12.08.25 PC Mtg Agenda Packet December 8, 2025 — 6:30 PM
Council Chambers
Hybrid Meeting
1.Call to Order, Land Acknowledgement, and Attendance
Attendance by presence, not roll call
2.Consent Agenda
All matters listed under Item 2 are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by one
motion. Individual discussion of these items is not planned. A member, however, may remove
any item to discuss as an item for separate consideration under New Business.
2.A.Approval of Agenda
2.B.Approval of October 27, 2025, Meeting Minutes
3.Public Hearings
3.A.Minor Subdivision and Variance at 400 Sunnyridge Lane
3.B.Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat and for Breck School,
123 Ottawa Avenue North
4.New Business
5.Staff Updates
6.Commissioner Updates
7.Adjourn
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
The public may watch the meeting remotely on cable channel 16 or streaming on CCXmedia.org. The
public can make statements in this meeting during the planned public comment sections. Individuals
may also provide public hearing testimony remotely by emailing planning@goldenvalleymn.gov by 3
p.m. on the day of the meeting.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 8, 2025 — 6:30 PM
1
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, October 27, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
1. CALL TO ORDER AND LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
• Chair Ruby called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement
• Regular Members Present: Gary Cohen, Mike Ruby, Martin Sicotte, David Hill, Chuck
Segelbaum
• Regular Members Absent: Eric Van Oss, Amy Barstorff
• Student Member, Status: Remy Rosenberg
• Staff Members Present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director
• Council Member Present: Sophia Ginis
2. CONSENT AGENDA:
2.A. Approval of agenda
2.B. Approval of October 13, 2025, meeting minutes
• Ruby asked for a motion to approve
• Cohen moved.
• Sicotte seconded
• All voted in favor, and the motion passed.
3. OATH OF OFFICE FOR YOUTH COMMISSIONER
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4.A. Ordinance Amending Section 113-27 Board of Zoning Appeals and Section 113-32
Variances.
• Ruby introduced the upcoming items in the meeting and asked that everyone give opinions on
the items.
• Kramer presented the ordinance and noted that all zoning text amendments have a high level
of discretion when it comes to approving changes to the City Code. She noted that the Staff is
recommending approval of the ordinance amending Section 113-27 and Section 113-32.
• Sicotte asked if the City defines anywhere in the Code whether days mean business days or
just calendar days.
• Kramer explained that the 60-day rule, which the State Statute, is calendar days. She added
that generally in the City Code, it is calendar days, with the only exception being the time the
Staff has to render an application as complete, and that is specifically called out as 15 business
days.
• Sicotte asked if the term days is defined in the zoning code somewhere else that would make
it clear to an applicant.
• Kramer mentioned that the Staff can check. She asked if there is a preference from the
Commission for business versus calendar days.
• Ruby stated that if the City is held to 60 calendar days, then what is preferred for the Staff. He
noted that it should probably be consistent with calendar days.
• Sicotte agreed that it should be calendar days.
• Kramer clarified it would be 10 calendar days.
• Ruby opened up the public hearing and noted that no one wished to address the Commission.
He closed the public hearing and opened it for the Commission discussion and deliberation.
• Cohen pointed out that this change is in line with other changes that the Planning Commission 2
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, October 27, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
has made, which streamline, clarify, and make it easier to do business in Golden Valley. He
added that he is supportive of this ordinance amendment.
• Segelbaum stated that the language is very clear and tightens things up. He noted that the
substantive changes were not that great, but made it easier to understand. He asked about
the changes to the light and air, but pointed out that it was reasonable to put them in there.
• Kramer explained that the variance finding criteria for light comes from the State Statute, so it
was just to clarify what the State Statute requires, no change, just a rewording.
• Segelbaum asked if it is separate from the practical difficulties test.
• Kramer noted that it is one of the subsections of the practical difficulties test.
• Ruby asked if the specific statute was called out in the Code.
• Kramer pointed out that it is in the draft ordinance, because the whole variant section is new
with all new language.
• Segelbaum stated that the ordinance amendment made good sense and that the Staff and
Legal did a nice job of putting it together.
• Ruby agreed with the rest of the Commission. He then asked for a motion.
• Cohen moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amending Code Section 113-27 Board
of Zoning Appeals and Section 113-32 Variances, subject to the findings and conditions in the
Staff report.
• Hill seconded the motion.
• All voted in favor, and the motion passed.
4.B. Ordinance Amending Chapter 109 Subdivisions
• Kramer presented the ordinance amending Chapter 109, Subdivisions. She added that the
Staff is recommending approval.
• Ruby pointed out that this assumed administratively that things would get approved. He then
asked whether items not approved administratively would proceed through the full review
process or if they would instead be outright rejected. He clarified to if people would just come
through the major process then.
• Kramer explained that things could be rejected because they are not meeting the plat
requirements, and so the applicant would need to resubmit, or it could come before the
Commission, but the Staff would recommend denial. She added that if an applicant wanted to
do a subdivision, but they needed a variance for some reason, it would not be able to be done
administratively. She shared that the last two or three applications for subdivision that the
Planning Commission has seen would be administrative under the new process.
• Hill asked why the number of days is doubling from 60 days to 120 days.
