Loading...
04-09-18 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, April 9, 2018 7 pm 1. Approval of Minutes March 12, 2018, Special Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing — Major PUD Amendment— 701 Lilac Drive — Tennant PUD #114 — PU114-A3 Applicant: Transform Minnesota (Damascus Way) Address: 701 Lilac Drive Purpose: To modify the boundary of the existing Tennant PUD 3. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 730 Florida Avenue — CU-110 — Amendment#1 Applicant: Import Auto Sales, LLC Address: 730 Florida Avenue South Purpose: To allow used motor vehicle sales and automotive repair in the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District --Short Recess-- 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 5. Other Business • Council Liaison Report 6. Adjournment z This documenfi is availal�le in�Iternate farntats'u�o��a 72-hour request. Please call 7G3-593-8006{TTY: 7b3-593-3968�to make a request, Examples of altern�te formats may include large pri��t,electranic,Braille,audiacassette,etc. Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 12, 2018 A special meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, March 12, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Black, Blum, Brookins, Jc�hnson, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimrnerman and Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner. Commissioner Angell was absent. 1. Comp Plan Work Session — Intro/Community Profile Zimmerman introduced the Intro/Community Profile chapter a'nd highlighted some of the key points and reported feedback he had received to date including: adding a description of some of the social engagement efforts by the residents of Golden Valley and explaining why the City's estimates of households and population exceeds fhe forecasts of the Met Council. Baker asked if the language in the chapter was too focused on growth and development. Zimmerman clarified that managing growth was a;requirement of the Met Council, but as a fully developed community Golden �lalley should r�ally be thinking about how the city will reinvest and redevelop. He also implied that the Comp Plan is focused not just on physical growth, but also on growth in terms of eommunity values about inclusion, increased variety and choices in housing and transportation, environmental values, and more. Zimmerman noted that this chapter can clarify that the City will not be growing in population just for the sake of growing, and that planning efforts are focused on reinvestment and reinvention in response the community's values. Infill development is a result of those efforts, but not the goal. Growing in a sustainable manner will be emphasized. Baker suggested adding sustainability as a focus of the introduction. Blum asked ab4ut the two word cloud images and if they were really representative of the vision o#the residents. Baker agreed that they may be slanted towards those who attended the open house or visited the web site. Zimmerman stated that he would add more empha�is on the results of the Community Survey, which was sampled from the population as a`whole. Blum added that he did not want to lose the focus on preservation of the existing Iarge suburban lots in the City. Goellner agreed that it would continue to be a priority, but that the plan focused more on the aspects of change. Johnson suggested adding language to encourage the City to partner with others to provide safe and secure senior housing. He also asked if the Comp Plan should be questioning the metro area's fiscal disparities program and how it impacts the ability of Golden Valley to pay for infrastructure improvements. Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 12, 2018 Page 2 2. Discussion of Planning Articles Zimmerman referenced several planning-related articles he had sent out in recent months that dealt with how inner ring suburbs are redeveloping and changing. Baker stated that he was pleased to see how well-positioned Golden Valley is in terms of its location and assets. Blum stated that he has visited New Rochelle, the subject of one of the articles, and provided examples of how he was able to experience the city while walking down Main Street. Segelbaum observed that in many big box retail seems to have hurt Main Street businesses. Baker stated that Commissioner conversations on articles or other releWant planning topics were worthwhile and that more should be planned in the f�ture. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm. Ron Blum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, March 26, 2018. Chair Baker called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Brookins, Joh�nsan, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were Physical Development Director Marc Nevinski, and Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman. Commissioners An�ell and Black were absent. 1. Approval of Minutes February 26, 2018, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Johnson and moti4n carri+�d unanimously to approve the February 26, 2018, minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision —7040`Glenwood Avenue — Marie Estates — SU17-15 Applicant: Peter Knaeble Address: 7040 Glenwood Auenue Purpose: To recc�nfigure the existing single family residential lot into three new single family residential lots. Zimmerman referred to a rnap of the property and explained the applicant's proposal to subdivide the lot at 7040 Glenwood Avenue into three new lots. The existing single family home would remain and two new lots would be created that could accommodate finro new single family homes; He stated that in addition to the subdivision request the applicant is requesting two variances; one from the Subdivision Code and one from the Zoning Code. He clarified that the Planning Commission and City Council can consider the Subdivision Cod�: variance, however the Zoning Code variance would be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals. He added that a neighborhood meeting was held on March 13 and that the City receivecf three letters from residents opposed to the proposed subdivision. Zimmerman referred to the proposed site plan and stated that the proposal shows a shared driveway between Lots 1 and 3 with access on Glenwood Avenue and access on the Olson Memorial Highway frontage road for Lot 2. Zimmerman discussed the standards when considering subdivisions and stated that each of the proposed new lots meet the minimum required lot area size of 10,000 square feet. He referred to the width of the proposed new lots and noted that the applicant is asking for Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 2 a Subdivision Code variance to allow Lot 3 to be 63 feet wide 70 feet into lot rather than the required 80 feet of width. He added that the applicant is also proposing a 10-foot side yard (east) setback rather than the required 15 feet on Lot 3 in order to keep the existing house. He reiterated that this request would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for consideration. Zimmerman referred to an aerial photo of the property and stated that Hennepin County and the City are recommending removing the driveway access on Glenwood Avenue and prefer that all future access be off of the frontage road to the north. He n�ted that the restriction on the Glenwood access would limit the subdivision to two lats. Zimmerman referred to the requested variance regarding the minimum lot width Qf Lot 2 and stated that in order to keep the existing home, the applicant would still ne�:d #his variance even if the subdivision was limited to two lots. Zimmerman stated that staff is recommending denial of'this proposed subdivision because while there is enough lot area for three lots, access for Lot 1 is nat acceptable to the County or the City, there is not enough width for�i confarming Lc�t 2, and the findings necessary for a variance are not met because th�,re is no unusual hardship, and the applicant is not being deprived of reasonable use c�f the land; the variance requested is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of property rights, and the variance requested could be detrimental to other property in the neighborhood. He added that if the subdivision is approved a condition should be add�d that requires a variance to be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals`in order to keep the existing house, or the existing house should be modified to meet the side yard setback requirements. Waldhauser referred to the driveway access on Glenwood Avenue and asked if the County's comment about removing the driveway is a request or a requirement. Zimmerman said his understanding is that the County's recommendation is that the driveway be removed, but they don't have the,ability to require it. Baker asked if there are consequences in.ignoring the County's recommendation. Zimmerman said he doesn't think there would be legal consequences, but it would be an improved public safety situation if the driveway was remov�d and staff supports it. Segelbaum sa`id there has been City Council discussion regarding the granting of subdivision variances and that it is his understanding that they rarely if ever grant subdivision variances. Zimmerman said he is aware of a subdivision further south on Glenwood where a subdivision variance was granted in order to keep driveways off of Glenwood Avenue and in that case it didn't shrink the building envelopes. He added that in general it is hard to make a case for a subdivision variance when it is a matter of choice in order to subdivide and create the conditions that are calling for a variance. Johnson asked if Glenwood Avenue could be considered a special circumstance or be considered differently than the safety concerns of any other road. Zimmerman explained that the variance request is in regard to the proposed width of Lot 2 and that removing the driveway from Glenwood is a County recommendation, but not a variance request. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 3 Blum asked if the previous subdivision south of this proposal mentioned earlier pre-dates any of the recently adopted Code changes regarding lot width requirements. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked what the distance from the Lot 2 building envelope to the house to the east would be. Zimmerman said the existing house to the east is approximately 15 feet from the side yard property line of Lot 2 and that the proposed house on Lot 2 could be approximately 12.5 feet from the same property line so there could be approximately 27.5 feet between the two homes. Baker referred to the hardship requirements and asked if the Planning Cc�mmissivn recommended approval of the Subdivision Code variance if it would create a hardship in regard to the Zoning Code variance. Zimmerman said it would likely h��e sorne influence but the two variances would be viewed separately. Baker questioned why the two lot subdivision option includes a sub-standard lot rather than a standard lot. Zimmerman suggested asking the applicant and stated that the property could be split down the middle in order to avoid access problems and would contain two conforming lots without the need for variances. �aker stated that the property could also be split from east to west if the access on Glenwood A�enue remained the same. Peter Knaeble, Applicant, said he's been invol�e� in 12'small infill developments in the City that have added approximately 20 rnrllion dollars in value. He referred to the existing house in this proposal and noted that it is about 2,000 square feet in size with no basement. It was built in 1950 and could use some remodeling, or it coutd be torn down. He stated that if the house was removed it would be easy to do a two or three lot subdivision depending on the Glenwood Avenue access issue. He nated that the City is looking at affordable housing issues and recently passed an affordable housing policy so he started considering keeping the existing house because it could be maintained as an affordable house. He stated that since the City has a strict policy about affordable housing and strict tree preservation requirements h� doesn't think taking down the existing house is the right thing to do. He said there are 21 signific�nt trees on the site and to remove the house to do the subdivision 8 significant trees would have to be removed. He said keeping the affordable house and the trees is worth the City granting the variances he is requesting. He referred to the City's Comprehensive Plan and read the goals regarding preserving existing single family homes and encouraging the affordability of the existing housing stock. He reiterated that he designed this project to save the existing home and trees. He said he understands that staff doesn't support the variances required to save the existing home and he also understands the access issue on Glenwood Avenue, but they would design the driveways with a turnaround so nobody would be backing out onto Glenwood Avenue. He referred to the recommendation in the staff report regarding staff's preference of having the frontage road dead-end at Glenwood with the construction of a cul-de-sac to facilitate turn arounds. He stated that he understands that plan is in the draft transportation plan but it hasn't been approved by the City Council and there are approximately 115 homes in this neighborhood that would be affected by a cul-de-sac. He said he agrees with the Engineering Division about the cul-de-sac idea but it brings up the issue of where that cul-de-sac is going to be if Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 4 it is ever built. He said he has come up with an alternative concept and handed out a proposed site plan that shows a two lot subdivision that saves the existing house, moves the driveways to the north instead of having access on Glenwood Avenue, and preserves room for a cul-de-sac in the future. He added that this new proposal would still require the variances for the lot width and the side yard setback requirement. He stated that if there is positive consensus for this new proposal he would come back to the Planning Commission in the future with a new application and set of plans. Waldhauser referred to the proposed new drawing and asked why the propo�ed cul-de-sac is shown so far to the east of the property. Knaeble said a cul-de-sac vuouldn't fit further to the west without taking down the existing house. Segelbaum asked if the proposed new houses would be built as speG homes. l�naeble said he wouldn't build any of them, he is just involved in the subdivisian of the property and would sell the property to a builder in the future. Baker referred to the originally proposed three lot subdivision and asked why a two lot design splitting the lots from east to west wouldn`t work: Knaebie said it is because the County doesn't want the driveway access on Glenwood. Baker opened the public hearing. Steve Pesavento, 1701 Valders Avenue Norkh, said he thinks the 2040 Comprehensive Plan needs to be seriously taken into consideration when looking into ordinances. Tom Hegblom, 6501 Olson Memorial Highway, said his biggest concern is the cul-de-sac and he can guarantee that residents from Windsor Woods and Westchester will fight it because diverting traffic to Dou�las Drive would really impact a lot of people. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Baker closed the public hearing. Waldhauser said she went through the tree preservation list and it looks like neither of the proposals would rernove �ery many important trees. Baker asked for clarification about the cul-de-sac issue. Zimmerman said the cul-de-sac hasn't been put on any plans, but it is a known concern and a situation that needs to be addressed. He added that when this property is re-platted there is an opportunity for the City to get some of the required land needed to address the concerns rather than trying to purchase property for a cul-de-sac in the future. Waldhauser agreed that this intersection has been a problem for years so closing the frontage seems logical. She questioned why the City is being "wishy-washy' if there is a strong reason to do it. Baker said it isn't the City's call so he is reluctant to base his decision on the cul-de-sac issue. Baker referred to the issue of removing the driveway on Glenwood. He said he knows of a subdivision that was required to have a long narrow driveway parallel to Glenwood rather Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 5 than a driveway directly on Glenwood so that suggests the County is trying to avoid adding driveways on Glenwood where they can. Segelbaum asked how the location of the driveway is germane to the subdivision variance request. Baker said he doesn't see how the location of the driveway on Glenwood has any bearing on the requested variances so the driveway issue should be left up to the County. Zimmerman stated that the County relies on the City's approval of subdivisions so if the only option for access is on Glenwood they would allow it. Baker asked if it would be possible to create a flag lot that would retain the existing driveway on Glenwc�od and create new access for the other lots on the frontage road. Zimmerman said tM� Zoning<Code does not allow flag lots and requires the entire front of a lot to abut street right-of-way and have access to and from the street from that lot. Segelbaum stated that the City has been very hesitant to grant subdivision variances so he doesn't feel comfortable supporting this proposal unless the City Council is comfortable doing so. Blum referred to the Zoning Code variance request and' said he is hesitant to say that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental ta the publie welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood. He referred to #he County's recommendation regarding the driveway access on Glenwood and said he values the �oun#y's opinion in regards to public safety, etc. He added that it seems like #F�ere has been a fot of discussion on how to make this proposal work and suggested that this mighf be rnore of a PUD type of discussion rather than the subdivision process. Zimmerman stated that PUDs do allow flexibility but this property does not meet the rninimum size to do a PUD proposal. Waldhauser said there are some confarming options if the Glenwood access issue is set aside and if this property is divid:ed into two lots, not three. Baker agreed and said he thinks the rationale for kee�ing the existing house has been overstated and he is not convinced it will be retained as an affordable'hause. Zimmerman agreed that there is nothing to stop a buyer from remc�ving the hvuse and building a new one. Baker stated that when the City has had discussions about affordable housing it isn't about retaining one house it is about developing affordable hausing in the City at a much larger scale. Waldhauser added that the City has supported retaining single family homes, but she doesn't think this particular property is a good fit. Blum referred to the affordable housing policy plan and asked if that is a statute. Zimmerman stated that there is a mixed-income housing policy and that he thinks the applicant was referring to the draft housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan which represents the City's view on affordable housing. Bfum asked if the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is in place right now. Zimmerman said no. Blum referred to recently approved Zoning Code text amendments regarding affordable housing and asked if any of those amendments were related specifically to granting variances for lot subdivision. Zimmerman said no, the amendments were to support the mixed-income housing policy and this proposal is not to a scale that triggers that policy. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 6 Johnson said there are some unintended consequences here. He said the homeowner could cut down every tree on the lot if they want to and then subdivide the property. He referred to the requested variances and said the applicant makes some good points about maintaining the character of the area, following the tree preservation plan, and adding another home to the tax base which are all good things. Baker referred to the subdivision variance request and the requirements that must be met in order to grant a variance. He said he doesn't think the applicant is meeting the requirements and he doesn't think they've heard a hardship in this case. The variance isn't required to preserve the property rights of the applicant, and the variance could be considered to be injurious to other property in the neighborhood. ��gefbaum agr�ed that the hardship requirements have not been met. He added that he is concerned about setting a precedent with granting subdivision variances. Johnson said he would argue #he special circumstance in this case is that the City has put things in pl�,ce that make it difficult such as observing the tree preservation plan, observing the safety concerns of the County, and trying to maintain the nature of the original home. Baker said he thinks there are more unintended consequences with approving the subdivision variance. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Waldhauser ta recommend approval of a variance from Section 12.50, Subd. 3(A)(2) Minimum Dimension Requirernents to allow proposed Lot 2 to be 17 feet off of the required 80 feet to a width of 63 feet and the motion failed 5 to 1. Commissioners Baker, Blum, Brookins, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser voted no. Commissioner Johnson voted yes. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to recommend denial of the subdivision r�quest for the property located at 7040 Glenwood Avenue. 