07-27-98 PC Agenda
.
.
.
I.
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting - Council Chambers
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Monday, July 27, 1998 '.
7pm
Approval of Minutes - July 13,.1998
II.
Informal Public Hearing - Subdivision - Golden Hills. West 4th Addition
Applicant:
Address:
Request:
Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
That area surrounded by Laurel Avenue, and immediately abutting
properties, on the north, 1-394 on the south, Colorado Avenue on the
west, and the CyberOptics and Holiday Inn Express on the east and
also Lot 2, Block 1, Glenway Slopes 4th Addition and the parcel of
land immediately to the west, both lying north of Laurel A venue.
To consolidate and then subdivide the properties shown south of LCilurel
Avenue which will then be sold for redevelopment. The properties lying
north of Laurel A venue are not part of any redevelopment efforts. They
are included only to clear up errors in the way the property boundaries are
described, to Officially establish the limits of Laurel Avenue, and provide for
a clear map of some important utility. easements that exist only as written
document descriptions.
III. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan Review - Golden Valley
Corporate Center, P.U.D. No. 78
Applicant:
Address:
Request:
MEPC American Properties, Inc.
5900 Golden . Hills Drive and the Southeast Comer of Laurel Avenue and
Colorado Avenue
Review Preliminary Design Plan for PUD No. 78 to establish a two-building
office/light industrial campus; the existing CyberOptics building at 5900
Golden Hills Drive will remain in place, with a new building to be constructed
on the westerly half of the site
IV. Informal Public Hearing - Subdivision (Lot Consolidation)
Applicant:
Address:
Request:
Border Foods, Inc.
6620 Wayzata Boulevard and 950 Florida Avenue .South
Golden Valley, Minnesota
To consolidate the lots at 6620 Wayzata 8lvd. and 950 Florida
Avenue South
v.
Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit
Applicant:
Border Foods, Inc.
.
Address:
5520 Wayzata Boulevard and 950 Florida A venue South
Golden Valley, Minnesota "
Request:
To allow, by Conditional Use Permit, a Class II restaurant (Taco
Bell) in the Industrial Zoning District
VI. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council and Board of Zoning Appeals
VII. Other Business
VIII. Adjournment
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land l.Ise. The Commission will .
recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Commission's determination of whether the
proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not,
adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood.
The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to leam, 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 applicant will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the Commission.
3. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands.
The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a
desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments.
4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember, your questions!
comments are for the record.
5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions.
6,
.
No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak
initially. Please limit YOl.lr 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.
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 13, 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,
July 13, 1998. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm.
Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Kapsner, Martens, McAleese and
Shaffer; absent were Groger and Johnson. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of
Planning and Development; Beth Knoblauch, City Planner; and Mary Dold,
Administrative Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - June 8. 1998
MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to
approve the June 8, 1998 minutes as submitted with the correction that Kapsner was
not present for the June 8, 1998 meeting; change wording on page 4, paragraph 4, first
sentence from "visual wetness" to "drainage issues"; and correct a typographical error
on page 7, paragraph 5 from "Direct" to;birector".
II. Informal Public Hearina - Minor Subdivision - Medlev Hills P.U.D. No. 76
.
Applicant:
GV Development, LLC
9100-9165 Medley Road and 9101-9157 Medley Circle
Golden Valley, Minnesota
Address:
Request:
To allow each of the 33 townhome units to have up to 240
sq.ft. of both a deck and porch or a 10' x 12' deck or 10' x
12' porch.
Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes briefly reminded the commission
that they and the Council recently approved a development project for 33 townhomes
at the corner of Medicine Lake Road and Ensign A venue. Grimes explained that the
developer, Arne Zachman, approached staff requesting more flexibility for placement of
porches and decks onto each of the units. He said at this time there was just a small
space at the back of each unit for either a deck or porch and for a patio area to the
front of the townhome. Zachman told Grimes that a couple of people have wanted to
have greater square footage for decks and/or porches; however in no case could a
porch/deck combination be greater than 240 sq.ft. in total.
.
Grimes said that he had discussed this issue with Gary Johnson, Acting Chief Building
Official who commented that in his opinion 240 sq.ft. would not be overwhelming and
could be architecturally integrated into the development. Grimes said in order to
achieve this, the PUD Permit would need to be amended to allow for the additional
square footage.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 13, 1998
Page 2
Arne Zachman, GV Development, LLC, commented that he was looking for more
flexibility for placement of porches/decks onto the townhomes. He noted originally, 4-
season porches were planned on the corner of each unit, but that he has now had
several requests from prospective owners to have more flexibility in the location of the
porches and decks. He added that potential homeowners and the association would
have to approve all requests and the same materials would be used, as found in the
townhomes, and approved by the association before the plans would be reviewed by
the Inspections Department.
.
Chair Pentel asked if the landscaping and lawn care would be handled by one
_company; Zachman said yes.
Grimes asked Zachman if the patios to the front of the units were at grade level;
Zachman said yes and added that this was a suggestion by one of the council
members at a council meeting.
Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Pentel closed
the informal public hearing.
Commissioner Kapsner commented that if an owner wanted to add on an addition
sometime down the road that the building permit would then alert the Inspections
Department that this proposed addition does not fit. Grimes said that if it would be
outside the plans attached to the permit, the PUD would then need to be amended.
.
Commissioner Shaffer asked if the proposed porch could be 4-season. Grimes said
the Inspections Department has determined that a 4-season porch would be outside
what is permitted, that only a 3-season porch could be constructed.
The commission discussed the difference between a 3-season and 4-season porch.
Some were concerned an owner could expand this use by adding a bathroom, then
making it an addition instead of a porch.
Commissioner Martens suggested defining the porch for 4-season use. Grimes noted
that this was not a large space. Pentel commented that she was not concerned about
how the 240 sq.ft. of space was used, as either a 3-season or 4-season porch.
Commissioner McAleese commented that there is a substantial difference between a
deck and 3-season porch and a room addition. He suggested that the porch be limited
to 3-season and if an owner wanted something more the permit would then need to be
amended.
Zachman said that he has legal language drafted stating the size of a porch or deck
could go up to 10 feet x 12 feet.
Pentel asked if a second story addition could be done. Grimes said that this could be
limited through the PUD permit. Knoblauch added that there would be no worry if the
amendment was limited to a deck or porch.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 13, 1998
Page 3
. Zachman said the legal language says that owners would have an option for either a 10
foot x 12 foot porch or a 10 foot x 12 foot deck, which cannot be any larger, or a
combination of both.
McAleese noted that this specific language is not present at the commission meeting
but believes it should be available for review at the council level. McAleese said that
theoretically the commission is approving a 240 sq.ft. footprint, but is willing to live with
the developer's legal language if it can be incorporated into the permit.
Pentel commented that she does not have a problem with the requested 240 sq.ft. and
the incorporation of the developer's language. She said she likes the flexibility that
owners will be given.
MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Martens and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the amendment to Medley Hills P.U.D. No. 76 with the addition
of the developer's legal language concerning the size of the porch or deck (10 feet x 12
feet) or a combination of both (10 feet x 24 feet).
III. Reoorts on Meetinas ofthe Housina and Redevelooment Authoritv.
City Council and Board of Zonina Aooeals
.
Martens reported on the July 7 City Council meeting. Shaffer commented on the BZA
meeting of June 23.
Knoblauch commented that the council approved, at its July 7 meeting, the Housing
Element of the Comp plan with no changes to the plan itself. She said that there were
minor updates to the technical background and that an appendix was added.
IV. Other Business
The commission briefly discussed the issue of housing maintenance in the city.
V. Adiournment
Pentel adjourned the meeting at 7:55pm.
Emilie Johnson, Secretary
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
July 23, 1998
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat of Golden Hills
West 4th Addition - Golden Valley HRA, Applicant
-
FROM:
RE:
.
