12-14-98 PC Agenda
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regul~r Meeting - Council Ch~mbers
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Monday, December 14, 1998
7pm
I. Approval of Minutes - November 9, 1998
II. Informal Public Hearing -Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map - Amendment
Address:
Request:
800 Turners Crossroad,. Golden Valley, Minnesota
AOlendtheplan map from Lightlndustrial to BUSiness and Professional
Office
III. Infol"mal PublicHearing-Re~oning
Applicant:
Address:
Request:
United Prop~rtles and the Golden Valley Housing .andRedeveloprnent
Authority (HRA)
800 Turners Crossroad, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Rezone the subject property from Light Industrial to. Business and
Professional.Office
IV. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan Review - Golden Hills Office
Center, P.U.D. No. 81
Applicant:
Address:
Request:
United Properties
800 Turners Crossroad, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Review of the Preliminary DeSign Plan for the Golden Hills Office Center,
P.U.D. No. 81. The applicant is proposing to construct a six-story office
building.
V. Informal Public Hearing - Review of an Amendment to the PreliminaryD.esign Plan _
Room and Board, P.U.D. No. 79
Applicant:
Address:
Request:
Room and Board Properties
6800 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Review of the amended Preliminary Design Plan for Room and Board, P.U.D.
No. 79 - Amendment would allow for the construction of office space
between the buildings located at 4600 and 46500ls0h Memorial Highway
and additional warehouse space behind the building located at 4650 Olson
Memorial Highway.
VI. Reports on Meetings of. the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council and Board of Zoning Appeals
VII. Other Business
VIII. Adjournment
Planning Corn mission Guidelines for Public Input
The Plannil1g ComlTlissi.on is an advisory bO~y, createc;l to advise the City Council on land use. The Commission will
recolTllTlendCouncilt:ipproval or. denial ofaJand use proposal based upon the Commission's determination .of Whether the
proposedu!>ei.sperlTlitted under the ZonirigCode and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not,
adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood.
The Commissi.on hold~jnformal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals
are,andto permit you to. ask ques~jonsal'ldo.ffer comments. Your questiClns and comments become part of the record and
will beusec;l by the Council,slong with the Commission's recommendation,in rel!chingit~ decision.
With thecolTlpletionofthe informal public hearing(s) there will. be a short recess before the Commission continues with the
remainder of the agenc;la.
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 melTlbers 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 IilTlit for individual questions/comments if a large number .of persons have indicated a
desire to speak. SpOkespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for qUestions/comments.
4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember, your questions/
comments are for the record.
5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions.
6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak
initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, 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
November 9,1998
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, November 9,
1998. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7: 1 Opm.
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, Don Taylor, Finance Director and Tammi Hall,
Recording Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - October 26. 1998
MOVED by Groger, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the
October 26, 1998 minutes as submitted.
II. Informal Public Hearina - Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map - Amendment
Address:
Proposed property bounded by ponding and wetland to the west, the
railroad tracks to the north, Olson Memorial Highway to the south,
and Ottawa Avenue to the east, excluding the Golden Valley Inn site
Purpose:
To amend portions of the plan map from Public and Semi-Public _ .
Municipal - Parks, Natural Areas and Commercial to Public and
Semi-Public - Municipal - Parks, Natural Areas and Commercial
.
City Planner, Beth Knoblauch, explained the request to change the designation on three areas
of land in the Schaper area and adjacent land that once held the old White House restaurant.
She stated that the Commission would not be addressing any redevelopment proposal for this
area. The neighbors in the surrounding area have met with developer Frank Dunbar regarding
a proposal for redevelopment of the former White House restaurant site. Mr. Dunbar plans to
bring his proposal to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to request designated
developer status. Knoblauch stated that the issue to be addressed by the Commission is
essentially a housekeeping matter. The City attempted to change the designation on these
areas a few years ago but was stalled due to a lawsuit in process. Since that time no re-
designation has been pursued since there was no redevelopment proposed for the site.
Knoblauch explained that the site initially consisted of two properties, the former White House
restaurant and the City-owned land generally referred to as the Schaper area. The
construction of a new, detached frontage road segment a few years ago resulted in splitting off
small areas of land from each of the two properties. Knoblauch explained that they are
requesting that the small piece of property at the north end of the former White House site
(Area A), which is cut off from the rest of the property by.the frontage road, be re-designated
as "Municipal" and be combined with the Schaper area. The portion of property which was part
of the Schaper area (Area B), but was cut off from the rest of the Schaper area by the frontage
road, would be combined with the property which was the former White House restaurant site
and re-designated from "Industrial" to "Commercial" use. One of the three parcels that make
up the Schaper area was designated "Industrial" prior to the time the city received the property.
This designation should be changed to "Municipal".
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9, 1998
Page 2
Pentel asked Knoblauch about the size of the Area C parcel and if there was any option for it
to be developed. Knoblauch responded that Area C would be platted as an outlot which will be
an indication it is not developable. Pentel commented that the memorandum states there is no
intention to develop City-owned land. She stated this was somewhat misleading sin.ce the City
owns Area B and the former White House restaurant site. Knoblauch responded that the
former White House restaurant site went tax forfeit a few years ago and has now been
acquired by the HRA for redevelopment. Pentel questioned if Area B, which is being re-
designated as "Commercial", is the most polluted portion of the property. Knoblauch indicated
she did not know, but noted that the entire area, including the former White House restaurant
site, the road and a portion of the Schaper area, is designated as a superfund site. Pentel
questioned if the City had considered other options for Area B, such as a park use. Knoblauch
stated the exchange of land became necessary because of the land lost from the former White
House restaurant site as a result of construction of the frontage road. She stated the
amendment would basically add Area B to the former White House site and remove Area A.
By doing this the boundaries of both properties, the former White House restaurant site and
the Schaper area, would follow the road. Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes
stated the former White House site has always been designated "Commercial". Knoblauch
indicated the City is not considering any use other than "Commercial" for the former White
House restaurant site at the present time. The purpose of this request is to adjust the property
boundaries to make sense with the road.
.
Commissioner Groger commented that it was a controversial decision when the ball fields were
placed in this area. One of the issues involved was that the Schaper area, Which had been .
donated to the City, was to remain a natural area. He asked Knoblauch to outline the portion
of the property that was originally donated to the City. Knoblauch indicated the original
Schaper property was north of the Golden Valley Inn and west of Ottawa to the point where
there is a jog on the northern boundary shown on the location map. The original property that
was donated is slightly more than one-third of the entire area. Groger stated that Area B was
not included in the original Schaper property. He questioned who owns Area B. Knoblauch
stated that the original Schaper property was donated to the City and that the other parcels
were purchased by the City.
.
.
Commissioner McAleese asked what area may potentially be developed. Knoblauch stated
that Mr. Dunbar has an option for the development of the Golden Valley Inn site. His proposal
would be to purchase the Golden Valley Inn site as well as the former White House restaurant
site, including Area B. The property to be developed would be bordered on the north and west
by Schaper Road, on the east by Ottawa Avenue and on the south by Highway 55. Grimes
indicated that Dunbar plans to come to the HRA meeting to request designation as the
developer for a project that would include the Golden Valley Inn site and the former White
House Restaurant site. Pentel indicated she had attended the neighborhood meeting with
Dunbar where he proposed a 75,000 square foot office building which would be occupied by
KQRS on the first two floors, requiring a two hundred foot tower. Commissioner Shaffer asked
if the City would be losing some land to the county or the state on the southern boundary of
the property where it jogs around Hwy 55. Knoblauch stated she could not recall, but that it
would appear on the preliminary plat to be addressed later in the meeting. She stated the City
had requested possession of the vacated frontage road but the state had declined. She
indicated the state Probably wished to retain the property for Possible future expansion of Hwy .
55.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9, 1998
Page 3
Chair Pentel opened the infonnal public hearing; hearing and seeing no one; Pentel closed the
informal pUblic hearing.
Commissioner Johnson stated she was in favor of this proposal as presented by Knoblauch.
Groger indicated he was also in favor of the proposal regardless of future development plans
for the Golden Valley Inn site. He stated the existing L-shaped lot would be difficult to
develop. Pentel indicated she would prefer to see the site used for other pUblic or park
activities.
MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend
to the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendment as
requested.
11/. Informal Public Hearina - Rezoning
Applicant:
City of Golden Valley and the Golden Valley Housing and
Redevelopment Authority
Address:
Proposed property bounded by ponding and wetland to the west, the
railroad tracks to the north, Olson Memorial Highway to the south,
and Ottawa Avenue to the east, excluding the Golden Valley Inn site.
PUrpose:
Rezone portions of the property from Ins.titutional (1-4) to Commercial
and Commercial to Institutional (1-4).
Pentel questioned when the zoning map was amended to show all City owned land as
Institutional 1-4. Knoblauch stated she was not certain when this specific property was
designated Institutional 1-4, but that the Institutional district as a Whole was added as a zoning
category in the 1950s. In the 1960s, it was divided into the five subcategories that exist tOday.
Knoblauch explained the request is to adjust the zoning map so the two zoning classifications
follow the new road alignment. The zoning for the third parcel of the Schaper area was
already changed to Institutional 1-4 so Area C will not be affected. The request is to change
Area A from Commercial to Institutional 1-4 and Area B from Institutional 1-4 to Commercial.
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; hearing and seeing no one; Pentel closed the
informal public hearing.
MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend
to the City Council approval of the proposed rezoning to change the small area north of
Schaper Road from Commercial to Institutional 1-4 and the small area south of Schaper Road
from Institutional 1-4 to Commercial.
IV. Informal Public Hearina - Subdivision
Applicant:
City of Golden Valley and the Golden Valley Housing and
Redevelopment Authority
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9, 1998
Page 4
Purpose:
Proposed property bounded by ponding and wetland to the west, the
railroad tracks to the north, Olson Memorial Highway to the south,
and Ottawa Avenue to the east, excluding the Golden Valley Inn site.
To combine portions of the proposed properties and then subdivide
them into two lots.
.
Address:
Knoblauch explained that the plat map identifies the frontage road as the Schaper Road. She
indicated the Commission could register an opinion on the name of the road. Commissioner
Martens asked where the name of the frontage road would be formalized. Knoblauch
indicated that the plat map would formalize the name of the frontage road. Pentel indicated
that once it is platted a formal process would be required to change the name. Commissioner
Kapsner stated that it seems appropriate the road be named after the Schapers since they
donated this property to the city. Pentel agreed, adding that Schaper Road makes sense
since the area is identified as Schaper field or park. Grimes stated that he hopes that at some
point MnDOT would allow minimal directional signage along Highway 55. Knoblauch indicated
this limitation by MnDOT is due to the fact that Hwy. 55 is not completely closed access.
Pentel questioned why the plat makes reference to other plats, and suggested it would be less
confusing to include everything on this plat. Knoblauch stated they prefer not to have
everything on the same plat because it generally becomes illegible. Pentel referred to Item H
under Subdivision Design Features in the memorandum from Knoblauch and questioned why it
says there is no intention to develop the City-owned land. She stated we should be very clear
about what portions exactly are City-owned land. Knoblauch responded that the City-owned
land is the portion of the property which is to the north and west of Schaper Road and Area C,
which would be platted as an outlot.
.
Pentel also questioned Item B under Subdivision Design Features on the memorandum that
states that for the City-owned property, a drainage and utility easement is shown across the
entire site. She stated the plat map shows City-owned drainage easements on much of Area
B and on part of the former White House restaurant site. She asked Knoblauch to clarify
where the City drainage easements are located. Knoblauch stated there are some additional
easements that may have to remain, but it is not unusual that it is not yet known which
easements will need to remain at this preliminary stage. Pentel questioned if the White House
site is developable even though it shows city drainage easements over it. Knoblauch
responded that it is a developable site and the City will simply relocate things or remove the
drainage easement if it is not being used. Martens questioned if utility and drainage
easements would normally be shown along the perimeter boundary of the plat. Knoblauch
responded that the plat shows the standard easements. But the plat will also show anything
that is currently in place unless the surveyor is directed to remove it. She indicated, at this
point, where other easements are shown on the plat, that still need to be addressed.
Martens questioned why there appears to be utility and drainage easements across the entire
property. Knoblauch responded that this is in the City-owned land north and west of Schaper
Road which was all previously platted and will not be changed. Martens questioned why the
property was being platted at this point when it could be combined with the Golden Valley Inn
and done in one plat at the time it is redeveloped. Knoblauch stated that the re-platting is .
necessary due to the separation caused by the new road which makes it the responsibility of
the City and not the developer. Pentel asked if it would need to be platted again when it is
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9, 1998
Page 5
developed. Knoblauch responded that it would have to be platted again if the redevelopment
involves the Golden Valley Inn property. Martens asked if Area C, which is being platted as an
outlot, contains any utility easements. Knoblauch responded that this was part of the originally
platted area so it would be a blanket easements. Martens commented that it would seem
appropriate to make this clear on the plat. Knoblauch responded that she would bring 'this to
the attention of the city engineering department and surveyor. Groger commented that the plat
does show the 16-foot jog along the south side of the former White House restaurant site. He
questioned if it is a concern that at some point the city would lose this portion of the property to
the county or the state. Knoblauch responded that the city has not yet received MnDOT's
response to the plat.
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; hearing and seeing no one, Pentel closed the
informal public hearing.
MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to recommend to
the City Council approval of the proposed subdivision of the Schaper Addition as requested,
V. Informal Public Hearing - Review of Draft Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan
including the Draft Tax Increment Financing Plan
Knoblauch explained that Golden Hills is one of three redevelopment areas in Golden Valley.
All three areas use Tax Increment Financing (TIF). TIF areas are governed by state law so
redevelopment plans must be in accordance with relevant state law as well as the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Knoblauch stated that the Golden Hills Redevelopment area is
approximately 130 acres. The original Golden Hills Redevelopment area contained four sub-
areas: the west area (west of the railroad tracks), the central area (between the railroad tracks
and Turners Crossroads, the east area (east of Turners Crossroads) and the south 'area. This
would be the first amendment to the original redevelopment plan that was written in 1984. This
amendment would expand the redevelopment area boundaries to include the Xenia
Avenue Extension as a new sub-area. Knoblauch explained that the current TIF district
contains the west, central and east portions of the redevelopment area. The south area is part
of the redevelopment area but not part of the TIF district. The laws regarding TIF allow city
HRAs to capture taxes generated by improvements within the TIF district and use these funds
for additional improvements in a designated redevelopment area. The designated
redevelopment area is often larger than the TIF district.
"
Pentel questioned why it is necessary to sell bonds if the redevelopment is to be funded by the
TIF district taxes. Knoblauch responded that the bond front-ends the improvements and the
bonds are then retired using the TIF funds. She stated that the redevelopment plan is being
amended to add the Xenia Avenue Extension as a sub-area.' It would not be part of the TIF
district but would be designated as part of the redevelopment area. In regard to the Xenia
Avenue Extension area, the proposed amendment contains no changes in the land use
designations and the City is not planning redevelopment of the property except properties that
would be part of public improvements. She explained that these would be the Xenia Avenue
Extension, a potential storm water detention pond, possible changes in the access to and from
Turners Crossroads and possible sale of excess land to the school district for Meadowbrook
School.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9, 1998
Page 6
Pentel commented that most of the objectives remained the same in the amended plan as they.
had been stated in the original plan except for the first objective which has been changed to
more generally encompass the area along 1-394 and the intersection with Turners Crossroads.