3. Douglas Drive:Redevelopment Area Plan Expansion Nevinski gave some background information about the Douglas Drive Redevelopment Area Plan and stated that the plan's purpose is to outline existing conditions along Douglas Drive and identify a vision to help guide the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's activitie�.' Nevinski showed a map of the original plan that was done in 2009-2010 that identified three areas alc�ng the east side of Douglas Drive as potential redevelopment/reinvestment areas. He then showed a map of proposed modifications that were done in 2017 in order to expand the areas in the Corridor Plan to include the area south of Golden Valley Road and the Tennant campus. Nevinski stated that the current proposed revised plan puts the Tennant campus in its own area (A-6). He said the vision hasn't changed and that it is expected to remain an industrial area with corporate office. He noted that area A-4 would be an 8-acre, mixed use site that would allow residential and commercial uses. He added that area A-5 would Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 7 include light industrial and mixed uses consistent with the goal of maintaining and adding jobs. Nevinski explained that the HRA statute requires that the Ptanning Commission consider this modified plan and provide comment and feedback. He stated that there is no tax increment being discussed and that there doesn't need to be any findings made. Blum stated that the Planning Commission is often times provided these proposals to comment on and he feels sometimes there isn't a lot of direction as to how critically they should be looking at the proposed modifications. Nevinski explained tkrat this plan is reflective of the work that has been done through the 2040 Comprehensiue Plan U,pdate and it's reflective of previous discussions with the Planning Commission and City CounciL He said this is fairly a high level plan and that the focus should be on wheth�r it is consistent with where the City is going and if the 2040 Compreh�nsive Plan is aligning with this proposed modified plan. Johnson referred to area A-4 and noted that the objective is to prevent blight. He asked what kind of growth strategy that is. Nevinski said' it isn't necessarily a growth strategy it is something the City wants to avoid and that a mix of uses is probably the most likely reuse of that site. Johnson asked why the word isn't used in area A-5. He said he strongly encourages the HRA and City Council to remember that Golden Valley is a fully developed suburb, land value is at an all-time high, the economy is booming, and this is not the time to consider TIF candidates. He said to let the market determine what can be here because if the Ci#y leads with a discount, it can never go back. Waldhauser referred to areas A'-1 and A-2 and questioned how access points on Douglas Drive could be reduced as stated in the goals. Nevinski agreed that in certain areas having access points on Douglas is going to the case, but in other locations there could be some parcel consolidations that reduce access points. Wafdhauser said it seems thaf area A-4 is a much better candidate for low-rise, multifamily or senior housing and thaf mixed use should be moved up to Highway 55 where it is being carved out for industriaL < Baker referred to the land use chapter in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and said the Planning Cammissian looked at a larger area that included Duluth Street. He asked why that larger area isn't included in this proposal in order to reflect the Comp Plan. Nevinski stated that historically, the City hasn't seen a lot of market interest in developing that area along Duluth Street. Segelbaum agreed. Blum asked is there is benefit in focusing development on a smaller area that wifi be more immediately benefited by the recent development on Douglas Drive. Nevinski said that is a point of consideration. Blum asked to what extent they can hold themselves to the goals and values outlined in the plans if there isn't a mechanism for enforceability. He added that he is concerned about losing momentum and specific desire in the future and it will be become something that doesn't get done. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 8 Johnson asked if there are any other redevelopment plans in Golden Valley. Nevinski said there are four broad areas where the City sees the most opportunity: Douglas Drive, the I- 394 Corridor, the 55 West District, and the LRT Corridor. Blum referred to the goal regarding underground utilities and asked if the utilities are underground in the Douglas Drive corridor. Nevinski said the utilities are underground in the Douglas Drive corridor. Blum said he thinks that is a great goal and he likes hearing that it is achievable. Waldhauser asked what housing is blighted in the area east of Douglas Drive. Nevinski said some of the information in the plan was written before the Douglas Drive apartment rehabilitation took place. He noted that there are some homes an� 'a duplex that are dated and approaching blight. Baker said when he reviewed the plan he was looking for dates or struck,l�nguage and said it was hard to understand. He said he thinks the plan needs:to be updated. Nevinski said the plan was originally written in 2009 and some conditions have changed. Blum said he really likes the language in the plar� that protects the environment. He said he also thinks the co-location of uses that reduce the amount of auto travel is a really great goaL Johnson asked when this plan is being considered by the City Council. Nevinski said it will be on the April 17 Council agenda. Segelbaum said he thinks the �hanges are positive and it makes sense to split area A-4 as proposed and to maintair� area A-5 as j�b oriented. 4. Discussion of 2017 Planning Commission Annual Report Zimmerman stated that every year`a summary of the Planning Commission's work get reviewed by the City Council. He referred to the report and stated that the number of planning applications was down compared to past years but that the large Tennant proposal and the work an the Comprehensive Plan Update took a lot of time. Baker said he would prefer that the first sentence of the report be changed to state that 2017 reflected the end of a planning cycle so the emphasis was more on the Comprehensive Plan rather than saying it was a quiet year. Zimmerman reviewed a map of the City and highlighted some of the areas of change. Segelbaum stated that he feels the sentiments from the Planning Commission is that they want to see more retail base and small neighborhood commercial areas in the City and for people to stay here, not just work here. Blum agreed that tracks with some of the Comp Plan survey comments along with better transportation options. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 26, 2018 Page 9 Waldhauser referred to the duties of the Planning Commission listed in the bylaws and said they are good to review. Baker stated they should be thinking about what kinds of special studies they may want. Waldhauser stated that the recommendations regarding the use of state and federal funds is only considered when there is a particular development to review and recommendations regarding the environment have been incorporated in most of their reviews, but not very proactively. Baker asked if there is room in the report to discuss aspirations for the future. Blum suggested allowing more time to discuss and plan for the LRT station areas. Zimmerman stated that some of these issues are addressed in the implementation section of the Comprehensive Plan. Johnson asked if the draft chapters of the Comprehensive Plan have been circufated to anybody else, besides the Planning Commission. Zimmerman said that draft chapters have gone to the Environmental Commission, the Open Spac� Recreation Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and the City Council and that the Planning Commission will see a full draft of the plan in May. 5. Discussion of 2017 Board of Zoning Appeals Annual Report Zimmerman referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals �nnual report and stated that there were many fewer variances in 2017. He stated that staff has been cleaning up some of the inconsistencies in the code and has been working with applicants up front to help decrease the amount of variance requests. ` --Short Recess-- 6. Reports on Meetings of the' Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings No reports were given. 7. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm. Ron Blum, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant ��ty d�,,� C�lt���2 M E M t� R A i� D U M � . �T�.. �,,'�T Physical Development Department �� 763-593-8095/763-593 8749(fax) ��...:.a �O�:ri`,.,.'�°#"��^�.',��"����.�.:�w`�`a�^",�.>..,,'�.'�"�.;.t�,e-ur: c-�'€-�.`....:,�.�.,ei. �.�-�`.�,�..,.,. ''�,'�a� `..:�!...`'"�`�.', "� �aa.���d..., . ...,,,. ,'���"��;d`� Date: April 9, 2018 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing—Tennant Companies PUD No. 114, Amendment#3—701 Lilac Drive North—Transform Minnesota, Applicant Summary Transform Minnesota is applying for a Major Planned Unit Development (PUD)Amendment in order to modify the current boundary of the Tennant Companies PUD No. 114. Doing so would create an area of land that would then become available for the construction of a relocated Damascus Way facility one-quarter mile to the west of its current site. Tennant intends to purchase the property on which the existing facility sits and clear the site in anticipation of future campus redevelopment. Background PUD No. 114 was created in 2014 and consolidated a number of Tennant-owned properties, including the main plant (Plant One) at 701 Lilac Drive North.This master plan allowed the City to work with Tennant to connect various parts of their campus with sidewalks and trails, design a stormwater management system to address water quality, make needed investments to the fire protection system, and improve fire access to all parts of the site. A planned Phase 2 of the campus project envisioned a three story, 45,000 square foot office building to house employees currently located at 1111 Douglas Drive. A number of nearby parcels not owned by Tennant remained outside of the PUD boundary, including two office buildings housing Clark Engineering,the Damascus Way facility, and two single family homes. Early in 2017,Tennant approached the City with the idea of increasing the size of the planned office building and incorporating additional properties into the PUD.The company had recently purchased the vacant Clark Engineering office buildings and was exploring the possibility of acquiring excess MnDOT right-of-way along Lilac Drive. In order to clear an area large enough to accommodate a larger office building and a parking ramp,they approached Damascus Way to 1 present the idea of relocating the facility to the west onto land Tennant already owned. This concept advanced through the Planning Commission in October of 2017 but stalled prior to consideration by the City Council. A scaled back version of this concept, which would involve only the Damascus Way relocation, is being proposed at this time as Amendment#3. Existing Conditions The size of the current Tennant PUD is roughly 26 acres. It is bounded on the east by Lilac Drive North and Highway 100, on the south by the frontage road and Olson Memorial Highway, to the west by Zane Avenue, and to the north by the Luce Line Regional Trail and tracks belonging to the Union Pacific Railroad. The existing Damascus Way facility sits just north of the frontage road at 5730 Olson Memorial Highway on a 1.46 acre parcel. A vacant single-family home currently occupies the site where the new Damascus Way would be located. r . -�. _ 1�'p'"i"�"�':`�'r,.,,.r,_. �s,a,� : *'t�; :-*ir� _$� � . - '""' . ,� �. { ` ���,.,���� a; " '�^ � ..;,� .. � � _ , . _ - ._., °`��� .?'