The URL can be used to link to this page

09-10-12 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Vailey City Hall, 7800 Golden Vailey Road Council Chambers Monday, September 10, 2012 7 pm 1. Approval of Minutes August 27, 2012 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary Plan Review— Planned Unit Development (PUD) — 9130 & 9220 Olson Memorial Highway— The Tiburon — PU-111 Applicant: Tiburon 55, LLC Address: 9130 & 922Q Olson Memorial Highway Purpose: To allow for the constructian of a six story, 142-unit, market-rate apartment building. --Short Recess-- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment " This dacument is available in a(ternate formats upan a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-80Q6{TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print,electronic, Braille,audiocassette,etc. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 27, 2012 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, August 27, 2012. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners, Cera, Kisch, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were City Plan ogeboom �� ` ��;, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. r�� A�� ,; � <� �� x� 1. Approval of Minutes ��, � August 13, 2012 Regular Planning Commission Meeti ��:� \ « „ Waldhauser referred to the fifth paragraph on page n��' d at the word south � should be replaced with the word "north." �� `� ,� MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Cera d ion carr d unanimously to approve the August 13, 2012 minutes with the abp�� rec ' �. Kluchka abstained from voting. � � �'�� : �� r�, 2. Informal Public Hearing lar� : d it Development (PUD) — 600 Boone Avenue North — Boone . nu onv 'ence Center— PU-110 � � � �,, ._ � Applicant: Linn I � strr�� f erties, LLC ��; �� R Address: 0 Boo �.�venue North � � �� . Purpose�� T . Ilo�� t�� =�construction of a retaiUservice facility on the east�side of ��ite. � � � �:. Commi io��' "�\" � r used himself from discussion of this item. �� H eboom e ��to a location map and explained that this property is currently a BP gas tion a � e i�ersection of Highway 55 and Boone Avenue North. He stated that the prope 's un :'r new ownership and they would like to add a retail building on the east part of th � `.:-: He explained that this proposal is being considered as a PUD because the two sites will essentially act like one and it will allow the existing berm and creek to be better protected. He noted that this proposal will also be reviewed by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission in order to make sure best practices are being met. He added that the property is guided and zoned for Commercial use and the proposal meets all of the requirements of the PUD ordinance, therefore staff is recommending approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Pianning Commission August 27, 2012 Page 2 Kluchka asked Hogeboom to further clarify why this project is a PUD. Hogeboom stated that the two lots will function together in regard to access, parking and pedestrian movement. Kluchka asked if the lots could be sold separately. Hogeboom said yes. Kisch noted that the lot coverage and the amount of parking seem high. He questioned what the lot coverage requirements and parking requirements would be if this proposal was not a PUD. Kluchka said it would make sense to clearly articulate which things the applicant couldn't do if this wasn't a PUD. Hogeboom explained that the City's parking ordinance requires a minimum number of parking spaces, not a maximum number, so the applicant does comply with rules regarding parking. He stated that the pr�„', ��would exceed the lot coverage requirements if it were one lot but staff feels ' ul �``.,, appropriate to exceed the lot coverage requirements in this ease si�c e prop � is closer to the downtown area which has many PUDs and many p��ertie' ��at ex ��ed lot coverage requirements. Waldhauser asked if the proposal exc��ds th �ot � e . e requirement for the Commercial zoning district. Hogeboom �� , ;, at the �t � � . �V� coverage requirement in the Commercial zoning district is 50 , T � rop ;al has a lot coverage of 63.3% which exceeds the requirement by��a3%. ��,� ad �.. ��t much of the green space in the area is Highway 55 right-of way��th �� ' � a �j ting � �e lot coverage as ��, well. Waldhauser asked if there is plan showing t�"��g b nd how much this proposal would intrude on it. �� , ��: v�°: �: �, � �j Segelbaum asked which sidewalks will r � nd�uestio�€;d if there is a sidewalk on Boone Avenue. Hogeboom said there ' side Ik al��»� oone Avenue which will remain. There is also a sidewalk on �� e property. He added that all of the sidewalks on the property will m � i ta rds. ,, �� \�. Kluchka asked if there are r�a� ti � �garding�LED signage. Hogeboom said�yes, the City's sign ordinance add��ses �� ns and added that variances�cannot be obtained from the sign ordinance. �� .,��`�\ Stephen Linn, CEO ' om �ies, Applicant, showed the Planning Commission photos of other prope �'� s he � as t��developed and would like�to use as a model for the Golden Valley p ert sai �'it is his desire to only own and operate first class facilities that enhar�, the c��m ty. He said his plan is to build the retail center to the east in � �� conjun �on �� li�j the existing building to "dress up" the current site. He stated that the s��on m��e re-branded in the future but that can't happen contractually u . ' 2094 �`�he��rliest. He ex lained that the are ro osin to re lace all the sidewalks �,�� p Y p p 9 p aro the en :e si�e along with replacing almost all of the concrete and blacktop. He stated�,� t he also proposing an addition to the car wash, changing it to a "tunnel" car wash in \ o process more cars per hour. Waldhauser asked the applicant how important it is to upgrade the gas station in order to market the proposed new retail building. Linn said it is very important. He added that it would IooK awkward to have a nice convenience center next to a plain gas station. He added that in most cases he exceeds cities' standards. Waldhauser asked the applicant if he has a plan showing the existing berm and what wil! happen along the creek as a part of this proposal. Linn said yes. He referred to the site Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 27, 2012 Page 3 plan and noted that the civil engineer for the project is also in attendance to answer questions. Waldhauser asked the applicant what types of tenants they are expecting in the new retail space. Linn said they don't know at this point but they have had some preliminary interest in this site because it is a highly visible site on a "high traffic" corner. Kisch asked the applicant if the proposed number of parking stalls was derived from the target market they are aiming for, or if the parking lot was laid out for wh t ': on the site. Linn stated that food-based users will require more parking stalls. He ed the market will be limited if the parking isn't adequate. Kisch asked if tf�� 'ority of e parking spaces are for the convenience store or for the retail bui�g. Li ��,tated��at the retail building will require more parking spaces than the gas st��n, bu�,it i�`, �, ant that �� o�`"� the parking be convenient for the customers. �� . �� Kisch asked about the number of employees at the g � �tation��mn s��iere are four employees during the day, four employees in the evenin � �1 th°`� e em�'ployees in the t� middle of the night. Hogeboom added that Gold � � �f�ias� ��'� �e the population ��. during the daytime, than it does at night. �, �, ��, �� Kisch said he wants to try to mitigate sorr�� i°�� ervioa�� surface. Linn expressed concerned about limiting the number o �rkin � pac ��ri�ause too few spaces won't be� good for the businesses or for the c � �o �� m asked if each use/building is considered separately when figur��.� t�i � z u � er of parking spaces. Hogeboom said each use would typically be consider sepa,° >ely, not in a PUD proposal. Segelbaum asked if there are different � '�g��' ements for different types of retail uses. Hogeboom said no and ain `tha here are different parking requirements for gas ,...t, stations and retail uses b ot w, diffe ,,t types of retail uses. Segelbaum questioned if a food chain oes in:�Ct the r �� g ,ti� � paces and doesn't have enough parking spaces if customers would st '. g t` as station's parking spaces. ��., � �� ,. Cera asked abo he �`�truc n schedule. Linn said he hopes to start construction next �� spring �� .:. Kluchka��d 's sen ive to how buildings look on all sides and asked the applicant if h�;�s willin ,,u de the facades with some articulation or windows, even if they are non�ctioni so there aren't just plain brick walls. Linn said he is proposing to upgrade all the��Ils. noted that the back side of the proposed new building would be up against a'= ed area along the creek so having windows along that side wouldn't be practical and could cause safety issues. Kluchka asked the applicant if he is open to design enhancements. Linn said yes, it if they are for practical reasons. Kluchka asked the applicant if he would limit the number of empty spaces on the proposed pylon sign because he is concerned about the sign showing empty tenant space. Linn said he would ultimately build the pylon sign for the number of tenants that are in the building. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 27, 2012 Page 4 Segelbaum asked the applicant if he has built combination gas station/retail stores in the past. Linn said yes, he has built several. Kisch asked the applicant if any thought had been given to alternative stormwater management techniques given the site exceeds the impervious surface requirements. Linn said it is his intent to add tanks underground that would re-use most of the car wash water and substantially reduce water usage. Jared Jones, Civil Engineer, MFRA, said he would be working with the ,tt Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) regarding the storm,, ._ er m��gement on the site. He said there is currently an environmental manhole o � si�� or the �� station �� and they are proposing to add a filter manhole for the retail porti f the e to b��g the property into conformance with BCWMC requirements. Kisch � � ed J ��es ��;.� ave ��: � _ considered adding bio-swales or other mechanisms to help v��t � : r n as w�l. Jones �„ said yes, but due to the soils some mechanisms have been r��d t ho er they will continue to work with BCWMC. Waldhauser referred tc��e pla�\ an d if the retaining wall shown will direct water from the parkin lo��tl�man� oles. Jones said ��*� �� yes. � � ; �= ,�, � Kisch asked the applicant if he would be op n to �lding m� trees to the site. Linn said yes, he would be willing to work with sta ; �' e land ape plan. ^ ��;�.� Waldhauser o ened the ublic hear' �� rin � no one wishin to s eak, p p ;��i�'�a� ��. 9 9 p Waldhauser closed the public he r�g: �� : �� a ��\ Cera said he likes the propc��;an�` �CS it will�e a great enhancement to the property. � Kluch�ka questioned if lan ��ge�; �ardir�spe�ific design materials should be required to be included in the P D pla�ns �ra suggested adding language to their recommendation which states that eq� �, t rri�� rials to what the Planning Commission was shown should be use �Kiscl��ai � i�� materials can be addressed during the Final PUD Plan review. Klu�ka s� he anning Commission has been burned in the past when things wer��'t req�i��d �� he Preliminary stage. He added that he wants specific samples listed i � �t�he ��`�� ,,; �nts. Kisch said he is hesitant to require specific design criteria at this st b��use knows how much designs can change. He suggested requiring a �� d�Y�qn pla � ,� s� �mitted with the Final PUD plan. �,.- Segel��m s he is concerned about whether the parking requirements have been studied e . Kisch said the site looks like it is maxed out to parking capacity and there isn't much room to add more parking spaces. Segelbaum questioned if the site is suitable for retail uses. MOVED by Cera to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD request to allow for the construction of a retail/service facility on the east side of the property located at 600 Boone Aver�ue North subject to the following conditions: Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 27, 2012 Page 5 1. Design consideration be discussed in the Final PUD plan review including materials and the PowerPoint presentation given af this meeting become a part of the presentation to the City Council as an example of the materials to be used. 2. Further Discussion of the parking requirements. How the applicant came to the proposed number of parking spaces and consideration of having fewer parking spaces in relationship to amount of impervious surface. 