Loading...
05-11-98 PC Agenda AGENDA .,..,~QLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION ",'c";'" Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, May 11, 1998 7pm e I. Approval of Minutes - April 27, 1998 II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and 'Board of Zoning Appeals III. Other Business A. North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42 (Amendment No.1) Items referred to the Commission from the Council for discussion e IV. Adjournment e 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 ".,QH~ and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the prope.sed use will, or will notri8Qvefsely 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: 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. e 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, not rebuttal. 7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. e e Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission Apri 127,1998 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, April 27, 1998. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Martens, McAleese and Shaffer. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Beth Knoblauch, City Planner; and Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - March 23. 1998 MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the March 23, 1998 minutes as submitted with the spelling correction of Martens name. II. Election of Officers e MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Martens and motion carried unanimously to re- elect Paula Pentel as Chairperson and Emilie Johnson as Secretary, and elect Robert Shaffer as Vice-Chairperson. III. Informal Public Hearino . Preliminary Desion Plan - Room and Board Properties. P.U.D. No. 79 Applicant: Room and Board Properties Address: 4600,4650, and 4680 Olson Memorial Highway Golden Valley, Minnesota Request: 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 outlet sales on weekends. e Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes gave a brief summary of his report to the Planning Commission. He reviewed where the proposed property is located on a city map. He then showed a colored rendering of where the buildings are located on the property. Grimes told the commission that the building at 4650 Olson Memorial Highway (OMH) was just purchased and the applicant would now like to consolidate all three properties onto one lot. He said the buildings would consist of warehousing, office, design studios and weekend outlet sales. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 2 Grimes told the commission that staff has continuously talked with Room and Board . (R and B) over the years concerning their weekend sales and staff advised Rand B to seek a PUD for the site. He said the PUD would also allow them to have more than one structure on the lot. Grimes said that the applicant is proposing to connect all the buildings through a proposed expansion process. e Grimes next talked about the plans that were submitted included short and long term building plans which included three phases. The first phase would allow the building at 4680 OMH to be used for retail sales on weekends only. He commented that Rand B has already made interior changes to this building and is using it now for its weekend sales. Grimes said that there was a misunderstanding between staff and Rand B on when the sales could begin. Rand B have submitted a letter stating that they would eliminate the outlet sales use if the City Council so decided. Grimes said the second phase would consist of additions between the buildings and the third phase would include the construction of a rather large addition behind the building located at 4650 OMH. He said because staff would not know what is exactly being proposed in the next two to five years, Rand B would need to bring each phase back to the City Council for review. Grimes said Rand B is proposing that the second phase go straight to the Council. He suggested that the third phase is too far in the future and because staff is not sure what these plans would look like, the applicant would have to be an amendment to the PUD. Grimes talked about staff recommendations saying that the outlet sales would only be permitted on weekends. He said staff is against any signage other than the words Room and Board - there should be no mention about weekend outlet sales. He said that this is consistent with the Baby & Teen signage located along 1-394. e Grimes talked about the immediate attention of continuing the fire lane around the east building. He also briefly spoke about seeing a surface water plan prior to construction in any of the phases which may have some future limiting aspects on the construction of additional buildings. He said staff needs to look at the potential of having some on-site ponding. Commissioner Kapsner asked how it came about that retail sales started on this site. Grimes commented that there has been retail sales at this site before he started with the City. As he stated before, staff has talked with Rand B over the years about the retail sales and in the last several years talked to them about there being the possibility of acquiring HRA land to the east and running the campus with a PUD Permit. He said staff has not received complaints about the retail sales operation, but noted that the City Council does have the right to limit or eliminate the use of the outlet sales. e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 3 . Commissioner Martens asked staff if they knew there was a sign on the building concerning the retail sales. Grimes said that