�'esw- , . -� _. ,�,- � � r , ' ' • -4�'��� r�. . . , �� � � � �� � � ` � t .S � .. ... , . � .. � r r � � , . � �. fi ��� ,. . ' � r �y.� t� r r , '.. 4 �, ��::�, X r s �`, , . . r ,Y� � ��'' ., . . � � �, x .S f � � �� `� � . . `� , . r,t r.. �, h � _ , r ' r' �.{_ , � � "' .. , •� , �� . . . . '�', ♦ _._.,,�� � � �r r �� �� � '`d' _.�...,,�,�,� �r„ � � v�'�� � r r ��ry ,� ���„�<.�, wa i r'!��+�'�- ..,.n, • �� F, ' t1 i �- � �`� �` , , �`�- � . � ��,� � ; �'` � �°; ? T 'h � { ,'�. {1�;�y � ^ �cs "` � � I 4,:. �. �R m "� � ��1 :�'�` `�-� ,' t,��T. �,' � ���'+ ,x'� � ��tn # # ' '� -`,+� � ; �� � . , � , � , .� r� � � � ,. • � ;` , . • . . , , _ � � � �t� �� i�1 rr<� � w„�_ �k'� ' �''�a • �' i � _. � a 3 p r, , � ' .,r W � r i ti � � ,>l, � �; • �� �`��.+�, `'y�''�' Y ��" �,,1;� ���� � � . .. . ,� � ; ` . ., � . ' 4 , . .,� , . +r�+.!� �. � , . . � . ��,$��.� �' ::5,�s:.1� -°t � . . � � � .y.�� �.r�.� I � � �� `�_��� � f � `� �,' i"' �' �t. � . �� .' �.. f: . If. � � �"�'`� �:' �y �?� etS.,,;�,�� e�� hi-11�1 � . ( a � t. r . � . t ` }�, �t� i�j�.Y;y.��p 4:• '� ,.� � _ z . �x` ^�,4 ]� ,� � •. . .. d ��i�. � 3��: Y,�.� 'A��� ��'A �. �; � r � z � � r � � ;n ,�,; '� � �, � ,, . � " � 4* 't. .:��� »�' 7�,. , ' i k � � �.�`�,ro'�'� � a � - � '�� � .. � . � ` '. : _.,. _ . y . � t,5`.t y ti:t'.:, •,y S ��� � �y�.� v:.Jii.� � � `, '� /�/ �+14� � ..� �. + ��"' .�i x � � n3H.P' '3 9�.� .`�� ��''�' 9�`�N�\" 1F' AA. \' I p ,: . ` ' _`�3��i,� _ +��'..` � � ; � u N,. , � . „� ---�--- ---_< �.,-�_ - �r�� ,.�:. � . � _ __- . _--.� . „_ , _�_-__._ �. Existing Tennant PUD and Damascus Way property 2 Proposa) The modified PUD boundary would be replatted to exclude a new three-quarters of an acre parcel (Lot 2) in the area previously known at 5808 Olson Memorial Highway. In addition, a small portion of the right-of-way currently controlled by the City (previously held by MnDOT) would be added to the new parcel. Modifications to existing drainage and utility easements and a portion of a public street providing access to two single-family lots would also be necessary. These areas are shown in the attached Exhibits 1-3. ___ ` I ---_ ,,,, t;,`i'vF�acuu,sa�a �r- �`� J ' _,, `� .:,`•,�� u>rn�niu,� '�-�1� � J . . �^ _ �r� ��`� `' � � � � � __. -_ ���.�'.� .. _yy/_Q_-��__^_._ ._ _ __ j �... '- �Y[tYi� �y�` U � � . � � N �... �_-�_-...r� ��SUr��[S�!� � w _�� . �� I � 1`1 �L Y /1(�/ � � _. - -�. rr... l �tnrhr +�i --__ NA � ' � . � �yr �.: F C'�'4 4Y, rn][2h ttl+ih /'� Mr r r..`SJ" �'^ � � � ` 'in+xrnxrxri 't.�'�'+�w� , I I 6 . _ _.. ._ I ��w /�� _ _ � ..rs�_ _,,� � ' _��'_ -._ � � `----�._�— _ _ —___ I I � /, 1 �..� _ =+_= � � � � � � ������� i�� � � �6�� � � { J ' ` ^ � ' '� � j ;: i ' I � �aat� ,� 'I � LOT 1 «,�:°�_,a,,, � ;s i G ��,,.M��,.. � �: II i � '�`f` � �� ��� � � PARC£t ! n ° � 3� ���{ � c� I—, ' ,".-�..:- r '///// ^'� � �'r ;%/.}���t5" � y�:.� f/` � I � I� � -� _--; , � � �r� ! �, � , ��///L:.���2�5F � �S I f _ - �_ ��,` �_�-' ) w� � . � _- = - -�r ��' �_; � ( ', _ ' v: . .i �� I � r. _- = - � �� A a�7��r.� � .. � �-_ ���� # '� _ ( 71 -�' � �z F��U I� � ,� , '�-+..." �1 .�r•� ;c� --, f�. rj _ � _� �.{-. � 1 �t_��^x��'/l �.s� �5 i ti ..�` � .� � ��-�- ] � _ ��,��,;v� 8L O C'K { �,f�x... rtY��,, �.•,o�,. �f �46, i -T�, � �`V� ��'� �� , ,•.. ���N = ���:;�, s���� �s ) � �'^ . \ { f ��e'a �+Y _� � �1 �,;a�,lr. ` _ __ ,_.� r,/ ��``r � 't.:� 1� __ 1�3 � ,_._ _ "' i I I 3, __ 4 l J`i „r, �i�1�'n��w i�s? —, -f i E � � h I ` � !� j � �ur, y �'1 .sesN�:t�Y I �� „ � I'fi � ,�Y�" ,;y:y � � :i*. � � �.�j � �.�.�.''» � ' .. � E�i "�.�5''• •�r'�'��� �' �I j � ,ves��w� ��-{ ; � 1 � � ���' •�.�", '' �-`����`' i`��' � ,�a, y� � Y-k I p, .. nAfl.tY a-� �/ ��^-� 1 �j � �� �� �•.' a 3��� � - - ' i ;._.�§ �i� � ( 1�f5 ::sal 'I/"'. ;j � � �� �� � � Natrr,�,�T �i� � � � � j � � �i�% �,�t i * i��i�r 7�'�i ,i�'fW 1 �I j e$� �� � f� F �a¢`� I �� �- pY-- F"'i �� �/� ; , II I � ��R� � f� .1 �p � f "�' ='',. � � I 8�1 �' rs`� a � ,. � .., I � � ' � � ��.) r I I I I �'�TI����y��(_ � � � � � I „�;����,,+`�'i!,��' � ,�� ��' • � I srr'eS xs � � f�1s� 8 e•••:•, � ( � � ���{4#s�'` 'c;, :t � I � ���"'` � I �`ii�?�� I � r,% iSq/ :: ;!� '3� II I �� �� "�' � ��3!'er, I :��+ � � � :�;' ���1 I � � af i � '�,?�?� I /�] I � 1� ��%,'+� R.. I ,I 'r,r-n'T*" ':l:d ,'� �3ee _.Y �� .:�1 ty� i_ .. "�'m+ttil��tl� r'V-�+,p--� ( �.�� / +•- -�.�����-_ I � Lv � �3��' I I �� d 3 f �" ��r E I � $ �, -�I� --��-1 ��j-� _�• ��"� ` Iy� �'�'�� �`�" {,Sl� '�'r �a.'L,.`w"�. L � '",}'1' Y z l � h ,.. _ ,. g` � =-1,, �!� . , .. � �. ,, p _ ._ •, • -- ,_ 4. -ti. r, . ` ��- :.vtEf'JA - ~NIkDL_ ^ ��� .f. � N��� \� ��e �� :D£:f:1,1� : , • i � y '�. ` _ �'�w� '� s i�.+t'o 4Ka'li'GYN - i 77.6 �R _ _._.. ._.._.. ._. .,' :a• ' 11 -� ,-� � Jy : i � ....__. ,/' r ru�p � ..d _.....--..�.... L —."...... - r K � --� ,�p� 9a`-��Ef.:Taa� S 6� r '� y S �� '�r i a�.� � . � II 6� CaSGM/ A611C�4L ',,HCi�IWAYI STA7P� H1�IJYAY ; M�'.F5 �—� Proposed PUD boundary creating Lot 2 The future use of Lot 2 has already been reviewed and recommended to be guided for Medium Density Residential use by the Planning Commission on October 23, 2017. At the same meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the area be rezoned as Medium Density (R-3) Residential. 3 Finally,the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)to allow the operation of a Residential Facility(the new Damascus Way) in this location. No pedestrian access is currently shown between Zane Avenue and the new facility located to the east. As part of the CUP,the Planning Commission recommended a sidewalk be installed to provide a connection to the sidewalk that exists along the frontage road on the west side of Zane Avenue. Neighborhood Meeting Notices documenting the larger Tennant campus project were sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site and a neighborhood meeting was held on September 7, 2017. One person attended (the property owner of 5806 Olson Memorial Highway). A second neighborhood meeting was determined to be unnecessary in light of the scope of the revised proposal. Staff Review Planning staff supports the proposed modification to the PUD boundary in order to advance the redevelopment plans for this part of the city. The removal of the lot from the existing PUD allows it to be utilized by a new and expanded Damascus Way and allows the old facility to be demolished. This would create a greater area of contiguous land for future redevelopment in a highly visible location at the intersection of two major highways. A future modification and amendment to the Tennant PUD would be necessary in order to finish consolidating and developing this area. Engineerin�and Fire Safetv Considerations As is standard practice for development proposals, plans were reviewed by the City's Engineering Division. A memorandum from the City Engineer that addresses the preliminary plat, demolition, site plan and access, sidewalks and trails, utility plans, stormwater management, tree and landscape plans, and other permits is attached. The City will require as conditions of approval that a variety of easements be adjusted in and around the new Lot 2 in order to protect access to utilities and to preserve space for new pedestrian facilities, and that the existing Development Agreement be amended to address the timing of construction of the required stormwater treatment system to serve the existing campus and the new Lot 2. The Fire Department reviewed this proposal and had no comments or concerns. Fees A park dedication fee equivalent to 6 percent of the estimated land value of the newly created parcel (Lot 2)will be required prior to the release of the Final Plat. 4 Evaluation Staff finds that the modification to the existing PUD boundary in order to remove an area of land sufficient to support a relocated Damascus Way facility does not conflict with the initial findings supporting the Tennant Companies PUD No. 114. Specifically: 1. Quality Site Planning. The modifications do not negatively impact the overall quality of the site, and in fact advance the opportunity for planned improvements to the Tennant Campus by clearing land for future redevelopment. 2. Preservation. The lot being created previously contained a single-family home, so no significant impacts to desirable portions of the site's characteristics are likely. 3. Efficient—Effective. The proposed amendment would utilize land efficiently by concentrating ongoing uses within one portion of the site and creating opportunities for future redevelopment, allowing for continued growth of the City's tax base. 4. Consistency.The uses being proposed are consistent with the current uses on the site and with the City's Comprehensive Plan which calls for the preservation and expansion of facilities housing major employers; consistent with other redevelopment goals of the City such as the revitalization of the Douglas Drive Corridor; and would help bring order to an area that is currently a mix of uses and zoning designations and that lacks cohesion. 5. General Health.The PUD amendment would not impact the general health, safety, or welfare of the people of the City. 6. Meets Requirements. The proposed modification does not conflict with the standards applied to the existing PUD and does not invalidate the Intent and Purpose provision of the City Code. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Amendment#3 to Tennant Companies PUD No. 114, subject to the following conditions: 1. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division, dated April 5, 2018, shall become a part of this approval. 2. Easements identified within section one of the Engineering memo (Preliminary Plat) shall be vacated, rededicated, or created as described and included on the Final Plat. 3. The Development Agreement for PUD No. 114 shall be amended to address the timing of construction of the required stormwater treatment system for the existing Tennant campus and the new Lot 2. 4. A park dedication fee of$10,044 shall be required prior to the release of the Final Plat. 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 the Engineering Division dated April 5, 2018 (5 pages) Preliminary Plat and Exhibits submitted March 23, 2018 (4 pages) 5 i000 � i�+� 5735 � � �I gzs 53415327 5301 — � 5509 ___ 1030 1031 � - 1030 1025 � . 925 900 917 1020 1001 c� .. ... �1 ... ... , . . .-_ .- . .__ -.. � m 950 921 North Buildin� . � � .-.�. . ��.__._.., 901 � � ��--.....,.:,.:.-�-.-_....._..__ ' 415 70i z EastBuilding . . _ $20 a 796Soutli Builtling - N 701 ' 800 870 621 610 623 . :�...�`:����:. 5900 5804 . � 604 � 5806 J 5612 �� ��� � � 600 6100 580 i � S�e 5730 . � Li�aG F'on� Buildin�1 L31son MemoNal Hvty . Subject Property ,� 6125 5801 . 5?5 57355729 520 521 �C 520 510 511 545 534 5221 /�� 540 . 6N5 /�/SB 500 / � 501 505 532 Sqg, 450 500 533 1 � qqp 535 524 445 � 489 445 517 � city of ur� a�de�c � EMCtRAN � c� M � Va, �� Public Works Department 763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax) Date: April 5, 2018 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Development and Assets Coordinator Subject: PUD 114 Amendment—Damascus Way �,,.,r�" . ,:.�:�..�`t u.= ., . �...:". ,.::� �.,�xx,r;':� ..��i�-�°cs;;� _ ;.u.� .. , . �i„�.. . ,. . . ta'*:_'". . Engineering staff reviewed the application to subdivide a portion of Tennant's Lot 1 to create a new parcel for the relocated Damascus Way facility. Lot 1 will continue to contain Tennant's existing industrial buildings and Lot 2 will contain the relocated Damascus Way. Comments are based on plans dated March 23, 2018. 1. Preliminary Plat a. Easements- Portions of public easements located within the boundary of proposed Lot 2, dedicated as part of the plat of Tennant Companies PUD No 114, will be vacated and rededicated as part of the new plat to better align with the proposed lot lines. In general,the new easements must be a minimum of 10 feet in width along rights-of-way and plat boundaries, and twelve feet in width centered on all interior lot lines. However,there are areas where larger easements will be required. A drainage and utility easement 30 feet in width is required along the boundary with the Frontage Road to accommodate the existing utilities that are present. Staff will work with the developer on the specific details of the easement requirements before final plat consideration. b. Tract E-Tract E of Registered Land Survey No 11 is a 60-foot wide parcel that is entirely covered by easements which run in favor of the City, including a sanitary sewer easement, a drainage and utility easement and a right-of-way/roadway easement. There is currently a public roadway and public utilities within Tract E. The single family home on Tract C located at 5806 Olson Memorial Highway is not part of the PUD and will remain in place. Portions of the public easements Iocated within the boundary of proposed Lot 2 will be vacated and rededicated as part of the new plat to accommodate the relocated Damascus Way while still providing access and utility service to other properties. The applicant must provide legal descriptions and exhibits for all easements and easement vacations. G:\Developments-Private\Tennant-701 Lilac Dr\PUD Amendement-Damascus 2018\Tennant PUD Amend_Damascus040518.docx c. Trail and Walkway Easements—In addition to standard platted easements,trail and walkway easements a minimum of 10 feet in width must be dedicated along Zane Avenue,the Frontage Road, and Lilac Drive for planned and future bike and pedestrian facilities. The applicant must provide legal descriptions and exhibits to the City for completion of the walkway easements. The City will draft the easements and record the documents with Hennepin County. d. Right-of-Way vacation—A portion of the proposed Lot 2 extends south into the Frontage Road right-of-way. In order to accommodate the Damascus Way relocation,the City will vacate a portion of this right-of-way and retain public easements over the vacated area. e. The proposed PUD amendment borders Highways 55 and Highway 100 and therefore must be reviewed by MnDOT. f. There are existing sanitary sewer easements that run across the southern portions of the PUD.These easements run in favor of Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES), which owns and operates two sanitary sewer forcemains within the right-of-way for Olson Memorial Highway North Frontage road. Trees and shrubs must not be planted within easements or above MCES forcemains, and MCES does not allow gravity connections to its forcemains. The PUD must be reviewed in more detail by the MCES for potential impacts to its facilities and easements. 2. Demolition—The plans indicate that the existing single family home at 5808 Olson Memorial Highway and the existing Damascus Way facility will be demolished as part of this project. All foundations, pavements, driveways, utilities, and other facilities must be completely removed and wells properly abandoned as part of the demolition. Permits from the City and other public entities must be obtained, and evidence of proper MPCA notifications must be submitted, prior to starting any demolition work. Demolition requires a number of permits, including but not limited to, building permit and demolition checklist, sewer and water cutoff permits, stormwater management permit,tree and landscape permit, and right-of-way management permits. Staff in the Physical Development Department can assist the contractor in determining all requirements prior to issuance of permits. 3. Site Plan and Access-The relocated Damascus Way will continue to have its own driveway access onto the Frontage Road. Driveways must be constructed with commercial aprons according to City standards and specifications. A right-of-way management permit is required for driveway construction and removals. As a reminder, in order to protect the City's investment in its infrastructure, no pavements cuts or excavations are allowed between November 1 and the date that spring load restrictions are lifted by MnDOT. 4. Sidewalks and Trails-A sidewalk connection from Zane Avenue to the relocated Damascus Way must be constructed by the applicant as part of the PUD Amendment. The sidewalk must extend from Zane Avenue, across the Damascus Way property, to the G:\Developments-Private\Tennant-701 Lilac Dr\PUD Amendement-Damascus 2018\Tennant PUD Am end_Dam ascus040518.docx2 public street within Tract E. The walk and curb ramps must be constructed to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility guidelines and City engineering standards. Following construction,the sidewalk will be owned and maintained by the City. 5. Utility Plan—Prior to the issuance of any permits,the applicant must submit a utility plan for review and approval by the Physical Development Department. The utility plan must show services extending to Damascus from the mains located within Tract E. a. Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) -The City has a Sanitary Sewer I/I Reduction Ordinance to reduce the amount of clear water entering the sewer system. All buildings and sewer services within the PUD are subject to the City's I/I Ordinance and must obtain a certificate of compliance. Any unused services adjacent to the PUD must be removed as part of this work. All new or rehabilitated sewer services must be inspected by the City after construction, and must achieve compliance with the City's I/I Ordinance, prior to occupancy of any new buildings. b. A City right-of-way management permit is required for all excavations and obstructions within public right-of-way and easements.The details and extent of the street restoration will be determined by the City Engineer at the time of permitting. As a reminder, in order to protect the City's investment in its infrastructure, no pavements cuts or excavations are allowed between November 1 and the date that spring load restrictions are lifted by MnDOT 6. Stormwater Management—In 2014, the City approved Tennant's plans for PUD 114 and a PUD Development Agreement was executed for the phased development of Tennant's corporate campus. The agreement outlines a number of improvements that needed to be made within a certain timeframe, including a requirement to construct a stormwater treatment system to serve the existing campus. The plans for the stormwater treatment system were put on hold in 2017, when Tennant proposed a new plan for its campus headquarters. The 2017 proposal, had it moved forward, included comprehensive stormwater improvements that would have satisfied the requirements outlined in 2014, and would have also treated stormwater from the relocated Damascus Way site. However,the campus headquarters project is currently on hold. While the size and scope of the Damascus Way relocation project on its own does not meet the requirements for review by the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC), when coupled with Tennant's 2014 stormwater obligations and its future campus plans, it is evident that the relocated Damascus Way is part of a common plan of development that requires stormwater quality treatment. Therefore, staff recommends that the approval of this PUD Amendment include a condition that Tennant construct its 2014 stormwater treatment obligations as well as stormwater treatment for Damascus Way, or begin construction of the new campus headquarters stormwater improvements, within two years of approval of this PUD G:\Developments-Private\Tennant-701 Lilac Dr\PUD Amendement-Damascus 2018\Tennant PUD Am end_Dam ascus040518.d ocx3 Amendment. This work shall be guaranteed by a financial security in the amount of 125% of the estimated cost to construct the stormwater improvements. Staff will discuss this further with the applicant and include this condition in the amended PUD Development Agreement for City Council's consideration. Additional comments regarding the stormwater management plan follow: a. As discussed above, development of the Tennant campus headquarters must include stormwater treatment and associated infrastructure for the relocated Damascus Way. This infrastructure must be included in the plans and constructed as part of the Damascus Way project. The storm sewer connection from Damascus to Tennant will likely travel under and across the roadway easement on Tract E, but the system will be owned and maintained by the property owners. The ownership and maintenance of the pipe must be outlined in an agreement between the property owners and executed at the time of development of the Damascus Way site, with a copy of the agreement provided to the City. The City will not own or maintain this storm sewer system. b. The PUD is located within the Sweeney Lake sub-watershed of the Bassett Creek Watershed. Sweeney Lake is downstream of this site and is listed as an impaired water for excess nutrients (phosphorus) and chloride by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Study was completed for the lake and approved in 2011. The study lists implementation strategies such as filtration/infiltration practices and street sweeping that can be incorporated into development projects. The applicant must incorporate stormwater best management practices into the design and maintenance of this site to help achieve water quality goals for the lake. c. A City Stormwater Management Permit is required for development of this site. The application must include the fee,financial security, and a stormwater plan meeting the City's standards. Staff also recommends the preparation of a sweeping plan and chloride management plan as part of the submittal. If applicable, a maintenance agreement between the owner and the City, outlining ownership and maintenance responsibilities, must be executed before the issuance of permits. 