• Kramer shared that it is difficult to go from getting the City Council’s approval to printing out
the special material, Mylar, for the actual final plats. She added that applicants also have to
send things to the County, and the County has to approve, which can take a while. She noted
that the coordination with the applicant to do all the necessary steps has been really difficult
to get done in the 60-day window.
• Ruby asked that it be 120 calendar days just to make the wording consistent throughout.
• Cohen asked whether, if this language had been in place a few months ago, one of the
applications in the North Tyrol Hills would have been approved administratively.
• Kramer confirmed that it would have been administrative.
• Segelbaum noted that with the existing process, neighbors are given notice before approval,
but with this new process, neighbors would not be notified unless the application is approved.
He asked if there was any sort of requirement to notify neighbors ahead of time.
• Kramer stated that the City is not required to give notice for administrative decisions. She
added that it does present a false opportunity or false hope that something can be done. She 3
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, October 27, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
explained that it is appropriate to give notice after because there would be construction.
• Ruby opened up the public hearing.
• Ruth Paradise, 8515 Duluth Street, asked about the wording, which states the entire front of
each lot shall abut on a street right-of-way and there shall be vehicular access, etc. She noted
that her question concerns narrow lots where the front door may not face the street and
sought clarification on how the front of the lot is defined in such cases. She asked if it was just
the part of the lot that is adjacent to the street.
• Kramer clarified that the rule is not changing with this ordinance. She explained that to
determine the front yard, the City takes the shortest street frontage, regardless of the size.
She furthered that right now, with the way the Code is written, it does not really matter where
the front door is located, but the Staff is talking about changing that, particularly for corner
lots.
• Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion.
• Segelbaum noted that the changes in the ordinance make sense, and it is appropriate to
remove the pubic notice as it gives people a false sense of hope when the applications come
forward, and there is no opportunity to impact the situation.
• Ruby agreed with removing the public notice. He asked if the application gets approved,
where is it publicized?.
• Kramer stated that there would be a letter sent to neighbors, similar to a public hearing
notice.
• Ruby asked if it was the neighbors within 500 feet.
• Kramer indicated that the language states 250 feet.
• Ruby asked if there were any other questions or comments on the ordinance. He then asked
for a motion.
• Sicotte moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amending Code Chapter 109 -
Subdivisions, subject to the findings and conditions in the Staff report.
• Cohen seconded the motion.
• All voted in favor, and the motion passed.
4.C. Ordinance Amending Section 113-1 Definitions, 113-30 Conditional Uses, and Section 113-
87 Summary Use Tables
• Kramer presented on the Ordinance amending parts of the current code. She noted that the
Staff is recommending approval.
• Ruby commented that, in looking at the tables all day to make sure that within the tables,
what X and C stand for is present, as it is constant throughout the code.
• Kramer stated that because of the online system, it is not very user-friendly, but noted
agreement to having it present.
• Ruby asked about the changes to the pet store, and even with the City Council's support, does
a change like that require a vote from the City Council, because it seems like a very defining
decision from the City to make without a vote from it at the Council level.
• Kramer explained that the Ordinance will go to the Council, so they can choose to pull the
section out to talk about it specifically or just leave it. She added that there are not currently
any types of these pet stores in the City, so it is preempting future businesses rather than
prohibiting what is currently happening.
• Ruby noted that it feels like it should go to the City Council first and then come to the Planning
Commission, as it is more policy-driven.
• Kramer explained that it could go either way, with a clear policy direction or recommendation
coming up from the ground, particularly because it was brought up by a resident.
• Hill asked if a financial institution drive-thru is different than restaurant drive-thrus. 4
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, October 27, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
• Kramer shared that for some reason, the code called out financial institutions with drive-thrus,
which are drive-thru banks and ATMs, and then had drive-thru restaurants separately. She
explained that in this change, the Staff is proposing to stop allowing drive-thru banks in the
mixed-use zoning district. She added that the mixed-use district is for transit-ready
development, to promote walkability, pedestrian scale, and drive-thrus of any use are not
really appropriate in those areas. She noted that drive-thrus are allowed in other districts, and
a buffer was added that the drive-thru lane has to be 500 feet away from a residential use.
• Segelbaum stated that detailing all the various uses is very helpful, but he raised the concern
of what would happen if someone proposed a use that is not included in the table. He stated
that he presumed the Ordinance requires the Staff to identify the use most closely related to
the proposed use within the table, but he raised the concern of what would happen if the
applicant disagreed with the determination.
• Kramer noted that there is a provision for it in the Board of Zoning Appeals section. She
explained that the Board of Zoning Appeals has two functions: one is to hear variance
applications, and the other is to appeal administrative decisions made by staff.
• Cohen shared that the City is not trying to preclude a pet store that can sell pet supplies;
rather, the City is trying to preclude puppy mill-type selling of dogs and cats.
• Kramer furthered that at the top of the Commercial Use Summary Table, there is general
retail, which is everything else that is not specified, such as a pet supply store.
• Segelbaum asked about places in the Code where the City is making things more restrictive,
such as in Table 87-1 Residential Land Uses, Multi-family housing and dwellings up to 20 units
per acre, as it was 12 units per acre being permitted, but now that is restricted. He asked why
that is and if there are other places where things are more restrictive.
