04-27-98 PC Agenda
.
.
.
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, April 27, 1998
7pm
,
I. Approval of Minutes - March 23, 1998
II. Election of Officers
III. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design 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
;
Purpose:
"
Review of the Preliminary Design Plan for P.U.D. No. 79 -- to allow
for more than one building on a lot and allow for retail sales on
weekends.
IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council and Board of Zoning Appeals
V. Other Business
"
A. Review of Attendance
VI. Adjournment
t
I
f
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Pla~ning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use.
The Cormmission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon ..~. .
the Comlnission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning
Code anp the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely
affect th, surrounding neighborhood.
II
The COrr1mission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn,
first-han~, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments.
Your qu~stions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along
with the (:;ommission'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.
!I
To aid inj,Your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission
will utiliz~ the following procedure:
1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff.
I
Commission members may ask questions of staff.
i
2. Tile 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.
.
Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair.
Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer
your questions.
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,
not rebuttal.
,
,
"
A(the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
.
March 23, 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, March 23,1998.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm.
Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Martins,
McAleese ahd Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and
Development; Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, and Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary.
I. Minutes of February 23 and March 9. 1998
February 23, 1998 Minutes: The Commission pointed out typographical errors for correction.
Commissioner Martens pointed out that he was absent from the March 9, 1998 meeting, not
Commissioner Groger. Pentel requested that the minutes, concerning the CIP, be made more
precise noting specific items discussed. The following are the changes to the minutes of the
February 23 meeting:
Don Taylor, Finance Director and Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works were present
to answer questions from the commission regarding the CIP.
.
The commission rO'lie,,'/od information handed out at the meeting. The commission
proceeded to review some of the projects listed in the CIP.
The Commission reviewed information handed out at the meeting. Prazak noted on the
handout that the Medley Park soccer field project was dropped from the CIP. Taylor said
under the "Parks" section the city is planning for a soccer field at the Arts School which
will negate the need for the field at Medley Park. Taylor noted that the fencing planned
along the south side of Hwy. 55, abutting Brookview Golf Course, was also dropped from
the CIP. Pentel said that she believes this was a good move because the fence would
have detracted from the beautiful views of Brookview. Taylor also noted that the
Pavement Management Program was put on hold in 1997 and beginning in 1998 there
would be an accelerated program. Pentel asked about other big budgeted items in 1997,
such as the Schaper property. Taylor said that the City came in on target for most of its
programs. He said Schaper was completed in 1997 with minor work remaining for 1998.
The Commission reviewed several projects noted in the CIP as follows:
Pentel asked Taylor why the open space, from the Hidden Lakes Development, on
Sweeney Lake does not appear on the map (page 4). Taylor said this open space would
be included on next years map. Pentel referred to the "Finance" section and the
extension of sewer lines and would Hidden Lakes absorb these costs. Taylor said that
Hidden Lakes would install the sewer lines, but City crews would inspect the lines and
bill Hidden Lakes the cost of inspection.
.
Pentel noted the sidewalk construction funds (page 127) and asked Salsbury if there had
been any new sidewalk construction. Salsbury commented some sidewalks are tied in
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 23, 1998
Page 2
with street projects and that when the street program was on hold, the sidewalk projects
were held up. He said the Sidewalk Committee should be getting together soon to
discuss sidewalks for Area B. Pentel asked if funds are not spent each year would
money remain in the fund. Taylor commented that remaining funds would go into the
next year's budget, but these funds are not accumulative.
.
Martens asked about the pros and cons of sidewalks. Salsbury said there are pros and
cons to the sidewalks. He said when most street programs come up for construction,
residents don't want to see sidewalks, but on the other hand residents throughout the
City would like to see sidewalks, and philosophically, the City will need to deal with this
issue. Salsbury said there are financial complications by adding more sidewalks
because the City is responsible for sidewalk snow removal.
Pentel said that she could not decipher from the CIP whether Brookview Golf Course was
making or spending money, and is the City looking at renting out its club house. She
said that the community is looking for places for its youth and wondered who is
benefiting and is it a broad segment of the community or just the golf course. Taylor
referred to page 12 of the Finance section and reviewed this operation. Taylor explained
how the golf course funds are used. He noted that the building is rented by the Golf
Course.
Taylor commented on the Building Fund noting that the expenditures are not for new
buildings but to payoff major remodeling projects of the Administrative building and the
Public Safety building.
.
Pentel noted under the Parks Fund that nothing was budgeted for the Hidden Lakes Park
on Sweeney Lake. Salsbury commented that this is being paid by Hidden Lakes.
Pentel asked about the lighting for the proposed soccer field at the Arts High School and
who would be paying for them. Taylor commented that the City would be putting in the
lights and the cost and maintenance would be shared jointly.
Kapsner asked how long the lease is that the Arts High School signed. Taylor said 20
years, that it needs to be long term to justify the expenditure. He said the majority of
capital funds is going into the land. Taylor also said the City would be paying for most of
the maintenance items but electricity, etc. would be shared.