staff just became aware of it through the Inspections Department and they have issued an order to remove the sign. Comrnissioner Johnson said her concern is that these outlet sales are not permitted and how are they allowed to keep going, and is it because there have been no complaints. Grimes said there have been errors committed by staff and Rand B regarding the continuation of the outlet sales. He again noted that Rand B talked about doing a PUD at the time of expansion. He said there has always been the understanding that the outlet sales should be addressed with the expansion. Martens commented that if there is signage on all three building, it would be helpful to know where the weekend retail sales are being held. Grimes commented that it is up to the commission and council to determine if this type of sign should be permitted. City Planner Beth Knoblauch commented that the signage could be augmented by putting a sign up that says "customer parking" I thereby foregoing any retail signage. Grimes said that staff does not want to set a precedent about having retail sales in the Industrial Zoning District. e Chair Pentel asked if the chain link fence is locked where the fire lane is to be located. Grimes said that the Fire Department probably has a key and this is acceptable. Commissioner McAleese asked whether the zoning code defines this type of store. Grimes said that it does not, that some time ago the code was changed to allow temporary retail sales in Industrial areas. McAleese asked if other cities have language about retails sales in Industrial Zoning Districts. He pointed out the MGM Liquor Warehou~e store by Menards and suggested that the City would probably be getting more requests for retail sales in Industrial districts. McAleese suggested the PUD permit state what kind of items Room and Board can sell and the hours of operation. Pentel suggested that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for retail sales in the Industrial district. Knoblauch said that a CUP is not required but a special permit is needed for these temporary retail sales. Grimes said these temporary retail sales permits are administratively issued. e Martens asked staff if tonight's recommendation is for a lot consolidation and to permit weekend retail sales. He asked if it would be appropriate to seek these approvals and have no concept approvals go forward, but have these as amendments to the PUD when additional details are available and presented. Grimes said if the commission is recommending this, that would be okay with staff. Grimes said that Rand B is requesting Preliminary Design approval regarding the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 4 phases of development and when the second and third phase were constructed this would only go to the City Council. . Martens commented that the concept plan looks okay. He continued by saying that there are other issues the applicant has not addressed and questioned how the commission could deal with this if the details with the future additions are not being presented. Pentel asked about ponding on the site. Grimes said that he could not address ponding at this time. Martens asked about direct access off of OMH and would this be allowed. Grimes said that MnDOT has purchased all access rights along Hwy. 55. He said access would be from the Ottawa traffic signal and around the hotel and back down because the service road is not connected to Ottawa anymore. Knoblauch commented that this site abuts a state highway and staff is required to notify MnDOT. She said the MnDOT comments have not yet been received, but would probably have comments about access to the site. Knoblauch recommended that the MnDOT comments be made a part of the recommendations. Commissioner Groger asked staff about the northeast outlot in the North Wirth _ Redevelopment Area. Grimes said that the HRA owns this land. He said staff is ., talking with Breck School about the property located to the front of this outlot and they may want to use a small portion of the outlot for parking. Daryl Fortier, 408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, is the architect for Room and Board Properties. He reviewed what Rand B did as a business and what the buildings would be used for: headquarters, photo shoot operati6n, office and weekend retail sales. He said the sales items are furniture that did not do well or needed some kind of slight repair. He said an outside photographer would come in for about one month using the photo shoot area taking pictures of its product. He said this particular part of the operation affects the parking considerations. Fortier said in the past this area was used for office use. Fortier said the applicant, through the PUD process, is seeking consent to have more than one building on a lot and weekend outlet sales for damaged and repaired furniture or discontinued furniture. He said that he is unsure also when the retail sales started on this site. He also presented a concept plan for future development. He talked about a variance for off-street parking, commenting on the amount of parking needed for the future and what is being used presently. The applicant feels that parking, even with the expansion, would be adequate. Fortier believes that the parking requirements of City Code are unusually high for warehouse uses in general and compared what parking ratios are for other cities. He said that the e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 5 e majority of parking would be to the rear of the buildings and that there would limited parking in the front Which would