01-08-96 PC Agenda
1_____
e
e
e
I.
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
January 8, 1996
Monday
7:00 PM
Approval of Minutes - November 27,1995
II.
Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit Amendment
Applicant:
Address:
Request:
SuperAmerica Groupz Inc.
1930 Douglas Drive North, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Amend Conditional Use Permit which would allow for the hours of
operation to be extended to 24 hours a day.
III. Informal Public Hearing - Planned Unit Development
Applicant:
Address:
Request:
Golden Valley Commons, L.L.C.
Northeast Quadrant of Olson Memorial Highway and
Winnetka Avenue (Area C)
Review of the Preliminary Design Plan which proposes
construction ofmixed retail and restaurant uses on 7.8 acres
on the site known as Area C
IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council,
Board of Zoning Appeals, and Community Standards TaskForce
V. Other Business
VI. Adjournment
I--
I
i
PLANNING COMMISSION GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC INPUT
.
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council
on land use.. The Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a
land use proposal based upon the Commission's determination of whether the pro-
posed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and
whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding
neighborhood.
The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable
you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask
questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the
record and will be used by the Council, along with the Commission1s recommenda-
tion. in reaching its decision.
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 recommenda-
tion from staff. Commission members may ask questions of staff.
2. The proponent will describe the proposal and answer any questions
from the Commission.
e
3. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who
wish to speak to so indicate by raiiing their hands. The Chair may
set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number
of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for
groups will have a longer period of time for, questions/comments.
4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the
Chair. Remember, your questions/comments are far the record.
5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will deter-
mine who will answer your questions.
6. No one will be given the opportunity to !peak a second time until
everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially, Please limit
your second presentation to new info~tion, not rebuttal.
7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the
proposal and take appropriate action.
e
e
e
.e
Minutes of the Golden Valley
Planning Commission
November 27,1995
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council
Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by
Chair Prazak at 7:00 PM.
Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Lewis, McAleese Pentel and Prazak; absent
was Kapsner. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Elizabeth
Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Planning Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - October 9, 1995
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to approve the October
9, 1995 minutes as submitted.
II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit
Applicant:
Schumacher Wholesale Meats, Inc.
Address:
1114 Zane Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Request:
To allow cooking and heating offood items in the Light Industrial
Zoning District.
Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, gave a brief summary of her report to the. Commissioners dated
November 20, 1995 commenting that the previous report from November 16, 1993 had not changed
other than the odor control devices are different. Schumacher Meats is proposing to install a catalytic
afterburner instead of using a charcoal filtering system to control undesirable odors which may
escape the site. The applicant is proposing to add a cooking and heating processing line to make
pasties and other similar food items.
Ms. Knoblauch reviewed the ten "Factors for Consideration". The 7th factor reviewed was the only
one which could have some bearing on the cooking and heating of foods which may cause an odor.
Staff cannot assure that there will be no odor.
Ms. Knoblauch reviewed the staff recommendations commenting that the "activated charcoal filter" is
not going to be used with the new system and therefore this language should be eliminated from
condition no. 4. Staffs recommendation is for approval of the CUP.
Commissioner Lewis asked if the Inspections Department has reviewed the catalytic afterburner. Ms.
Knoblauch commented that this kind of system is not being used in Golden Valley so the Inspectors
have not been able to visit a site for review. The expert on the afterburner was to be present but
couldn't make it because he lives on the east coast.
Matt Schumacher, representative for his father and owner of Schumacher Wholesale Meats, Inc.,
John Schumacher introduced himself, his father and Mr. Red Fleming who is in charge of their
cooking operations. Matt Schumacher talked about tlie charcoal filtering system and the catalytic
afterburner commenting that the two do not need to work together and only the afterburner would be
used. He talked about the market and the need to add this product line to the business.
Mr. Fleming talked about the cooking operation of pasties.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 27,1995
Page Two
e
Chair Prazak asked how many pasties would be processed each day. Mr. Fleming said about 500-
1,000 pounds would be a good day.
Commissioner Pentel asked if the recommended hours of operation by staff of 7am-3pm would be a
hardship. Mr. Fleming said no.
Matt Schumacher stated that after a certain time has elapsed, which revealed no odor problem, he
would like to have the opportunity to come back to the City and have the permit amended to allow for
longer hours of operation. Mr. Schumacher passed out pictures (before and after) of the afterburner
in use by another company, revealing the amount of exhaust being released. He reviewed a report
on the air quality efficiency of the afterburner which was sent by the Friedrich Metal Products Co.
Matt Schumacher commented that there is a need to balance the interest of the company and that of
his neighbors; the company has a need to produce a product and the neighbors have an interest to
breath clean air.
Commissioner Groger asked the applicant what the cost would be to install the afterburner. Mr. John
Schumacher said that the unit itself will cost approximately $45,000 - $50,000 and with installation it
could cost as much as $75,000.
Chair Prazak asked if anyone else was using this equipment. Matt Schumacher commented that the e
afterburner is being used in Washington State and on the east coast.
Commissioner McAleese questioned the applicant about the maintenance of the afterburner. Matt
Schumacher said they would have to get the information on how often the unit would have to have
maintenance performed on it.
Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing.
Jay Eisenberg, 1119 Welcome Avenue North, said the main issue is odor control and does not want
the potential problem of odor in the neighborhood. Mr. Eisenberg read from a letter which he handed
to staff and has been placed in the CUP file.
Ann Bennion, 1125 Welcome Circle, recapped Mr. Eisenberg's comments and presented the
Commission with an outline of neighborhood recommendations which has been placed in the CUP
file. She talked about wanting to work with Schumacher and the City. Ms. Bennion listed the
neighbors concerns of odor, property values and of a precedent being set regarding acceptable odor.
She outlined the neighbors recommendations.
Charlie Lazer, 5620 Phoenix Street, is against the granting of the CUP which may set a precedent
regarding odor. He also commented that Mr. Schumacher said, when he bought the building, he
would not be doing any cooking. Mr. Lazer asked what the applicant would have to do in order to
have the hours extended. Chair Prazak told Mr. Lazar that Mr. Schumacher would have to amend
the permit which would require going through the Planning Commission informal public hearing and e
City Council public hearing.
Chair Prazak announced that he had received correspondence from the Halloran's, located at 5735
Golden Valley Road, who oppose the request for a CUP and also a letter from Mr. John Richter, 5905
Golden Valley Road, who is in favor of the Schumacher request.
.
~
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 27, 1995
Page Three
e
Sharon Allanson, 1114 Welcome Circle, commented that Mr. Richter is not a homeowner and that he
has a business in the area.
Connie O'Brien, 5805 Golden Valley Road, asked staff what would happen if Mr. Schumacher sold
his business. City Planner Beth Knoblauch commented that the new owner would have to keep to
the conditions outlined in the permit or come back to the City to amend the permit if the operation or
footprint of the building changed.
Matt Schumacher commented that he feels his business is being discriminated against since Mui Li
Wan and Denny's were not required to have any odor control devices.
Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing.
Mr. John Schumacher talked about Feinberg and what happened 30 years ago. He commented that
30 years ago he said he wouldn't be doing any cooking but that industries and situations change.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Schumacher about his neighbor's recommendations. John
Schumacher commented that he believes the hours of operation of 10am to 3pm are too restrictive
and he should not have to put up a bond to insure that the equipment functions as advertised.
Chair Prazak asked staff if there was a measurement system to check particulates. City Planner
Knoblauch said there are devices available but staff is unaware of what the cost of equipment would
e be to test particulates.
Commissioner Lewis asked if there is anything in the area that is similar to what Schumacher is
proposing. Matt Schumacher said that there is a coffee store in south Minneapolis that has a unit but
not with an catalytic afterburner. Ms. Lewis would like some kind of assurance from the applicant,
staff, or some other source that an odor problem can be handled.
Commissioner Pentel commented that she does not see anything different with the Schumacher
request from that which was presented in November of 1993. The only difference is the replacement
of the catalytic afterburner with the charcoal filtering system.
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development said that the Building Inspectors are not
scientists regarding the afterburner; they will be able to read the material but they do not have the
expertise in this area~ Mr. Grimes thought maybe the City Sanitarium could make comments on this
unit.
Chair Prazak would like to have an Inspections Department report available for City Council review.
Chair Prazak was also concerned with the cost to the City for testing of odor. His suggestion would
be that alternative methods of measurements be studied and the applicant come back to the Council
in the next six months.
Commissioner Johnson talked about noise levels and when they become intolerable, complaints
come to City Hall from the neighbors. . Ms. Johnson believes that if an odor problem arises, the
e neighbors will call City Hall to complain.
Chair Prazak asked staff that if the permit is granted and odor becomes a problem can the permit be
revoked. City Planner Knoblauch said that staff would need to talk with the City Attorney. She
.
..
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 27, 1995
Page Four
.
continued by saying that there does need to be some language in the permit; by adding a condition
that says "there will be no odor" is unacceptable - odor has particulates which can be measured.
Planning Director Grimes said one of the conditions could say that there needs to be at least 98%
removal of particulates and ifthat doesn't occur then there may be grounds for revoking the permit;
there needs to be specific conditions in order to revoke a permit.
Chair Prazak asked if the Commission could recommend a condition be added that there be regular
measurement testing done. Mr. Grimes commented that the conditions could reflect that these kinds
of checks be performed every three to six months. Mr. Grimes told the Commission that the City
would like to have the right to review maintenance records. The manufacturer will be contacted to
determine how often testing should be done.
Commissioner Groger felt that 100% removal of particulates is an unrealistic goal. Mr. Groger liked
the neighbor's recommendations but did not feel that there needed to be a bond taken out and that
the afterburner will probably have a routine maintenance check done. Commissioner Groger wanted
to go on record that he likes the concept of the 98% objective form of measurement for particulates.
MOVED by Groger, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City
Council approval for a Conditional Use Permit for the property located at 1114 Zane Avenue North to
allow cooking and heating of food items in the Light Industrial Zoning District with the following
changes to the conditions.
Condition No. 5 - Delete charcoal filters from this condition. Charcoal filters are not going to be used.
Add a new condition that talks about some objective form of measurement for odor testing.
Commissioner Johnson was pleased to see the applicant's willingness to work with the neighbors and
the neighbors recommendations and willingness to work with the applicant.
e
V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
City Council. Board of Zoning Appeals. Community Standards Task
Force. and Valley Square Task Force
Mark Grimes gave a brief summary of the planning items that came before the City Council on
October 17 and November 14. Mr. Grimes also updated the Commission on the HRA meetings in
October and November
Commissioner Groger updated the Commission on the Task Force findings.
VI. Other Business
No other business was reported
V. Adjournment
Chair Prazak adjourned the meeting at 9: 15 PM.
e
Jean Lewis, Secretary
e
e
e
MEMORANDUM
Date:
January 3, 1995
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing -- SuperAmerica (SA) - 1930 Douglas Drive -
Amendment of CUP for Gas Station/Convenience Store to Allow 24-Hour
Operation - SuperAmerica Group, Inc., Applicant
This facility at Duluth and Douglas (see location map, Exhibit A) was built in 1989. As originally
proposed, the station would have remained open until midnight in order to provide service for the
work shift coming out of Honeywell at 11 pm. Due to neighborhood concerns, the City Council
moved closing time back to 11 pm prior to approving the Conditional Use Permit. Operating hours
thus are limited to between 6am and 11 pm daily.
The specific wording of this part of SA's permit (see existing CUP, Exhibit B) is that "the station
shall not be open for public business" (emphasis added) during the prohibited hours. There was
some concern a few years ago about activity at the station after hours. The Golden Valley police
kept the site under observation over a period of several nights and found that no public business was
being conducted. Employees inside the store were doing restocking and cleaning after hours, which
is not prohibited under the terms of the permit. Staff are not aware of any other complaints
regarding night time activity at SA.
The current request is to eliminate the restriction on hours of operation so that SA can serve
customers on a 24-hour basis. The applicant has no intent to amend other terms of the existing
permit, though the Planning Commission and/or City Council could consider additional
modifications if there are concerns about neighborhood impact.
There are ten factors that must be considered in making a decision to approve any CUP, or any
amendments to an already-existing CUP. Staff findings on each of the ten are discussed below.
1. Demonstrated Need. The proposal meets the standard for demonstrating need because the
applicant has identified a market segment to serve. Not only does Honeywell have shifts that
begin or end during late-night hours, but other businesses in the area do as well.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The comp plan identifies the site for conversion
to high density residential use at some future point. The City's policy is to allow full rights to
current uses that are properly zoned until such time as there is a serious proposal for
redevelopment to a planned future use. The property is zoned for commercial use, and there is
no upcoming proposal for apartment redevelopment. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with
the comp plan as it is used in Golden Valley.
e
SuperAmerica Memo
Page Two
3. Effect on Neighboring PropertY Values. The facility is already in place. The proposal to
extend its hours is not expected to have a significant impact on neighboring property values.
4. Effect of Traffic Generation. There is already some congestion on both Duluth and Douglas
adjacent to the site during day time hours. City Engineer Fred Salsbury does not anticipate any
additional street congestion due to the site being open between 11 pm and 6am.
5. Effect of Increases in Population or Density. The anticipated late-night employee population
of two is not expected to have any significant impact on the area. There will be no change in
the development density of the site.
6. Effect of Increased Noise Levels. Somewhat contrary to the applicant's narrative (see Exhibit
C), use of the loudspeaker system is now prohibited between 10 pm and 7 am. This ban is not
expected to change if the hours of operation are extended. Most of SA's suppliers do not offer
24-hour delivery, so late-night noise from these service vehicles is not expected to increase
significantly. Baked goods are already delivered daily some time before the stOl:e opens at
6am. Gas delivery is scheduled between 4 am and 6 am; the City Fire Inspector prefers to have
the tankers on the site at a time of night when there is little other activity in the general area, for
safety purposes. If the neighbors raise concerns about tanker noise, however, the City could .
specify a required window of delivery in the terms of the amended permit Staff are not aware
e of any complaints occurring in connection with the 4 am to 6 am delivery window.