Taylor commented on the Golf Course fund (page 111) noting the driving range
improvements. He briefly talked about the need for higher netting along 1-394 because of
golf balls going out of Brookview and hitting cars on 1-394. This netting should help
eliminate claims that the City pays on these drifting balls.
Martens asked about park usage and has staff looked at the City's population and how
the City parks would be used in the future concerning how money is spent. Taylor
commented that this is something that is reviewed and studied because of the demand
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 23, 1998
Page 3
.
on the City's parks. He said that Park and Rec does try to look ahead. McAleese
commented that the commission would be reviewing, as part of the comp plan, the
section on parks.
Pentel moved onto the next section of the CIP - streets, noting that the biggest project is
Xenia. Taylor noted page 132 of the CIP. He referred to an enclosed map locating where
the proposed extension of Xenia Avenue would be located referencing the right-of-way
land and crossing over Glenwood Avenue to the north. Taylor said this road improve-
ment was a recommendation from a consulting firm as part of a traffic management
study of the Golden Hills area. He said the school seems to be very much in favor of this
improvement because of the problems with the intersection at Turners Crossroad and
Glenwood. He briefly talked about the houses that needed to be purchased along with
the railroad right-of-way.
.
McAleese questioned if he had missed a Planning Commission meeting when this was
formally discussed. City Planner Knoblauch said he had not. McAleese said that he was
not sure the Planning Commission had to review this, but one of the reasons the
commission reviews the CIP is to determine the consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan. He said one of the things happening here is the elimination of affordable housing
stock in Golden Valley. Knoblauch commented that this is also a very large
transportation amendment and we do have a transportation section of the
Comprehensive Plan. McAleese believes that something has gone wrong with the
process in that it sounds like the decisions have been made and the Planning
Commission is not doing its job. Taylor said that the City has not gone into formal
decisions yet other than buying some homes. Pentel said that she has children at
Meadowbrook and that the School District is happy to have this extra land, but some
people are concerned about losing affordable housing and that the City needs to
maintain its commitment to affordable housing.
McAleese commented on the maps regarding the pavement reconstruction and said it
was difficult to distinguish between the names of the road and the projects. Taylor said
that he could get something to the commission that was more detailed. McAleese said
that it was important only because sometimes the commissioners receive phones calls
concerning a project.
Pentel asked whether the City was still investigating using wells located at the General
Mills "Bell Research" site. Salsbury commented that the City is negotiating with the City
of Minneapolis and nothing has happened yet. He said that if the dollar increase is
significant, the City of Golden Valley would need to look at alternative water supplies.
Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the
informal public hearing.
MOVED by Prazak, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the
City Council approval of the Capital Improvement Program.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 23, 1998
Page 4
Minutes of March 9. 1998: The Commission pointed out typographical errors for correction. .
Pentel talked about additional language to the following:
Page 10, paragraph 4: Pentel asked staff about shielding the neighborhood along Hwy. 100
with a sound wall. Grimes commentod th3t there is some sentiment for this but some
businesses may not view this 3S something good. Grimes commented that there would be a
sound wall along the east side of Hwy. 100 abutting residential properties. He
questioned whether the church would want a sound wall in front of it. He also
commented that KQRS, on the west side, would probably want to have a sound wall, but
other businesses on that side of Hwy. 100 may not. Pentel asked what... Schaper property
project.
Page 10, paragraph 5: Pentel said she was concerned about ha','ing enough screening on the
north side and is 3150 concerned v.'ith the property owner dedic3ting tho trail to the City and
this takes the responsibility of landsc3ping aw.ay from the 3pplicant. She believes there should
be dense landscaping along the north property line. with the property owners dedicating
the supposedly trail, which may not go in, to the City which takes the responsibility for
landscaping this area out of their hands. She said that most of the landscaping on the
north side is deciduous and very small. She is concerned if the City acquires this land
the applicant is only responsible for 10 feet, and there is something to be said about
having dense screening along the north property line. She said she was '" used for
landscaping.
MOVED by Prazak, seconded by Johnson and motion carried to approve the minutes of .
February 23 and March 9, 1998 minutes as submitted with the corrections noted above.
II. Elections of Officers
The Commission agreed to hold over the election of officers (April meeting) until the new
commissioner, Robert Shaffer, was present.
III. Reports on Meetinas of the Housina and Redevelopment Authoritv. City Council and
Board of Zonina Appeals
Commissioner Johnson gave a report on a City Council meeting she attended.
IV. Other Business
A. Land Use Plan - Presentation by the Subcommittee
The commission discussed the Land Use Plan. Pentel suggested that the "Land Use Goals
and Objectives" be moved closer to the front of the report. Staff and the commission reviewed
the subcommittee items as follows:
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 23, 1998
Page 5
.
Page 2: The subcommittee believes there should be an orientation map attached showing the
city.
Page 2: The subcommittee questioned whether figures on household size should be added in.
City Planner Knoblauch noted that this information can be found in the background material.