• Kramer explained that for the multi-family housing section, in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan,
the land use guidance for each residential section, low, medium, and high, has a really specific
number for density. She added that the edits in that section are an attempt to align the
zoning districts with the Comprehensive Plan land use guidance. She noted that in general,
the Staff thinks it is appropriate for an apartment building to go through some sort of zoning
review, not necessarily a public hearing, so that things do not get missed. She noted again the
drive-thrus in the mixed-use zoning district, but in general, the Staff went through the Code
and tried to find uses that did not need a public hearing.
• Segelbaum stated that on the flip, some uses go from C, which is a conditional use, all the way
to P, which is a permit, which is a two-layer relaxation. He added that one that jumped out to
him was the Retail Sales class, one and two restaurants, and professional offices. He asked for
clarification on that section of the code.
• Kramer explained that there has not been an application for this, and the language predates
all Planning Staff, but the Staff believes it is for larger multi-family developments to allow a
little bit of commercial use on the ground floor, with certain conditions that are found in the
table as well.
• Segelbaum asked if any others go from needing a Conditional Use Permit, CUP, to permitted.
• Kramer noted that the Staff did propose changing Brew Pubs from CUPs to permitted to
match restaurants, because Brew Pubs in the code are defined as restaurants that make a little
beer.
• Segelbaum asked whether, given the sale of alcohol, any other parts of the code would
protect against the sale of alcohol in specific locations.
• Kramer noted that it is all handled through the liquor license process, which is handled in a
different section of the Code.
• Ruby opened up the public hearing.
• Ruth Paradise, 8515 Duluth Street, addressed the items in Table 87-1, looking at the land 5
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, October 27, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
allocation in the zoning map, there is not much land set aside for zone R2, two-family
dwellings. She argued that two-family dwellings are not moderate in density, but rather still
should be considered low-density. She added that either they should be allowed in single-
family areas, or they have to have more land, because right now the R2 zones could never
have a duplex or a row house. She noted that in the table, it only permits single-family homes
in the majority of the land in the area set aside for residential dwellings. She stated that in
order for the City to accomplish its goals in economic development, as put forth in the
Comprehensive Plan, allowing more density in housing, plus a wider representation of age and
income groups, is an essential component of the effort for economic development in the City.
She continued that the initiative of missing middle-income housing needs to be included in
strategic planning in order to accomplish the City’s broader goals, and so staying with what the
City has is not going to do that in the end. She added that the land set aside for residential use
has to be redefined and conceptualized, that an increase in density is distributed throughout
the total available residential land area, which can be done in a controlled way, with many
examples of this being done without sacrificing safety or ease of traffic flow. She noted that
studies have shown that the type of more creative zoning structure leads to healthier and
stronger communities. She stated that if the proposal being put forward is temporary and
being put forward to make current policy more workable, she would suggest that it be
changed now to allow for two-unit families dwelling in R1 zones as a first step, and possibly
also allow not more than two row houses. She stated that in moving forward, the City could
be shooting itself in the foot, as more density is required for future economic development.
She referenced Table 87-4, which included units within the mixed-use building and multi-
family dwellings, three or more units. She explained these are designated for MNN and MNC
areas, neighborhood mixed-use and community mixed-use, but she could not find where
those categories are located in relation to R1, R2, etc. She asked if they are neighbors, mixed-
use, and what neighborhood they are in. She noted that it would be great if it were allowed in
all residential zones. She added that some type of definition would be helpful for the
layperson's benefit. She stated that in studies about middle-income housing that include
dwellings up to ten units should be part of the middle-income planning goals, and Table 87-1,
there had been a line for multi-dwellings with a density of 17, which could be replaced with a
new category of multi-family dwellings up to ten units.
• Teresa Beldon, 2937 Orchard Avenue North, asked if in Table 87-2, Economic and Business
Land Uses, states accessory retail services, and/or sales incidental to a permitted use,
conducted in an area less than ten percent of the building’s gross floor area, building greater
than three stories in height or building greater than four stories in height, are allowed to be in
residential zones, multi-use buildings.
• Kramer explained that the changes that are being talked about are beyond the scope of this
ordinance, and none of those changes will be made here. She added that there is a work
session taking place next door, where the Commission will be talking about missing middle
housing, and the residents are invited to attend. She noted that the changes being described
could be in another Ordinance next year, when the City takes a look at residential uses.
• Ruby closed the public hearing and opened the item for discussion.
• Hill followed up on the comments from the residents; it does not mean the Commission is
agreeing or disagreeing with the comments. He added that based on what the Commission is
recommending tonight and future discussion, it could be looked at in the future.
• Kramer explained that when the Planning Commission has a draft Ordinance in front of them,
the Commission can only make a recommendation on what is presented before the
Commission. She added that it would be a separate topic, but it is something that the Staff is
thinking about in the Comprehensive Plan update for next year, as housing is a high priority for
the City Council. 6
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, October 27, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
• Segelbaum commented that there have been comments that have been heard by the
Commission coming from the Council, that the Council would like to make the City a little
more business-friendly. He noted that most, if not all, of it is to relax the administrative
requirements and burdens that businesses have. He noted that there did not seem to be any
places where the City went too far in relaxing what was permitted. He voiced his concern
about a lot of changes at once, but it can be looked at in the future again if needed. He noted
his agreement with it.