7. Effect of Odors~ Dust.. Smoke. Gas or Vibration. No significant added impact is expected
from the increased hours.
8. Effect of Flies. Cats~ or Vermin. No significant added impact is expected from the increased
hours.
9. Visual A.ppearance. Expanding the hours of operation is not expected to have any impact on
the visual appearance of the property (see site plan, Exhibit D) except with regard to lighting.
During the time when the station is closed, the pump canopy and exterior signage lighting are
turned off. With a 24-hour operation, obviously, they would be left on. There are nomesi-
dential uses immediately adjacent to the site on all sides except where the apartments are
located. The SA building itself helps to block any glare that might spill over toward the
apartments. The SA consultant has indicated that the apartment manager does not consider
lighting to be an issue for tenants of units that face SA; in fact, they appear to favor added
hours of operation "for security reasons".
e
10. Other Effects on the General Public Health. Safety, or Welfare. Because of publicity given
to recent convenience store hold-ups in Minneapolis, staff thought there might be some concern
about safety issues relating to the extended hours of operation. Public Safety Director Dean
Mooney was asked to comment. He said that convenience stores are vulnerable to hold-ups by
their very nature, as are all businesses that remain open to the public through the night.
.
e
e
SuperAmerica Memo
Page Three
Golden valley's "dog watch" routinely stops by all of the City's 24-hour operations for just that
reason. SA makes a serious effort to maintain as safe a nighttime environment for its
employees and custo~ers as possible, including such measures as always having at least two
employees on-site, not putting inexperienced employees on late-night shifts, and offering
regular employee training. Director Mooney pointed out that, while 24-hour operation would
marginally increase the station's vulnerability to hold-ups, it would at the same time reduce the
likelihood of burglary or vandalism, which are also problems for small businesses such as this.
He feels that there is enough 24-hour activity in the general area of Duluth and Douglas to offer
additional protection against hold-ups, which are more likely to occur in isolated locations.
Finally, staff asked Director Mooney specifically whether there should be cause for concern
that 24-hour operation at this site might decrease safety for the neighborhood in general. In his
opinion, that is a non-issue.
Staffhave identified no other potentially adverse impacts that might arise from expanding the
hours of operation at the site.
Recommendation
The proposed expansion of daily operation from the current 17-hours-per-day to 24-hours does not
appear to staff to result in any adverse impacts. Staff therefore have found no reason not to allow
the expanded hours. Those living in close proximity to the site are in a better position than staff to
evaluate how well SA performs now during its earliest and latest hours of daily operation, since
staff are generally not around at those hours. Other than the one incident regarding suspected after-
hours operations, there are no complaints on file with regard to late night or early morning activity.
Based on that fact, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of an amendment to the existing CUP for SuperAmerica at Duluth and Douglas, striking
out #7, which limits the hours of operation. Strictly for clarification purposes, a clause might be
added to #3, regarding use of the loudspeaker, so that it begins "The station may be open for public
business on a 24-hour daily basis, but..." Otlter concerns raised by the public should be considered
on their merits, particularly regarding tanker noise or lighting.
EAK.:mkd
Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - CUP Permit
Exhibit C - Narrative
Exhibit D - Site Plan
<i:';'?:~.s.s' ~ r8.ROOK~AD.'~ ~~''::'.._._. '&
6'.$' ,,~. 0
/,"{ 7a.41Sl.i4j 101.43 <: .... .....
H/IE,aoll' . '" o'A ....
/ 6125 .... 16101 '" ..; 6...: T
/ ....... 0 ", ...
~ Z......I"-;- 0- --
~. ~ i
m.57
33J.4S
...,.......
00
....
D.
3
Exhibit IIAII,
e
.9.. B7S .
'" '-;';--7S ----;.-~
., .;;.;~
~ IC~
...
~
.....
'Cf\
:!
CS'
~ ..,
~%
~ \ 3
.
'" ...
. "l ~ .
'!! ...
2,(1
~ .
'I
,;::
I
I
. ~ ::..
c:;; '. I )
.., '!R
'J>
I~
,
_..~11
...
.. .
..
~ '" "t;.;
~ : . ~~
13 ttt~ ~~I
. ~ ~--- .....--- ~
~ ~ . ..,'"
;e ~ ~2
. ~ ~.....
i /9#' ~ I
-!...-----l-L--tiiT .---- '"
.~ ~
_____.Gl__.J__ Jo<>t
o .....--,-;
--- ..
.----- "'~ ~...
~ Q .~ ~
(1Jt "'f.JD~"
----~ :;
.
.
e
.
. ,
'"
~
~
I
'04.
'1,
,.",
';.\.
_"I:')~
:
I
~
!
~
-.(0
'" .
c;, ,
-:
.c..
.....
" ~
'.
~.I.v
CI'\
.....
.-
0....
~-
~
"
~ ,!
, I
, ,
.'
....
'"
,.
C,(1
4..!
'r, e:4
r;"r."'"
: ..!of
~.
.
I
I
,
",,~
.,.. ...,:~
I ::: I
..!f! !f_ _~ _'~
~2
--
'0
..."
-. III
...
~<f
,.~.<
-9 '" (\~ .
(.I.:~iI'~ ~,\
.:~'~
--
"''0
~lli
....
..
~ J'~S
C050 I
JJI8:'
~WOLFE
~
E2jt 1/1.5 .
....CO~5 ::-i
* "..,1 (
- ~I
I '.:-- ,.t:
...,
" ... :!C
.~ ~ :,..,
'" :~
-.
-'
en,..;
5:~ "ST C~OI.
:a I ""l
.
Exhibit IIBII
C I T Y 0 F G 0 L DEN V ALL E Y
CON D I T ION A L USE PER M I T
NO. 89-42
DATE OF APPROVAL:
June 13, 1989 by the City Council in accordance with
Section 11.10, Subd. 2 and Section 11.11, Subd. 1 of the City Zoning Code.
ISSUED TO:
John K. Ogren Properties
APPROVED LOCATION:
1910 Douglas Drive
APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE:
Operation of a SuperAmerica Station with
Convenience Shopping in a Commercial Zoning District.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Site layout shall be as indicated on the site sketch filed in the City
Planning 'office. The four-foot wide strip shown on the site sketch as
running along the perimeter of the main building and extending into the
setback are on the property's west side shall be a sidewalk only. In
addition, there may be an overhanging roof line extending no more than 30
inches into the setb~ck area. .
~ 2. Except for changes required by the Building Board of Review, landscaping
on the site shall be as indicated on the Landscape Plan filed in the City
Planning Office.
3. Between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM loudspeaker use shall be limited
to emergency communications.
4. The dumpster area shall be fully shielded from view.
5. The site shall meet all other City and State requirements.
6. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall constitute
grounds for revocation.
7. The station shall not be open for public business from 11:00 PM to 6:00 AM.
WARNING:
This permit does not exempt you from other City Code provisions,
regulations and ordinances.
:
~L
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
.
ISSUED BY:
e
e
e
Exhibit lIell
ATTACHMENT TO
THE APPLICATION OF SUPERAMERICA GROUP, INC.
TO AMEND A PREVIOUSLY GRANTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW 24 HOUR OPERATION AT THE PRESENT STORE AT
1930 DOUGLAS AVENUE
As part of its discussion of SuperAmerica's original application for the Conditional Use
Permit granted in 1989 for this site, the Council prohibited operation between 11 pm
and 6 am.
SuperAmerica now requests the Conditional Use Permit be amended to delete this
prohibition and permit 24 hour operation. Should this amendment be approved,
SuperAmerica will not use the speakers located on the pump islands for any
communication with customers, except in the case of an emergency, between 11 pm
and 6 am. And, during these hours will always have at least two persons staffing the
store.
We believe SuperAmerica has been a good neighbor on this site, and this was
confirmed as we discussed the proposal to extend the hours of operation with Ms.
Mavis Theuringer, the manager of the adjacent Golden Valley Arms apartment. She
talked with the tenants in apartments facing the Super America site. She found no
objections, except confirming the speakers will not be used, to the extended hours,
and, in fact, some tenants encouraged the extended hours for security reasons.
Typically, activity during these extended hours, which are common at SuperAmercias
throughout the metropolitan area, is not extensive. It provides us the opportunity to
serve some customers while performing stocking and maintenance activities best
done while the store is not busy. At this location the extended hours will also provide
the opportunity to serve second and third shift Honeywell employees.
We are confident that with the extended hours we will continue to be a useful and
compatible activity on this site, and will not create any negative effects on the pUblic
health, safety, or welfare of t~e City or its residents.
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
January 5, 1996
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
.Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan for Planned Unit
Development (PUD) No. 70 - Northeast Quadrant of Olson Memorial
Highway and Winnetka Avenue (Area C) - Golden Valley Commons,
L.L.C.,Applicant
This application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) involves a site of 7.8 acres in size,
located at the heart of Golden Valley's Valley Square Redevelopment Area. The
proposal is for a 46,500 sq.ft. complex of mixed retail and restaurant uses in a
pedestrian-friendly setting. There is a long history of efforts to redevelop and upgrade
this area as Golden Valley's downtown. The subject site is considered to be a key
element.
This is the preliminary plan stage of application, at which time a proposal is considered
for approval of the basic concept. Based on input received during this stage, the
applicant will go on to the more detailed, general plan of development application. Due
to recent legislation limiting the amount of time that can be spent on consideration of
zoning matters, staff will go to extra effort in this report to identify issues that must be
resolved in order for the next stage to proceed smoothly. It will be announced up front
that staff are recommending approval of the basic concept for Golden Valley Commons
because it is generally consistent with the Valley Square Plan, the RFP, and provides an
overall good design for this difficult site.
Suitability of Application
Among other things, the "purpose and intent" subdivision (CC 11.55, Subd. 1) of the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) regulations specifies that the purpose of PUD's is to encourage
"the use of contemporary land planning principles and coordinated community design."
The Golden Valley Commons proposal is very contemporary in its clustering of uses and
incorporation of pedestrian amenities. It reflects unified design elements among the four
proposed buildings, and proposes linkages with the adjacent streetscape and with other
Valley Square projects.
. The "definition" subdivision (CC 11.55, Subd. 2) of the PUD regulations sets out six
characteristics that alone or in combination serve to identify a PUD-suited proposal.
Golden Valley Commons possesses two of the six: it is within an established
.
Memo - Golden Valley Commons PUD No. 70
Page Two
redevelopment area, and it provides an overall plan for multiple buildings on multiple lots
on a site of more than one acre in area.
The PUD regulations also establish several standards (CC 11.55, Subd. 5C) that all
commercial PUD applications must meet. There are some unresolved issues with regard
to those standards, as the following list will note.
1. The property involved must have at least 100 feet of frontage on a public
street, which is certainly the case with Golden Valley Commons.
2. The development must be served by public water and sewer systems, and
fire hydrant typellocation(s) must be approved by appropriate staff. Final
details have not been worked out at this early stage, but no significant
problems are anticipated.
3. The surface drainage system for the site must be built according to a plan
approved by appropriate staff. The outside consultant, who provided Golden
Valley with the preliminary ponding specifications, will be reviewing the
proposal as indicated in the attached memo from Jeff Oliver, Assistant City
Engineer. It is anticipated that the proposed drainage system will work. Some
. details remain to be worked out.
4. The entire site must be included in the PUD plan. Golden Valley Commons
meets this standard.
5. Parking spaces are required to be clearly marked on a paved surface in
accordance with the plan approved by the City Council. The attached site plan
indicates the parking spaces; the amount of parking spaces is discussed later
in the report.
6. Loading areas are required. They must be designed for easy access, and
must be reserved solely for service purposes. This requirement appears
to be adequately met for the larger multi-use retail building, but there is no
designated space for delivery vehicles at any of the other buildings. As indicated
in the attached Opus memo, deliveries to the restaurants and retail stores will
occur in the off-peak hours and in small delivery vehicles to the front of the
stores or the rear doors on the retail building. Each of the buildings have
enclosed trash areas that will be emptied during off-peak hours.
.
7. Private roadways within the site must be constructed according to a plan
approved by appropriate staff as to type and location. The Engineering
Department has reviewed the proposed roadway plan and finds it
acceptable (see Oliver memo).
.
.
.
Memo - Golden Valley Commons PUD No. 70
Page Three
8. Landscaping throughout the site must be provided in accordance with City
Council approval and the City's landscape standards. The normal procedure
with PUD's has been for the Council to approve a proposed landscaping
plan, subject to final review and comment by the City's Building Board of
Review, the body ordinarily responsible for overseeing landscape standards.
A preliminary landscape plan is attached for Planning Commission review.
It indicates the overall commitment by Opus to quality landscaping. Damon
Farber Associates is the landscape architect. This firm was the landscape
architect on the Winnetka Avenue streetscape.
Conformity with Zoning/Planning
A pun designation places a regulatory overlay on the affected property, but does not alter
the underlying zoning district. For that reason, the general use of a PUD should always
bear some relationship to the uses allowed in the underlying district. The Golden Valley
Commons property is zoned for commercial use, and the PUD will consist of mixed retail
and restaurant uses, which are commercial in nature.
State law prohibits zoning decisions that would conflict with a local comprehensive plan.
The comp plan in this area defers to the Valley Square plan. The Valley Square plan
indicates that the site is planned for a unified, mixed-use development, which is exactly
what the PUD contemplates.