make this area look neat. Fortier said that it would be helpful to have a pylon sign to show where the retail sales would be located instead of driving throughout the site. He said this sign could be permanent or temporary for weekend use. He said the applicant is willing to work with staff on this issue. Fortier said he is unsure about ponding and storm water management and whether the proposed additions could be built if ponding was required. He said that they are not expecting approval of landscaping, building and ponding plans tonight but are seeking approval of the outlet sales and consolidation of properties. He would like some guidance from staff concerning the parking. Fortier talked about the curb and gutter and agreed with staff that as construction moved along so would construction of curb and gutter. He said there is an issue with curb and gutter on the east side of the property with the fire lane. Fortier said that if Rand B puts in the curb and gutter when the fire lane is constructed, it would then need to be torn out when parking was put in on that side. He said curb and gutter would then need to be reconstructed which can get quite costly. Fortier requested a bituminous edge along the fire lane until they are reasonably sure e where parking would be located on the east side. Fortier said the issue of storm water management was an oversight on their part. He said he is not quite sure what the water quality issues are and would need to work with staff on this issue. Groger asked if the outlet store square footage would decrease over the years; Fortier commented that it already has. Groger said that he would feel more comfortable if a limit of how much floor space could be used for the outlet store so it cannot expand. Fortier said that this would be a reasonable request to limit it to the 4680 building. Kapsnerasked how many employees were located on site. Fortier said about 45 in office type uses and another 40 in warehouse type uses. e Kapsner next asked how many parking spaces are on the site; Fortier said 250 parking spaces. Grimes said that there is another 250 proof of parking spaces for a total of 500. Fortier said there would be 586 parking spaces with proof of parking. Grimes said this is without doing any water quality and this would need to be looked at. Kapsner asked if the applicant increased the building to 235,000 sq.ft. would there be adequate parking with proof of parking. Grimes said looking at the five year plan it appears Rand B can meet the parking requirements, assuming no Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 6 ponding is required. Fortier said the projections given to staff are higher than needed. e Kapsner asked if parking was added to the east side of the property could the side setback be maintained; Fortier said it could. Martens asked Fortier about his parking calculations of one space per 500 being reasonable for the five year plan but beyond this, Rand B is suggesting a one to 1000 ratio. Fortier said that was correct and believes that the City's parking ratio is very demanding and has reviewed what other cities are using. Kapsner asked Fortier how the sign got erected without a permit. Fortier said that he was unaware of the sign being up; he believes it is reasonable to have signage on this site. Kapsner commented that the way the sign reads now, anyone could go shopping at the outlet store at any time. He said there is an issue of trust involved and the commission wants to know that after three or five years, that the company is doing exactly what it said it was going to do. Fortier said that he would work with staff on this issue but believes the sign is needed. Pentel asked if the proposed Phase II green space could be part of Phase I. Fortier said they are hopeful of doing the connection between the 4600 and 4650 building _ in the next couple of months, at which time the green space would be done with ., curb and gutter. He was unsure what would happen to the parking lot located more to the southwest. Shaffer asked about the future parking area to the north of the outlet sales noting that there are two tower sites located back there. Fortier reviewed the site plan where the towers are located, noting that one is in the parking lot and the other located to the north of the parking lot on a hill. Grimes said parking goes right up to the cell tower in the parking lot. Martens asked about signage for the property, being temporary or permanent could it be a vertical type along the front rather than on the building. Fortier said it would not have to go on the building. Knoblauch said that directional signage is not included in the calculation of square footage for signage. Grimes said that hours of operation are considered nondirectional signage. He suggested all that customers need to know is that parking is in the rear. Pentel suggested that the hours of operation be posted on the door. Grimes said he believes there is an issue of staging and asked if he is hearing from the commission that if this first phase is approved, any subsequent stages would need to be an amendment to the PUD. If Rand B want to do something additional, they would have to request an amendment in order for the commission to be able to e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 7 e review updated plans including landscaping and drainage issues. Pentel said that was correct. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Kapsner said that he had no problem with combining the properties, that this is something that could work well for Rand B and the City. He said he had a couple other concerns. e Groger said that he had a legal question in that the City can create PUD's but how does one go about eliminating a PUD. He asked that through the platting of the PUD one lot is created, that if the PUD is abolished would the property remain as one. Knoblauch said it would unless it is replatted. She continued by saying that platting is concurrent with the PUD process and that the applicant has six months to file the plat with Hennepin County. Grimes commented that staff has discussed what would happen to the plat if the PUD was eliminated because the plat bears the name "PUDlO. Staff would probably want to have this removed from the plat. Groger said with this understanding he has no problems with the consolidation of the lots, but would like to see any future adjustments to the site come before the Planning Commission, and would also like to see limited square footage for the retail sales. Martens said that he agrees with comments already made and would like to see retail sales limited to 20,000 sq.ft., which is the size of the 4680 building. He also commented that he would like to see a permanent sign, with landscaping around it and perpendicular to Hwy. 55. Pentel also said that she has no problems with the request, but would like to see no signs on the site referring to an outlet store and that each stage of development would require an amendment to the PUD. She said that language in staff's recommendation No. 1 should reflect that any changes to the site would need an amendment to the PUD. She added that language include weekend retail sales be limited to the 4680 building, state that only specific Rand B furniture can be sold, and the hours of operation. She said that she does not have a problem with the a bituminous curb at this time, but when the applicant comes in with an amendment to the PUD, the curb and gutter will need to be constructed. e McAleese questioned what was the first phase. Pentel said consolidation of the properties and the permitted use of the outlet sales on weekends. Grimes added, and continuation of the fire lane on the east side of the property. McAleese said that he agrees with the first phase and can support this. He said staff's recommendation No.4, regarding the blacktopping and curb and gutter around the building for the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 8 fire lane, should be date certain and suggested one year out. Grimes said that if R and 6'splans changed, things could get delayed for two years. Grimes suggested e that they make the driveway wider to accommodate future parking. Pentel suggested they have one year to put in curb and gutter. McAleese suggested that the language in staff's recommendation No.1 be changed regarding staged development. Grimes agreed saying that any future changes will need to be an amendment to the PUD. McAleese suggested that an No.7 be added that states Rand B will comply with all City, State, and Federal regulations which may resolve the issue of trust. He said on the issue of retail space he agrees with limiting this space and limiting the retail sales to surplus and blemished items. McAleese said on the issue of parking and future development, every developer says that the city's parking requirements are too strict. He said the commission is willing to listen to their argument at sometime in the future, but at this point he could not waive all the parking requirements established when there is additional square footage proposed for the future. Grimes added that we have used proof of parking and the City does not want to see any more blacktop than needed. Pentel asked if there are any safety issues concerning the cell tower on the site. e Grimes said that the Inspections Department is not that concerned with the tower site in that they are designed very well. McAleese asked about a condition concerning the MnDOT comments. Johnson said that she supports the lot consolidation, but reluctantly the outlet sales. She believes this is condoning something that has been illegal for sometime and that the City is partly to blame. She wanted to make it clear that the commission was not rewarding someone, by recommending approval, for doing something illegal. She said there is an ~ssue of trust, that if the commission recommends approval, Rand B has to follow the rules. Johnson said she likes the idea of Rand B having to amend its PUD when they pursue their next phase which will help the City make sure they have followed the rules. She said the City must follow up when restrictions are placed on a property. Kapsner commented that Rand B is a very good corporate business and its very difficult to look for a fight when nobody is complaining about the weekend retail sales. Grimes commented that staff must react quicker to situations like the outlet sales through negotiations, and generally have been able to do this. John Gabbert requested to be heard and Chair Pentel allowed him the opportunity. Gabbert commented on the issue of trust. He said that he considers the business to e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 9 . be a good corporate neighbor and that he had no instructions that said signage could not bepytup. Gabbert saidJh,Ciltt)i~weekend customers were confused where to gO,but would take the sigrid6wn. He then addressed the retail sales commenting that the City has known for a long time about these sales. He said that he is aware that it is an illegal use, but always had the understanding that this issue could be worked out. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Martens and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of Room and Board's request to consolidate the properties and to allow for weekend outlet sales with the following conditions: 1. The proposed development would allow for the operation of the outlet store for the sale of furniture affiliated with Room and Board, excluding any new furniture, on Saturday (10am to 6pm) and Sunday (12-5pm), and limited to no more than 20,000 sq.ft. The approval includes the consolidation of the three properties located at 4600, 4650 and 4680 Olson Memorial Highway into one lot. Any changes to the PUD would require an amendment. 2. All signage 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 e retail operation, other than on the door going into the 4680 building. 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 reaonsable time period. 4. The fire lane around the 4600 building be constructed to include parking, with a bituminous curb to begin with and concrete curb and gutter be constructed at a time when an amendment to the PUD is requested or within one year of approval of the General Plan of Development, whichever is sooner. 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 required additional engineering information be submitted to the City Engineer. 7. Any comments from MnDOT be made a part of the PUD permit. e 8. The uses on the site shall meet all applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 27, 1998 Page 10 e IV. Reports on Meetinas of the Housinq and Redevelopment Authoritv. City Council and Board of Zonina Appeals Kapsner reported on the City Council meeting of April 21, 1998 regarding the amendment to the North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42. He said that this item would be coming back to the Planning Commission to address certain items. This would not be considered an informal public hearing item. Kapsner told the commission that the City Council told some residents, whose streets were being addressed, to come back to the Council with plans for their streets. McAleese commented that he attended the City Council meeting of April 7, 1998 where most of the items were continued to a later date. He said the Council did talk about signage on the buildings for the Area-1 site. V. Other Business A. Review of Attendance. Pentel commented that Planning Commissioners attendance was very good. e B. Guest Speaker Grimes and Knoblauch suggested having Crime Prevention Specialist Joanne Paul come and talk about crime prevention in the City. C. Meeting times. Grimes informed the commission that its second regularly scheduled meeting falls on Memorial day. He suggested that an item may be coming into the office which will need to be heard as soon as possible and suggested June 1. VI. Adiournment Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8:35pm. Emilie Johnson, Secretary e e MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: e e May 8, 1998 Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Referral by City Council to Planning Commission regarding Certain Development Issues for Amendment No.2, North Lilac Drive Addition, PUD No. 42 At the April 21, 1998 City Council meeting, the Council considered the Preliminary Design Plan (Amendment No.2) for the North Lilac Drive Addition, PUD No. 42. The Council did not approve the Preliminary Design Plan that night but rather they decided to refer certain development issues back to the Planning Commission in order to get additional feedback prior to a Council vote on the Preliminary Desig'n Plan. As you will recall, the Planning Commission reviewed the plan for Amendment NO.2 on March 9, 1998. The Commission voted 3-3 on a motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Design Plan. The City Council considered the matter on April 21, 1998. At that meeting, the Council reviewed a plan that was somewhat different than the one considered by the Planning Commission in March. The developer had chosen to make changes to the plan that the Planning Commission had suggested in order to reduce the number of variances. I am attaching a copy of the plan that was reviewed by the City Council on April 21st (labeled "Old Plan"). You will note that the building is smaller and that the parking lot meets the parking requirement for an office building. At the April 21st meeting, the Council had a long discussion on the proposed Preliminary Design Plan. There were a number of issues that some or all of the Council members felt more information was needed. In order to get additional information, the Council referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for comment on certain issues. These issues are outlined in a memo that I wrote to the City Manager dated April 27, 1998 (attached). Since the April 21st meeting, the developer, City staff (engineering and planning), and MnDOT officials have met to discuss the plan. As a result of that meeting, the developer has again changed the plan in order to address the concerns of the Planning Commission, City Council, citizens and staff. e The revised plan (labeled "New Plan") that was completed on Thursday, May 7, 1998, addresses many of the issues in my April 27, 1998 memo. This plan will be the one I use when discussing the five issues. The revised plan reduces the building to two stories with a total of 31,500 sq.ft. (The building that the Planning Commission originally reviewed was 48,000 sq.ft on three levels. The building the City Council reviewed was 43,000 sq.ft. on three levels.) Basically, the basement has been eliminated. The height of the building will be lower and have less of a visual impact on the properties to the north. The smaller floor area requires less parking; and therefore, allows the site to provide for its own on-site water quality and quantity ponding. The preliminary comments on the revised site plan are as follows: 1. Parking Lot Lighting: The developer has submitted a preliminary lighting plan which includes photometrics. The plan appears to be reasonable and does not "over light" the site. The developer has agreed to work with the Dept. of Public Safety on the timing of the lights considering building and personal safety issues. The developer has agreed to consider timing mechanisms on the lighting. 