• Ruby stated his agreement with it, as the language with it makes sense, it is clear, and it
moves the City in the right direction of what has been talked about.
• Ruby asked for a motion.
• Cohen moved to recommend approval of the Ordinance amending Code Section 113-1
Definitions, Section 113-30 Conditional Uses, and Section 113-87 Summary Use Tables, subject
to the findings and conditions in the Staff report.
• Sicotte seconded the motion.
• All voted in favor, and the motion passed.
5. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER UPDATES: -None
6. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Community Development
763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax)
Golden Valley Planning Commission Meeting
December 8, 2025
Agenda Item
3.A. Minor Subdivision and Variance at 400 Sunnyridge Lane
Prepared By
Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Summary
David and Jennifer Knaeble applied for a minor subdivision and variances for the property at 400
Sunnyridge Lane. The minor subdivision would allow the consolidation of three 40-foot lots into two
60-foot lots. The variances would allow the creation of new lots that do not meet the current lot width
minimum and lot area minimums in the R-1 zoning district.
Recommended Action
Recommend approval of the minor subdivision to divide the lot at 400 Sunnyridge Lane and the
variance to allow new lots less than the required minimum lot width and lot size, based on the findings
in the staff report.
Supporting Documents
Staff Report
Preliminary Plat
Applicant Narrative
Public Comment
8
Date: December 8, 2025
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Subject: Minor Subdivision and Variances for 400 Sunnyridge Lane
Relevant code sections
1. Minor subdivision regulations - Chapter 109 Subdivisions, Division 4 - Minor Subdivisions
and Consolidations Lot Size
2. Variances for minor subdivisions - Section 109-121(i): The conditions spelled out in this
section shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision or consolidation
except for the additional conditions imposed on residential zero lot line homes later in
this division. Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established
conditions. Additionally, an applicant may request a waiver from specific conditions
imposed in this section by applying for a variance in accordance with this chapter.
3. Buildable lots requirements in the R-1 zoning district - Section 113-88(j). No dwelling or
accessory structure shall be erected for use or occupancy as a residential dwelling on
any tract of unplatted land which does not conform with the requirements of this
section, except on those lots located within an approved plat. In the R-1 Zoning District a
platted lot of a minimum area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum width of 80 feet at
the front setback line shall be required for one single-family dwelling
Subject Property
Parcel ID Number: 1902924410110
Applicant/Property Owner: David and Jennifer Knaeble
Site Size: 0.35 acres, 15,217 square feet
Future Land Use: Low Density Residential
Zoning District: R-1 Single-Family Residential
Existing Use: Single family residential
Adjacent Properties: Single family residential
Background
The current owners of 400 Sunnyridge Lane purchased the property in March 2025. When they
purchased the property was 120 feet wide and contained a home built in 1952. They have since
demolished the home and subdivided their lot into three, 40-foot lots through Hennepin County’s
administrative tax parcel division process. The lots are now vacant. The property owners would
9
like to consolidate the three lots into two 60-foot wide lots. If City Council approves the lot
consolidation, the owners plan to construct a home on one lot and sell the other.
Site Image
2024 aerial photo (Hennepin County)
Planning Analysis
Lot consolidations are regulated under Chapter 109, Division 4 of the City Code. Because the
proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot width and lot size requirement in the R-1 zoning
district in Section 113-88(j), the applicants have applied for a variance under Section 109-121(i).
The table below contains the dimensional requirements in the R-1 district and the proposed
dimensions of the new lots.
Proposed
Lot Line
10
R-1 Standards Lot 1 (North) Lot 2 (South)
Lot Size 10,000 sq. ft. 7,682 sq. ft.* 7,673 sq ft.*
Lot Width 80 ft. 60 ft. * 60 ft.*
Front Setback 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.
Side Setbacks 5 ft. 12 and 6 ft. 12 and 6 ft.
Rear Setback 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.
*The applicants have applied for a variance to allow these dimensions.
Level of Discretion in Decision Making
The City has limited discretion when considering a lot consolidation application. Per State Statute
and City Code, the City must approve a lot consolidation application if it meets the requirements
listed in Section 109-121. The City has more discretion when considering variances. State Statute
and City Code define what criteria must be met for a variance, but the City interprets the
standards and some criteria are more subjective than others. All decisions on variance
applications must be supported, in writing, by findings of fact.
Eligibility
In keeping with Minn. Stats. § 462.358, subd. 1a, which allows for the establishment of more
than one class of subdivision and more than one set of regulations, certain proposed land
subdivisions and consolidations may qualify for application as a minor subdivision. Each of the
following conditions must be met to establish eligibility:
1. The land to be subdivided or consolidated must be part of a recorded plat or a recorded
registered land survey (RLS). The site is part of an existing plat: GLENWOOD.
2. Consolidations may involve any number of parcels, but subdivisions shall be limited to
the creation of four or fewer lots from one or more original parcels. The applicant
proposes to consolidate three existing lots into two lots.
3. The subdivision or consolidation shall not necessitate any additional public investment
in new roads or utilities to serve the lots. Staff has determined the proposal requires no
new roads or utility lines.
Staff finds the request meets these three conditions to be considered a minor subdivision.