Conformity with RFP
This application for PUD is the result of the developer's successful response to a Request
for Proposal (RFP) put out by the City's HRA. The terms of the RFP thus to some extent
determine the limits on the PUD itself. The basic concept of Golden Valley Commons
was determined to be in conformance with the terms bf the RFP at the time this proposal
was selected by the HRA. Neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council need be
bound by the specific outline of the RFP, but staff will note the various points of
divergence as an aid to evaluating the PUD itself.
The RFP indicates that a "free-standing fast food facility" or "any drive-through facility"
would be inappropriate for this development. The first of these is not defined for the
purpose of the RFP, but the City's zoning regulations classify fast food restaurants as
places where customers order and are served at a counter and take the food to a table or
off the premises for consumption; by this definition, four of the five restaurants currently
under consideration for Golden Valley Commons would be fast food restaurants. The
most important concern for staff is that this type of restaurant generates a very large
number of trips. According to Glen Van Wormer of SEH, (see letter) the restaurant mix
proposed by Opus will not cause a parking problem.
Memo - Golden Valley Commons PUD No. 70
Page Four
. With regard to drive-through facilities, there is a drive-through lane proposed for the east
end of the larger mixed-use building, where a drug store is expected to locate. The lane
is expected to serve the drug store pharmacy. The developer feels that the traffic impact
would be minimal because the use is so limited. It appears that the drive-through as
proposed could accommodate up to four cars before causing blockage of the Rhode
Island Avenue access to the site. The developer believes that any potential conflicts
between the drive-through exit and the adjacent service driveway can be minimized.
Jeff Oliver has indicated in his memo concern regarding the driveway from the drive-
through to Rhode Island Avenue. The Planning staff agrees that there should be only one
driveway in that area to Rhode Island Avenue. Staff are concerned about potential future
abuse of the drive-through facility, especially if some use other than a drug store ends up
occupying that part of the building. Staff is considering recommending that the drive-
through be used for prescription drugs or pharmacy items only. Any future change of the
use of the drug store would require reconsideration of the drive-through use.
.
The RFP also indicates that sidewalks should "connect the elements of the development",
that pedestrians should have "safe passage through parking areas", and that "pedestrian
connections to the edges of the site (should) facilitate movement to adjoining city blocks."
The preliminary landscape plan indicates several walkways coming into the site from the
northwest and east. The lack of access from the south and southwest is understandable,
given the undesirable traffic conditions for pedestrians trying to approach the site in that
area.
Finally, the RFP states that bicyclists should be "welcomed and provided for." No
designated bike-parking areas are noted on the preliminary plans. Staff suggests several
bike racks be placed on the site and that bike/pedestrian conflicts be minimized through
signage.
Variances being Requested
Allowing variances from the strict provisions of City Code is one of the aims of the PUD
process. Nevertheless, such variances should only be granted for good reasons and in
keeping with the purpose and standards established for PUD's. Once City Code is
relaxed for anyone developer, subsequent applicants tend to treat the waiver as the new
norm for everyone, unless provided with clear reasons that are tied to the specific
development in question. Thus it is important to quantify the nature and extent of all
variances being requested for a given PUD application, and to know that those variances
can be jl;lstified according to the overall merits of the proposal.
,
.
The developer of Golden Valley Commons is seeking variances from code requirements
for loading areas, parking spaces, street setbacks (building and parking), and nonstreet
setbacks (parking only). They are all discussed in the following paragraphs. The
Memo - Golden Valley Commons PUD No. 70
Page Five
.
developer's analysis of the requested variances, which is a required element of each
application. is attached to this report in its entirety.
Loading Area. The Commercial Zoning District requires one designated loading
area per business establishment. Neither of the stand-alone restaurants is so provided,
nor are any of the businesses in the secondary mixed-use building. For the stand-alone
restaurants, there is also no access for garbagelrecycling trucks without blocking parking
spaces. The developer has indicated that the mixed-use building will share trash holdingl
hauling areas which are accessible to trucks.
Parking Spaces. In order to analyze the adequacy of the parking shown on the
site plan, Opus and the City hired Glen Van Wormer, PE, of SEH Engineering. In a letter
from Mr. Van Wormer to Mark W. Grimes, dated September 27, 1995, Mr. Van Wormer's
stated opinion is that the 409 spaces on the site is adequate to serve the mix of retail
uses and restaurants. It was necessary to obtain this opinion because the site plan has
substantially fewer spaces than would normally be required by Code. The Zoning Code
requires one (1) space for each 150 sq.ft. of retail space and one (1) space for each 35
sq.ft. of restaurant space. The total parking required by the Code would be about 650
spaces.
.
Staff is willing to recommend the 409 spaces with the understanding from Opus that the
mix of 17,500 sq.ft. of restaurant and 29,000 sq.ft. of mixed retail will remain. Changes to
this mix could only be made with a PUD amendment.
Street Setbacks. City Code requires 35 feet of landscaping between a building
or parking area and any street property line. This setback requirement is generally not
met along all sides. .
Along the south side of the property, where the proposed stormwater holding ponds line
Highway 55, there are several parking spaces that infringe by five feet or less on the
required setback. On the west side, facing Winnetka Avenue, there is more substantial
parking infringement but no apparent building infringement. The original plan for the
expanded Winnetka Avenue streetscape was to leave it as part of the development site
for setback purposes by taking an easement rather than platting it as right-of-way. The
original plan was changed and the streetscape corridor was taken as right-of-way instead
of an easement, with the understanding that future developers might still want to count
that area as part of the site setback.
.
Along the northwest side of the site, there is substantial building infringement as well as
parking Jnfringement. Along the northwest side of the site, the restaurant building is within
10 feet pf the property line. The parking area also infringes on the setback area. Opus
states that the building is close to the right-of-way in order to give an "urban edge
character" and to provide better visibility of the building to Hwy. 55 traffic. Because of the
existing Winnetka Avenue streetscape, there is adequate greenl streetscape between the
building and the street.
.
.
.
Memo -- Golden Valley Commons PUD No. 70
Page Six
Along Golden Valley Road, the restaurant and parking lot infringe into the setback.
According to Opus, only about 10 stalls go into the setback area.
On the east side along Rhode Island Avenue, the buildings meet the 35 foot setback but
the parking area and drive-through lane infringe on the setback. At the southeast corner
of the site, the parking area is within about eight (8) feet of the property line. The drive-
through lane is about 15 feet from the property line.
Rhode Island Avenue is planned for widening near TH 55 to accommodate improved
traffic movements.
Staff would like to see as much green space as possible along Rhode Island Avenue
because this is a main entryway into the Valley Square area. Of the greatest concern is
minimizing building infringement in the setback area. No building on the east side is
within the setback area. Counting the City right-of-way, there wiH be 15-20 feet of
landscaped area along Rhode Island Avenue. Opus has agreed to place a small berm
along Rhode Island Avenue to soften the visual impact of the street on the development
site. This wiH help to give a visual organization between parked cars and the road edge.
Side/Rear Setbacks. The preliminary plat shows that there are three lots
proposed within Golden Valley Commons, plus the shared property lines with the post
office site. None of the proposed buildings infringes on a required side or rear setback.
On the other hand, all of the paved areas do. In the interests of promoting a unified
development for the entire block, as specified in the Valley Square Redevelopment Plan
and the terms of the RFP, the failure to meet side and rear setback requirements is
justified. The shared driveways around the post office site and between Lots 1 and 2
reflect contemporary planning principles. Staff further note that, in lieu of the normal
setback areas, landscaping has been placed on both sides of the shared driveway out to
Winnetka and adjacent to the shared driveway west of the post office, while extra plaza
area has been added in front of the buildings south of the post office. There wiH of course
have to be a Declaration of Covenants and Easements regulating access and
maintenance of all parking areas, driveways, and landscaped areas. The City generally
reserves the right to approve any subsequent changes to such Declarations when they
are part of a PUD. '
Signage. Signs are not regulated as part of the zoning chapter in Golden Valley.
Only one PUD has ever had its signage reviewed and approved as part of the PUD
process; that happened because the developer notified staff in advance of intent to seek
an 1-394 height waiver, which can only be granted by the Council. Other PUD's have
simply b.een required to meet normal sign standards. Given the importance of
appearance at this site, there may be a desire for greater design control over the signage
by incorporating sign review into the PUD process and/or by including a clause in the
PUD permit that requires a unified signage style for the entire site.
.
.
.
Memo - Golden Valley Commons PUD No. 70
Page Seven
Opus has submitted a proposed sign criteria to the City for review. I have met with the
Inspections Department to review this criteria. Overall, they have no problem with the
number of pylon signs proposed. However, the square footage of signage may exceed
the sign code. Staff is recommending that the amount of square footage meet the sign
code criteria.
Review/Comment by Other Departments/Agencies
City Code requires that the Departments of Public Works and Public Safety submit
"written evaluations regarding those aspects of the proposal which affect the particular
department's area of interest." Staff have routed copies of the preliminary plans to the
Building Inspector, Fire Inspector, and Assistant City Engineer for comment. The only
written comment is the attached memo from Jeff Oliver, Assistant City Engineer.
In terms of outside agencies, the plat portion of the PUD must by law be circulated to the
transportation departments of both Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota,
because the site abuts a county road (Winnetka Avenue) and a state highway (Highway
55). As identified earlier, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission will also have an
interest in this proposal, because of the infringement of the ponding areas on the regional
sewer line easement.
Summary and Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary design plan based on the site plan dated
12/15/95. The plan is consistent with the Valley Square Plan and the RFP for the
development of the site.
MWG:mkd
Attachments: Letter from Jeff Oliver, Assistant City Engineer, dated January 3, 1996
Letter from Glen Van Wormer, Manager, Transportation Department,
dated September 27, 1995
Statement of Development Concept and Conformity with the RFP
by the Opus Group
Golden Valley Commons Proposed Sign Criteria dated December 18, 1995
Declaration of Reciprocal Easements, Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions
,. Location Map
Site Sketch Response to RFP
Site Plans
....
tt MEMORANDUM
DATE: JANUARY 3, 1996
TO: MARK GRIMES
DIRECTOR OF PLANi' I AND DEVELOPMENT
FROM: JEFF OLIVER, P.E.'
ASSISTANT CITY E I ER
SUBJECT: ENGINEERING REVIEW OF GOLDEN VALLEY COMMONS
tt
The Opus Corporation has submitted plans for a retail development to be
named Golden Valley Commons. This proposed development is located
within redevelopment Area C, which is bounded by Trunk Highway 55 on the
south, Winnetka Avenue on the west, Golden Valley Road on the north and
Rhode Island Avenue on the east. The new Golden Valley Post Office is
located in the northeast comer of the property being considered for
development.
Engineering staff has completed a review of the plans submitted for this
development. Staff comments regarding the grading and storm water
drainage, traffic and utilities are as follows:
GRADING AND STORM WATER DRAINAGE:
Storm water drainage on this site is to the southeast comer of the site. There
is an existing storm sewer system at the intersection of Rhode Island Avenue
and Highway 55 that currently accommodates this run-off. Storm water
drainage from this site ultimately ends up in Sweeney Lake via the Sweeney
Lake branch of Bassett Creek.
tt
In order to provide internal site drainage, the developer will be installing a
storm sewer system within the site that connects to the existing drainage
system. This existing storm sewer, near Highway 55 and Rhode Island
Avenue, must be shown on the site plans. The proposed internal storm water
,. drainage system includes ponding to address water quantity (flooding) and
quality concerns. In order to insure that the proposed storm sewer system,
including ponds, meets all requirements of the City of Golden Valley, Bassett
Creek Water Management Commission and other agencies, the developer
must submit complete hydrology and water quality calculations for the site.
.
These calculations must include drainage maps, volume calculations, pipe
sizing and other pertinent items. The storm water system must be reviewed
and approved by the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any
building permits for the development.
The preliminary grading plan indicates that the ponding system is to
discharge directly into the ditch along the north side of Highway 55. In order
to eliminate the maintenance and erosion that is typically associated with
open ditch drainage, the pond outlets must be connected to the existing storm
sewer system at Rhode Island Avenue. This connection will also improve the
aesthetics of this portion of the site.
.
It appears that a retaining wall is proposed along the north bank of Pond A
between the water level and the parking area. If a retaining wall is proposed,
the ~all sho~ld be clearly labeled on the grading plan. In addition, the plans
should include more details regarding this wall. A cross sectional view of the
retaining wall with the water elevation, the top of wall elevation, detail of the
wall foundation and the distance between the top of the wall and the proposed
curbing should be included. If the proposed retaining wall exceeds four feet
in height, construction plans designed and certified by a professional
engineer will be required. These plans will be required before a building
permit is issued for the wall construction.
Because the soils within the proposed development are granular and highly
permeable, water loss from the ponds due to infiltration will be a problem.
Although the ponds would eventually seal from the sediments deposited with
runoff, the initial sealing may take a number of years after pond construction.
This would result in dry ponds that would need to be maintained as a turf
area. In addition, infiltration loss would likely reoccur each time sediments
are removed from the pond during routine cleaning. Therefore, each of these
ponds must be lined with some type of impermeable material to avoid or
minimize water loss due to infiltration.
.
The development agreement requires that the developer provide the City with
a written Pond Maintenance Agreement prior to closing the sale of the
property. This agreement must outline the developer's planned maintenance
for the storm water ponds, including a schedule for excavation of accumulated
silts from the ponds. This is necessary to insure that adequate ponding .
volume is maintained for nutrient and sediment removal. The Pond
Maintenance Agreement should be structured to be in conformance with the
,. City of Golden Valley's Surface Water Management Plan, which is currently
being prepared by MSA Consulting Engineers. The maintenance agreement
must be submitted to the Engineering Department at least three weeks in
2
.
advance of the closing so it can be reviewed for compliance with the Surface
Water Plan.
The grading plan contains minimal information regarding erosion and
sediment control. The developer will be required to submit a detailed erosion
control plan for the site that is in full accordance with the Water Quality Plan
of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. The developer will be
required to obtain approval of the grading. plan and the erosion control plan
from the Commission and the City prior to issuance of any building permits for
the site.