This application for subdivision covers all of the remaining redevelopment
parcels in the West Area of Golden Hills (location map attached), and extends a
short distance beyond Golden Hills on the north side. The area being platted is
generally bounded by 1-394 to the south, Colorado Avenue to the west, Laurel
Avenue plus two abutting parcels to the north, and previously redeveloped
properties to the east (the Holiday Inn Express, a regional storm water detention
pond, and the CyberOptics building).
All of the affected land is now owned by either the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA) or the City. Demolition and other land clearance has been
completed on most of the redevelopment parcels. The last two West Area
property owners contested the acquisition in court, delaying clearance activities
on their properties until the judge's ruling was handed down on July 11.
.
What The Proposed Plat Will Accomplish
The Golden Hills West 4th Addition (preliminary plat attached) covers about 17.5
acres of land, of which 16.6 acres lie within the Industrially-zoned West Area of
Golden Hills and are the main focus of this plat. The subdivision process will
consolidate all existing parcels plus some existing street segments within those
16.6 acres, and re-divide the site into two development lots of just over seven
acres apiece with related roadway improvements taking up the rest of the area.
This will eliminate several obstacles to redevelopment, including parcels too
small for optimal light industrial use, parcels with no street access, a plethora of
public and private easements crisscrossing the area, and assorted gaps or
overlaps in parcel descriptions.
An extended Golden Hills Drive will run between the two lots to join with a
slightly re-aligned Colorado Avenue, improving traffic circulation in both the
West and Central Areas of Golden Hills and allowing removal of the existing
frontage road. The Holiday Inn Express will have access to the new road
system through a driveway extending north between the pond and the railroad
.
tracks, and will also be given a permanent easement over to Colorado A venue
across the southerly 4th Addition lot. Traffic will continue to use the existing
frontage road while the new road system is under construction, but the road
must be officially vacated in order to record the 4th Addition plat; the City will
retain a temporary access easement for the interval betwee'n vacation of the
existing road and completion of the Golden Hills Drive/Colorado A venue
connection. Because the 4th Addition abuts an interstate highway, the City is
required by law to submit a copy of the plat for review by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation. Staff have not yet received any written
comments, but have been working with MnDOT for several months on frontage
road issues affecting both the West and Central Areas of Golden Hills, so no big
surprises are anticipated.
The two parcels of land lying north of Laurel A venue are not part of any
redevelopment efforts, and there is no intent to market or develop them for any
type of use other than what is there now. The land is owned by the City for
permanent greenbelt, road, and utility purposes, and is zoned 1-4 Institutional.
In acquiring both parcels several years ago, the City agreed to certain deed
restrictions that limited how the land could be used and under what conditions
the City could sell it off at any future time; the repfatting process will not alter the
deed restrictions in any way. This area has been included in the plat for purely
administrative reasons. Some of it has never been platted, and there is a gap
between the platted portion and the supposedly abutting plat on the east. The
northerly limits of Laurel Avenue have never been legally defined across either
parcel, and there are some important utility easements that now exist only as
written document descriptions. The 4th Addition plat will clear up the title gap,
officially establish the limits of Laurel Avenue, and provide a clear map of the
utility easements.
.
.
Platting Requirements
Because the 4th Addition includes a new street as well as some never-before-
platted property, it must be considered as a full subdivision rather than under
the more streamlined minor subdivision requirements. This is the preliminary
platting stage, in which City Code Section 12.11 calls for information to be
provided on a variety of existing conditions, subdivision design features, and
miscellaneous other characteristics, all of which can be summarized for the 4th
Addition as follows:
Existing Conditions
A. The boundaries of the plat are clearly indicated, as required.
B. Existing zoning is 1-4 Institutional north of Laurel Avenue and
Industrial south of Laurel.
C. Total approximate acreage is 17.5.
D. The plat provides all required information on existing streets and
other public rights-of-way or easements within its boundaries and
around its perimeter, as well as information on existing buildings
2
.
(most of which have since been demolished) and other
improvements within and adjacent to the plat.
E. The plat provides all required information on existing utilities within its
boundaries and around its perimeter.
F. Boundary lines of adjacent properties are shown on the location map
for this plat, with certain key points identified on the plat itself.
G. The plat reflects the required topographic and related data.
Subdivision Design Features. Much of this information is required for
staff review only, so the City's Engineering Department can ensure at an
early point in the process that all infrastructure improvements are being
planned according to minimum established specifications. In this case,
the City's own HRA is the subdivision applicant, and much of the design
work is being done in-house. The more specialized infrastructure design
plans (as noted below) have not been physically submitted to the
Planning Department as part of the application packet, because they
would only be handed right back to Engineering staff.
A. All proposed streets are shown on the plat, and all rights-of-way
south of Laurel Avenue do meet the minimum requirements for
streets serving industrial areas.
B. Standard utility easements as required along all proposed property
lines are shown on the plat. There are still some questions about
which of the already-existing, non-property-line easements must
remain in place, but the Engineering Department will ensure that all
necessary utility lines are protected by an appropriate easement
area.
C. The Engineering Department is working on the final design plans for
all proposed streets, and calculations show that anticipated surface
water run-off can be accommodated in the adjacent detention pond
per previous design plans.
D. Center line gradients for all proposed streets have been established
as part of the Engineering Department's design process.
E. Existing sewer lines and water mains will be retained or relocated as
necessary.
F. Layout, numbers, and dimensions of all proposed lots are indicated
on the plat, and each lot as proposed does meet the requirements of
the applicable zoning district.
G. Building setback lines are not shown on the plat, due to the
proliferation of other, more important information. Staff will note
them on a display exhibit at the informal public hearing.
H. Other than streets and utility easements, the plat will not dedicate
any land to the public. The land north of Laurel Avenue, which is
already owned by the City for public purposes, will remain so
designated.
.
.
3
.
I. Most of the area being platted is virtually flat. The Engineering
Department will ensure that any additional site grading conforms to
established street grades, and will provide_ for adequate site drainage
as required.
Other Information
A. As noted earlier, the lots north of Laurel A venue will continue in their
present state. The northerly redevelopment site abutting Golden
Hills Drive is part of a proposed Planned Unit Development along
with the adjacent CyberOptics site, and will feature a one-story
officellight industrial facility similar to the existing building. The
redevelopment site to the south of Golden Hills Drive will hold either
a third office/light industrial facility or an all-office building.
B. There will be no restrictive covenants recorded as part of the 4th
Addition. Previous deed restrictions on the lots north of Laurel
Avenue will remain in place.
C. There are no zoning changes contemplated in conjunction with the
4th Addition.
.
Action Recommended at This Time
Staff recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Golden Hills West 4th
Addition, conditioned only on meeting such requirements as may be forwarded
by MnDOT.
Attachments:
· Location Map
· Preliminary Plat (attached)
.
4
1
::
1..4u
I?e-
I
r-
J\1Q
~
-U.D
I
~ ~ I
... I
.. .
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
~I
~I
I
I
I
I:
2
<~
~~
.
..
~
..
~- :---
.
"0"
"'....
~~
.
3,QI
I., "
7;IZ47 - - -
5'1, DD{ /tjJ 32"."e
o
..
C>
..
"1.14
\.:- .""~
~"'Z.....,
..;...
.GOLDEN
.
.
"JI ~",DCtt ItIUS D.'vC
HILC-S
WE~T
I
I
I
I
3R:O
.
J"
i-
<
~ m
.. ~'I'
___Ul.__. :.
~ Ol~
.....gl~
--~~~- ~'~
:. .. ~ ""
. g~ ~!....
..I
Jt1L ._'-j
HI -111
10. .,' "'U ~
I
~ Subject Property
s
:
,....
.....
,.
I.d..
..__ I
~.u
j\)
.
t
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
-
FROM:
RE:
July 23, 1998
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan Review for
Proposed P.U.D. No. 78, Golden Hills Business Park; 5950 and
6000 Golden Hills Drive; MEPC American Properties, Applicant
BACKGROUND
This proposal involves the existing 7.5 acre CyberOptics site plus 7 acres of
vacant land abutting CyberOptics to the west (see Location Map, attached).
Both lots are located in the West Area of the City's Golden Hills Redevelopment
Area, and the applicant has been formally designated by the City's Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to undertake this project.
MEPC proposes to construct an approximate "mirror image" of the existing
development on the vacant lot, with the overall site designed to function as a
campus setting (see Preliminary Plan Set for additional details). The intended
office/warehouse/manufacturing uses of both lots are in keeping with .existing
zoning and redevelopment plan designations. The PUD process will establish
the exact terms under which the campus will be developed and operated.
There are two stages of approval for any PUD proposal. This is.the first, or
Preliminary Plan stage. Its purpose is two-fold: to give the proposal a broad
concept approval, and to call out issues that must be addressed in detail as the
applicant advances to General Plan stage. Preliminary Plan approval gives an
applicant some assurance of being on the right track, and some guidance on
how to proceed, but does not guarantee that a proposal will become reality. In
the case of the Planning Commission in particular, the limitations of Preliminary
Plan approval are clearly laid out. City Code Sec. 11.55, Subd. 6.D states 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."
.
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 Golden Hills Business Park proposal in
view of all four subdivisions, staff find that the proposal is eligible as a PUD and
may enter the Preliminary Plan stage of application.
PUD Definition -- PUD's are defined in Sec. 11.55, Subd. 2. This proposal fits
under the terms of Subd. 2.A.5, which allows two or more structures on two or
more lots as long as the combined area is larger than one acre and the PUD
plans cover the entire area. It also fits under the terms of Subd. 2.A.6, which
allows any formally designated redevelopment site to be considered as a PUD.
PUD Purpose and Intent -- Applications must also meet the general purpose
and intent of PUD's in Golden Valley, set out in Sec. 11.55, Subd. 1. The PUD
process is intended "to provide an optional method of land use regulations
which permit design flexibility by substantial variances" from standard zoning
provisions; its purpose is to encourage "the use of contemporary land planning
principles and coordinated 'community design." As has been noted in
connection with other recent development proposals, the unified campus
concept fills this purpose, and it cannot be accomplished under standard
zoning.
Standards and Criteria for PUD's -- City Code establishes basic requirements
for different types of PUD in Sec. 11.55, Subd. 5. Business or industrial uses
are addressed in Subd. 5.C. Of eight items listed, one does not apply in this
case. The others will be formalized in various plans and agreements, some of
which are not required until the General Plan stage of application. The list is as
follows:
1. The pu~ must have at least 100 feet of frontilge on a public street. Golden
Hills Business .Park will have more than ample frontage on both Laurel
Avenue and Golden Hills Drive.
2. All development must be served by public sewer .1nd w.1ter, .1nd Ore hydr.1nts
must be instillled .1ccording to 3 pl.1n .1pproved by City Stilff Water and sewer
lines are available at the site. Detailed planning for utility service to the
proposed second building will come with the General Plan, though a
preliminary utility plan has been submitted for Engineering review.
3. The m.1teri.11s used .1nd locadon of .1ny neceSSiJry tadlides for the surtace
dr.1inage system must meet requirements estilblished by the City Engineer. A
preliminary grading and drainage plan has been submitted for the second
lot; drainage on the CyberOptics lot is adequate.
4. The endre site mu~t be p.1rt of the PUD. It is.
5. Off-street p.1rking sp.1ces must be perm.1nendy marked .1nd laid out in
accord.1nce with 3 pl.1n .1pproved by the City. Engineering staff are reviewing
preliminary plans for the parking and service drive system, and will note any
requirements that the applicant must incorporate into the plans before the
General Plan stage of application.
.
.
2
.
6. Provisions must be made for easily accessible off-street loading areas.
Engineering review of these provisions will be undertaken as part of #5
above.
7. Private roadways within the PUD must be constructed according to a plan and
with the approval of the City Engineer as to type and 10GJdon. There will be
no private roads, though there will be one shared access point on Golden
Hills Drive.
8. LandsGJping must be based on a detailed plandng plan approved by the City,
and must meet established minimum landsGJping standards. Detailed
landscape plans are a General Plan requirement, but the applicant has
supplied a preliminary plan for the second lot only; no changes are
contemplated to the landscaping already installed on the CyberOptics lot.
Completeness of Application Packet -- The final screening of any PUD
proposal for eligibility purposes is based on Sec. 11.55, Subd. 6.A, which
establishes the various components that must be submitted at the Preliminary
Plan stage of application. The City is in possession of the required application
form, preliminary design exhibits, required mailing list, preliminary plat, and
application filing fee, and staff find all components suitably complete for this
stage. Several plans, however, show details only for the proposed second
building, the idea being that the existing building is not expected to change with
PUD approval; while that is acceptable for preliminary review, all plans
submitted for the General Plan stage, or required by the City to be attached to
the permit itself, should show full details of the entire site for record-keeping
purposes.
.
.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The types of issues that come up in connection with PUD applications can vary
based on the PUD type and on specific characteristics of each PUD. Concerns
regarding the Golden Hills Business Park can be grouped into the categories of
zoning trade-offs, compatibility between lots and with adjacent uses, and
miscellaneous engineering/construction issues. Each category will be
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 "permit design
flexibility by substantial variances from the provisions of [the zoning] chapter, .
including uses, setbacks, height, parking requirements, and similar regulations."
Thus, to some extent, variances are a given with any PUD; that is part of what
the process exists to do for qualified PUD applications.
Despite the basic intent of the PUD process with regard to variances, the City
must ensure that each proposal does not exceed the bounds of good design
. practices in the type and extent of variances being requested. To that end, it is
useful to have an understanding of how any proposal varies from normal zoning
standards. In this case, no variances were needed for the CyberOptics facility,
which was built under standard Industrial zoning requirements. A comparison
between the specifics of the proposed PUD and the underlying zoning (see
3
.
Comparison of Standards, attached) reveals two types of variances now being
requested for the overall site: non-street parking setbacks and driveway
location.
One joint access on Golden Hills Drive lies on the property line instead of being
located at least five feet to either side of it. Joint access is one of the more
desirable features of campus developments, because it reduces the overall
number of driveways required. The applicant will have to prepare an access
agreement to ensure that both lots will always have full rights to use the drive.
Though the CyberOptics site meets the ten foot parking setback requirement
along its west property line, the PUD plans call for that boundary to be moved
eastward until it abuts the row of parking stalls. Then another row of parking for
the new building will come right up to the other side of the.line, creating the
appearance of a single parking lot instead of two separate ones. If there was
no property line there would also be no setback problem here, but eliminating
the property line would still not result in a fully conforming situation: there would
be a two-buildings-on-one-Iot nonconformity instead of a setback nonconformity.
Having two lots will make each building easier to finance over time, which in turn
makes the property more attractive to investors.
In addition to the nonconforming side setback, there will be a street setback
nonconformity of five feet for the row of parking spaces along Colorado A venue.
The site plans were completed and well under discussion between developer
and HRA before it was noticed that existing Colorado Avenue was somehow
platted with only sixty feet of right-of-way instead of the seventy feet that code
requires for industrial areas. As an existing situation, it could have been left
alone, or the assumption could have been made that the ten foot right-of-way
shortage will some day be taken entirely from the property on the west side of
the street, but neither of those options reflects the City's usual practice.
On-site parking is adequate as designed, but in order to remain adequate
indefinitely, the CyberOptics building will require a limitation on the amount of
office space it can contain. Specifically, parking on that lot will become
nonconforming if more than 62 percent.of the building's area is converted to
office space. The new building will have adequate parking even if it converts to
all office instead of the currently-planned 85 percent office area figure.