She commented that she felt the objectives should include reference to the north/south access
and the safety issues since these have been discussed as major reasons for the proj'~ct. She
added that the list of Current Plan Components does not mention the formation of the Xenia
Avenue Extension Advisory Committee. She also commented that the Action Plan neglects to
mention the pedestrian overpass to the school or the safety issue. Knoblauch responded that
the safety issue is addressed in the first bullet under Circulation on page 7. She stated that if
the Commission felt more objectives should be added, those revisions could be part of their
recommendation.
Pentel referred to the central area and questioned if it is necessary to use TIF to redevelop
these areas since it is described as an attractive location. Knoblauch responded that it is an
attractive location, but that there are definite problems with the properties such as pollution,
title problems and a raft of MnDOT turnbacks. She added that these are the types of problems
that developers generally do not want to spend money to clean up even if the location is
attractive.
Martens stated there is a gap between market value of the land and the cost to acquire the
land in its presented form and get it ready for the market. He stated that, theoretically, TIF
funds are to be used to fill that gap. He stated that these are true redevelopment sites. The
goal of the City should be to sell them for market value. Grimes explained that, historically, the
City has purchased properties and done environmental clean-up, which would not be done if
the City was not involved. In this type of situation, the City generally would have to spend
double or triple the market value of the property to purchase the property and get it ready for
development. Kapsner commented that what is being proposed is expansion of the
expenditure area for the TIF District. Knoblauch responded that we are not expanding the TIF
District but we are expanding the redevelopment area where the TIF proceeds can be spent.
Kapsner asked what would happen to the money that will be spent in the proposed expansion
area if the redevelopment area was not expanded. Pentel responded that she believes the
district would achieve parity sooner and the taxes would go back to the school districts.
Martens stated that we are expanding the redevelopment area but we can not add to the TIF
district. Knoblauch responded that she did not know that we could not add to the TIF district,
but expansion of the TIF district is not being proposed. Martens questioned if the city would be
in a better financial position if the TIF district was expanded and requested City Finance
Director, Don Taylor, address this issue in his presentation.
.
Knoblauch continued summarizing the changes proposed in the amended plan for the four
sub-areas that are already part of the redevelopment. She stated that HRA involvement is
almost complete in the west area. The necessary land has been acquired and the developer
expects to have both sites under construction in the spring. This amendment brings the plan
up to date with regard to the west area. Most of the proposed changes involve the central
area. The original plan from 1984 indicated that the HRA would not be involved in the
northeast quadrant. This area is now a redevelopment site with United Properties as the
developer. Redevelopment would most likely occur in this area eventually but will proceed
more quickly with the assistance of the HRA.
.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9, 1998
Page 7
Pentel stated that the old plan included height restrictions of 4 to 6 stories in the area across
from the Colonnade to the west of Xenia, and that this restriction has been deleted in the
revised plan. Knoblauch responded that the new plan replaced the height restriction with a
square footage limitation. She stated. that a height limit could be added if the Commission
feels it should be included. Pentel responded that the original plan w~s the result of long term
planning and consideration of many factors. She stated the height restrictions were included
for a purpose and should not be removed. Martens stated he would have some concerns
regarding setting height restrictions at this point. He added that the individual projects will be
coming before the Commission and to restrict height to a specific number of stories for all
development at this point may not be appropriate. Pentel questioned if the City should
encourage higher density development and the additional traffic it would generate in this area.
Knoblauch responded that the plan still includes a general goal of locating higher density
development adjacent to 1-394 and lower density development away from 1-394, but she added
that it would not be a problem to revise the plan to include the height restriction.
Knoblauch stated that the other major change in the central area is in regard to the southwest
quadrant. Only a portion of this area was identified as a redevelopment site in the original
plan. Since that time, MnDOT pushed the frontage road farther north and acquired the
property. The residual of the parcel is not developable on its own but is too big to leave
undeveloped. The amendment would expand the redevelopment site to include the entire
block. The only substantial change in the east area is that the previous plan considered the
apartment buildings as property to be acquired. Knoblauch indicated that, at this time, the City
does not believe that will happen. T.he City will be considering proposals to improve the
shopping center.
Pentel referred to page 14 that mentions alternatives for the existing apartment site.
Knoblauch responded that the City assumes this property will be redeveloped in the future
even without the involvement of the HRA. Pentel asked if there was any information available
on the affordability of the apartments. Grimes responded that the City has a list of all
apartment buildings but not information on the rental rates.
Knoblauch stated that the only change in the south area is the addition of potential annexation
and detachment of this area to the City of St. Louis Park. She explained Duke who also owns
an adjacent site that is much larger and is located in St. Louis Park owns the entire south area.
Duke plans to redevelop the entire property, and since it would be one redevelopment area, it
would be beneficial if it was not located in two different jurisdictions.
.
.
Martens asked which sites would be potential hotel uses. Knoblauch responded that the
service use designation refers to hotels and restaurants. She added that there had been
discussion regarding more specific use designations in the plan but that it is sometimes
detrimental to be too specific. Martens questioned if the City views hotels differently than other
service uses. Knoblauch responded that each proposal would be evaluated individually.
Martens questioned if it would be the same in the Comprehensive Plan. Knoblauch responded
that this is an issue that is currently under discussion. Grimes stated that there has been hotel
interest in each of the areas and that there is currently a hotel in the west area. Martens
commented that he felt the hotel interest should be considered with some priority in the interest
of obtaining the right mix for the area. Knoblauch stated that one site has been specifically
reserved for a hotel.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9, 1998
Page 8
Shaffer stated that the Xenia Avenue Extension area is outlined on the map and questioned if
these are the definite boundaries for redevelopment in the area. He asked if the plan would
have to be amended again in the future if the redevelopment includes pedestrian bridges that
go outside the area shown on the map. Knoblauch responded that the area outlined on the
map includes improvements that may occur across the street, such as a pedestrian overpass.
She added that the consultants on the project have recommended the city compile a list of
parcel identification numbers of property in the redevelopment area. Pentel commented there
appeared to be no legal description for the Xenia Avenue Extension area. Shaffer questioned
if the listing of parcel identification numbers would serve as the legal description. Knoblauch
responded the City has been compiling this list and it would be filed with the proposed
amended document. She said they may create two categories of properties, those within the
limits of the redevelopment area and those that may be affected by the redevelopment.
.
City Finance Director, Don Taylor, explained that the City is not recommending expansion of
the current TIF district but requesting amendment of the TIF plan to provide additional
expenditure and bonding authority for the Xenia Avenue Extension project and the United
Properties project on the Robert Hamilton site, and for the Duke project which is currently in
negotiations. Taylor covered some of the highlights of the amended plan. He referred to page
6-2 reviewing the amended budget as adopted September 1, 1998. He explained the Xenia
A venue Extension project has not yet been designed so the budget is the best estimate that
could be compiled at this time. Taylor explained that the southwest project budget is also an
estimate since there is not yet a development agreement with Duke, the potential developer.
The northwest project contains the printing company and at this point is not generating enough
increment to proceed with redevelopment. The northeast project has a development
agreement in place with United Properties. The total amended budget for the redevelopment
would be slightly over $58 million. Taylor indicated we are currently at about $26 million in
expenditures to-date in the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area. He explained that the TIF plan
also sets a limit on the amount of bonds that can be sold. He reviewed page 7-1 which
detailed the amount of bonds the City will have the authority to sell when this plan is approved.
He stated that the amended plan would authorize the City to sell approximately $46 million in
tax increment bonds to finance the redevelopment projects.
.
Pentel questioned how the City determines when to close these districts. Taylor responded
that HRAs and cities carefully monitor the districts to ensure they are closed when assets are
equal to bonds and no other projects are anticipated.
.
.
Martens questioned if the money could be spent outside the TIF district. Taylor responded that
the money can be spent outside the TIF district in the designated redevelopment area. He
added that in the past there was a limited percentage that could be spent outside the TIF
district, but this limitation has been removed. Currently, the amount of TIF that can be spent
outside the district in the redevelopment area is unlimited. However, it must be spent in the
designated redevelopment area, it cannot be spent in other redevelopment areas. Taylor
responded to a question that had previously been raised as to whether the plan could have
been amended to expand the TIF district. He stated that the TIF district could be expanded
but, in this case, the redevelopment could be financed without expansion of the district and the
City prefers not to expand the TIF district if it is not necessary. Taylor explained that the City
must also show the state that sufficient increment will be generated to payoff the bonds. He .
referred the Commission to Exhibit 4 and reviewed the existing tax increment being generated,
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9, 1998
Page 9
future tax increment to be generated, MEPC increment, interest, debt service on bonds, old
and new bonds which the city is authorized to issue. The final analysis shows a cash balance
of over $5 million. Pentel asked if the district could be closed earlier. Taylor responded that
would be a possibility, but reminded the Commission that these are only projections.
'.
Pentel asked why there was no assumption report for the Xenia Avenue Extension area.
Taylor responded there was no assumption report because there is no development there.
Martens asked what the land sale assumptions per square foot were for the MEPC and United
Properties projects. Taylor responded they were $5 per square foot for the United Properties
project. Taylor indicated he could not answer this question for the southwest area since the
development agreement with Duke is currently in negotiations. Martens asked if the City
enters into minimum assessment agreements for these projects and are they value
agreements or taxes payable per building or per square foot. Taylor responded that
development agreements include minimum assessment agreements. These agreements set a
minimum value on which the developer must pay taxes regardless of whether the development
occurs. Taylor stated that most of the City's assessment agreements are based on minimum
value. Martens questioned if the other method is better in terms of protecting the City from
changes in tax rates. Taylor responded that the City has done it both ways. He commented
that the value approach can be slightly more risky. He added that the agreement with United
Properties is a guarantee of taxes rather than value.
Groger commented the issuance of the bonds would be on a fairly short time frame. He
questioned what would happen if the Xenia A venue Extension is not possible or if
development on the southwest site falls through. He asked if the City delays issuing bonds
until a firm development agreement is in place. Taylor responded that by law, tax increment
bonds cannot be sold unless there is a completed development agreement. Taylor indicated
that bonds could not be issued for the Xenia Avenue Extension only. The increment from the
Duke and United Properties redevelopment is needed to complete the Xenia Avenue
Extension project.
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing.
.
Peter Knaeble, 6001 Glenwood Avenue, indicated he had several concems with the
amendment. He referred to page 5 and the objective of improving north/south access into
Golden Hills. He questioned why there was a need for improved access from a commercial
area to a residential area to the north. It was his understanding that the redevelopment would
take place regardless of the access. Knaeble referred to page 6 and the absence .of the
mention of any trade off for the additional traffic that would be generated. He commented that
if these developments did not occur then the extension of Xenia Avenue would not be needed.
He then referred to page 7, the second bullet from the top, which addresses the issue of
placing higher density development directly adjacent to 1-394. He stated this seems to be in
direct conflict with the United Properties development which calls for a 180,000 sq. ft., six-story
office building with 815 parking spaces and is located right next to the residential area. He
referred to the same issue on page 14. Also on page 14, he referred to the statement that the
Olympic Printing site was not feasible to develop. He questioned how this site was different
from the United Properties site and why it was considered not feasible to develop. He
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9, 1998
Page 10
commented that the plan talks about maximizing site density without compromising green
space. He indicated that a considerable amount of green space would be lost on the United
Properties site. Knaeble referred to page 19 that states the street extension would alleviate a
hazardous intersection. He stated it should be clear that the hazardous intersection would not
be alleviated, it would merely be relocated from Glenwood and Turners Crossroads to .
Glenwood and Xenia. He also addressed the reference to the extension improving the poorly
defined route from the commercial area into the residential area to the north. He stated that
the poorly defined route is beneficial to the residential area to separate it from the intense
commercial area. Knaeble then referred to page 20, Exhibit G. Referring to the Xenia Avenue
Extension area, he stated that no area is designated as reconstruction and that areas should
be redefined to include pedestrian bridges, sidewalks and trails. Knaeble's final question was
in regard to the date of December 1, 1998 on the proposed amended plan. He questioned
when the plan was actually prepared. He added that at the City Council meeting on October
20, the estimated budget for the Xenia Avenue Extension project was $4-$5 million and the
budget in the proposed amended plan is $8 million. He asked if the budget included in the
proposed amendment was provided to the City Councilor the Planning Commission at the time
the project was approved. Pentel stated that the Planning Commission was not aware of any
budget at its last meeting when they recommended approval to the City Council.
The Commission asked Taylor to respond to the question raised regarding whether the
redevelopment could proceed without the Xenia Avenue Extension project. Taylor stated that
it was the desire of the HRA to provide an overall plan for traffic due to the redevelopment.
The redevelopment could be completed without the extension of Xenia A venue but it would be
difficult for traffic on Turners Crossroads.
Pentel asked about the plan for the Roberts Hamilton site, specifically the number of stories
proposed and the green space projections. Knoblauch responded that they are proposing a
six-story building and that the site plan includes more green space than is required by city
code. Pentel asked if it was in keeping with the intent of the original plan to locate a six-story
building this far off 1-394. Knoblauch responded that she felt the original intent was to have a
stepping down as you moved away from 1-394. She stated the Colonnade is a 15-story
building, so it seemed to be in keeping with the stepping down philosophy of the original plan
to develop a six-story building in this location.
Grimes stated that when the Xenia A venue Extension is complete there will be a substantial
reduction in traffic on Turners Crossroads which will be a benefit to the neighborhood that is
east of Turners Crossroads. Pentel asked if Turners Crossroads will be reconstructed.
Knoblauch responded there are several different concepts currently under discussion. Pentel
questioned what the cost would be for reconstructing Turners Crossroads and how the City
proposed to cover that cost. Taylor responded that the budget proposed for the Xenia Avenue
Extension includes funds for reconstruction of Turners Crossroads. He added this was why
the budget had been increased from earlier projections.
.
.
Pentel asked when this document was presented to the HRA. Taylor responded the document
was reviewed by the HRA at their September meeting. Pentel asked why the Planning
Commission did not receive the proposed budget at their last meeting. Taylor responded that .
the numbers, at that time, were very preliminary and he did not feel confident to present them
to the Planning Commission until firmer estimates were available.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9, 1998
Page 11
.