7. Tree and Landscape Plan—A Tree and Landscape Permit is required for development of this site and must be issued before beginning any work onsite, including demolition. The applicant/developer must submit a tree survey and tabular inventory showing significant and legacy trees present on the site, and a plan showing trees and vegetation to be removed, protected, and planted. Staff encourages site design that retains existing healthy trees and vegetation whenever feasible. Consistent with the City's natural resource management plan, staff recommends removing buckthorn and any other exotic, invasive, or noxious vegetation species located on the property as part of this development and in accordance with state and local laws. The City Forester will review the inventory and plan in more detail at the time of permitting. G:\Developments-Private\Tennant-701 Lilac Dr\PUD Amendement-Damascus 2018\Tennant PUD Amend_Dam ascus040518.docx4 8. Permits-The Developer must obtain all appropriate permits from the City and other governmental entities, including but not limited to Stormwater Management, Right-of- Way Management,Tree and Landscape, Sewer and Water, and other permits that may be required for development of this site. Recommendation Engineering staff recommends approval of the Tennant PUD Amendment subject to the conditions set forth by the Planning Division and the comments contained in this report. Approval is also subject to the comments of the City Attorney, other City staff, and other governmental entities. Please feel free to call me or Eric Eckman if you have any questions regarding this report. C: Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Sue Virnig, Finance Director Emily Goellner, Associate Planner John Crelly, Fire Chief Joe Kauth, Building Official Tim Kieffer, Public Works Maintenance Manager AI Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor and City Forester Marshall Beugen, Street &Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor Joe Hansen, Utilities Supervisor RJ Kakach, Assistant City Engineer G:\Developments-Private\Tennant-701 Lilac Dr\PUD Amendement-Damascus 2018\Tennant PUD Am end_Damascus040518.docx5 . .�._.,r.,�.,� ��— i i f _ ���- -��_ }+' �Sy� --�! I J I � �va � I � —�� --{�- I I � � � � � = I I , , I 1 nr umisox a i �n i�a���. w�we�a�Tprioaz� �_ _.�_ Zrti�l�Of,BIlW- LOTt�]C.T�110.P.31 1 --- 2l'1��MC@7AY- . � Z/4/� ��-- ����� r--��,' �_ N00/3'46 W ''� xaow..i,m �— � ���'"61b - �����— - ' N00`22'S2"£ u+�urr um�w. ��, �..'��� -- �wo'k�'sa� (nx.aa yc�s) _ ._ �m iMe a t �4�d¢————� - ' (n''"°Ex7 � �oi�agcn. . , , . — — ._------_—_ 114x.]I _______________ _ _f —_ � � r��s- ---------------- --- ------- — ---------- —� i; � � �� I $ � #�-� � �� i n ' � ' � I g�� � -----__ ' � n i =�_ �---�_1 - g -� i� I ��� ,: `"g N00'/6'/2'E �_�`. �"7 4��� I w �� "� � I �8 _ I = - .�• s � -- 200.00 i' .. � � / ' ��m � n iv a a I � ; , �..... �, � - � � � � —_ y I ( , . �� � - _ � _ ^ � u "5 \� I � i` • I sarl p, %��.4 .. � I,. � _.,_.'-:-_ _ � c ��Y., _ " . 6�4� .I � . `� w � <y � � � � ' E � �m _ �� �� � i t; �� . i � ��% � o�� f � � �.. � �` fi �., �I s�� ��'��' �� �"�'�� ��ro ��a��i� �__I I1I � ` � �� � � �� � � � �%) � ' � ` � � � � � I � ' � �� $�-� � � , �] , � g � • � u � 3� I ,:t;A� 7 ��� ��S00'l6'/2"W Yq �i I I I \.� \\� .�: � � �O��,� � . �- > � ��i s ��� � � ,L-_ r+�- � �� �� ��� �z� � �> _ ion oo ,. � � �"� � �� �•�w , i I , $ . i�� � � � A�����V�\ �" � . ' °'�°;� : -- ; �,,� ���_; � I �� �� I � .. , -- �.,.� PARCEL 5 =��.s�"woeP`-- � ;I� ��. � J I' ���Ly I � : a ..._1/ r2 .Je� .� 4.d,�.�»��. L_ `�i-�: \��y ;�'/� � � � �- # _ _� _. °° —. � �� , � ����� ti�`�\ ��� � � %�l I 1'_"t. �'— —IVOO.T}�T�-�—asq�.._ � . � '�, � � \ �� I�f.'� �� IY I �J � �un Ars-eaaa ti.� "�_,�- � L7 � .� _�°°° ,� � . .� � �.�"�-F �' \: \ r '�: I�' k I l� � ' '� � �p"n' � ��'�. �.m '�i "�' f7;1+���-�. � \�� �� � � � �n � � y � _R� � '� aa�� r• {-� I 1-�--�,� �� �� .� � � 1 I�� ��� ��� �i� � � ) I � I � r���� '. .i? , , i � •��+t%�,,���`��� � 1% � \ \' I ' ,i�� �. � � � L—� - —_•�_-- � � ' —— — �����!1;,�'��f-!�f�(� V A�� � I 'a � I � iae.J�• soa^zz s2 w .�es ai - � � , � \ \ I � ;i I �� d � y� � � �iti�'� ��� I � ��� y z s � $� �� � „� � � �� �� � � �' � � � R� ¢ �m'- ;� ��, ,��;. � }' � �,\�l'� I � �' i �� � �':� "� �; �� s� "� ��� � ` ,'�}�C����� � �`�� � � i � :� I� ���` ',a�.c w m �' M � r C�'' \''i � � .i�a � � S R� OB.2T ---- - �� NOO'72'S2 E 385.36 � I � if ��• ' � � 4 � - - � � i � �' - ----- -J r ��>>' � � '' � lir't� � � �---- �-- -- � � ------- I � � � ���. ' I �� $�� - � `� ��� �� ` ��8 �� ,,: o � �� ,l�� o � a ve � � � �� -� �. � � � ��� ��� � ^ �� �I � 't v g #I-� a�3 � g �� . -�,4 ��\ � ,�. � , > Z I/� O I I r C7 \\ ,� �� i N� �I I �� `� ��� � �r�-�\\\�� �:.�;� -�' \\\ I�� IA�i� �ri l / �� � ' i� ` � � � _ �>> -l`--��' � .,��y �� z� .� '----- �� �a� - - �;� �: ��z�� �� � � ,� �� , ������� ��:� '_ � - [„',' � , ��� ��;,�F�fi�' � �' �� � �� �m� � ° �� �I�a��B�� �� `� - "��` � `�j�' Ar� ���Ij C� � �sg I ` �i � aa ��� �'�"v � - ���- _ \�� la�j '`'� F" ' � _ ;'y� a �a` � � ? ��\y ��p ; z�� I �> � � `�� ' ,'✓ '° � '� =� �'��. � �\y, � '`'`H�,' � C � �g �� � ; �, \: � .�„ �,..,,�"�` ?; _!-- _ �'\ I� :� ;a � � � � E� a� � � ,_. �,. � '� =T= _ \.� �' i�� ;�; �n� c� � N `+� ' ��x w. .� �7 ��, � c � I , '�`°a ���U�\,�L: _ ._._ -_ _ ��"� �- � � � � ; �,� n . ' :- � \ ��s �8� ,f,� �r.r , ��� �t v E�'• _�� �J ��� � � j y / �::-� . ��r ;��P ,� v� -�, � �a z � ��3� ���� I �;/,;'/�� �o� •3d ��=$t; _,.. a�.ro�v7 os�ME �Ny�� — �� _� �� ' � O II � �ngi 3 . %" �' _ _ "_ _ ___ _ _ . .. � 4+'� ,,I;;:� \\ x0yu'M'� ." ' � a3,; : � . u g -�� �lr� ns.�e •=:�� \�'—� � - _ - - _ - -� �\� I ~: � � .., � � .... -� _ K— �. _ _ �A, ' �\ ' � ���*��mu�r. y � , i-�.SA7'2732'W 37aK __ ��. _ -� - _ �.: �� -�� �� � � � �. ar covr iot a� q ' .� :;I! �- _ \V` �� I ` `� � L�, s.�? �� �,�.g� - � b ti �^ �aca�run . � � ��� �� � � � ` -� \ g �:3 i `.\� /� rQi 9a�-4,=. u�r� � � ��' � � i� � �� =�R I �� y� �,��, � . »��a �� � � ,��_- � f���� \\\�� � 1 �r m �� x�i : � ii �\ \ �\ �I i : �� '� �'� � � � \ ���� �L �f ��,, .�� (� ��_ ��A-��_�_ I Y� "F^ i'�, � �� � � 3 �>. � ,,�- 1 �l �. , 4 � -- �� ��. � i � ;' ` �' � \i,� �� "� ) � �� / � ��1� � ��{ � i \� naot uwt a r�r i / �8,�H �`i ��� \! ���� N{ 1� �P � 1 � �� ��k='��\ `�';I � � , I 4 � �aurxo z�Yia � � :� � � . IQ� � \� „��„""�,.,� � A �I I e� �o `^$� ,-\ �� ��r�\ s� ' ; _ 4 ' i � i � A � _ � � r� +. �� V A_ � i . _ . I � ,� i k r ,- u � ,� • - J �� i � �� yg� i <v =>'-a � - � I I ����' i���� ''�� � ` � � � �"� � a� e � m 3� m��p I �\ �ysS i �`. ��'g� tr,�#r„ ._�w�- I �^��� �" Wt`g ;.�� � �,�� I��> i M �R � ^g i � g� a>. y w.�T�� ��P • i _� � p�` I �� q$� �__ !F � � u = Wcsrea cav�nm �,-p I 1�' '^� 3 mg� � �,x: ��p� I 'ee. ,`a � \,��"'= a„"*�..-I ,d ;� � I�s a°�°.a z,w�,a � �� I >�� i .a v "'%:^.� $$ ¢ 3 $p� ��� ��.Y`�.�-� �'�. � _:- �.:'» .J l� row�ncTrr�wunro+r+a _ — � 1 ;� I r8 s _ N� � ��• I a� nn I �, �-, � �j `y' _ ��o. �°° . ,$ '� I � gy� -, a ...6689 �;� i - n^ 7 4_R �`` _` v3 � �� g�� o>{ ��"'�\ � ., ' " � .. .._3-s fi - __ p� � � I ` '_'�4' . : � � ., .Ho \ �- ^ � 4 � "' --c^"°z°�c) \ _. _._EXE� `�f .��,__._�� r.t_z c . - -- � - - �n.x-. .� � �,'�vh t ro m+;`'`��E • �7'/O/V � � °' I. o,m fi PAR^f.' '0?d TR;": _ �' .. � :,.-. xa'u•a•w xn.n '-"�. . av xwr ra ea _��.a_ • h n v��`��e !.� �.�;T . �i'-,'vr m c�r � - sarma•c znx - ., ..._ OO--i� �dv , . ; "� - ._�\ - - - � _ . '-:_:______ :- ._.nzeo-- .;� --m'°°- _" '�s m ie �or��a�m�*�iia - � ~ srt.ee .._-� ��p\ .,.___.' soci��aZ / / x . . . x.�i r� �� � . ���^ �'�., usuraarwvmwdrl � �� ___ ___�____' _ 9 ^. .. � �� -...... �o*a a ac a.t.iia x.si / \ \ '�'`.r--________ _�_9��� __L�$ ..xao'ii�w•x isian.... 5� -. $ j T � §�,�; .k�� ""'_" \ /�� � � \ UNE IJ yS .. i': \`4,[0.M \ �� � o��m �� .. o � ����j$$�� `\°5�.� � � Yq � � ��; �g�s�g9�; � � s� � a� o;;�s%�ng9���Yag'� � � �m ��§������#� ' � � � / a � �h O\ s �e � � 9g �gs-y �s�� �$ e 3^'� z � � � ' � '4';, a'. � ,+i.��*g�� � y` a; �a�:4;eo$ � g a' d' e�€�'s�"s�$'��S s_ 3 � $� s _�' ? fi �;^�ge �� $ 9Y �'�^''�^ �' 3�;�g2a � ---'� $9 � � .. � _ : Y � <. ss� �^���g's:j's � g € � �'�'k`��gQ��vas€�;$� Y$ a� `e^��aa� % � � � �, / _ 4 $ L f -•4 L"-"iE' .� � n z z S '^ � 9 �ns��^^rs�< = g "� _-� � $ �''�,�� , \` � # _ �s" `s$ �� �$ s�°� gd �� �� a ��a a��sss`=�� K ` Y�sg�o"�s�3��3�s�a� � 3 �•. �ys3��� F s 4� a �a - � � 9s. �'s' -r-��e�--- "s ' J� s" €� s f�" _ s 5 i i<=s'.- �' i r 3 : �gN'z:c<:'�:�'.o� ���^�` Ma � � �; s o o�o- " _ , ` ` "s 3 s" �; €^ a$ ca j � ��a s" ;�Rs � � � � �:e5° a�x9 a � � x;:a s'���'�' - °-. ` , ; ��-.e �s=s�'~ s°:v � _O �3 �-, -- a�as�-- _ �' o� �� � ��s� � $ '� Y�'� 3 s%�ov . _ � .as���"���^-s"8� � "' E�4N��s��' c "� 3 � .r,� sM7a'Sa'w 4 ?�= E � �° 3 � ° e 2 � s � ' $•-� _ = 9» €s gY ���� �II �� � � :.�ag� �Y m = = - ��a�;sgs�'£;;"'���� - � �s;����_:�� g �� � g \ �\ / � ; °_ � �'s s s� �s� $^=es �_' s -;•e�a � g �a�..;_ >_� f 3� .. g m _ $s �' N ' �E g` ��� "� g $ x �s��s � s � a-�„' • ,s s-se , as s_;g" �= � o �� �q � g s3 s;s : �$ €g � QY% [8���^s�� � � R%§3^�qz� ¢� � a$� p� R _:��P` ° ��� � ^� z.� � � i �� � oo Ti e 3 �99' � a g� a� ' ^�s'� R � �a ^ ���as:a = \ Ri �� .�� �8 § � �. � g3'� � _ ¢$ � t_ �§os°�u F� ` �s��'e;�3 g v'.���'_ gs�' �- 9 E i� � b - a; e E 3 g 3� ��= 3' 7 9�j s, Sa3^3 'd�$ SaA = E �o� 5�g8es�s $ 5 s..,. $`3 � � ������: �� 9 8 u :s �'s�,� e 3 3 • ` 'sQ c� .� 3 g�.e�$'3� �sb`°.a;' � �`33� � ' � `r, 2 � ;4, _ _ e � 9 9. s � � e� ;�� �v' s e e"3'��- y"s � �:='>3 os�s 9 �e=° � d su_c r za� �,;y, so � e e� s ; f� �§���_°:a - 2og3�3v3g�3� �90�,, � � 39. s+�i$ � �"� �b� a � `>,v 4;a � g � � g3 S z?�' � ; �g � �3 �"���.�,s,"�a ssoe e,=�'4 �sv'�� � Q�a'��`s���iN � ] �, ctn� Z � �" ° �� o E:�� ' �'S ' 'S 'us�#4:�`S �s�z}egSE°�3`�IIg�=�a � S9¢s3^�� $ � �A c~j � - , � �+ a � � °g � �e.� � � x� � _' �: �sS�; �� •`s4�'��.:%�9: g � �o�:"'�6sp�a � �� 3� O m : 4 "� s � 3� _ .�-� s � � '�� �As�a:�� ��'Eg £�'1��sQ�e �-";_ ;v� _ �p� �b i ` � � § ; 3e q ��8 ; � r� -� ��se= gN p���;��is"g��x�,sss � € �A�§ .es � � �� 2 � `� n nskm s & �Y a $�� � �� 3 �� -s�*�s"$ q;��;.�5��.3� Fsu��� �� ����9e.� s =8 �r�£ � � � � Z � '�{� s - � $e e $�� € � �� s �g .��eq'�� e�:��N�?E����4�'-�� � �^���3=sa;q� a 7 8 � y : �73 �Si ��s2�s" 3ouYt' H 9-�'e2� 5 '` �� c � i =i3 8 � Y� s 2 ' g Jg � �;°���ss � g g.:e�„�s.. � ��." �gxx�� � a 7_ � B $ � e" 7 �� a e,, ����§`3 2 0 ��.k � R o 4 a a ^ p£ s £ ; $ a �s`y'.�isa g����o�€$�3��6.0� � "ss��o;�i��g s O ?, � V 3' � 3 �•�"3� � ; 3 g ?� :" e� s �- a s = $ 'g�^:�" ��•�-e � �ss^�• � �' �vg$y`�� � � � S�� � � ag a$; n e � s isg��gys sa 2? s 3 q:3 � ��e'�-�;a 4:4$ � {� � �$ V � � k 3�g � 3 s��3s� '4 �°t� �•,�e3e�e e �. � R'� �� i �II$ - � a 3�g 's g 'savo2P� '�,6�=9§s' �•�as; ' :i�tv��s���.; $�� � a e � _ � - r.,� � ...� � � EXH/B/T > , „�,�,� W ._ I ° r��o,s�_w '^ N I C � FOUND /R - v , a I'� � ' � MONUMEN - N o `�' C > "RLS 202B1" p/NCHED TOP �W �� ti I� N O I � IRON MONUMENT �r ` � I o � � o �� N � ~ �' - ,o � c -� � �W a o Z - � a ._ O / � 55.2 /� D � ��G N lO _- �-. O�( ��._________ _ z„� ll� . � � • � � o � �.. I � �� 'TOR}� ( z ��� p M � I l�� T�J /1 / e4"4P I � � � � + / / \/-I O(!.5` / // �� ? I � � � . `�° �,,J S8 48 E � � ` I �°` _ F� �-� � = �, _---- /�6/ ---_ ��C I w�,`� �o o�, � � • �; � �o � � ���� / `- ; \�� I cn� W z �w �o,� 1.�-� � �I`� , `�\�����/ � W� O CU Z V W 0�`��..�.. � ' � -- /36.28 � � a � ' � �o a a 3�'°�� � o /V89°23'48"W � � ;W �, t, `;'� �W ;� ��; �.� h � �p F Q� U ^ I �i"� � � �� J�rc�� a�'`� o� cV ocV [`7 � —"����'Ft �r.'�r° �,� � I � . 4 � ..�. � h � POSED PRIVAT N N � y � � � �RESS AND EGR✓y �, — �-T � ,. _ o � � � � �,�';� � � ,�I � 1VATE RESIDEN g SOUTH LINE OF �O � �'��� � I !�'i p � � LOT I, BLOCK I, Z ��'A`�E Q TENNANT HOU E '� � , � f Z �, � .._ �k�� � � � �, � tf }- -- COMPANIES PUD � � � �;�� "' N 0. I I 4 ' � � �� ��� � , � � , , , , , , � ; � , � — � � ' � ,-� ._� ,,' : . . , � , — . � � (TO BE DETERM/NED) �� � '� ___ 139.36 -- ' EXISTING MNDOT RIGHT � � � WAY TO BE VACATED '� ---- /02.58 ----�, - /66.28 - ;'' _--- - /74.67 1 '' o i n ,:d%1 44.