In a final note on the zoning comparison, location and design of rubbish
disposal facilities is unclear from the preliminary plans. Code does require such
facilities to be either fully screened or located entirely within the main building.
In this case, the preferred option for both buildings is that the dumpsters be kept
inside.
Internal/External Compatibilitv - This development is supposed to have the
appearance and function of a unified campus even though it will be platted with
two separate lots; therefore, the PUD permit must include certain provisions to
ensure that all owners will work together as necessary to maintain the campus
identity over time. Another factor to keep in mind is that the Golden Hills
Redevelopment Area was.created specifically to eliminate blighting influences in
that part of Golden Valley. The proximity of residential uses to the north, and
existing and proposed office redevelopment to the east, call for provisions
.
.
4
.
limiting the PUD to only those Industrial district activities that would not
constitute an undue nuisance for the neighbors.
The permitted and conditional use lists for Golden-Valley's Industrial zoning
district are extensive. Some of the listed uses are not appropriate for this
proposed PUD. The applicant has already indicated that only three broad
categories of use are contemplated: office, manufacturing, and warehouse.
With a few additional qualifiers, those three all appear to be reasonable options
for inclusion in the PUD permit.
For offices, it should be made clear in the permit that medical offices are
excluded. Most outpatient medical facilities have significantly greater parking
demand than general offices. City code in fact specifies a higher parking ratio
for medical offices; that ratio was not figured into any of the preceding
discussion about on-site parking adequacy.
There are some office-related services that would be appropriate as accessory
uses in either building. Such uses include cafeterias or snack bars, copying and
collating centers, mailing centers, or even on-site day care. To maintain their
purely accessory status, they could not be advertised to the general public in
any way. To help ensure an adequate customer base, the permit could allow
advertisement by internal flyer to other buildings in the Golden Hills West and
Central Areas if permission is first obtained from those buildings' managers.
Because of their limited patronage, any such services would be considered as
part of the "general office" occupancy of either building for parking purposes.
Warehouse uses would require little or no restriction. Exterior warehouse-
related activities are concentrated on the north side of the site, where the
seventy-five-foot setback and landscaped berm will help protect the Laurel Hills
Condominium residents from any adverse impacts. The PUD permit should
prohibit outdoor storage of any materials or equipment. If temporary retail sales
as regulated by City code are considered permissible in the warehouse spaces,
the permit should say so.
If there are concerns about neighborhood noise related to either warehouse or
manufacturing uses, the City may want to think about a permit limitation on the
hours during which trucks can maneuver around the site and freight can be
loaded or unloaded; City code generally provides that outdoor events like
parties and' construction projects are prohibited between the hours of 10 PM
and 7 AM, but code does not directly address routine business activities on
correctly zoned property. The City might also want to look at limiting trash pick-
up times. Finally, the City may want to consider prohibiting freight trucks from
remaining on-site overnight if those trucks contain refrigerated or other materials
that require constant generator power.
Certain manufacturing processes can also generate odors or other side effects.
If there are concerns about the potential for negative off-site impacts because
such processes, the City may want to consider some manufacturing use
limitations. In terms of drafting and administering the PUD permit, the easiest
solution would be to identify which types of manufacturing uses will be allowed
based on existing zoning provisions. With the Light Industrial permitted use list
as a guide, four broad types of manufacturing uses would be acceptable:
electronics manufacturing; food packaging and processing as long as it does
.
.
5
.
not involve any cooking, heating, smoking, soaking, or marinating; assembly or
fabricating of materials except for sheet metal or other metals requiring foundry-
type heating; and other light manufacturing uses that would not constitute a
nuisance or health hazard to the surrounding neighborhood.
On the other hand, technology can address a variety of industrial nuisance
issues, so limits on manufacturing uses might alternatively be stated in terms of
controlling off-site impacts; instead of prohibiting processing facilities that tend
to generate odors, the permit could state that manufacturing uses in general are
permitted as long as build-out plans incorporate measures for eliminating the
odors - or other potential problems - before their effect can extend beyond the
immediate premises. If this type of limitation is used, the permit should also
note that the prospective tenant would have to pay for any extra studies or
plans to be prepared by specialists of the City's choosing. There would be more
flexibility of use, but permit interpretation and administration would become
more difficult due to a greater need for staff screening of prospective
businesses.
In addition to the types of uses appropriate for the site, the permit or other PUD
documents should provide direction on how the site itself is maintained and
operated. There should be unified or at least complementary design plans for
building facades, general campus signage, landscaping, light posts, walkways,
tables, benches, and other outdoor facilities and amenities. After the PUD is
approved, there should be a cross agreement providing for shared decisions on
any future changes to the design of any such facilities and amenities. All
outdoor seasonal maintenance should be jointly contracted.
Overall site signage and individual business signage have become an issue in
at least one recent PUD application. Generally speaking, the City's position is
that PUD signage must meet the appropriate standards established in City
code.
Enaineerina/Construction Issues -- The comments of the Engineering
Department (see memo dated July 21,1998, attached) indicate no issues of
serious concern, but do note several items requiring some form of follow-up by
the applicant. For the most part, this involves the addition of specific details to
final plan sheets and/or the use of particular materials or practices during site
construction. The applicant will also have to submit grading, erosion and
sediment control plans to the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission
for review and comment prior to final approval.
The Inspections Department comments (see memo dated July 22,1998,
attached) provide advance warning of key construction details, many of which
will not come up until the structural plans and specifications are drawn up. They
also concur with a couple of points noted elsewhere in this memo. As with the
Engineering comments, Inspections has noted the need for one outside review
that the applicant will have to undergo, in this case by the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission.
.
.
6
. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend approval of the preliminary design plan for the proposed
Golden Hills Business Park PUD No. 78, subject to the following additional
recommendations:
. all plans submitted for the General Plan stage, or required as attachments to
the permit itself, are to show full details of the entire site;
. landscaping plans are to be given final approval by the Building Board of
Review;
. the applicant is to prepare an access and maintenance agreement for the
joint driveway;
. rubbish disposal facilities are to be located entirely within the main buildings
and there is to be a limitation on rubbish pick-up times;
. clarification of the activities to be permitted in both buildings and on the site
in general, which might be limited as follows:
. general offices but no medical offices, with the easterly
(CyberOptics) building additionally limited to no more than 57,000
gross square feet of office space;
. office support services like cafeterias or snack bars, copying and
collating centers, mail centers, or day care - no outside advertising
allowed, in order to maintain classification as limited accessory uses;
. . warehouse uses;
. temporary retail sales as regulated by City code;
. manufacturing uses with additional limitations -- if necessary - based
on either a list of specifically permitted or prohibited uses or on
reasonable control of negative off-site impacts;
. no freight truck maneuvering or freight loading or unloading between
the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM;
. no freight trucks containing refrigerated or other materials that
require constant generator power allowed on site between the hours
of 10 PM and 7 AM;
. no outdoor storage of any materials or equipment;
. unified or complementary design plans for all outdoor facilities and
amenities on both lots, with an agreement providing for shared
decisions on long-term maintenance and on any future changes to
such facilities and amenities; ..
. an agreement providing for joint contracting of all outdoor seasonal
maintenance; and
. signage to meet the standards established in City code;
. . all proposed legal agreements are subject to review by the City Attorney at
the applicant's expense;
7
.
· the applicant is to address all requirements and comments set out in the
Engineering Department memo dated July 21, 1998; and
· the applicant is to address all requirements and comments set out in the
Inspections Department memo dated July 22, 1998. .
Attachments:
· Location Map
· Preliminary Plan Set (oversized; may be enclosed separately)
· Comparison of Standards
· Engineering Department Memo
· Inspections Department Memo
.
.
8
f I~ !.:;\ '%
. 11-11: .. V V ()
I 'I-~.~'V
':'?!" :, '0,.."'" "0 o:z.
~ - .. /. 't- . ;..\
tii-:-; /'/ ,: i: N \Sl
..'~' '1'1 l~:.