Both Grimes and Knoblauch commented that the population of Golden Valley has not change
significantly in the past few years.
Page 9: The subcommittee believes that there should be some reorganization of the "Land
Use Objectives/Directives" and requested that this be done according to how the
subcommittee numbered the various Objectives/Directives. In reviewing the Objectives/
Directives the following was discussed:
Page 9, Objective 12 (as renumbered): "Reexamine the existing HRA "Redevelopment
Philosophy", to address questions raised in the Technical Background for the Land Use Plan.
The subcommittee believes a list of questions should be included. Grimes commented that the
inclusion of a list of questions may make this section longer and staff has the Technical
Background material to refer to. Groger asked if there was one principal issue in this section.
Grimes said that he would review this.
.
Page 10, Objective 1(as renumbered): Establish a process for citizen involvement in planning
for change at the neighborhood level. The subcommittee questioned whether the next
statement, regarding research techniques, should be combined with Objective 1 or eliminated.
McAleese said that he would be in favor of combining these two objectives. He said he did not
want it to look as though the City was using mediation to reduce or eliminate public discussion
or debate on issues. Johnson said that she would like to see the statement on research
techniques eliminated. After some discussion the commission agreed to have this section
eliminated from the Objectives/Directives section.
Page 12, Plan Map. McAleese noted that the exhibit numbers would need to be changed if an
orientation map is included. Pentel commented on the Land Use Map being different from the
zoning map. Grimes suggested staff and the commission take a field trip through the city to
investigate if any portions of the Plan Map needs to be revised.
Page 14, Definitions. Staff and the commission discussed at some length the need for the
inclusion of a definition for PUD. Pentel asked if a PUD was found on the Land Use Map;
Knoblauch said no. Knoblauch said that the list of definitions are actually categories (districts)
and that a PUD in itself is not a category. Martens questioned whether Right-of-Way was a
category; Knoblauch said it was. Staff and the commission discussed PUD's having an
underlying zoning which would be the category for that property. Groger said that that a better
job could be done with explaining what particular words mean, such as PUD, setback. etc.
Martins questioned what was distinctive about the PUD. Grimes commented that maybe the
last paragraph could address the PUD implication in the plan. Prazak suggested there could
be wording rationalizing why a PUD exists.
.
Page 17, Continuous Planning Program (New Section). Groger asked Pentel what this section
was about. Pentel explained that this update is being done per instructions by the
Metropolitan Council but the commission may want something in place that assures an
ongoing process to keep the plan up-to-date. McAleese commented that the commission, in
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
March 23, 1998
Page 6
some respect, does this through its annual city tours. Pentel commented about getting people
involved in this process, that the remediation phase was too late, and that maybe
neighborhood meetings would be effective. Grimes commented that the City Council, at its
last visioning meeting, discussed neighborhood meetings, but could not remember the Council
outcome of this discussion. Knoblauch said she remembers that there was a small turn out at
this visioning meeting, and concerns raised at the meeting tended to be localized issues.
Martens next addressed the subcommittees suggestions for future studies, including citizen
input. He first talked about the 1-394 corridor and whether 1-394 is a sub-issue or visioning
topic to address. Pentel commented that if the meetings become too nebulous, the public will
not come. She said the more general the issues are, the less likely the public will attend,
therefore, the topics should be more specific. Pentel said it should first be documented in the
Comp Plan to have a more public process. Grimes said that this may cause the public to look
specifically at one issue and ignore the rest.
Martens asked if there should be goals and recommendations established to add to the Comp
Plan. Grimes said that could be a priority of the commission. He said there could be some
kind of continuous visioning and the commission could define what this is. Grimes suggested
that maybe the commission and City Council hold a joint meeting to discuss this issue.
.
McAleese suggested the commission come up with a time table for necessary actions.
Knoblauch asked if this meant to create certain objectives. McAleese said that setting up the
time table does not belong in the Plan. .
Staff and the commission discussed the possibility of having a student drive through the city
documenting certain areas to look at. Grimes said that aerials could be used. He suggested
that if anyone had anything else to add to let staff know.
V. Adiournment
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 10pm.
Emilie Johnson, Secretary
.
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
April 22, 1998
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary, Planning and Development
Election of Officers
According to the Planning Commission By-Laws, Section 1, the annual meeting
of the Planning Commission should take place at its first meeting in March, and
at that time elections should occur. Due to the City Council not appointing a
new commissioner to the Planning Commission until its second meeting in
March, and the Commission wanting to postpone elections until the newest
member of the Commission was in attendance, elections were delayed until the
April 27 meeting.
Section 11 states that the Commission shall elect a Chair, Vice.,.Chair, Secretary
and such other officers as it may deem necessary at its annual meeting.
mkd
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
April 20, 1998
Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan Review for Room and
Board, Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 79 -- 4600, 4650 and 4680
Olson Memorial Highway -- R & B Properties, Applicant
.