Linda Loomis, 6677 Olson Memorial Highway, asked the Commission to reconsider the
amendment to the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. In reading the minutes
from the last meeting, she felt the Commission had addressed some legitimate concems. She
expressed concem regarding the demolition of affordable housing. The minutes state'd that
Tumers Crossroads could not be expanded due to minimum setbacks for the Fire Station and
the Church. She stated that the Xenia Avenue Extension will eliminate the minimum setback
for an apartment building that she felt should be given the same priority as the Fire Station and
the Church since it is living space. She expressed concem regarding the proposed width of
the road. She questioned if the cost of pedestrian bridges and sidewalks are included in the
budget. She asked if there had been any input from the citizens of Golden Valley to determine
if they were willing to trade tax dollars for increased traffic. She also stated that there have
been no good projections given regarding the actual increased traffic to be generated by the
redevelopment and the extension.
Pentel asked if the Xenia Avenue Extension has been engineered. Grimes responded that the
road has not yet been designed and that the width of the road has not been determined. The
Council has created the Advisory Committee to review issues such as road width.
.
Pentel asked about the funding for sidewalks outside the redevelopment area. Taylor
responded that he had included estimates for these costs in the Xenia A venue Extension
budget. He added that TIF rules state that an improvement that is outside the redevelopment
area but is directly related to the project is considered part of the redevelopment.
In regard to input from the public conceming the redevelopment, Pentel suggested the
Commission discuss this issue after the public hearing was closed.
Amy Rosen, 205 Idaho Avenue North, stated that the Xenia Avenue Extension is a large
project. It is a 38-acre parcel and represents roughly one third of the total redevelopment area.
She indicated that currently there has been cooperation between the commercial area and the
residential area to enable them to comfortably coexist-exist. With the Xenia A venue Extension
the City is moving north into the residential area. She stated that traffic is a tremendous issue
in this area and there has not been adequate discussion about the increase in traffic. She said
that at the City Council meeting the estimated numbers for increased traffic were provided by
the engineering firm that has a vested interest in seeing this project proceed. She suggested
that moving the intersection allows vehicles to gain speed in ~his area increasing the safety
problem.
..
Chair Pentel closed the public hearing.
Kapsner commented that he feels the city has not been strong enough in bringing forward the
point that this road is not being built because of the redevelopment. The road would need to
be built even if there was no redevelopment. It will improve traffic flow that has been a
problem since Tumers was cut off from access to 1394. Pentel asked how the city would pay
for the road if there was no redevelopment. Shaffer stated that the road needs to be changed
and that the changes are being paid for by the redevelopment.
Groger commented that the TIF district,is long standing. He added that this area is ripe for
redevelopment. The primary reason for redevelopment is not to bring in new tax dollars but to
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9, 1998
Page 12
redevelop an area that has undergone substantial change due to the construction of 1394. He
believes it to be beneficial if the money from the redevelopment can be used to finance other
necessary projects. Groger indicated that he supports the general concept and that the details
regarding the Xenia A venue Extension will need to be worked out in the design phase.
.
:
Martens commented that he was still concerned with the Xenia Avenue Extension and that he
was not fully convinced it will be the best solution. He added he was in favor of the general
redevelopment of the area.
Shaffer stated that with the redevelopment, changes in the road will be needed to allow traffic
to flow properly in the area. He stated he was unsure if the Xenia Avenue Extension is the
best solution, but it will be the task of the Advisory Committee to resolve that issue. He stated
he would be in favor of the overall plan for redevelopment.
Johnson stated the Xenia Avenue Extension is one part of this whole redevelopment plan. It
will be the responsibility of the Advisory Committee to study all the issues that have been
raised. She added that one of the individuals from the audience will serve on the Advisory
Committee. She believes that with the diverse group of people appointed to the committee,
they will be able to reach a solution. She would be in favor of recommending approval of the
amended redevelopment plan.
McAleese stated that the proposed amendment makes some minor changes to an old plan
document, but that the Xenia Avenue Extension is a major change. He said there is a .
fundamental problem with the HRA development process, which often times does not come to
the attention of the public, even though the hearings are public, until the development plan is
well underway. He said that the United Properties development of a six-story building is
probably higher than the original document intended for this site. He stated he is in agreement
with the amendments to the document. The Xenia A venue Extension seems reasonable and
the details will need to be resolved by the Advisory Committee. He added that he agreed with
Pentel that the document should address the need for the north/south connector route and
that the original language regarding height restrictions should be reinstated~ As far as the
suggested input from citizens regarding the trade off of tax dollars for neighborhoods, he
suggested the City Council may wish to schedule another town meeting.
Pentel stated she has a problem with extending the redevelopment area and bonding to
complete the Xenia A venue Extension project. She added that the city is making a radical
departure by mOVing north into a residential area and that she was not convinced the Xenia
Avenue Extension should proceed. She stated the maps do not identify all the properties that
may be acquired so we do not know how much affordable housing will be lost. She concluded
that most of the redevelopment amendments are necessary but she is not in favor of
.' proceeding with the Xenia Avenue Extension.
Kapsner commented that there has been much discussion about the amount of traffic that will
be generated by the redevelopment. He stated it is impossible to limit the amount of traffic in
this area due to development in St. Louis Park. The Xenia Avenue Extension may not be a
perfect solution but it is clear that Turners Crossroads currently does not work. This whole
issue has come up because the railroad land became available. Kapsner stated that if we .
were not redeveloping this area, improvements would have to be made to Turners Crossroads .
and a different group of neighbors would be unhappy.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9, 1998
Page 13
.
Pentel stated that from a planning standpoint there should have been more of a discussion at
the time the railroad property came for sale prior to the purchase by the city.
Martens commented that after hearing points made by other commission members he would
be in favor of approving the amendment and allowing the Advisory Committee to work out the
details.
MOVED by Martens, seconded by McAleese to recommend to the City Council approval of the
Draft Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan including the Draft Tax Increment Financing Plan
subject to revision to include the height restrictions for the central area as stated in the original
document and to include one or more specific objectives regarding the north/south connector
route and the hazardous intersection. Motion carried with six in favor. Pentel opposed.
Taylor stated that the Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan will go before the City Council at their
meeting on December 1, 1998.
VI. Informal Public Hearina - Conditional Use Permit (No. 75)
Applicant:
Borton Volvo
Address:
905 Hampshire Avenue South
Purpose:
To allow an auto dealership by Conditional Use in the Industrial
Zoning District
.
Grimes stated that this is a request for a conditional use permit to allow an auto dealership in
the Industrial Zoning District. Borton Volvo plans to re-use the existing building on this
property, which was formerly a restaurant, as a car dealership. They plan to construct an
addition to the building for the service area. He said there was a cell tower on the site which
will be leased back to the cell tower company. The property will meet the setback
requirements on all sides. He indicated a variance was granted several years ago for the
existing restaurant building that will remain. Borton has submitted a new parking plan that is in
compliance with city code. There is a gated trash enclosure on site. Borton Volvo will maintain
the existing signboard. Grimes added that from a land use standpoint, this has been an
unsuccessful restaurant site and that the location may be better suited to a car dealership. He
said that Borton believes with proper signage and advertising the location will be successful for
them. Grimes stated the storm sewers will handle the drainage.
Johnson asked about plans for signage on the site. Grimes stated there is an existing 27-foot
sign board and height restrictions in the code will not allow a higher sign on this site. He
commented that the city has allowed higher signs in locations next to 1-394 so they can be
seen from the highway, but that would not be allowed on this site.
..
.
Groger commented that there are two parcels of land involved in this site and the current
building straddles the two parcels. He stated that the CUP can proceed given this situation but
questioned if it wouldn't be in the best interest of the city to combine this into one parcel at this
time. Grimes responded that the city does allow this type of situation but that they may be
able to re-plat the property or go to the county and ask them to eliminate the property line
through an administrative process. Knoblauch stated that it would be in the best interest of the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9, 1998
Page 14
City and the property owner to have it made into one parcel. Grimes stated the city will try to
resolve this problem either through an administrative process or through re-platting, which
would involve the additional property owner of the third parcel.
.
David Phillips of DCA Architects, 1250 East Moore Lake Drive in Fridley, spoke on bet:lalf of his
client, Borton Volvo. He stated that the parking lot plan has been revised to comply with city
code and that they will comply with all landscape, signage and engineering requirements. He
requested the Planning Commission recommend approval of the permit.
Pentel asked if there was any problem with the lighting requirements. Phillips responded that
his office has completed projects for more than 50% of the car dealerships in the metropolitan
area. He added that the new technology in lighting allows for very good lighting at dealerships.
His firm will recommend the lighting level be lowered to approximately 25% at 10:00 or
10:30pm.
Pentel asked if it would be necessary to include a recommendation that cars cannot be
displayed in the setback area. Grimes responded that car dealerships are allowed to use the
setback for display a limited number of times per year. Otherwise, the restriction is enforced
and it could be included in the recommendation.
Knoblauch asked if Borton Volvo would share in the cost of whatever process is necessary to
remove the property line between the two parcels. Phillips responded that Borton Volvo would
cooperate with the City in an equitable process to eliminate the property line.
.
Martens asked what hours the dealership would be open. Phillips responded they plan to have
sales open Monday through Thursday. from 9am to 9pm. He indicated service would be open
from 7am to 6pm Monday through Thursday. On Fridays, sales and service would be open
from 6am to 6pm. Sales would be open from 9am to 6pm on Saturday. He added that service
hours may be extended to midnight or added on Saturday if it is necessary to meet market
demand. He stated that Borton will generate less traffic than a restaurant.
Pentel asked if the dealership would be selling used vehicles. Phillips said yes. Pentel asked
if they service vehicles other than Volvos. Phillips responded that they primarily service
VOlvos, but they will provide service to any customer.
Pentel stated that our recommendation should include removal of the property line and require
that no automobiles be displayed in the setback area.
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; hearing and seeing no one, Pentel closed the
informal public hearing.
MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to recommend to
City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit (No. 75) for Borton Volvo to allow a auto
dealership in the Industrial zoning district, with the additional stipulation that no automobiles
will be displayed in the setback area and that the property line dividing the two parcels be
removed.
.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 9, 1998
Page 15
VII.
Re orts on Meetin s of the Housin and Redevelo ment Authorit Cit Council
and Board of Zonina Appeals
No report was presented.
VIII. Other Business
No other business was presented.
IX. Adiournment
Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 10:00 pm.
Emilie Johnson, Secretary
..
.
.
..
MEMORANDUM
..
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
..
December 2, 1998
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
Informal Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, From Light Industrial to Business and
Professional Office
This is the first of three related applications that will combine to establish
an office PUD (planned unit development) just north of the Colonnade site
in the 1-394 corridor. There will also be a rezoning and, of course, a PUD
application to consider. The 7.75-acre subject property is bounded by
Laurel Avenue, Turner's Crossroad, Golden Hills Drive, and Xenia Avenue
(location map attached). Its sole occupant is the Roberts Hamilton
plumbing supply company. The site was rezoned from open development
to light industrial for its original tenant, the B. F. Goodrich Company, in
1957. At that time, Golden Valley had not yet embraced the idea of a long
range "comprehensive plan map" as a document separate from the zoning
map. Since the adoption of the first long range plan map as part of the
City's 1959 comprehensive plan, the property's future use classification
has remained industrial, based on its 1957 rezoning.
West and south of the subject site, the comprehensive plan contemplates
continuation of existing business uses. To the east, the plan contemplates
a continuation of existing single family uses. To the north, where existing
uses are a mix of institutional, apartment and large-parcel single family
uses, the plan contemplates future conversion of the single family parcels
to medium density (generally 5-12 units per acre) apartment or townhouse
typ.e uses.
The subject site is also part of the Central Area of Golden Hills, designated
as an HRA redevelopment area in 1984. The redevelopment plan as first
adopted stated that long range land uses for the Central Area are:
"office or hotel combined with office for parcels adjacent to 1-394
moving into office warehouse and office manufacturing to the
north. "
The City Council has now approved an update of the redevelopment plan,
forwarded by the HRA in September and reviewed by the Planning
Commission in October; the new wording is slightly different, in recognition
~
of the changing demand generated by proximity to the 1-394 Xenia A venue
interchange. It will allow for a
"mix of medium to high density office, service, and light industrial
uses" throughout the area, with the "highest densities and greatest
emphasis on office uses immediately adjacent to 1-394" and
"structured parking encouraged in order to maximize site density
without compromising green space."
Broadly speaking, the current comprehensive plan map designation would
accommodate a range of office, industrial, or mixed uses as part of a PUD
for this site. However, the specific proposal that the Planning Commission
and City Council are about to consider focuses entirely on office uses, as
have other recent concepts put forth by different developers. Given its
relationship to 1-394, the site is an excellent candidate for long-term office
use, and the more limited office designation will better protect the interests
of abutting residential uses to the east and north than the current light
industrial designation.
If, for any reason, approval of the related rezoning and PUD applications is
delayed or denied, the ongoing light industrial occupancy of the property
will in no way be limited by this proposed change in the comprehensive
plan map. The existing building could even be tom down and replaced
quite legally by another light industrial facility. This first approval sets the
stage for a future land use change, but is not sufficient to trigger such a
change by itself.
.
Recommendation
Staff recommend approval of the proposed comprehensive plan map
amendment from a land use designation of light industrial to a business
and professional office designation for the subject site.
.
Attachments:
. Location Map
.'
2
x
CD
:J
iii'
g )>
~ ~
o :J
C
CDI
/ I~ ~I
, 'iii ~I
, 1:\ :tl
~ :~ ~
~ I ~I
. : Cb .....S.~I
~ 0 I I
',0 I I
'. I
I I
I I
. I I
".r.~: ~J GO ~ _ _
.~, 0.,>' "f '.... E
,
I
I
,
1
1
J
1
. I
~;i 1
(""I:)
.... ....1
Q,~,. ']D '"
...... ...-- ---......
. 1.i.' I .-
= 0\ 1- I ..
~.l i: t'':. /.,.1
.' '. I .~ ;:.
ut\ /jD- - -t'\. .... ., It>.
t. ." .. _"':
.", ,- :. WN
,0 . t~ -:.!".: ....
t . ".-. '0
Z5 I O()~ .....
L______~-__'" _ ~../"'"
",: .$H . :; 1.,.S 11:; "" ~:i ..'"',"".....
I
J.
I
J
J
I
"
I
,
,
,
.
./
o
.
~
'"
nV.
HILLS
SrATF
.
rJ
...'
<0 0
~ ..
~
III
44U
, 144
"" ""
... ..
. ... \eo
.
SUo ,
.. ,I "
~I- 1
.. I
II ,
11 ,:;::
II ,'"
~II '5"
..) I I
. '11
I
5740 II
'00 :
1505760: '''II
,..,.,,^\
. 1-394
-_.t..-_:~ ' ~~~
, 3 ~~
-.-----. ..i ..__..__. _ ~.
I 4. B w"::
r ~~
. .s.~ a.
~ ~_.~~'- -"r5~-~- ~~.
0\ ,.. ... ~ c:
;;;. ..18 . 7. r :';
I -. ...
,
....('~ .
c
..,
:J'
CD " ".
Cil'#'..7
" t)
0" .
..,: ......10.
o
en
en
a
0)
~ a. ,; I.",.
~ tl .. ';"
~ I ..
..'
....C)>..