~~ ~_ - "-I.. j
~: = .' - .....-
. ' Ii- iJ' ~l . .jl.}' ....fI I ii ; ,_
., tL SrI) .
'--. - :~f' 'it".. ,. "
' I ......... _. _ _ _ _ _ _ '+~. \:: ..___. _
".~ ,f! ~:~;n:I~~'~~i i "'/" ,'. _ ,....
1 . \ --. --'--8.::.::..- -- -'... -{--, fO J~ .
' I \ >'fn- , .:!!::: n~:"";~ ,
'-\~ft' ",' 'r" ."n . -.~, ," . ~.,: ~".~
. . ,-,,'I': "itr:;;),} f I .<,""".:.) :..".! . ~~..q/~/ao' N _ H ~
--- ~~\:... . '1~1 I ,.,".J i"; ':l. g _ ..\"....... Ir. . .
. . /1' < . L , , n. '~'''.n , " '"
. . ; . '! i." y~ : ~ ~~,~""" ....os 0.. _. oo~ e,t'-:JA'\f
I" ",.. : · "roe;; 'r,,.\, ~ .., ,- ,-' <f"
.. ,. . m' . .. I , .' y ~.. .. . .. .. "
· " .., '"", "., ~"".. tS'~"'i' · -.' C'~.
. ". -: ,:.tL-~--=._~.... I ' ...'.. ~~ ".-l,,, "".1'~[- ~;~.Lo;J~
' ll-ffr .~ ON j' ,ur ". .re I:... '- ... __ ""'(0'" : .. "~/--:"
"'.., , n M .. "n '~. ,'~ .,
"c. ""'~'" , ,-, - .'-, . .. "'" " ^Oy.o-,^.! "m .. n.. M , _ ::
' ';"') 'T-'OS - ,-, ". '--';l^Y-~<" . .. """.. ,.. ." . .~ _ .. . It _ _",' Np I.'
.. ., "" "lo"''' ': -"'-'::-tl "",.." ." -'- ~ - ... '0 '." ',er> , _~.:" '"
..c.rn. i: · ,., ;~. · ~ · ; , ".' ''"'lo;,.e'....:'*''... .,~N~
:. b--'J ;c · "" "'" '" ....,; . ,." "".. ...".. " ._ _.~" ":i~ ,r>- m "-m ,
- i " : ~ ~~ _ ... '.. ~ ~~~S v'*; ~~~ I t~os ou ''''~\f: )I:) r
'---,,-/ ~". l PI · ."_.". r--, 1 ,'_'., '" "".~ ~
~. ':.- ~. ,.. 1 ,.. ~ ~~ .NO~~~tI.l.Sn'h~~ ~' I s,J ~__'1H:>~";;~".~. I~~_ "" · - ',~ . ~ Io':~ ~~~'>~~ ~.~ ~t;..."1S~~.~~g t~;' ~ 3~'
. .... '" .. ~. -,O' · ' c---.::.. " .:...." ~. . <;'l..... ~,.. ... AWr. " ,
. LCJ: ' l!. ..., l,.-.,;'U,., ,j, '- &: ~~~I _ ~ '" .. liJ~'(:)~L~~ONr (9!1l !!lIt. ~DI ~~. 001 1'1' -:~:'rnr
~..: ..... ." , .....h · "~,,..~. .~. ,"",~i".. ~.. ....... ~7~~!)'", ,~~..~I~.II~~
\ .. -- ~ , . , ...., "L .. . _. .
'" ) ~. .. .~, rl"f."~_ '7I"tlo.. _: .. II
~ ~:,' ~ -- -- '~.,~. -"'~: I".. l>I '..-, . ~.,
' .. 1:-'" - . -- : . 0"1.~'" ~
,'~~' .....; . ~ - , .::--->.: ,'.<'......
'----"'--0 Q ~ --.- --~~ ~ - _ ~ ~ ,: ~ S
' --'.. - ~ () ~:. "Ol~ ..1 ~ ~-:: ", 'UBJECT
.. :.". ,. '" · i.. ~ ~ ~"" . PROPERTy
~~ ;::th~3$ -:::.nj~~ ;
~~,~-,..." '~IIJ ~ '! ~~ ~_j;
W;~'l~~g ~ ~ t.. N ~. ~---....~
J~~~~~.~~ ~ _ g ~~~: 0: ~ ~ ~. . \'
" > Z 0 . .., >,. , S e
'c't'l'''' H , ~ , '" , " _. " .
't'FT.? 'v ~T> ~-.-;, '. Z -; '"'1 !. II> un'~ .__u ou OU'u ".~'
..'01 ~ f >~ .,. e" _,_ ____ h,_ _, T u'y-h.mm ,
rp~~
. ~ ~ ......... ": ". ~-- ---- -, t, N.1>
" .. ~ '. f-..~' ,.". .: ! l..b <::'
~ '. ~~~.:" ~. ~. 6<::' .u.,;
~- '~.... ....,... """--~~-
-- ... \11( ~ .... ' ~ -.:::::: ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.__ _ _. .
" ~:"D,I'... ........".'-'1. ______ ! _
~ t ,.... I
").,;-~""""""""""""'~__.!.lt~__ ___,;;....,
:-v 10\ ..-....,-..0:. - -....- -
;.... , : I " f'-..... ....... " , ~
. '1 .... . ~
.V) :~'l/- ~' , '. ~
1~!!l. A1 Nn~~~NI
~1..1.r ~.~~
O~~'iJlJl ". 01 ~ T. ,,,, (<," '. ..' ......
T. 16U.......,.. "t:!I.. '" VI" .Jo.^" ~
. 10, ~' Y
.. ~ ~~
~ ",,>>
'"I
I~ ,.~'"
I::;:. ~
I - - -4,'y
~I ~ (.>)y
",I" iii Cj
~~~~Ill :4 -,'Sff-' INIY/.
... --- - ~~ - - - -
,,~ ~ 1 .~
~ I: 0- I
~I" ~ I II" t/.
::: I "m'(..._. \J 8
~ I! I. I }II U W C
I ". I" __ _
--- -1- -'. _1_____
.
~
------- '0 I -" ~
. "I ~
:: '"
" ...
~I ~
~I
}/
~ I
II
.. : I
~ I
"$. '.
.
,,~ ~
~~i-~
I
.
l:
i:l
.
~.,
CII
~
~
::t:
r-
r-
(I)
/'S
I.
.
.. .
i::
il
..
~
1;
. ut
~
"'~
~ '"
';:.9-
~
-
..
i ~ . "I
'" _.. r .
~ =....- .~:;-.T-~
.
~/".
......J ,
" ". ~ ..":' UI,.. ".
Dr. )' 1~ . DOlt _
,: _.. .,",n.--... ".0< !':..___ ! ;s~
:;:; ~ ~:f; .. t..
~, ~'.Q1J.!!_'3^'t.-,,-. -\#-1 _ _ _:~------..tfjEi.1JI,.
",--vl:. ,r.t-IlIc, ______ ___ "'".,..-
)~.c:I=t:.' · ~:;~;:'""<~ ..:' .&
--. : I' '. ",.... . ..
. '~orl . ..
0' ,~., L ~ 't ~
" ," .. .. ~ ... t>.: I:)
LJ. -,:-);:~ l r '0" i}$ ~~ .
1 ~ "."'0" O~ <.
V h.:",\ m
../. l: ~C; ...~, .:,.~.~~"~O
. !;"i; Ill. I .' ~"q' ...,~,
i~ ~~-; ~~' ~y.), I S
~ ,.,p'v:1 ,':;"~ c:~, __
J>.(L:.._ '1'-""1
.
.
.
0)
~
~'-\~
<a
f
1
II,
--~..:.2
II, --
...
I-
b:
i~~lj
~,~
I;,
;j,
Ii
~
r~ '.-..
... "';'
I ~f'~,
i!';.Ji.U
fr-:
~;.
