Loading...
07-18 - 03-06 - Deny Application for Preliminary Plan PUD No. 53 - The Colonnade Resolution 07-18 March 6, 2007 Member Pentel introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DENYING APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN APPROVAL, AMENDMENT#2, PUD #53, THE COLONNADE WHEREAS, Minnesota ND Properties, Inc., a corporation owned by Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association of New York, has applied for preliminary design plan approval for Amendment #2 to PUD #53 for property legally described as Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 1, The Colonnade PUD #53 in the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota; WHEREAS, by Amendment #2 the applicant is seeking preliminary design plan approval for development of a second large parking structure with an office tower above it of approximately 240,000 gross square feet on the remaining vacant lot of the PUD; WHEREAS, the terms of PUD #53, approved by the City Council on December 16, 1986 provided that the vacant lot was to be developed as "A suite hotel with minimal conference and restaurant facilities comprising up to approximately 250 suites." WHEREAS, PUD #53 as originally approved was to utilize a single five or six level parking ramp to function for both the approximate fifteen story Colonnade Office Tower as well as the suite hotel by utilizing the original parking ramp for office parking during the day and suite hotel parking during the night; WHEREAS, the Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan as amended in 1998 (after approval and construction of all of PUD #53 except for the vacant lot) provided for "completion of development on the Colonnade block"; WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this matter at several meetings including its regular meetings on February 6 and on February 20; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council for the City of Golden Valley makes the following findings with respect to the application for preliminary plan approval of Amendment#2 to PUD #53: 1. The proposed amendment does not result in development compatible with adjacent uses and it is not consistent with the Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan, as amended, as follows: a. The Redevelopment Plan calls for "completion of development" of PUD #53 - the construction of a suite hotel as provided - not the office building and parking ramp proposed. Resolution 07-18 - Continued March 6, 2007 b. The proposed second parking ramp on the site is a misuse of the property. c. The office use generates a large amount of traffic which is not compatible with adjacent uses and will bring traffic movements at the Xenia Avenue and Golden Hills intersection to a standstill during the p.m. peak hour, unless Herculean improvements are made to not only the intersection but the existing street system surrounding the property, all at a tremendous financial cost for which there are no available public funds. 2. The proposed amendment is not tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and does not achieve a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected because the large second parking ramp below the proposed office tower provides for an unacceptable massing of buildings on the property and the traffic expected to be generated from the office tower will have a deleterious impact on not only the intersection of Golden Hills Drive and Xenia Avenue but also on the surrounding street system. 3. The proposed amendment does not preserve and protect sufficient open space on the site as a result of the proposed large second parking ramp. 4. The proposed amendment does not provide an efficient and effective use of the land in that it overutilizes the land for building and parking ramps without providing sufficient green space or storm water retention capabilities. 5. The proposed amendment is not consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City in that it will create deleterious traffic impacts on the nearby intersections and surrounding street system and. the parking provided for the proposed office tower is insufficient under City standards and will result in parking problems and parking in nearby residential areas all of which will have deleterious impacts on the continued enjoyment of the nearby residential neighborhoods. 6. The proposed amendment does not meet the intent and purpose provisions of the planned unit development code sections contained in Section 11.55 of the City Code in the following specifics: a. The proposed amendment does not provide for a mixing of land uses in that it is a continuation of the same land use, i.e. an office tower, as that contained already in PUD #53. b. The proposed amendment does not achieve development consistent with the City's redevelopment plan for the area. c. The proposed amendment does not provide for development that is sustainable and has a high degree of energy efficiency in a number of specifics including failure to maximize solar energy, a lack of energy efficiency at appropriate levels and failure to utilize "green" techniques in design and development. Resolution 07-18 - Continued March 6, 2007 d. The proposed amendment is not a creative and flexible land development but, rather, constitutes more of the same uses already existing in PUD #53 - not that contemplated by prior City approvals or the redevelopment plan. e. The proposed amendment does not achieve compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses because it will function to worsen an already desperate traffic situation in the nearby intersections and surrounding street system which can only be resolved by the expenditure of millions of dollars in public improvements - which the City does not have. 7. The proposed amendment fails to satisfy any of the required findings in City Code Sec. 11.55, Subd. 5(E). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based upon the above findings the City Council hereby denies the application of Minnesota ND Properties, Inc. for preliminary design plan approval for Amendment#2 to PUD #53. (XM)1(b , X0-5711/64 Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: • 4 I 001Susan M. Virnig, City Cler The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Shaffer and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg, Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk.