Loading...
01-14-13 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valiey Road Council Chambers Monday, January 14, 2013 7 pm 1. Approval of Minutes November 26, 2012 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary Plan Review — Planned Unit Development (PUD) — Saturn Addition PUD #63, Amendment'#2 Applicant: Penske Automotive Group/UAG Minneapolis B1, LLC Address: 701 Louisiana Avenue South Purpose: To allow for the construction of a Motorwerks MINI Cooper auto dealership. --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 dacumPnt is available in afternatp farmats upan a 72-hour raquest. Pleas�r.all � 7fi3-593-8Q06 (TTY: 7G3-593-3968)to make� request. Examples of alternate formats ; may include larg�prink,electronic, Braille,audiocassette,etc. � ��m� b �� Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission Navember 26, 2012 A regular meeting of the Planning Gommission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, November 26, 2012. Chair Waldhauser called the meeting to order at 7:06 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Kisch, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom, Assistant HRA Director Jearine Andre and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes October 8, 2012 Planning Commission Workshop Meeting Waldhauser referred to item D on page 4 and said she vtirauld like the words "and other accessory and dwelling units" added to the sentence regardir�g the evaluation of play structures. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimausly to approve the October 8, 2012 minutes with the above noted addition. November 5, 2012 Regular Planning Commission Meeting McCarty said he had some typogr�phicai/grammatical errors that he would discuss with staff. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Cera and'motion carried unanimously to approve the November 5, 2012 minutes with the above noted corrections. 2. Consideration of Ftesatu#ion No. 12-01 Finding thafi the Redevelopment Plan for the Hig�huyay 55 West Redevelopment Project Area and the Tax Increment Financing Pl�n for Tax Increment Financing (Renewal and Renovation) Di�trict No. 1 Conform to the General Plan for the Development and Redevelopment of the City, as Amended (Amended 2008 Comprehensive Plan Up:date) Andre reminded the Commissioners that the former bowling alley property and the adjacent property were recently reguided and rezoned to High Density Residential. Since the rezoning and reguiding of the properties the HRA has been considering establishing a redevelopment area and a Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District in order to obtain the funds needed for public improvements including the slip access ramp on Highway 55 at Decatur and the pedestrian access assuming the Tiburon project moves forward. She referred to a map of the area and explained the boundaries of the propased Redevelopment Project Area and the Renewal and Renovation TIF District. She explained that part of the statutory process requires the Planning Commission to consider the plans and determine if they are compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 2 Segelbaum asked about the history of other various TIF districts and questioned if funds are being used for this proposed district that could possibly be used elsewhere. Andre explained that the City is not limited to a certain number of TIF districts but there are certain criteria and requirements that must be met when establishing a TIF district. She reviewed the two existing TIF districts and agreed that a TIF district does divert taxes to a specific area or project rather than cantributing to the entire City. Segelbaum asked if the HRA is considering any other areas or if this is the only area being considered because of the proposed Tiburon project. Andre stated that no other areas are currently under consideration for TIF. She explained that there is only increment to capture if a development is increasing the value and taxes of the property. Waldhauser noted that there are a number of public improvements that are needed to facilitate the Tiburon development and that is one of the reasons the City is involved. Andre agreed and;added that the Tiburon developer has not asked for any assistance. Tfie proposed use of funds is for public improvements that the HRA feels would be bene#icial and would make the area more desirable. Kluchka asked about the difference between the RedevelopmentArea and TIF District area and why they are different sizes and different parcels. Andre stated that the Redevelopment Area is where development can happen artd the TlF District includes the properties that meet the statutory requirements far.blight. New development in the TIF District will increase the taxes received and tfie incr�ment is used to pay for the improvements. Kluchka asked if the funds captured in t�te TIF District could be used elsewhere in the Redevelopment Area Andre stated that most of the funds would be used in the TIF District however some could be used outside of the TIF District area. McCarty asked for an explanation of how Tax Increment Financing works and questioned if a definition of TIF should be included in the definition section of the Plan. Andre stated that a district is created and in that district a "frozen base" of taxes is established, which are the taxes currently being paid before any improvements, then when there is new development, the "frozen base" is subtracted from new amount of taxes being paid and the difference in tax receipts is used to fund improvements in that district. She added that she thinks the definition of TIF is'presumed in the report but that she could forward the suggestion to Sprirrgsted, who prepared the report. Kisch referred �o page 5'�in the Springsted report and questioned why there are discrepanci�s in the estimated costs listed in different sections. Andre explained the difference is the present value versus the amount paid out over time due to interest, all of which is estimated at this point. McCarty referred to page 4 in the Springsted report and said that there seems to be many references to the proposed Tiburon project and that it wouldn't occur without TIF but the September 10 Planning Commission minutes state that the developer would move farward without TIF financing. Andre stated that the developer moving forward is contingent on City approval and that City approval is contingent on there being an environment that would be conducive to this development, which includes improved safety for vehicles and pedestrian access. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 3 Kluchka asked what specifically the Planning Commission is supposed to look for in the Plans that make them consistent or not with the Comprehensive Plan. Andre stated that in this case it is mainly consideration af the zoning and if the proposed Tiburon would be compatible with the zoning district and the Comprehensive Plan. Kluchka disagreed and said that his understanding of what the Planning Commission is being asked to consider is if the Redevelopment District and TIF District are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that it has nothing to do with the Tiburon project. He added that it is alsa his understanding that the Tiburon could be built without TIF but the safety improvements that the City wants to do couldn't be done without TIF. Andre agreed that the Tiburon developer may want to move forward without TIF, however the City Council will decide if the Tiburon project is suitable without using TIF to provide necessary improvements. MOVED by Kisch and seconded by Kluchka to adopt Resolution' 12-01 #inding that the Redevelopment Plan for the Highway 55 West Redevelopment Project Area and the TIF Plan (Renewal and Renovation) for District No. 1 conform to the General Pfan for the development and redevelopment of the City as amend�d,(2008 Comprehensive Plan Update). Segelbaum said he thinks it is difficult to state that the Plans are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan however he questioned if this is where',the City wants to focus the funds that are being devoted to this, poterr�ially at the detriment to other areas. Kisch added that money isn't being diverted from other areas, it's money that doesn't exist unless development happens to bring the tax base value forward. It is very targeted and involves a specific development ra'ising the tax base providing funds to pay for the needed improvements. Kluchka asked if there were specific areas defined for redevelopment during the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Grimes stated that there were severai discussions identifying areas where changes could occur. He added that in this case, the properties were rezoned and redesignated for higher density that couldn't happen without the necessary infrastructure. Waldhauser read the proposed Resolution and the Planning Commission vote was unanimous #o adopt Resolution 12-01 finding that the Redevelopment Plan for the Highway 55 West Redevelopment Project Area and the TIF Plan (Renewal and Renovation� for [}istrict No. 1 conform to the General Plan for the development and rede�elopment of the City as amended (2008 Comprehensive Plan Update). 3. Informal Public Hearing — Final Plan Review— Ptanned Unit Development (PUD) — 9130 & 9220 Olson Memorial Highway— The Tiburon — PU-111 Applicant: Tiburon 55, LLC Address: 9130 & 9220 Olson Memorial Highway Purpose: To allow for the construction of a six-story, 142-unit, market-rate apartment building. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Cammission November 26, 2012 Page 4 Hogeboom stated that the Preliminary PUD Plan for this proposal was approved by the City Council on October 16, 2012 so the applicant is now starting the Final PUD approval process. He referred to a location map and reminded the Commission that the applicant is proposing to construct a six-story, 142-unit, market-rate apartment building on approximately 2.7 acres. He stated that the properties are zoned and designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for High Density Residential and staff believes that the proposal is justified as a PUD. He shawed the Commission renderings of the proposed building and explained that since the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary Plans the applicant has incorporated the Commissioner's comments including: an additional sidewalk connection from Golden Valley Road to the frant door of the building, the addition of bicycle racks, modifications to the amount of impervious surface and coordinating their landscaping with the City's Highwa� 55 Lil�c Planting initiative. He stated that there has been a traffic study done and fhat the City Engineer has reviewed ways to improve the siip ramp on Highway 55 at Decatur. He referred to his staff report and said staff is recommending approval of this proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans prepared by UrbanWarks Architecture, dated Octaber 25, 2Q12, 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 November 6, 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 November 20, 2012, shall be�me 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 Plat. 5. All signs on the property.mus# meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 6. This approval is subject to alf other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or iaws with authority ow�r this development. 7. Final PUD approval will be dependent upon the City's approval and effectuation of a tax increment financirrg: distr'rct within the project area to fund the necessary public infrastructure requirements, to be installed by the City, including among other items, street re�lignrnent, pedestrian improvements, street lighting, sanitary sewer lining, and overh�ad pvwer line burial. Waldhauser asked if the Planning Commission should be predicating their decision on the assumption that the Metropolitan Council will approve of the Comprehensive Plan amendment regarding these properties. Hogeboom said the Metropolitan Council has indicated that the amendment will be approved. McCarty questioned why the developer has to pay park dedication fees prior to the approval of the Final PUD Plat and asked what happens with that money if the Final PUD Plat is not approved. Hogeboom stated that the City Code requires that park dedication fees in the amount of 1% of the estimated land value be paid prior to Final Plat approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 5 McCarty referred to the finding listed in the staff report stating that development including necessary public infrastructure improvements is not expected to occur solely through private development within the reasonable foreseeable future. He said that he believes that this is not true for the Tiburon development. Hogeboom stated the project could not likely occur without the necessary public infrastructure improvements. McCarty said he takes exception to how this praposal is being presented to the Planning Commission. It is being presented like this project wouldn't ga forward without TIF and he is not sure that is true. Waldhauser asked if that finding could be removed from the approval. Hogeboom said the language came from the City Attorney and it is ultimately the Council's decision to approve this proposal with or without`TIF. Kluchka asked if the Commission could focus on the changes that have b�en made to the proposal since the Preliminary Plan, since the condition reg�rding TIF, has already been approved by the City Council. Steve Dunbar, Applicant, Tiburon 55 LLC, referred to a site plan and Mighlighted the items they changed on the plans since the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary PUD plans. He explained that they've added the suggested sidewalk to the front entrance, reduced the amount of surface parking to 69,parking spaces, increased the width of the fire lane to 20 feet, lessened the impact of the masonry wall and added lilac plantings along the south property lir�e. He shouved the:Commission several different elevations and views of the pra�osed building. ' Waldhauser asked if there could be additional landscaping added to the north side of the site in order to help screen the parking lot. Grimes stated that the area along the north side of the property is city;owned right-of-way and that staff would have to review any plantings in that area. Segelbaum questioned if the reduction in the amount of parking could cause other problems, or insufficienfi parking.;Dunbar said he is comfortable with the proposed amount of parking. Kisch referred;to the amount of impervious surface and asked for clarification because the plans shoav that there is 67% impervious surface, but his calculations add up to 80%. Noah Bly, UrbanViforks Architecture, said he would double check the impervious surface calculatio�ts. Schmidgall stated that there will also be subterranean storm water managemenfWhich'to him is an acceptable alternative. Kisch agreed but said he would still like clarification of the impervious surface calculations. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Schmidgall said he thinks this is a nice asset to the community and is supportive of the proposal. Segelbaum and Kisch agreed. Kluchka noted that one issue being considered in the creation of the TIF district is the sanitary sewer line. He noted that most property owners have to pay far sanitary sewer Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 6 repairs and questioned if it is fair to use tax dollars in this project if repairs are required. Grimes noted that any reference to sanitary sewer issues in the TIF plan refer to city- owned sewer lines, not privately owned lines. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Final Plan for PUD #111 to allow for the construction of a six-story, 142- unit, market-rate apartment building subject to the following conditions and findings: Conditions 1. The plans prepared by UrbanWorks Architecture, dated October 25, 2012, 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 Deve.lopment:dated November 6, 2012, shall beeome 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 De�elopment, dated November 20, 2012, shall become a part of this appravaL 4. A Park Dedication Fee of $16,300 shall be paid by fh+�deveiaper prior to approval of the Final PUD Plat. 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 developrnent. 7. Final PUD approval will be dependent upon the City's approval and effectuation of a tax increment financing district.within the project area to fund the necessary public infrastructure requirements, to be installed by the City, including among other items, street realignment, pedestria� irnprovements, street lighting, sanitary sewer lining, and overhead power line b,urial. Findin s: 1. The Gity Engineer has studied the proposed development and the public infrastructure needed to support the proposed development, and the current public infrastrueture is insufficient for the use described in the project plans submitted for the planned unit development. 2. The Planning De�artment has reviewed the project plans and indicated that the proposed de�elopment including the necessary public infrastructure improvements is not reasonably expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future. 3. 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. 4. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features. 5. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use of the land for multi-family residential. 6. The PUD plan results in development compatible with adjacent commercial uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. Minutes af the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 7 7. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 8. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provisions. 4. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary Plan Review— Planned Unit Development (PUD) — Southeast Gorner of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive (The Colonnade) — PU-53, Amendment#4 Applicant: Trammell Crow Company Address: Southeast Comer of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive (The Colonnade) Purpose: To allow for the construction of a 173-unit, market-rate apartment building. Hogeboom referred to a location map and explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a 173-unit, market-rate apartment building on the northwest corner of the existing Colonnade site at the corner of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive. He talked about the history of this site including their approval to build a hotel and their proposal ta build office space, both of which were not completed. He showed the Commissioners a site plan and some renderings of the proposed apartment building and stated that if approvals are granted they would 4il�efy begin construction in the spring. He stated that staff is recommending approvat of the Preliminary PUD plans subject to the conditions and findings as listed in his staff report. Segelbaum asked staff to comment on the number of parking spaces being proposed and any traffic issues. Hogeboom st�ted that City Code requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit for multiple family dwellangs and this proposal has 199 parking spaces which is under- parked according to the City;Code:. However this is a PUD so the number of parking spaces can vary with justification. He added that the applicant should be able to justify why they feel comfortable with 199 spaces. He referred to the traffic study done for this area and explairred that it considered all of the development and potential development proposeci in this area. Segelbaum asked if this proposal will add limitations, in regard to the amount of traffic, to any future development is this area. Hogeboom said that improvements:will need to be dane to the intersection if there is full build-out of all of the sites in this area. Grimes added that there has been significant study done of the intersection of Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive and particularly the way it affects the operation of the I-394 and Xenia Avenue intersection. He added that housing is a benefit to the way the intersection works versus office or commercial uses. Cera stated that there could patentially be almost 1,000 apartment units in this area and asked if the market can absorb that many new housing units. Hogeboom stated that some of the proposats are considered to be in different markets. He said the sense he gets in working with others there is that there is room for more development in this type of market. Grimes agreed and stated that the Metropolitan Council has said Golden Valley's Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 8 population could grow to 25,000 people by 2020 because of its location, so he feels confident that the apartments in this area will succeed and will offer more choices to people who want to live in Golden Valley. Grady Hamilton, Trammell Crow Company, Applicant, introduced the following members of their development team: John Carlson, Trammell Crow, Aaron Roseth, ESG Architects, Trace Jacques, ESG Architects, Burt Coffin, ESG Architects and Brad Wilkening, MFRA. Hamilton stated that he thinks the amount of office space in the area is a strong driver of the demand for apartments. Jacques, Architect for the project, stated that the name of the apartments will be Arcata. He showed the Commission several renderings and floor plans of the proposed building and explained the architectural features and amenities of the building. Waldhauser noted that the zoning district for this property allows for taller structures and questioned why the proposed building is only 5 stories in height. Hamilton 'said the height of the building corresponds to the demand and consideration of the market. Also, a taller building would be more cost prohibitive and would require a differ�nt type of construction method. Kluchka asked what type of apartments these will be. Hamilton said they will