3. Consideration of additional alternative stormwater management beyond the environmental manhole. 4. An enhanced landscape plan, recognizing the need for visibility of th��:' and signage. ��. Kluchka said he is concerned about the unarticulated walls on t,� orth � sout, sides of the buildings. He said the fronts of the buildings are pleasa��, ut th �, th� s are � � �� not, especially when considering that this intersection is a g ev� ��he City.�� `� � �� ,�K= Cera added another condition that there be a discussi of en�' ncin �facades on all sides of both buildings. ,,�� , Linn noted that there is a berm on the east side d a go ortionYof the east side will be blocked from view. He added that he is willi to rk with e City regarding these concerns but he doesn't think there will r��' ��h me ade by adding a lot of decorative items. There will just be mor,��exper��e an �� e maintenance. Kluchka said his main concern is the pedestrian ��rv o z� ��r� `��evation. Kisch agreed that the �v �� °:a elevation on the north side of the�dpo�� w building could be enhanced. �� `� Cera restated his motion wit ��` = g conditions and findings: �� \� , ,� �� ;:,, Conditions ��; , �� :.. �. The plans submi d wit ��, application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommen � nc�'� '��uirements outl�ined in the memo from Deputy Fire � Marshal Ed: nde � �n � �:�_ �f��rimes, Director of Planning and Development dated July 30, 201 hal �� come �art of this approval. ,. � 3. The r men ��r tio �� and requirements outlined in the memo from Public Works ` � � o Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated Sp 'ali �r ,,_� , Augu � �� 2, � � 12,�s� ��I become a part of this approval. 4.��411 sign t roperty must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 5. � re sha e rther discussion of the design and design specs including materials sh �=��e p of the Final PUD Plan. Also, the buildings are to look like the ones shown in the cant's PowerPoint presentation. 6. There shall be discussion between staff and the applicant regarding the appropriate amount of parking for the site. 7. There shall be discussion between staff and the applicant regarding alternative storm water management options. 8. An enhanced landscape plan shall be considered. 9. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 27, 2012 Page 6 Findinqs 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent u � and � ��.�, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment pl��s ' d goal��. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving th ��`e`ener ealth,��afety and general welfare of the people of the City. �� ,� ��. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provi n Y ��I other D ordinance provisions. �� s� �� ,,:; �.:' > The motion was seconded by Schmidgall and carne� un u . ��: �� 3. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdi.;,sion — '1� �40 and 1550 St. Croix Circle — Golden View Addition — SU06-04 o,� �� Applicants: Dave & Cindy Fell and � ff$�� aines �, , ��::, :: � Addresses: 1540 and 155��. oi ircle �:��\\ \�' �,; . Purpose: To allow ,a�� ts to re onfigure three existing single family resid I y�in ��hree new single family residential lots. � � ��; �� . �_.. Hogeboom referred,to a loc ; map and explained that the applicants are proposing to ��,�. subdivide their prop at 1�\ and 1550 St. Croix Circle (along with the parcel to the east) into three ew i '� �„I ;' . He stated that the house at 1540 St. Croix Circle will ��: �� be removed an � . o n om wilf be built. He referred to the survey of the properties and noted\��t the ° n � t property to the east will become part of 1550 St. Croix Circle a�nd th�,si� �� s will be as follows: Lot 1 will be 52,180 sq. ft. Lot 2 will be �a� ��; 43,620 s��ft. d Lo ill be 99,790 sq. ft.. �� Ho �oom e ��ai `d that this subdivision request will require a variance from the Subdi��ion Cc��e because the lots don't have 80 feet of width at the front setback line. The app��could construct a half cul-de-sac in order�to make the lots wider at the front but staff has requested that not be done because it will create more impervious surFace and maintenance issues. Waldhauser asked if there has been any consideration of requiring a larger/deeper front yard setback since the lots are narrower at the front. Segelbaum noted that in order to meet the side yard setback requirements the homes will have to be set back further from the front property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 27, 2012 Page 7 Hogeboom stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposed subdivision with the variance discussed. He added that the City Engineer is working with the applicants on creating a natural buffer along the shoreline. Waldhauser asked about custom grading for each lot. Hogeboom stated that there will be custom grading for each individual lot, as there will only be two lots developed. Cera stated that in the past the Planning Commission has been told that they can't recommend approval of variances for subdivisions where the need for thQ�. 'ance is caused by the applicant. Hogeboom clarified that the applicants have ask or a variance. The City's recommendation in this case is to waive the lo we�.� requir _ ents so as to not add more impervious surface and street maintenan�\ �� ` �� ,,��. Segelbaum said he is concerned that the house at 1540 St. ro C� e woul��e left as a , �� ° ° non-conforming structure if this subdivision doesn t end up b g plet��''Hogeboom said the house at 1540 St. Croix Circle would be consi red c for Ef�doesn't end up t�:a being removed. �;�� , �, , �� Jacqueline Day, representing the applicants, sh �, ed illus tions of the subject properties before and after the proposed subdivision �he � lained t'��t ultimately the owner of ��\ 1540 St. Croix Circle�will own Lots 1 & 2 �'�i��m' � 15 � St. Croix Circle will be removed, both lots will be sold and two,�w ho �es wl`�� uilt. She added that this is the , lowest density that could be added h�� ,��-� �. � � ;. ,� ��:. Waldhauser opened the public - ring �a �� ,� ,. Carol Parry, 1530 St. Cr "�� irc �sa� � he has no objection to the splitting the property but she is concerned abo he '�-row s of the lots aiong the street. She questioned if the lots could share:a drive �� :� ecause 1540 St. Croix Circle has a row of huge, old pine trees and she hope�� rive`O� s won't take out those trees. Jacqueline Day stated that ultimately the meo��er.�v�� e where the garage and driveway will be located. She z, , �� stated that the t sh��n t h�ve to be removed and she assumes the intent of the homeow -� � ould � � to��ep the trees. ��` ,4 � �. �._� :,. Seeing �,h�� 'ng no ne else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public h , mg. �,, ;.,, Waldh� �. er s ed that the tree preservation plan should address the concerns about the trees Sh ��ed that she agrees with staff that adding a half cul-de-sac doesn't add anything to the project. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision at 1540 and 1550 St. Croix Circle subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 27, 2012 Page 8 2. A park dedication fee of$14,370 shall be paid before final plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated August 22, 2012 shall become part of this approval. 4. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that will include issues found in the City Engineer's memorandum. 5. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. The Planning Commission also recommends approval of a waiver to Section 12.20, Subdivision 5(A) of City Code allowing Lot 1 to be 60 feet in width along �; rtheast front setback line and allowing Lot 2 to be 62 feet in width along the northe fron tback line per staff's recommendation. ��, �� <. 3 `� �:c.. 4. Informal Public Hearing — Planned Unit Developme Fin �PI � 0 Triton Drive (Eldridge 3�d Addition) — PU-109 �� , ,�g� tia v �:v �'v� Applicant: A.K.A.R.E. Companies, LLC— Rok�, Idridg �� Lakewest Development Co, LLC �� ret m � ��. ,� Address: 4900 Triton Drive `'� � Purpose: To allow the applican� � �� d e sin � family residential lot into five single family re�entia�, ts. �, �� , �� .. Hogeboom stated that this is the � �a��R�JD�� an proposal for the property located at 4900 �. Triton Drive. He stated that the �z�ns in��is p� �: osal haven't changed since the City Council gave Preliminary PI�Q:� v��ast spr g. He added that there has been a y`�� . � �`. mediation meeting with t ��eig�� or ,�nd the developer as directed by the City Council. He referred to a concern� �� res�, � at��vious meetings regarding the Bassett Creek Watershed Manage ent's��-� � ��mendation to construct a pond as part of this proposal. �..�e He explained that t ` ° ere otiations between the developer and the neighbors to the north of the subje pr �� sell them some of fhe property in order to bring the a3- size of the deve'�,.�, me '�°.�der �ro acres so a pond would not be required. However, the sale of th��nd di � �t � pen so the pond is still being required by the Bassett Creek Water � an: � #,� �n��ission. � � �,��,� � � .:,� S elbaum@`�� i was hoping to see a tree preservation map that might show jus �� sation f � Ilo ��ing the lots to have a 25-foot front yard setback. He asked if moving� � the ho'� s fu ' r forward on the lots was one of the items discussed at the neighborhood meeting. oom said he couldn't recall if the front setback requirements were discussed at the meeting. He added that the reason the homes are proposed to be set further forward on the lots is to pull them away from the surrounding homes and to save more of the trees on the property. Kisch recalled discussion that included requiring a larger rear yard setback in exchange. Cera asked if there has been any further discussion regarding the use of sewage pumps in some of the homes. Waldhauser said she thinks another reason to set the home further forward on the lots was to help alleviate the need for the pumps. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 27, 2012 Page 9 Waldhauser questioned if the custom grading plans and subgrade drainage plans should be mentioned in the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Hogeboom stated that those items are addressed in the City Engineer's staff report which will become part of the PUD approval. Kluchka asked about typical rear yard setback dimensions. Hogeboom said the rear yard setback requirement is 20% of the lot depth. Kluchka asked if there has been any resolution on trying to get more rear yard setback area since they are giving less front yard setback area. Waldhauser said she thought the intent was to have � rear yard setbacks on Lots 1 and 2. Cera questioned if the Planning Commissi ok � �allowing smaller rear yard setbacks on some of the lots. Hogeboom noted t t �� se are�� same plans/setbacks that the Council gave preliminary approval for la: ring. ` �, �� Kisch asked if the Planning Commission has any�authority t �i�� , ��ny cha �es given that this same plan was approved preliminarily by the City Co , ci . oge�\,\, said the Planning Commission can discuss the proposal with t A pplic �t an��'r the residents' � . �� comments. However, the City Attorney has said tha ��he ��s ��ligate� to give Final �: PUD approval because Preliminary approval ha bee ' n and there are no � ; significant changes befinreen the two plans. Waldhauser noted that there was a chan v�� e �s re rding the utilities across the �� ,\\\\ \�,. back (north) of the property. Hogeboo _;�ated '��at the��i Engineer had originally requested that the power lines alon �he� '�d because he didn't want the lines �� . � to go across the water but he has��ce��y ed that the poles could be moved instead of buried, as long as they don't ��r�cro�`the er. McCarty asked if the dev er ` s� ,�mitted a plan that indicates which trees would be removed if the 35-foot fro ��rar �� tbac�were maintained. Hogeboom stated that the � applicant has show plan � conforms to setback requirements and which trees would be removed. Kisch r �� d di � �� sion about buildin the houses to suite the site and not � � 9 making the sit � uite �,e hc��,�s.� �� aldhauser stated that there were other reasons for moving the hou ��fu ��orw��d on the lots besides tree preservation. There were also grading is , � an �' w issues among others. �� ,::.. .