���T��� NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY N0. 55 AS MONUMENTED N I � �� � J � 0 �(OLSO/V MEMOR/.4L ' GHW.4 Y� U � ` STA TE H/GHWA Y IVO. 55 � 9001 East Bloomington Freeway (35W)•Suite I 18 a ����� Bloomington, Minnesota 55420-3435 vvi 952-881-2455 (Fax: 952-888-9526) 2009127G-PREPLATSEXH BITS.dwg I KDK3 LA1VD SURVEYI�VG WWW•sunde.com � EXH/B/T 2 � P t l't!Y/dd I C � �u.s I,� W 'N ._ FOUND lR v, a �` � I � MONUMEN _ N Ip � > "RLS 202B1" p/NCHEO TOP� �W � Z I� (�O I � � /RON MONUMENT r ` � I o � NO I� � �� � � . � 0 0 � � � Iz . � Q o o c� N I �__' 55-�-----���r ._. ; D `i i O I � � J �� _ _ � � ��- r��v' � I Z o W� ._W ; I �� T�J n � A� `�...;� ' I � ,...� �o � � l l \/-I NOU,S F �� � I � ,a°� � . �D J O / // L(j ,��p_ 1� . .� �, S8 48 E : � � � , , I _ � � m—� � � �`�f� �s� .,� � � �, _ s�o o�� �, , _---- /;6/. --_ ' ��` I wrn a�i J� cY', � � � � d � ►- � , �,. , , , � v�� w z �w �o� �,--�. � � �-- --'� ` i � ,:I �M �V Z U W�,9�_,......._._ � p /36.28 , �.. � �o a a 3 4v°; E � N89°23'48"W W � `�'� a W W� ���� c� �' � �PORTION OF TRACT E �°� QQ � N o�o �n� ?� �F- � B E I N G I N C O R P O R T A T E D I �'N�j . ± ;�� ��-�� m� �j INTO LOT 2 N,N � � � ""',�.��' :��' a � o� o, � � f � � � � �: � � �u N d,� POSED PRIVAT , ___. _ � �� � o � � �RESS AND EGR ��� � � o � � . � N I VATE RESIDEN '" SOUTH LINE OF O� �r�f �� � �F-� LOT I, BLOCK I, = F���� • f� ,� 4A 7 �F�'� TENNANT Hou�� � �� . .�',, S.�✓ 2 ,a �_.� COMPANIES PUD � � � �-C�i�-�=- "`�;--,---�a N0. 114 ,�, ` � � � -j � � o� � ,-�-' ' , � � � , , � � ! , ; , , � _ , , , , ; �--- , � , , 4�� ��;,�;� ,, , , , _ . � _.__. . ,.. , , _ � (TO BE DETERM/NED) � € '� ____ 139.36 � EXISTING MNDOT RIGHT ,4 ��, WAY TO BE VACATED ;4 ---- /02.58 ---_,, , - - /66.28 - - ; __---- -- /74.67 / � o � „ 44 ,. . _ NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY N0. 55 AS MONUMENTED N � � � � J � 0 ��OLSO/V MEM0�9/,4L ' ,�11GHW.4 Y� ` STA TE H/ w GHW.4 Y NO. 55 Q ����� 9001 East Bloomington Freeway (35W)•Suite I 18 N Bloomington, Minnesota 55420-3435 952-881-2455 (Fax: 952-888-9526) 2009-127-G 954/50 T.I18, R.21, 5.33 ,GA1VD SURYEYIIVG WWW•sunde.com 2009127G-PREPLAT-EXHIBITS.dwg KDK � EXH�B/T 3 � �' �!i/?6VObd ^ W �_ I C `e C�uS _..:��_��� '^ N .�-._ I � FOUND lR -- v, Q I� � J MONUMEN � p �� > 'RLS 2028/" PINCHED TOP W � Z I� � � IRON MONUMENT I o No � � o � � � �, . � � � � ,o � � � �W _w. o� � / D a I° NI � 55.2 �_ i Iv' `O ��---------^ �_.. 6 LI J � _ — L� J � � O � I l�i �C7f�� Z � �..�.e. .m i �� TL J /1 / At�� ---., ,� � � 0 0 �__ ous� �� �.� �; , ,SS �o ,48,E- �� I `' � � � . Q�: -, ,� _ �� _ � � � � � _ , � � `� --- /;6/. --__ � ^� , N�n r-_ ~o oc� . ,� �J\ � I � w� Np Fo F-�d' �`` \ : � � �� Wz �w �0,/ . � � �-— I J6 2CJ - , `I.`�`% ` �... �� O U Z� W�� ^.--�_ � 4 i V� Q Q 3�`U'�.� � � 1V89°23'48"W ' �W � `�'� a w W� �� -�� h M�• ' �� N p C�F Q li U O�h "�J ': w ao rn U z� J F- � PORTION OF EXISTING �cj� � �v� ,� �M ������ a� �i DRAINAGE AND UTILITY N�� ' � `'�`� �� �p r � � x� °� EASEMENT TO BE VACATED � h � � ;;°; �3 W �N �, POSED PRIVAT ��__ .. — N �� � °? �� , RESS AND EGR \ _� i_ E�""_ \ Y � � � � � �) � VATE RESIDEN ._ wn SOUTH LINE OF O ��s/�r,7Y� `r �� 1 - LOT I BLOCK I � .a�; ���,�� '� � I ',�` p �. � HOU E y�... � �.-,.S� �� � � TENNANT � Z ���� --_.m COMPANIES PUD �\ � �� `- '—i� ; � , N0. I 14 ,�; , � � � f�� � f � � � � � � , � � � � � , , � — � , ; � � �, ; , , ,, � , , , — - � � _ � (TO BE DETERM/NED) � ____ 139.36 ' EXISTING MNDOT RIGHT � , ---- /02.58 - �� _ WAY TO BE VACATED ;� --- ` - /66.28 - ; � ----" - /74.67 �.� � o i ii . 44.�:`�,��. : NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE � TRUNK HIGHWAY N0. 55 AS MONUMENTED N�, � � � � J0 �(OLSON MEMOR/.4L ' ,�IIGHW.4 Y� ` STA TE H/G w HW.4 Y /VO. 55 Q ����� 9001 East Bloomington Freeway (35W)•Suite i 18 N Bloomington, Minnesota 55420-3435 952-881-2455 (Fax: 952-888-9526) 2009127G—PREPLATSEXHIBITS.dwg I KDK3 I�11VD SURVEYIIVG WWW•sunde.com {✓�V �` �f� �li. ��I . a� I�hysical I�evela►pment Departn�ent ?63=593-8t?951763-�93-s7 U9(fax} �� � �n� . � , � � �� , � � .. .. Date: April 9, 2018 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: lason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Subject: Informal Public Hearing–Amend Conditional Use Permit (CUP-110)to Allow for Automobile Sales and Repair in the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District at 730 Florida Avenue South — Import Auto Sales, LLC, Applicant � � _ , � � . Summary Import Auto Sales, LLC, is seeking approval of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP- 110) to allow for automobile sales and repair at 730 Florida Avenue South in the I-394 Mixed Use District. The property is zoned I-394 Mixed Use and designated as Mixed Use on the General Land Use Plan. In this Zoning District, automobile sales and/or repair are allowed by CUP if the use occupies more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. An existing CUP is in place at this location that allows a portion of the building to be used for the repair and storage of vehicles. Existing Conditions The location of the proposed uses are within a multi-tenant building (Westpark Center) on a lot approximately 2.8 acres in size. It is bounded to the east by Florida Avenue and to the north by Laurel Avenue. A lightly used railroad spur crosses the property to the north along Laurel Avenue. Other automobile, commercial, and warehouse uses are located on the surrounding properties. The total building size is roughly 51,700 square feet. The tenant on the north side of the building (720 Florida) occupies 21,700 square feet and utilizes a parking lot to the north. The south side of the building (730 Florida) is approximately 24,000 square feet. While the front door of 730 Florida faces the street, the parking lot and additional access to the building is located to the south. The space under consideration was recently vacated and previously housed the operations of PRISM. In addition to presence of a thrift store at this location, a CUP was approved in 2005 to allow auto repair and storage. Proposed Use Import Auto Sales currently operates a facility in St. Louis Park, south of I-394, but intends to relocate to Golden Valley. If approved, the applicant would renovate the interior of the building with eight bays for automobile repair, office space for automobile sales and customer service, and an indoor showroom for display. They anticipate selling approximately 500 vehicles per year and providing auto service to at least two customers per day. Inventory would be stored outdoors at this site, which would require additional landscaped screening in order to reduce its visual impact from the street and surrounding properties. No dealership inventory would be allowed in customer and employee parking spaces or on Florida Avenue. Other than new signage, the exterior of the building would not change with the proposed renovations. The portion of the building under review is 24,228 square feet. The proposed uses would be roughly distributed as shown below: Use Type Square footage Automobile Repair 7,800 Indoor Showroom 12,000 Sales/Customer Service 2,500 Total 22,300 The mix and sizes of proposed uses in the building determine the required on-site parking: 8 automobile repair bays @ 4 spaces each 32 12,000 sq. ft. indoor showroom @ 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. 12 2,500 sq. ft. office @ 1 space per 250 sq. ft. 10 Required spaces = 54 The parking lot will be repaved and restriped prior to use by the applicant. There is sufficient space to provide all of the required parking spaces; no additional paving or impervious surfaces are necessary to accommodate the minimum parking required by Code. Four public bicycle parking spaces are required to be located on-site. Hours of operation for sales would be: Monday—Thursday 9 am to 8 pm Friday 9 am to 6 pm Saturday 9 am to 5 pm Hours of operation for auto repair would be: Monday— Friday 8 am to 6 pm Saturday 8 am to 2 pm Given the commercial/industrial nature of the surrounding properties, there does not appear to be any anticipated problems with the hours being proposed. 2 Evaluation The existing CUP No. 110 contains a number of conditions that are tied to the specifics of PRISM's operations. Many of these circumstances are no longer relevant, so the proposal by the applicant would require the existing permit to be amended to reflect new and/or revised conditions. Staff finds that the modifications to the existing CUP in order to allow for automobile sales do not conflict with the initial findings supporting the CUP No. 110. Specifically: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Relocation from the applicant's current site, less than a mile away, indicates there is a local market for the goods and services being provided. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The automobile sales and repair uses are not inconsistent with the Mixed Use designation on the City's General Land Use Plan Map. These commercial uses support the goal of locating redevelopment along major corridors and increasing the job and tax base within the community. 3. Effect on Property Values: Staff anticipates the new uses would have no impact on the surrounding property values and are isolated from any residential neighborhoods. 4. Effect on Traffic:The number of trips associated with the proposed uses would likely not exceed the number of trips generated by the use previously at this location. Trips generated from the proposed uses would not exceed the capacity of the roadways. All vehicle deliveries and storage of inventory would be required to take place on-site and not on the street. 5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed uses may generate an increase in the number of employees and customers at the location compared to the past uses, but are consistent with the other properties surrounding the site and the Mixed Use district. 6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed uses are not anticipated to cause a significant increase in noise levels. Automobile repair work would be conducted within an enclosed building and would take place during normal business hours. No outside music, loudspeakers, or public address system would be allowed. 7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration:The proposed uses are not anticipated to cause an increase in dust or odor. Minimal vibrations may be associated with the auto repair use but should not impact any adjacent uses. 8. Impact of Pests: The proposed uses are not anticipated to attract pests. 9. Visual Impact: The visual impacts of dealership inventory stored in the parking lot will be mitigated through the addition of screening. An exterior dumpster would be screening with material compatible with the building. 10. Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other negative effects of the proposed uses. The location is surrounded by automobile, warehouse, and commercial properties and has adequate parking. Site Plan Review City Code requires that a site plan review be performed by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a zoning certificate (in this case, a Conditional Use Permit) for any proposed use in the I-394 Mixed Use Zoning District. 