Ii':
r-... .;t
. ..;-,
:,:~" ....
~
)
A
,......,,-
001 -0.. 001
...
..
~S3~~0\1
1--"'-
",
'I
..
..
:
If'
.
.
.
COMPARISON OF STANDARDS:
INDUSTRIAL ZONING vs. GOLDEN HILLS BUSINESS PARK PUD
Industrial Zoning PUD Proposal
Permitted Uses: Extensive list, including Proposed Uses: Office, manufacturing,
office, manufacturino, and warehouse. and warehouse
Minimum Setbacks: Proposed Setbacks:
- Street: Street:
Colorado/GH Drive - 35 Feet Both Buildings Okay All Streets
Laurel- 75 Feet 30 Ft. Parking on Colorado
Side & Rear: Side & Rear:
20 Feet for Structures Both Buildings Okay
10 Feet for Parking Zero Ft. Parkino Between Lots
Minimum Lot Coverage (Bldg.): Proposed Lot Coverage:
50 Percent 26-29 Percent, Both Buildinas
Maximum Building Height: Proposed Building Height:
45 Feet (3 Stories) 21-25 Feet, Both Buildings
Minimum Yard Screening: Proposed Yard Screening:
Across From Residential - Existing Berm Will Be Extended
6-Foot-High, Opaque
Dumpsters/General Storage - Unclear From Plans
6-Foot-Hioh,Opaaue
Minimum Driveway Spacing: Proposed Driveway Spacing:
From Drive To Intersection - 50 Ft. All Okay
From Drive to Property Line -5 Ft. Zero Ft. Joint Drive - Others Okay
From Drive to Drive -25 Feet All Okay
Minimum Loading Areas: Proposed Loading Areas:
1 Per Business or 1 Per 20,000 SF Both Buildinas Okav Bv SF
Minimum Parking Spaces: Proposed Parking Spaces:
Office - 1 Per 250 SF East Building Okay With Cap of
Mfr./Whse. - 1 Per 500 SF 62% (57,000 SF) Office Space
West Building Okay up to 100%
Office Space
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
JULY 21, 1998
MARK GRIMES
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JEFF OLIVER, P.E. ~~
ASSISTANT CITY ~R
PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN REVIEW FOR
GOLDEN HILLS BUSINESS PARK P.U.D.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Engineering staff has reviewed the plans submitted for the proposed
Golden Hills Business Park P.U.D. The plans included only the north
building on the proposed site. It is our understanding that the southern
building, which is adjacent to 1-394, is not included in the P.U.D. Further,
we understand that the developer will submit the required plans for the
south b~ilding shortly.
General Comments:
.
1) The subdivision ordinance requires that local streets within industrial
areas have a minimum of 70 feet of street right-of-way. Colorado
Avenue is classified as a local street and currently has only 60 feet of
right-of-way. It is recommended that an additional five feet of street
right-of-way dedicated on the east side of Colorado Avenue with this
development. Should the property on the west side of the roadway
redevelop, the remaining five feet of right-of-way should be dedicated at
that time. The additional five feet of right-of-way will also provide
adequate space for construction of the proposed sidewalks along
Colorado Avenue.
2) All plans should include the location of the following sidewalks:
a) On the east side of Colorado Avenue between Laurel Avenue and
Golden Hills Drive.
b) On the east/south side of Golden Hills Drive from the existing 1-394
Frontage Road to the railroad tracks to the east of this site.
.
3) As shown, the plans indicate connecting the proposed parking lot with
the existing parking lot at the adjacent CyberOptics building. This large
single parking lot is to be served by a single driveway access onto
Golden Hills Drive. Staff approves of this configuration as long as the
new driveway, which aligns with the proposed driveway into the south
building, is maintained as shown.
.
GradinQ. Drainaae and Erosion Control:
1) The storm water quality and quantity requirements for this development
have been accounted for in the pond located south of Golden Hills
Drive adjacent to the site. Therefore, no additional storm water ponding
is required. However, the plans will be subject to the review and
comment of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission for
erosion and sediment control issues.
2) The location of all eJosion control measures must be shown on the
grading plan. This includes the locations of all gravel construction
entrances, catch basin inlet control measures and other pertinent
measures.
.
3) The grading plan must include a maintenance and inspection schedule
for all erosion control measures. This must include a schedule for
sweeping adjacent streets during the construction process. All adjacent
streets must be swept daily, or as directed by the City, to remove all
accumulated materials. Failure to perform any street sweeping within
24 hours of notice to do so by the City will result in the work being
performed by the City and all associated costs billed to the contractor.
The removal of accumulated materials on streets during the winter must
also be accounted for.
4) A detail for catch basin inlet protection after paving is placed, must be
provided on the plans.
Utilities:
1) The Utility Plan must show the existing watermain along the east edge
of the site on the CyberOptics site. This watermain must also connect
to the proposed watermain in Golden Hills Drive.
2) The plan should show a wet tap of the existing watermain on the east
edge of the site.
3) Golden Valley code requires the placement of drainage and utility
easements across all privately owned watermains. Therefore, there
must be 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements placed over the
watermains on this site, with the mains centered in the easement.
These easements may b shown on the plat, or they may be recorded
as a separate document following construction.
4) All sanitary sewer pipe on site must be SDR 26 PVC.
.
.
Conclusion:
Engineering staff recommends approval of the preliminary design plan for
the Golden Hills Business Park based upon the comments contained in
this review.
Please call if you have any questions.
C: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
.
.
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
July 22, 1998
TO:
Mark Grimes
Director of Planning and Development
FROM:
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
Gary Johnson, Building Official
SUBJECT:
Preliminary
Must submit application for Board of Building Review.
Relocate hydrant located on center island south side of building to north side of
same island.
P.1. V. required on water main servicing sprinkler system.
Water service designed to supply adequate flow for domestic and sprinkler system
whether separate or combined. Service not shown on utility plan.
Building must be built to the fire code, building code, plumbing code, and
mechanical code in effect at time of permit issuance.
There is no landscape plan in the set of drawings that were reviewed.
Signage shall meet City ordinance.
Provide one (1) hour separation.between office space and warehouse.
Plans to be submitted to the Metropolitan Waste Commission to determine SAC
units before issuance of permit.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
July 22, 1998
Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
CONSOLIDATION OF TRACT A, R.L.S. NO. 961 AND LOT 3, BLOCK 1,
GOLDEN PLAZA 1ST ADDITION (PROPERTIES AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF FLORIDA AVE. S. AND WAVZATA BLVD.) - BORDER FOODS,
APPLICANT.
.
Border Foods, a franchise owner of Taco Bell restaurants, has requested a
consolidation of two lots located on Wayzata Blvd. The purpose of the
consolidation is to provide for a larger lot for a new Taco Bell. The existing Taco
Bell at 6620 Wayzata Blvd. is to be tom down and replaced with the new store.
The car wash to the east has been purchased by Border Foods in order to
provide for the larger site. (Border Foods is also requesting a Conditional Use
Permit for the new restaurant, which will be considered at this same meeting.)
The consolidated lot would be a total of 1.5 acres in size. The existing Taco Bell
lot is .53 acres and the car wash property is .98 acres. The new lot would be the
location for a 2,600 sq.ft. Taco Bell with a drive-thru window. The new restaurant
would meet all parking and setback requirements.
The property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map for Industrial
purposes. This type of restaurant is considered to be consistent with that
designation in Golden Valley. The property is zoned Industrial. Fast food type
restaurants with drive-thru windows are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit
in the Industrial district. Properties to the north, east and west share the same
Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning. The property across 1-394 in St.
Louis Park is business/commercial in nature.
The proposed consolidation meets all the requirements for a lot in the Industrial
zoning district. The 1.5 acre lot is large enough that a future building may be
constructed on the new lot so as to meet all required setback requirements.