� Peter K LL � , , erra gineering, representing the applicant, explained that the intent of th' PUD is ex d the standard typical setback requirements. He noted that the rear yar ''t,tback ill �e greater than 20% of the depth of the lots. He explained that five to six ad`' 'Qnal es would be removed if the front yard setbacks were pushed back to 35 feet. The e�'�' Id also be more impervious surFace if the driveways were longer and the new homes would be 10 feet closer to the existing homes. He clarified that three of the homes will have basement sanitary sewer pumps. Rob Eldridge, A.K.A.R.E. Companies, LLC, Applicant, added that another reason for moving the houses further forward on the lots is to eliminate the need for retaining walls. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 27, 2012 Page 10 Mike Ernst, 4845 Lowry Terrace, said he has two issues. The first issue is the pond. He has concerns about safety, nuisance and long term maintenance. He said he doesn't believe the idea of adding bio-filtration and catch basins at the top of the hill on Triton Drive has been fully explored. He said he doesn't believe that the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission is requiring a pond because the Commission requires best management practices be put into place. The second issue is the position of the power lines. He believes the power lines should go underground. He referred the City Engineer's staff report which discusses the cost implications for property owners to the north with burying the power lines. He said he thinks the property owners to the nor��, ould be �� ,. given the consideration of being asked whether they want to particip��n sh �� the costs to bury the power lines. He said he is concerned about wher ,th� �ower lir�s will be moved to and the affect that would have on trees. ��;;.� � � o�� Mark Brenny, representing the homeowner at 4920 Triton e, � e is the� roperty owner's son-in-law and his mother-in-law, Hannelore Jopp h �be �tryin sell her �, property and they've been having problems because �� is p�ose � � �� lopment. He said everybody that has walked through the house h s s�� is�� velo�ment isn't Golden Valley iYs a new development. It is taking away tz� �� ty o � � young, professional �� people are looking for. He said the developer th ` develo{3�`, this property 65 years ago didn't do it this way because it just didn't wo b he curre, development is getting shoved down people's throats and they �� ,this ��not your community, this is the way it's going to be done. He said t��:re ha��een�a�'�a��of support from people who do not like this proposal and questione he�:_� �N��He�asked if everybody's home ��... value will depreciate because th e�� , i ne and this isn't Golden Valley like it used to be. ��:. ��,. Ray Anderson, 3142 Qua� ven ' , said he has a request for four specific changes to the PUD documents. �� first��ques ��s to require that the developer revise their project narrative to �minate�° rences to a six-lot conforming plat because the narrative includes several dir � � ��ren ��to the traditional six-lot conforming plat in order to � support the all �ed b �e' � ; ��i � PUD plan. He added that viability of the traditional six- lot plan is questi bl ' tha��he developer is using the six-lot conforming plan as a bully-pulp �,sugg�� t they would do if the PUD plan is not approved. The second reques �s t �� , �t�e developer revise their narrative to eliminate or correct �. � � statemer� th ppea o conflict with various point of the City Code. The third request is to..�quire t � th �inal utility plan clearly and completely defines how electrical power will be � �,.uted t � e omes adjacent to the PUD site. He stated that�Xcel Energy has a long histo `°`` faili , to maintain existing poles and lines safely and reliably. The fourth request is to req ��at the plans detail how trees and other vegetation adjacent to the PUD site will be preserved and protected throughout the development process. He discussed the viability of the traditional six-lot conforming plat. Waldhauser questioned if the six-lot proposal needs be discussed given that the proposal being reviewed is for five lots. Anderson said the plans do not appear to be valid. Barbara Reiter, 3146 Quail Avenue North, said they have been waiting patiently for a long time to speak and she would like respect shown to the people who have put their sweat and time into their concerns. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 27, 2012 Page 11 Fred Reiter, 3146 Quail Avenue North, referred to the PUD application and said he noticed the authorized representative is Curt Fretham. He asked who has the authority to appoint an authorized representative. Waldhauser stated that the applicant decides who their representatives will be. Reiter referred to the Preliminary PUD application and stated that it was signed by Karen Fretham as the property owner. However, the real estate agents' website shows that this property was sold on February 1, 2012. He asked how the property could be owned by the Frethams in 2011. He asked that a certified copy of the recorded deed transferring ownership of the property from the Shallbetter's to Karen Fretham be produced in order for the Planning Commission, City Counc' , the public to review. Hogeboom explained that the City Attorney's office will do � e re of the property. '��\:\ �� . Barbara Gaasedelen, 3026 Perry Avenue North, said Mr. Reit asn't� sk� a title review of who owns the property now, rather who owned it v�k�ie ocess s started. � d�.�. Jack Terrio, 3139 Orchard Avenue North, said he is c ��erne bou� �a ower lines because the poles are owned by Qwest and the lines�arE:`�a�ur�e��iy Ex el and that he ��, � :. � frequently loses power because he is at the end :��i�� . I-� another thing that bothers him is no one has been honest. A six lo; lan has �ever been viable and they were told the house at 4900 Triton Drive wa� un�_��und but�,�meone is living in it. He , , „ ,: questioned why no one can be upfront a,�� '��s �out t �� development. � � Seeing and hearing no one else wi ' � � �� . aldhauser closed the public hearing�. �� `��, ��, � Segelbaum asked Hogeboc� � c w �� '"�e Planning Commission's obligation or function at this meeting given that Cit�a�o il has approved the Preliminary plan. Hogeboom explained that the five-lo lirr�� ry P�� plan was approved by the City Council so it is his understandin tt�� Plannr� �j` ommission is obligated to approve the same five-lot 9 q��s �_s � proposal. He added�� er, t the Planning Commission can discuss issues and add conditions. �� , �\. Segelbau .�,ked ��e �ize of the building envelopes could be discussed. Kluchka stated �� - �� that si ��e t ` �r� �� UD plan has been approved and no changes have come forth,� there is�� ,in a` �or the � lanning Commission to discuss except possibly the utility issues th �� have b�� ght forward. h - Waldh er 'm ed if there have been continued discussions regarding the catch basins on Triton versus the pond. Hogeboom stated that the City Engineer has reviewed the plans and that the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission has recommended the pond. Segelbaum said the electrical plans should be further explored by staff and that should be an added condition to the Planning Commission's approval. Kisch agreed and said he thinks before the Final PUD plan goes onto the City Council there should be some definitive resolution as to how the power lines are going to be handled and there should be outreach to the neighbors who have a stake in the issue of where the power poles will Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 27, 2012 Page 12 be located. Hogeboom stated that it would be difficult for the City to impact what Excel does. He also noted that the City's interest is to not have the power lines crossing the pond. Waldhauser suggested that the Planning Commission add a condition of approval requiring that the adjacent property owners, the applicant and Excel work out an acceptable plan before the Final PUD plan goes on to the City Council. Hogeboom said he is not sure if the City could get Excel to commit to that. Segelbaum said he would like to see a better definition of what could be done regarding the power line ' ��s �� r�' �� . Eldridge said he has had communication with Excel and there has ;e� o def r�'ve answer from them as to what they are going to do in this situatio.;. 'e sa 't will difficult to get Excel agree to anything before the Final PUD pl��goes� th` ��ouncil for review. �`�� \ ��" ��.. '� ��`„� ' : , � Kisch asked Eldrid e if he is intendin to bu the ovu�;:.lines� � his�� `�� g g ry p �Z�_�'�rty. Eldridge said the power li�nes will be buried on his property bu,t he ��' s �� wha� Excel will do with the lines on other properties. He added that pow� � ,e t located in an easement area along a property line. Hogeboo ��aid he��uld as�� the City Engineer to further explain the power line issues and po��ies�hen the ��,ity Council reviews the Final ��: �� PUD. ;> �, Waldhauser re-opened the public h � ng:�� er Cera left the meeting. � �;_ Mark Brenny, representing the eow�t�;r at 0 Triton Drive, asked the Planning {�. Commissioners if they are s , , ive of this development without any doubt and if they all believe that ever g h a, b done correctly as it should be for all the citizens of this community. He sai e c , t belr � that this proposal could move forward when � there is nothing set�� s#one. � � �� Barbara Gaas �elen„�02�` ��venue North, suggested the develope�r pay for the �: �� neighboring pro "�� y o ,�,°� r's p't�vver lines to be buried. � � Mike E�s�st, ,�� T�-race, said he is in the construction industry and he knows the .�� City can I will4 t something in writing. He reiterated that the Bassett Creek W-�ershe � n�� ment Commission doesn't require ponds they require stormwater ma ement�� d ediment control. ,, ��_ ,:�: Seeing a °aring no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Segelbaum said he's not sure if there is any sort of demand that could be put on Excel regarding the power line issues but he would like highly encourage the developer to seek out additional clarity on the electrical plan. Kluchka suggested two recommendations. First, reconsideration of design standards and service based on the neighbors requests for electrical service and second, reconsider the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 27, 2012 Page 13 water management plan based on neighborhood interest and requests. Kisch added that he thinks the City can push Excel to come up with a more definitive plan regarding the power line issue and the onus can be put on the developer to take ownership of what will be done. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Final PUD Plan for Eldridge 3�d Addition based on the following conditions and findings: ��`��\��:; Conditions � `� �, 1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo fro��Deputy��re Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, �� Director of Planning�� Dev�l��me °� ated �� \\ .. December 28, 2011, shail become a part of this approval. �` �� 2. The recommendation and requirements outlined in the ` m � Cit ngineer Jeff Oliver, PE, and Engineer Eric Seaburg, to Mark Grim �, D to Planning and Development dated August 22, 2012, shall b� �� a�p�rt of ,;r� approval. If the applicant does not agree with ail condition he � ineer's memo, the staff recommends denial of the Final PUD p,�� .) �, 3. All signs on the property must meet the requ��;�ements �the City's Sign Code. 4. The Final PUD packet for PUD No. 1 by T�a Engineering and dated March 13, 2012 shall become a p ��f thi ppr�� 5. All homes within the PUD shall „ot e � �Q ' . height. ��, � � �� 6. The building setback lines ar ra ,�or��e Final PUD Packet. The front yard setback along Triton Dr. sh�� e 3 ��. All�c��er front yard setbacks shall be 25 ft. ;;... The side yard setback =be"` . and that setback is not required to increase with the height of th � � ructu (up ��a maximum of 28 ft.). The rear yard setback is ,�;o noted on the Final PU "� ��. � 7. The final plan f� �' D No �� 9 is consist�nt with the Intent and Purpose provision found in S tion 5 �,n d Unit Development, Subd. 1� and other PUD • �� . � requiremen rin� �� an development standards adhered to by the City. � 8. A mo��z�� e � � constructed prior to completion of the street if it is approved �� by�� in � _ ,��a�and Director of Inspections. 9. The a ,�;�o �" of the PUD is also subject to other state, federal, and local ��,. = dinanc ;� re lations, or laws with authority over the PUD. �� 10. A -�-k de ation fee, as determined by the City Council, shall be paid prior to final plat �~` �Val. 11. Prior to issuance of any building permits for construction within PUD No. 109, the applicant shall submit a final plat to the City for approval and the staff will prepare a PUD permit for City Council approval. 