3 Site plan review standards were established in the 1-394 Mixed Use Zoning District to promote development that is compatible with nearby properties, neighborhood character and natural features, and consistent with the comprehensive plan and/or area plans adopted by the City Council. The regulations recognize the unique character of land and development throughout the City and the need for flexibility in site plan review, allowing the Planning Commission discretion in reviewing site plans. Purposes of Site Plan Review: • Minimize pedestrian and vehicular conflict • Promote public safety • Encourage a high quality of development Development Standards for 730 Florida Avenue South: • Parking location and screening • Pedestrian circulation Analysis Parkin� Location and Screening: Development standards for the I-394 Mixed Use district require parking areas be screened from public streets with a landscaped frontage strip. This frontage strip may consist of either a masonry wall, berm or hedge, or combination that forms a screen between 3.5 and 4 feet in height with 50% opacity. The existing parking area to the south of the building is partially screened with two mature trees. Additional screening between the access drives along the east property line would improve the existing conditions by screening automobiles from site. The existing and proposed screening will help reduce pedestrian and vehicular conflict as it acts as a traffic calming mechanism; additionally, vehicular travel in and out of the parking lot should be minimal. Staff recommends additional screening along the east edge of the parking area consistent with the development guidelines of the I-394 Mixed Use district. Pedestrian Circulation: Import Auto Sales does not propose modifications to the existing building exterior or parking lot, except restriping the existing parking spaces. The development standards for the I-394 Mixed Use district states that sidewalks shall be required along all street frontages, and sidewalk and trail design shall be consistent with the sidewalks proposed in the City's Comprehensive Plan. A sidewalk is already in place along Florida Avenue. The development standards for the I-394 Mixed Use district require a well-defined, landscaped pedestrian path from the sidewalk to each principal customer/resident entrance of a building. The existing pedestrian path is landscaped. Staff does not recommend additional landscaping for the customer entrance of the building. 4 Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of amended Conditional Use Permit 110 allowing for automobile sales and repair at 730 Florida Avenue South. The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All vehicle deliveries and storage of inventory shall take place on-site and shall not take place on the street. 2. No parking shall be allowed within any existing landscaped area. 3. The number of service bays on-site shall be limited to eight. 4. The exterior dumpster shall be screened from view and made of material compatible with the building. 5. No outside music, loudspeakers, or public address system will be allowed. 6. Additional screening shall be installed consistent with the Development Standards for parking screening listed in the Zoning Code for the I-394 Mixed Use District. If vegetative screening is used, the applicant must submit a landscaping plan (number of plantings, species of plantings, etc.) to be reviewed and approved by the City Forester. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. Failure to comply with one of more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. Consistent with State statute, a certified copy of the CUP must be recorded with Hennepin Cou nty. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Applicant's Narrative (1 page) Plans submitted March 5, 2018 (3 pages) 5 �� 733 130 � �" 6490 200 yp5 200 - ` ^ � 6674 fi630 6580 g$d0 6510 �' �;p 7}5 �� � +�� 755 150 =. �. ' � I ` ,.i. :. . . 220 �� p25 220 i ��- . ._., . � � ... �� .�. . � — 215 210 220 —� b655 6615 6565 6535 6575 6495 6475 6455 6445 Z� � 24.�` 240 '� Zd5 3� 235 290 205 248 � 22S , , 300 105 300 = 305 50 255 250 � � � .- ..- �', - . � � . . ... � 320 325 122 325 .�ouret ave ' . . ,. . ...GreeeDctt . . �:��.(C.ak�wn Pprxt) <'ort��:�n f'�t,r,cf 3� 345 340 3d5 `� 4aatet Are nsthun 515 .:., 350 365 360 365 �°ra ��� �'���� Subject Property 4�� t.r,re,.. . . . .. . Gree r..�. . n . . . . . . ..Q � 70t���. . . . ..._ ,....,,�,. .. 6901 ' 7�0 C 715 '�'".. 721 ' 730 ' 801 700 tAarkelg� 6800 � 850 - fi700 6925 a 905 `r' ��, - �' `��C 900 a ,�I-r.,.�..�.:.:.. 800 6955 6920 ° ' " - o i � 8944 6660 6620 900 64D0 6440 6400 6100 W`y:.rr,r G�,,,u 6250 5210 /��.�+ YPv7B ..... .. � ... We currently are an existing used car dealership at 6009 Wayzata Blvd St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Proposed uses: Used Car Sales and Repair. 7,800 Sq. Ft.West Part of the Building Will be dedicated to Automobile Repair. Roughly 2,500 Sq. Ft. Office Space in the East Part of Building will be dedicated to Sales/Customer Service. Roughly 12,000 Sq. Ft.Central Part of Building Will be dedicated to Indoor Showroom. We have approximately 10 employees. We look to have above 500 automotive sales per year and at least 2 auto service customers per day. Normal operating hours for sales will be Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM—8:00 PM Friday 9:00 AM -6:00 PM Saturday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM Service Hours Monday- Friday 8:00 AM -6:00 PM Saturday 8:00 AM— 2:00 PM We are not going to be doing changes to the exterior of the building except for adding city approved signage. Exhibit'. . . - .. 2+"CMP Storrn$Qwer ��{...���� qi"RCP Sanitary Sewer � -�'"' c '�� . � �l � ~ 'Jy ~, _6 � �-„"" W � ' �,�w w """ �.'._': '^-'•'l90-____•._..'� _ _ � ---^_ a .. � �r+I 1 �' `...--�cd' _..--,-�-'� � o G uY r r �;•, w 3 • �w�+SR � 1 ` � r..�.._._..._...._ ___ '--'� ..y----�,��„_,...��i�-^ ;+'� -'--. �ADAD ER¢EMENT AS �rc � � ,�PER DtlC. N�. 6029C19"•, � ,u9xai� �n°i ,.. �::�s-^r'"5.�89°A�095°E. � `-'-• ' ^-290.16-- " � r, •• . •„ ' $ Gf UMINOL . �. pN: . . . �. �. RANSEY' h�� �nce oF airvn+! S . i.Soufh;line,of�m 80 f�q+°f Tract;0; �rucus � ; , F��R � .L n oF�r a�oaiva m ...,�, E � . A Ua � � . c � � ---*� . ,tt�•, t�' 1��5.5 '. .,�-¢ , a N�Iine 'of`, racfi—^ ��' �' - wa ' Yll�' ' pU5 . : '. . • • ;:', J�'� � ; °'o yl U� �I� . ' ''��••. c' 7 " ! e� ~�'t • °� $'t . ' '��..• ',�,' OJ�' � 2q;•t M"e .1'r•' ��a8.3o. .:,�. •�2. .;�'' 'tl (� o . i .����� a . %'��" 4;..' .W''� �r�� .'.,�� p V � � i:N 'th ' , . .J�-:�,�1a� � o �.,W :kyN � • �...�:'..0 �.>�'r'�'�,'.. �\ ,W . � a t SP iNK� '�'S'7.BYL � 'x'yh' � t9.29 �:9: . "' .q . , � . 0`e. '_30.. i ` ;V, ". ' � v . � W U. � a • • , z o � a g ; $ o � ,)•STORY BRICK siN� , x:nz � • u..4�_�-- 0 ..���'•'. . . � � CO/JC,RE7"E HLQCt(. �_ _ _.:q,�rurm- � 1 . a i�a�t � gUIL' lNG z wom !Lo85;b�' Y' m �'`700 . � �v��]m 1 i1.87 36`17'�1N• �. � � ��a 2C '�'� . to�, s �4,d8 � . A n.r�°-�' - . � .- .' nQ J �N . . .. ... . .l...�� ......... .... N.. . .. .. .. ..... ... .. . . .. .. . ....�q�f'G" . . .... .... . .. .. . .. . .. . .. � .'..... ..... . ., .. ... .. .. ....i ��J "� PE D�6 Na.D33T.Z{ 2q.o — ..oY i 3 -5 FT.N.S.P. C0.EA SENE T PE AOt.NA:l28�91 _,_,� ,�__:.__ �--"�a.^+i N (PUA.POR-TEDL_Y RELE�E 5� ,�.--^---'- • C p } 56.G5 �,.. . «ao& rt d�C �' + Llne Par�lle!wi h the North line of Trael'E m ; �a` ° � 0 . d o . p � � }� �, � R' � NO BLOCK '" �" `t � . , ,,ior - , �-SYOR1f BRlCK _ „ � = S�y (} 8 u i ( oo UlLDIN. :; ; .�, � ; t z�r #�5v � ,k, p00 l w� �,u <. s K }� � �- R� ,: � 3� m ~z rk . 1-GAS �� � y 0 � � � E °�m � m ,, � 9t:st 7 v � ; I •�j J V . VA{.Y& .j.. �a J � .. � a Z❑ as �'w; .-, 0 5 RFp.� B GfOF � � � � ' rr, a ' �I =a . � TU�''���P�� �°���R �VNOGAGRONNO E a�run+,uou f� ' �� 3�p, B�SJR $,�iltA� c�acraics�.zv�ca� or+�ve �0 �1 ¢W--- `� ---� � �. � � �o � ,�. .� ��' � . r i , I �h Litie p�araffe!wifhrthe Uorth li�e aFTracf E �, . � � . � W 4 . . , . ...� i ...... . � . . �clW . .... ... ............. ' . ' ............ '. ...' ....... .. . .. .. ...... ...i.. .. ......... .. . . . . � " . � � ._.. -.�� �. r . . � � , . _ . � �.�s� � �Ir , . —� ��R��,�T � ��,� ' , �_a�i •:l ',..' Q' �,. S�Rf P G • �. � ��e�+ • ' Mt.�,; � WI�: ::,: E �" , l� �, o • ' o' 1� ' '_-30-- I; � n � �' �I 0�5 � B�. I � "�.. � � ' ,�. � t� ti� ; 'p�;6 i � ( Q' g �.T � i " �� �•—""---. 'i.:.e''`t'r►i IA � , i ._......_-._..-.._. ..._�• _ �. r .. �t 5, � � � ��.. INDUSTRIAL: FOR LEASE WESTPARK CENTER 700-75� FLORiDA AVENUE ������'�����'� �1�� GOLDEN VALLEY, MENNE50TA SS42b ���^ � � � t�" � . � �, � , ��a, �� .. �.� � � �� �a �.—�v._. , h� W��� � . � � � � - e� � �, ' : ,; ; ;, � Office: BTS � a� � � � �� Warehause: 7,800 sf � $, � � Q m. �� Totai: 7,800 sf � � U �� �� � .r� � � w r: a' � � �� �� � �, �. � .� � n � '� � �� � � . � 4 � � � f � a � . �� � � �Q �� � �z . q� �o . —�.. a, "'� '' j �� � F h ... � �` �.,�, �. tL M � ......,�� �,� : �p� 1�� W y 1V�' �� � � � � , ��� ` � Steve Nelson Kyle Thompson HOYT PROPERTIES,INC. � 7EL 6��.7�t�,a��2 TEL ���1,�3�..;%�7�3 275 Market Street,Suite 4�3 snelson@hoytproperties.com kthompson@hoytproperi�es.cam Minneapolis,MN 55405 �1°�i�ia,�tc?�2:�?"r�7E't`:i=:*saf;f r€1 ----.—..�..�...__.. , ,r. ���� ��` ` �. � _� �` � � � -.. �.. �� , ��_ � , . � . d W ,� ''"'r„.r ��x . ���s> � � � . . . k � . '"�', h {.�s � .. � �. R yr "� � t� � �r �y� � ,�„ � " � < t��;_. _ � � , .. __:.;_ . _ � � .. �� .� � . . � �_us �. �.a���;, ak. � . ..�, �, ; � � � g ' ._ �.,,� k �:��: '�.'," � �. ��� , A ;� � ��" . -; �; ��. �� �t���`� 4 �,'� � � �* ���!.., _ �"r� �� �-� r� � �� � � � � � � � �;; � y � .� R• . � �_,. , Nr : , a » . , � ..r. ..*. .^ — � +�.,4- a .. � .. r �', , � � } �ry x , �c. xi��� _ �,�,�f� y.4� .. ry� � x�„';� � �: � , � ` ��� �`� � � _, ��' � £ � � ; . :� . '" � '�� . �i a ' ���+�""� >.� y ` ����s �.��_� � _, ", � �;� �,.�,� � �� � P � , _ .. , * , � �w�, � �� :�... �� — �(� A ` � � . � � f f . � f$4'� ,� ,� � �' ,� ``, - � � _ ;, � �. � � � . � , �""'"�!!�"'�� � �� � ` � , � . , ,�� �� r f � _ �� ,, � �. � : �� r ���� � �. � � � , �-�-- t ,� •A �� , � �"` �` "�`� � x '� �� � f�E� �� ���� � � � � 4��1 ' _� :rcg� � '�� � �(i � � �� � ��� � �� p �fT�w � �� A �� � s. n'c� us�� �. .�• O ��� . t b �� � . .. . .'4„—"p . �� 5 � i � z. �� � � � � .� * '� 'µ� �. .,', x � �>� Y . F� : . ,f � , ... �. , �� �, � � �a � ��k ��'� � �, sK �" �a a` r . . . u � � � , ,,,. „ ,; . , ,,� � ._ � � ... ��� ,.,.�._ ' ..__. . .. �. r x .. --- _ _ . — , — r ,� � " .�t � �� . �� Q� � ���� �`��_�� ���� ' � ��-� ,� � ',' � ��, ;� � ��'��.� � �- . RII ��' #e„ - 3 ':'a. ' .�+. . ..�. ,��' �.X` .. a , . . � , �� . ��. �� ` �� . �' y� h � ; + E .*�" � , t - � �, , m�� a � ,. - „� � � �: �;� ��'�� �' ���a -� � o � k a T�.. `��� . . , � i«� tS x . �� T A.���y5{,�+y . �& 4 . . .. �.{� 4� �q.���}"���g,t�_b l «f 1 � :. �.� .. Y. .�� y �' �Ft`� *'��'�"'»� e�.' �� � � � :. ti.� E ��; d�11 � .� i `; " ���� � i � . 4' .. � �^��o�.. . � .. .� �I roy �� `� Ta..-- . . � 3 � ' " �, , .`' '. ' I . .,. " rn:. . .. . ..,�,. �:... ..�.�... h,�'�-^ . .: . , ..., ... �� . � . . �_