BACKGROUND
Room and Board is requesting a PUD designation for the property they own at
4600,4650 and 4680 Olson Memorial Hwy. (OMH). R & B has owned the two
easterly buildings for some time. They recently purchased the building at 4680
OMH in order to provide for additional warehousing and outlet store space. The
purpose of the PUD is to consolidate the properties into one lot and to permit the
mixing of uses related to the R & B business on the one site.
The properties are currently guided on the Comprehensive Plan Map for Industrial
Uses. The Zoning Map designates this property as Industrial. The proposed uses
on the site, with the exception of the extent of the retail outlet, are permitted uses in
the Industrial Zoning District. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that no changes have to
be made to either the Comprehensive Plan Map or Zoning Map to allow this
proposal to go forward.
There are two stages of approval for all PUD proposals. This is the first, or
Preliminary Plan stage. The purpose of this stage is two-fold: to give broad
concept approval to the proposal, and to call out issues that must be addressed in
detail as the proposal moves ahead to the General Plan stage. Preliminary Plan
approval does not guarantee that a proposal will become reality. It gives an
applicant some assurance of being on the right track, and some guidance in how to
proceed. In the case of the Planning Commission in particular, the limitations of
Preliminary Plan approval are clearly laid out. CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 6D provides
that:
liThe Planning Commission's consideration of the application shall be
limited to a determination of whether the application constitutes an
appropriate land use under the general principals and standards adhered to
in the City and, if necessary, its report shall include recommended changes
in the land use planned by the applicant so as to conform the application or
recommend approval subject to certain conditions or modifications."
.
.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The property owned by R & B and proposed for a PUD is on the north OMH frontage road
and east of Ottawa A venue. Access to the site is limited to the new intersection with OMH
just west of the Golden Valley Inn. The site is 12.7 acresihsize on three parcels. The
property is bounded on the north by railroad tracks, a communications tower site and Wirth
Park. To the west are small industrial/warehouse buildings. South of OMH is an office
building and railroad tracks. East of the site is industrial and office buildings or industriall
office vacant land. As indicated on the site plan, this property is about 10 to 20 feet higher
than the industrial property to the west.
Daryl Fortier is the architect and site planner for R & B. They have submitted a description
of the proposed PUD. This description is attached and referred to as the Fortier memo.
There are also three maps attached: 1) a survey, 2) existing site plan, and 3) concept
master plan.
As described in the information submitted by Mr. Fortier, the proposed PUD has three
components. First, R & B has changed its outlet sales to the west building (4680 OMH).
These sales were formally in the 4650 building. The sales began in this new location as of
April 10, 1998. The sales only occur on Saturday and Sunday. There was a misunder-
standing regarding the use of the 4680 building prior to the issuance of a PUD. R & B
believes that staff told them they could change the location to the new building as long as a
PUD was under consideration. I have indicated to R & B that outlet sales can remain in the
new location, but that it may have to be either moved or eliminated totally if the City Council
does not permit a retail store on the site. Currently, outlet stores are not permitted in the
Industrial Zoning District except on a limited basis with a Conditional Use Permit. No such
permit has been issued to R & B. R & B has given me a letter that states they understand
the limited use of the outlet store until a PUD is approved.
Second, R & B needs additional office and warehouse space to meet anticipated demand.
These additions will be done over the next five years. The five year plan calls for about
69,000 sq.ft. of new, single story space -- about 49,000 sq.ft. of warehouse space to be
added to the north side of the 4650 building and about 20,000 sq.ft. of office space to be
built in the two links between the three buildings. The Concept Site Plan (or five year plan)
indicates that they meet the City's parking requirements after adding the 69,000 sq.ft. of
space. After the 69,000 sq.ft. of additional space, there would be a total of approximately
235,000 sq.ft. of space, including 28,000 sq.ft. of office and 207,000 sq.ft. of warehouse.
Third, R & B is thinking about the future needs of its business. They state they would like
to be able to add more space beyond the proposed concept (five year) plan. They realize
that this would require substantial parking variances. At this time, they cannot be specific
about these plans.
.
ELIGIBILITY OF APPLICATION
PUD's are regulated under City Code Section 11.55. Four subdivisions of that section
come into play when screening PUD applications for eligibility. Each is discussed below.
After considering the proposed R & B application in view of all four subdivisions, staff find
that the proposal is eligible as a PUD and may enter the Preliminary Plan stage of the
application.
.
2
.
.
.
PUD Definition
PUD's are defined in CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 2. The proposal clearly meets the terms of
Subd. 2.(A)(1 and 2), which allows PUD's consisting of developments having two or more
principal uses on a single parcel of land or two or more principal structures on a single'
parcel of land. The first phase of the PUD calls for two separate buildings on one lot (after
consolidation). Also, the outlet sales, office, warehousing, and design studios constitute
multiple uses on one lot.
PUD Purpose and Intent
Applications must also meet the general purpose and intent of PUD's as set out in CC Sec.