12. Staff should re-evaluate overhead utility connections and on-site stormwater management mitigation. Findinqs Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 27, 2012 Page 14 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent use��is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment pla �%d g �" . 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the :e ��I healt� safety and general welfare of the people of the City. �;;:;;�; � 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provisi nd th� � ordinance provisions. �� -Short Recess � �� '\��:"�. \�\\�\��\. ��`�. 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing a Rede �opment Authority, City Council, Board of�Zoning Appeals��nd ��er Mee�ngs ��,: s�� No reports were given. � �� ` �� '� �� 6. Other Business � �` ��- ,; �::. �� < � No other business was d�;, sse�� ;�� , � , �::. 7. Adjournme �� "�' l �\, The meeting w�,� adj��rn :�� pm. � �;��, ��,�� ,: � � �r� r:. ��\ , `��a��\ �'Z�� ;�i, �i,�l� � �� , � � � � ��,. Planning Uepartment 763-593-8095/763-593-8149(fax) : ..�,.��f4�� .. ;...° . „ q . ��,.�;�G��,`?�R9,'��,��.,�,.;,f :. Date: September 6, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing- Preliminary PUD Plan —The Tiburon Apartments PUD No. 111—Tiburon 55, LLC., Applicant �x..,.� _.��,. , , ,.. �,�a�u�u�� ,. ��,�.�_ u , Background and Description of Proposal Tiburon 55, LLC. is seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit for the construction of a market rate apartment building to be located at 9130 and 9220 Olson Memorial Highway. Under this proposal, the 2.7 acre site would contain a six-story, 142-unit apartment building. The apartment would feature a mix of studio apartments, one bedroom apartments, one bedroom-plus-den apartments and two bedroom apartments. It would cater to those wishing to rent in an upscale facility in the near-northwest suburbs. There is currently a strong demand for multi-family housing in this market. There are several multi- family buildings, most of which are rental, that are currently under construction in Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, Minnetonka and Plymouth. While Golden Valley Planning Department staff has met with several multi-family housing developers in the past year, this proposal is the first, and currently the only, one to move forward to the public hearing and approval process. The property was recently re-guided for long-term High Density Residential uses in the Comprehensive Plan, and was also recently rezoned "High Density R-4 Residential." These changes in land use designations and controls were requested by the City Council to accommodate this project. The site is 2.7 acres in size and is bounded by Olson Memorial Highway to the south, Golden Valley Road to the north, and commercial properties to the east and west. The proposed PUD would re-plat the property into one lot. The City intends to assign a "Golden Valley Road" address for the new development. Site Information : This property is located in the northeast quadrant of MN Highway 55 and US Highway 169. Staff has identified this area as one that is in need of redevelopment. One of the buildings on the proposed development site, which is referred to informally as "the former bowling alley," appears to be blighted. The general appearance of this area is of concern to staff because it is the first impression of Golden Valley that commuters see when travelling east on Highway 55. ' The City Council, acting in its role as the City`s Housing and Redevelopment Authority(HRA), has requested that staff focus redevelopment efforts in this area. The HRA will meet this month to ' discuss road improvements, pedestrian access and property rehabilitation for the area along Golden Valley Road between Boone Avenue and Mendelssohn Avenue. The HRA will consider creating a special district that might enable the use of assistance for these projects. The Tiburon Apartments would be "U-shaped," and would open to face Highway 55. The front entrance would be located on Golden Valley Road. Parking for the facility would include 77 surface parking spaces and 142 enclosed parking spaces. The first floor of the building, which would include the parking area, would be composed of concrete. The upper five floors would be wood-frame construction. The building would have a flat roof, and would feature a contemporary brick and fiber cement fa�ade. Most of the units would feature private balconies. Recreational facilities for the site would include amenities that would be appropriate far professional adults. Amenities would include a theatre room, a fitness area, a club room and an outdoor swimming and recreation area. No playground or other child-oriented amenities will be included in this product; however, the site is within a relatively short distance to both Wesley and Brookview Parks. Justification for Consideration as a PUD Section 11.55 of City Code states that the PUD process is an optional method of regulating land use in order to permit flexibility in uses allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements and number of buildings on a lot. Staff has determined that this application qualifies as a PUD because it achieves the following standards established in City Code: • Achieves a high quality of site planning, design, landscaping, and building materials which are compatible with the existing and planned land uses. ' • Encourages preservation and protection of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, water ways, wetlands and lakes. • Encourages creativity and flexibility in land development. • Encourage efficient and effective use of land, open space, streets, utilities and other public facilities. • Allow mixing land uses and assembly and development of land to form larger parcels. • Encourage development in transitional areas which achieve compatibility with all adjacent and nearby land uses. ; • Achieve development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ' • Achieve development consistent with the City's redevelopment plans and goals. ' In order to be approved as a PUD, the City must be able to make findings which are specifically described in City Code. These findings are incorporated into staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission. Most multi-family housing developments in Golden Valley function under the guidance of a PUD permit. A PUD permit allows the flexibility for the development to vary slightly from City Code. In this instance, the project would vary from City Code as follows: • Height—City Code allows a five-story maximum height in the High Density R-4 Residential Zoning District (or a six-story maximum height with a Conditional Use Permit). The applicant is proposing six stories, with the PUD Permit taking the place of a Conditional Use Permit. • Lot Coverage—City Code requires that no more than 60% of a lot in the High Density R-4 Residential Zoning District be covered by impervious surface. Because of the narrowness of this site, and the rather extensive highway right-of-way along Highway 5S,the developer would be covering 77% of the site with impervious surfaces. • Parking Dimensions—City Code establishes certain dimensional requirements for parking area configurations. The applicant is seeking to vary slightly from those requirements to allow better traffic flow and more efficient parking locations on the site. • Setbacks—City Code requires a 25-foot front yard setback for the High Density R-4 Residential Zoning District. The applicant is proposing a 15-front yard setback requirement along Highway 55. Staff feels this is reasonable because the property will not have direct access to Highway 55. MnDOT has also reviewed and approved this request. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for the Tiburon Apartments PUD No: 111, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The plans submitted with the application shall become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development dated September 5, 2012, shall become part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from Public Works Specialist Eric Eckman to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated September 6, 2012, shall become a part of this approvaL 4. A Park Dedication Fee of$16,300 shall be paid by the developer prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan. 5. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 6. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Further, staff recommends the Planning Commission to find the following: 1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. 3. Efficient—Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. Compatibility. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. General Health.The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Memo from City Engineer leff Oliver and Public Works Specialist Eric Eckman dated September 6, 2012 (8 pages) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated September 5, 2012 (3 pages) Applicant's Narrative (10 pages) Conceptual Drawings (5 pages) Site Plans (15 oversized pages) � �'--.__.____..��`,� ��r�� .,�.. 7 QTw A1+�EV ` ,` �,.,_��,. ;� ,= :�J �_' ti ./.l S .�,- . . . . - � _�- ..� � ..�....__. _ _. � . _. �;.,. �. ,,. ,,,� �' T ' r�----_ ''�,"\-^'i,• L_ _- ''., �{3th�kv�tN" � _....... a .,. _._._ � _ .� �� .. _ �- — i m r �(^" " � D � �3 3 ° ` f& i _.. r F 3� i�+.. t � W JTH A��€�t� ; : � � � Q ��----. a � . _._ ______. � � �� v � � � � � � � '� � : # _ ; x �� I i -�-�,"� _� �____i -��_.� � �i _,_. � I ��, ,''��t'� ;;° �: ( � ,7�t1 BotNte Povizi,��',��` . �; � ��_�� ° _.�_- � � � �� _�.. � Subject Propert�ies ;�� '�'�� - � - � , � � �f �� : � ; `�, � , � : ' ; $ �� ` �� '�'`ti � ` � � o�,• „�- ° . _..� a _. . ._.. , �. — --� � . , �e� �., a°� 3� �`a�, '� � ° aEt�y Rt# _. � � -,-^' " 8� �,S .�-' �_-- ' G�tslc� ` -��, � ��a� C„ � �� ° �.----""_.� �, � ._ � ,t, •-.. _ „ ,' .., °^�V ^. !/ / l — . y �� "' ��3+p�``` i�fi ii, .,'!;�i` r�t�tw'!°�°��;� .�-- '� � ` ; � •. ..� � � .. - �_ _ -�� a ` sF �� }t�, �. ., � „ - ° --' � T `s � ��,,„ , m. �t�� a ` �� . , , " " ee a. ",' :,= � � -:o " r�r" � � - . .. � � - � „, „ _ ,-� - .t � �, r � - �� _ - "" � - '� i�"i�� t�� „, � � �� r �� _. .._ � .. � �- . � .�� , � � . �� . `� __ _ � y ..... ,� �; � ;, _�, � � �� r � �.._. ':h �� } h��/ _ �v��fy�f� '" _.� �-, � , ,� ; � n � �'� � � ,= ,, 4 v �o� < . ��p� ly .,,� � . ° �^ � 1 , $ ��G� g�} "*a w� ,�'� r � A. . ............ ..... �,. ,,,. .� ..... .,.,- ." .." .a� �+�9�i1 —� ,� css ... a..;� , i � ��`�s �� . "�'��'`"f �ra�lrvt�m�r Corr�mun�ty,C�nter 8�t�a[�C�ur� � Y?, ° C�+E�[i�l'��kC{S/"�2t�M.lf"��"��."CW`+� �� d� a � � �� ,, #� �Oi GeAer�rl Mitls k�vnd 3=� � 7s �, a � - � : � �s ' �.�..� �. ; _" '_ ----� � � :-- " 1=. -_,..t � �`° +�' � � r-�""x, � '-`.-N ,,.-```! I t_ ,.��t*y C",�```�. t� � � .. _ ��.� �.. r l � ' ' �'�� Y�a ' ! 7 � r,�s -�... "�� I M f ' �— ,� � .: � °-�,-_-�m „ � "� ��. � ` �� I i �� _ �.��.��.�a�r.az��a,,.�a,�c�re�c��mu� �. i I l -�. � 7a�n �� ... Public Warks Dep►artment 76�-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: September 6, 2012 To: a.