.,'
-'-'
J41.S ::0
JO~. ~.
,. I . :!!"::
~ I:l
j;;:'"' . 0 .~
~
6
eo
...
'"
'-
<
~G:'
~
.~
e::
,..
..
~
=aJ
8~ :0
...
~
.
~
'.
,
<<'0'
~
~
f '
North
.
.....
-i
C
..~956 J09.6 ~'J3
- - - - .... - - .... ,:-t- CD
"DC. NO. 53' 3'2 I .' ~,\ ..,
.. .en
()
a
en
en
..,
o
.0)
10.
DRIVE
-f!,8D
z,r. ".J
.. ..I
~ '"'
.. "
.. ~I
~
/6,",71
~
~
~
I.
:::..
.'
"
.1:;. \A
!-
...
~
.,.
~
..
..
~
.
.... .
~
1-394
(".(,.
.0
,,~
. . \\
':"4 .'~"...ll&.".., ''''.'tIII" ,,, l'..l(' ^,~t 14t..'{Jf)
. "',,1,,,'1 '....,1 I\r~. ',.,..''''''
PARK
,
~.
'"
".
'"
... '"
", r-
",
_ _'!il.
~I
Q.~ ,
i ';) 0 .Iv
" ~
_.~.:
.,. .'5
..
o .r. '.
... ! .......~:.... 4
'. -
~ ----. ~~'.Ioi
:; .,
:.. '?
:..
:.
"'u.
':::
.22
.21
.Zo
.'1
,"0"1 .'
.
''';'>(1
..
'.
, .1
. .
,,-
:: . ,,0
.
.
.i
.,
I~
.,
8 .
1.1., f'~'
.
.1
118
01'
.
,
.",' "'
5
tH ;~
RAOISSON ,~
~ " r;"
'~l.' '~J
.
Z
...
..~
\ .
':..
.~~
,....
J'
..
..
...
. 4 --.,~.. .." i
. I' "'. - I
"7 I
\..-"~-~' \)~:'
: ~ .~\
\
,
,
~ .0'"
,;,411
"~
.. z
.,
:- ,"\0
.I9L.
C
10 "
. '
Sf
\ 5.J ='"
.#"oJ I
~
,\
" S la.' .~
,\'; ..
.. 4 "
.~: ;:;
3
.f"" .
1",""" "
". z,
F
R. L. S.
Ii
54'fj - ~.1i'O
.
.~..
4'
- .!. - - - - _It:_!~ .~ .jJ
.: ."tI'L ".~ 4"" -...- - - -
.._----:- ';'"~-,.\....
I
,
4'.
4~ 1 Sf.
.'
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
December 2, 1998
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning from Light Industrial
to Business and Professional Office, 800 Turners
Crossroad (existing address); United Properties,
Applicant
.
This is the second of three related applications leading to establishment of
an office PUD (planned unit development) just north of the Colonnade site
in the 1-394 corridor (location map attached). The current Light Industrial
zoning designation of the subject property would not prevent an office
development. Rezoning to the Business and Professional Office (B&PO)
district, however, provides a better "fit" between what the developer
proposes to build and the zoning standards against which the proposal
must be evaluated.
As a PUD, the proposed development is eligible for waiver of normal
zoning district standards, but the Planning Commission and City Council
need to understand the nature and scope of any such waivers in order to
properly determine whether they are justified in view of the overall
proposal. Industrial zoning standards would include requirements - such
as a minimum of one truck loading berth for every 20,000 square feet of
gross floor area regardless of intended building use - that simply are not
relevant to office-only development. Also, the industrial zoning does not
provide any setback standards for structures over three stories in height,
as the developer proposes to build. It seems clear that office zoning
standards would provide better evaluation guidelines in this case than
industrial zoning standards.
If, for any reason, this proposed rezoning goes through but approval of the
related PUD application is delayed or denied, the ongoing light industrial
occupancy of the existing building would not be compromised, but the
property will become legally nonconforming. The building could be
structurally maintained and its interior remodeled, but it could not be
expanded. If it is ever tom down, it would have to be replaced by an office
building. Given its relationship to 1-394, the site is an excellent candidate
for eventual conversion to office use whether the current PUD proposal is
approved or not. Whenever the time is right for redevelopment, the B&PO
.
/
.
zoning designation will better protect the interests of abutting residential
uses to the east and north than the current Light Industrial zoning.
Recommendation
Staff recommend approval of the proposed rezoning from the Light
Industrial to the Business And Professional Office district designation for
the subject site.
Attachments:
· Location Map
.
.
2
./
,-
I/t'.r
I
.. J1Z.4'"
I
.
o
I
. ~
~
.
HILLS
,.. "
.... !"") .
.... ;-"
.'
SrATir
.
...
...
....
SU' ,
- ,I . "
<>:.....1- ,
'I ,
01 I
.1 ,:;:
,I ,'"
~oI '5"
"',1 I
, ..'
I
5740 II
10D ".: .$55 . :i lH
...
..
...
,
/-r..^^,
1-394
..'
....C):;.-..
..'
~_J
JfZ.S ;:0
JO~~,
76 I ~
~ ~
~ . a .~
~
< ~ =(lJ
~G:'
~ 1- "'"
... .~ ::0
6 ... ..
... ,
... <<'&
North
~
~
I
.
, I
_h. t
I
.~
I ~. E au""
I ~(,;
. - -. -~ . ~ 0:"
-'.I5-:~'~ ~~.
'__'1" - .-----.-- ,t-
..- ... f~ ~
. 7. ~~ ft,
1-- ...
~. .ZI
'"
Cl .Zo
loa ..
. Ci
~ ./~
... ...
...
!" _...
...
'" ..Ii
;:;
..
"- .'1
I'J ~
..
......
- _'_~&-
~'
0,
ti ~ . Ib
~ --
~~~
-f
C
"',956 JOU ~.J 3
--- -----':'t-CD
",DC. NO. 530')2 I "'t. \ ..,
'" . (J)
(')
..,
o
(J)
(J)
..,
o
.0)
;0.
><
CD
:J
0)
c;
? ~
~ CD
() :J
ffil
/ ,v. ~I
: ,~ ~I
f:: :~ ~I
"<I .to::::t
':a . ~I
: q, I'"rS....,
';g: I
", I I
I I
I I
/4". . 'I .1
''': ~. &0' -
-i-:jf~:~ Bll' ;
{"
(;
~t~
-, ...
~ ..
~ ,
'"
-~
...
..
...
DRIVE
.fI8f>
2'H.tJ.J
/4'1.'11
~
1('
",'
to 0
~ ~
-.I
III
~
'C::-
'a
loa
'0 ~
<'0 ~
-~
S'
...
.,
,.\
~
.
..
If/J
.'
'.'
s:;.
..
!4
...
Cll
~
.
...
....
~
1-394
r",.c.-
... ..'
~ ~I
.. ::,
~
I.
". .'5
..
.", 04
g <tt: _ 1
.. - '.-. .,
'-, /
. __... :~-'.19
~ ~ . 5
. r, 0
-f ?
C
..,
:J'
CD 1<0 01.
.., .
(J)r.
.. ..
('). .
..,
o
(J)
(J)
..,
o
0)
~ 0. ';I.~..
~ tl .. 'j<
~ I ..
. b
;,~ .1 ~ .or,
1
5420
..
'.
, .1
..,
. --~?t'
3
-. ~
r 'a<~
<t:'
o
"0::
" ~
."
.1&
.zz
8 .
1.1" r~'
-
or
.
,
.'7
."
14'
.'S
~.... .'4
... r'
'0, .... ~
1:>....
" .
..
I, &
RADISSON ~ I
~c.11 1:"
'~~.' In
J' ~
"
..
,.
..
~
..
\'1>0 ~ ~
....
..~
\ .
':.
...,r
oS"'.'~
.....
IH ;)
_ iJ I,
I,~
.. Z
.,
." ./> .0
,,~
.
'.. .
"",,'
.:..'\
.fOoL., I
10 ~
. :'1
\
\
51
....J I
, 5.':!d
..
.\
.lll\~~,
, .\
. ....~.
3
~
"
-:,\\
4
,~
.,~
.:'
< . \\
, :"" · *'... .l/.'J """'.'"'' ", I{'e A-~. 141..'{)f)
t"'.,I",'I' ,1.,,1 "'~. I,.,..'J:I
PARK
. .
0\.
...
...
!->
..
..
... ..
...
_1__-
.Jl.l; .
:7ISTI *;
If E n
'I '1
r~Q
II . '''''0
'"'7
, .'C '.
v" ,,'
r,'" .,
1".. '
F
R.L.S.
$4'" - !J<'O
. ~. .
.' -I" '
H
..
01
..
..
.~..
~,
- ~ - - - - - l.':..h. _ _~_ _ .Jl
'Ii ..../.,~ 4,,, .
- --- ~~.~.--'.. -;- -,-.!.
I
4q &&
.'
~.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
December 2, 1998
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan for
Proposed P.U.D. No. 81, Golden Hills Office Center; 800
Turners Crossroad (existing address); United Properties,
Applicant
.
BACKGROUND
This is the last of three related applications necessary to establish an office PUD
(planned unit development) just north of the Colonnade site in the 1-394 corridor.
It follows the comprehensive plan map amendment and rezoning applications.
The 7.75-acre (7.5 acres after street dedications) subject property is bounded by
Laurel Avenue, Turner's Crossroad, Golden Hills Drive, and Xenia Avenue
(location map attached). The site is part of the Central Area of the City's Golden
Hills Redevelopment Area. The applicant has been formally designated by the
City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to undertake this project.
The sole current occupant of the site is the Roberts Hamilton plumbing supply
company, which will be acquired by the HRA and demolished.
The developer proposes to construct a six-story office building with related
parking deck (see preliminary plan set for additional details). The intended office
uses are in keeping with the redevelopment plan components identified for the
Central Area. The PUD process will establish the exact terms under which the
site will be developed and operated, using the zoning standards for the City's
Business & Professional Office district as a regulatory base.
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 provides
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
"The 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 Office Center 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.6, which allows parcels in formally designated City
redevelopment areas to be developed under the PUD designation.
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." Because of the proposed
building's height, City Code says it must be regulated under a conditional use
permit; state law provides that planned unit developments are a sub-category of
conditional uses. In this case, going to a PUD instead of a CUP will allow such
flexible design options as:
. locating site improvements closer to Xenia A venue in order to provide more
than the minimum required setback as a buffer for the adjacent single family
homes along Turner's Crossroad, and
. exchanging some of the site's regular buildable area for setback area in order
to wrap the building around the landscaped "water feature", thus allowing
more tenants to take advantage of that view.
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 the eight items listed, one does not apply in this
case. 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 PUD must h3ve 3t le3st 100 feet of ftonuge on 3 public street. Golden
Hills Office Center will have more than ample frontage on all four streets.
2. All development must be served by public sewer 3nd w3ter, 3nd Rre hydr3ntr
must be insulled 3ccording to 3 pl3n 3pproved by City Sufi Water and sewer
lines are available at the site. Detailed planning for utility serv.ice to the
proposed building will come with the General Plan, though a preliminary utility
plan has been submitted for early Engineering review.
2
.
.
.
3. The materials used and IOC3don of any necessary fadlides for the surface
drainage system must meet requirements est3blished by the City Engineer. A
preliminary grading and drainage plan has been submitted.
4. The endre site must be part of the PUD. It is.
5. Off-street parkinc spaces must be permanendy marked and laid out in "
accordance with a plan approved by the City. Engineering staff are reviewing
preliminary plans for the parking and service drives, and will note any
requirements that the applicant must incorporate into the plans before the
General Plan stage of application.
6. Provisions must be made for easily accessible off-street IOadinc areas.
Engineering review of the proposed dock area will occur as part of #5 above.
7. Private rOadWays within the PUD must be constructed accordinc to a plan and
with the approval of the City Engineer as to type and IOC3don. There will be
no private roads.
8. LandsC3pinc must be based on a det3iled plandnc plan approved by the City,
and must meet est3blished minimum landsC3pinc st3ndards. Detailed
landscape plans are a General Plan requirement, but the applicant has
supplied a preliminary plan (please note: this plan mistakenly shows "as is"
site boundaries instead of subtracting out the additional rights-of-way to be
dedicated for Xenia Avenue and the Turner's Crossroad cul-de-sac).
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, mailing list, preliminary plat, and application
filing fee. Staff find all components suitably complete for this stage.
.
..
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 tradeoffs, general appearance and compatibility with adjacent uses,
platting, and miscellaneous engineering or 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 know how any proposal varies from normal zoning standards. A
comparison between the specifics of the proposed Golden Hills Business Park
.
3
.'
PUD and the underlying site zoning (see comparison of standards, attached)
reveals two types of variances being requested for the overall site: setbacks - for
surface parking/driveways and parking deck -- and lot coverage for the deck.
First, the developer's proposed 48-foot Turner's Crossroad buffer is significantly
wider than the normally required 35-foot setback, but does not quite run the full
length of the block; there is a proposed structure setback variance for the far :
southeast corner of the parking deck. The infringement occurs next to a
proposed cul-de-sac on Turner's just north of Golden Hills Drive, where the deck
extends approximately 8 feet into the setback, putting it some 27 feet from the
property line at its closest point of approach. In comparison, all of the much taller
Colonnade parking ramp lies about 20 feet from Turner's Crossroad and about
30 feet from Golden Hills Drive.
A corner of the surface parking area below the deck, and part of the ramp leading
up to the deck level are also within the cul-de-sac setback area. At its closest
point of approach, the ramp lies about 13 feet from the property line. It is not
clear whether the ramp infringement should be called a structure or a
parking/driveway nonconformity, or a bit of both.
The proposed cul-de-sac is one of several consultant recommendations arising
from a study of traffic conditions in the 1-394 corridor. The aim is to improve the
quality of life in the adjacent residential neighborhood by ensuring that all
Colonnade and Golden Hills Shopping Center traffic, as well as all through-traffic
coming from or heading to 1-394 or St. Louis Park, will use Xenia Avenue rather
than seeking "shortcuts" through the neighborhood. The subject proposal does
not depend on having the cul-de-sac, nor does it generate the need for it. The
affected site improvements will not come any closer to the homes across the
street than elements farther north that meet or exceed setback requirements;
rather, the bulb shape of the cul-de-sac creates a need to cut into this part of the
site for additional right-of-way. The developer is dedicating the necessary right-
of-way on the PUD plat.
Since proposed on-site parking is provided at a rate above the normally required
minimum, the size of the deck could be cut back in order to reduce or eliminate
these proposed setback variances. On the other hand, widespread use of
modular work cubicles and furnishings is resulting in higher employment
densities for all types of office situations; according to market experts, one of the
top demands in new Class A office facilities is increased parking. The developer
feels the proposed parking rate is important to the success of this project.
Second, the proposal incorporates two setback variances for surface parking
areas. Along Golden Hills Drive, a row of 14 parking spaces is located 25 feet
from the right-of-way line. Over on Xenia Avenue, a row of 12 spaces is located
only 20 feet from the right-of-way. As noted above, the number of spaces at
either location could be cut back in order to reduce or eliminate these proposed
setback variances, but that might detract from the development's marketability.