11.55, Subd. 1. This states the PUD process is designed for use in situations "where
designation of a single use zoning district or application of standard zoning provisions are
too rigid for practical application." In this case, the use of this property for a permanent
retail outlet store is not permitted in the Industrial Zoning District. The other proposed uses
by R & B are permitted uses in the Zoning District. As stated in the information submitted
by R & B, they believe that the outlet store is essential to their type of business. Because
they are looking to develop the Master Concept Plan (five year plan) in stages, there will
be a period when there is more than one building on a lot. This can only be
accommodated by the PUD process.
Standards and Criteria for PUD's
City Code establishes basic requirements for different types of PUD's in Sec. 11.55, Subd.
5. Industrial and business uses are covered in Subd. 5(C.). The list is as follows with staff
comment:
1. The tract shall have not less than 100 feet of frontage on a public street -- This
development has over 300 feet of frontage along the OMH north frontage road.
2. The development must be served by public utilities and fire hydrants as approved
by City staff -- This property is already properly served. The Engineering Department
and Fire Department will be reviewing all plans to see if additional coverage is needed.
The Fire Department has requested that the fire lane along the north and east side of
the 4600 building be paved as soon as possible.
3. The surface drainage system shall be constructed according to plans approved by
the City Engineer -- The surface drainage plans will have to be submitted to the
Engineer when additional hard surface development is proposed. Prior to submittal of
the Preliminary Plan to the City Council, the City Engineer will want to review the
drainage plan to insure that all water quality standards are met with future
development. This may restrict the amount of development that can occur on the site.
4. The entire site will be utilized for the PUD -- R & B intends to utilize the entire site for
the PUD.
5. The off-street parking spaces shall be painted on the surfaced area according to a
plan approved by the City Council -- The General Plan will indicate the location of all
parking spaces. These spaces will be properly marked.
6. Provisions shall be made for off-street loading and not interfere with other
designated uses -- The five year concept plan indicates that there are 15 loading
docks provided. This exceeds the code requirement. The loading docks appear to be
3
.
in locations that do not interfere with other activities on site. Loading docks are an
important part of this PUD since this is primarily a warehouse that accepts and makes
deliveries. At the current time, there are 8 loading docks on site, while 12 are required.
7. Private roadways in the project shall be constructed according to a plan approved
by the City Engineer as to type and location -- The City Engineer will review all plans
to insure that they are built to a sufficient standard. This is particularly important
because of anticipated truck traffic throughout the site. The City also wants a private
road system that can accept large emergency vehicles.
8. Landscaping shall be provided according to a plan to be approved by the City
Council -- A landscape plan must be provided as part of the General Plan of approval.
There is currently landscaping on the site. This landscaping will remain except where
there would be new buildings. A landscape plan is required with the General Plan of
Development for all future stages.
Completeness of Application
The final screening of any PUD application for eligibility purposes is based on CC Sec.
11.55, Subd. 6(A), which establishes the various components that must be submitted as
part of the Preliminary Plan stage. Staff believes that all components are suitably
complete.
.
PLANNING CONSIDERATION
The types of issues that come up in connection with PUD applications can vary based on
the PUD type and specific characteristics of each PUD. In this case staff has identified
several areas of concern that should be considered. These areas are addressed in the
following paragraphs:
.
Zonina
The "Purpose and Intent" paragraph of the City's PUD requirements makes it clear that a
major intent of the PUD process is to allow design flexibility by permitting variances for
uses, setbacks, height, parking and other regulations. In the case of the R & B proposal,
the zoning of the property is Industrial. The uses proposed by R & B are generally
permitted uses within the Industrial Zoning District with the exception of the outlet store.
The City permits retail sales in the Industrial Zoning District only on a temporary basis and
with a Conditional Use Permit. R & B has been operating an outlet store at this location for
several years only on Saturdays and Sundays. (See attached Fortier memo for
description.) It has operated with the understanding that R & B would come before the City
to make the store use "legal" as part of a PUD. The City has not forced R & B to stop the
sales because there were discussions about the overall scope of the PUD. There were
ongoing discussions with the HRA about the sale of a HRA owned property to R & B which
would have been included in their campus. These discussions went on for some time
before it was determined by R & B that they did not want to buy the property.
Outlet sales in industrial Zoning Districts occur throughout the Metro area. If they are
carefully controlled as to hours of operation to insure that there is adequate access and
parking, they are generally seen as a benefit to both the public and the business. Because
this is a furniture operation, the number of persons visiting the site is limited. With the
4
.
sales limited to Saturday and Sunday, traffic and access should not be a problem, even
with the limited access from TH 55. The moving of the sales to the west (4680) building
does make some sense. Customers access the site directly from the frontage road rather
than going farther to the east. Because the sales occur on weekends, there is more than
adequate parking on site.
The Industrial code requires that no more than 50% of the lot be covered with building.
The existing development is 25.5% covered and the five year plan is 41.2% coverage.
In general, the front and side yard setbacks appear to be maintained with the exception of
the west property line where the existing curb appears to be 7 or 8 feet from the property
line rather than the required 10 feet.