The proposed consolidation would require the owner to dedicate to the City of
Golden Valley an additional five feet of right-of-way for Florida Avenue South.
The subdivision code requires that streets in the Industrial zoning district must be
70 feet in width. Because Florida Avenue South is only 60 feet wide, the policy is
that each side of the street dedicate half the needed right-of-way if there is a
subdivision of that property. The other five feet would come from the properties
along the East Side of Florida Avenue South. (Additional right-of-way will not be
required along the frontage road because this is a state road.) The additional
.
.
street width is required in the Industrial areas to better accommodate truck traffic
and access to businesses. The preliminary plan submitted by Border Foods did
not include the additional five feet of right-of-way. Staff did not figure out that
there was a need for the additional width until today. Border Foods will be able
to amend their site plan for the restaurant to accommodate the additional street
width without the need for variances.
CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF CONSOLIDATION
The subdivision code lists nine areas that must be considered for a minor
subdivision or consolidation. Each of the nine areas are listed below with staff
comment:
1. The proposed subdivision must meet all the requirements of the
appropriate zoning district. In this case, the proposed consolidation meets
the requirements of the Industrial zoning district.
2. Consolidations may be denied if the City Engineer determines that
steep slopes or excessive wetness encumbers the buildable portion of
the new lot. The City Engineer has made no such finding for this lot.
3. Consolidations may be denied if public sewer and water are not directly
available to the site. All public utilities are available to the site.
4. Approval of a consolidation shall be conditioned on the applicant's
granting all easements necessary for public purposes. These
easements will be indicated on the final plat. In this case, Border Foods
will be dedicating additional street right-of-way for Florida Avenue South and
all necessary drainage and utility easements along lot lines.
5. Where public agencies other than the City have some form of
jurisdiction over areas including or directly affected by a consolidation,
approval of the consolidation may be conditioned on the requirements
of the other jurisdiction. In this case, MnDOT has been contacted
regarding their frontage road. They have not yet given the City comments.
The City does not expect any negative comments.
6. The City may want to review the title to the property if in the opinion of
the City Attorney it is in the best interest of the City. Staff will discuss
this matter with the attorney. Because the City will be obtaining street right-
of-way and easements, the attorney may recommend reviewing the title.
7. Consolidations may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the
new development will cause undue strain on adjacent roads or other
public systems, or have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
In this case, the City Engineer believes that there are adequate roads and
public facilities to handle this new restaurant development.
8. There may be a park dedication required. In this case, staff will not
recommend a park dedication because of the reduction in the number of lots
and businesses.
9. Only the effect of the proposed consolidation on the eight previous
issues constitutes the grounds for denial. In this case, staff believes that
this consolidation satisfies the concerns of these nine issue areas.
.
.
2
.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed consolidation of these two parcels at
the northwest comer of Florida Avenue South and the Wayzata frontage road.
The proposed consolidation meets the requirements of the subdivision code.
The new lot will provide a better site for the proposed Taco Bell restaurant.
Staff is recommending the following conditions to approval:
1. The final plat indicates the dedication of an additional five feet for Florida
Avenue South.
2. All necessary drainage and utility easements be shown on the final plat as
required by the City Engineer.
3. If required by the City Attorney, a title opinion shall be prepared for the City
prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall pay the cost of the title
opinion.
Attachments: Location Map
Survey included with Conditional Use Permit Plans
.
.
3
-~
~
~
J <:.<'~
a
.0t -
,.,
..
.,
~
.
2
.
A
'0
~
5'8" ~9.J.'.:
:in:
--
,;.:.e :='6 ....
, '. t\
....
:!
~ .~
~t.:
..... "
0;:.
~.
~,
...
"
~~
"'\...
...
..
:f
.. :':f,
. , " l;l
:; :>.. ./-
::
LAU1<~L
W
:::l
Z
l&J
;() .~
~4~ -, ,
r~ ::
., .to
4 ..
"
'0
.....
. Of'
~.
, :E
585:
~
c.
l&J
a:::
r
t Cf')
Q)
.. a..
u :E
~
<t
r
: ;: .'j..~ ~ - - -
- - - _ _ _ -, -- -,:,;.,
t ~ It', ::
:"c: .1.,,: _, !':': .,:".,~ _ _
t
- ~
.... ....~lD
:- I . '':
""~-4c,c.
E's '" - ;,,'.
~:'4.
. -q,:~-
I C;:Q.'~ '5.~
f.
.J'.
~
.
.,.
u
, .
,
-<la()
.
. ..
53" "l;~,
{1':J~ - ,
:;-.~';'
"'.
, ,
o
,t
~ "t'! '!:c.i
. 2 .
6(;~
-: ;;.,~-.,:-
-!;; ~:
-----
Jc. -';
- s. ~c:
-c";'-~~
i:eS.
~~
':- .IS
-{.~
!dS"
: c.. "8 r
"'. .)3
....io..""'.t:1..~.~ -8"E
...:. -
';:8 32
.\d....J".>2p.r
.',
~~ 'IE.
::t.
o
...
'1'
~~e.'~;~,..
3, ~ - ~
- .
. ':":.....
~..;.'"
: .~.
-~.. ..... ;" ~/c
-.
.~
l'
N
n.
-.. ....
c l~:~
c' ill
'f
..
,
....
'.
z~,,~ ,- -
I
.
i
I
I
'r
I
s:
..
..
,.,.
, . '~
..
.
'"
..
I
DA ~~ 0 F
I
~ R=-("S~~~EC!
- I SJP /c...
NC 6
F
'"
Q./'? -.
..... v.
...... '
~ I ~
o<::i. ..
~, ,~
(;' ~t ~
.~ '!l
'?~ v .~ : . { I-?
~ .~ ,.v .:. ...
~ I. .~. :8
I
~.
~
'r
,
~
.,
'.
.
. ,
It
---.--
{..-.
--~
18' .....
,,,,,r,r.
'f' .,s.
... '4'.-.5
.. .a J.I
r
'J.
"J ....
....
..
,'Ot). S
O?- . ~~
y\... ?-~
t).0
':: ~ Y..S~ i ~
"'... ~ ,~ \0
- ~ '0'0'
.t).
C<4C I
"
~.
..
"'.
\}
t..
-~ - ~
.,
I
,
~ .~
-00
... ~o J
:'"
2
, . ":..-
<,
: ~
.~
:~.
. 0 ..'\ vi
.: r: .~
, ..../"1" .~ ".~
t '.It I "'1;;
. I ."_
..: . .-.;." ..~.-- ~ :
-_1"10 J..':'.L-~i'_~,_ .
--.- - I
~
..
~
"
.I, -.II
...~ "-0"
-- _ 's" ,',
-- 1
~~:.~:~
.----
"" -
;~
ST. LOUIS PARK
~
~8; ";1
~
I,
..~-
I, .
'.
..
"..
,
-
,
-..J - I....
., ",.
: J.; ..
- -...,
.,;;.
.... ':~4.~ ..
""" -~ .,) '"
-.....
-!.,!
-.....~- -.
;,
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
July 22, 1998
Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
CONSOLIDATION OF TRACT A, R.L.S. NO. 961 AND LOT 3, BLOCK 1,
GOLDEN PLAZA 1ST ADDITION (PROPERTIES AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF FLORIDA AVE. S. AND WAVZATA BLVD.) - BORDER FOODS,
APPLICANT.
.
Border Foods, a franchise owner of Taco Bell restaurants, has requested a
consolidation of two lots located on Wayzata Blvd. The purpose of the
consolidation is to provide for a larger lot for a new Taco Bell. The existing Taco
Bell at 6620 Wayzata Blvd. is to be tom down and replaced with the new store.
The car wash to the east has been purchased by Border Foods in order to
provide for the larger site. (Border Foods is also requesting a Conditional Use
Permit for the new restaurant, which will be considered at this same meeting.)