�ark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development From: �Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Subject: Preliminary PUD Plan Review—The Tiburon Apartments (9130 & 9220 Olson Memorial Highway) Public Works staff has reviewed the Preliminary PUD Plans for The Tiburon Apartments. The proposed subdivision is located at 9130 & 9220 Olson Memorial Highway in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Trunk Highways 55 and 169. The redevelopment consists of combining two existing commercial properties to construct a six-story, 142-unit, market-rate apartment building. This memorandum discusses issues identified during the Public Works review that must be addressed prior to approval of the Final PUD Plans. The comments contained in this review are based on the plans submitted to the City on August 9, 2012. A Subdivision Development Agreement will be drafted by the City which will outline additional conditions and costs associated with the development. Site Plan This redevelopment will consolidate two commercial properties to create one lot for the 226,900 square foot apartment building. The two vacant commercial buildings include a former bowling alley and an office that will be demolished as part of the project. The new apartment building has an enclosed parking garage below the units (at ground level)that will provide 142 parking spaces, as well as two surface parking lots that will provide 77 spaces. The two existing driveways onto Golden Valley Road will be removed and replaced with one main entrance near the center of the site. A Right-of-Way Permit is required for driveway work and for all excavations and obstructions in public right-of-way. Additionally, the Developer or Contractor will be required to obtain the appropriate permits for all activities associated with demolition and removals prior to commencing work. G:\Developments-Private\Tiburon 9130&9220 Olson\Tiburon_Prelim PUD review.docx Traffic and Access Mana�ement The existing street system in the vicinity of this development is adequate to accommodate the new vehicle trips generated by the development. However, the intersection of Golden Valley Road, Decatur Avenue and Trunk Highway 55 has existing operational issues that are currently being evaluated. While adequate capacity is present at the intersection, modifications are being considered to maximize safety and efficiency. The City's Comprehensive Plan shows proposed sidewalks along Mendelssohn Avenue, Golden Valley Road, Decatur Avenue, and 7th Avenue from Plymouth Avenue to Boone Avenue. The development is adjacent to this route; therefore, the Developer will be required to construct a portion of the sidewalks and pedestrian facilities in this area. It is anticipated that this will include the construction of a six-foot concrete walk meeting City Standards and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines on the south side of Golden Valley Road, along the entire length of the property. Preliminarv Plat The property proposed for redevelopment is adjacent to Trunk Highway 55; therefore, it is subject to review and comment by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. MnDOT has reviewed the plans and provided comment to the City. The letter from MnDOT is attached to this memorandum for reference. The comments in the letter must be addressed prior to Final PUD Plan approval. The property proposed for redevelopment was previously unplatted and there are no recorded easements running in favor of the City. However, the preliminary plat shows several easements or agreements that involve public rights-of-way adjacent to the property. The Developer must submit copies of each of these documents to the City for its evaluation. The site survey indicates that the north property line is the centerline of Golden Valley Road and references County Board Proceedings. This easement for roadway purposes along Golden Valley Road must be vacated and re-dedicated as public right-of-way on the final plat. The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) owns and operates two sanitary sewer force mains near the south property line. The force mains are typically lacated within easements, when private property is impacted. The Developer must show the MCES force mains on the plans, as well as the corresponding easements, if applicable. The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires 10-foot drainage and utility easements on the plat boundaries and 12-foot easements centered on all interior lot lines. The final plat for this development must include easements on all property lines, consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Utilitv Plan The City's sanitary sewer and water systems that provide service to these properties have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed redevelopment. The Developer Mas demonstrated that extension of services is possible as shown on the Utility Plan. G:\Developments-Private\Tiburon 9130&9220 Olson\Tiburon_Prelim PUD review.docx 2 According to the City's record drawings, there are three sewer laterals serving the existing property. The Developer proposes to remove all existing laterals from the buildings to the main located in Golden Valley Road. The Utility Plan must show the existing utilities identified for removal. A new six-inch PVC sewer lateral will be constructed to serve the apartment building. The sewer service lateral will be privately owned and maintained, consistent with City Code. City record drawings indicate there are three water services serving the existing property. The Developer proposes to remove all existing water services from the buildings to the main located in the boulevard south of Golden Valley Road. The plans include the construction of one four-inch domestic water service, one six-inch fire protection line, and two six-inch water services for hydrants. The shut-off valves for the domestic service and the fire service are located in the public right-of-way and will be owned and maintained by the City. These and all other services, valves, leads, and hydrants will be privately owned and maintained. A Maintenance Agreement for the hydrants and valves must be signed and recorded prior to commencement of work. The Developer or Contractor will be required to obtain the appropriate Sewer and Water Permits from the City for the removal and installation of the sanitary sewer and water services. In addition, permits may be required from MCES and MnDOT for work within their respective easements and rights-of-way. A City Right-of-Way Permit is required for the obstruction or excavation of City streets and right- of-way, The plans show that Golden Valley Road will be open cut in several locations; therefore, a Right-of-Way Permit is required for the work. In addition, because the City overlaid Golden Vatley Road with new asphalt in 2012, an increased levef of restoration is required for this roadway. According to City standards, cutting a pavement less than five years old requires a full-width pavement mill and overlay at a length determined by the City Engineer. The exact method, scope, and cost of restoration will be determined by the City and included in the Subdivision Development Agreement. The work must be performed immediately following the utility and driveway installation. The City has an Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) Ordinance that requires the sanitary sewer service to be brought into compliance when developing or subdividing a property. The Developer will be removing the existing sewer laterals to the main;therefore, the new lateral will require an I/I Permit and televised inspection upon construction. The new lateral must achieve compliance with the I/I Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the building. In order to ensure that the existing laterals will be removed, the Developer will be required to post a financial security. Staff will determine the amount and include this item in the Subdivision Development Agreement. Stormwater Mana�ement and Grading The property being redeveloped is located within the Main Stem sub-district of the Bassett Creek Watershed; therefore, it is subject to the review of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). This project is considered a redevelopment with a proposed decrease in G:\Developments-Private\Tiburon 9130&9220 Olson\Tiburon_Prelim PUD review.docx 3 impervious surface area. The BCWMC will review the plans for compliance with its water quality standards. The Developer has proposed stormwater quality treatment facilities as part of this redevelopment; an underground pipe gallery for rate control and volume reduction (through infiltration) and sump catch basins placed upstream of the pipe gallery to capture sediment and phosphorus. In addition, the Developer's engineer has indicated that a "green roof" is included in the design of the building. More information on the design of the underground pipe gallery and green roof must be provided to the City in order to ensure a proper review. The City also requests a copy of the stormwater calculations and soil boring logs for the site. The Developer will be required to enter into a Maintenance Agreement for the stormwater quality treatment facilities onsite. The agreement wil! be drafted by the City and must be signed, prior to approval of the Final PUD Plans. This redevelopment is subject to the City's Stormwater Management Ordinance. A City Stormwater Management Permit will be required before the start of construction. Upon approval of the Stormwater Management Plan by the City,the Developer must submit the plans to the BCWMC for its review and comment. The City will not issue permits for new construction or site work until approval from the BCWMC is received. Tree Preservation Plan and Landscape Plan This development is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance and Minimum Landscape Standards.The City Forester has reviewed the plans and inspected the site. The Developer has proposed the removal of significant trees and has provided a plan for mitigation. Therefore, a Tree Preservation Permit is required for this redevelopment. The City Forester will review the Tree Preservation Plan and Landscape Plan to determine the financial securities which must be posted by the Developer. The amount of the securities will be included in the Subdivision Development Agreement. Summarv and Recommendations Public Works staff recommends approval of the Preliminary PUD Plans for The Tiburon Apartments, subject to the comments contained in this review. These comments are summarized as follows: 1. The plans must show the construction of a concrete walk along Golden Valley Road, as discussed in this review. 2. The Developer must submit copies to the City of all existing easements and agreements, as discussed above. 3. The easement for roadway purposes along Golden Valley Road must be vacated and re- dedicated as Public Right-of-Way on the Final Plat. In addition, easements along property lines must be shown consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. G:\Developments-Private\Tiburon 9130&9220 Olson\Tiburon_Prelim PUD review.docx 4 4. The Developer must enter into a Maintenance Agreement for the maintenance of the private hydrants and valves, as discussed in this review. 5. The proposed building must become compliant with the City's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the building. 6. A Right-of-Way Permit will be required for the excavation of Golden Valley Road and the street must be restored to City standards, as discussed in this memorandum. 7. Information on the design of the underground pipe gallery and green roof must be provided to the City. The City also requests a copy of the stormwater calculations and soil boring logs for the site. 8. The Developer must enter into a Maintenance Agreement for the stormwater quality treatment facilities onsite as discussed in this review. 9. The Developer and its contractors must obtain the appropriate permits prior to development, as discussed above. 10. The Developer must enter into a Subdivision Development Agreement, pay all fees, and post all securities and/or deposits as determined necessary in this or subsequent reviews. 11. Final PUD approval is subject to the comments provided by MnDOT, which are attached and made part of this review. Approval is also subject to the comments of other City staff, the BCWMC, MCES, and other agencies. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Attachment: MnDOT Review#P12-026 C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Mitch Hoeft, Engineer AI Lundstrom, Parks Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Dave Lemke, Utilities Maintenance Supervisor Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Gary Johnson, Building Official Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall G;\Developments-Private\Tiburon 9130&9220 Olson\Tiburon_Prelim,PUD review.docx �J ��°r+ Minnesota Department of Transportation � Metropolitan District �,, �' Waters Edge Building °�'"p 1500 County Road 62 West Roseville, MN 55113 August 28, 2012 Lisa Wittman City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 SUBJECT: The Tiburon MnDOT Review#P 12-026 North side of TH 55, east of US 169 Golden Valley, Hennepin County Control Section 2723 Dear Ms. Wittman: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development, please address the following issues: Water Resources: The proposed project will drain to MnDOT right-of-way on TH 55.A drainage permit is required. Discharge rates to MnDOT right-of-way must be maintained at or below current rates. The applicant is required to provide the following documentation with their drainage permit application: 1. Drainage area maps for pre-and post-construction conditions showing topography and arrows indicating direction of flow. 2. Drainage related grading and construction plans. 