Some of the existing parking areas do not have concrete curb and gutter. Staff
recommends that when new paving areas are constructed, concrete curb and gutter be
required. When existing paved areas are upgraded, the upgrading shall include concrete
curb and gutter.
At the current time, there are 247 spaces on the 12.7 acre site. The total building area is
165,000 sq.ft. of which 148,000 sq.ft. is warehouse and 17,000 sq.ft. is office. Based on
those two numbers, the required parking is about 360 spaces. (1 space for each 500 sq.ft.
of warehouse and 1 space for each 250 sq.ft. of office.) They have indicated a "proof of
parking" on the site for 586 spaces. (See existing site plan.) With the five year plan, R & B
indicates that they will be able to meet the parking requirement based on adding 49,000
sq.ft. of warehouse and 20,000 sq.ft. of office. The concept plan indicates 525 spaces.
When and if they want to develop beyond the concept plan, they would not be able to meet
the parking requirement without variances or expensive parking structures. R & B has
submitted information indicating that they believe the City's parking requirements are
excessive for warehouse uses. (See Fortier memo.)
.
EnaineerinalConstruction Issues
Staff has spoken to the Engineering Department about this development. It appears that
the only issue relates to water quality issues. Staff suggests that R & B meet with the
Engineering Department to discuss the need for water quality and quantity ponds with the
five year plan. With the expansion of parking area and building, it appears that ponding
would have to be provided on-site. This could change the overall amount of development
that may be built on the site.
The Building Department has been involved with the recent upgrading of the 4680 building.
These improvements have been completed. Since other plans are not yet specific, the
comments from the Building Department are not yet appropriate.
As previously stated, the fire lane around the north side of the 4600 building must be
completed as part of the first phase of the PUD. This would be a requirement of the PUD
permit and a specific date put on its completion.
.
Staaed Development
Sec. 11.55, Subd. 13(L) discusses staged developments. Staff recommends that this PUD
be considered such a PUD because there are no specific plans for the five year plan. As
of this time, the only specific plans that have been submitted relate to the operation of the
outlet store and the consolidation of the lots into one.
5
.
The staged development allows the applicant to go through the Preliminary Plan for the
entire concept. The General Plan can only be applied for on that portion of the plan that
can meet the requirements of the General Plan which includes specific building and site
plans. The Preliminary Plan approval would allow the City Council to approve the overall
concept for development but reserve General Plan approval when the specific building and
site plans are ready. The General Plans are only approved by the City Council.
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for the Room and Board, PUD
No. 79 subject to the following recommendations:
1. The proposed development be a phased PUD with the first phase permitting the
operation of the outlet store on Saturday (10 am to 6 pm) and Sunday (12-5 pm), and
the consolidation of the properties into one lot. Each additional phase" or stage would
require specific information regarding the development as required by the PUD code.
2. All sign age to meet the requirements of the sign code for the Industrial Zoning District
and that there be no sign on the site which refers to an outlet store or retail operation.
3. If it is determined that additional parking is needed during any stage of development,
the owner would be required to construct additional parking up to the amount required
by the Zoning Code at the request of the Chief of Fire and Inspections. This shall be
done within a reasonable time period.
4. The fire lane around the 4600 building be constructed with blacktop and concrete curb
and gutter no later than November 1, 1998.
5. All new and upgraded parking areas must be constructed with concrete curb and gutter.
6. The owner shall meet all requirements of the City's surface water plan prior to the
construction of any new buildings or parking lot. This will require additional engineering
information be submitted to the City Engineer.
Attachments: Location Map
Narrative from Daryl Fortier
Site Plans
.
6
.
-.:; '.
(1036 Os 5/2 I
-'0-
f
.
ft
0' .li
I ~~.
",i ~l-
&0- ?-
~~ ~
SC~~\)"\\..O
t ~
I ,\' t
..J " ~ ~
1'1>1<\.;
. 4 !~~~
" '<l~~<l
?I
I ~\..
~~\)?- ~
7'''''
" (:-~~.I
i
~r
-,.-----
RAILROAD
.~lN!.or.
I
t---
~~s ,
Ill.1I
c.t.,.u
Jf.,SU.ZI
..,....
-. ...
-~1'''
Of . (i
elfl -l~'\ fi.~
i" ~'i'
Ct..-
"11.0""-
;\
~
':' ,
I
......
~
4~
~.
a .
"
~
.,....
''''''"h.''
~
21
r..
.
- /. '"
~ .
~~ ,()~, ~."t"tj
- 1& ~,..O .. '1
s16'a o~ ~O ~
v ~'" ~f\
o~ 0' & u~
o~ o~;. ~ "
~ 0' \S})..
~o ,~
n.l' ,~
.:' ~/
,y~
!
,-
1"1
..-.- ...
.~~.U1
~~ ~ :-. ~-~:.' '.;.:';'" "'(;:"
I .... --'... .< : ; '.----,
-' ,.." ,-.. _ -- -.