be high quality, amenity rich and will appeal to a.broad set of renters. Waldhauser asked about the rental prices. Hamilton stated that the ren#s will be consistent with other rental rates in the area. He added that the rental amount wifl depend on the size of unit but the expected rate will be approximately $1400 to $1500 per'month. Grimes asked if there will be security fencing on the south side of the property around the pool and if people will use the existing circular driveway to drop off people. Hamilton said there will be fencing along the south property line and people would not be using the circular driveway. The apartment and the Colonnade office building will be two separate parcels. Kisch asked the applicant if they've talked with the Colonnade office about any type of parking arrangements should the apartment need additional parking spaces. Hamilton stated that they are su'rrounded by a lot of surplus parking and they would be willing to work with others in,the area as needed. Grimes added that if there is a parking problem the C�ty would have control over parking allowed an the street. Hamilton added that the market would also govern the parking. Cera referred to the different garage entrances and questioned how the flow of traffic would work accessing those entrances. Roseth explained how the traffic patterns would work. Jacques stated that striping on the pavement might help that area function better. Kluchka asked about the location of bicycle racks. Hamilton stated that there are bicycle racks located in the parking ramp. Kluchka said he would like to see some public bicycle racks added ta the plans. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 9 Waldhauser asked how many of the 199 parking spaces would be assigned spaces and how many would be shared spaces. Hamilton said the amount would fluctuate but he anticipates that there will be approximately 10 stalls, plus or minus 5, used for guest parking. Cera stated that in past proposals regarding this property the Council wanted this parcel to integrate with the other corners by providing open space or public space on the corners. Jacques said they would further consider additional open space on the corner. Grimes suggested there could also be a bus stop on the corner. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Bill Schroers, 721 Turners Crossroad South, said he has concerns about Iight pollution and traffic. He said there are a lot of "fender benders" and horn honking in the area and that the current traffic is pretty intense. He said he doesn"t think the building design fits in aesthetically with the other buildings in the area and questioned if it is really the goal of the City to put a couple of thousand people in this immediate neighborhood. Harold Berman, 601 Radisson Road, said his daily commute brings him down Xenia Avenue and he is concerned about what improvements can be made to the I-394 entrance ramp so his wait time won't be seriously delayed. He said he is concerned about the added traffic with this development and the developmen#'on the south side of I-394. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to sp�ak, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Kisch said he thinks this proposa�:is in line with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code and the existing PUD and suggested a�ding the following conditions: exploration of contingency parking plans to accammodate additional parking and future demand, clarification on access at tF�e douk��e parking entrance including pedestrian striping, addition of external bicycle storage/parking and material selection and review as part af the Final Plan review, '' Cera suggesting adding a condition regarding further exploration of ways ta integrate the open space on the northwest corner with the other corners on Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills Drive. McCarty questioned if the City should require public space with a residential use versus an office or commercial use. Segelbaum suggested that the variances needed for this project be listed as part of the applicant's narrative. Hogeboom noted that variances aren't typically called out as a part of a PUD,application because PUDs are allowed to vary from the Zoning Code requiremenfis:'Segelbaum asked if this proposal meets the requirements of the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District or if the guidelines in that district would suggest something different. Grimes stated that the market demand also has to be considered and that an office building in this location wouldn't work at this time. Segelbaum agreed that the market dictates the use but he would like to see some discussion on how this proposal relates to the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. Grimes stated that staff will put together a comparison on how the proposal aligns with the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 10 MOVED by Cera, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of PUD 53, Amendment#4 to allow for the construction of a 173- unit, market-rate apartment building subject ta the following conditions and findings: Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by ESG Architects, dated October 25, 2012, 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 November 7, 2012, shall become part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo frorn Gity Engineer Jeff Oliver to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Developrnent, dated Noaember 20, 2012, shall become a part of this approval. 4. The Applicant shall consider options for additional parking prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Additional parking options could include cross-parking agre�rnents with adjacent property owners. 5. The Applicant shall determine if additional stormwater storage is needed for the site. 6. Outdoor bicycle parking shall be added ta the front entrance area of the building. This shall be shown on the site plan. 7. The Developer shall cansider ways to better incorporate the northwest corner of the site into the surrounding area. This could include creating improved pedestrian amenities that would support a transit'stop. 8. Building material and design, as well as landscaping will be reviewed during the Final PUD Plan approval pra�ess. 9. The Applicant shall provide clarification regarding the access at the double parking entrance including p�destrian„striping. 10. A Zoning Code Comp�rison of this project and the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District shall be completed. 11. The City Attorney.shall determine if a park dedication fee is required for this project prior to Final PUD approval. '' 12. All signs on the praperty shall meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 13. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Findings: 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality af 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 uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 26, 2012 Page 11 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the'PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. --Short Recess-- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 6. Other Business Commissioner Kisch informed the Planning Commission that he is resigning'from the Planning Commission effective immediately because he is moving out of Golden Valley. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 pm. David A. Cera, Secretary 4.�W Y L/� f,-j, . ✓ �/ � ` Planning Department 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: January 8, 2013 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing- Preliminary PUD Plan—Lupient (MINI Cooper) PUD No. 63—Amendment#2—UAG Minneapolis B1, LLC, Applicant Background and Description of Proposal UAG Minneapolis 61, LLC, in coordination with the owner of the property at 701 Louisiana Ave. So., is seeking to amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit No. 63 for the construction of a new, larger, auto dealer building on the site of the former Oldsmobile building. As part of the proposal, the praperty lines which divide the four lots that comprise the PUD will be redrawn and the four existing lots will be consolidated into three new lots. The property is guided for long-term mixed use in the Camprehensive Plan, and is zoned "I-394 Mixed Use." No changes to zoning or to the Comprehensive Plan would be required for this proposal. The total PUD site is 7.10 acres in size and is bounded by Market St. to the south, Laurel Ave. to the north, Louisiana Ave. to the west and Menard's to the east. Currently, the northwest, southwest and southeast lots in the PUD are owned by Jim Lupient Company, Inc. and the northeast PUD lot is owned by Totim Properties. This PUD was established in 1993, and permits auto sales on Lots 1, 2 and 4 and auto reconditioning on Lot 3. Jim Lupient Oldsmobile occupied the building on the west side of the site and Saturn occupied the building on the southeast corner of the site. Londo Boulevard Collision Center accupies the building on the northwest corner of the site. A PUD amendment was approved in 1995 which permitted an expansion to the Londo Boulevard Collision Center. This proposal would remove the 2,800 square foot former Oldsmobile sales building and replace it with a 29,5Q0 Motorwerks MINI Cooper retail car dealership building. The new facility would accommodate the sales and service of MINI Cooper vehicles. This location would replace the existing MINI Cooper dealership in Bloomington. Upon Final Plat approval, this proposal will create three lots instead of the existing four lot site configuration. The newly created Lot 1 will include the MINI Cooper site to the west, Lot 2 will include the former Saturn dealership site, and Lot 3 will include the Londo Boulevard Collision Center site. It is anticipated that the former Saturn dealership building will remain, but will ultimately be renovated to accommodate a new tenant. The Londo Boulevard Collision Center will remain on the site. Justification for Consideration as a PUD Section 11.55 of City Code states that the PUD process is an optional methad 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, sc�enic 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 the following findings: 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 partions 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. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Lupient (MINI Cooper) PUD No, 63, Amendment No. 2, 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 December 20, 2012, shall become part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated lanuary 8, 2013, shall become a part of this approval. 4. All signs on the property must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code. 5. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver and Public Works Specialist Eric Eckman dated lanuary 8, 2013 (5 pages) Memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated December 20, 2012 (2 pages) Applicant's Narrative (3 pages) Site Plans (14 pages) � �� � �.�.,_ . .. ¢ 3 .—�.r , ''zJ_,�s . �� ,� ... M„�„�_� w�.�. � Vt!�a�'t�rn Aves� � �� �,, �_.� e. .1�stmrh Ave�.���.««. � ,,,,., _. a n� .._.._� ,: 7#711f� � �d65 7ti � t 75�9'� ��•------�---r---rr� �.,_ A. �� �� 3fl g 35 3t! � r 749�' �_����.�..°'°� uri` g� I , 7CI > �"� �� , � 3 � _.__ � 6870 6830 580 ~ '."�8fl~-�� 95 �- s�.-,, a ,f 55 50 55 � 1 � �'v. ", 'r�A85 . f, i'i fl� —�9U w� + v. , � ^-. t�'�"`-- � ��m 1'f5� 110 � T15 � �-.. I ` CortlawrrCirN.' r.4 205 � 170 �� 115 +� t30 � '""`� �---- �--- 30-1 t 775 110 � 115 110 i� �689566fi5�65$5�. � I (� 136-� -- > 135 �139� 5 ._..._.. .------`� �� � � I , _l' 130� � - �'.__`� � ; �,� 135 132� � 133 13D � I U"� "-- ��� .. 235 150 � , i 155 �I i r':"�---1�1 SO I,�n___. _.T �... `� 1�874 630j6580 � ���.' � ; � ' �so/ �s s � � f.__...__� s - �-- . 155 _ ; t �-. �� 155 150 �, 155 � 150 e � 1. 265 174 "� ..^ . � e � r---..�._�," 4_L ,_ . �� � `�-�-�--,_ ,�175 � -�'170��5`' 2T0 ( t-_..._ ._ re�— u� � �.. Gc�rf6���,vn Cir S . _ .1 ^`„�`'17S 7-.._. .�...-�., �, � 275 210 � Z� 210 , �6855 _ �5 r176 I 190 ti , ',, I 23U�i � � ' 615 I 1 19� \ � _.....,._. � ; � � 85 5 �' �,., ;�35 234 235 230 � � - t, L �\ � �1� ' �215� �1 250 � 255 �5fl ° 255 254 �� �� '" 230 2�5�''` �� 270 �. � 7 ' �-�� _ �.. ... � ���n������ �,, � .� a � � 7g�o � s�+e�r�tng�tl ��"`�"-.,�"" � rofr��Wr�P�r,d t �� � � I �ast RJng Fon� _� __ Subject Properties �f����� - ; , _ � �. . _ . � � . ... _ . . . ._ .. ..r .. .. �_ .m _�.m � � ..� � � �. . m_ � �° [.��,�t�����dm� �. __ _.. � �. _ _. .� i i . . i ., �. . .y ; ri i � ii i i. �,�i ii!�;� i /f�/ �ti��i��i��i rii�i r.: ri ii il / �i fi1 / >r i.�'% . ��r� � f/rfr�, �9��/r/�i�'f,'/i rii����i�i: _ i lri'i i�i � yi i% i/fi��ii���i iir ��/r�li� � ') j f���/� :%/'i�l���ii��fi�i�ii���l� #s � 8�{1 � ii��iil���i��i�rr f n ��/fr����� } � � i,l/,i i i�iii��ii'i! � §� L�'�//��pi/i!i �i!%i rf�i�/�, rlf. � y .: � V� ��/ j/ � �/�l�%� �. � �./ /.� ( � � � //�!' _.. ' `',-J ,� `' B�0 � � �9ark,_t�t � � ( � �� � � ; -r-- � �a i ��5..,` � il ,� � �— � ._._.__„_.�. .._ " � ��� � -� ��� ���5 �g�� � ;�� � ', � ___,._.___;i t_..._...... .. � �n ��� �9p° �f '. � ��a yt �} ' i g�o �° � �_, � . _ m � --.�_ �,� -�"'` � _____�___ --� ���v����er�� � -� n� .M. �. . �.� �-.-- _� _ � __ _ . .. a_ . � _ _ � ._ W � .. . ._. __. ._�nt���f�r���i�vy�9a � .� a�, � � �.� � �. .� � � � �_ � � � _,_ .... __ _.. � �, .� �u ,m _ �Q ... � � �� ._, _. . ,� . �� .m. �. .�. ,._ � ._ ._ � . e� w�.o�. �m ,� _, . m_ �.m ._ _r. . �.� �, . �v � � ;, _ _ ,� � � � �_m� krrtasrs4�ie��Ew'Y 394 ' M. �.. ,,._ ._ m �. � ti� _ .. - �. _.w . , yy� ...,. .�, _�. ...-»�_�«-. �- � .. . ,. d.. ... ,,.. .,. ... .�. .a ..�. .,.. ... �' .,w �, w. ,..� ..». � . ... �- ... _ ,.� . .. ._ . - � �,.� .,� ,.,..-„ ,a _.., ,�, _. . 4 .xs �' � ,. � � y�, ¢ ° =� a w � � `�' . � , � az vr � � �c � �YAYZATR s�.Vq ..`J " sr� c� �. _ � _ � �fshisc�ici�,r+.an.kc8A1S. ,,¢xy�.��„d;.7.+_��:.GX5:2U:i5 �t r�}� .:�;19�i 2 �� ci��y of �,,� � �� Public Works Departrnent 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) �,.a.. ,,.�..... �,..r.:.� Date: January 8, 2013 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning nd Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Enginee Eric Eckman, Public Works S ecialist[�� l/ Subject: Preliminary Review- Planned Unit Development#63 -Amendment#2 MINI Cooper (701 Louisiana Avenue South) Public Works staff has reviewed the plans submitted by UAG Minneapolis B1, LLC (Developer) for construction of a MINI Cooper auto dealership at 701 Louisiana Avenue South, the former Saturn car dealership site.The proposed development, called Motorwerks MINI, is located on Louisiana Avenue South between Market Street and Laurel Avenue,just north of Interstate 394. This memorandum discusses issues identified during the Public Works review that must be addressed prior to approval of the Final Plans for the PUD Amendment. 