03-09-98 PC Agenda
AGENDA
e
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, March 9, 1998
7pm
Approval of Minutes - February 23, 1998
Informal Public Hearing - Amendment (No.2) to the Preliminary Design
Plan for P.U.D. No. 71
Applicant:
Valley Creek, LLC
8301, 8401, and 8501 Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley, Minnesota
Address:
Purpose:
Amend Preliminary Design Plan - P.U.D. No. 71 - To allow for the
existing one lot to be divided into three lots with each building
situated on its own lot; and to allow for additional square footage of
signage, up and beyond what is permitted in the sign code, for
each of the three buildings.
e
Informal Public Hearing - Amendment (No.2) to the Preliminary Design
Plan for P.U.D. No. 42 - North Lilac Drive Addition
Applicant: C. S. McCrossan
Address: 812 North Lilac Drive
Purpose: The amendment would allow for the consolidation of two of the
three lots. A two-story office building, with a lower level, totalling
approximately 48,000 sq.ft. would be constructed on the
consolidated lots.
--- SHORT RECESS ___
Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council
and Board of Zoning Appeals
e
V. Other Business
A. Land Use Plan - Presentation by Subcommittee
e
VI. Adjournment
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use.
The Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon
the Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning
Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely
affect the surrounding neighborhood.
The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn,
first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments.
Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along
with the Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision.
With the completion of the informal public hearing(s) there will be a short recess before the
commission continues with the remainder of the agenda.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission
will utilize the following 'procedure:
e
1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff.
Commission members may ask questions of staff.
2. The proponent will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the
Commission.
3. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so
indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual
questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak.
Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments.
4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair.
Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer
your questions.
6.
No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the
opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, e
not rebuttal.
7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
e
Memorandum
Date: March 5, 1998
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Mary Dold, Admin. Sec., Planning Department
Subject: February 23, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes
Well, the minutes are not complete as of this writing. As you will recall
the majority of the meeting concerned the property located at 1710
Douglas Drive and Bright Start Day Care and the CIP. The minutes
will be available at the March 23 meeting.
e
I talked with Terri Taylor, Regional Director for Bright Start, on the
Wednesday following the Planning Commission meeting, and asked if
they were ready to proceed to the City Council. I needed to place the
legal for this meeting. Terri informed me that it was highly unlikely that
they would proceed to the City Council. I asked her to send Mark
Grimes a letter informing him of their decision. The letter has not yet
arrived.
e
e
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
March 5, 1998
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan
Review for an Amendment to P.U.D. No. 71, Valley Creek;
Valley Creek Development, L.L.C., Applicant
e
Valley Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD) is located in the northwest
quadrant of Highway 55 and Wisconsin Avenue (location map attached). When
this PUD was first proposed, it was to have three office buildings on two lots so
that the easternmost building (a.k.a. the North Memorial clinic building) could at
some point be owned separately from the other two; a new developer stepped
into the picture part way through the PUD approval process and decided that
there was no need for two lots, so the PUD was finally approved with three
office buildings on a single lot. Now, with construction of all three Valley Creek
buildings well under way, the developer has decided there is a need for
separate lots after all. At this time, the proposed PUD amendment will create
THREE lots, one for each building (site plan attached).
One other change is included in the current request: the developer is asking for
signage in excess of what City Code would ordinarily allow in a Business &
Professional Office district. While not specifically covered within the PUD
section of City Code, there is some precedent for dealing with such requests as
part of a PUD application. Also, the current PUD permit includes a specific
provision regarding signage, making it natural to infer that the provision would
be subject to later requests for amendment just like any other terms of the
permit.
APPLICATION CONSIDERATIONS
Since the site is already a fully-approved PUD and the sole land use change
proposed at this time is its division into three lots, there is no need to re-
examine the question of whether the proposal meets the definition, intent, and
standards for PUD's in Golden Valley. Staff did check all three applicable
sections of City Code, and found no way in which the proposed property division
would cause the earlier determination of appropriateness to be set aside.
e
The application packet is basically complete as well. City Code does call for the It
packet to contain all of the materials that would ordinarily be submitted with an
application for full subdivision, but this particular property has already been
platted twice - once within the last year - through the full subdivision process;
at this point, the Director of Planning has determined that the site plan normally
considered adequate for a minor subdivision application would be sufficient.
The City Inspections Department has ordered an "as-built" survey which staff
will be able to use for assurance that the three buildings are properly located
per the previously approved plans. Since none of the other plans or submittals
are changing, the copies already on file from the original PUD approval are
adequate to fulfill the requirements of the amendment application packet.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Having established the appropriateness and completeness of the application, it
remains only to review any planning considerations that might affect how the
proposal is shaped as it moves from Preliminary Plan stage to General. Due to
the limited nature of the proposed amendment, there is little to consider. Zoning
variances, sign variances, and agreements for access, parking, and grounds
maintenance are the only potential issue areas identified by staff at this time.
Zonina Variances - The addition of interior lot lines between the buildings will
result in new non-street setbacks that do not fully conform with City zoning
standards (zoning comparison table attached). In fact, there will be no interior _
setbacks at all for paved areas. The main entries of the East and West _
buildings will be nonconforming as well, though a slight modification of proposed
lot lines in each case could eliminate that situation; portions of the East and
West buildings are proposed to exactly meet the required 20-foot setback, so
any surveying error in the wrong direction would cause them to become
accidentally nonconforming, but a good surveyor should be able to avoid that
problem. One trade-off for the added nonconformities is that the divided site will
conform with the City's one-building-per-lot zoning standard, which it fails to
meet now.