Rip-rap for erosion control is required at all locations where storm water flow
enters or exits the pond areas. The placement of the rip-rap, as well as a
installation detail, must be included on the plans.
.
Because the total area to be disturbed as part of this development exceeds
five acres, the developer will be required to obtain. a General Storm Water
Permit for Construction Activities from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
prior to the beginning of any site grading. One of the requirements of this
permit is the development of a temporary and permanent erosion and.
sediment control plan. A copy of the application for this permit must be
provided to the City prior to issuance of any building permits. A copy of the
actual permit must also be provided once issued by the MPCA.
The development contract also requires that the developer provide a drainage
easement to the U.S. Postal Service for the drainage off the post office site.
This easement must cover the storm sewer draining the post office site as well
as any ponding areas that post office drainage is routed through. As outlined
in the development agreement, this easement must be prepared prior to
property closing.
An as-built grading plan covering the ponding system must be provided by the
developer following construction. This plan must include all the finished
contours of the ponds. In addition, an as-built, in the form of plan and profile
drawings, must also be provided for the entire storm sewer system.
The developer will be required to obtain a permit from MnlDOT to perform
work within the Highway 55 right-of-way. In addition, a permit will be required
from the Metropolitan Council Office of Wastewater Services (MCWWS) for
pond construction with an easement for trunk sewer. Copies of these, and
any other applicable permits must also be provided to the City prior to
,. issuance of .building permits.
.
3
TRAFFIC:
.
In order to evaluate on-site parking and the internal traffic flow, the City had a
consulting engineering firm, Short Elliot Hendrickson (SEH), review
development plans. The conclusion of this review was that, as proposed, the
parking provided is adequate. However, the adequacy is very dependent
upon the specific uses in the proposal. Many of the proposed uses have peak
hours that do not coincide, so the need for parking is distributed through the
day rather than concentrated at peak times. Should any of the uses change
dramatically, it is likely that a parking shortage will develop.
Other concerns raised by SEH it their review have been addressed by the
developer.
The street system surrounding this proposed development is adequate to
accommodate the additional traffic that will be generated following
construction. Golden Valley Road and Winnetka Avenue were recently
reconstructed to include additional capacity and turn lanes. Reconstruction of
Rhode Island Avenue, to include additional turning capacity at Highway 55
and turn lanes at other locations, is scheduled for 1996, to coincide with
construction on this site.
.
Staff has one concern regarding the internal traffic flow of this development.
This concern is the discharge of the drive-thru lane on the east edge of the
site directly onto Rhode Island Avenue. During peak hours, it is likely that
vehicles will be attempting to turn onto Rhode Island Avenue from the drive-
thru and the access driveway just north of the drive-thru at the same time. It
is very likely that collisions between vehicles making opposing turns will occur
when both cars are competing for limited turn time in oncoming traffic. In
order to eliminate this collision hazard it is recommended that the drive-thru
lane access onto Rhode Island Avenue be eliminated, with drive-thru access
onto the internal driveway only. However, in order to reduce the tendency for
drivers to take the shortest possible path through the site from the southeast
comer to Golden Valley Road, and avoid internal traffic conflicts, turning
movements from the drive-thru should be limited to right turn only. This can
be accomplished by constructing a turn towards Rhode Island Avenue at the
extreme north end of the drive-thru.
Section 3.5. Easements, of the development agreement outlines a sidewalk to
be .constructed by the developer. This sidewalk is to be located on the north
side of the driveway (access road) into the site from Rhode Island Avenue just
south of the post office. This sidewalk is not currently shown on the
: construction plans, but must be included.
.
4
.
.
.
UTILITIES:
The Utility plan submitted by the developer is acceptable as shown, except for
the revisions to the storm sewer system previously discussed. The location of
fire hydrants connected to the internal watermain system will be reviewed
prior to issuance of a building permit.
As required 'by City Code, drainage and utility easements must be provided
over the private watermain system on-site. This easement must be a
minimum of 20 feet wide, centered on the as-built location of the pipe. The
developer must provide legal descriptions for the easements and the City will
prepare the easement documents. .
The developer will be required to submit as-built drawings of sanitary sewer
and watermain systems on site. These as-builts must be in the form or plan
and profile sheets with ties to all valves and fittings.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Engineering staff recommends approval of the proposed Golden Valley
Commons subject to the comments contained in this review, which are
summarized as follows:
1. The existing storm sewer at Rhode Island Avenue and Highway 55 be
shown on the grading plan and the utility plan.
2. The developer provide all calculations relating to storm water drainage
and water quality on-site for review and comment.
3. The outlet from the ponding system be connected to the existing storm
sewer system in the intersection of Highway 55 and Rhode Island Avenue.
4.. The proposed retaining wall near the southeast comer of the site be
labeled on the plans and a cross sectional detail of the retaining wall be
included.
5. The storm water ponds be lined with an impermeable material to insure
that they hold water.
..
6. The developer submit a mutually acceptable Pond Maintenance
Agreement to Engineering staff for review a minimum of three weeks
before closing. This agreement must be in conformance with the Surface
Water Management Plan currently being developed.
5
.
.
.
.
7. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan be prepared and submitted for
review.
8. Rip-rap be provided in the ponding areas at all storm sewer inlets and
outlets.
9. The developer provide the required drainage easement to the U.S. Postal
Service.
10. Eliminate the proposed drive thru access onto Rhode Island Avenue and
limit traffic using the drive thru to a right turn when leaving.
11. Inclusion of the required sidewalk south of the post office on all pertinent
plans.
12. Subject to the comments requirements of the City Planner, Building
Official, Fire Marshal and other City staff.
13. The developer acquire all required permits and authorizations from
MnlDOT, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the
Bassett Creek Water Management Commission, MCWWS and any other
agencies necessary.
Plefase feel free to call if you have any questions.
,.
6
.
.
.
RF.-r.'''c:n
SFP}
~GQ5
\.......
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE. 200 SEH CENTER. ST. PAUL, MN 55110 612490-2000 800 325-2055
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION
September 27,1995
RE: Golden Valley, Minnesota
Golden Valley Commons
Opus Development
Golden Valley Road and Winnetka Avenue
SEH No. A-GOLDV9601.00
Mr. Mark Grimes
Director of Planning and Development
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588
Dear Mr. Grimes:
We have had an opportunity to review the site plan and parking layout for the Golden Valley
Commons as developed by the Opus Corporation. The plan is for the remaining area of the site
next to the post office between Golden Valley Road and Highway 55, and between Winnetka
A venue and Rhode Island Avenue.
To determine the parking demand, we utilized a number of references and zoning requirements for
parking for the various components of the development. We also visited the sites and reviewed our
information from similar developments that we are quite familiar with.
The parking demand from the tenants as currently proposed complement each other quite well.
Peak periods differ, and the development is laid out in a matter to concentrate parking by
businesses and yet still allow overflow parking in an adjacent area. The major demands for parking
come from the two restaurants which are on opposite comers of the site. We utilized the site plan
to determine where parking might be located for each of the businesses at noon, on a weekday p.m.
peak, on a Friday or Saturday p.m. peak and on a weekend day. In each instance, there was
adequate parking to meet the demands of all of the businesses anticipated for that particular time
of day and week.
The 6,500 square feet restaurant in the northwest comer, assumed to be an Applebee's, would
require between 110 and 146 parking spaces, depending upon the reference source used. This
assumes 200 seats in the restaurant and bar. We assumed a peak of 120 on Fridays and Saturdays
and 110 on weekday p.m. peak periods. A lesser volume would be required for noon time.
The proposed restaurant in the southeast comer, assumed to be a Boston Market, requires less
parking than a more common fast food restaurant. Depending upon reference source and definition
of "fast food restaurant", the number of spaces required would range from 50 to 103 for "fast food".
We assumed a maximum number of 53, with a more consistent number of 40 on weekend p.m.
peaks and 45 on weekday p.m. peak hours. The noon hour peak would also be approximately 40
spaces.
SHORT ElliOTT
HENDRICKSON INC.
MINNEAPOLiS, MN
sr CLOUD, MN
CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI
MADISON. WI
LAKE COUNTY, IN
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Mr. Mark Grimes
September 27,1995
Page 2
.
We combined the coffee shop and small restaurant, assumed to be a Starbuck's Coffee Shop and
Brueggers Bagels Restaurant, since they have similar peak periods, parking demands and daily
fluctuation. The maximum number of parking spaces would vary, and we assumed there would
be a maximum of 45 spaces required in the morning. At noon hour, we assumed there would be
approximately 40 dropping to 20 in the p.m. peak hour.
The drug store, assumed to be a Walgreens, would require a maximum of 45 parking spaces, most
likely on weekends and in the weekday p.m. peak hour. The number of spaces required on
weekend p.m. peaks and during the noon hour would drop.
The video store has a seasonal fluctuation, as well as a daily variation. It generally is busier in the
evening, and we assumed a maximum of 45 on a weekday p.m. peak period. Weekends would
have a lesser volume than the peak period, but a more consistent demand throughout the evening.
We assumed that the retail would be specialty retail and would be busiest during the afternoon
shopping hours. We assumed a maximum demand of 60, dropping to 45 in the p.m. peak hour.
The sit down deli restaurant caters primarily to the noon hour. It could require up to 80 parking
spaces. We assumed this would drop to about 60 in the p.m. peak hours, both on weekdays and .
weekends.
For the weekday p.m. peak, the maximum number of spaces needed should be approximately 375.
This compares to 404 available. The weekend would drop approximately 340 spaces and the noon
hour would also be approximately 375.
The biggest competition for parking spaces will be between the Applebee's restaurant and
.- Blockbuster Video. It may be necessary to post some signing as parking for Blockbuster Video only,
especially in the 12 stalls directly in front of the video store and perhaps for a portion of one of the
adjacent aisles. At the noon hour, there will be a competition for the same parking spaces between
the deli restaurant and Blockbuster Video.
All parking calculations in this analysis were for specific businesses. Changes in the use or the
specific tenant could change the parking requirements. The Applebee's restaurant probably
maximizes parking demand for that building. Changing from a Boston Market to a more traditional
"fast food", such as a McDonald's, would increase parking demand significantly. By prohibiting
drive-thru windows, it is unlikely a traditional, high generating fast food franchise would choose
this location. Changing to a different retail business would reduce parking demands.
The deli restaurant is more oriented to noon than evening. If it changes orientation, additional
parking would be required in the p.m. peak hours. Some of the extra demand could be met from
the east parking area. It would create competition for spaces in the west parking lot.
The drug store and general retail have a parking area seldom impacted by other businesses or the .
restaurants. Changing from speciality retail to convenience center retail would add to peak hour
.
.
.
Mr. Mark Grimes
September 27,1995
Page 3
parking demand and quickly use up any surplus in this area. The 12,000 square feet of retail
generates a 50 parking space demand at noon hour. As an example, placing a small restaurant of
1,200 square feet in the retail area would add 15 to 20 spaces to the demand.
We also reviewed the site plan for operation. While this is a very preliminary site plan, a few
concerns should be addressed. Deliveries to restaurants by trucks is difficult to predict based on
a site plan. It appears that deliveries will be made by parking in front of parking spaces, meaning
off peak deliveries will be essential.
There are no trash bins shown anywhere on the site plan and little opportwlity to develop them
other than to utilize parking spaces near the two restaurants. Since these will probably deplete
some of the prime parking spaces, the trash storage should be carefully considered.
We have also reviewed the proposed traffic circle shown next to the post office. We are unable to
come up with a design which would permit truck circulation and eliminate confusion given the area
constraints. We would, therefore, recommend strongly that the traffic circle concept be eliminated.
It is possible that the same type of visual impact can be obtained through use of colored concrete,
pavers, extensive landscaping or some other type of monumentation outside of the traveled
roadway.
It may also be necessary to provide some destination signing on the roadways within the
development. Traffic from Applebee's attempting to reach Highway 55 must be directed to Rhode
Island Avenue so that they do not attempt to utilize Winnetka Avenue. The right turn only at
Winnetka Avenue and the limited area for a northbound "U"-turn at Golden Valley Road make it
essential that clear directions on-site be provided.
We have developed a considerable amount of information. If you need any of the information,
please feel free to call, and we will provide it in its rough form. We have also talked to Jay Scott of
the Opus Corporation relative to parking and informed him of our findings.
As the plan develops, we would like an opportunity to continue to assist the City in the details of
the operation of traffic circulation and signing. If you have any questions or need any additional
information, please feel free to call me at 490-2045 or Cindy Gray at 490-2071. We appreciate the
opportunity to work with the City and the developer in this interesting site . plan and parking
concept.
Sincerely,
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
~/ffi;;;J~
Glen Van Wormer
Manager, Transportation Department
tlo
c: Fred Salsbury, Golden Valley Director of Public Works
Cindy Gray, SEH
l
THE PROPOSED
. GOLDEN V ALLEY COMMONS SHOPPING CENTER
DEVELOPMENT BY THE OPUS GROUP OF
COMPANIES
.
:-
.
STATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
AND CONFORMITY WITH )'HE--.RFP
As identified by the City of Golden Valley and the BRA, the overall goal for the redevelopment of
Area C is to create a viable, unique development that responds to community needs and that fosters
a sense of community. The creation of our proposed project has focused on this sole goal,
including our engineering and designing. of the site, our proposed high quality architecture of the
buildings and landscaping, and our leasing and marketing of the project to prospective restaurants
and retailers.