: Q \ Ii} ~: ~.. ..~ !
\.~" '-., ~" :~ \
: ::: r if.! Z .... .
\ : (--;.) (if. ~~
'; E \ ~ ~:
~ 0 \. \ (3. c.: ~
\.. o. \ .\~:', ~
\ -~ -
_\~
-... -~....
".i---'-:
c.~s
.
r;: ,
J ~
.
.,.
~
----
!"::l-
~:: . . :z ';.
. :"
.
March 13, 1998
. :,,:~~!~~?~::t:t'~ ~:; 1-:~:
'~~\~~':':~- .
.
ROOM & BOARD PROPERTIES
Comm: 97-23
FORTIER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN
PRELIMINARY PLAN APPLICA nON Supplemental Information
Room & Board, Inc. is a retail seller of custom manufactured residential furniture. Their operations in
Golden Valley include corporate administrative offices, art photo studio, design studio, warehousing,
distribution center and outlet sales on weekends. All manufacturing is done at remote sites, including
other states. Normal retail sales are conducted via catalog and at numerous remote sites, including
other states. Within Golden Valley, they own and occupy the buildings at 4600, 4650 and 4680 Olson
Memorial Highway.
To facilitate it's continuing and forecast growth, Room & Board needs to consolidate and expand all
administrative offices, expand the art photo and design studio, and accommodate increased demands
for warehousing and distribution. It is projected that within five years, Room & Board will need to add
approximately 20,000 sf of office type space and 50,000 sf of warehouse type space. Beyond this five
year forecast additional expansion is anticipated, especially for warehousing.
.
Room & Board would like to consolidate it's operations at these locations and allow for future growth
in a controlled, planned corporate campus environment. This will require the mixing of multiple uses;
including office, design studios, warehousing and outlet sales, and the combination of three separate
parcels into one larger parcel, facilitating additional construction opportunities. To this end, Room &
Board is filing this Planned Unit Development (PUD) application.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT COMMENTARY
Purpose and Intent
Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning is a creative way of reflecting the changing needs ofland
users, the economic advantages of mixed uses and the recognition that single use zoning is often too
rigid for many applications. Such is the case and application for Room & Board.
The primary uses of the Room & Board property is warehousing and office, for which the"
Industrial zoning is appropriate. This combination enables designers and office personnel to make
design and product decisions in a convenient and timely fashion. By adding a design and photo studio,
decisions about furniture. fabrics, colors, accessories and marketing can be made in a "hands-on"
setting; again, convenient and timely when within the same building. Additional supporting type
functions such as limited furniture repairs and assemble within the warehouse area facilitate quality
control and distribution without the costs, delays and additional damages typical of shipping these same
materials to a remote facility just for those operations. Fortunately, those functions also seem to be
. permitted uses.
408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 (612) 593-1255
March 13, 1998
Room & Board
page 2
.
However, limited retail sales of overstock items seem to require a conditional or special use permit.
Typical of all retail sellers, Room & Board has a modest amount of inventory which does not sell.
Some of this furniture requires minor repair or fitment and accumulates in the warehousing/distribution
area. This limited excess inventory is typically offered for sale at reduced costs to the public through
"Outlet Sales" and is traditionally sold directly from the warehouse floor. The Outlet Sales are not
intended to compete with, nor does it offer the current, full line of furniture the Retail Sales Stores do.
Further, due to limited volume and warehouse activities, Outlet Sales are only offered on weekends and
is not staffed during the week. Sales hours are 10 am - 6 PM Saturdays and 12 _ 5 PM Sundays.
Selling this overstock furniture directly from the warehouse floor offers considerable advantage and
sensible use of personnel, equipment, supplies and facility. Duplicating these services in a separate
location would be an added burden of trucking and possible additional damages. It would also require
land use for a weekend only sales operation, which is not a wise land use nor is it economical.
Currently these operations double-up on such issues as building, parking and utilities, all of which are
regulated for economic, environmental and land use considerations.
.
It is our position that limited Outlet Sales directly from the warehouse offers a wise use of land and
resources, and remains compatible with the primary operations of warehousing and office uses. This
use also seems compatible with neighboring activities and land use. We are therefore seeking PUD
approval including the mixed use to facilitate Outlet Sales.
We are also seeking a variance to the off-street parking requirements. While this site has adequate
space for parking to facilitate our five year expansion plan, it is inadequate for further expansion. The
site area suggests we could cover up to about 280,000 sf based on site coverage of50%. That would
allow at least 50,000 sf of ground floor space greater than our five year forecast growth and would
provide sufficient further growth. Our current parking needs based on employment, guest and visitor
parking is satisfied by about 120 spaces of the 247 spaces we currently have. Thus over half of our
current spaces are unoccupied. The unoccupied ratio would be even more dramatic had we provided
the 337 spaces required by city ordinance. That ratio is expected to be maintained throughout our
development.
We believe the parking requirements of the ordinance are unusually high for warehouse uses in general
and for our use in particular. A review of surrounding communities offers some support:
.