7he comments contained in this review are based on the plans submitted to the City on December 10, 2012. Site Plan This redevelopment will combine the two existing parcels on the west side of the PUD to create a new parcel for the proposed MINI Cooper dealership. The existing 2,800 square foot sales building will be demolished and a new 29,500 square foot building will be constructed in the north portion of the development.The existing parking lot will be reconstructed as part of the project and the overall footprint will not change significantly. The existing 14,000 square foot building on proposed Lot 2 (801 Louisiana Avenue South) will remain, as will Boulevard Collision, located at 6901 Laurel Avenue in the northeast portion of the PUD. The Developer or Contractor will be required to obtain the appropriate permits for all activities associated with demolition and removals prior to commencing work. The City's street systern in the vicinity of this project is adequate to accommodate the vehicle trips generated by the redevelopment. The parking lot will be modified to improve the overall design and site circulation within the PUD, and there are no changes proposed in access to the City's street system. The plans show that access to the MINI Cooper site from Laurel Avenue may still be possible across the Boulevard Collision property in the northeast portion of the PUD. G:\Developments-Private\Mini Cooper\PUD Amendment 2 Review_010813.docx The City's Comprehensive Plan shows a proposed sidewalk on the south side of Laurel Avenue extending from Louisiana Avenue to Xenia Avenue South. The Plan calls for the future construction of a six-foot concrete walk meeting City Standards and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines on the south side of Laurel Avenue. Prior to Final PUD Plan approval, the City will determine whether the Developer must post a financial deposit for future sidewalk construction adjacent to its Laurel Avenue frontage. Preliminarv Plat The property proposed for redevelopment is part of the previously platted Saturn Addition PUD No. 63. The Saturn Addition is comprised of four parcels. Lots 1, 2, and 4 are under common ownership and will be included in the MINI Cooper development. Lots 1 and 2 of the Saturn Addition will be combined and reconfigured to create proposed Lot 1 for the MINI Cooper dealership, and Lot 4 will be reconfigured and replatted as proposed Lot 2. Lot 3 of the Saturn Addition is owned by others and will remain unchanged. As part of the replatting of the property, portions of the existing drainage and utility easements within Lots 1, 2, and 4 of the Saturn Addition must be vacated. This can be accomplished by vacating all easements within these lots and then dedicating all easements deemed necessary by the City Engineer on the final plat. The plans show a large, circular drainage and utility easement in the southeast portion of existing Lot 4. The Developer must submit this easement document (#2426056)to the City to assist in determining the need for this easement. Upon receipt of an easement vacation application and $500 application fee,the City will initiate the vacation process and provide all public notices and notification letters. As part of this process, the Developer must provide the City with exhibits showing the existing easements to be vacated and the proposed final plat. The Developer has proposed new easements which are generally consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. However, some easements may need to be extended in areas where the locations of the watermain and hydrants are proposed to be modified. The final plat for this development must include easements over the portions of the watermain system owned and maintained by the City, as discussed below in the Utility Plan section. 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 has demonstrated that extension of services is possible, as shown in the Utility Plan. The existing watermain that runs within easements in the PUD is owned and maintained by the City and connects to the mains in Laurel Avenue and Louisiana Avenue. The existing water service to the small building slated for demolition will be removed as part of the project. The proposed MINI Cooper building will be served by a six-inch domestic and a six-inch fire service. The Developer or Property Owner will own and maintain the water services from building to the shut- off valves near the main. The City will own and maintain the water services from the main to the shut-off valves, including the shut-off valves. The two new hydrants and hydrant leads must be placed within public easements and dedicated as such on the final plat. The City will own and maintain these hydrants. G:\Developments-Private\Mini Cooper\PUD Amendment 2 Review_010813.docx According to the plans, the existing sanitary sewer service from Louisiana Avenue to the existing sales building is proposed to be reused to serve the new MINI Cooper building. City records show that an Inflow and Infiltration inspection was performed at the site on December 13, 2012, and that repairs are necessary. The Developer must perform the repairs and obtain a Certificate of Inflow and Infiltration Compliance, prior to occupancy of the new building. The Developer will be required to post an escrow for the required repairs, as part of the development approval process. The Developer or Contractor will be required to obtain the appropriate sewer, water, and storm sewer permits from the City and other applicable agencies for the removal and installation of the sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer utilities. Stormwater Mana�ement This proposed redevelopment is within the Sweeney Lake sub-district of the Bassett Creek Watershed and is therefore subject to the review and comment of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) for compliance with its water quality and rate control requirements. Because Sweeney Lake is listed as an impaired water under the federal Clean Water Act,the BCMWC review will include evaluation for compliance with the Sweeney Lake Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan. When the Saturn Addition PUD was originally constructed in the mid-1990's, a stormwater pond was constructed as part of the development. The pond consists of two "L-shaped" basins in the northwest and northeast corners of the site, which are connected by a pipe under the driveway to Laurel Avenue. Although the pond is within a public easement, the west basin of the pond serves only the proposed development. The stormwater pond was designed to meet the runoff rate control and water quality requirements at the time of development. The plans for the proposed MINI Cooper deaiership show no change in impervious surface area. Therefore, it appears no additional on-site stormwater ponding is required. The City has found that many ponds constructed fifteen to twenty years ago have high volumes of accumulated sediment, volunteer tree and vegetation growth, and the presence of trash and debris.Therefore, the Developer must dredge the west basin of the pond to its