While performing a thorough review and comparison of the currently-proposed
site plan and the plan as originally approved, staff noticed certain discrepancies.
First, the current proposal indicates two buildings at 40,500 square feet and a
third building at 48,000 square feet for an on-site total of 129,000 square feet.
The approved PUD permit specifies two buildings at 40,846 square feet and a
third building at 46,995 square feet for an approved total of 128,687 square
feet. Since the buildings are now under construction, staff asked the
Inspections Department for the actual square footage as calculated from the
construction plans themselves; the response was two buildings at 41,332
square feet and a third building at 49,732 square feet for a total of132,396
square feet. Actual building size is therefore within 3 percent of what the permit
allows, but is still greater than what the currently-proposed site plan reflects, and
almost 4,000 feet greater than what is specified in the permit. On-site parking,
on the other hand, is currently shown at 552 spaces compared with a count of
554 spaces as originally approved. The developer should be required to supply tit
more precise site plans as this proposal moves forward.
2
e
In all other respects, the PUD will either conform with the appropriate underlying
zoning standards or at least will be no less nonconforming than it was when
originally approved.
Cross Aareements - Because this PUD was originally approved with just one
lot, there was no need to consider agreements for cross-access, cross-parking,
or joint maintenance. Since each currently proposed lot has been laid out to
include its own street access, it might be argued that cross-access agreements
still are not necessary; however, the site was designed to function as a unified
campus, and it would be in the City's best interests to ensure that visitors,
employees and service/delivery vehicles retain full right to use any driveway or
parking space that they could have used under the original plan. In fact, since
the various parking areas will continue to flow unbroken across the new property
lines, it would be difficult to prevent their common use.
To further ensure that the visual impression of a unified campus is retained,
there should be an agreement covering joint maintenance and replacement of
any exterior furnishings, landscaping elements, walkways, driveways, parking
areas, and the storm water detention facility. The sole comment from the
Engineering Department on this proposed amendment (Salsbury memo
attached) is that the joint agreements should cover all underground utilities in
addition to above-ground improvements.
All draft agreements should be available for review and comment by the City
Attorney, at the expense of the applicant, at the time of General Plan
application.
New Plat - As indicated above, the division of the site into three lots will require
a new plat. The plat name must continue to include the name and number of
the PUD. Engineering staff will have to review and approve all easements to be
shown on the plat; City Code normally requires utility easements along all
property lines, which may not make sense in this particular case, but there may
be a need for easements at alternative locations instead. Because the site
abuts a state highway, state law requires the City to forward a copy of the plat to
the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for review and comment
prior to final approval. If the comments are returned on or before the night of
the informal public hearing, staff will have them available for the Commission.
Sianaae - The approved PUD permit specifies that sign age for the Valley
Creek campus must comply with City Code requirements for the Business &
Professional Offices zoning district. According to City Code, Valley Creek could
have 50 square feet of signage advertising specific businesses in each of the
three buildings (150 square feet total), plus additional signs identifying the entire
campus as Valley Creek. The permit provision was not questioned when the
PUD was originally approved, but now the developer has determined that City
Code is too restrictive for his tenants' needs. Through this PUD amendment
process, the developer is requesting a total of 240 square feet of signage
identifying specific businesses within the three buildings (as shown on attached
elevation plan).
The matter has been discussed by the Director Of Planning and Development
and the Inspections staff who normally review sign requests. Inspections staff
noted that no Golden Valley office development - including the Colonnade _
e
e
3
has come into conflict with the existing code requirements. In industrial areas _
such as North Wirth, where code allows more signage per building, many office- .
type developments still meet or come close to meeting Business & Professional
Offices signage limits. However, as Valley Creek is an important and long-
awaited component of the Valley Square Redevelopment Plan, Inspections staff
have deferred to the developer's request for more square footage through the
PUD permit; though they feel the development should be held to all other
applicable code requirements for on-site signs (Inspections memo attached).
Inspections staff have been reviewing sign regulations from other communities
to see if Golden Valley's sign provisions are abnormally restrictive. There is a
possibility of some eventual modification of the code based on that review, but
any such revision would not occur in time for application to Valley Creek.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Valley Creek PUD
#71, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant should be required to supply more precise site plans
as this proposal moves forward. Those plans should be accurately
scaled and should reflect actual sizes and locations of all three
buildings as well as any other site improvements that are already in
place, but in all other respects should be identical with the currently
approved site plans unless the developer specifically requests further
revision of the PUD permit. e
2. The applicant should be required to prepare agreements covering
cross-access, cross-parking, and joint maintenance/replacement of
on-site improvements. All agreements, in draft form, should be
available at the time of General Plan application for review and
comment by the City Attorney; the cost of that review should be paid
by the applicant.
3. The final plat should meet City staff requirements for plat name and
for easements, as well as any requirements forwarded by MnDOT.
4. The development should be allowed to have up to 240 square feet of
business identification signage instead of the 150 square feet
permitted per City Code, but should be required to comply with all
other on-site signage requirements.