2. Drainage: This is the most crucial area of concern. The developer and City staff met with Mn DOT after the April 21, 1998 Council meeting to consider the request by the developer to use the future TH 100 ponds for water quality and quantity storage. After the meeting, it was evident that MnDOT would not commit to allow the developer to use the proposed MnDOT ponds either north or south of the site. Both staff and developer realize that the Council felt that the provision of water quality and quantity ponding was crucial for this site. The direction was that it was inadequate to wait one or two years to hook up to the MnDOT pond system in order to provide water quality and quantity ponding. The developer made the decision to revise the plan to indicate on-site ponding for both water quality and quantity. The revised plan indicates this. The plan also shows that the City's parking standards are met. Since this revised plan was just received by the City today, the City Engineer has not yet reviewed it. Prior to.the Planning Commission meeting, the City Engineer will look at the plan and give a preliminary review. The developer's engineer believes that the proposed plan would provide adequate on-site water quality and quantity storage. 3. Impact of Traffic from Building: There was some discussion regarding the traffic generated from the building and how it may effect the City's street system. With the reduction of the building to about 32,000 sq.ft., staff estimates that there will be about 128 employees. Based on three (3)' trips per employee, per day, the number of trips generated by this building is approximately 400. Staff does not believe that this amount of trips will have a significant impact in the area,~specially when the new frontage road opens to the north which allows for two additional ways to get to this development. 4. Inclusion of Lot 3 in the Amendment: There was discussion at both the Planning Commission and Council meetings about why Lot 3 was not included in the PUD amendment. The developer requested that the PUD permit for Lot 3 remain the same because no changes were being made to e e 2 e Lot 3. The inclusion of Lot 3 in the PUD has no bearing on whether additional water quality standards need to be met. In order to meet additional water quality standards, the site has to be over five acres in size. The total PUD area (both Lot 3 and the proposed development) is less than five acres. Lot 3 will have to be included in a new plat for the PUD that would be submitted as part of the General Plan. 5. Landscaping: The developer has submitted a revised landscaping plan based on the new site plan. Staff believes that the proposed landscape plan is more than adequate considering the limitations that are placed on the size of plant materials under the NSP easement. This restriction states that no material can grow to more than 25 feet in height on the NSP easement. This easement area is over the north 50 feet of the site. With the reduced height of the building, the existing and proposed landscaping will provide a good screen for the properties to the north. The revised landscape plan also provides additional landscaping around the two drainage ponds. Mr. Richard Martens of Brookstone Inc. has submitted a letter dated May 7, 1998 to me addressing the issues in my April 27, 1998 memo. Mr. Martens represents the McCrossan interests. This letter is attached. e Attachments: Memo to William Joynes, City Manager, dated April 27, 1998 Narrative from Richard Martens dated May 7, 1998 Old Plans (4 pages -- oversized) New Plans (4 pages -- oversized) e 3 1 . e MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: April 27, 1998 William S. Joynes, City Manager Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Referral to Planning Commission of North Lilac Addition, P.U.D. No. 42 (Amendment 2) The City Council asked the Planning Commission to reconsider certain issues related to Amendment NO.2 of the North Lilac Addition, P.U.D. No. 42. The issues are: e 1. Parking Lot Lighting - Because the parking lot is near to several houses to the north ~nd the apartment building to the east, the City Council would like the Planning Commission to comment on the parking lot lights. There was discussion about the type of lights, limiting the time the lights would be on, and the need to provide security. 2. Drainage - There was concern that the proposed drainage plan would have an adverse impact on the water quality for Sweeney Lake even if it was only for one or two years. The Council would like the Commission to look at ways to initially provide ponding that will protect the lake. There was concern that the plan to drain the site to a MnDOT pond, north of the tracks, may not materialize as the developer anticipates. 3. Impact of Traffic From the Office Building - With the planned improvements related to TH 100, there was concern about the effect of adding more traffic to the local and state system. What would be the effect of additional traffic on the neighborhood west of Sweeney Lake and the traffic signal at Ottawa and Olson Memorial Highway. e t . 