3. Hydraulic and Hydrologic computations for 10/50/100 year events. Please direct any questions regarding these issues to Thomas Mitchell(651-234-7540 or thomas.mitchell(a�state.mn.us)of MnDOT's Water Resources Engineering section. Survey: The preliminary plat of The Tiburon shows that there are 6 found iron monuments along its southerly boundary. It is not clear if this represents MnDOT`s andJor the private surveyors' determination of the northerly TH 55 right-of-way line. 5 of the 6 found irons are shown to be approximately 3 to 4 ft. southerly of the boundary line of this plat. The plat shows that new irons were set on the new boundary line. MnDOT has an alignment for TH 55 based on found alignment points, current section breakdowns, some found right-of-way points, and construction plans together with the described right-of-way alignment. The right-of-way in the vicinity of this plat but has not yet been evaluated nor determined,but 2 iron pipes with RLS caps which were located recently(they appear to be near the 2 most easterly irons)within approximately 1 ft. of the record distance of 150 ft. from the eastbound centerline of TH 55. It appears that a gap might be created if the plat is left as is. It is possible that no gap (or overlap)was ever intended nor should anything be done to create the future possibility of such a situation, so MnDOT would suggest working together with the applicant's surveyor together to determine an agreeable line. Please direct any questions regarding survey issues to Rick Bruss(651-366-5173 or rick.bruss(c�state.mn.us) of MnDOT's Metro Land Survey Section. Noise: MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA),the U.S. Deparirnent of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Departrnent of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification(NAC)where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section(651-582-1293 or peter.waskona.state.mn.us. Permits and Right-of-Way: The entire fire access road must be on the applicant's property. Besides a drainage permit, any other work that impacts MnI)OT right-of-way will require a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT's permit we.bsite at http://www.dot.state.mn.us�ermits/. Please include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-234-7911 or buck.crai�a,state.mn.us)of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section. Review Submittal Options: MnDOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options. Please submit either: L � � 1. One(1) electronic pdf. version of the plans. MnDOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviews.dot(a�state.mn.us provided that each separate e- mail is under 20 megabytes. 2. Three(3)sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to: MnDOT—Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One(1)compact disc. 4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's External FTP Site. Please send files to: ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/nub/incomin�/MetroWatersEd�e/Plannin� Internet Explorer doesn't work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer(My Computer). Also,please send a note to metrodevreviews.dot(c�state.mn.us indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. If you have any questions concerning this review, please feel free to contact me at (651)234-7793. Sincerely, � : # Michael J. Corbett, PE Senior Planner Copy sent via E-Mail: April Crockett, Area Engineer Brian Kelly,Water Resources Nancy Jacobson, Design Buck Craig,Permits Dale Matti,Right-of-Way Dave Torfin, Survey Rick Bruss, Survey Ryan Coddington,Traffic Engineering Clare Lackey, Traffic Engineering Robert Byers, Hennepin County Mark Larson, Hennepin County Surveys Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council Y'Z Y� V� . !P` ., Y . . a� '�4 Fire Deparfiament 763-593-8079/763-593-8098(fax) ,: � «r�� " � ` `_ , s��:�d�iili'i��:��.a" � _ Date: September 5, 2012 To: Mark Grimes, Direetor of Planning and Zoning From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Subject: PUD— Preliminary Plan for Tiburon Apartments cc: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Jeff Oliver, City Engineer �r��,��ti«�u��.�� .� . .. r..��,�,�� .� .. . . , .. . x. The fire department has reviewed the preliminary PUD plan application packet which includes the preliminary site plan, utility plan, landscaping plan and overall level 1-6 interior plan. Listed below are the fire department comments. SITE PLAN 1. The fire department apparatus access road shall be provided for the entire building site. The front entry driveway, north parking lot area shall be a minimum 20 feet wide. The fire department apparatus access roads shall be posted "No Parking Fire Lane" in accordance with the City of Golden Valley City Ordinance. 2. The fire department apparatus access road for the east, south and west location of the site shall be a minimum 20 feet wide. If these fire department apparatus access roads cannot be installed because of location on the property, approved alternative means of fire protection safeguard is approved by the fire code official. The alternative means of fire protection safeguard includes, but shall not be limited to, automatic fire detection fire alarm system throughout the corridor, automatic fire sprinkler system throughout including small room size, sprinkler protection for the attic space, patios and decks, trash chute and the front entry. 3. The fire department apparatus access road for the east, south and west locations of the building site cannot be designed for the fire apparatus vehicles, the access road will then be identified as a fire department personnel walk-way. The fire department personnel walk-way shall be designed for all weather capability, for travel of light duty vehicle and equipment. This fire department walk-way will be leading from the fire apparatus access road to the exterior openings of the building. 4. The turning radius for the fire department apparatus access road shall be inside turning radius 20 feet, outside turning radius 40 feet. 5. The vertical clearance for the fire department apparatus access road is 13 feet 6 inches. 6. The fire department apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. 7. Fire department rapid entry lock box will be required to be installed on the exterior doors of the building. The rapid entry lock box will be required to be ordered and purchased through the KnoxBox Company, www.knax�ax.cam, at the owner's expense. 8. Collapsible bollards for the fire access road will not be acceptable. Concrete bollards with a chain across between them will be acceptable. Utilitv Plan 1. The water supply for the design of the proposed site shall be capable of supplying the required fire flow. 2. The fire flow requirement building on portions of the building and facilities shall be determined by the proposed facilities, building or portion of the building, location, type of construction,type of use of the building and all floor levels. 3. Fire hydrants will be required to be installed on this proposed site in accordance with the City of Golden Valley Public Works Department and Minnesota Health Department. Private fire hydrants located on private property shall be identified with red paint color. The installation of the fire hydrants shall be within 150 feet of any fire department sprinkler connection or standpipe connection Iocated on the building. 4. The post indicator valve (PIV) will be required for any fire suppression system. The installation and location of the PIV will be determined by the fire code official. 5. Protective bollards for vehicular protection shall be installed for fire hydrants, post indicator valve and natural gas meter. Landscapin� Plan 1. The fire hydrants, fire department connection for the fire suppression system and the post indicator valve shall not be obstructed by any matter or material that would hinder the operation of the fire department. 2. The placement of landscaping trees and shrubs for this site shall not obstruct or hinder ladder operation from any secondary escape windows for the apartment units. Overall Plans 1. The installation of Class I standpipes system will be required for the garage and all other levels of the building. 2. The installation of the fire suppression system will be required for the garage and all other levels of the building. The installation of the fire suppression system will be a "Zone System" for each floor and level of the building. 3. The underground garage will be required to install a carbon monoxide system for the removal of carbon monoxide from motor vehicle operation. 4. The fire alarm system will required to have corridor smoke detectors and notification devices in the corridor and in each sleeping unit in apartments. 5. Fire extinguishers will be required to be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code. The installation will be located in each Ievel/corridor and all mechanical rooms. 6. Radio operability—the Golden Valley Fire Department shall be permitted to determine the radio frequency spectrum for the emergency responder communication system that will operate within and to and from the building without interference and loss of radio signal. The radio operability coverage system design shall have radio coverage throughout the building, including critical areas, command centers, fire pump rooms, exit stairs, exit passageway, elevator lobby, control rooms and other areas deemed critical areas to the fire code official. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065, or e-mail eanderson oldenvalle mn. ov EA/jl Tiburon 55, LLC 5000 Glenwood Avenue South, Suite 200 I Minneapolis, MN 55422 August 9, 2012 Mr. Mark Grimes Director of Planning &Development Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Mr. Grimes, Attached please find the Preliminary PUD Plan application for The Tiburon Apartments in Golden Valley. Included are the following items: • Application Form (including Addendum) • Narrative Statement • Preliminary Traffic Analysis • Project Renderings • Preliminary Code Analysis • Land Survey • Preliminary Plat Map • Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan • Utiliry Plan • Site Plan • Landscape Plan • Site Lighting and Photometric Plan • Building Floor Plans • Building Elevations We look forward to continuing our work with the Ciry and community on this project. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you might have concerning this matter. Sincerely, T�auRON 55, LLC Frank C. Dunbar Steven J. Dunbar Chief Manager Depury Chief Manager � T P.U.D. Nurnber Ci1y' Of G�Iden Va11ey Applica�ion fc�r Co�sidera#ion o� Planned Unit Develapment C��dinar�ce Before applicafian subrr�itfal#he property must be in compliance with Inflow/lnfiltration (I/l) requir�ments. G�n3�ct�h� Public Works �epartment at 763-593-803(3 for I/1 inspection a�d compliance infarmatian.�n app�ication witl not be accepted untit the properfy receives an I/i compiiance certificat�. �retimin�,ry Desi�� P'!an Date of Application: 08,09_12 *Fee Paid Receipf No. {$400.OQ} A!1 information—includin � endas sta�'re or�s and h�a�rin notices�ill !