original design contours, remove volunteer trees and vegetation, and remove trash and debris from the west basin and its pipes and outlets. The maintenance of this pond must be completed before occupancy of the building. The Developer has proposed construction of additional water quality measures on site as part of this redevelopment. The parking lot reconstruction includes the removal of the existing catch basins, replacing them with sump structures. The Developer must install St. Anthony Falls Laboratory (SAFL) baffles in all sump structures where feasible, to increase sediment and nutrient removal efficiencies and further reduce the amount of sediment entering the pond. The SAFL baffles must be shown on the Final PUD Plans. The Developer will be required to enter into a maintenance agreement for the sump and SAFL structures on site. According to City records, the existing storm sewer facilities serving the property are owned and maintained by the Property Owner. In general, stormwater runoff from the site flows into the G:\Developments-Private\Mini Cooper\PUD Amendment 2 Review_010813.docx storm sewers, which discharge into the two stormwater basins located in the northwest and northeast corners of the site. The plans indicate that the existing drainage patterns will remain and that new storm sewers will be extended and some existing portions reconstructed. Due to compressible soils found on site, some of the storm sewer pipes and structures have settled as much as one foot and are holding water. The Developer must reconstruct all portions of the storm sewer system which have settled and are not functioning as designed. All existing and proposed storm sewer facilities that are part of this development will be owned and maintained by the Property Owner. This PUD is also subject to the City's Storm Water Management Ordinance. The City must approve the Storm Water Management plans prior to submittal to the BCWMC. In addition, the PUD is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's NPDES construction permit. A copy of this permit must be obtained by the Developer and provided to the City, prior to issuance of any permits to begin work on site. Tree Preservation Plan and Landscape Plan This PUD is subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance and Minimum Landscape Standards. The plans submitted with this application include a preliminary Tree Preservation Plan and Landscape Plan. As the plans show the removal of trees from the site, a Tree Preservation permit is required for this development. The City Forester will review the plan in more detail, prior to Final Plan submittal and at the time of permit application. Prior to approval of the PUD amendment, the Developer will be required to post a financial security as a guarantee that the landscaping will survive the two-year warranty period. Therefore, the Developer must submit to the City an estimate of the cost to furnish and install the landscape materials prior to Final Plan submittal. Summarv and Recommendations Public Works staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plans for MINI Cooper, Amendment #2 to PUD 63, subject to the comments contained in this review, summarized as follows: 1. The Developer or Contractor will be required to obtain the appropriate permits for all activities associated with demolition and removals prior to commencing work. 2. The Developer may be required to post a financial deposit for construction of a future sidewalk along Laurel Avenue, as discussed in this memorandum. 3. The existing drainage and utility easements within Lots 1, 2, and 4 of the Saturn Addition PUD must be vacated and portions re-dedicated on the final plat. 4. The Developer must submit easement document (#2426056)to the City as discussed in this memorandum. 5. Proposed easements may need to be extended in areas where the locations of the watermain and hydrants are proposed to be modified. 6. The sewer service to the new building must comply with the City's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance, prior to occupancy of the building. 7. The Developer must reconstruct all portions of the storm sewer system which have settled and are not functioning as designed. G:\Developments-Private\Mini Cooper\PUQ Amendment 2 Review_010813.docx 8. The Developer must dredge the west basin of the pond to its original design contours, remove volunteer trees and vegetation, and remove trash and debris from the west basin and its pipes and outlets, as discussed in this memorandum. 9. The Developer will be required to enter into a maintenance agreement for the sump and SAFL structures proposed on site. 10. The Developer must obtain the appropriate permits from the City of Golden Valley for work within the right-of-way, stormwater management, installation of sanitary sewer and water services, tree preservation, and any other permits that may be required. Approval is also subject to the comments of the City Attorney, other City staff, and other agencies. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Mitch Hoeft, Engineer Mark Ray, Engineer AI Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Dave Lemke, Utilities Supervisor Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Gary Johnson, Building Official/Plans Examiner G:\Developments-Private\Mini Cooper\PUD Amendment 2 Review_010813.docx �. ���' ��� i� ,� � � � Fire �Departmen� ���-s��-�o��/ ���-���-soss (�a�y Date: December 20, 2012 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Zoning Cc: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Jeff Oliver, City Engineer From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Subject: Amendment #2 —Mini Cooper, 701 Louisiana Avenue South I have reviewed the application for the PUD amendment for the Mini Cooper auto dealership located at 7Q1 Louisiana Avenue South. Listed below are my comments. 1. The demolition of the current building located on the property shall be in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code requirements. 2. The relocation of the post indicator valve (PIV) and the fire hydrant in close proximity of each other shall be relocated on the west side of the parking lot near the west driveway and security gate. 3. The fire hydrant located on the east side of the parking lot near the east security gate shall not be relocated, The current placement of the fire hydrant is required for the 8Q1 Louisiana Avenue South address site. 4. The proposed security gates located on the east and west side of the parking lot shall install a Knox rapid entry padlock or a stand-alone Knox rapid entry lock box attached to the security gates. A Knox rapid entry box will be required to be installed on the building, location will be determined by the fire code official. 5. The fire hydrants and post indicator valve (PIV) shall be protected from vehicle impact. The installation of the vehicle impact protection shall be in accordance with Minnesota State Fire Code Section 312. 6. The installation of No Parking Fire Lane signs shall be installed in accordance with the Golden Valley City Ordinance. 7. The fire department apparatus access road on the proposed site plan around the building shall be maintained and unobstructed at all times. 8. The fire department apparatus access road turning radius on the proposed sit plan shall be maintained and unobstructed at all times. 