Minor Subdivision Analysis
In reviewing this application, staff has examined the request in accordance with the standards
outlined in City Code Section 109-121, which provides the following eight (8) criteria for
granting a lot consolidation under the minor subdivision regulations.
11
1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of
the appropriate zoning district. The applicant applied for a variance to allow lots that do
not meet the minimum lot size or lot width in the R-1 zoning district. The proposed lots
meet all other dimensional requirements.
2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not
buildable. There is adequate space on the new lots for homes to be built in compliance
with setback requirements.
3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available
or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on city
utility systems by the addition of the new lots. One additional set of sewer and water
connections will be necessary. Staff finds there is sufficient service capacity of city utility
systems to serve two homes on the site.
4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the
city. The preliminary plat includes drainage and utility easements along all property
lines.
5. If public agencies other than the city have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the
minor subdivision, the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. Not
applicable.
6. The city may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of
certain easements. The City Attorney completed review of title and found racial
covenants recorded on the three 40-foot lots. Per the applicant’s request, City staff has
begun the process to discharge the covenants with the Examiner of Titles office. These
covenants are not legally enforceable and do not impact the current lot consolidation
application.
7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements. A park dedication
fee will be required for one new single family residential unit. The proposed 2026 fee
schedule sets park dedication fees for single family residential units at $13,000. If City
Council does not approve the proposed change to park dedication fees by the time the
final plat is ready to be recorded, the fee will be calculated with the currently-used
formula: 6% of the unimproved value of the total property, with a 50% reduction for the
previously demolished home.
8. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor subdivision.
Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions. The
applicant has applied for a variance for minimum lot area and lot width, and all other
conditions have been met.
Staff finds that, with the exceptions of minimum lot area and lot width, the request meets all
criteria for granting a minor subdivision in accordance with the purpose and all applicable
standards, requirements, and procedures identified in Golden Valley City Code Chapter 109.
12
Variance Analysis
In reviewing the variance application, staff reviewed the request against the standards in
Section 113-27(c) of the Code, which provides the variance standards in compliance with
Minnesota State Statute Section 462.357. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that
the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Each variance application must be reviewed based on the unique circumstance of the
application. For that reason, no variance sets a precedent because no two circumstances are
identical. However, if the city finds itself granting numerous similar variances, the City could
consider amendments to the city code.
Staff considered the following requirements in Section 113-27(c) when evaluating the variance
requests:
1. A variance may only be granted when the petitioner for the variance establishes that
there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. The term "practical
difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the applicant
shows compliance with the following:
a. The property owner must propose to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The applicant proposes consolidating three 40-foot lots into two 60-foot lots for
single family residential use. The surrounding properties are all single family
homes. Staff finds that the proposed use of the lots as single-family homes is a
reasonable use of the property.
b. The landowners’ problem must be due to circumstances unique to the property
that is not caused by the landowner.
This property is unique because it was originally platted as three 40-foot lots,
each approximately 5,129 square feet, and the owner may maintain the three
lots as-is, despite the fact they do not meet minimum lot width or lot area
requirements in the R-1 zoning district. The applicant states consolidating the
lots into two 60-foot wide, 7,700 square foot lots makes constructing homes that
meet current zoning standards much easier. Consolidating the three lots into
two also brings the lots closer into zoning code compliance, despite the smaller
lots being allowed by right.
Staff find the platting history of the site and nonconformity of the proposed lots,
despite deviating less from the dimensional standards of the R-1 district than the
current lots, creates a unique circumstance not created by the landowner.
c. And the variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality.
The neighborhood is predominantly single-family homes on lots of various
widths from 40 to 120 feet. There are several properties with 50, 70 or 80 foot
lots on the block. Some lots on the block appear to have been consolidated from
13
smaller lots in a similar fashion to what the applicant proposes to do with their
property. The area of lots on the block has a similar wide range of sizes.
Staff finds allowing the creation of the proposed will not alter the essential
character of the locality.
2. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Staff agrees with the applicant and finds that the practical difficulties in the variance
request are not solely due to economic considerations but rather to the manner in
which the property was previously platted.
3. The Board of Zoning Appeals may not grant a variance that would allow any use that is
not allowed under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land
is located. The property is located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district.
The applicant proposes creating single-family lots, which is a permitted use. Staff finds
the variance will not permit a use not allowed in the zoning district where the property
is located.
4. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. Staff finds that the variance is in line with the purpose of the R-1 district, which is
“to provide for detached single-family dwelling units at a low density along with directly
related and complementary uses.”
Staff also finds that the proposal to renovate the existing house is in line with the first
housing goal of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which is to “Maintain Housing Quality -
Maintain a high-quality living environment, preserve stable residential neighborhoods,
and where necessary, improve of the condition of existing housing stock in the City.”
Staff finds the variance request is in harmony with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and
the R-1 Single Family Residence zoning district.
5. Finally, when reviewing a variance, the City must first determine whether or not there is
a practical difficulty and, if so, is the requested variance the minimum action necessary
to eliminate the practical difficulty? The applicant considered maintaining the current
40-foot lots. Under the current zoning regulations, it is difficult to build single family
homes on 40-foot lots without additional variances. Staff finds the minimum action
necessary to eliminate the practical difficulty would be to grant a variance.