�e sent to the �u�hori�ed Repre�e�fiati�e. �pnlicant informa#ion �� Name: Tiburon 55 LLC � (Individuat,or corpar�3�e e�itY} Mailing Address: 5000 Gienwood Avenue,1Suite 200 — Minnea lis MN 55422 Daytime Phone: 763.377.7090 �a�: 763.377.7�89 E-Mai1 Address: steven dunbarCa�iv�rprop com Authorized Representafive, if other than Applicant: Name: t�rbanWorks Archifec#ure LLC Maif'tng Address: 90i N 3`�Sfr�et Minnear�ofis MN 55401 — Daytime Phone: 612.455.3121 Fax: 612.455.3199 E-Mail Address: mwoodCa�u�ban-works com - Prape�Ey Owner: Tiburon 55 LLC Mailing Address: 5000 Gienwood Avenue Suite 200 Minneapalis. MN 55422 5treet Location and/or Address of F'roperty in Q�estion: 913D&9220 Olsan Memoriaf Hiahway (to be renarned as XXXX Gofden Valiey Raad) Legal DesCription (Afifac�separate sheet if necessary): Please see addendum. '��e foc Pl�II�mendnment�25Il:Q� � 'I 8 copies af the�ite pia� must accompany th�appiicatton. Ty�,� of Propo�al• �mall Area: Large or Complex Area: Residential: R-4 Commercial: (ndustriaE: Business&Prof�ssional �ffice: Instifutional: Mixed Use: -- Redeuelopment Area: . Present Zoning o#Property: Comm�rciai Proposed Us�of Property(Attach add+tiona#pages i#necessary): It i�ro�osed that the nropertv be develobed into a s�Y stan� 142-unit market rate apartment buifdinc{with an outdoar�uv�mminc�000i recreation area and reen ro�f deck. P1 ase see addendum far addi' al information. I/l Compfian#: ves Str�c�ures. Number: 1 Type: Apartment Buildina Height: 72' Number of Stories: _ G ,. Ame�ities and/or Recreationa� Facilities(i.e. Tennis Court, Pool, etc.): outdoor swimmin oak• recreatian area• reen roa#deck Number of People Iniended to Live or Work an Premises: Adults: 16p Ghildren: � Number af Off-Street Parking Spac�� Propased: Enclosed (Garage or Park�ng Ramp): 142 Non-Encfosed; 77 Total Acres of Land in P.U.D.: 2.57 Density{Na. of Units per Acre): 56 indica�e t��Fol[owina �ata bv P�rcentasaes, Area Covered by Strucfures: �5 % Area Covered by 4ufside Parking: 20 % Area Govered by Interior Streets: �2__ % Area Landscaped: 17 % Natura!Area and/or Open Space: 6 % Ponding Are�: o % �onFnyq�lariances: �ist b�law al!variances from the standarci xoning requicements that wiif b�requested as part of fhis P.U.D„ and the justification for grantir�g said var"�ances(attac#t additional sheets if needed). Rezone ro rt fo R-4 Reauest variance tp allow or Maximurn Heitaht to be 72 feet and 6 storie� Re uest variance to allow for Lr�t Covera e to be?7%im erv�ou sur€aces Re t variance to allow for 3 Parkin #a!i Di ensions to be 9 x 1 ft.rr�inimum Re uest vari nc�to aliow fior�rive Aisle Width ta be 22 ft. minimum Request variance to allow far 3 Compact Parking_„Stalts {dirriensions to be 8 x 16 ft. minimuml Re uest variance to alEow for�ire Road Width to 14 it,minimum P{eas�see addendum# 'u�ii#ication af above variances. ! hereby declare that all statements made in this request, and on additiona! material, �tre true. ___-�--. , , � f , � , {��, � _ {--` , 'X `�"�� ' �'' r; /`� �� . �.'.. ,�'r�; u�. ''# „s Igr�attll' +� pp�1C �t ,;` ate �� /p2 ��Signature o�Prop Own�r Date The Tiburon Apartments Preliminary PUD Application 8.9.12 ADDENDUM Legal Description 9130 Olson Memorial Hiphway W 211 14/100 FT OF E 291 14/100 FT OF THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING S OF MPLS WATERTOWN ROAD AND N OF STATE HWY NO 55 9220 Olson Memorial Hiahway THAT PART OF NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING E OF W 749 8/10 FT THOF AND W OF E 291.14 FT THOF N OF STATE HWY NO 55 AND S OF WATERTOWN ROAD Proposed Use of Properly The proposed project,The Tiburon Apartments, concerns the development of a six-story, 142-unit, market- rate apartment building on a 2.7 acre site near the intersection of Highway 55 and US Highway 169. Comprised from a diverse mixture of studio, one bedroom, one bedroom + den, and two bedroom dwelling units,the faciliry would also offer a generous complement of resident amenities, including a theatre, fitness area, club room and outdoor swimming pool/recreation area. As currently designed, the facility provides approximately 142 enclosed and 77 surface parking spaces. The building's main entrance and enclosed parking garage are to be located off of Golden Valley Road at ground level and supported by a precast concrete structure. The above residential levels would be constructed with a type 3A wood frame and capped by a flat roof. It is expected that the building's exterior facades would be clad in an assorted blend of contemporary finishes, including brick and fiber cement siding; punctuated by a rhythm of large window openings; and articulated by bands of private balconies accompanying the individual residential units. To best maximize the high visibility of the building from multiple viewpoints and to enhance its prominent positioning along Highway 55, all facades will receive a high level of aesthetic consideration. The approximately 226,900 square-foot, U-shaped building would be situated on its site so that the main entrance fronts Golden Valley Road. Two on-site surface lots are planned to accommodate visitor parking. It is intended that the grounds surrounding the site be conscientiously illuminated and aesthetically landscaped through a variery of plantings and organic materials. Zoning Variances Reauest variance to allow for Maximum Height to be 72 ft. and 6 stories versus 60 ft. and 5 stories In order to develop luxury apartments at this location, it is necessary to construct the building at six stories. As ground floor units are very difficult to lease,the building's lowest level is most effectively utilized as enclosed parking. Only the very highest point of the building,the stair and elevator shafts,will reach 72 ft. The flat roof is located at 65 ft. and parapets at 68 ft. The proposed building height will in no way detrimentally affect access to light and air from the surrounding properties; cast shadows on residential properties; or obstruct views to adjacent businesses, landmark buildings or significant public spaces. Request variance to allow for Lot Coverage to be 77%impervious surfaces versus 60% In order to provide the required amount of parking and a fire access road constructed of"an all weather driving surface of asphalt or concrete cable," an increase in the amount of impervious surface is necessary. 15%of this 77%calculation of impervious surfaces includes a 17,000 sq. ft. green roof deck. By deducting the green roof,the impervious area is reduced to 62%. Underground retention tanks would be utilized as a means of sensitively managing the site's storm water. Reauest variance to allow for 33 Parking Stall Dimensions to be 9 x 18 ft. minimum versus 9 x 18.5 ft. and Request variance to allow for Drive Aisle Width to be 22 ft. minimum versus 24 ft. minimum Due to the angular nature of the site and adjacent roadway,the most effective and efficient use of land requires that one end of the surface parking lot be 3 ft. shallower than the other. This minor adjustment results in a 6 in. reduction in the depth of parking stalls, (two rows), and a 2 ft. reduction in the drive aisle along the NW potion of the surface parking lot, affecting 33 of the 77 exterior parking spaces. The remaining NE section of the lot would have the requisite depth of 18.5 ft. for its 44 stalls and width of 24 ft. along the drive aisle. Reauest variance to allow for 3 Compact Parking Stalls. (dimensions to be 8 x 16 ft. minimum) To most efficiently utilize the available floor space in the enclosed parking garage, 3 of the 142 parking spaces would need to be designated as compact stalls,with dimensions of 8 x 16 ft., (1 space), and 9 x 16 ft., (2 spaces). These measurements fall well within the accepted conventions for compact parking space size, (7.5 x 10 ft. minimums). The remaining 139 spaces in the garage would meet the 9 x 18.5 ft. requirements. Request variance to allow for Fire Road Width to be 14 ft. minimum versus 20 ft. minimum While the vast majority of the fire road maintains a 20 ft. clearance,the irregularly shaped lot creates various "pinch points" in which this dimension is reduced. To accommodate the property line,the fire road would require a 14 ft. minimum width along the rear yard. Request variance to allow for Rear Yard Setback to be 15 ft. minimum versus 20 ft. minimum Although the front and side yard setbacks fall readily within zoning standards, the rear property line's erratic profile creates various intervals that would necessitate a 15 ft. minimum dimension. However, despite this reduced setback,the rear yard abutment to Highway 55 would continue to provide a generous buffer between the furthest edge of the building and the adjacent land use. The Tiburon Apartments Preliminary PUD Application 8,9.12 NARRATIVE STATEMENT The development of The Tiburon Apartments will meet the purpose and other provisions of Golden Valley's PUD Ordinance in the following manner: Fosterina More Efficient and Effective Land Use Currently occupied by vacant, single-story structures, the redevelopment of the site into a dynamic multi- story residential community would represent a far more efficient and effective land use than is currently employed. The project would not only increase population and building densiry, but also improve the qualiry of design, landscaping and building materials employed in the area. Enhancing Visual Character The replacement of two non-descript structures with a more prominent and attractively designed new building will undoubtedly enhance the visual character of the neighborhood. Clad in an assorted blend of contemporary finishes,the new structure would be highly visible from both Highways 55 and 169, helping to ground the intersection and serve as an orienting landmark within the area. Additionally,the building's multitude of balconies and large green roof deck will create dynamic visual activity, adding vertical vibrancy to the public realm. Providina Greater Housing Diversitv Designed to meet the needs of young professionals who work in the area and are part of the community,the project would help to meet an increased demand in quality rental housing, provide a more diverse selection of housing opportunities, foster a greater population of"Gen Y" households, and encourage closer live/work proximities within the City. Supporting Economic Development An investment in the area and increase in residential density would serve to support the economic growth of area businesses and encourage continuing development in the area. The site's proximity to a wide variery employers, restaurants, and recreational venues suggest that it is well-positioned to foster the development of an engaging live/worWplay environment within the community ��,�� ENGINFER$ P LANNEItS UESIGNERS Consuiting Group,1nc. SRF No. 01279XX MEMORANDUM TO: Joseph S. Hogeboom, CiTy Planner CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY FROM: Craig Vaughn, PE, PTOE, Senior Associate DATE: August 8, 2012 SUBIECT: PROPOSED TIBURON DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY INTRODUCTION As requested, SRF Consulting Group has completed a trip generation review for the proposed Tiburon Apartments in the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota. The proposed development is located in the northeast quadrant of TH 169 and TH 55. The main objective is to review the trip generation for the proposed apartment complex with the comparable trip generation for potential commercial uses on this parcel. PROPOSED AND POTENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT The proposed development will consist of a five-story apartment building with 142 rental dwelling units. A single access point to the proposed development wi11 be provided at the north side of the parcel onto Golden Valley Road. The City of Golden Valley is currently reviewing the site for a zoning change to allow residential uses on this parcel. The proposed development is currently located in the Commercial Zoning District. Section 11.30: Commercial Zone District describes the maximum lot coverage (50%) and height restrictions (3 stories) for buildings in that zoning district. The parcel is located on � approximately 2.8 acres of land. Based on the Commercial Zoning District building restrictions, the maximum building size for a parcel of this size was determined to be approximately l 80,000 square feet. TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON AND POTENTIAL IMPACT To determine the trip generation for the proposed and potential land uses, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, 8th Edition was used. For the Tiburon apartment development the rental apartment code was applied (ITE Code 220). For the potential development scenario, both office and retail land uses were reviewed due to either being developable in the Commercial Zoning District. Based on the trip generation results www.s rfconsulting.com One Carf�on Parkway Narth,5uite 7S0 � Minneapolis,MN 55447-�43 � 763.4�S.qD1U Fax:763.473.2d19 Arr Eyanf OpFio�tzrnih�Enryloyer Joseph S. Hogeboom, City Planner August 8, 2012 City of Golden Valley Page 2 presented in Table 1 the two potential commercial developments will generate significantly more trips than the proposed residential use on a daily basis (approXimately 2-8 times more) and during the peak hours (approximately 2.5-7.5 times more). Table 1 Trip Generation Estimates ITE Land Use Size Daily A.M.Peak P.M.Peak Code Trips In Out In Out u , >t>,�.w.r�.k. .sh�r . �� ,.� a .. ,.,,..s. � . ,.., �,. ,. 220 Apartments 142 units 944 l4 58 57 31 .:z.v. .ti...�.. .�� .:. < ,�. �,v., f,.= ? �,: .........,, .. .......>.., . _.... ..,.,... , �..,,. < .. ....... . .. .,.,.a 7�� General Office Building 180 KSF 1,982 246 33 46 223 �,k.r: M � � � ..., _ � . ... ,.,.., „�. ,.,.r.�. u a.....,.. n. ..� s. ..; ,zt.,.. . .......�, �.,r... r , ,,,�� .... .... . .� ,,. 