Attachments:
· Location Map
· Site Plan (oversized; may be enclosed separately)
· Zoning Comparison Table
· Memo From Fred Salsbury, Dated February 27, 1998
· MnDOT Plat Review Comments (if available)
· Elevation Plan (oversized; may be enclosed separately)
· Memo From Gary Johnson, Dated March 4, 1998 e
4
, ..,
"I ....
/' .fb.' . 1"...~'
',.. . -" '" \
'., /
::: .
~ .\t,
.'" . ",~a
:~~' ,
~../. . ('
i1 "','
. . I
. J'"
,......
'. -
':-
e
..
.
,.
Ii
'ON
5 ~?
.. ..
a
e
..
~
u
'-
"I
J
. ,.....,; -_.
en
w
0::
'(j --;
. <r. .
I
I
n1i'
'-3NO
- OS... --
~~
VV
~t?-
,- ."
,. "(
and ~aaJJ ^a ;
aHS pa llt'^~",1
sodoJd"7';
- .
r"
. .
-.:...
.3:-
j.
.1 :;.
d..
~
cJl -:
..
,
. ..
..
"
...
I
I
..~I I
~; .
Ij ..\
t- .-
--'
,
.
I
t-:
r:C.
_ ':. .~1I -
Ilm- ---
.11'1'.'- ~....
.: ( :'f .
'.'\
. .
.
e
u..., ,; ....r N
IS :or\
'05 HZ
l-
e.,
I
!
I
I
,
= , I
;
,
'; :
.
,.......
&0
&0
f !
-
-..-.
~
~
ro
~
C)
I ~
ro
'I::
0
E
Q)
~
c:
0 ;.
~
0 .'
It)
~
N
N
" I.
'tOJ "
"
. :.
..
~
:
:-
~
,.l
,.l
&.
7
'L ~II ,I
I'.h'{'
r ...""'..1
[I,
..'!
!
~
~I
.,
:::1
orL
3NOOS~
l.C!:' tJ/....,
'o~
.
..
"
...'
."1"
,~. ,
.
c.,
i'il
::"::'=: ~ '3NI i
..j,r~.. -~.
.(1' "
.
.,..
:~
z r :.'l'
,.,.("\'
N
...
..
'.
--
-. ..
...
...
.,
...
..
.-J
.
'.
....
...
...
..
.'
..
~ .. '..
.... \
\
I
.. :.
!......,
.. tl . .:. . ,
~--
.or,/ .\
-.
..
.
.
,
I
I
I
I \
\
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
Business & Professional Office District
vs. Proposed Amendment to Valley Creek Office Center PUD
B & P Office Zoning Amended PUD
Permitted Use: Office Uses Proposed Use: Offices and Clinic, Plus up
to 10% of Total Floor Area For Accessory
Service Uses Such As Deli, Pharmacy, Copy
Center, Et Cetera
Minimum Lot Width: 100 Feet Proposed Lot Width: > 150 Feet For All
Lots At All Points
Minimum Lot Area: One Acre Proposed Lot Area: Exceeds Minimum On
All Lots
Minimum Structure Setbacks: Proposed Structure Setbacks:
Street: 35 Feet Street: Exceeds on All Lots
Side/Rear: 20 Feet Side/Rear: Meets or Exceeds on All
Lots, Except For Main
Entries Of East And West
Buildings
Minimum Parking/Paving Setbacks: Proposed Parking/Paving Setbacks:
Street: 35 Feet Street: Meets or Exceeds on All Lots
Side/Rear: 10 Feet Side/Rear: Zero Feet on All Lots
Minimum Creek Setback: 50 Feet For Proposed Creek Setback: Meets or
BuildinQs and PavinQ Exceeds
Maximum Bldg. Coverage: 40% of Lot Area Proposed Bldg. Coverage: All Lots Okay
Maximum Height: 3 Stories Proposed Height: 3 Stories
Minimum Parking Spaces: Proposed Parking Spaces:
General Office: 1 Per 250 SF Gross East Lot: 1 Per 215 SF Gross, with
Clinic: 1 Per 250 SF Gross no separate breakdown for
PLUS 1 Per Doctor Clinic Space;
PLUS 1 Per 3 Employees Center Lot: 1 Per 255 SF Gross
West Lot: 1 Per 251 SF Gross
Notes: Items in italics above were re-evaluated for the new three-lot configuration.
Parking analysis is based on actual building sizes rather than site plan data.
e
e
.
MEMORANDUM
e
DATE: February 27,1998
TO: Beth Knoblauch, City Planner
FROM: Fredrick V. Salsbury, P.E. -:l, ~L-
Director of Public Works/City Engineer;Jl-
SUBJECT: PUD Amendment for Area A-1
The only concern for the proposed amendment is to make sure that there is
some method of maintaining common facilities, such as utilities in the area.
e
e
City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
GokIen Valley. MN 55427-4588
(612) 593-8000
FAX (612) 593-8109
TOD (612) 593-3968
Mayor and Council
593-8006
City Manager
593-8002
Public Safety
Police 593-8079
Fire 593-8080
Fax 593-8098
Inspections
593-8092
Motor Vehicle
593-8101
Planning and Zoning
593-8095
.