Reducing the proposed Turner's Crossroad buffer area would be another way to
at least minimize the Xenia Avenue parking setback variance, and it might also
provide for general parking lot re-design to accommodate more spaces that meet
required setbacks. On the other hand, the buffer is an important feature for
homeowners across the street. Alternatively. the developer could re-design the
site with a compact rectangular building like the Colonnade instead of the
.
.
.
4
proposed "ell" shape, and then squeeze the proposed water feature into the
setback area as much as possible, using the freed-up buildable land to pull
parking and driveway areas back within normally allowed areas, but overall site
design quality would suffer from such changes. The building's shape provides an
attractive view of the water feature for more office occupants, and the prominent
location of the water feature as framed by the building establishes a positive
community image for traffic coming into Golden Valley from the overpass at the
Xenia/I-394 interchange.
According to the Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan, appearance is an important
consideration in redevelopment efforts for this area. In terms of lot coverage, the
building is well under the normally permitted maximum of 40 percent, so the
proposed setback variances clearly are not due to an over-large building
footprint. Balancing all of the factors involved, none of the proposed variances
for the deck or the paved surface areas seem unreasonable.
Third, there are two difficult-to-quantify potential setback variances involving
access areas. The proposed loading dock retaining wall on Golden Hills Drive
may lie slightly within the setback area. The underground parking access ramp
on Xenia Avenue does lie well within the normally required 35-foot setback. In
both cases, the affected features will be dug down at least partly below site
grade, and most zoning provisions are not intended to deal with below-grade
improvements - for example, structure setbacks apply only from the ground up,
and the lowest levels of buildings are not counted as "stories" if a specified
percentage lies below grade. Also, by definition, any access drive must lie partly
in a setback or it cannot connect with a street to provide that access; it typically is
not called a setback infringement as long as it takes the shortest reasonable path
across the setback area. Is a below-grade loading dock a setback infringement?
Is a necessary access ramp to a below-grade garage door or loading dock a
setback infringement? The flexibility of the PUD process allows the City to step
back from possible disputes over precise code interpretations and evaluate any
given situation on its broader merits. Certainly, the difference in elevation will
help minimize the visual impact of both affected areas, and they seem to be
relatively minor considerations in view of the overall site design. An elevation
sketch (attached) of the loading dock area does indicate a five-foot berm in that
area, to provide additional screening beyond the grade change.
Finally, getting away from setbacks and into structural lot coverage, the proposed
parking deck is slightly over the normally allowed limit of 20 percent. This
variance could be reduced by eliminating some of the expanded parking as
discussed earlier, or by reducing the deck footprint and adding another level. On
the other hand, as currently proposed, the deck's relatively low prOfile combined
with a proposed berm along the Turner's buffer area will help minimize its
aesthetic impact. Also, balancing the oversized deck, main building coverage is
way below the normally permitted 40 percent. If the City takes the more flexible
stand of considering overall structural coverage instead of splitting it into main
building and deck, the total is only 32 percent as opposed to the normally
permitted 60 percent. That does not seem unreasonable.
ADDearancel ComDatibilit'{ - The Golden Hills Redevelopment Area was
created to eliminate blighting influences, upgrade the overall appearance of
properties, and take advantage of the increased tax base potential of properties
close to the Xenia A venue/I-394 interchange. As the first redevelopment project
.
.
.
5
. .
in the area, the Colonnade PUD to some extent sets a standard for appropriate
appearance and use (permit attached). Unlike the Colonnade, however, the
subject property is located directly across the street from an established single
family neighborhood to the east and existing or proposed medium density
residential uses to the north; that makes it more of a transitional site, and may
call for somewhat different treatment on certain points.
First, given the nearby residential areas, the developer's proposed all-office use
appears to be better for this particular site than the broader mix of office,
warehouse, and industrial uses that could be considered under the general terms
of the redevelopment plan. Because of the ample on-site parking, there should
be no need for the PUD permit to include any limit or prohibition on high parking
uses like medical offices. While still at a fairly high intensity, the proposed use
here is less dense than on the Colonnade site, which is also appropriate given
the greater distance from 1-394 and closer proximity to residential uses. The
developer has located the building well away from neighboring residences. The
previously discussed 48-foot buffer area along Turner's Crossroad provides
added separation from the single family homes, as does the proposed berm in
that buffer area. There are no driveways onto Turner's Crossroad or Laurel
Avenue. The building's loading/service dock area is located on Golden Hills
Drive, away from any residential uses and with little or no visibility from the main
through-street of Xenia A venue. Long-term continuation of appropriate site use
and improvements will be ensured by the provisions written into the PUD permit.
Second, there are several office-related services that would make appropriate
accessory uses within the building. Because of their limited patronage, such
services would be considered part of the "general office" building occupancy for
parking purposes. Acceptable accessory uses would include but not be limited to
snack bars or cafeterias, copying and collating centers, mailing centers, or on-
site day care; the developer has also mentioned a possible "locker room" area.
To keep their purely accessory status, these uses should not be advertised to the
general public. To help ensure an adequate customer base, however, the PUD
permit could allow advertisement by internal flyer to other Golden Hills Central
and West Area buildings with permission from those buildings' managers.
Third, the decked row of parking spaces facing the Turner's Crossroad homes
may cause some concern, but the developer appears to have provided for
screening of headlight glare and reduction of other potential nuisances such as
appearance and noise. An elevation sketch of the parking deck (attached),
proposes a five-foot-high buffer area berm along Turner's Crossroad. In addition,
the PUD application states that the upper level of the parking deck will be just ten
feet above grade, with a parapet extending another four feet above that. A four-
foot-high solid wall would be sufficient to screen most types of vehicle lights and
much of the vehicles themselves. Since deck height is not specified in any of the
plans or elevations likely to be attached as part of the finalPUD permit, it should
be included among the other permit terms. A minimum berm height might also
be specified (note that no such provision is currently included in the list of staff
recommendations).
Fourth, landscaping is always subject to final approval by the City's Building
Board of Review and must at least meet some very basic guidelines for number
and size of plantings. In the PUD process, the basics are often augmented by
6
.
.
.
..
specific requirements to enhance site appearance or provide added buffering.
Where quality of landscaping materials is particularly important, a landscaping
plan may also be subject to review by the City Forester. For this PUD, added
evergreen plantings might be desirable to screen surface parking along Laurel
Avenue. If the parking deck parapet along Laurel or Turner's is reduced to less
than four feet above deck level or is not constructed as a solid wall, added
evergreen plantings should be required for deck screening as well. Due to the"
long term importance of their function as screening elements, the City Forester
should be consulted as to appropriate varieties, sizes, and spacing, to best
ensure the longevity of any such plantings (note that no landscaping provision
other than for final BBR approval is currently included in the list of staff
recommendations).
At this time, the water feature is proposed as both a site amenity and an on-site
storm water ponding facility. The HRA is studying the feasibility of establishing a
regional ponding facility north of Laurel A venue as part of the proposed Xenia
Avenue extension, but is not expected to reach a final determination on the
matter before next February. The applicant has decided to go ahead with on-site
ponding now rather than waiting for the outcome of the feasibility study. Because
of the water feature's dual purpose, particular attention should be given to
landscaping and grading in that area of the site. Again, the BBR and/or City
Forester could provide helpful input even after the point of main PUD approval,
but the applicant should also supply some detailed visual perspectives of the
water amenity and its immediate surroundings as part of the required landscape
plan for General Plan consideration by the City Council.
Fifth, outside storage has historically been one of the blighting influences in the
Golden Hills area. In an all-office development of the quality proposed for this
site, outside storage is not likely to become a major issue; nevertheless, it
sometimes pays in the long run to be very clear about expectations up front. The
Colonnade PUD permit specifies that all trash must be kept within the building
except on the day of pickup; the same provision should be included in the permit
for this proposed PUD. Outside storage of such items as yard maintenance
equipment, corporate vehicles, or miscellaneous supplies should generally be
prohibited, but the City may want to allow the option of using a well-screened
portion of the under-deck parking area for such storage if a need should develop
(note that no such option is currently included in the staff recommendations).
Sixth, the # 9 bus passes this site on its way to and from downtown Minneapolis.
Also, plans for the Xenia Avenue extension include links to the City's pedestrian
and bicycle trail system. With such readily accessible alternative transportation
options, sidewalks through and around the site are both compatible and highly
desirable design elements. During development negotiations, staff stated that
the developer would be expected to provide sidewalks along all four streets; the
Colonnade PUD permit reflects this same expectation. The developer should
work with Engineering staff on exact locations and construction specifications.
Reasonable effort will be made to stay within public right-of-way, but some parts
of the sidewalks may end up inside the site boundaries; in that case, the
developer will be expected to provide public access easements - again, just as
the Colonnade developer was required to do. Once built, the City will assume
maintenance responsibilities for all four street sidewalks, The developer should
.
.
.
7
also provide at least one internal site sidewalk as a safe route for pedestrians
and cyclists from the building's main entrance out to the Xenia Avenue sidewalk.
In addition to sidewalks, two other alternative transportation facilities are
recommended. An official bus stop should be designated along Xenia Avenue,
which will become the transit route after the road is extended (buses now use
Turner's Crossroad and Golden Hills Drive). At minimum, this facility should -_
include a hard surface large enough to accommodate a full shelter without
impeding use of the adjacent public sidewalk. As with the sidewalks, reasonable
effort will be made to locate this facility within the proposed right-of-way, but part
or all of it may require an on-site easement. The developer should work with City
Engineering staff and Metro Transit staff on appropriate location, improvements,
and installation/maintenance responsibility. Less important but still desirable is a
permanent, secure bicycle parking area somewhere on the site (note that no
such provision is currently included in the list of staff recommendations). This
would be especially appropriate if the developer decides to provide the locker
room facility mentioned earlier. If outside the building, any bike facility location
should be identified on the site plan.
Finally, 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. The Colonnade site does meet those standards, and so should this
development.
Plat -- Since there is only one parcel of land being turned into one platted lot,
and the site is not on a county or state highway, nor is it impacted by shoreland,
floodplain, or wetland issues, the subdivision process is quite straightforward for
a change. Preliminary review by the Planning staff turns up only three minor
points. The final plat should reflect additional right-of-way to be dedicated for
Xenia Avenue and for the Turner's Crossroad cul-de-sac, both of which are
indicated by lines labeled "proposed right-of-way" on the preliminary plat; the
PUD permit will note that those dedicated rights-of-way are excluded from any
other terms of PUD approval. The final plat should also indicate the standard 10-
foot drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the site, as well as
any other easements the City Engineer may find necessary. The County
requires the PUD designation to be printed in a particular format, and the City
prefers that the plat name be the same as the PUD name; therefore, the formal
name of the final plat should be "Golden Hills Office Center P.U.D. No. 81".
Enaineerina/Construction Issues -- The comments of the Engineering
Department (see memo dated December 1,1998, attached) list 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. Engineering comments
note and in some cases expand upon certain points also raised in this main
report, such as sidewalks around the site perimeter, street dedication, on-site
storm water treatment, and landscaping elements in the Tumer's Crossroad cul-
de-sac right-of-way. To ensure that the site is properly integrated with the design
concept for the Xenia Avenue corridor and for Golden Hills traffic circulation in
general, the City Engineer has solicited additional comments from the consultant,
which may generate additional recommendations at a later date. The applicant
will also have to submit grading, erosion and sediment control plans to the
8
.
.
.
.
Bassett Creek Water Management Commission for review and approval prior to
any site construction. The applicant should address all points set out in the
Engineering review as part of the General Plan submittal or as otherwise
appropriate.
The Inspections Department comments (see memo dated November 17,1998,
attached) provide advance warning 0f key construction details, many of whtch 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. Inspections has
also noted the need for one outside review that the applicant will have to
undergo, in this case by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend approval of the preliminary design plan for proposed P.U.D.
No. 81, Golden Hills Office Center, subject to the following additional
recommendations:
1. permitted uses include general offices plus limited office support services like
cafeterias or snack bars, copying and collating centers, mail centers, or day
care - with no outside advertising allowed for the support services, in order to
maintain their classification as accessory uses;
2. a parking structure with a single deck above ground level parking is also
permitted, provided that the structure's fa~de complements the appearance
of the main bUilding and the deck parapet consists of a solid wall extending at
least four feet above the deck surface on the Tumer's Crossroad and Laurel
Avenue sides of the site;
3. permitted or required site improvements will be those specified in the
provisions of the PUD permit, and/or shown on one or more plans approved
as attachments to the permit;
4. landscaping plans are subject to final approval by the Building Board of
Review after completing the PUD process;
5. detailed visual perspectives of the water amenity/storm water ponding facility
and its immediate surroundings must be supplied as part of the required
landscape plan for General Plan consideration, and may be made part of the
PUD permit, subject to final approval of the Building Board of Review;
6. waste and recycling facilities are to be located entirely within the main
building, and no rubbish, recycling, or other disposable material or container
for holding such material is to be left outside except on the day of pickup;
7. yard maintenance equipment, corporate vehicles, miscellaneous supplies and
any other stored items are to be kept within the main building;
8. the developer must construct public sidewalks along all four streets around
the site, working with City Engineering staff on locations and specifications;
where any part of a street sidewalk is located within the site's boundaries, the
developer is to provide permanent easements for public access. Once built,
the City will assume maintenance responsibilities for all four street sidewalks;
.
9
9. the developer must also construct and maintain at least one internal site .
sidewalk, providing a safe path for pedestrians and cyclists from the
building's main entrance out to Xenia Avenue;
10. the developer must work with City Engineering staff and Metro Transit staff
on appropriate location, improvements, and installation/maintenance
responsibility for a bus stop facility along Xenia Avenue; if necessary, the
developer will provide an easement for an on-site location;
11. signage must meet appropriate standards established in City code;
12. the final plat must reflect additional right-of-way to be dedicated for Xenia
Avenue and for the Turner's Crossroad cul-de-sac;
13. the above-noted dedicated rights-of-way will be excluded from any other
terms of PUD approval as spelled out in the PUD permit;
14. the final plat must indicate standard 10-foot drainage and utility easements
around the site perimeter, as well as other easements the City Engineer may
find necessary;
15. the name of the final plat must be "Golden Hills Office Center P.U.D. No. 81";
16. the applicant is to address all requirements and comments set out in the
Engineering Department memo dated December 1, 1998; and
17. the applicant is to address all requirements and comments set out in the
Inspections Department memo dated November 17,1998.
.
Attachments:
· Location Map
· Preliminary Plan Set (oversized; may be enclosed separately)
· Comparison of Standards
· Elevation Sketch Of Loading Dock Area
· PUD Permit for Colonnade Site (oversized attachments omitted)
· Elevation Sketch Of Parking Deck
· Engineering Department Memo
· Inspections Department Memo
.
10
':'~..