City
Bloomington
Brooklyn Center
Eden Prairie
Edina
Golden Valley
Minnetonka
Plymouth
Warehouse Parking Standard
1/person
1/800 sf
1/2000 sf
1/2000 sf
1/500 sf.
1/1000 sf
1/2000 sf plus a 10% reduction.
.
l.
. 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
.
March 13, 1998
Room & Board
page 3
One of the stated goals of the PUD is to allow flexibility in land use, including parking requirements.
Providing excess parking is not a wise use of land nor does it foster any economic advantages, both
goals of a PUD . We are therefore seeking to allow development up to the establishes site coverage
limitations.
DEFINITION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
Room & Board qualifies as a PUD with three principal use structures on three separate lots of about 13
acres.
PUD INDUSTRIAL STANDARDS
The combined tract of land is serviced by a frontage road and has 311 feet of frontage off Olson
Memorial Highway. The standards require a minimum 100 foot frontage.
The existing buildings and land are currently served by public water and sewers, including fire
hydrants.
The surface drainage system includes previously approved catch basins, manholes, piping and
surface drainage. This application is not intended to change those features.
This application is intended to apply to the entire combined parcels, which will be replatted into
a single parcel.
Off-street parking is provided on bituminous paved surfaces and is currently striped in
accordance with previous city approvals.
Current off-street loading exceeds city standards and is intended to be maintained.
This PUD is not proposing any private roadways. The future uses will include a continuous
driveway about all buildings to facilitate truck traffic as well as emergency city vehicles. That
drive will be suitable for it's intended use and be subject to review and approval by city
engineering as part of any building and site plan reviews required for a building permit.
8. Existing landscaping shall be maintained. Future development plans will modify landscaping
and be subject to city approval with the building and site plan approval process.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This PUD application is to consolidate land, allow for warehouse outlet sales to the public and to
reduce parking requirement permitting further expansion. While the driving reasons for application are
to facilitate future development, this application is not seeking approval for any construction or
alterations of existing conditions. Such future changes will be requested via the building and site plan
approval process.
March 13, 1998
Room & Board
. page 4
The existing conditions are shown on the site survey, prepared by Lot Surveys Co., of which twenty
copies are attached. It appears all setbacks and planning items are either compliant with current
requirements, will become compliant with approval of this PUD application, or document compliance
at the time of previous development. A summary of land use is:
Site Area
Building Area
Paved Area
Landscaped Area
560,685 sf
165,357 sf
141,324 sf
254,004 sf
(12.87 Acres)
( 29.5%)
( 25.2%)
( 45.3%)
Off-street parking and truck docking is best shown by the Site Plan Existing, which illustrates proof of
parking (20 copies attached). As Room & Board currently employees about 110 persons, parking
requirements are not very demanding for this size building or parcel of land. Rather than build unused
parking areas, Room & Board has set aside sufficient site area to allow for compliance but supports the
wise use of land by maintaining much of that area as landscaped open space.
247 spaces shown.
586 spaces shown as proof of parking
337 spaces required (1/500 sf)
8 required.
12 provided.
Parking
.
Truck Docks
CONCEPT MASTER SITE PLAN
For informational purposed, we are also enclosing the Concept Master Site Plan which illustrates the
intended development of Room & Board at this site over the next five years. This plan anticipates
adding approximately 20,000 sf of office type space in the form of two "future additions" connecting
the exiting buildings. An additional 50,000 sf of warehouse type space will be added to the north of
the 4650 building and linked to the existing warehouses of building 4600. Parking, truck docks and
landscaping will all be modified as appropriate to each phase of expansion. This is a 5 year expansion
program, with the first phase of office expansion late this year or spring of 1999.
Upon completion of this phase of development the land use would be:
.
Site Area
Building Area
Paved Area
Landscaped Area
560,685 sf
234,500 sf
216,276 sf
109,909 sf
(12.87 Acres)
( 41.2%)
( 38.6%)
( 21.2%)
.
.
.
March 13, 1998
Room & Board
page 5
Concept Development 5 year plan. (cont.)
Parking
525 spaces required.
527 spaces available (some to be proof of parking)
Truck Docks
12 required.
15 proposed.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS
It is anticipated that Room & Board will continue it's growth beyond the five year plan. Although it is
premature to plan, it is reasonable to allow for some flexibility for such growth. We are therefore
requesting recognition through relaxation of the parking space standard for warehousing, that further
development is reasonable for this site. We would request that our further development plans be
limited by the appropriate other zoning guidelines, such as site coverage of 50%.
End of Supplemental Information
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
April 22, 1998
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary, Planning and Development
Review of Attendance
According to the Planning Commission By-Laws, the Chair is to review the
attendance of the Commissioners in February and August. Below you will find
the attendance record for 1997 and the three months in 1998. I apologize for
being delinquent on getting this information to you.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
ATTENDANCE FOR 1997
September through December
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
ATTENDANCE FOR 1998
January through March
-^-~
-