DATE:
March 4, 1998
TO:
Mary Dold
FROM:
Inspection Department
RE: Area A 1
Area A 1 was reviewed by the Inspection Department on
March 4, 1998 and appears to meet Inspection Department
requirements. The Inspection Department recommends that
the sign ordinance be followed except for the requested
square footage variance.
e
e
"'
~e
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
March 5, 1998
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and
Development
Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plan for An
Amendment to North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42;
C. S. McCrossan, Applicant
RE:
'"
The North Lilac Drive Planned Unit Development (PUD) is located in the
northeast quadrant of Highway 100 and Highway 55 (location map attached).
Immediately north of the site lies the Chicago & Northwestern rail corridor and
proposed regional bike trail corridor (both zoned for Open Development).
Immediately to the east lies the Valley Village apartment property (zoned M-1
Multiple Dwelling).
Since the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) closed off a
hazardous partial access to and from Highway 100 a few years ago, the PUD's
sole access has been by way of a frontage road connecting to Highway 55 at
Ottawa Avenue; MnDOT plans call for future extension of the frontage road
system across the adjacent railroad tracks to the north.
The proposed PUD amendment would allow the combination of two currently-
vacant lots and subsequent construction of a multi-tenant office building (site
plans and preliminary plat attached). The approved PUD permit now calls for a
motel/restaurant on one of the affected lots and an office condominium on the
other. These buildings were demolished over ten years ago. There is an
existing office/condo building located on Lot 3. This will remain and become a
part of the amended PUD. However, no changes are anticipated on Lot 3.
.
Background on PUD #42
This PUD was originally approved in 1984. The property at that time was the site
of a former "Holiday Motor Hotel" (source of the "Holiday Lane" name still in use
today for the street segment fronting the property). The motel, comprising seven
buildings on two unplatted parcels of land, was considered to be no longer viable
by its owner and nonconforming by City staff. Establishment of a PUD was
considered to be the best solution to the numerous on-site problems short of
razing the entire complex.
~
As originally approved, the PUD called for a combination of demolition, new
construction, and changes in use. Specifically, the main motel/restaurant
building at the west end of the site would be retained in its current use; a two-
story motel building at the east end of the site would be retained but completely
refitted for use as an office condominium; and three smaller motel buildings in
the center portion of the site would be razed, with one remaining smaller building
joined to a larger existing building by a new addition, and the combined building
refitted for use as an office condominium. Each of the three portions of the site
would be platted as a separate lot, with cross parking and access agreements as
necessary. The possibility of future loss of Highway 100 access was known and
discussed at the time of original PUD consideration, but no additional highway
right-of-way taking was anticipated.
In 1985, the PUD was amended. The property had changed hands, and the new
owner wanted to be relieved of two permit conditions that he felt were not
reasonable. First, the new owner: had been unable to obtain a small parcel of
land held separately by one of the former owners and originally intended for
public dedication and trail use; rather than voiding the entire PUD, the new
owner requested a provision for some alternate form of dedication. Then, the
new owner also requested to be released from a condition requiring a six-foot-
high security fence along the eastern and northern property lines; the existing
setback along part of the identified fence line was too narrow to provide for easy
fence or grounds maintenance. Both requests were accommodated. There
were no changes to the basic permitted uses or building configurations.
Representatives of the owner approached the City in 1986 to request tax
increment financing assistance for redevelopment of the central and west
portions of the PUD as a single office building, noting that renovation of the
buildings had proven to be economically unfeasible and they were currently
sitting vacant. For reasons that are not clear in the record, this request died
without ever reaching the public consideration stage.
The main motel/restaurant building and the buildings in the center portion of the
site were demolished in 1986-1987, and the land has been vacant ever since.
There has been no request for another amendment to the PUD permit, probably
because the property owner wanted to have a specific development proposal
contractually locked in before going through the whole amendment process.
There have been occasional inquiries about the property since then, but only one
has reached a public forum in any way: a prospective buyer approached the
City's HRA a few years ago to request tax increment financing assistance for an
industrial building, which the HRA determined to be an inappropriate use given
the property's location and adjacent uses. Limited site access, poor site
configuration, and uncertainty about plans for Highway 100 have probably all
contributed to the lack of interest in the property.
el
II
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Planning considerations vary from one PUD to another, depending on the nature
and complexity of any particular request. These will be addressed in the
following paragraphs:
.
2
.
Zonina Variances - One of the features of the PUD designation is that it allows
variances from the City's normal zoning requirements to be incorporated into the
overall approval process for qualifying properties, if such variances are justified
in accordance with the purpose and intent of PUD's in general. A comparison
between the applicant's specific development proposal and the underlying
commercial zoning requirements (attached) does indicate several variances
being requested.
The applicant's own analysis of parking, as shown on Plan Sheet A-1, is not
correct in its statement of City requirements. Specifically, the applicant has
calculated the office portion of the requirement for "rental" space only, while code
clearly states that gross square footage (excluding only limited storage or garage
areas) is to be used. Thus, where the applicant notes a surplus of 4 to 12
parking spaces, there is actually an on-site parking deficit of 33 spaces. The
plans also do not indicate the required loading/unloading area. The developer
should be asked at the Planning Commission hearing to discuss the parking
deficiency.
Setback variances are being requested on all sides of the site. Along the
existing and proposed frontage road, the applicant is requesting variances for
both the building and the parking/driveway areas. Uniform 1 a-foot setbacks are
proposed for parking/driveway areas along side and rear lot lines, but City Code
calls for larger setbacks along the east and north property lines because of the
differently-zoned adjacent properties; the result is that the proposal involves non-
street setback variances ranging from 5 to 15 feet at the indicated locations. The
building does meet applicable setbacks for each of the non-street sides.