Public Notification
As required by ordinance, a neighborhood notice was published in the local paper of record and
mailed to all properties within 500 feet at least 10 days before the public hearing.
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting at City Hall on November 17, 2025. Four neighbors
attended and all supported the lot consolidation request.
At the time of this staff report, staff has received one letter in support of the applications.
14
Please see the email attached to this report.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the lot consolidation to combine three lots into two lots and the
variance application to allow the new lots to be below the minimum lot width and lot area
required in the R-1 zoning district.
Next Steps
City Council is tentatively scheduled to act on the lot consolidation and variance applications on
January 6, 2026. Once City Council approves the applications, the applicant will have 120 days to
submit a final plat application for Council approval.
Staff Contact Information
Prepared by:
Jacquelyn Kramer
Senior Planner
jkramer@goldenvalleymn.gov
Reviewed by:
Chloe McGuire
Deputy Community Development Director
cmcguire@goldenvalleymn.gov
15
SUNNYRIDGE LANE(A Public R/W)
ALLEY
(A Public R/W)Concrete WalkwayExisting HouseExisting HousePID: 1902924410110Address: 400 Sunnyridge LaneConcrete PID:1902924410111Address: 408 Sunnyridge LaneOwner: Richard Lewis KalmanPID: 1902924410109Address: 324 Sunnyridge LaneOwner: Kent Johnson & Kim FoleyWater Service(Per Markings in Field)8" DIP (Per Rec.)8" DIP (Per Rec.)Sanitary Service(Per Markings in Field)9" VSP (Per Rec.)9" VSP (Per Rec.)Found 1/2 InchOpen Iron PipeFound 1/2 InchOpen Iron PipeS89°38'41"E 128.11S00°11'05"E 120.01N89°38'51"W 127.78N00°20'40"W 120.02SUNNYRIDGE LANE(A Public R/W)
ALLEY
(A Public R/W)Concrete WalkwayExisting HouseExisting HousePID: 1902924410110Address: 400 Sunnyridge LaneConcrete PID:1902924410111Address: 408 Sunnyridge LaneOwner: Richard Lewis KalmanPID: 1902924410109Address: 324 Sunnyridge LaneOwner: Kent Johnson & Kim FoleyWater Service(Per Markings in Field)8" DIP (Per Rec.)8" DIP (Per Rec.)Sanitary Service(Per Markings in Field)9" VSP (Per Rec.)9" VSP (Per Rec.)Found 1/2 InchOpen Iron PipeFound 1/2 InchOpen Iron PipeS89°38'41"E 128.11S00°11'05"E 120.01N89°38'51"W 127.78N00°20'40"W 120.02 SUNNYRIDGE LANE10' D & U EASE., TYP.LOT 1, BLK 17,682 SFLOT 2, BLK 17,673 SF35' FSB25' RSB6' SSB60.00'60.00'128.11'12' SSB127.94'35' FSB25' RSB6' SSB12' SSB60.02'60.01'127.78'5' D & U EASE., TYP.10' D & U EASE., TYP.Civil Engineering ° Surveying ° LandscapeArchitecture5000 Glenwood AvenueGolden Valley, MN 55422civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cPROJECT
2025ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION10/31/25CITY SUBMITTALPROJECT MANAGERDAVID KNAEBLECONTACT NUMBER763-234-7523DRAWN BYDJKREVIEWED BYMPPROJECT NUMBER2510648776David J. KnaebleLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.10/31/25KATES WOODS
SECOND ADDITION
400 SUNNYRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422
DAVID AND JENNIFER KNAEBLE
227 SUNNYRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422
OWNERREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallR01" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NC1.0PRELIMINARY PLATOWNER INFORMATIONDAVID AND JENNIFER KNAEBLE227 SUNNYRIDGE LANEGOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422DAVID KNAEBLE763-234-7523DJKNAEBLE@GMAIL.COMSITE PLAN LEGEND:PROPERTY LINEPRELIMINARY PLAT NOTES:1.PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION: KATES WOODS SECOND ADDITION2.LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY:LOTS 314, 315 AND 316, "GLENWOOD", HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTATORRENS PROPERTYTORRENS CERTIFICATE NO. 10610113.SITE ADDRESS: 400 SUNNYRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY MN 554224.PROPERTY OWNER: DAVID AND JENNIFER KNAEBLE, 227 SUNNYRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 554225.SUBDIVIDER: DAVID AND JENNIFER KNAEBLE, 227 SUNNYRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 554226.ENGINEER: CIVIL SITE GROUP, 5000 GLENWOOD AVENUE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 554227.SURVEYOR: CIVIL SITE GROUP, 5000 GLENWOOD AVENUE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 - RORY SYNSTELIEN - 612-615-00608.CURRENT ZONING: R1 - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL9.THE GROSS LAND AREA IS 15,354 +/- SQUARE FEET OR 0.35 +/- ACRES.ZONING NOTES:CURRENT ZONING:R1 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALPROPOSED ZONING: R1 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING REGULATIONSMIN. LOT AREA: 10,000 SFMIN. LOT WIDTH: 80 FEET (MEAS. AT FSB AND CONTINUED 70 FEET FROM FRONT LOT LINE)MIN. LOT DEPTH: NASETBACKS:FRONT YARD: 35 FEETSIDE YARD: 10% [NORTH OR WEST]SIDE YARD: 20% [SOUTH OR EAST]REAR YARD: 25 FEETDRIVEWAY: 3 FEETBUILDING INFO:MAX. HEIGHT: 28 FEETMAX. STRAIGHT WALL: 32 FEET (THEN 2 FEET SHIFT FOR 8 FEET)EAVES CAN PROJECT 2.5 FEET INTO SETBACKSSETBACK LINED & U EASEMENT LINEZONING VARIANCE REQUESTS:MINIMUM LOT AREA [LOTS 1, 2]THIS PROJECT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENT OF 10,000 SF.MINIMUM LOT WIDTH [LOTS 1, 2]THIS PROJECT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT OF 80 FEET.16
400 Sunnyridge Lane Golden Valley, MN
Minor Subdivision Application – Project Narrative
PID: 1902924410110
October 31, 2025
Project Narrative
David and Jennifer Knaeble are seeking approval of a minor subdivision / lot consolidation of their
property located at 400 Sunnyridge Lane in Golden Valley. The property is currently 0.35 acres and is 3
separate platted 40’ lots. The proposed lot consolidation will combine the 3 lots into 2 – 60’ wide lots.