~ 0 - b
-f f) .I9L,
C
.., -. :., It ~ .0'"
:J' C
CD ^ 01.
.., . , ~
CIJ or . 10
~. ~
(")'- .....lO. "
.., : . . ,
0 \
CIJ '42(1 , 5'
CIJ !.4 I , 5.':!"
.., 0,
0 '.
m .;4" '"
a. 1.\ . \ " ~ta.'
l'U"... '-
.,
..... Z 3 .\
~ ..
.. ., ..
I .. .~: 4 .'
:- ",0 ,0 ':,\
, .. h~ .r,
)
~ . \\
.~ .:,.. "".:JI.v.." ""'."""" IIi {.I...(' .~J 1f/..'A)
'" . ".."",'/ ,'&.,/ "'~. ".,....,~
-...
.' . PARK '01" ,
""
1-
,/u I
,'HZ,,' ...
C_)
Jfl.S ::0
-21
JOu-L- ~ .~ '.
u I ~ :::
~ l:l
;::!'" . () .~
..'
..... .....".,
'."....>..
.'
.:;,
..
~ -21
< ~ '"
y. -Zo
~~. =CD '" '"
~~ . a
1- ....
-- < :::c ~. - "
6 ... .. :!: ..,
.... 0 !" _.~. .--
:.... ~U' --
'" 4t.la
~ North ;;.
~ " .... -11
1'1 r-
I .,
r .., -- _'lOa.
()
() .., .1'
J .';)0
. ,,, . '!
....
..' n_':'_.&
.'
o
x
CD
:J
. iii"
~
() ~
~ CD
() :J
ffil
/ I~ ~I
o 'c!\ ~J
: ,:to ::tJ
ra :~ ~
~ I ~
. :... poorr~1
;g: 1
". I J
, I
I I
0' I
".~: ....1 GO' -
( 0 A or"'" ~
,~ ~
-f
C
"~856 JO'-' 'l;.J 3
-- - - - - --::.t"t: CD
"DC. NO. 53C3'Z I .., ~ ..,
.CIJ
(")
a
CIJ
CIJ
..,
o
.m
!a. ...
OJ
~
... .15
..
g d.;:. 4-
:"', -./ '.-
. -_. ... :~,.!,
.
....
...
""
~ ~ - 5
u~ ;~
.v.
HILLS
DRIVE
... ..'
~ ~I
.. :1
I~U71 ~
418D
2U'.~.J
SrATrr
~
.
'If
I
,
,
N'
... Q
t ..
~
U\
I,
I\a
\0
="
11\
'"
~
~
~;;
...
...
. ...
S'U. ,
15 " "
:....1- I
II ,
II '
II '::
,I . ,'"
~d '5.
"",I I
. .,'
I
5740 "
ISoS1S0: 100 ".: .SH ':iTH
." ..
..
-':"i__
1)',Il.p
::'15t I
0, E
..
..
- ",
_..~ ~.._--'~
I J
.L .._.. ___. _
~
I "
4-~
w,
I ~~
- S_~ a.
I-- ZOI
-..15-:.~ ~~.
-j - . --.-. -- ....
.. .;; c:
7 .,
, ... r ~
I - . ...
-IS
....o'l
, -c<~
<t-
o
~cr..
el'
_IA
el7
_I'
14'
or
.
:
8
.
"3 u'
'.
,
..
~
...
~- -/4
......
Il.. .....
() .,.'
c-, ·
...
II'
,"0'1 ~
.", ..
...
--~
RAOISSON ,~ '
',c.'/ ~"
'.S,' .))
J. !
~:..
'.,.~
,...
..
..
,~
c
, .
..
""
....
~
..
..
".1'
.
_ ..n __I
.....
r+
'''.''''A\
~
1-394
1-394
100
I' : iiOOCO' .
r.:~:~ .- .
CJ:" ~'"
("....
..
r,'......,
F
R.L.S.
54'" - !.un
~~. .
- .:. - - - - - ~:_JL _ _~_ 'J.'
.:. .""'6 ... .a".:t " - -
_..__.._--~
. . . a
..nu
_.~
.,.
COMPARISON OF STANDARDS:
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONING vs. GOLDEN HILLS OFFICE
CENTER PUD
I
~
B&P Office Zoning PUD Proposal
Permitted Uses: Offices (including Proposed Uses: Offices and office-
medical) and office-accessory. accessory
Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Lot Size:
1 Acre Okay - (Approx. 7.5 acres net)
Minimum Setbacks: Proposed Setbacks:
Street: Street:
35 Feet All Structures, Plus Laurel Okay
5 Feet Per Story Over 3 Turner's - Small Deck variance
(50 ft. for 6-story office bldg.) at Future Cul-de-Sac
Xenia Okay
G.H. Drive Okay Except Maybe
Dock Retaining Wall
35 Feet All Surface Laurel Okay
Parking/Driveways Turner's Okay Except at Future
Cul-de-Sac
Xenia - Parking at 20 Ft.,
Ramp Down Varies to 13 Ft
(may be below-grade)
G.H. Drive - Parking at 25 Ft.,
Side & Rear: Side & Rear:
NA - Streets on all sides
Minimum Lot Coverage: Proposed Lot Coverage:
40 Percent - Main Building Main Building - Under Limit at 10%
20 Percent - ParkinQ Structure ParkinQ Deck - Over Limit at 22%
Maximum Building Height: Proposed Building Height:
3 Stories By Right; Taller Allowed Six Stories Plus Underground
With Added Limitations Parking/Storage - Okay
Minimum Loading Areas: Proposed Loading Areas:
"Adequate" For Each Business in Okay By Developer's Interpretation
the Development of "Adequate"
Minimum Parking Spaces: Proposed Parking Spaces:
Office - 1 Per 250 SF Okay For 180,000 SF Building as
Proposed - (1 Per 208 SF)
.
.
.
"\
~
~~
~~ \ ~~
~'\, \~in
, 10'
~' \~~
~ "," \-1 ~
~ ~--;
N' " :
--l I
'" I I
~I
\ i5' I
~..... IO~1
--L.liX I
,,;' \~O I
:'\f ~; ~ I
\.'" ij=' I
I ,"" ~:z:,
, f.l; Q.n I I -.: ,,1' - - T :
.,.. ::~,\~ ~ '~r .;' ~ ,,1' \:
,'..1 ->.~, ~ <[ \ I
f....... ~.ffi-f ? rilf'.":" :\ --~ :
;:1::. ..,..~.::::tJ, /1':' I ~ \ i
.~ ..: '" ~ ___.1,:
,:,:;.~~ ~ II
" ~~_-11
1:;r(r1r~ \[ '" ,,\ I
.:. ;~:J~ .~, ; ~~ ).:;!1'
,-\J"'r ~ I ----,
~ I
i;ir',: :'~.,;1. J ~ ~ /['..' ,', ~ I
" :,,,'1j~J L, ~)-'~. 1"- I
,,', r~(, "t'\ ~~~ - - - -I:
,,<"':',':','.~I . 'I~: ',.' I ~t' ::
J'U'l 'II. U ,).. 'I
\' ~:'t- II 10.: I' ---~:
. q?~ ~ . "..~ ::
" ,.\:~?r~ ~ .I> .:. ~~ _ --J :
:.... ., ;'.' :,.'" ~ I h-~ .' . " ,\- I I
.;':./:;. ~,,:~ >. ;'" ~~ ~l
~ "" --, I
'}.,l I I
I I
~1' I I
I~ __.J I
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
f
I
_..d"ll~~f{\~ Y
. 'Ii"'"
~.
.
~~.,; ~/fA t-
r-;1?f..~
'n ".
~~~t
~m.{ ~~ ).1
: 1'''' ~ I ~...RI I
f':':;'::i':~> j ~fll.rr: , I
of:' \' I 'vI ,. I
~.':.:.~' ,..a::'\\~ '.::,... ltL",'
.... t '"::5-..',)..,-, ~
., 'r~J.1 ~ I?:',:,:'
.
..
:.;' ~9J ....
, 'R.~
~ . . ~ ."
: I . ~,,:,'::.Jj:...
.
\'. :.; ~':'>.::::,~:r
~~..: ~~;~~' ~ ~~
:: ',';l ".,,:: r
0_.... ... .
. .
!,'......
.....
~
~
,
.:'.
P.U.D. #53
City Council Approval: December 16, 1986
.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
USE PERMIT
FOR
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NAME:
ADDRESS:
The Colonnade
5500 - 5600 Wayzata Boulevard and 700 Turners Crossroad
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1, 2,3 and 4, Block 1, The Colonnade P.U.D. No. 53
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
Trammell Crow Company
8400 Normandale Lake Blvd., #375
OWNERS:
Bloomington, MN 55437
The Colonade Limited Partnership
8400 Normandale Lake Blvd., #375
Bloomington, MN 55437
and
.
ZONING DISTRICT:
PERMITTED USES:
Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Commercial and Light Industrial
Uses permitted in this Planned Unit Development are an
office building, hotel and shared parking ramp.
COMPONENTS:
A. Land Use Component:
~ 1. Land uses within P.U.D. 53 shall be as follows:
a) An office building 15 stories in height comprising 409,000
square feet of gross office space and 360,000 square feet
of leasable office space.
b) A suite hotel with minimal conference and restaurant
facilities comprising up to approximately 250 suites.
.
.
.
.
- 2 -
c) A five-level parking ramp 52 feet in height providing 1124
parking spaces with potential for addition of a sixth level
providing an additional 225 to 230 parking spaces for a
total of approximately 1350 parking spaces.
d) Retail and service uses compatible with the office and
hotel uses. Retail and service uses shall be scaled to
accommodate the office and hotel clientele. Uses may
include, but shall not be limited to, the following: Day
care, health club, restaurants, cafeteria, postal
substation, banking facilities, car wash, convenience
store, travel agency, secretarial service, barber shop,
beauty shop and tanning booth.
e) Potential interim use of the hotel site for surface parking.
2. The Concept Landscape Site Plan, prepared by Arteka Landscape Architects/
Contractors, dated February 20, 1986, shall be revised to conform to
the Overall Site Plan, Sheet No. C 1.1, prepared by Wilson/ Jenkins and
Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1986, and shall be subject to the
approval of the City Building Inspector. Landscaping, as shown on the
approved Concept Landscape Site Plan, shall be completed within 210
days following completion and occupancy of buildings.
'.
. ..
3. Landscaping of the median in Xenia Avenue South in accordance with the
Concept Landscape Site Plan prepared by Arteka Landscape Architects/
Contractors, dated February 20, 1986, shall be optional subject to the
final decision of the office building developer. If the office building
developer elects to landscape the median, it shall be the responsibility
of the developer to obtain approval from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) for the landscaping, to coordinate the landscap-
ing with MnDOT median construction, to install landscaping materials,
and to maintain the median landscaping. If the median is landscaped,
the office building developer shall provide a sprinkler service connec-
tion for maintenance of the landscaping.
4. The foundation for the parking ramp shall be constructed in such a manner
as to accommodate future addition of another level of parking if required.
5. The office building developer shall be responsible for site preparation,
including demolition and grading, of the entire PUD site, including the
hotel site, prior to construction.
6. Special precautions shall be taken during and after construction to
protect against erosion, silting, excessive grading, or any other
conditions detrimental to the area. Grading and excavation for footings
and other construction needs shall be done in an manner so as to avoid
dirt storage, disturbing of trees, or other activities beyond the
prescribed construction limits.
, .
- 3 -
B. Circulation Component:
1. The office building developer shall be responsible for installation of 4It
sidewalks on the office, parking ramp, and common entrance sites and
adjacent street right-of-way as shown on the Overall Site Plan, Sheet
No. C 1.1, prepared by Wilson/Jenkins and Associates, Inc., dated
October 14, 1986. The hotel developer shall be responsible for instal-
lation of sidewalks on the hotel site and adjacent street right-of-way
as required.
2. The City of Golden Valley shall maintain sidewalks wholly or partially
on street right-of-way along Xenia Avenue South, Turners Crossroad, and
the frontage road. The office building owner shall maintain all
sidewalk located entirely on private property on the office, parking
ramp, and common entrance sites. The hotel owner shall maintain all
sidewalk located entirely on private property on the hotel site.
3. All green areas adjacent to parking and access areas shall be pro-
tected by concrete curb.
4. The developers shall participate in transit planning for the 1-394
corridor.
C. Subdivision Component:
1. Sidewalk easements shall be provided by separate instrument for sidewalks
partially on street right-of-way and partially on private property along ~
Xenia Avenue South, Turners Crossroad, and the frontage road. ..,
.
.
D. Services and Facilities Component:
1. All utilities shall be underground.
2. All mechanicals on roof or ground shall be screened with Inspection.
Department approval.
3. The structure and grading shall meet all the requirements of the Golden
Valley Fire Marshal, Engineering Department and Sanitarian.
4. All waste generated by the occupancy shall be stared internally until
removed from the premises.
E. Construction Order Component:
1. A bond running in favor of the City of Golden Valley as obligee in an
amount to be determined by the City Engineering Department shall be
provided for all bituminous surfacing and concrete walk as indicated on
the Overall Site Plan, Sheet No. C 1.1, prepared by Wilson/Jenkins and
Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1986. The bond shall be executed
and delivered to the Golden Valley Inspection Department prior to
issuance of building permits.
4It
.
.
.
.'
- 4 -
'"
/
- 5 -
to conform to the above Overall Site Plan, Sheet No. C 1.1,
prepared by Wilson/Jenkins and Associates, Inc., dated
October 14, 1986.
It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City
Council approval granted on December 16, 1986 relative to Planned Unit
Development #53.
.
THE COLONADE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
BY:
Crow-Colonade, Inc.
Its Managing General Partner
WITNESS:~(~ Lj,'~'-cd.z.~ BY:
.:I ./
O.,,,-_.U I-f {U7
:r1"!J . I/?
1/zl/t7
DATE:
GOLDEN VALLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
-~~.
.
WITNESS:
~.~ '-17 a.ll.y .
1MCi/n '-/J? [4.1/fU.! AND: .
Wil iam S.
BY:
WITNESS:
DA TE : May 4,
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
. WITNESS:~:S~",?,
City Manager
WITNESS: ,,~.q d -- V P'.<_ ~ _~ BY:
WARNING: This permit does not exempt you from all other City Code provisions, .
regulations and ordinances.
.
.'
.
..
..
p:I:
o..u ~
:J:
~-
~In
01
~~
..J UI
10
!OQ
Ili~
~ol
~m
~~
O\)
UI
Z
:J
~,., .,
f"o 'r"1\1 "'"
MEMORANDUM
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1998
TO: MARK GRIMES
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
FROM: JEFF OLIVER, P.E. A
CITY ENGINEER ~()
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW: P.U.D. 81, GOLDEN HILLS
OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
Engineering staff has reviewed the plans for the proposed P.U.D. #81, Golden Hills
Office Center. This proposed development is located north of Golden Hills Drive, east
of Xenia Avenue and south of Laurel Avenue. The following comments are based upon
this staff review.