The front setback requirement is 35 ft. The proposed setback is 25 ft. from the
front of the building to the Lilac Ln. right-of-way line. The parking area west of
the building has a varying setback from the existing and future frontage road as
indicated on the site plans. When the new frontage road is built to the north
across the railroad tracks, the parking area will be as close as 5 ft. and as far as
36 ft. A small portion of the parking lot that is at the east end of the site is
setback about 10ft. from the right-of-way rather than the required 35 ft. This
area is adjacent to the east driveway into the site. The setback requirement from
the railroad right-of-way is 50 ft. for building and 25 ft. for parking area. (The
railroad right-of-way is zoned Open Development. The setback requirement for
buildings in the Commercial zoning district that are adjacent to Open
Development is 50 ft. to building and 25 ft. to parking.) The setback of the
parking lot at the east side of the site to the parking area in the apartment
complex is supposed to be 15 ft. The proposed setback is 10ft. Due to the
difference in elevation (the apartment property is higher), the 5 ft. variance is
less significant. Due to the shape and narrowness of the site, along with the
future highway taking by MnDOT, the proposed variances appear necessary in
order to obtain reasonable use of this site.
Unmet Trail Dedication Reauirement - The approved permit in 1985 called for
dedication of Outlot B to the City of Golden Valley for open space (Le. trail)
purposes, and installation of a screening hedge between the trail corridor and
any adjacent parking area. Because the permit allowed the dedication
requirement to be met separately from the platting of the property, which itself
~e
--
3
was allowed to extend six months beyond issuance of the PUD permit, staff and
the owner had no good way to keep track of it over time. The predictable result
is that the dedication requirement "slipped through the cracks" and remains
unmet today. The applicant is aware of the situation and has agreed to fulfill the
terms of the approved per-" '3S part of the current amendment process.
Hiahwav 100 -- As part c ~;qrading of TH 100, MnDOT will be constructing
a new frontage road which WI" jnd along the east side of TH 100. In order to
construct the frontage road and provide for additional land needed for the TH
55/TH 100 interchange 'Mprovements, property will be purchased from this site
as indicated on the sh-can. It will reduce the overall size of the site by about
24,000 sq. ft. The site pian submitted assumes the MnDOT acquisition. Overall,
the new frontage road is a benefit to the site because it will provide access to the
north and west. An at-grade railroad crossing is planned north of the site.
Cross Aareements - There may be cross parking arrangements made with the
office condo that is on Lot 3.
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
As required by the PUD approval process, the Engineering Department has
reviewed the plans for the proposed amendment and noted certain conditions to
be met as it moves from Preliminary Plan stage to General Plan approval. I
have met with the City Engineer and developer to discuss this matter. The
proposed utility and grading plans appear to be acceptable to the Engineering
staff. Drainage to the site will go to the existing ditch along the railroad. As part
of the MnDOT improvements, the eventual plan is to run the drainage into a
stormwater holding pond proposed north of the railroad tracks. The creation of
this pond will be accomplished by buying out the single family home just north of
the railroad tracks.
BUILDING CONSIDERATIONS
The developer has submitted a building elevation plan. The building will be a
combination of brick, block and glass. It is a three level building, about 36 ft. in
height. The lower level will have 13 parking stalls. The remainder of the building
is primarily office with a limited amount of storage space.
The existing building on Lot 3 will continue as part of the PUD with the same
requirements found in PUD Permit No. 42, Amendment NO.1. This specifically
states that that building may be used as a office condominium with 64 parking
spaces and a two stall garage. The building has been actively rented over the
past ten years or so for this use. By providing small scale office space, a market
is being met in Golden Valley by this building.
The PUD permit states that this office condo building may not be used for
residential purposes. In addition, the owner was supposed to install interior
walks and new interior concrete curbs as provided on the approved site plan.
The owner was also supposed to install a fire suppression sprinkler system in the
4
e~
--
.
~e
office condo building. These requirements will also be made a part of the
second amendment to PUD No. 42.
There is a discrepancy between the location of the dumpster and north end of
the parking area for Lot 3 and the southeast property line of the new lot created
for the office building. The site plans indicate that the dumpster is partially on
the new office building lot and that the parking lot for the office condo building on
Lot 3 goes right up to that property line. This situation should be corrected prior
to this matter being sent to the City Council for review. The situation can be
corrected by moving the property line or changing the location of the
dumpster/parking area on Lot 3.
LANDSCAPING PLANS
A landscape plan has been submitted by the developer as indicated on the
attached landscape plan. The proposed plan does not include a hedge along the
proposed bike trail along the north property line as approved as part of the PUD
permit for Amendment NO.1. With the exception of this missing hedge, the
plans appears to be well thought out. It will be reviewed as part of the Building
Board of Review approval process.
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend approval of the proposed amendment to North Lilac Drive
Addition PUD #42, subject to the following conditions:
1. The site plan prepared by the Design Partnership Limited and dated
Feb. 16, 1998 shall be part of this approval.
2. The grading and utility plans prepared by Howard R. Green Engineers
and dated 2/26/98 shall become a part of this approval.
3. The landscape plans for the site prepared by the Design Partnership
Limited and dated 2/16/98 shall become a part of this approval.
4. The floor and elevation plans prepared by the Design Partnership
Limited and dated 2/16/98 shall become part of this approval.
5. All conditions related to Lot 3 found in Amendment No. 1 to PUD No.
42 shall become a part of this approval (attached).
6. The developer provide the City of Golden Valley an easement or title
to the north 13 ft. of the property in order to provide the trail right-of-
way for the future Hennepin Parks bike trail.
7. The developer must provide a fire suppression system acceptable to
the Fire Marshall in the office building on Lot 3 within six months of
the approval of the second PUD amendment.
Overall, the staff believes that this proposed office building is a good use for a
difficult site. Office buildings are permitted uses within the Commercial zoning
district. It will create minimal traffic due to the size of the building. With the
future extension of the frontage road to the north, access to the site will improve.
'"
5
Also, this small office building will be a compatible neighbor to the surrounding
land uses.
el
Attachments:
· Location Map
· Site Plans (oversized; ma'. '~e enclosed separately)
· Preliminary Plat (oversizec "ay be enclosed separately)
· Zoning Comparison Table
--
.
6
'.
~.
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
Commercial District vs. Proposed Amendment to
North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42
--
Commercial Zoning Amended PUD
Permitted Uses: A Variety of Retail, Proposed Use: Multi-tenant Office Building
Service, and Office Uses
Minimum Structure Setbacks: Proposed Structure Setbacks:
Street: 35 Feet Street: 25 Feet
North Side: 50 Feet North Side: Okay (except cooling tower)
East Side: 30 Feet East Side: Okay
South Side: 20 Feet South Side: Not Applicable
Minimum ParkinglPaving Setbacks: Proposed ParkinglPaving Setbacks:
Street: 35 Feet Street: Variable down to 5 Feet
North Side: 25 Feet North Side: 10 Feet
East Side: 15 Feet East Side: 10 Feet
South Side: 10 Feet South Side: Okay
Maximum Bldg. Coverage: 50% of Lot Area Proposed Bldg. Coverage: 16% of Lot Area
Maximum Height: 3 Stories Proposed Height: 3 Stories
Minimum Parking Spaces: Proposed Parking Spaces:
General Office: 1 Per 250 SF Gross 14 stalls in garage, plus up to
And: 1 Per 500 SF Gross for 122 surface spaces (with 8 to be
Storage Only reserved as "proof of parking")
= 166 spaces 133 spaces total;
Plus: at least one off-street No loadinglunloading area.
loading/unloading area
Notes:
· This comparison is only for the proposed development of combined
Lots 1 and 2, because the proposed amendment does not change
anything previously approved for Lot 3.
· The parking comparison assumes that there will be no medical clinics
or other specialized office uses that may result in higher parking
demand than the general office rate.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.... :.~ 'H'L~I
~\ ~ !:. & :\_. "2StI4.3~
-/
.,r
,
"1-
~ ~x
l~~ ~ r5
. ::r .
01/ ~ /
0>01 ..-.-
/'f
:-.. . .
I ~
,
I ~
I
I
,I
~. ~,L
"0';
~ a:1~
I
.
;,.~ "';J
'" I) ....
- ... ~I,,'
V " "'...
<l ~ .....
"'-I
'...
" /w.
~..", /v
, y
. "''j/
/'
0:::
C)
:z:
- .-
\ -- =t-
-------
~
A
?
;...'"'
7.....l!r..._..P#
6D'S89
(\I
~
"
~
~
.
I/')
...
....
...
~:-
"'''
or ...
~ ...
~
...
S'k 'OE&
.... 1>09
"
\
'J.'D.D>
ZZ"I'I
c::;)
. c:.o
~
.......
I 006 ::z::
. ~
I
I
,
: .-
, ~
I
.
,
.
,
.
~l
-'^
.... ...
.... r--
.,
I
009 .
"."
iii' .
,\0 lo
o ........,..,
\_ .'\~.ltlt"'.
7;'~'
..,
...:
...
:I:
...
.
I
l- 41"
I
/~
~('
~~
~::
"
I'
"
.
.
oj
...
~
~
~
.......
~ .
<.J~
.~N
i;--O
l)~
~~
~,
.lD
~b
1:(.)
....,.,,.,
~.",
.....:\
.
''''
o
....
3 ~
'too
I
,
J
tUI ....-
10-51'05-( :"
I )
. ~"~.m'31- .
/ . ~~
/ ....-::("",,0": .
.,.. --...
/. .. ~~.~.
.,..,~o .
~ I ,~-;'f.t.':i."" .
~~ ~~ o.
I ____.. ~
-'
~
~
~
o
"
....
....
.~
~
....
. ...
-..#fee
. .
.."
.
::.,
.
009
~..
()
~..,.~
.
....
~~
t~
..."
"1'.:
IB'~07 .10'7.117'"
. ..c.1>l> S ...
'.J)
rn .
. '"
0",
00(
..'N" "L~l-/;
1. ..-t t>_~..
- r.Sl.""
..., 57.'n-
~
.
...
"
.'
l::
,
....
~
::!
<:i
..
...
~
~.
~2t -
$-0'1
~
,.s-~ /'
'&'",
.'}
,..'.
~J.
'-
P.U.D. #42 Amendment #1
City Council Approval February 5, 1985
~ ~ CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
USE PERMIT
FOR
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
.
.
PROJECT NAME: North Lilac Drive Addition
ADDRESS: 812 Lilac Drive North
Golden Valley, MN 55422
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1: That part of the South half of the Northwest
Quarter of Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal
Meridian described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said
Northwest Quarter of Section 19, distant 544.50 feet North of the Southwest
corner thereof; thence East parallel with the South line of said Northwest
Quarter a distance of 628.50 feet; thence North parallel with the West line of
said Northwest Quarter a distance of 56.91 feet; thence Northeasterly on a
tangential curve to the right with a radius of 138.23 feet, a distance of 144.07
feet; thence Northeasterly in a straight line, tangent to last described curve
8.78 feet; thence Northeasterly and Northerly on a tangential curve to th left
with a radius of 88.23 feet, a distance of 91.96 feet; thence Northerly on a
tangential curve to the left with a radius of 66.32 feet, a distance of 43 feet
to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence
continuing Northerly and Northwesterly on last described curve 60.21 feet;
thence Westerly on a straight line, tangent to the last described curve, a
distance of 180.00 feet; thence Southwesterly on a tangential curve to the left
with a radius of 167.40 feet, a distance of 109.08 feet; thence Southwesterly on
a straight line, tangent to last described curve a distance of 45.75 feet;
thence Southwesterly and Westerly on a tangential curve to the right with a
radius of 237.28 feet, a distance of 151.16 feet; thence Westerly in a straight
line, tangent to last described curve, a distance of 10.00 feet to the Easterly
right-of-way line if State Highway No. 100; thence Northerly along said easterly
right-of-way line to its intersection with the Southerly right-of-way line of
the Electric Short Line Railway Company; thence Easterly along said southerly
right-of-way line to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with the 898.5
feet East of the West line of said Northwest Quarter; thence South along said
parallel line a distance of 175 feet; thence West in a straight line to the
actual point of beginning, EXCEPT that portion of the above described premises
deeded to the Village of Golden Valley for road purposes by Document No. 2913136.
Parcel 2: That part of the South half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19,
Township 29 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, described as
follows: Commencing at a point in the South line of the Northwest Quarter of
said Section 19, distant 678.50 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof;
thence North parallel with the West line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of
602.50 feet; thence at a right angle East a distance of 220.00 feet to the
(.~
~
~""
....'..... . {.-t-,
L. ~ Ii' ~_ '
.- ,- -.~\"
-.,.I \ ,-.. ..,.~.
actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence West
along the last described course a distance of 220.00 feet; thence at a right
angle South a distance of 58.00 feet; thence West parallel with the South line
of said Northwest Quarter a distance of 50.00 feet; thence North parallel with ~,
the West line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 56.91 feet; thence ~ l
Northeasterly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 138.23 feet, a
distance of 144.07 feet; thence Northeasterly in a straight line, tangent to
last described curve, a distance of 8.78 feet; thence Northeasterly_on a tangen-
tial curve to the left with a radius of 88.23 feet, a distance of 91.96 feet;
thence Northerly and Northwesterly along a tangential curve to the left with a
radius of 66.32 feet, a distance of 43.00 feet; thence East in a straight line
to a point on a line drawn parallel with and distant 898.50 feet East of the West
line of said Northwest Quarter, said point being 175.00 feet South (as measured
along said parallel line) from its intersection with the Southerly ri9ht-of-way
line of the Electric Short Line Railroad Company as des0ribed in Book 622 of
Deeds, page 428; thence South along the last described parallel line a distance
of 238 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning, Except that portion
of the above premises deeded to the Village of Golden Valley for road purposes
by Document No. 2913136.
Parcel 3: That part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19,
Township 29 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, described as
follows: Commencing at a point of intersection of the Southerly right-of-way
line of the Electric Short Line Railway Company and a line drawn parallel with
and 898.50 feet East of the West line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19;
thence North parallel with the West line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of
61.13 feet, more or less, to a point 50.00 feet South of the centerline of the
main track of said railway; thence Westerly 376.50 feet along a line parallel
with said main track and the Westerly extension of the tangent segment thereof; __
thence deflecting to the right 8 degrees 35 minutes, a distance of 112.00 feet;
thence deflecting to the left 92 degrees 35 minutes, a distance of 49.47 feet,
more or less, to the Southerly right-of-way line of said railway; thence
Southeasterly and Easterly along said Southerly right-of-way line to the point
of beginning.
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
Charles S. McCrossan
P.o. Box 247
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
OWNER:
Charles S. McCrossan
P.O. Box 247
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial
PERMITTED USES: Uses permitted in this Planned Unit Development are a
restaurant/motel and office condominiums.
.
~e
.
.
COMPONENTS:
A. Land Use Component:
1. Land uses within P.U.D. #42 shall be limited to those uses indi-
cated on the approved Site Plan dated January 25, 1984. The prin-
cipal uses shall be the following:
0'"
a. A restaurant/motel building including 17 motel rooms.
b. Two office condominium buildings.
2. Parking for P.U.D. #42 shall consist of 253 outside parking spaces
and two garage stalls as shown on the approved Site Plan dated
January 25, 1984. Parking space shall be allocated as follows:
a. The restaurant/motel on Lot 1 is provided with 146 outside
parking spaces on Lot 1 and with use by cross parking
agreement of the 43 outside parking spaces on Lot 2 for
evenings and weekends.
b. The office condominium building on Lot 2 is provided with
43 outside parking spaces on Lot 2 for weekday office hour
use. The 43 spaces are made available by cross parking
agreement for restaurant/motel use evenings and weekends.
c. The office condominium building on Lot 3 is provided with
64 outside parking spaces on Lot 3 and with a two stall
garage on Lot 3.