As identified as one of the most important goals for the redevelopment of Area C, our proposal
creates a pedestrian-friendly development. We have reduced the impact of the automobile by
designing unique parking locations and drive-lanes throughout the development rather than simply
creating a "sea of parking" as so many other retail centers have. This is accomplished, in part, by
creating four separa~ buildings each with specific locations on the plan and each with special
landscaping and architecture. This helps to "break_up" the parking field and add character to the
overall development. In addition, the half-moon drive-lane, while providing convenient and
functional parking for the businesses near the plaza, creates a somewhat unique and aesthetically
pleasing design.
In addition to focusing on the parking and drive-lanes throughout the development, we have
created connections to each of the elements within the development by providing pedestrians safe
passage through the parking areas to each of the facilities. This will be accomplished by a series of
internal sidewalks, each connecting and facilitating pedestrian movement to and from adjoining city
blocks. We have provided for the connections of the sidewalks to the adjoining city blocks off of
Wmnetka Avenue, Golden Valley Road and Rhode Island Avenue. The internal sidewalks within
the development will be connected by striping or decorative brick or concrete pavers. This will
allow pedestrians to move safely from sidewalk to sidewalk as they pass from one parking and
building area to another. We have decided against any direct pedestrian connection from the south,
southeast and southwest. Since these areas contain high levels of vehicular traffic, we do not wish
to encourage pedestrian traffic in these areas.
As identified on our site plan, our proposed development will contain an large plaza area for
outdoor seating and eating. The plaza with be the central focus of this development drawing
pedestrians as a place of comfort for relaxing, talking, and enjoying a bite to eat. The plaza will
contain a pond area with a water fountain feature and designed seating areas surrounding the water.
The plaza will be highlighted by a forty foot high clock tower that will become the identifying
feature of this project and the entrance into the Golden Valley community. The businesses to be
located near the plaza area will each be restaurant uses that will provide additional outdoor seating
with umbrella tables during the spring, summer and fall months. In addition, the plaza area will
contain attractive landscaping following a similar approach to the streetscape located near the
Golden Valley Road and Winnetka Avenue intersection. In addition, we will welcome bicyclists
within the development and will provide designated bike-parking areas.
.
The RFP indicates that a free-standing "fast food" facility or any drive-thm facility would be
inappropriate for this development. The two free-standing restaurants shown on our site plan will
not be considered traditional "fast food" concepts, but rather family dining establishments. Neither
will be allowed a drive-thm lane. We are requesting a drive-thm lane for the proposed drug store.
This will be a low-impact drive-thru meaning that traffic will be minimal. The intent of the drive-
thm is to provide a convenience for those customers that need to pick-up prescriptions. The drive-
thm will be for prescription-only customers. Customer surveys have found that people in need of
picking of prescriptions at drug stores strongly favor drive-thru lanes for this purpose. These
customers are often in a hUITY and do not need or want to spend additional time shopping. We will
minimize any potential conflicts between the drive-thru exit and the adjacent service driveway with
appropriate signage. Since the proposed drive-thru lane can accommodate up to three to four
vehicles before causing any blockage off of Rhode Island, and since the anticipated traffic levels
will be so low, we believe the traffic impact of the drive-thm will be minimal. We would be
willing to accept the drive-thru lane on the condition that its use only be associated with that of a
drug store and no other use. This should protect the community from any future abuse of the
drive-thru facility. .
The plan we have created would consist of approximately 46,000 to 47,000 square feet of total
building area, including two free-standing restaurants. The restaurant to be located on Lot 1 will
range in size from 4,200 square to 7,500 square feet depending upon actual concept selected for
this location. We would request that consideration be given in the ultimate approval of this plan so
that we will have the flexibility to adjust the size of this building according to the needs of the user. .
The main shopping center complex, located on Lot 2, will contain two buildings with a total
leasable area of approximately 36,000 to 37,000 square feet. The restaurant to be located on Lot 3 -
will range in size from 3,000 to 3,500 square feet depending upon the proto-type selected for this
location. While this plan does not maximize the total leasable area of the site, it does provide a
good balance between creating the .necessary leasable area to make the project economically feasible
and that of creating a project which provides a distinctive pedestrian-orlented place which fosteIs a
sense of community.
The Golden Valley Commons proposal blends the unique characteristics desired by the community
while at the same time contributing to the long-term financial goals and needs of the Gty. The
complex nature of this project addresses the aspects of presence, commerce, ceremony and
social/cultural interaction. There is no one component, approach or determinant which is a
panacea. Rather, there are many inter-related influences which are part and parcel of the
organization and perception of what a community campus is, and might become. Paramount to the
design solution is an understanding that this site must embrace the resident and welcome the
visitor. We have carefully designed a project that meets the parameters established by the BRA
and the residents of the City of Golden Valley. .
.
.
.
.
V ARIANCES BEING REQUESTED
While I believe the following represents an accurate assessment of the variances we are requesting
as part of our proposed project and the PUD application, we will ultimately rely upon your review
and understanding of the City Code for a more complete and thorough analysis of the actual
variances we require and are requesting.
Loadinl! Area
The commercial zoning district requires one designated loading area per business establishment.
We have provided this area for those businesses located in the larger center at the northwest corner
of the site. Neither of the free-standing restaurants will have a specially designated loading area,
nor will the businesses in the secondary retail building.
For the free-standing restaurants, the trash, recycling and service areas will be located within the
buildings as outlined on the site plan. We have specifically designed these building this way for
aesthetic reasons, yet it is important to note that these facilities are very functional and have been
used successfully in many other retail projects we have developed. While these areas will not
likely have a designated service-only parking area, there will be direct access to the trash/service
areas of the buildings from the parking lot. These type of businesses will not have deliveries or
trash removal during business hours, therefore, it serves no beneficial purppse to eHminate the
parking stalls located in front of these areas for either restaurant location. And since these parking
stalls will be used exclusively by the restaurant's cuStomers there shouldn't be a meaningful
concern that the parking stalls in front of the service/trash areas will be occupied during the late-
night or early morning hours that service will take place.
The secondary retail building will share a trash holdinWhauling area with the main retail center.
Service will be handled with front door deliveries for small items and through the rear entrance for
larger deliveries. Given the type of retailers that will be included in this project (small restaurants
and general purpose retail) there will be no need to provide for larger delivery trucks (i.e. those that
would occupy two or more regular parking stalls). It is standard for these type of retailers to not
have a dedicated service area behind their building. We will provide rear door access to each of the
buildings for delivers of a larger nature that must occur during business hours. Parking for
delivery vehicles should still require the use of only one regular parking stall. In the event the
delivery vehicles are larger, we will allow for them to share the delivery/service-only parking areas
behind the main retail center.
Parking Soaees
The City of Golden Valley's parking ordinance is very unique and burdensome compared to most
other communities. Most municipalities require parking ratios similar to the following: Five
parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of retail space, and 15 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of
restaurant space. Under these ratios our proposed project would require 408 parking stalls, and
our site plan design provides 409 stalls. Therefore, in our opinion, this proposed project has
sufficient parking to meet the needs of the retailers and their customers.
Also, the type of retail mix we are proposing provides for varying peak hours of operation, thus
reducing the impact of adjacent businesses competing for parking stalls. The staggering of traffic
at the development will assist in alleviating any potential parking congestion and it will allow traffic
to flow more freely within the site and to and from adjacent properties. Out proposed project was
designed to reduce the impact of the automobile compared to other type of retail centers in
accordance with the goals of the BRA and the city residents. While we have provided sufficient
and convenient parking for each of our proposed retailers and their customers, the visual and
physical impact of vehicles has been reduced through careful design of roadways, building
placement, and the provision of public spaces and prominent architectural and landscaping
features.
.
At the request and suggestion of the City Staff, we have undertaken an independent parking study
by Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) to analyze the parking situation with our proposed
project A copy of that study was addressed to Mark Grimes on September 27,1995. Rather than
. go into the details of the study, it concluded that "the parking demand from the tenants as currently
proposed complement each other quite well. Peak periods differ, and the development is laid out
in a matter to concentrate parking by businesses and yet still allow overflow parking in an adjacent
area. "
We feel that our proposed project does provide adequate parking and would request that the City
subject the approval of this project to maintaining the following parking ratio: five parking stalls
per 1,000 square feet of retail space, and 15 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of restaurant
space. This creates a fair measure for assessing future parking needs as the retail mix of the
shopping center changes over time. We will create a Declaration of Covenants and Easements
regulating access and maintenance of all parking areas, driveways, and landscaped areas. While
this document has not been fully approved by us at this time, I have attached a draft cony for
your review.
Street Setbacks
City Code requires 35 feet of landscaping between a building or parking area and any street
property line. Along the south side of the property, there are approximately seven parking spaces
located in the half-moon parking field that infringe upon by five feet or less on the required
setback. In order to maintain the curved parking field in front of the plaza at a functional level, and
in order to maintain our parking in this area, we cannot simply adjust or flatten the curve of this
parking field without negatively impacting other components of the plaza feature.
On the west side of the property, facing Wmnetka Avenue, there is also a parking infringement
upon the 35 foot setback from our parking improvements to our property line. We do, however,
maintain at least a minimum of 35 feet of landscaped area (including the city's streetscape area plus
our landscaped area) from our parking improvements to Winnetka Avenue.
Along the northwest side of the site, the restaurant building falls within 35 feet of the property line.
However, again, the building location provides a minimum of 35 feet of landscaped buffer to
Golden Valley Road. Also, the building structure does not come closer than ten feet from the
property line as required. The building location is important for many reasons including, the
increased exposure to traffic along Highway 55, the visibility of the building and signage to
Highway 55, breaking-up the parking fields and separating the building structures to maintain an
"urban edge character" which is consistent throughout the development design.
Along the north side of the property, again some of the parking improvements infringe upon the 35
foot setback from our property line. This again affects less than approximately ten stalls. With the
exception of two parking stalls, we have again maintained a minimum of 35 feet of landscaped area
between our proposed improvements and Golden Valley Road.
Along the east side of the site, we have maintained the required 35 foot setback for all buildings to
the edge of our property line. We do infringe upon the 35 foot landscaped buffer between the
paved areas one the site and the adjacent roadway edge. We have, however, maintained a
consistent setback with the Post Office development to Rhode Island. Without a landscaping
.
.
.
.
.
variance along Rhode Island similar to that at the Post Office development, we will not have
enough space for adequate parking and design of the rest of the shopping center within our
development. We do plan to maintain a minimum of fifteen to twenty feet of landscaped area,
including the landscaped area provided by the City, from our parking surface to Rhode Island. We
do not feel there is a need to create a greater landscaped buffer along this stretch of road since there
will not be, and we should not encourage, much pedestrian traffic near the intersection of Rhode
Island and Highway 55. We will agree to provide a landscaped berm between these areas to soften
the visual impact of the traffic along Rhode Island. Special attention will be paid to this area of our
development regarding landscaping and we will coordinate our landscaping plan with that of the
City in this area.
Side/Rear Setbacks
None of the buildings within the three lots infringe upon the required side or rear setbacks. On the
other hand, all the paved surface areas do. As I mentioned earlier, we will be creating a
Declaration of Covenants and Easements regulating access and maintenance of all parking areas,
drivelanes, and landscaped areas. This document will be in a form similar to that which I have
attached.
Silnage
We have submitted a separate proposed sign criteria for this shopping center development, a copy
of which is attached. Signage is critical to the success of the retailers and restaurants in this
project. The pylon signage proposed is also an important architectural element of our overall
design. We respectfully request that signage for this shopping center be based upon the criteria we
have provided you with. Those items not addressed within our proposed criteria would be subject
to the City Code on signage.
.
.
.
GOLDEN VALLEY COMMONS
PROPOSED SIGN CRITERIA
DECEMBER 18, 1995
2- 0/ V,f/ r/.
/ 5?~6'~)
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS FOR LOT 2
The center will be allowed two (2) freestanding area identification signs. These signs shall be
located near the intersection of Wmnetka Avenue and Highway 55 and off the Plaza area near the
middle of the shopping center, both of which are located on the submitted site plans.
The proposed clock tower sign will not exceed forty (40) feet in heighi nor one hundred thirty
(130) square feet in sign area per side with signage. The other center pylon sign will not exceed
twenty-five (25) feet in height nor exceed seventy (70) square feet in sign area per side with
signage. These signs will identify the center and list up to six major tenants.
PYLON SIGNS FOR LOTS 1 AND 3
Tenants/owners of Lots 1 and 3 will each be allowed one (1) freestanding pylon sign not to exceed
twenty-five (25) feet in height nor seventy (70) square feet in sign area per side containing signage.
The proposed location of these pylon signs has been highlighted o~ the submitted site plans.
BUILDING SIGNAGE FOR LOT 2
1. Only one sign limited to store or trade name, not including a logo sign, shall be permitted for
each exterior wall of each retailer's space. Signs shall not exceed 10% of the storefront facade
on which they are placed. For those retailers located on endcaps, they may, with the property
owner's approval, place a second exterior wall sign using the same basic criteria outlined
herein. Retailers may utilize neon window signs, as approved by the build owner,
without being subject to the criteria set forth herein.
2. Signs shall be no closer that two (2) feet to the retailer party wall on a multi-tenant building or
the building edge for endcap retailers.
3. Signs shall consist of individually internally lighted channel letters with translucent fronts and
colored trim caps, which shall be approved by the building owner.
4. Roofed areas which approach vertical may be considered a wall for the purposes of erecting
signs. In defining approaching vertical, a general rule should be used that the roofed areas
must be within thirty (30) degrees of perpendicular to the ground.
BUILDING SIGNAGE FOR LOTS 1 AND 3
1. Up to three (3) signs identifying store or trade name, not including a logo sign, shall be
permitted for the exterior wall of each retailer's space as highlighted on the building elevation
drawings submitted. Signs shall not exceed the square footage that is outlined on each elevation
drawing. The retailer on Lot 3 shall be allowed up to one logo sign, not to exceed 55 square
feet of signage area. . Retailers may utilize neon window signs, as approved by the build owner,
without being subject to the criteria set forth herein.
2. Signs shall consist of ~dividua1ly internally lighted channel letters with translucent fronts and
colored trim caps, which shall be approved by the building owner.
Golden Valley Commons
Sign Criteria
Page 2
.
General Requirements
1. All sign transformers, raceways and ballast boxes and decals shall be concealed behind
sign band wall. Manufacturer's names, stamps and decals shall not be exposed.
2. No incandescent bulbs or flashing, blinking, rotating, or moving signs shall permitted.
Exposed neon signs shall be allowed within the windows of the premises, subject to
landlord's approval.
3. Small-scale signs stating store hours, which are neatly lettered on the glass of the
storefront, shall be permitted subject to landlord's approval. The maximum letter
height shallbe 1-112', the print style shall be Helvetica medium and the color shall be
white. Any non-customer door for receiving merchandise may have the name of tenant
in two-inch (2") block letters. Address signs shall be composed of four-inch (4") high,
maximum, Helvetica style white letters centered on the transom glass above the door.
4. No sign shall be painted on the exterior of the walls, doors, windows or any other
surface of the demised premises, not erected, maintained or suffered to remain on the
roof or parapet of the premises.
5. The signage requirements of the Golden Valley Ordinance Code shall apply to the signs .
within Golden Valley Commons except those requirements which are specifically
amended via this sign package.
.
.
winston & strawn Draft Dated 12/12/95
Blacklined from Eaaan Declaration
DBCLARA':rXOH 01' RBCXPROCAL BASBIIBlrtS,
COVBD.N'rS, COHDX':rIOHS AND RESftIC':rIOHS
DIS DBCLARA':rION OF RBCIPROCAL DSBJlD'rS, COVDmIITS
COHDI':rIONS AND RBS':rRIC':rIOHS ("Declaration") is made as of the
day of , 19 , by <1> Golden Vallev commCiiii:"
L.L.C.. a Delaware limited liaMlitv cOiiii)anv ("Declarant").
RBCITALS
.
A. Declarant is the owner of those certain tracts of
land depicted as Tracts 1 <2>. 2 and 3 on the site plan attached
hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A, and legally described
on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof, and is the
owner of the buildings and improvements thereon (each of said
tracts together with the buildings and improvements thereon is
sometimes hereinafter referred to individually as a "Tract" and
collectively as the "Shopping center").
B. Tracts 1 <3> and 3 are sometimes hereinafter
collectively referred to asthe "outparcels", and individually as
an "outparcel".
C. Declarant is desirous of imposing certain easements,
covenants, conditions and restrictions upon certain of the Tracts
for the purpose of facilitating the economic and related
development of the Shopping Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, in connection with the development of the
Shopping Center, Declarant does hereby declare that each of the
following grants, easements, covenants, conditions and restrictions
shall exist at all times hereafter and be binding upon, and inure
to the benefit of, each Tract in the Shopping center.
1. DSBIIBlrt DBCLUATIONS AND GlU\II'lS.
.
(a) Access and Parkina. Subject to the conditions and
limitations hereinafter set forth, Declarant hereby declares and
grants for the benefit of each Tract, a nonexclusive easement
appurtenant to each of such Tracts upon, over and across the access
and perimeter driveways and parking areas, sidewalks, wa1kways,
service areas (excluding loading and unloading facilities), and
driveways of the Shopping Center, all as shown and depicted on
Exhibit A as the same may exist from time to time, and over those
portions of the outparcels to be developed as access and perimeter
driveways and parking areas, sidewalks, walkways, and service areas
(excluding loading and unloading facilities) and driveways of the
Shopping center, for the purpose of providing the owner from time
to time of each such Tract and its tenants and their respective
employees, customers, agents and invitees having business in the
Shopping center, with vehicular (excluding construction vehicles,
except as hereinafter provided) parking, pedestrian and vehicular
ingress and egress to, from and between each Tract and use of the
driveways of the Shopping Center for access to ~ Rhode Xsland
Avenue. Golden Vallev Road and winnetka Avenue.
(b) storm Water Drainaae. Declarant hereby declares and
grants for the benefit of each Tract, a non-exclusive easement
appurtenant .to each such Tract, over, across, upon and under the
portion of the Common Area underlying the subsurface storm sewer
and drainage lines and surface drainage ways depicted on the
utility plan attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit C
(collectively, the "Storm Sewer system") for the sole and exclusive
purpose of running and transferring water accumulating and
originating on each Tract to the Storm Sewer system, together with
the right of access to the portion of the Common Area underlying
the storm Sewer System and areas adj acent thereto as may be
reasonably and temporarily necessary for purposes of installing,
maintaining, repairing, replacing, removing and enlarging the Storm
Sewer system, subject to the conditions that:
(i) No such rmmina' or transferrina' of water shall
result in water beina' discharae4 at a rate or in a vo11Dlle .
,in excess of thaj: Dermi tted bv the desian stand.ards for
the storm Sewer System:
J!!l The owner of each Tract shall not permit the
flow of toxic or hazardous substances or any other
substance from such Tract into the storm Sewer system
which is not permitted to be discharged into the public
storm sewer serving the Shopping Center by any applicable
law, statute or regulation or otherwise; and
<5>(111) The owner of each Tract shall not permit
any other party or property to discharge water onto the
Shopping Center and no right to transfer or run water is
granted hereunder other than to the owner(s) of each
Tract for water accumulating and originating on such
Tract.
.
(c) Sani tarv Sewer. Declarant hereby declares and
grants for the benefit of each Tract, a non-exclusive easement
appurtenant to each such Tract, over, across, upon and under the
portion of the Common Area underlying the sanitary sewer lines and
related appurtenances depicted on Exhibit C (COllectively, the
"Sanitary Sewer System") for the sole and exclusive purpose of
permitting the flow of wastewater, sewage and related materials
through the sanitary Sewer system, together with the right of .
access to the portion of the Common Area underlying the sanitary
2
.
Sewer System and areas adjacent thereto as may be reasonably and
temporarily necessary for purposes of installinq, maintaininq,
repairinq, replacinq, removinq and enlarqinq the Sanitary Sewer
system.
.
(d) Water. Declarant hereby declares and qrants for the
benefit of each Tract, a non-exclusive easement appurtenant to each
such Tract, over, across, upon and under the portion of the Common
Area underlyinq the water lines and related appurtenances depicted
on Exhibit C (collectively, the "Water system") for the sole and
exclusive purpose of permittinq the flow of water throuqh the Water
System, toqether with the riqht of access to the portion of the
Common Area underlyinq the Water system and areas adjacent thereto
as may be reasonably and temporarily necessary for purposes of
installinq, maintaininq, repairinq, replacinq, removinq and
enlarqinq the Water system.
(e) Gas. Electric. TeleDhone. Cable Television and
Communication. Declarant hereby declares and qrants for the
benefit of each Tract, a non-exclusive easement appurtenant to each
such Tract under, alonq and across those portions of the Common
Area as may be temporarily and reasonably necessary for the
purposes of installinq, maintaininq, repairinq, replacinq, renewinq
and enlarqinq utility lines or systems servinq each Tract for qas,
electrical, telephone, cable television and communication service
to such Tract ( collectively , "utility Lines n), subj ect to the
conditions that:
(i) All utility Lines shall be underqround except:
(a) qround mounted electrical transformers and
temporary emerqency qenerators;
(b)
as may be necessary durinq periods of
construction, repair or temporary service;
(c) as may be required by qovernmental authorities
havinq juriSdiction over the shoppinq Center;
(d) as may be required by the provider of such
service; and
.
(e) fire hydrants;
(ii) At least fifteen (15) days prior to exercisinq
the easement riqhts qranted herein, the owner of the
Tract benefitted by the easement riqhts qranted herein
("Grantee") shall provide the owner of the Tract whose
Common Area is to be burdened by the easement riqhts
qranted herein ("Grantor") with a written statement
describinq the need for such easement and identifyinq the
proposed location and width of any such proposed utility
3
Line. The location and width of any such proposed
utility Line shall be subject to the prior approval of ~
the Grantor, which approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld or delayed. The easement area shall be no wider
than reasonably necessary to satisfy the requirements of
a private or public utility. Within thirty (30) days
after the determination of the location of any such
easement area, the Grantee shall, at its sole cost and
expense, record a written declaration referring to this
section l(e) and setting forth the legal description of
such easement area. Further, the Grantee shall, at its
sole cost and expense, promptly following installation of
any such utility Line, provide the Grantor with a copy of
an as-built survey showing the location of such utility
Line; and
(iii) The Grantor shall have the right at any time
to relocate the easements granted herein, provided that
(i) the easements so relocated will be of substantially
equivalent usefulness for the purposes stated herein,
(ii) all costs to effect such relocation shall be paid by
the Grantor, and (iii) the Grantor shall interfere with
the business being operated on the Grantee's Tract as
Ii ttle as reasonably possible in the exercise of the
Grantor's rights herein.
(f) Pvlon sians. Declarant hereby declares and grants ~
for the benefit of Tract <6> 2, a non-exclusive easement
=-=::II =
appurtenant to Tract ~ 1, over, across, upon and under those
portions of the Common Area as may be necessary for the purpose of
permitting the owner(s) of T:sact ~ 1 ("Tract ~ ! owner") to
construct, install, maintain, repair and replace the proposed
Shopping Center pylon <10> sian(s) at the locations depicted on
. Exhibit A. Only partieS'deSignated by Declarant from time to time
shall have the right to appear on such Shopping Center pylon <11>
sian(s).
<12> (<I) Miscellaneous. The owner of each Tract, in the
exercise and use of the rights and privileges herein granted, will
not do any act which would materially and adversely affect the
Shopping Center or part thereof. Any work to be performed in
connection with the easement rights granted herein (other than any
work to be performed in connection with the easement rights granted
in <13> section 4(f) <14> above) shall be subject to the provisions
of ~ion 4(b) (i) hereof, and the Owner of the Tract benefitted
thereby shall, at its sole cost and expense, comply with the same.
The easements granted herein are located in and restricted to the
area below the surface of the ground, and this Agreement grants no
right to use, occupy or alter any area of the ground surface above
the easement areas except as reasonably and temporarily necessary
to afford access to the easement areas.
~
4
.
.
.
Declarant hereby reserves non-exclusive easements under,
through and across the sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, <15>
landscaping, walkways, aisles, retaining walls or fences on any-of
the Tracts and all other areas of any of the Tracts except that
area underlying any building located (or to be located) on any of
the Tracts for such water system lines, telephone and electrical
conduits or systems, gas lines, drainage lines and other public
utilities which are or may be located in the Shopping Center to
service any part of the Shopping Center, including any of the
Tracts. Each Tract owner shall maintain utility lines located on
their respective Tracts except if said utility lines are used
exclusively by another Tract owner, in which event said other owner
shall be responsible for maintenance of said utility lines.
Declarant covenants that in the exercise of the easements hereby
reserved, Declarant shall not disturb any Tract owner's use of its
Tract except as reasonably necessary, and Declarant shall interfere
with the business being operated on the Tract as little as
reasonably possible in the exercise of Declarant's rights herein.
2. DURATION. The easements, covenants, conditions and
restrictions herein contained shall be perpetual, shall create
mutual benefits and covenants running with the land and shall be
binding upon any owner, tenant, or occupant of the Shopping Center
and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors
and assigns.
3. CODON AREAS. The sidewalks, driveways, parking
areas, service areas (excluding loading and unloading facilities),
Shopping Center signs, recreation areas, landscaping, walkways,
aisles, driveways for ingress and egress to and from the Shopping
Center, buildings, and other facilities of the Shopping Center
designed for use by all occupants of the Shopping center, as shown
on Exhibit A as the same may exist from time to time together with
all such areas and facilities to be developed on any outparcel, are
herein together referred to as the "Common Areas.'. The Common
Areas shall not be used for any purpose other than pedestrian
movement and the parking and passage of motor vehicles and
landscaping.
4. CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS CONCERNING OUTPDCBLS.
(a) out'Darcel Buildinas. Except as permitted by the prior written
approval of Declarant, no building or structure shall be
constructed or maintained on any outparcel unless such building or
structure shall conform to the following covenants and
requirements:
(i) Any such building or structure <16> shall not
exceed the lesser of (A) twenty-two (22) feet
measured from the elevation to the top of the
highest point ( inclusive of parapets and structural
5
features but exclusive of building mechanical .
systems), or (B) one (1) story in height. <17>
(ii) No building or structure constructed and maintained
on the outparcels shall exceed the building size
depicted on Exhibit A for each such outparcel, and
the location (or relocation) of any building,
structure or other improvement upon any outparcel
shall be confined to the area within the
permissible building areas depicted on Exhibit A.
(iii) Any rooftop equipment located on the top of any
building or structure shall be screened in a manner
reasonably satisfactory to Declarant.
(iv) No rooftop siqn shall be erected or maintained with
respect to any such building or structure.
(v) No more than ODe (1) freestanding pylon or monument
type identification sign may be erected on 'any of
~ the outparcels. Any such signs shall be
subject to the prior approval of the Declarant,
which shall not be unreasonably withheld or
delayed, and in no event shall such siqn interfere
in any material respect with the visibility of any
store at the Shopping Center from adjacent roads .
and highways. Any such signs shall be subject to
all applicable laws and regulations, and the owner
of any outparcel containing such signs shall comply
with the same. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there
may be erected entrance-exit signs to facilitate
the free flow of traffic, which entrance-exit signs
shall be of a monument type, not to exceed 3' 3" in
height, the type and location of such signs to be
approved by Declarant, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed.
(vi) No improvements shall be constructed, erected,
expanded or altered on any of the outparcels until
the plans for the same (inClUding site layout,
siqnage, civil engineering drawings (including
finished floor elevations), exterior appearance,
parking and landscaping) have been approved by
Declarant. Any such plans shall not permit and
there shall not be direct access from the
outparcels to <19> any Dublic road or riaht-of-wav.
(vii) In developing and using the outparcels, the
owner (s) of such outparcels shall cause parking
facilities to be constructed and/or maintained
thereon containing the qreater of (A) ,Lfifteen
(15)1 parking spaces (of a size and confiquration .
6
.
.
(b)
.
consistent and in accordance with applicable laws
or regulations) for every one thousand (1,000)
square feet of building floor area for any
restaurant or entertainment use, or five (5)
parking spaces (of a size and configuration and in
accordance with applicable law or regulations) for
every one thousand (1,000) square feet of building
floor area for any other use, and (B) that number
of parking spaces legally required to serve the
existing use at the particular outparcel rJay and
Tim: Should we tie oarkina to P.U.D. olan?1. The
OUtoarcels may satisfY such oarkina reauirements ~v
takina into consideration any oarkina soaces
located off of such autoareels that may ~e s~;ect
to easement riQ'hts in favor of such outoarcel
created ~y this Declaration. AnYthing herein to
the contrary notwithstanding, Declarant may count
the number of parking spaces now or hereafter
existing on the outparcels and use the outparcels
as may be necessary for purposes of satisfying
parking ratios or requirements contained in any
leases at space in the Shopping Center existing as
of the date of this Declaration. In addition,
Declarant shall have the right to designate
specific parking areas located on the portion of
the Shopping Center owned by Declarant for the use
of employees of any tenant-, owner, occupant or
other party entitled to use such parking area;
provided, however, no such designation shall
materially and adversely affect the parking
easement set forth herein.
(viii) When any outparcel has been improved with. a
building thereon, the remaining area of such
outparcel shall be improved as parking areas,
sidewalks, walkways, aisles, service areas,
driveways and landscaping. Such remaining areas
shall thereafter be deemed Common Areas for
purposes of this Declaration.
Conditions and Restrictions. Use and enjoYment by any
outparcel owner of the easement rights and declarations
herein granted shall be subject to the following terms,
covenants and restrictions.
(i) Each outparcel owner shall pay all reasonable costs
and expenses incurred by Declarant due to damage to
the Shopping Center arising from or related to such
outparcel owner's construction operations at such
outparcel. Each outparcel owner shall not
materially obstruct the free flow of pedestrian or
vehicular traffic upon and across the Shopping
7
Center during any period of construction at such .
Outparcel or at any time thereafter. During such
period of construction, such outparcel owner shall
cause the interior driveways of the Shopping Center
to be maintained free of all materials and supplies
arising out of or resulting from such outparcel
owner's construction and otherwise in a neat and
orderly condition undisturbed from such Outparcel
owner's construction operations. At no time shall
any vehicle or equipment used in such construction
or any materials used in such construction be
parked or stored on an area wi thin the Shopping
Center other than such outparcel. Each outparcel
owner shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless
each other Tract owner and its tenants and
occupants from and against any and all loss, cost,
damage, liability, claim or' expense (including,
without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs) arising from or relating to such outparcel
owner's construction operations. Each outparcel
owner shall not permit or suffer any mechanic's
liens claims to be filed or otherwise asserted
against the Shopping Center in connection with such
outparcel owner's construction operations, and
shall promptly discharge the same in case of the
filing of any claims for liens or proceedings for .
the enforcement thereof. Each outparcel owner and
its contractors and subcontractors shall be solely
responsible for the transportation, safekeeping and
storage of materials and equipment used in
connection with such outparcel owner's construction
operations, and for the removal of waste and debris
resulting therefrom. In the event any outparcel
owner's construction operations detrimentally
affect the condition of any portion of the Shopping
Center, such outparcel owner shall restore the
Shopping center, or part thereof, to its condition
existing prior to commencement of such outparcel
owner's construction operations, including without
limitation, any filling and compacting of all
excavations, repaving of paved areas and
replacement of landscaping. No such construction
operations shall result in a labor dispute or
encourage labor disharmony. Prior to commencement
of such outparcel owner's construction operations,
such outparcel owner shall obtain, at its sole cost
and expense, and maintain during the performance of
such outparcel owner's construction operations,
workers compensation insurance covering all persons
directly employed by such outparcel owner in
connection with such outparcel owner's construction .
operations and with respect to which death or
8
.
injury claims could be asserted against Declarant,
such outparcel owner, the Shopping Center or any
interest therein as required by applicable laws and
regulations, together wi th comprehensive general
liability insurance for the mutual benefit of
Declarant and such outparcel owner with limits not
less than the amounts set forth in Section 8
hereof, and all risk builder's risk insurance
covering any improvements constructed. All such
insurance shall be written by solvent insurance
comprises licensed in the State of Minnesota and
all such policies of insurance or <20> binders of
. . =
1nsurance shall be del1vered to Declarant prior to
commencement of such outparcel owner's construction
operations.
.
(ii) The outparcels shall be kept neat, orderly, planted
-in grass and trimmed until improved and
constructed. Each outparcel shall not be fenced
(unless such fence encloses a dumpster on such
outparcel or acts as an temporary barrier to a
construction zone during construction on such
outparcel) or obstructed in any way but shall be
kept open at all times for the free use thereof,
except that curbs, landscaping or bumper stops may
be erected on an outparcel in order to define the
boundaries of such Outparcel. Each outparcel owner
shall maintain the exterior of all buildings
located on such outparcel owner's outparcel in good
condition and state of repair, including without
limitation, maintaining all perimeter and building
walls and retaining walls, keeping the exterior
store front surface clean, replacing any cracked or
broken glass, and keeping all windows clean and
unobstructed.
.
(iii) No delivery or service trucks servicing the
business operations located on any of the
outparcels shall be permitted to park in the
Shopping Center parking lot.
(iv) Declarant hereby reserves unto itself, the right- to
cure any failure of any outparcel owner to make
such repairs, maintenance or restoration as are
required under the aforesaid covenants, conditions
and reservations and as required under Sections 5
and 8 hereof; provided, however, Declarant shall
not be entitled to cure any such failure unless
Declarant has first given the outparcel owner
written notice of such failure and the outparcel
owner has not cured such failure within thirty (30)
days of such-notice or, in case such cure cannot be
9
effected within said 3o-day period and such .
outparcel owner is diligently pursuing such cure,
such additional period as may be reasonably
necessary to effect such cure, and provided further
that, with respect to a failure the outparcel owner
to maintain insurance set forth in Sections 4(b) (i)
and 7 hereof or with respect to any event, fact or
circumstance which involves imminent threat of
injury or damage to persons or property, the
aforesaid cure period shall not apply. All
reasonable costs incurred by Declarant in
performing such repairs, landscaping, maintenance
or restoration shall be due from any such outparcel
owner upon demand, and, in addition, such outparcel
owner shall pay interest on such costs from the
date of expenditure by Declarant until the date of
reimbursement by any such outparcel owner, at an
interest rate equal to two percent (2%) per annum
in excess of the published prime rate of interest
of Norwest Bank Minneapolis, N.A. (or similar
institution if said bank shall cease to exist or to
publish such a prime rate) provided that such rate
shall not exceed the highest rate permitted by
applicable law. The amount due from any such
outparcel owner shall be secured by a lien upon the
Outparcel, effective upon the recordinq thereof in .
the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of <21>
BeDDeD in county, Minnesota.
Any of the foreqoinq restrictions may be waived, amended,
modified, released or terminated at any time and from time to time
by Declarant.
5 . REPAIRS AND IlAINTEllANCE.
(a) Tract <22> !o With respect to Tract ~ ! and each
Tract under the common ownership of Tract ~ ! owner, Tract ~
! Owner shall keep the Common Areas located on Tr~ct <26> ! and
each such Tract secure and in a safe condit1on, free of
obstruction, clean, swept and in qood repair, shall remove snow and
ice from the Common Areas located on Tract <27> 2 and each such
--
Tract and renew any portions thereof as necessary, shall keep the
Common Areas located on Tract <28> 2 and each such Tract liqhted
durinq hours of darkness when th"ebUsiness operations located upon
Tract ~ ! and each such Tract are open for business, shall
maintain all public parkways adjacent to Tract ~ .& and each such
Tract, and shall keep the parkinq areas located on Tract <31> ! and
each such Tract properly striped to assist in the orderly parkinq
of cars. All maintenance and repairs shall be done as quickly as
possible and at such times and in such a manner as shall minimize
any inconvenience to the business conducted in the Shoppinq Center .
and to delivery vehicles servicinq such business.
10
.
.
(b)~ Other Tracts. with respect to any Tract not
under the common ownership of Tract ~ 2 owner, the owner of any
such Tract shall maintain or cause to be maintained the Common
Areas located on its respective Tract in at least as good condition
as the Common Areas located on Tract <34> 2 and consistent with the
=== =
terms and provisions of section 5(a) hereof, and shall comply with
all laws, rules, regulations and requirements of public authorities
relating in any manner whatsoever to such Tract. The owner of any
such Tract shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of the (i) real
estate taxes which are due and payable for said Tract owner's
Tract, and (ii) maintenance expenses for the Common Areas located
on any such Tract owner's Tract including without limitation any
public right-of-way adjacent thereto. For purposes of this
Declaration, real estate taxes shall include all taxes, assessments
and governmental charges of any kind and nature whatsoever levied
or assessed against the shopping Center and any improvement
thereon. In addition to paYment of real estate taxes for said
Tract owner's Tract and maintenance expenses for the Common Areas
of the Shopping Center located on any such Tract as provided above,
in the event any of the Tracts cease to be under the common
ownerShip of Tract <35> 2 owner, the owner of each such Tract shall
=======- c:::::z ...
pay to Tract.~ ! Owner on a quarterly ~as1s, 1n adv~ce, 1n
accordance w1th Tract <37> 2 owner's est1mate, and SubJect to
adjustment after the en~ the year on the basis of the actual
costs for such year, its respective proportionate share of the
following Common Area costs and expenses:' (i) maintenance and
repair of the perimeter driveways and entrance areas of Tract ~
2 (including sealing, striping and patching), and (ii) maintenance
== .
and repa1r of off-site detention areas, in each case based upon the
ratio that the ground floor square foot area of the buildinq
located on any such Tract bears to the total ground floor square
foot area of all buildings in the Shopping Center (excludinq
mezzanine areas unless used for sales of merchandise or sales of
services). rJav and Tim: Do yOU want to oass-throuah after hours
liahtina?l The amount due from any such Tract owner under this
<39> section 5 shall be secured by a lien upon such Tract,
effective upon the recording thereof in the Office of the Recorder
of Deeds of ~ Henneoin County, Minnesota.
Tract <41> 2 owner shall, at the request of any other
Tract owner, make=available to such Tract owner for its inspection
and examination all of the books and records that relate to the
determination of the maintenance expenses as above provided. Tract
10 owner also agrees to make such books and records available to an
independent certified accountant selected by any such Tract owner,
and reasonably acceptable to Tract ~ ! Owner, for review and
audit, at the requesting Tract owner's sole cost and expense. If
such audit reveals an error in the maintenance expenses estimate or
adjustment, an appropriate adjustment shall be made based upon such
audit.
.
11
6. IlIDmoaFICA'1'IOH. In the event any of the Tracts .
ever cease to be under the common ownership of Tract <43> 2 owner,
the owner of any such Tract (including Tract <44> 2=owDer) shall
defend, indemnify and hold harmless the remainin=q=Tract owners from
and against any and all claims, actions, damages, fines,
liabilities and expenses of every kind, nature and sort whatsoever
(including reasonable attorney's fees, court costs and expenses)
which may be imposed upon, incurred by or asserted against the
indemnified party or its property in connection with loss of life,
personal injury and/or property damage arising from or relating to
any occurrence in, upon or at the Tract owned by the indemnifying
party, or any part thereof, or from exercise of the easement rights
granted herein, except to the extent caused by the willful or
negligent acts or omissions of the indemnified party or exceot to
the extent covered by insurance. with respect to any
indemnification provided for hereunder, the indemnifying owner
shall immediately respond and take over the expense, defense and
investigation of all such claims arising under this indemnity.
7. INSURABCE. In the event any of the Tracts ever
cease to be under the common ownership of Tract <45> 2 Owner, the
owner of any such Tract (inClUding Tract ~ 1 oWiier).... shall cause
to be procured and maintained, comprehensive general public
liability insurance with minimum limits of no less than
$1,000,000.00 with respect to injury or death to anyone person,
$3,000,000.00 with respect to anyone occurrence, and $500,000.00 .
with respect to property damage arising out of anyone occurrence,
which policy or policies shall:
(a) name as insured the remaining Tract owners and the
Bousina and Re4evelooment Authoritv in and for the
City of Golden Valley C"&RA");
(b) be written by solvent insurance companies licensed
in the state of Minnesota;
(c) provide that such policy or policies may not be
canceled or materiallY modified by the insurer
wi thout first giving each named insured and each
additional insured and the BRA at least thirty (30)
days' prior written notice;
(d) protect and insure the parties designated in clause
(a) above on account of any loss or damage arising
from injury or death to persons or damage or
destruction to property caused by or related to or
occurring on. as the case may be. (i) any such
Tract; (ii) any construction or reconstruction that.
any such Tract owner may perform in connection with
such Tract owner's Tract; and (iii) any act or
omission of any such Tract owner, and its .
respective agents, employees, licensees, invitees
12
~ or contractors on any portion of such Tract; and
(e) include contractual liability coverage insuring the
indemnity obligations provided for herein.
Any such coverage shall be deemed primary to any
liability coverage secured by any other Tract owner covering such
other Tract owner's Tract.