The consolidated lot would be a total of 1.5 acres in size. The existing Taco Bell
lot is .53 acres and the car wash property is .98 acres. The new lot would be the
location for a 2,600 sq.ft. Taco Bell with a drive-thru window. The new restaurant
would meet all parking and setback requirements.
The property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map for Industrial
purposes. This type of restaurant is considered to be consistent with that
designation in Golden Valley. The property is zoned Industrial. Fast food type
restaurants with drive-thru windows are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit
in the Industrial district. Properties to the north, east and west share the same
Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning. The property across 1-394 in St.
Louis Park is business/commercial in nature.
The proposed consolidation meets all the requirements for a lot in the Industrial
zoning district. The 1.5 acre lot is large enough that a future building may be
constructed on the new lot so as to meet all required setback requirements.
The proposed consolidation would require the owner to dedicate to the City of
Golden Valley an additional five feet of right-of-way for Florida Avenue South.
The subdivision code requires that streets in the Industrial zoning district must be
70 feet in width. Because Florida Avenue South is only 60 feet wide, the policy is
that each side of the street dedicate half the needed right-of-way if there is a
subdivision of that property. The other five feet would come from the properties
along the East Side of Florida Avenue South. (Additional right-of-way will not be
required along the frontage road because this is a state road.) The additional
.
.
street width is required in the Industrial areas to better accommodate truck traffic
and access to businesses. The preliminary plan submitted by Border Foods did
not include the additional five feet of right-of-way. Staff did not figure out that
there was a need for the additional width until toda}i. Border Foods will be able
to amend their site plan for the restaurant to accommodate the additional street
width without the need for variances.
CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF CONSOLIDATION
The subdivision code lists nine areas that must be considered for a minor
subdivision or consolidation. Each of the nine areas are listed below with staff
comment:
1. The proposed subdivision must meet all the requirements of the
appropriate zoning district. In this case, the proposed consolidation meets
the requirements of the Industrial zoning district.
2. Consolidations may be denied if the City Engineer determines that
steep slopes or excessive wetness encumbers the buildable portion of
the new lot. The City Engineer has made no such finding for this lot.
3. Consolidations may be denied if public sewer and water are not directly
available to the site. All public utilities are available to the site.
4. Approval of a consolidation shall be conditioned on the applicant's
granting all easements necessary for public purposes. These
easements will be indicated on the final plat. In this case, Border Foods
will be dedicating additional street right-of-way for Florida Avenue South and
all necessary drainage and utility easements along lot lines.
5. Where public agencies other than the City have some form of
jurisdiction over areas including or directly affected by a consolidation,
approval of the consolidation may be conditioned on the requirements
of the other jurisdiction. In this case, MnDOT has been contacted
regarding their frontage road. They have not yet given the City comments.
The City does not expect any negative comments.
6. The City may want to review the title to the property if in the opinion of
the City Attorney it is in the best interest of the City. Staff will discuss
this matter with the attorney. Because the City will be obtaining street right-
of-way and easements, the attorney may recommend reviewing the title.
7. Consolidations may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the
new development will cause undue strain on adjacent roads or other
public systems, or have an adverse impact on surrounding properties.
In this case, the City Engineer believes that there are adequate roads and
public facilities to handle this new restaurant development.
8. There may be a park dedication required. In this case, staff will not
recommend a park dedication because of the reduction in the number of lots
and businesses.
9. Only the effect of the proposed consolidation on the eight previous
issues constitutes the grounds for denial. In this case, staff believes that
this consolidation satisfies the concerns of these nine issue areas.
.
.
2
.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed consolidation of these two parcels at
the northwest corner of Florida Avenue South and the Wayzata frontage road.
The proposed consolidation meets the requirements of the subdivision code.
The new lot will provide a better site for the proposed Taco Bell restaurant.
Staff is recommending the following conditions to approval:
1. The final plat indicates the dedication of an additional five feet for Florida
Avenue South.
2. All necessary drainage and utility easements be shown on the final plat as
required by the City Engineer.
3. If required by the City Attorney, a title opinion shall be prepared for the City
prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall pay the cost of the title
opinion.
Attachments: Location Map
Survey included with Conditional Use Permit Plans
.
.
3
-~
~
~
J <<'~
<'
~-
.,
~
.-
,. Ow _'3
J1...~.'tl"<<'; .~"E
!dS'
: c.;. ~S ,
, '. l'
~::
':" .IS
..:. ..
2
,.
~.
,'"
.
~
~t
~~
,e ..,
C
.
.>.
'0
~
"-
...
~It
")....
...
5'S" ~9.J. '.:
';:8 3..:
.~ c.. 0...,) 20 - r
-5 ":
-~
Q' ~ "'6....
~.... .
LAUf(~L
'.
.,
~ ":..'..
-. . . ~.;.-
: -~.
:c: ..;
3" "'/c.
r.
.~
. , J- ~
:i: ':lw
:.
-~
~~ VE.
::to
"<e 6 .... "1
.... . O~'.'
....... ~
... .
- .
..
...
.. ""qL;- _
:-~~c..,~ '5~~
z~~ ,- -
I
i~:~
CO ill
. ~
...
,
l'
N
I.&J
::::> ~ .,..
z . ~
1IJ "
,(:) .~ ..
~4<: " , ..,.
r~ ~ ..,.
.., ...
-4 u. ..
rI
" r.
'" "
. 'r>
~. "
.
;
I
" I
-001: '1-
I
S'
..
'"
'.
I . .~
..
"I
-.
.
" -:f
I
4tJ()
'"
DA~~ OF
I
R~("S~~~EC!
- I SJP i::....
NO 6
F
:-
~'? '.
..... ...
~"" I ..
~ ~
~o >-
<t
<: ~t ~
.~ ~
~ '" fl'::
Co:) c.,.......: a'", -:
~ .~ ,.: .:. ~
~ " ':', ':8
...-
..
'r
..,
'"
.,
.
. ,
:585::
~
c,
1IJ
a::
:J:
t Cf.)
<>)
.. a.
u ~
~
<t
:J:
. ..
53" "l,~ ,
(,:2.:a - ,
:;-.3~
18' 'i~
I 4,r,r.
~ 90S.
.
<T,
. )
'0
~ "t'! ~:'c.i
. --IJ JoI
....
" -~
----.--
{-.-.
:
... '4'--05
I :!' ~.
P
t.
. 2 .
I
...
'j
...
..
o~\\)~ ~~S
y\.. . ~~
~~\j .
':: ~ ~~S ; \O~
';:' ~ <"'\\~
'" ~\)Y
.
C<4C I
,-
.~ . ~
pi
i
,
Gc,t;,
100 ~o.1
: ;: ,- - - - - -
;-'~ . 50'~-'':'- . :"-:-..__
-------_.---;~., -!;;~: .,.:~..
:. ? Il"~:: ' _ _ _ _ _
- ;"t:: .8..: _\ 4",~ .~'",,~ _ _
:'" '
"
~.
..
'<",
"
.....
.
:-. . '':
t
,
..
P.
~
~
2
.
(;400
'"
l:eS.
ST. LOUIS PARK
'"
~8; ";/
':.~"
..t\
. 0 vi
: ... ~
l. '-.r~ ~ ~~.-.
. '.It ~ .....~;;
I oj ."_
.~---- I'~ .__~ ;
"'I;...~
L..- .:.", i - ;. . ';,' .
"-40
olc ";
- s. ~c:
-C""-'i
- ..~ ",'
. ,
"
II",
.,
: ~
- .......'s"..,
- .7
"",~-.;c",
E' s . ,,' ;~-
~-:3.~:::) .-----..
~ -
.~
- _"':"" '=-. !:: -':
.:'4.
'.
c
'I - ~..
( .
".oJ' I...~ .' -"e ~ ..
., ,.. ~ i".'~.:,;),
: J.: .;
I,
'~:
:: ~-.,
".
".
-
,
- "':i.~
~.
-..........;..
;,