An existing single-family home has been demolished from the property. Prior to demolition, David and
Jennifer let the City of Golden Valley Fire Department do training within the house.
The property is currently zoned R1 – Single Family Residential. The existing zoning will be maintained
with the subdivision.
The project is requesting two variances for this minor subdivision / lot consolidation. One variance will
be for minimum lot area and the other variance will be for minimum lot width. The current property is 3
separate 40’ wide platted parcels of land that could accommodate 3 separate single-family homes
without any additional entitlements. The existing lots already do not meet the City minimum standard
for lot area and lot width. This application proposes consolidating these 3 platted lots into 2 slightly
larger lots. Discussions with multiple neighbors on this street indicate that there is strong support for the
proposed lot consolidation.
Lot 1, Block 1
Lot Size = 7,682 SF
Lot Width = 60.0 FT
Lot 2, Block 1
Lot Size = 7,673 SF
Lot Width = 60.0 FT
This subdivision will fit in with the character of the neighborhood and will bring multiple new families
to the City of Golden Valley. This project should have positive impacts to neighboring property values,
and will be a benefit to the City of Golden Valley for decades to come.
Sincerely,
David and Jennifer Knaeble
17
Hi Jacquelyn,
My wife, Rachel, and I live at 309 France Ave N in Golden Valley with our three daughters.
We received your letter about the proposed changes to the property at 400 Sunny Ridge
Lane in Golden Valley. We know the Knable's and are supportive of their desire to invest in
the neighborhood. They've been great neighbors and have made valuable investments in
the neighborhood in the past. We believe their proposal to sub-divide the property into two
60' lots is reasonable and appropriate for the neighborhood. Please let us know if you have
any questions.
Chris Green
18
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Community Development
763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax)
Golden Valley Planning Commission Meeting
December 8, 2025
Agenda Item
3.B. Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat and for Breck School, 123
Ottawa Avenue North
Prepared By
Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Summary
Breck School has applied for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat to
implement a long term, multi-phased, campus improvement project at 123 Ottawa Avenue.
Recommended Action
Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for
Breck School at 123 Ottawa Avenue, based on the findings in the staff report.
Supporting Documents
Staff Report
Pre-Application Neighborhood Engagement Memo
Traffic Study Report
Stormwater Management Narrative
Preliminary PUD Site Plan
Civil Plan Set
Preliminary Plat
19
Date: June 23, 2025
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Subject: Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat for Breck
School, 123 Ottawa Avenue
Subject Property
Parcel ID Number: 1902924340019
Applicant/Property Owner: Breck School
Site Size: 51.18 acres
Future Land Use: Institutional - Assembly
Zoning District: Institutional – Assembly; Planned Unit Development
Overlay (PUD No. 88)
Existing Uses: Pre-K through Grade 12 school
Adjacent Properties: The surrounding land uses are primarily single family
residential. Directly north of the property is railroad right of
way. West of the property is Highway 100. A few small
commercial properties are north and south of the school.
Southeast of the property is Natchez Park.
Breck school was originally founded in 1886 and in 1980 purchased the former Golden Valley
Junior and High School campus, their current location. Much of the open spaces on the campus
contains wetlands, floodplain, or shoreland overlay. The site is also encumbered by multiple
drainage, utility, and conservation easements.
20
Site
2024 Hennepin County Aerial
Background
The City approved PUD No. 88 for the existing campus in 2000 to consolidate multiple parcels
into a single property and establish a regulatory framework for campus development. PUD 88
permits operation of a private K–12 educational institution, along with related facilities such as
classrooms, athletic fields, parking areas, concessions, and other supporting uses and provides
impervious surface, height and setback flexibility for the existing structures. The City approved
amendments to PUD 88, once in 2012 and again in 2023, for building and site improvements.
Additional smaller-scale improvements to the site have occurred through the building permit
and PUD Administrative Amendment approval processes.