3. Landscaping, as shown on the approved Landscape Plan dated January
25, 1984, shall be completed within 210 days following completion
and occupancy of the buildings.
4. The developer shall install on Outlot B dedicated to the City of
Golden Valley as an easement for open space purposes a screening
hedge along the perimeter of the north parking lot as indicated on
the approved Landscape Plan dated January 25, 1984.
5. Special precautions shall be taken during and after demolition and
construction to protect against erosion, silting, excessive
grading, or any other conditions detrimental to the area. Gradiny
and excavation for footings and other construction needs shall be
done in a manner so as to avoid dirt storage, disturbing of trees,
or other activities beyond the prescribed construction limits.
6. All identification, rental, advertising, or other signs shall be in
conformance with the City of Golden Valley Sign Regulations and
shall be approved by the City Building Inspector.
B. Circulation Component:
1. Interior walks and concrete curb shall be located where shown on
the approved Site Plan dated January 25, 1984. New interior curbs
shall not be less than six (6) inches in height. Sidewalks and
curbs shall be designed to accommodate the handicapped.
2. The entire Holiday Lane street frontage along the subject s~te
shall be posted for no parking.
3. Fire lanes shall be posted as recommended by the City Fire Marshal.
C. Population Component:
1. There shall be no residential use of the office condominium
buildings on Lots 2 and 3.
el
2. Provision shall be made for handicapped access as required by the
Minnesota Building Code.
D. Subdivision Component:
1. The described property shall be platted as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block
1, and Outlots A and B of North Lilac Drive Addition P.U.D. No. 42
in accordance with the approved Final Plat.
2. Outlot B shall be dedicated to the City of Golden Valley by
separate instrument as an easement for open space purposes.
3. The Final Plat shall be filed within six (6) months after the date
of City Council issuance of the amended P.U.D. Permit.
.
E. Services and Facilities Component:
1. Water and sanitary sewer service lines shall be installed, owned
and maintained by the owners.
2. All mechanicals on roof or yround shall be screened with Inspection
Department approval, and all new utilities shall be underyround.
3. Structures and gradiny shall meet all the requirements of the
Golden Valley Fire Marshal, Engineering Department and Sanitarian.
4. Provision shall be made for protection to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer of an exposed portion of watermain.
5. The sprinkler system in the newer portion of the restaurant/motel
building on Lot 1 shall be extended to the older portion of the
building, and a sprinkler system shall be installed in the two-
story building on Lot 3. Fire suppression sprinkler system plans
shall be submitted for approval by the Fire Marshal.
.
*
. .
6. A water meter shall be installed on the six-inch watermain which
runs under the existing building on Lot 2 and serves the line and
hydrants located on Lots 1 and 2 to the north of the building.
~.
7. The developer shall locate portable fire extinguishers as required
by the City Fire Marshal when the project is completed and shall
comply with any other requirements of the Fire Marshal.
8. Additional security lighting shall be installed in the expanded
parking lot on Lot 1 and in new or expanded parking areas on Lots 2
and 3. Security lights shall be maintained in working order and
protected from vandalism.
-
9. All waste yenerated by the occupancy shall be stored internally
until removed from the premi~es.
.
F. 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 Engineer shall be provided
for all bituminous surfacing and concrete sidewalk and curb as
indicated on the approved Site Plan dated January 25, 1984. The
bond shall be executed and delivered to the Golden Valley
Inspection Department before the building permit is issued.
2. A bond running in favor of the City of Golden Valley as obligee in
an amount of $25,750 shall be provided for landscaping 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 before the building permit
is issued.
G. Maps and Reports:
1. The architect or engineer in charge of the project, who shall be
registered in the State of Minnesota, shall provide as a minimum
monthly written reports for each phase of the construction process.
2. The architect or engineer in charge of the project, who shall be
registered in the State of Minnesota, shall inspect the site during
construction. When the project is completed, the registered archi-
tect or engineer shall certify in writing to the Inspection
Department of the City of Golden Valley that the project has been
constructed in conformity with the following approved plans on file
in the City Inspection Department:
a. Preliminary Plat dated January 25, 1984, prepared by Ron
Krueger and Associates, Inc. and by The Builders Studio, Inc.
.
b. Site Plan dated January 25, 1984 prepared by The Builders
Studio, Inc.
c. Landscape Plan dated January 25, 1984 prepared by The
Builders Studio, Inc.
el
It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City
Council approval granted on March 22, 1984 and on February 5. 1985 relative to
Planned Unit Development #42.
C ' !'fi.r
WITNESS: .~ (vi' ,~~
, ~
J
CHARLES S. MCCROSSAN
.' ("
",- ~/) A /
( ,,%~ / J!/ (~
DATE: 2- IS-- $$-S-
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
WITNESS: "~{~J'-1I{//t1/
;.'
A~ ) . -, v
WITNESS: : ~- )11 JJ!L()j,-(t !(v'~/l1<-4/'7"----
- 'I' ,j
BY:
.
AND:
DATE:
WARNING: This permi~ does not exempt you
regulations and ordinances.
provisions,
.