9. The proposed landscaping site plan —location of trees and other materials shall not obstruct or hinder the operation of the fire hydrants and post indicator valve. 10. The storage of motor vehicles located in the show room shall be in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code Section 314.4 If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8065, or e-mail eanderson@goldenvallevmn.�av Narrative Statement The property under consideration for redevelopment was used car dealership on two lots (Lot 1 &2,Block 1 of PUD#63)that add up to an area of 3.48 acres(refer to attached preliminary plat). The adjacent Lot 4 is also owned by the same owner and is part of a total gross area of 5356 acres. The adjacent Lot 3 is owned by another owner and is part of the total 7.10 acre original PUD#63. For the redevelopment,the plat is proposed to be revised. The existing Lots 1&2 are proposed to be combined into one 3.687 acre lot,designated as Lot 1. The existing Lot 4 will be revised to be Lot 2 with an area of 1.669 acres. Please refer to the attached preliminary plat and easement vacation exhibit. The proposed area of disturbance is approximately 3.25 acres. Please refer to attached site plan. The existing site has a small sales building with parking that is no longer in service. Currently,the site has 298 parking stalls for inventory, customer and employee parking. Existing conditions on the site consist of a small sales building(approximately 2,800 square feet) and a large bituminous parking lot with drive lanes(approximately 110,900 square feet). The existing site impervious cover,within the property line, is approximately 72%. Please refer to the attached Existing Conditions sheet C 101. The proposed use of the site will remain the same as it is currently, a car dealership. The proposed redevelopment is Motorwerks MINI Cooper retail car dealership that will provide retail automobile sales along with repair and maintenance services. The proposed building footprint is approximately 29,500 square feet. The increased building size will reduce the amount of paved parking lot area(approximately 83,100 square feet). This will reduce the amount of available p�rking stalls for inventory, customer and employee parking to 206 stalls. The proposed site impervious cover will remain at 72%. Please refer to the attached Preliminary Site Plan sheet C 102. The development of the Minneapolis Motorwerks MINI Cooper will meet the purpose and other provisions of Golden Valley's PUD Ordinance in the following manner: 1. Providing Preservation and Protection of Desirable Site Characteristics The proposed redevelopment will preserve desirable site characteristics by limiting the redeveloped area to be within the approximate current parking and paved limits within the site. By taking this approach,the vegetative cover on the north,west and south property lines will be preserved. The proposed site layout will not disturb the existing storm water drainage area located on the west and north property line,preserving existing storm water drainage patterns. The current landscape remaining from the original Saturn Car Dealership development consists of perimeter overstory hardwood and softwood trees, which will be preserved where not impacted by redevelopment activities through tree protection measures outlined in the Tree Protection and Preservation plan.New development proposed will be cause the removal of 20%of all existing significant trees, of the 30%removal that is - .� allowed. Tired shrubs and perennials along the building and in parking islands will be removed as part of the proposed redevelopment plan. 2. Enhancin�Visual Character Replacement of the existing building with a new more prominent, attractively designed, and practical building will enhance the visual characteristics of the site. The new building facade will consist of aesthetically pleasing design features, adding vertical vibrancy to the public realm. The new building also serves as a visually pleasing improvement,replacing a portion of existing bituminous parking lot. Currently,the east property line is a mix of drive access lanes,parking and medians. The east side of the property, including the adjacent property,will be revised to separate the adjacent property via green space. This will enhance the visual character of the site by providing a distinct separation of the properties and provide new landscaping between the dealership and the adjacent properties. The proposed landscape will be clean and contemporary,with ornamental grasses in the car sales lot, new trees along the perimeter to complete the boulevard, and upright narrow planters near building entrances with seasonal annuals for color. This proposed planting palette is comprised of native and adapted plant materials,which will use less water and require less maintenance over time. 3. Supportin�Economic Development An investment in the area would serve to support economic growth of area businesses and encourage continuing development in the area.A new Motorwerks MINI Cooper dealership will transform a vacant lot into a viable business with a long term commitment to the area. The proposed business will bring approximately 45 new jobs for Golden Valley. � � � The site's proximity to a wide variety of current local businesses, along with maintaining the sites current business model suggest that the new business profile is well positioned to foster growth and interest in the area. The Motorwerks MINI Cooper dealership is expected to sell approximately 1000 vehicles per year generating 30 million dollars in revenue. 4. Sustainable and Energy Efficient Develo�ment The Motorwerks MINI Cooper dealership will provide sustainable and energy efficient features and amenities such as; - LED light fixtures, reducing lighting energy usage by 60-80%. - The Carwash will include a water reclaim system. - All lighting is to be controlled with motion sensors. - The shop will be heated by burning waste oil from cars. - The dealership is proposing to redevelop an existing vacant site in lieu of developing a new,undisturbed site. � , • Zoning Variance Request variance to allow for Lot Covera�e to be 72%imnervious surfaces versus 65% The existing impervious coverage is 72%for the site. The proposed site layout will not add to the impervious area for the overall site. Existing storm water treatment facilities have been designed to treat runoff from the existing impervious areas on the site, and in turn will be capable of treating the storm water runoff from the proposed site impervious areas. Request variance to allow for Parkin�Stall Dimensions to be 9 ft.wide x 18 ft. lon�minimum versus 9 ft. wide x 18.5 ft. lone. and Request variance to allow for Drive Aisle Width to be 22.2 ft.minimum versus 24 ft. minimum. The e�sting parking stall dimension is 9 x 18 ft. on the site. The proposed parking stall dimension is 9 x 18 ft. which would match the existing conditions and previous use. All proposed drive lanes are 24 feet wide except for one 22.2 foot wide drive lane located in the dealer inventory parking area. The drive lane was set at 22.2 feet to match the existing parking lot boundary near the south property boundary. Also,the existing parking lot contained instances of 18' wide drive isles. The following two variances are ultimately requested to preserve open space on the site.