820 Shopping Center 180 KSF 7,729 110 70 329 342 Year 2009 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along Golden Valley Road were 1,700 vehicles per day (vpd). Based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and typical planning level estimates, the roadway capacity of a two-lane, undivided urban roadway is 10,000 vpd. Therefore, the roadway should be able to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed apartment complex without significant degradation. Please note that a more detailed traffic operations analysis may be conducted, if deemed necessary by City staff. K:ITra�clEmilyGrosslGolden Valley Trip GenV 20808 Golden �alley_Tiburon Trip Gen Comparison_egcv.doc �' '�'� � �� yJ/ ,�/ o ' � � 4"- s � , � .� ' iJ` ` � � ; %; \ \ u' / „ , � � � X i � � �' ��` � '�,�� w �� ,; �� j ��' �: �� * `�� A ;l ,, '"�'u �� r' � � � 1 ` / i �� x � �.. j � , �? �� j ��,� , �. ---_. �v ` r' � l ' }� �r � ��v � , �.l 1 �� l � �� ' � �� "�� ` �\ �� s k � l �; —,.!__ �\, ,. ; , , � �. � ^ �� ,� j ., �� - �.� 1 `"�1c '`'� `� i� 1�i �� j � � ' `�.�. - 8rt-'�i:�\ '� .1`,�\� € , � ` f i t _ `*•► ! t ' � '. � , � � , r, ....` ., �. \i t . j f � yti�'� l � ��J ��+, '�'� ' � '�� ft � � . . . � r • � � t �' � F � �' f `y !, t � , +_ , � l � `; ,�. �-�_ � / �, ` , � T !F ' �� f � � ,:� � . �., �� ,,.' �� ;, : � '� ' � � ,� � �� ; ` ,�. '� ,� I ` ;� , � +,1' 'l!��\ , . �� i f, � : ' � ii� � � � � �' ��'' � , ` " � � � /�.ji �� , j '' �._ j � � � j�� ,�,.�_y � �`�; . � ; �( �i" r7:: '� � � � ��"`�.w \`,a � �. r ••', � � ... �a- � � ��i" } ' ld � � , � � � � �� ,� t'� �� f � � � ,� k, � � � 1 ,, , '� ,� ,�,, � 'l> �t1� } � � , i • y. � z_.. ',r '1.��.,' ..,�,"�`'y"'�� `7CZ_--• a.. �1}t'r y7 � �..� � � � + t � .'p,� �._'� �`�'�. .` pA r � w..a �.. � � .��-_ �_ � ' �. G �� a �.- ��t �~ �� 1 i '� � ,� i C*.` j. � ,� ' , � ��` �' � .� �.:t ��; � �r '�- � �� `'�:..__.H...._.-�''. -�:.M,'• ,�r 1��,,, � �� -l.��c �� 3�J� t (, �'r`�� _ �•Y L� � � � y � 1, � 7 .. ?"+..w � � ��,1 c z�� ' � ' -�'�� f � � i � �. ��i �� .+ '�'�'' ` ;' � ,� — f.. � � � � � , . � ,j ' � >. ,! � � :} `� �° I � � .� � � ; i r ; i � r� ' r�� ,T° ;,� 'N �� ^.�- ` • � :. v , , — (t / ,a ♦�S F � * !� ' �h �i�� t '� r � j1 . � � I . { � . � .. ��i� . 'r �� rr 4�/ . � _.♦.` �� y�. ...�____ f�_.._�lA. , . � � 1 r j� � � 4 � r� � �' �� - � � ', t �� . _ � , _ � , . . , ; , ,� �, 1 � � . ..:� ,� �t � 1 : � �1 � � � � �: _ �f �. . , �� ,� , 1 �� , ;, I_ . , , �� . � � ys� -�� ' r,! --,� ��::. �� ,�:� � -° �� `t � � l.�' y� � �X+.� �-a k � � �� 't y �. � � � B f } �� , �€�� 3 S � �� 1 f � �.y ��, �l �f ��!t-�t� ,,, � � i L-'x'9 , �.� � ) i � �_"- . . , I .. ,� p �� , � �i ��i� '` _ �� . jY r� � �� .f;� � ; %^ �-- � � � � � , � �� r�� `q �� y�� ° �� - ��• .s�� -�kl l�� i� . �ij, � i.� .. � . t� � v � � �1._._. � �y,�,�,�+�i' � 7 / . f -� � , � � .�,,�;' :`i. `--s�_.� aM�.. r t .�'�._b/ '�, ^/ . ! � ;: ti. � ;!� � � �,, � j� � � � :4! � � � '� � � jr� � �_ � •ij � . 4 ' � '�� f �t��1 r ,�'x � 1 �'�i � �� °, � < rrf, ��' � ,{ � .. � '� ;�� , ti � � , �� ` ,� .� f � �. , � ;, . I 1� �t 4 , j� i;� L 1 w�� . � z ( � � �l t,! - � .�� z �. I � ' �� r� �, � ��s �� ; , , � I ,> t ��x �� ; �'. 1 , �ii '��'.{ k ,.:� i.,�.-..�k:��' �' 1 , ,/� �'� � 4.� �II � ��>� �t i� _ � � ,,.,. �, - �,; ; � � r� � t �° ' E . � ` : ` . r � :.�� ' i : ;�, , � , �� j�� j,� �` � � _ � /� f� � '� � .� � � ,�r � ' � 7 -+l zr-"_'� � �:�J � j f �� f �� 1 1 p �f,�t � - a ;� �,� �il� �`�` � �� ( � � ,� �� .��' � � � � t`_.�� .3� . .. �. . � 3 1 J r � � � < , ' � � , E-�f ,` ' t : a ' /� �.r� . rf i 1 1 ♦Y.'� � � .F `. ' Ni . � �. �� ( y 1 t 1 Ji I � �Y � � `! ¢ +.��; � +� Y � �. �y,: !� / . f �':: �"",g p..� _ � � �j' . .. � ( ` �� LO �� ), j ` �� , r � �� .� { ��"`� 'r �� p \ �� I ,�'� p� `� ' ' �.�. y; 1 � o � ,,� �1 j.�� !�� , `'� 1` ��, � � �� t l ,� N . , . : �, ri - � / � �� " .� - �j� � � � �. � . �l � .l � N , � _... _ �� , _ � �� _ '( ��_` � s' �, ' � i� � � a l 1� I � � � i � f lf � � `� ' i +')�` ' '' , {-* �'�°-� �. �` . _.�' ,�^s. rh� � � t � ��' / � � Q N ` O "h � , � s� 4 =�M� , � , 1 p� ;�` � f � j � � ° � �� ' �� '� �, � �� ' :� �` 0, � Q o �+ � � � •i� -� � t�.�. '3 � ; �-. � � — � `i, �F. � �-� � ❑ a d +c � .� /f � � �'r � #�^ � ; _ i., .r�'�� ,� �. �?� ,a 4fi� � a.' � � � � �� y � �.c �� :� , . s � �� "�� r. � W �1 � 2 �'' �a�" 'y � ��+s � �� '' � J -- - � � i '' t A:-11 � � 1 � F ' � / / ' _ � ._ t �� ; i � t L1� � 's t'� / I 1 � � � ��* � s � U' � � C1 � p w � ,-.� �'� i' f i...`� � �; � - � �/�� Z � �, {� � '� � � �� A „� =`�Y �' �' /�' � o j �� f ' ,� `� ; � �' �:. �� O � ��` � � `' ��'��"." »,� ,� � �� °� � � _� �, , ,' E , . ��, �.,ra.. ?�" , � , / � �'. 1 �� _ s.�r _ . . . �, s � �:4- , �-` � ; �n � _ __ ��' �� t � � � �� ;� �� r* � ,%' . � ��t� -- � � x`� � ' " � �� ' '��" � � �� i �e ��, � �� 1 � �1�` 1�� `_ �� ` � ' •� �� 1 � � � � ; �� , 1 1 �, ��' � ,�i ��,� � >.�� ,, �, - . �__ ii �i `'ty ��t C f-!`t � � � ' Y �� `` `.e^ -� _� ; i '�� % � � ,� :� � �;, . � ) � ' �` / ,,, 4 �� ( �� :`. � -�� f�� ,(�" t !i�, �� ''� ��_,, �,� �' f ,, Q , ' ��:\� ,� '�f ,/ > j%f ;��` m - � . � �''� ��`��+�� ° ; � ��'��+ �� i� � � T'�,,,��, � ' r-� � , j .{�, �;�C t �..3 e �,' �t f , , ' , '_ ' � �+!y +<<`» 8 ,K� . "'�` .. . ;,"'� � . ... .. : i i ' f j4 � .` W � v �r.� �� i� �3 ( '� , W - ,� . � � �,�. ,: , � , ,� � _.. , _ , , r , � .:, a � �� . � r � , �, � � � , , , y� � +,� r �' j �',�< T�:_ J r-� � #� � k � �,��. +{ � � � ' � W.I .�$ . ..�( t a�' � �ti , .. ��, ,� � . ° ��w 1� i 4 . . . . � ,. � � . � . �� '' � � . ,l.r �' �, �.. ....� p � � . �_ i � � , { F ...,.a_.. . - ... .'1 �. > �i { � � , � . , � ; fra..�. ....�' � ► �� ,� � �� . . , � . _ � �� ' ° � '� . .. , � .. s � `�'� . r, � .. � v�.rwre.. . 9 'G ��r� Y; (�� ' 1 '� !i �� - j '" . . z_.� ��, ....��a>.�,, �'� � s, � i � * l ...t �.� r^5, �� 2 '�. j ��§ ) �'k.. 2 ; t �_.. .... -, � p��, t N ,.. "" u„ .. � . �t . � �,,.#�.. � ti; �;� � � � y �� _ ; _ : , , .. . , e �, �� ....,w--, . � � �� .._ r , ��_, r , , � � � � j � , � �g . , � �:,,, ... 'g „ a tt ...k�t � '�.� .y �C� t y .,� . �„,,,� .. � _..� .... . Y' '�� f t ' ? _.._..i d( ' M Y. °'4� ��t �. .` I & � --'--w-�x.f-Y*�r...- .. �..._...r.-....,i..� ._,....> >... .�.,..-.��,,. . .t�� S '�.rc � � . .�:� . � _-_ - � .��, � � �� ° I� � . ��i . `} ( , i� � '� �., .. v ,. �. _.. ._1 .� }; , �� . .: � �t i�� l �� 1 �� -+.-..� �'�l i; � •,�'f ' � � d i k � < h,` � i�� 1 ! �E '?+�rxt�f+.+t+�-*y+ss3-k,r-r��**{�' • �'i�.�i�.:.�.i...< � i j * i � .�;, .� ,� � �, � �'�. '! � �= I, � t - ;.,,� �-�. ! � �, ; i , , ��, t > � � u ,'� �{� �� . � � • � -- }_ - -�� f� � i � � x � � � •:� „ - E#_ �h � *--- ;— _ � _ r _ _ ;— — 1 �+; � 1 E � �y. .. -.. '�f--� _ ` �:(.+ ��i j + , �j1 �., �. C..'�, � ( ,. , � � � ,�. .. , , --_ �-�''�� . . � � ,�.;; l C I � _ � ``� { ,' �: _ . �'�' "'s .�- � � '''�I { `—_ .� ..._� ,�..:� � � � � , . , �i� � , i! � �- _ � ; �- ,,� � � ' _ . _ _ . -- 1 •�, -_ . . _ - _ . � . .- .... � ; 4 . fl.. . •- �. t}�' � ��-. � �Ii �,`� �'(1�' �� • �� .� F"t._...-1• ��4` ��' f.. ' i� / ��...•� � . . 4 .,.._ . . : , , ,. : . i . �t �...___� . . e� . t__ . . . _ . _.. . _ ,. , „`�... . . . ' . ....Y�.�.H .�y, r�, .�' , � t � � - �_ ,��'�.�.; '� �----- +� ;i �` �. ...,� ��T:..-�'} ��, i � � . 1j ! � �,, �-�-b. �F-�;. I� �(` -,._, ' ;i r.+ � F�� . r + -i.� ;t �_�-�.,r=_�;�:�,�� . � s . . _ � �� , . . � . _ _; - - .t�. _ * L{.. ry � i �� €� � � V�� 1�1 �F�+�-�-j- � `��q��g i.. ,� j t f ; ' 4 �� I . .. � . . _ ��,�hS� '.y' ` �. . � � _ �_ +1 � �{� �� `.I �.'��. �'' ' �. ' f � :Y�� .�� .I �F. �. � _ s t ` i }� i . .,{ , .��,I,',�y�� . .- ��1. ��'`�� '� � 3 �� . . � �` YMY ti � �SY.1 ��L,��r. `{I ��. � 1'± I` -/'.Tf 4('I +n ..* ` .r.{ * '. �� j {i j t i + .-- �� 1 , "�� ry� �, �^ 'd � r'�+1� �.� -. , .:+eU� ,�,�c� ..�t i^` � ' '! k'r iE�� ., i �. ,, �u �. ``�� o �. . �i �f��, , ;! � o ^- ,, i�^ �� ' � N tr- 1 1 �� f i f „y�f �? � � � r.i� - i�� .�'� ..P � N � �� + _ e,' k. 4� ., ��", � � (Srt O �� .v w '' w � � � �' �` � � Q � �.� � z , �,� #; Y��#� o ��.�._ ��. r v ;- , : , ��:. � , .N�._�� . ��:��► , ��:� �� K , � � �� ;t � � O z 1 �r� ; � .��' �e►� ,� � � � i ,��1 � � w � �- E . , � �,.- .„�. � E � t, .. � J .. � . . .��, . .�. :�, t� � _ _ . . � � - � ' r 3� ti • Q ��TT` } } � } t �" i� r� ir � w �- � � � � � � � � �� , �� r �i.� � � � o �� "'�''�� f � �� ;, a ;' ! r.�. : �.,. . �g �i i � . � �w. ,�� ry ��+`A� 4 . 5� '��1� % . � � ._ W. _�, .,.� �}-� } � � � � , . > � �� ; _ x.. ,,.Y , - __.,_ � , .. , � '�*�' . �1� 3t � 'tt �� ` �'b �� , I � � '� �,�� µ �►w:� �$ ' � ��+, �—, .� . � �` ��, � s 'Y ,_� d�" �' ��e r `R I "�+ Y;,. � � �-' -, ! s 4 � . � �.f . � �1 � uEr� � � f_ i ZLL ��` � F1��`��A. �"��fj r '{.' �� j � 1 �I�'� � � � � .. • � .__ � ----. _. — .. J �._— .. _. .. _ _. . _ - - - -- -- - ._. _ - --- -- -� -- � r. W J � i w\ / I `� _._. � 3Ntl1Nl U ¢; F W. � . .. � a u _ y� . ,3 i C7 i- 4 L7 O -- U a_. '_ ___ � .. ,� � . 0�.......,_�...,.,,,l�l �❑ � � i .. �-: T.... ......:.♦. . . I � � m m Y 4, , � � '"' °�1,' ❑ . 0 I� ❑� .., I . , ... �.. . N h � � �Z' _�_.,.�.. c� � I a, ,�. 4t _ e C? . o A o ❑ a � •- � � _, _.�..� �,.,m..,.. rv �,...,.....n.. ,.��..... .. � � .,� a o o ❑ ❑ � - �. �. „. ( �_x=_ ��...,., T..., � _°' $ � --_--__� � n�l �(y .4 � �_' (.� '�. o O O o ❑ v �, nA N �.. �' ... '�, � . .—— .� �__—� �Q$. � '" 2¢,: �:� n o ❑ o > , . ' w ._ 8 �� '! `� �� Q N m , � Q V m�.. Q .. . �} . ..: Q �!:'�.. 0 :M Q 2 . � � ,p w D .�....�� ❑ O o Y .. m J._ � ¢_, S ✓ ° . --c�i ° O��:. � ....... m::�.. � .. , b ...�L�y�...� t .� � . 1 Q � 3 .r � ,;� a o ❑ ❑ I , N ,.. �, �. tV :,: — � �:�� ^ �.� r V/ . ...,>o>..�.........�. .... ..... ' I �r oy �+ � :V ..! � ._ � � � � o °�o 0 0 0 � � o ' "� °'_ � r : u. ' � � N �, �.m., � j � r ' _ ,,, ; � p _ N , : � � .. � O a O� ��❑ Q p o � O i �"_ — s*i +? ' � ' �-. '. '«' , -'' ..... � Z . ._.,-.a - 1�, � J _� �.. � � � � < ,: .,. � ,L � ,.y , � . w � =f' o � �fl � 0 ❑ ❑ � J � a Q aV � . ? � > w x ^ z R) q . y"„ `� �. _ ;: .' W {I� w I ..,_w.... ,,.,..,u..,... . .. . � , O ... � ❑ O ., _ O �. � � � J � � " �' ❑ i i :N, � .. +1 � . O ,.� � . .;� 4 " Q . �W .. � . �� 3 g J: .�_. � � . i � = � - � � - Z Q -. `_ _ _ - - __ _ - - - - --- - _. --- ___-. .. - - — — _ - --- � m < � , � N J - — - - — - - — - - — - - — - - — - - —.. _. _- -- - — - - — - - — - - � �, w i N � J i J �' > � ' w � � � � , , .-- g v �� -��. . O � � �j g o �`. z . �.. m ; w�, � �v m mr - _. . . u�i.?., � N-� Q Q n i U . y , y Q Q ,. 1 � �o O ' g �. O.,�'� ip-r, --` . g � m� w n= m_.,. � , , s� _____ . '' � _ I 1 . g , '� � w� ; � � m , „ i 8 " � gQ^ i� , m ,� � � � . �. � 1 � �� . .._�. , I � 1 - � , i 1 g: m � E� � 1 , 5 W , O m I ,` N g g�� r . I ,_.. �O'J .. k,. 1 I 'r 7 r I1 � I Q 1 Q � I � O = .,. _.... � .. F . �x� I� I � � ; N�;' �O ; o —"._� ,, �U:-. � �r¢ . ° __ � 1 J r- �,: . ' I:".'_- i '� �:, I � ��, �' O� U U:�.� � • � `. ¢ i � 1 , d � O 2O' � � 2 U¢ . 1 o U`" i J W, , v� R ��.: ' .._.._�' � F I .� ._..._ � � , ..._'__.'_.__ O Y • 1 i Q Ql m � 1� I � �` �� - w � � , w . .. �` �}�,,,,.. 1 C T� i �_ ' � ' \l��}\ 1 ` ��,? �1 , , k`� :,: ,--. —.-' `� . W °a o o t"` � 1 � �� . . g w � �.•; w. , `, g ; �. ., �,�';� , ;, , =�, �` � � �, i � �Cj�:;'�� '' �_, i � r �;'..� I � � r ��' ,. � I � ��J, � � : ; 1 � c I o _ o � < _ . . ; �_._ I T � W �_ . I I F�. . � ! �� _ _ �� ^ ;,.- g , °° �� ' I — � Z , m � � N � � - >o, � I � (1� O Z , , `� N � -_- � 1 r1 O LL O sm � 1 � O ¢ 8N � II Ql ,... m�j ry , , . ; . . � O � � i.. .. I i ` � � w. QJ J ,. o � ' a� f ' � � o � ¢s 8 o " o gL, N� - �Wy � w m'. � 2 . m= _ m o , � � .- ,. N ..� N .� .� �m N � - J C , � O r¢ m¢ $(C,` ' _ � � � E 8 8 8 . . WO.. ,� �zµ� ��Zy � � � � m .� , m0.� m❑ . m �.,y �♦ . .� �a .. , N.iRi �I _ � �I � `� rr � YLL , � . �y , � - Z . Q - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � : � � � � I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � J W � � W I � � J I J `1 � W �.� I � r I � : __.._._..., � I I � � � 8 � � a O � � __ g w o � � mo � .- .. UJ . N �, . I u�) u m r � � I � � �.i O` .. ... ,.. 8 ...... . Ll �' ^' , W .. m . 5 G 0 Q _ � u m t � ��.;,.., � � 0 o � �z,: ' ❑w, � mo,,.'. , , I � 1 o � —_ o„ �� m E � g ,� z - gw� mo` mo �. �. . i � gz , I go o m. , _ o '� ��. ', w , m ., , ��N a= � 1 � --�-- ¢U I _� �. s � S �� O ¢ :. _ � G,, I �� m ' ��.. � � I I � > ' Q �7 m m W.�, J., �.' .... . W.', '. W�: � e 0 a ° z.. �w �a - � �„ I m _ 0 o - � r^ � UJ '� � � � O 8 R _ � ° " � , , � � �:. � �° w, — ' _, m, ; � cv � o N �1 � � � � O � � g � O , � �;s s � � — oz i � � � � � _ i i , � w. � J � J `e Q � � � Q - �— w " � g � ' gZ � z m; " oi a'; ° '' N w '� m• m� o _ N�., . � ..r., , ." __ � O s � � � o °o 0 .. 8�.. ww oz p ' � ¢�O�, m0 m0 9 �: . . �. . .-. � .. � ,y . ... i � I II � lil �' ZLL Q �'—__ . _ - -- - - -- . __ _ _ _ _ m ` � ` ► �