4. Inclusion of Lot 3 in the Amendment - There was discussion about the reasons why the Lot 3 existing office building was not included in the P.U.D. Staff was asked toreconsider ifthewaterquality standard requirements would be different if all the lots intheP:U.D. were part of this P.U.D. amendment. There was also a need to clarify if there was any shared parking between the proposed development and the existing lot. 5. Landscaping - There was concern at the Planning Commission level about the landscape plan. The City Council would like the Planning Commission to review the revised landscape plan submitted by McCrossan. e e 2 It" -# e e e .~ BROOKSTONE.INC. :BrrlrJklWfie--) ;";,---.";.-." ~ ' - 7400 Metro Blvd.. Suite 212 Edina. Minnesota 55439 612.837.9167 phone 612.837.8010 fax . :':"'~,;ff.~;...,. May 7, 1998 Mr. Mark Grimes, Planning and Economic Development Director City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Mark: Our proposed office development on the northeast quadrant of Highways 55 and 100, in Golden Valley, was considered at the March 9th Planning Commission and April 21st City Council meetings. Changes in the plans were made after the March 9th Planning Commission meeting. primarily by way of reducing the project density and thereby meeting code-parking requirements and also in the landscape plans. While the City Council was supportive of some of the changes, given that the Planning Commission had originally cast a 3-3 vote on the project, the council sent it back to the Planning Commission for further review. Specifically, the City Council asked the Planning Commission to re-examine this project in five different areas. Comments as to how we have responded in these areas are provided below. Attached, is a set of plans that have been revised with the intent of satisfying the concerns expressed. I. Plan Changes The set of plans presented to the City Council on April 21'\ have been revised to eliminate the basement and to provide for onsite water quality treatment ponding. The gross area of the building has been reduced to approximately 31,500 square feet. The plans submitted to the Planning Commission totaled 48,000 square feet and were approximately 43,000 square feet when submitted to the City Council (including the underground parking. which is now eliminated). II. Parking There are now 126 stalls proposed which fully complies with City of Golden Valley parking requirements of one stall per 250 gross square feet. III. Drainage To respond to concerns expressed by both the City Council and Planning Commission, we organized.a meeting which was held April 30, 1998 at the City of Golden Valley involving several representatives from MnDOT, including their project engineer for the Highway 55 project and their design engineers, together with our own project design engineers and representatives of the City of Golden Valley. From this meeting. we concluded that it was not certain that access to the MnDOT REAl ESTATE ADVISORY SERVICES. INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT " ~ e e e ponds would be available and hence, on this basis, we decided to incorporate ponding into our site and revised the plans accordingly. The result was the elimination of the basement, which not only eliminated some of the parking needs and therefore allowed some of the parking areas to be replaced with ponding, but also allowed for better overall drainage engineering for the site. IV. lighting Plans are attached that show our preliminary lighting plan for this project, including photometrics. The ftxtures shown will all be down-cast and will not provide glare to neighboring properties. Building lighting will be restricted to soffet lighting at each of the entries. V. Traffic At two levels only and approximately thirty percent (30%) site coverage, our project will have minimal impact on local trafftc. This is about a twenty percent (20%) reduction in the density from the plans ftrst submitted. VI. Lot 3 Inclusion From our early discussions with you, we had agreed that the plat would only involve the Lots that we were currently developing since we were making no change to Lot 3. The PUD, in total, was being amended but the plans submitted related only to that area that we were developing. While the drainage issue, in this regard, is irrelevant given that we have now designed ponding into our site, I would point out that the watershed district criteria for a situation like this, is that ponding is required for sites over ftve acres. Even if Lot 3 is included in the acreage calculation and the MnDOT proposed taking is not excluded, we are just slightly less than four acres in total. We are hopeful that with these changes the City of Golden Valley will welcome this new addition to their community. As pointed out in my previous letter to you that was attached to the City Council materials, a discussion with the City Council several years ago on this site indicated a clear preference for an offtce building which is in conformance with the comprehensive plan guidelines for this site. We have designed an attractive building with an excellent landscape plan, with site constraints that have been very challenging. We are requesting Planning Commission and City Council approval to move ahead with ftnal plans and submissions for this project. Thanks for your help on this and please call should you have any questions. vf2. very~y. _ k~~~b-~ . Richard V. Martens President RVM/bb Cc: Jane McCrossan Linda Fisher