SITE PLAN:
1) A copy of this site plan has been forwarded to S.E.H., the City's consulting engineer
on the proposed Xenia Avenue extension project for review and comment. This
review will be based upon the proposed plans for Xenia Avenue, and for overall site
circulation and access as it relates to the Golden Hills redevelopment area. A copy
of the S.E.H. review will be forwarded to you when it is received.
2) The site access onto Xenia Avenue must be revised to be a right in/right out access.
This is necessary because the proposed plans for Xenia Avenue indicate that a
raised median will be placed in the center of Xenia Avenue as part of the project.
3) The preliminary plat includes the dedication of additional street right-of-way on Xenia
Avenue for the proposed upgrading. In addition, right-of-way has been provided in
the southeast corner of the site for the proposed cul-de-sac on Turner's Crossroads.
The dedication of the right-of-way in these locations is acceptable as shown.
4) There is no proposed access onto Laurel Avenue or Turner's Crossroads shown on
these plans.
.
.
5) The developer should add six-foot wide concrete sidewalks along the Xenia Avenue
and Golden Hills Drive frontages of the development. The Xenia Avenue Advisory
Committee is reviewing installation of additional sidewalks along Laurel Avenue and
Turner's Crossroad. The City reserves the right to require additional sidewalk
construction based upon the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and the .
City Council.
\\GV _FS 1 \SYS\GROUPS\ENG\ WORD\JEFF\Developments\UnitedProperties\PrelimReview.doc
.
.
.
PRELIMINARY GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN:
1) This proposed project is within the Sweeney Lake district of the Bassett Creek
watershed. The project will also be subject to the requirements of the Bassett Creek
Water Management Commission (BCWMC) Water Quality Policy. Therefore, a
permit from the BCWMC will be required prior to beginning any work on site. '.
2) The proposed Xenia Avenue Extension project includes construction of a regional
storm water pond that will serve this development. When constructed the pond will
satisfy the BCWMC water quality and quantity requirements for the site. However,
the developers have indicated that they would like to proceed with this project prior
to City Council's review and approval of the Xenia Avenue project. In order to meet
the developer's schedule, the plans submitted for review include water quality and
rate control ponding on-site.
3) The calculations submitted the developer's engineer indicate that the rate control
requirements can be met as proposed. In addition, water quality requirements for
the majority of the site are met with the on-site pond. However, elevation constraints
of the storm sewer adjacent to the site make draining the entire site through the
proposed pond impossible. In order to provide some water quality treatment the
developer has proposed installing a "Stormceptor", or similar device, in the
northwest portion of the site. A "Stormceptor" is a manhole structure that effectively
removes solids and floatable materials from storm water runoff. However,
"Stormceptors" and similar devices have not proven to be effective at removing
phosphorus (20-30% removal) from runoff when compared to a storm water pond
(60-70% removal). Given the physical constraints on site, installation of the
"Stormceptor" device is viewed as an acceptable measure for water quality
treatment rather than discharging this portion of the site directly into the storm sewer
system without any water quality treatment.
4) Installation of the "Stormceptor" will be required unless the proposed pond
associated with the Xenia Avenue extension is approved by the City Council and the
BCWMC prior to construction of the structure. The proposed storm sewer in the
northwest corner of the site would then connect directly into the existing storm
sewer, with water quality treatment provided in the Xenia Avenue pond. Staff has
reviewed the proposed plan under this scenario and finds it acceptable as submitted.
..
5) The grading plan indicates construction of a landscape berm within the right-of-way
for the proposed cul-de-sac on Turner's Crossroad. This berm must be kept out of
the Turner's Crossroad right-of-way.
6) The developer should attempt to further maximize the distance between the inlet and
outlet of the proposed pond to prevent short-circuiting.
7) Riprap must be shown on the storm sewer discharge into the pond.
\\GV _FS 1 \sYS\GROUPS\ENG\ WORD\IEFF\Developments\UnitedProperties\PrelimReview.doc
8) A note must be added to this plan discussing sweeping of tracked materials off of .
adjacent streets. The developer must sweep at least once a day, or more often as
directed by the City. Should the developers contractor fail to perform ordered
sweeping within 24 hours of receiving and order, the City reserves the right to
perform the street cleaning and bill all associated costs to the contractor.
Engineering staff recommends approval of the proposed P.U.D. #81, Golden Hills Office
Development subject to the contents of this review. The developer should address the
comments contained in this memo in the next plan submittal. .
C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Gary Johnson, Building Official
.
..
.
\\GV]S 1 \SYS\GROUPS\ENG\ WORD\JEFF\Developments\UnitedProperties\PrelimReview.doc
.
.
.
..
DATE: November 17,1998
TO: Mark Grimes,
Director of Planning and Development
FROM: Gary F. Johnson, Building Official
SUBJECT: Review of Preliminary Plans of Golden Valley Office Center at
Turners Crossroad and Golden Hills Drive (address is yet to be
determined). (Note: 800 Turner's Crossroad cannot be used)
Must submit application for Board of Building Review.
Hydrant locations must be approved before issuance of building
permit.
P.1. V. required.
Building must be built to the '97 V.F.C., '97 V.B.C., '94 V.M.C.
and the MN State Plumbing Code.
Signage shall be to the City Ordinance.
Plans must be submitted to the Metropolitan Waste Commission to
determine SAC units before issuance of permit.
List of special inspectors must be submitted to the City before
issuance of permit.
Submit a code analysis when applying for a permit.
..
Corridor must continue to both qualifying enclosed stairs on all
typical floor plans.
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
. .
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
December 8, 1998
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Informal Public Hearing - Amendment (No.1) to the Preliminary
Design Plan for Room and Board, P.U.D. No. 79, (4600.4650, and
4680 Olson Memorial Highway) -- John and Martha Gabbert,
Applicants
.
.
.
BACKGROUND
Room and Board (R & B), represented by architect Daryl Fortier, has requested
an amendment to PUD No. 79. This amendment would allow for the construdion
of office and warehouse space to be added to their headquarters at 4600 Olson
Memorial Highway. As you will recall, R & B was before the Planning
Commission and City Council earlier in 1998. In fad, the PUD permit for PUD No.
79 was given final approval by the City Council on September 1, 1998. This
permit allows R & B to use the property for office, warehouse and outlet store
space. The PUD permit also permits the entire site to be consolidated into one
lot. There is currently 165,000 sq.ft. of building space on the site in what were
three buildings that have been physically connected.
The proposal is to add 56,300 sq.ft. of warehouse space onto the rear of the old
4650 Olson Memorial Highway building and to add 13,500 sq.ft. of office space
between the 4650 and 4600 Olson Memorial Highway buildings. Along with the
additional 69,700 sq.ft. of building space, R & 8 will provide on-site ponding for
both water quality and quantity purposes and parking. At the time the Preliminary
Design Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission, R & 8 did submit a
future development plan for the property. This plan did indicate that there was a
plan for additional warehouse and office space. However, the plans at that time
were not definite so they could not be included in the original PUD permit.
The R & 8 PUD was determined to be consistent with both the City's
Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map as part of the approval of PUD No. 79
in September 1998. The additions that are proposed by R & B to the site remain
consistent with the Industrial orientation of the area.
There are two stages of approval for all PUD proposals, including amendments to
an existing PUD. This is the first, or Preliminary Design Plan stage. The purpose
of this state is two-fold: to give broad concept approval of the proposal, and to call
out issues that must be addressed in detail as the proposal moves ahead to the
General Plan stage. Preliminary Plan approval does not guarantee that a
.
proposal will become reality. It gives an applicant some assurance of being on
the right track and some guidance in how to proceed. In the case of the Planning
Commission in particular, the limitations of Preliminary Plan approval are clearly
laid out. CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 6D provides that:
The Planning Commission's consideration of the application shall be
limited to a determination of whether the application constitutes an '. .
appropriate land use under the general principals and standards
adhered to in the City and, if necessary, its report shall include
recommended changes in the land use planned by the applicant so
as to conform the application or recommend approval subject to
certain conditions or modifications.
.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The existing R & B PUD No. 79 is located on a site that is approximately 16.5
acres in area. (When the Planning Commission earlier this year recommended
the PUD for approval, the site was 12.7 acres in area. It was determined prior to
the filing of the final plat that R & B actually owns the 4 acres to the north of the
4600 and 4650 buildings. This property is encumbered by an easement to the
railroad. It was included in the PUD plat because the parcel could not be left by
itself.) The existing PUD permit allows R & B to use the site and buildings for
office, warehouse and outlet sales purposes. There is a total of 165,000 sq.ft. of
building space on the site. About 152,000 sq.ft. is warehouse or outlet sales with
the remainder being office space. The site currently has 247 parking spaces.
However, the approved site plan indicates that up to 586 spaces can be
accommodated on the site. Therefore, there are 360 "proof of parking" spaces.
R & B believes that the 247 spaces are more than adequate for their needs due to
the small number of warehouse employees.
The amended PUD would allow the about 69,000 sq.ft. of additional single story
building space on the site. About 56,300 sq.ft. would beiwarehouse and 13,400
sq.ft. would be for offices. This is illustrated on the attached site plan prepared by
Fortier and Associates and dated 9/8/98 (Sheet A-1). The total building area for
the site, after the amended PUD would be approved, is approximately 235,000
sq.ft. broken down as follows: Warehouse - 208,000 sq.ft.; Office _ 30,000
sq.ft.; and Outlet sales - 20,000 sq.ft.
The additional 69,000 sq.ft. of space was discussed with R & B at the time the
preliminary design plan was discussed for the original PUD. Mr. Fortier indicated
to the.City that it would be likely that R & B would return to the City soon to amend
the PUD for more space. The current plan is similar to the plan submitted to the
Planning Commission in early 1998 showing the next phase of development for
the site.
Staff believes that the proposal makes sense from a land use point of view. The
added space to the campus is needed for the company's growth. The site
appears to be large enough to handle the expansion with one exception _
parking. This was also discussed with the original PUD when R & B was allowed
to show 360 "Proof of parking" spaces. The applicant believes that the 247
spaces on the site handle the demand. Experience shows the City that the 247
spaces, with the existing site, are more than adequate to meet their needs. It
seems very unlikely that any of the "proof of parking" spaces would have to be
.
2
.
built. With the proposed 69,000 sq.ft. of new space, R & 8 would like to have a
total of 220 spaces serve the new, fully developed site with 235,000 sq.ft. of
building area. They are proposing to provide 180 "proof of parking" spaces as
shown on the Sheet A-2 (Parking Assessment). This "proof of parking" area is
indicated north of the cell tower site, north and east of the 4600 building, and in
front of the 4650 and 4680 building.
. "
Mr. Fortier has written a letter to me dated September 21, 1998, which explains
their request for fewer parking spaces. He argues that the high rack warehouse
storage requires few parking spaces due to the few employees that are needed to
operate the warehouse. He states in the letter that R & 8 believe that the 400
parking spaces would be more than adequate when the building is sold due to the
nature of the warehouse space. They believe that a future user would use the
warehouse space in a similar manner. He also submitted a comparison of Golden
Valley parking requirements with other surrounding communities. This
comparison indicates that the Golden Valley's parking requirement for warehouse
space is quite high.
Mr. Fortier indicates that there will be 150 persons working on the premises. The
220 spaces would be more than adequate to handle the employee and visitor
load. During the weekend when there are outlet sales, the majority of the
employees are not working so there is more than adequate parking for customers.
City Engineer Oliver has reviewed the plans for on-site ponding for water quality
and quantity purposes. His memo is attached. The proposed pond is located on
the north end of the site on the property where there is an easement to the
railroad. The owner has indicated that the railroad will permit the pond over this
easement. The City will need to see proof of this permission to allow the pond on
the railroad easement. Mr. Oliver has given preliminary approval to the storm
water plan. Additional details will have to be provided prior to final approval of the
amended PUD.
There is a slight change in the location of the some of the parking due to the new
storm water pond location. The original site plan indicated that there was parking
at the north end of the site adjacent to the railroad property. R & 8 is now
proposing that the storm water pond be in this location which eliminates some
parking. This appears to be a good place for the pond due to the elevation of the
area.
Access to and around the site appears to be adequate. The fire lane around the
building will be improved as required by the Fire Chief. (The original PUD permit
stated that the fire lane should have been paved by November 1998. This has
not been done due to requirements of the watershed district. The fire lane will be
paved as soon as adequate area for ponding on the site is established.)
.
..
ELIGIBILITY OF APPLICATIONS
PUD's are regulated under City Code Sec. 11.55. Four subdivisions of that
section come into play when screening PUD applications for eligibility. Each is
discussed below. After considering the proposed R & 8 application for a PUD
amendment in view of all four subdivision, staff finds the proposal is eligible as a
PUD amendment and may enter the Preliminary Plan stage of application.
.
3
.
PUD Definition
PUD's are defined in CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 2. The proposed amendment clearly
meets the terms of Subd. 2.(A)(1 and 2), which allows PUD's consisting of
developments having two or more principal uses on a single parcel of land or two
or more principal structures on a single parcel of land. The PUD has two
separate bUildings on one lot. Also, the outlet sales, office, warehousing, and __
design studios constitute multiple uses on one lot.
.
PUD Purpose and Intent
Applications must also meet the general purpose and intent of PUD's as set out in
CC Sec. 11.55, Subd. 1. This states the PUD process is designed for use in
situations "where designation of a single use zoning district or application of
standard zoning provisions are too rigid for practical application." In this case, the
use of this property for a permanent retail outlet store is not permitted in the
Industrial Zoning District. The other uses that exist or are proposed by R & 8 are
permitted uses in the Zoning District.
Standards and Criteria for PUD's
City Code establishes basic requirements for different types of PUD's in Sec.
11.55, Subd. 5. Industrial and business uses are covered in Subd. 5(C.). The list
is as follows with staff comment:
1. The tract shall have not less than 100 feet of frontage on a public street _
- This development has over 300 feet of frontage along the OMH north
frontage road.
2. The development must be served by public utilities and fire hydrants as
approved by City staff -- This property is already properly served. The
Engineering Department and Fire Department recommended approval of the
site as part of the original PUD. The Fire Department has requested that the
fire lane along the north and east side of the 4600 building be paved after
approval by the watershed district.
3. The surface drainage system shall be constructed according to plans
approved by the City Engineer - (Please refer to the attached memo from
City Engineer Jeff Oliver.)
4. The entire site will be utilized for the PUD -- R & 8 intends to utilize the
entire site for the PUD.
5. The off-street parking spaces shall be painted on the surfaced area
according to a plan approved by the City Council - The General Plan will
indicate the location of all parking spaces. These spaces Will be properly
marked.
6. Provisions shall be made for off-street loading and not interfere. with
other designated uses - The plan indicates that there are 15 loading docks
provided. This exceeds the code requirement. The loading docks appear to
be in locations that do not interfere with other activities on site. Loading docks
are an important part of this PUD since this is primarily a warehouse that
accepts and makes deliveries. At the current time, there are 8 loading docks
on site, while 12 are required.
