal and is willing to leave these issues to United Properties because they know how to handle these issues. He said people should benefit from the development regarding traffic due to a decrease in access to Turners. He said that Golden Valley is not an island, but a suburb close to downtown Minneapolis and believes there will be more traffic on Xenia, Glenwood and Turners whether the development is constructed or not. Kapsner believes the City would be better off constructing the Xenia extension and infrastructure that will be able to handle the traffic from. the proposed development. Pentel believes that a four-story building vs. the proposed six-story building may have less of an effect on the residents to the east, but wasn't sure. . Kapsner talked about people standing on Turners and looking toward the building and with berming and landscaping does not believe the building would even be visible. He said that people would be looking at trees and not a parking ramp and what is being proposed is better than what can be seen now. He believes the movement of the parking ramp to the north would be less desirable for those residents along Laurel Avenue. Martens said that he supports the application and doesn't believe there is much difference between a six- and four-story building. He said the Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan allows for higher density development. Johnson said she also supports the proposal believing that it is a good use for the site, that this is not a residential site but a business site to be within a residential community. The developer has done a good job with the design of the building and the landscaping plan is good. She said she is concerned with turns onto Xenia. She asked the developer to consider one-level parking. Brian Carey commented that he would not be able to meet code requirements without the ramp. Pentel asked if a four-story building were constructed would surface parking be adequate. Carey said that could be the case. Groger said that the likes the development and the building being away from the residents on Turners. He favors the berming and landscaping submitted. He said he would vote against the . proposal because of the height of the building. He said the berming and landscaping will help, but would rather see a four- or five-story building that would eliminate some of the parking. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 14, 1998 Page 11 McAleese said he liked the project overall and the orientation of the water feature and "L" shaped building. He said he has a problem with the height of the building and would feel more comfortable with a four-story building and would flinch at a five-story building. He believes deck parking is better to view than surface parking. He believes the proposed site will have a traffic problem without the availability of a left turn onto Xenia. He said traffic from the ramp and other parts of the site going left on Xenia, will cause cars to stack and stand on the ramp. McAleese said he is voting against the proposal commenting that there should be a reconsideration of the internal traffic flow of the site, a consideration of moving the parking deck to the north stating that residents would be looking at a parking lot or ramp, no matter what. He said it makes sense that internal advertising regarding the accessory uses in the building be made available to buildings within the area because people can walk to other buildings. There should be specifications of the deck and berm heights in the plans. He said he likes the idea of the bike parking area and should be specified on the plans now. He also commented that all four walls of the parking parfait should be solid, and sidewalks should be constructed on the north, south and west which makes the most sense. McAleese said the fundamental reason of why he opposes the plan is because of its dense level and until Xenia A venue has been worked out the proposal should not go forward. Shaffer said density is an issue because this lot is too small and believes the proposal puts more traffic on Xenia Avenue and believes traffic will become gridlocked at 5pm. He would like to see the parking deck along Laurel, instead of Turners, and believes that single-family residences should be protected now and for future residents. Shaffer is concerned with the design of the building and believes that something could be designed that fits the Golden Valley image better pertaining to the appearance of the building. He said that the Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan talks about appearance as one of its main goals and believes -that this proposal is a first approach instead of a final design. He said he would be voting against the proposal. Pentel said she concurs with comments made by Groger that a six-story building is too high and needs to be stepped down to a four-story building. She does not like having the parking ramp next to residential property and the berming and trees are a good idea after 10 or 15 years time. She said if the development were stepped down to a four-story building, with surface parking, she would still like to see berming along the edge of the building. She said she would vote against the proposal. - Martens said he doesn't believe that going down to four-stories is going to alleviate any concerns with the residents across Turners and the structured parking is best suited where it is now proposed. He said he is prepared to vote in favor of the proposal although he does have a concern about egress and ingress and believes the traffic engineers will need to look at this issue. McAleese said as a housekeeping issue the proposal qualifies as a PUD and the application is complete to proceed through the hearing process. Knoblauch suggested that if the recommendation to the Council were negative, the commission may want to make another motion including the conditions, in case the City Council decides to override the first recommendation and approve the proposal. MOVED by Martens, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried by a vote of 3-4 to recommend to the City Council denial of the Preliminary Design Plan for the Golden Hills Office Center, P.U.D. No. 81 for the construction of a six-story office building with a one-level parking deck. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 14, 1998 Page 12 MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council that the following conditions be considered by the Council if it decides to approve the Preliminary Design Plan for the Golden Hills Office Center, P.U.D. No. 81for the construction of a six-story office building with a one-level parking deck: . 1. permitted uses include general offices plus limited office support services like cafeterias or snack bars, copying and collating centers, mail centers, or day care - with no outside advertising allowed for the support services, in order to maintain their classification as accessory uses; internal advertising by flyer to other Golden Hills Central Area developments is permitted, provided that permission is obtained from the appropriate property owner or manager; 2. a parking structure with a single deck above ground level parking is also permitted, provided that the structure's fa~ade complements the appearance of the main building, the deck surface extends no more than ten feet above the surrounding site grade, and the deck parapet consists of a solid wall extending at least four feet above the deck surface on all four sides; 3. the developer shall provide a lighting plan for the upper deck parking area, making special effort to minimize any potential light spillover onto nearby residential lots by using shorter light standards, hooded light mounts, low intensity lighting elements, reduced security lighting during certain hours, or other appropriate methods as determined by City staff; 4. the developer shall prepare a plan identifying suitable on-site snow storage or snow removal options for the parking lot and parking deck areas; 5. full left and right turning movements shall be allowed into and out of the Xenia Avenue site access; . 6. permitted or required site improvements will be those specified in the provisions of the PUD permit, and/or shown on one or more plans approved as attachments to the permit; 7. landscaping plans are subject to final approval by the Building Board of Review after completing the PUD process; at minimum, such plans shall include berms extending five feet or more above grade all along Turner's Crossroad and Laurel Avenue; 8. detailed visual perspectives of the water amenity/storm water ponding facility and its immediate ~urroundings must be supplied as part of the required landscape plan for General Plan consideration, and may be made part of the PUD permit, subject to final approval of the Building Board of Review; 9. waste and recycling facilities are to be located entirely within the main bUilding or in the loading dock area; except on the day of pickup, no rubbish, recycling, or other disposable material or container for holding such material is to be left in any outside area other than the loading dock; 10. yard maintenance equipment, corporate vehicles, miscellaneous supplies and any other stored items are to be kept within the main building; 11. the developer must construct public sidewalks along Xenia Avenue, Laurel Avenue, and Golden Hills Drive, working with City Engineering staff on locations and specifications; where any part of a street sidewalk is located within the site's boundaries, the developer is to provide permanent easements for public access. Once built, the City will assume maintenance responsibilities for all four street sidewalks; . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 14,1998 Page 13 . . 12. the developer must also construct and maintain at least one internal site sidewalk providing a safe path for pedestrians and cyclists from the building's main entrance out to Xenia Avenue, plus providing clearly designated walkways between the main building and all three parking deck stairwells; 13. the developer must provide a facility for parking and securing bicycles somewhere withinJhe site; 14. the developer must work with City Engineering staff and Metro Transit staff on appropriate location, improvements, and installation/maintenance responsibility for a bus stop facility along Xenia Avenue; if necessary, the developer will provide an easement for an on-site location; 15. signage must meet appropriate standards established in City code; 16. the final plat must reflect additional right-of-way to be dedicated for Xenia Avenue and for the Turner's Crossroad cul-de-sac; 17. the above-noted dedicated rights-of-way will be excluded from any other terms of PUD approval as spelled out in the PUD permit; 18. the final plat must indicate standard 10-foot drainage and utility easements around the site perimeter, as well as other easements the City Engineer may find necessary; 19. the name of the final plat must be "Golden Hills Office Center P.U.D.' No. 81"; 20. the applicant is to address all requirements and comments set out in the Engineering Department memo dated December 1, 1998, except where such-requirements or comments are in conflict with other recommendations stated above; and 21. the applicant is to address all requirements and comments set out in the Inspections Department memo dated November 17,1998, There was a discussion about the outside trash compactor. Carey stated that this was a dumpster, not a compactor. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Martens and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council that the dumpster be allowed to be outside by the loading dock as noted above in recommendation no. 9. V. Informal Public Hearina - Review of an Amendment to the Preliminarv Desian Plan - Room and Board. P.U.D. No. 79 Applicant: Room and Board Properties Address: 4600, 4650 and 4680 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN Request: Review of an amendment to the Preliminary Design Plan for Room and Board, P.U.D. No. 79 - to allow for the construction of office space between the buildings located at 4600 and 4650 Olson Memorial Highway and additional warehouse space behind the bUilding located at 4650 Olson Memorial Highway . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 14,1998 Page 14 Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, gave a summary of Room and Board's . request to add 56,000 sq.ft. of warehouse and 13,000 sq.ft. of office space to the existing buildings located at 4600 and 4650 Olson Memorial Highway. He said the main issue is parking and the applicant has shown "proof of parking" on the site plan that reveals that adequate parking can be provided on-site. They are requesting a reduction in the amount of parking spaces from the required 539 spaces to a total of 400 spaces of which 220 are, or will be, built and 180 as "proof of parking". The applicant does not believe that they would ever need the required amount. Grimes noted that the outlet sales occur only on weekends and would not interfere with employee parking. Grimes next addressed ponding on the site that was not on the original PUD. John and Martha Gabbert, owners of Room and Board, recently learned that they own the property north of the 4600 building that includes the railroad line. The railroad was given an easement over this particular piece of property and the Gabbert's are now seeking written permission to place the pond just south of the railroad tracks that would lie within the easement area. Martens asked to see where the "proof of parking" would be located and questioned whether there was a reason that it was not being constructed. Grimes commented that there was no specific reason why it was not being constructed. Daryl Fortier, Fortier Architects and representative for Room and Board, commented he was in agreement with comments made in Grimes' staff report dated December 8, 1998. He said that a parking variance was being requested because the applicants believe that the bulk materials stored in the warehouse take up a lot of space with few employees. They believe that the parking requirements are therefore exaggerated because of the use in the warehouse and because they . employee few persons for the warehouse. Fortier said they would be willing to provide "proof of parking" and construct all parking spaces on the west side of the site. Fortier next commented on the ponding issue reviewing a site plan where the proposed pond would be constructed. He said that he has talked with the railroad about the ponding in the railroad easement area and that it would take three to six months to receive a written answer from them. Fortier commented that the pond could not be constructed until this spring, and the applicants are proposing to have drainage flow into a sediment pond (to be constructed) on the north parking area on the west side of the site that would be eliminated after the pond is constructed. If the pond does not work in the easement area, Fortier said that Minncomm Paging, 610 Ottawa Avenue, has agreed to allow a portion of the pond to be constructed on their property with the remaining on the Room and Board property. Pentel asked where the water would flow from the ponding area. Grimes said it would eventually flow into Bassett Creek. Fortier commented on the landscaping showing on the site plan where ornamental plantings would be to the front of the 4600 and 4650 buildings, and sodding and wild flowers on other areas of the site. Chair Pentel opened the informal. public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the informal public hearing. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 14, 1998 Page 15 . Pentel said that she was comfortable with the amended proposal having seen the proposal through a concept plan at the original preliminary design plan review for P.U.D. No. 79. She said one of the issues at that time was the signage for the site and believes that Room and Board has done a good job on signage. . . McAleese said he had no problems with the proposal and supports it. He suggested language in the amended PUD permit for the proposed pond so the applicants would not have to appear before the City again when the pond eventually is constructed. Grimes agreed and also commented that the watershed district must approve the plan. Martens agreed with Fortier regarding the parking requirements for the warehouse use being quite high according to the City's code. Grimes noted that the City would have to amend its code in order to change this requirement. He said he was not comfortable with changing the industrial zoning district code at this time and advocates the "proof of parking". McAleese also suggested that the code be revised because he is uncomfortable, in this case, granting a variance for lack of required parking spaces. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to the Preliminary Design Plan for Room and Board P.U.D. No. 79 with the following conditions: 1. All requirements of the PUD Permit for PUD No. 79 remain in full force except as noted in these recommendations. 2. The site plan prepared by Fortier and Associates, marked plan sheet A-1 and dated 9/8/98 be made a part of this plan and replace the site plan approved as part of the original PUD. 3. As indicated on the Parking Assessment plan sheet A-2 prepared by Fortier and Associates and dated 9/8/98, 220 parking spaces shall be constructed. There shall be 180 "proof of parking" spaces as outlined on this plan sheet. These spaces must be constructed if the Chief of Fire and Inspections deems the spaces are needed to meet parking demand on the site. 4. The fire lane around the site as indicated on the A-1 site plan shall be paved and have concrete curb and gutter. It shall be completed as soon as the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission and City Engineer give approval to its construction. 5. The storm water management system proposed for the site shall meet the requirements of the Bassett Creek Water Management Organization and the City Engineer. VI. Reports on Meetinas of the Housina and Redevelopment Authority. City Council and Board of Zonina Appeals No reports were given. VII. Other Business No other business was discussed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission December 14, 1998 Page 16 VIII. Adiournment . Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 10: 1 Opm. Emilie Johnson, Secretary . . # e MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: January 6, 1999 Golden Valley Planning Commission Mary Dold, Planning Assistant Upcoming National APA Conference in Seattle Enclosed you will find a copy of the brochure for the National APA Conference in Seattle from April 24-28. The City has budgeted approximately $1650 for this conference. Only one commissioner will be able to attend at this cost. Below is a list of who has been where and when: e 1992: Washington DC 1993: Chicago 1994: San Francisco 1995: Toronto 1996: Orlando 1997: San Diego 1998: Boston Emilie Jean Lewis Kevin and Paula (split the cost) Rick Groger Jean Lewis Warren Emilie Please review the enclosed information. A decision will need to be made the night of January 11, 1999 so the conference fees can be placed on the check register in time to meet the early registration deadline for the conference. As in year's past, I will do the conference and hotel registration. Whoever will be attending will need to make their own plane reservation, and then forward the bill onto me for payment. Also attached, for your information, is a list of future National Planning Conferences. e , It Future National Planning Conferences It's never too early to plan to attend a future AP A National Planning Conference. YE CITY DATES HOTEL I 1999 Seattle April 24-28 Sheraton/Westin 2000 New York April 15-19 Hilton 12001 II New Orleans II March 10-14 II Hilton I 2002 I Chicago II April 13-17 II Hyatt I 12003 I Denver March 29-April 2 Adam's lvlark/Marriott 2004 Washington, D.C. April 24-28 Hilton 2005 San Francisco March 2 ... Marriott I 2006 I San Antonio II ~pril 22-26 Sheratonllvlarriott I 2007 I Philadelphia April 14-18 Marriott It For more information please contact rkaiserc'ti>.planning.org or call 312-786-6389. .. AP A . AICP . National Planning Conference' Planners Book Service' Research Publications' Planning Advisory Service' Educational Opportunities Legislative & Policy Issues' Public Information' People. Jobs & Consultant Services What's New' Links' Calendar . F AO . Site Map CODvrieht bv the American Plannine Association Webmaster(s) Pa'Ze . e e e M E M 0 RAN DUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: January 4, 1999 Golden Valley Planning Commission Mary Dold, Planning Assistant January 11, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting Due to the lack of an agenda, there will be no Planning Commission meeting on Monday, January 11, 1999. City Planner Knoblauch asked me to pass along, to those who were interested in knowing, where future National APA Conferences were going to be held. Please find this information below. Future National Planning Conferences It's never too early to plan to attend a future AP A National Planning Conference. HOTEL Sheraton/W estin Hilton 1 ton Hyatt Adam's Mark/Marriott Hilton Marriott rato arnott Marriott For more information please contact rkaiser@planning.org or call 312-786-6389. - AP A . AICP . National Planninl! Conference. Planners Book Service' Research Publications. Planning Advisory Service. Educational Opportunities Lel!islative & Policy Issues' Public Information. People. Jobs & Consultant Services What's New. Links. Calendar . F AO . Site Map CODvrhzht bv the American Plannine Association Wehmaster{s} Parte /