Each Tract owner shall also keep any building
improvements located on its Tract insured in an amount equivalent
to the full replacement value thereof (excluding foundation,
grading and excavation costs) against loss or damage by fire and
such other risks of a similar or dissimilar nature customarily
covered wi th respect to buildings and improvements similar in
construction, general location, use, occupancy and design to such
building improvements.
~
Nothing herein contained shall prevent any Tract owner
from taking out insurance of the kind and in the amount provided
for hereunder under a blanket insurance policy or policies which
may cover other properties owned or operated by such Tract owner as
well as its Tract; provided, however, that any such policy of
blanket insurance of the kind provided for shall specify therein
the amounts thereof allocated to such Tract or such Tract owner
shall furnish each other Tract owner with a written statement from
the insurers under such policies specifying the amounts of the
total insurance allocated to such Tract, and provided further, that
such policies of blanket insurance shall, as respects such Tract,
contain the various provisions required of such an insurance policy
by the foregoing provisions of this Declaration. Further, if any
Tract owner demonstrates that it has a tangible, net financial
worth in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles
of at least $75,000,000.00, as evidenced by financial statements
certified by its chief financial officer, such Tract owner may
elect to act as a self insurer in respect to the insurance
coverages required to be maintained under this Declaration. If
such Tract owner so elects to become a self-insurer, such Tract
owner shall deliver to each other Tract owner notice in wri tinq of
the required coverages which it is self-insurinq setting forth the
amounts, limits and scope of the self-insurance in respect to each
type of coverage self-insured. Any such Tract owner shall defend,
indemnify and hold harmless each other Tract owner from and aqainst
any loss, cost, damage, expense (including attorneys' fees and
court costs), claim, cause of action or 'liability that would have
been covered by the insurance policy replaced by the self-
insurance.
~
Each Tract owner shall deliver <47> binders or memoranda
====
of such policies of insurance to each other Tract owner and the BRA
upon demand.
13
8. DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION. In the event of any damage .
or destruction to any buildings to be constructed on any of the
Tracts, the owner of said Tract promptly shall remove all rubble
and debris resulting from such damage or destruction and shall
commence restoration within <48> three (3) months of such damage or
= .
destruction and shall complete restorat~on of such damage or
destruction wi thin nine (9) months after the. date thereof, or shall
forthwith remove all rubble and debris resulting from such damage
or destruction and restore the site to a safe, orderly and clean
condition as soon as possible and maintain landscaping as required
by the city of ~ Golden Va11ev, Minnesota, provided that the
time periods described herein shall be deferred for a period, not
to exceed an agqregate of three hundred sixty-five (365) days,
equal to any delay caused by reason of strikes, lockouts, labor
disputes, inability to obtain labor, materials or reasonable
substitutes therefor, acts of God, governmental restrictions,
regulations or controls, enemy or hostile governmental action,
civil commotion, insurrection, revolution, sabotage, fire or other
casualty, acts or governmental agencies, or other causes beyond the
reasonable control of any such Tract owner.
9. USE. Use of the Shopping Center shall not violate
any exclusive or restrictive use aqreement entered into between
Declarant and any existing or anticipated future tenant or owner at
the Shopping Center, all as more particularly described on Exhibit
D attached hereto and made a part hereof, or for any activity .
proscribed on Exhibit E attached hereto and made a part hereof. .
10. NOT A PUBLIC DEDICATION. Nothing herein contained
shall be deemed to be a qrant or dedication of any portion of the
Shopping Center to the general public or for the general public or
for any public purposes whatsoever, it being the intention of
Declarant that this Declaration shall be strictly limited to and
for the purposes herein expressed. Declarant shall have the right
to close any portion of the Shopping Center owned by Declarant to
the extent as may, in Declarant's reasonable opinion, be necessary
to prevent a dedication thereof or the accrual of any rights to any
person or the public therein.
11. RIGHTS AIID OBLIGATIONS 01' LDDERS. If by virtue of
any right or obligation set forth herein a lien shall be placed
upon anyone of the Tracts, such lien shall be expressly
subordinate and inferior to the lien of any first mortgage
lienholder now or hereafter placed on such Tract. Except as set
forth in the preceding sentence, however, any holder of a first
mortgage lien on anyone of the Tracts, and any assignee or
successors in interest of such first mortgage lienholder, shall be
subject to the terms and conditions of this Declaration.
12. ENl'ORCEKENT. The covenants, conditions and
restrictions set forth herein shall be enforceable only by
Declarant, and shall be enforceable by:
.
14
.
(1) Injunctive relief, prohibitive or mandatory, to
prevent the breach of or to enforce the performance
or observance of said covenants , conditions and
restrictions; or
(2) A money judgment for damages by reason of the
breach of said covenants, conditions and
restrictions; or
.
(3) Any combination of the foregoing.
The failure of Declarant to enforce any prov1s10ns of the
covenants, conditions and restrictions herein contained upon the
violation thereof shall in no event be deemed to be a waiver of its
rights to do so as to a subsequent violation. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, Declarant may restrict, curtail or
otherwise suspend or terminate the easement rights herein granted
in the event of a breach of said covenants, conditions and
restrictions, which breach is not cured within thirty (30) days
following notice by Declarant of such breach or, in case such cure
cannot be effected within said 30-day period and the breaching
Tract owner is diligently pursing such cure, such additional period
as may be reasonably necessary to effect such cure; provided,
however with respect to any breach of the covenants, conditions and
restrictions set forth in Section 9 hereof or the insurance
requirements set forth in Sections 4(b) (i) and 7 hereof, or vi~h
reSDec~to any event. fact or circumstance which involves ~iDeD~
threat of iniurv or damaae to DerSODS or DroDertv. the aforesaid
cure period shall not apply and Declarant may take any of the
foregoing actions or exercise any such rights and remedies upon the
occurrence of any such breach. Each Tract owner shall pay any and
all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Declarant in
connection with enforcement by Declarant of the rights and remedies
set forth in this Section 12, including without limitation all
reasonable attorneys' fees and consulting fees and all court costs
and filing fees related thereto.
13. PARTIAL IlIVALIDIft. Invalidation of any of the
provisions of the covenants, conditions and restrictions herein
contained, whether by order of court of competent juriSdiction, or
otherwise, shall in no way affect any of the provisions which shall
remain in full force and effect.
.
14 . IIISCRT.T."QOUS. Any consent or approval required of
Declarant hereunder may be given by the person(s) or entity(s)
holding beneficial ownership in Declarant. Failure by Declarant to
respond to a request for any approval or consent required of
Declarant hereunder within fifteen (15) days of such request
accompanied by all supporting documents and materials required to
be furnished to Declarant shall constitute an approval or consent
of the matter requested and for which required supporting
documentation and materials have been furnished. All rights and
15
responsibilities reserved to Declarant hereunder may be exercised .
by Tract ~ ! Owner. Declarant may transfer the rights and
responsibilities reserved to it hereunder to any other person(s) or
legal entity by written instrument recorded in the Office of the
Recorder of ~ Henneoin County, Minnesota, but only if such
instrument specifically gives the transferee the right to enforce
the provisions of this Agreement. Mere purchase of Tract <52> 2
. .--
or any port~on thereof shall confer no r~ght to enforce the
aforesaid provisions. Wherever a transfer occurs in the ownership
of any Tract, the transferor shall have no further liability for
breach of covenant occurring thereafter. Each Tract owner agrees
to look solely to the interest of each other Tract owner in its
respective Tract for the recovery of any judgment from such owner,
it being agreed that the owner of any such Tract and its partners,
directors, officers, members, managers or shareholders shall never
be personally liable for such judgment. ~
15. RIGHTS RESERVED. Declarant retains, reserves and
shall continue to enjoy the use of the portion of the Shopping
Center owned by Declarant for any and all purposes which do not
interfere with or prevent the use by any Tract owner or its tenants
and their respective customers, agents, employees and invitees of
the easements granted herein, including the right to locate and
relocate buildings , driveways, parking areas and other improvements
to be located upon such portion of the Shopping Center.
16. RELOCATION 01' DlJBllEftS. Declarant reserves the
right at any time and from time to time to relocate all or a
portion of the easements granted by Declarant herein, provided that
(i) the easements so relocated will be of substantially equivalent
usefulness for the purposes stated in this Declaration, (ii) all
costs incurred to effect such relocation shall be paid by
Declarant, and (iii) Declarant shall interfere with the business
. being operated on the Tract benefitted by the easement being
relocated as little as reasonably possible in the exercise of
Declarant's rights herein.
.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has caused this Declaration
to be executed as of the day and year first above written.
~ Golden Valley commons. L.L.C.
By:
Name:
Its:
.
16
... .
. 'r'r. ..-....
.," j,.V
~ . "
t?
~
)0
1::1
DECATUR
1-
AV[.
AVE.
V)
;-4
...,
..,
:I:
,.
<
("1 Bnm~
"\HILLS
. .:
.... I,
.. .' . "'. .,. ~. ,'. '"... "',. '.
. :. . ." .:! ;:~~'):::;:~<;1:.:j:;:::' :.;;:i':~::"
'. ., ~'J''''''''':;(i:I,t''''.'''''i'! ..~
I ,',~ '. yl"'" to >.,'ht,. ",.,. :.., ~
I' '. ., I . .....,. ~
. .' .' I . . '.. .',. 11
"" .,." "'; :;;.;::';:::;:1 . I ~.j:;; ;:X; f;
. D. """'. d, '. i . ". /{
il::J;;;.:: :':'~;':'Y:':':!':'! ",
~, ..;~
% .'f(.
....'SCONI SIN ^V(.
$
P
t::l
.
NO.
]>0
<
l"'
.
AVE.
AQUILA
ORKLA
-
Nu.
:J
II
-
~
($
~
~I VAlDERS
;R I AVE.
-< ~
~. H ). '" ....... I V) ISLAND ~ ~ I AVE.
... -f
. X
~ .... QU[B(C '" AVE. I'"
. , ;of ;of
'I.
VINNETKA
c::
N1 SUHTER ...
t::l ~
f=
-f
Nl RHODE ~
... ]>0
x
'" NO. QUEBEC
;of
D A
-
~
": y....~: ::;"~.:':~~:',:,:g;: .:;: ,~
",'.;, . '" .... .,",~ . 0... <
; ./r<:.: ;'1>:.; ;~~;'~H >:: ("1
so.
IPN-O
AVE.
..
.,..~. !~.
\
F
~ ~'
.~. '..l.J
~~
<
)>
r
r
~
.'
.,
';
~ .~
~
~
i Z
..
"\
"
',.
~'
.~
'.
..
,nun A,".
)>
~
PENNSYl VANIA ~ t.'-i~~..l'
fIl li:!-\\f.
HARYlAN
A vr. NO.
lOUIS],,""
NEVADA A
r
'"
)>
Z
t::l
lJ:l
C
~. L[)lJISIA~U\
AVE. NO.
JE~SE:Y IAVE'I- NO.
c::
~
\"1
a
SANDBURG
a..
II.
a::
o
I-
w
rn
z
o
a..
rn
w
a::
::I:
u
Iii
~
rn
w
l-
e;;
..~ /
"~"
....1Jlji~<<t.~,., ",,"c""'~,' j~" " ,......
~ ~~G:1"" ~'.....-!"~"'"
'" . ..,..~. ','''' -
. .. .n ,_ g" "...~~.l--
r ": lInr~ . ~.~
I .. ~~~A'
L .,w,'>>
Y' ~~~
~~' .
..n.:,.. '- r'
r /', ... -, "~,' -, '.,
/~I,~._;r."~,-",~"",, ',"
I .. '
""'- '
I .' .
~\ fr . ill"
~ ~'; ~ ~
ai Ii" I "'ooli
~ 'I)\'\, "'lBOil'". .
I: a B'tt
1\,t;Il.....C.. W411'"
=m
I ,,'.r:'J.; \JlMf)!.'
Jl
\
I
.: rJ
.,
'i
I
I
IJ 1::\
I.
\
/l
liJ......-,
(-'.
(--...,
,;9
.
)
.' \ \.~~ 9.0,,-0
GO\.O'i.~ '>oJ'" ,
t:trI
\
\ ,"
\::
c-
\
\
\
\.
PROIICT DATA
UN.'Nf _
-.~
P"..Il.~I~(<
i
(
....1"0
lUAU fl,l,)Wl
(lAUt.: nor. 9 nUd
--.-
~'Bf(">\I }'9ItOtt
RfSrAl.:Ro\Nl
IIUAUR4"'"
COHn
IU lil"'UI AN' l)UU
.(!Iof4UltANI 1.1)11
~-1i"I;oo'~~----~'
-______. .~...44
fOhl .'.fHM' "Otl
8lj{lU
III
'oJ
.,
'"
:.\In.,
.,
. SilO
'.suo
,L.. . (N'." (--
MC)lt.cUWNl
I~-
l't:
.;
II 0 I
.1.,
I.
r:~~
i '"
~. ~ni1 NOl'"
;~U ~
o 20 co 81)
~
.
KKE
Knr..un'lok, Kr:Ulk F.ric.IiI....n
\HhitC'c. h, In~;.
'"lIt.,... ,_,'.... .....d.
'\t...."Jp.... '''''1111
'1:\,1......
"".""
GOLDEN VALLEY
COMMONS
ComO! N V'" IY MN
~"""".F':=--.,,,~.,
llill ' ~--~
SlTf PIAN
G OPUS.
BOO Opus Cenler
91JOO 8,e. IItJOd [as,
M....,OIII., """",,SOl. 55343
1~-""l'Ial""(I&In~OI
-.oOI'_~lW_OI......,,",~
~ard'lllfI_'O.fr""""~
....._.....01.... SlatII"".
~~
~~
........
0_
, -II ..~~
b-}n.....
~-~
"...~ q~ 1l8'1US8-(J1
~... ~ -q .q~.
t'.-.-.,
;...,......t)
.