.
4
.
7. Private roadways in the project shall be constructed according to a plan
approved by the City Engineer as to type anQ location - The City
Engineer will review all plans to insure that they are built to a sufficient
standard. This is particularly important because of anticipated truck traffic
throughout the site. The City also wants a priv~te road system that can
accept large emergency vehicles.
8. Landscaping shall be provided according to a plan to be approved by
the City Council -- A landscape plan must be provided as part of the General
Plan of approval. There is currently landscaping on the site. This landscaping
will remain except where there would be new buildings. A landscape plan is
required with the General Plan of Development for all future stages. This
landscape plan will also have to be approved by the Building Board of Review.
..
Completeness of Application
The final screening of any PUD application for eligibility purposes is based on CC
Sec. 11.55, Subd. 6(A), which establishes the various components that must be
submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan stage. Staff believes that all
components are suitably complete.
.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The types of issues that come up in connection with PUD applications can vary
based on the PUD type and specific characteristics of eaCh PUD. In this case
staff has identified several areas of concern that should be considered. These
areas are addressed in the following paragraphs:
.
Zonina
The "Purpose and Intent" paragraph of the City's PUD requirements makes it
clear that a major intent of the PUD process is to allow design flexibility by
permitting variances for uses, setbacks, height, parking other regulations. In the
case of the R & B proposal, the zoning of the property is Industrial. The uses
proposed by the amendment are permitted uses within the industrial Zoning
District. The original PUD permit allows the operation of the outlet store on
weekends only.
The Industrial section of the Zoning Code requires that no more than 50% of the
site may be covered with building. After this amendment is approved, 42% of the
lot would be covered with buildings.
In general, the front and side yard setbacks appear to be maintained with the
exception of the west property line where the existing curb appears to be 7 or 8 ft.
from the property line rather than the required 10 ft. This "variance" was accepted
as part of the original PUD. The proposed building additions will each exceed
building setback requirements for the Industrial zoning district.
All new parking and driveway areas shall be paved and have concrete curb and
gutter. Staff will continue to recommend that when existing parking lots that do
not have curb and gutter are upgraded the upgrading shall include concrete curb
and gutter.
5
.
The proposed development will have a total of 235,OOO-sq. ft. of building space.
Based on current City requirement of 1 space for each 250-sq. ft. of office space
and 1 space for each 500-sq. ft. of warehouse space, a total of 539 spaces are
required. R & B is proposing 400 spaces (220 built and 180 "proof of parking").
Therefore, the site will be short a total of 139 spaces. (See Sheet A-2) R & B has
submitted information indicating that they believe that the City's parking
requirement is excessive for their specific development. With the additional .' .
building space on the site, R & B could only meet the parking requirements with
expensive structured parking.
Enaineerina/Construction Issues
The City Engineer has prepared the attached memo for your review. City
Engineer Oliver agrees with the storm water management concept plan submitted
by the engineer for R & B. He will have to see greater detail and the plan must be
submitted to the Bassett Creek Water Management Organization (watershed) for
final approval.
The Building Departments has not yet reviewed the plans for expansion. When
the building plans get more specific, the plans will be sent to that department for
review and comment.
R & B will be responsible for the construction of a paved fire road with concrete
curb and gutter around the perimeter of the site as shown on the site plan. This
road must be completed in a timely manner and in conformance with City and
watershed district approval.
.
.'
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for the first
amendment to Room and Board, PUD No. 79 subject to the following
recommendations:
1. All requirements of the PUD Permit for PUD No. 79 remain in full force
except as noted in these recommendations.
2. The site plan prepared by Fortier and Associates, marked plan sheet A-1 and
dated 9/8/98 be made a part of this plan and replace the site plan approved
as part of the original PUD.
3. As indicated on the Parking Assessment plan sheet A-2 prepared by Fortier
and Associates and dated 9/8/98, 220 parking spaces shall be constructed.
There shall be 180 "proof of parking" spaces as outlined on this plan sheet.
These spaces must be constructed if the Chief of Fire and Inspections
spaces are needed to meet parking demand on the site determines it.
4. The fire lane around the site as indicated on the A-1 site plan shall be paved
and have concrete curb and gutter. It shall be completed as soon as the
Bassett Creek Water Management Commission and City Engineer give
approval to its construction.
5. The storm water management system proposed for the site shall meet the
requirements of the Bassett Creek Water Management Organization and the
City Engineer.
.
6
.
.
.
Attachments:
· Location Map
· Narrative from Daryl Fortier dated September 21,1998
· Room and Board PUD Permit
· Memo from Jeff Oliver dated December 9,1998
· Oversized plans
..
.
7
.
+-
-oJ
I
I
II ~ J
a:
-..
-
;;:
J:
1::
o
Z
. ~.~
L~~~' , t
; -s.. ~~~
; ~ 'G_ ~ o-
j ....0. 'e
~'A ~
0,
C
!
!
~f 0 ~
~ I .t\.
: ~'
-r'tlt-,- ^ ~
." ~,#v.~
~. ~ e,V <..~ ~i'
O c1l ~e~
. ~ ~ ".
O~ ~ ~
~ 11(;.' ",0
(l" ~ ~'"
~oo ~~
, tL' ~ro
"',
~',.~
...
'", I d ..,. ~"I.
.,.... ..wt
..
.t
~
J:
C)
~
0,.
I
~
III
&
10
'"
. H
r-
I
I
I
.
"".IN
~
":.f3.
'\
.. '7'
... .
... ....
~ ~
~ "
.....,.....
.
-f
Ji
.
",N...
..
,
,
September 21, 1998
-
.
Mr. Mark Grimes
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley,.MN 55427
FORTIER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIG;
.' .
RE:
Comm:
ROOM & BOARD PUD AMENDMENT
98-16
Dear Mr. Grimes:
As we previously mentioned, Room & Board is concerned about the off-street parking ratio
required for warehousing. While we appreciate that parking need only be provided for actual need
and the remaining parking may be designated "proof of parking" and may never be built, the land
so utilized is considerable. When added to stonnwater ponding requirements, the developable
building area is significantly reduced.
.
We believe the ratio in Golden Valley is very much in excess ofwhat Room & Board would ever
require. Further, the requirements are well in excess of all surrounding communities (see
attached worksheet). We would feel very comfortable accepting the average requirements of the
surrounding communities as providing reasonable parking for this facility...even in the event of
sale to new ownership.
It is our believe. that warehousing utilizing racked storage will never generate the need for parking
as per the current ordinance. Further, we do not believe additional parking is required for support
spaces such as exercise, lunch and toilet rooms as the individuals using these spaces are already
accommodated with appropriate parking based on their primary use of space.
We are therefore seeking a variance to the parking requirements for warehousing from 1/500 sf. to
1/1500 sf. and no additional parking for support spaces.
Please review and advise of any questions or need for additional information.
.
.
.
. _0,..
. .. -€~l~J~:'-
~-'_:~.-':-".-
-. -.~.
cc: Martha Gabbert
. encl: Parking ratio worksheet
408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 .(612) 593-1255
'~~~,J.~~:-"_ .:.~ -.
.
.
September 21t 1998
~
-
FORTIER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIC
TO:
FROM:
MARK GRIMES
DARYL FORTIER
RE: ROOM & BOARD PARKING STANDARDS
. .
As we can see, Golden Valleyts parking requirement is about twice the average surrounding
community and greatly exceeds them all We therefore seek a variance to allow warehouse
parking at a ratio of 1/1500. This would result in a total of 264 parking spaces and matches St
Louis Park: and Crystal requirements.
408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 (612) 593-1255
"
.
.
.
Room and Board PUD No. 79
Citv Council Aporoval: September 1, 1998
City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
Use Permit
for
Planned Unit Development
Project Name: Room and Board, P,U.D. No. 79
Location: 4600 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Legal Description: Room and Board Addition, PUD No. 79
Applicant: John and Martha Gabbert
Address: 4600 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Owner: John and Martha Gabbert
Address: 4600 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Zoning District:
Industrial
Permitted Uses:
Development shalf be limited to office, warehouse and outlet
retail sales in a manner outlined in this permit.
Components:
A. Land Use ComDonent:
1. Allowed uses within the three buildings at 4600, 4650, and 4680 Olson Memorial
Highway are office, warehouse and outlet retail sales. The site plan prepared by
Fortier and Associates, Inc. and dated 3/17/98 shalf become a part of this permit.
2. Outlet retail sales shalf be limited to the 4680 building and can occur only on
Saturday and Sunday. The sales shalf be limited to overstock and "scratch and
dent" items from Room and Board stores. During the remainder of the week, the
4680 building may only be used for warehouse purposes.
3. A final plat of the lot consolidation shalf be filed with the County. The plat must
have "P.U.D. No. 79" in its title.
Room and Board, PUD No. 79
. B. Construction
1 . A fire lane around the 4600 building must be paved with bituminous curb and
gutter by November 1, 1998. When a future PUD amendment is approveq. or by
September 1, 1999, the fire lane shall be constructed with concrete curb and
gutter.
Page Two
2. All signs must meet the requirements for the Industrial Zoning District. There will
be no signs that refer to the outlet store other than a small sign on the door and a
directional sign near the street. No sign indicating an outlet store may be visible
from Olson Memorial Highway.
3. Additional parking may be required if there is more building added to the campus.
No additional building is permitted with this PUD permit. The site plan, dated
3/17/98, indicates 586 parking spaces; 247 are now built. The applicant will need
to construct additional parking if the City determines additional spaces are
needed, up to 360 spaces. However, additional development on the campus that
may be permitted with future PUD amendments may require additional parking.
Any new parking areas shall be paved with concrete curb and gutter.
4. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the City's surface water management
. plan prior to the construction of any new buildings or parking areas on the site.
5. Except as otherwise specified in the conditions of the General Plan approval, all
phases of site development shall be subject to the standards, approvals, fees, and
other requirements that would arise in connection with a similar project outside a
PUD.
6. The uses on the site shall meet all applicable City, State and Federal standards.
7. Any new development or uses on the site shall require an amended PUD.
c. Utilities and Gradina
1. Before grading or utility permits are issued, the developer shall provide the City with
acceptable plans, information, and other submittals as identified by the City
Engineer.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
Room and Board, PUD No. 79
D. Circulation Comoonent:
Page Three
1 Fire lanes shall be established and posted along the private road system as
required by the Public Safety Department and in conformity with City Cod.e ~ection
9.12.
It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City Council
approval granted on September 1, 1998. Any changes to the P.U.D. Permit for Room
and Board, P.U.D. No. 79 shall require an amendment.
Witness:
V4V~
Witness:
John and. Martha Gabbert _ ' Il./. I
By: ~I'I} ~4'Z;1d/4
- ~'"
Title: Cl&O/7eJ-5
Date: 9//?/9'7
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
By: ~p thvf~./
ary Anderson, Mayor
Date: q ;).b q r2
Date:
Witness: ~ ()eL By:
Warning: this permit does not exempt you from all other City Code provisions,
regulations and ordinances.
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
December 9,1998
TO:
Mark Grimes
Director of Planning and Development
Jeff Oliver, P,E,.Jf/
City Engineer IJJ!)
Engineering Review: Amendment to Preliminary Design Plan
PUD #79, Room and Board
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Engineering staff has reviewed the plans for the above-referenced development
proposal. This proposed PUD amendment consists of expanding the warehouse facility
and expanding the parking lot at the existing Room and Board facility.
The primary issue identified in the staff review is storm water management. The overall
site development is subject to the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission
(BCWMC) requirement for water quality and quantity. Approval by the Commission will
be required prior to beginning any work on this site.
The developer's engineer has submitted plans and computations for the proposed storm
water management system on site. The proposed plans appear to meet the BCWMC
requirements for pre and post development runoff.
This site currently drains into the Sweeney Lake and Bassett Creek subdistricts. Runoff
from the existing site currently receives no water quality treatment prior to discharge into
the receiving water bodies.
The proposed plans alter the future runoff direction from the site, and provide significant
improvement to the water quality that is discharged. The area in the northwest corner of
the site that is proposed to become parking lot currently drains into the Sweeney Lake
drainage district. Because of constraints off-site, it is not possible to provide water
quality treatment prior to discharge into Sweeney Lake at this time. Therefore, the
developer has proposed extending storm sewer to th~ parking area and routing all
runoff eastward into a proposed water quality pond. This change in the existing
, drainage pattern will result in the runoff being routed into the Bassett Creek drainage
. subdistrict, and will provide the required water quality treatment.
The proposed water quality pond will treat runoff from the majority of the site. The
exception to this is the runoff from the extreme northeast comer that cannot be drained
into the water quality pond. It is proposed to allow this drainage area to leave the site
with no water quality treatment, which will require a variance from the Water Quality
Policy by the BCWMC. The majority of the drainage that the variance is being
\\GV _FS l~YS\GROUPS\ENG\ WORD\JEFl'\DevcloplDCllts\Room6tBoard.doc
.
requested for is roof drainage, which typically poses minimal concern for water quality.
In addition, because the proposed plans provide water quality treatment for the vast
majority of a site that currently receives no pretreatment, the quality of the runoff leaving
the site will be improved, even with the variance. The developer's engineer and staff
have investigated numerous options for the site to avoid a variance request, but none
are feasible. _
The plans indicate that the proposed pond location is within outlot A of the previously
approved PUD #79 plat. This outlot appears to be owned. by the applicant, but there is
also an easement across the entire outlot for railroad right-of-way. The applicant must
provide written documentation from the railroad that pond construction will be permitted
within the railroad right-of-way. This documentation must be provided to the City prior
to approval of final plans for the site.
It should be noted that the applicant has approached the City of Golden Valley about
the possibility of developing a regional water quality pond to treat runoff from this
property and other property in the area before it is discharged into Sweeney Lake. The
developer and staff are exploring the feasibility of this proposal, which may be pursued
in the future.
.
Based upon the overall increase in water quality treatment provided by this plan, staff
feels that the BCWMC Water Quality Policy variance being requested by the applicant is
reasonable. Therefore, staff is recommending support of this variance request.
The following erosion control items need to be incorporated into the plans:
· A gravel construction entrance must be shown on the plans.
· Standard detail plates must be included for all erosion control measures being used
on site. This includes silt fence, inlet protection, gravel construction entrances and
any others used.
· Information regarding the re-vegetation of the site must be provided.
· A note must be added to the plan outlining requirements for removing tracked
sediment off of adjacent roadways. All adjacent streets must be swept a minimum of
one per day, and more frequently as needed, or as directed by the City of Golden
Valley. Should the developer fail to perform any sweeping within 6 hours of being
ordered by the City, the City will perform the required sweeping and bill the
developer for all costs.
Engineering staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to PUD #79,
, Room and Board, based upon the comments contained in this review. Please feel free
to call me if you have any questions.
.
C: Jeannine Clancy. Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, City Forester
Gary Johnson, Building Official
\\GV _FS l\sYS\GROUPS\ENG\wORD\JEFP\Developments\ROOIIl&Board.doc