PUD 88 serves as the primary regulatory framework for land use, development standards, and
site modifications. The underlying Institutional Assembly zoning district applies only where PUD
88 does not establish specific provisions governing a particular element of development. Under
21
the current PUD approval, any new building, field, parking, or traffic improvement requires a
formal amendment each time the school seeks to modify its facilities or grounds. Alternatively,
the current PUD may be rescinded and a new PUD created to reflect current PUD requirements
and standards in the zoning code.
Breck School acquired the Chester Bird American Legion property (200 Lilac Drive North) in
2024 and is the first major expansion of the school campus site. This acquisition provided Breck
with an opportunity to create a long-range comprehensive plan for growth and reinvestment in
the campus. As part of this long-term plan, Breck School has applied for a Preliminary PUD to
replace PUD 88. A new PUD that includes all phases of the planned long-term improvements
allows construction of future phases without necessitating a PUD amendment at each project
phase; to consolidate the former American Legion Site into the larger campus parcel; and to
clean up inconsistencies between longstanding operations and previous PUD language.
The Preliminary Plat application consolidates the Legion parcel with the larger campus parcel.
The Final Plat approval will be contingent upon approval of the Final PUD.
Approval of a new PUD would require rescinding the previous PUD 88. This would be done via
City Council resolution at the same time Council approves the Final PUD.
Project Proposal
Breck School seeks to reinvest in its campus through a comprehensive long-range plan that
aligns with both contemporary educational needs and the City’s environmental and planning
goals. This 25+ year plan includes three phases, all of which are described in the PUD
application and shown in the project plans.
1. Site Infrastructure Improvements. Much of the existing campus infrastructure, including
stormwater management and infiltration compliance systems, dates back to its original
use as Golden Valley High School and Junior High School. The first phase of work will
address these longstanding needs by upgrading stormwater facilities, utilities,
mechanical/building services, and internal circulation to meet current design and
environmental standards. Inflow and infiltration improvements will also be completed
within this first phase. These foundational improvements are intended to enhance
campus functionality, improve safety, and support future vertical construction and
athletic field redevelopment.
As part of this work, Breck proposes to build out conservation easements and wetland
compliant walkways that can provide access to newly established wetland areas with
educational and recreational benefits in mind. Breck desires to undertake the
preliminary phase of infrastructure and building services work in Summer of 2026.
2. Middle School Replacement and Early Childhood Relocation. The second component of
this proposal involves demolishing and replacing the existing Middle School building and
relocating the current preschool classrooms. The current Middle School structure
remains largely unchanged from its original 1970s configuration and no longer meets
the functional needs of the academic program. The new Middle School will occupy the
22
same general location and a similar building footprint and increase in size from
approximately 58,100 to 85,000 square feet. The plans provide for updated classrooms,
collaborative learning areas, and flexible common spaces designed to support
contemporary educational practices.
The new Middle School wing will have a building height up to 70 feet, inclusive of
screening for rooftop equipment. The existing Breck Chapel stands at approximately 95
feet and will remain the tallest structure on campus at the completion of the project.
The Institutional zoning district permits building heights of up to 3 stories or 36 feet; the
PUD application includes a request for flexibility from this height maximum.
Breck also proposes relocating its early childhood education classrooms to the existing
middle school. Early childhood space will increase from approximately 14,500 square
feet to 17,600 square feet, accommodating current needs and reducing the overlap and
need for shared space that currently occurs between the three academic divisions. The
new entrance will require a decrease in the existing setback from the internal drive aisle
that will continue to serve as the primary carline drop-off route. Accordingly, the
application requests flexibility from internal setback requirements along this internal
circulation route. These adjustments are fully contained within the campus interior, do
not alter the external campus edges, and do not introduce new impacts to neighboring
properties or rights-of-way.
3. Legion Property and Athletic Field Improvement. The third phase of the project focuses
on athletic and field improvements, including the development of a new 47,300 square
foot athletic facility on the recently acquired American Legion property. The new
23
athletic facility will serve as a central space connecting McKnight Stadium with upgraded
baseball, softball, and multipurpose fields.
All athletic fields, except McKnight, will be elevated above existing grade to address
current and recurring flooding concerns. The new field elevations are coordinated with a
comprehensive stormwater management system designed to retain and treat on-site
runoff in full compliance with City and BCWMC standards.
Parking improvements are planned at the McKnight field. A newly configured access,
drive aisle, and parking area will be constructed to support the new Athletic Facility.
These improvements will enhance circulation, safety, and accessibility for campus
events and daily athletic programming, including providing for bus parking for traveling
teams at both McKnight and the Athletic Facility. It is anticipated that physical field and
related parking improvements will be completed in advance of the Athletic Facility and
Stadium Gateway construction. All infrastructure work necessary to support raising the
athletic fields and establish the new circulation and parking layout will occur as part of
the Infrastructure and Site Foundation phase of the project.
Traffic study
Breck School hired consulting firm SEH to conduct a Comprehensive Site Plan Traffic study,
which was completed and shared with the public and City staff in October 2025. The PUD plan
directly implements SEH’s recommendations and neighborhood priorities through a redesigned
drop-off plaza that creates clear separation between parent, bus, and parking traffic; and a
median refuge for two-stage pedestrian crossings thereby shortening crossing time, resulting in
smoother flow and shorter queues. With these improvements, on-site stacking increases from
approximately 55 to 90 vehicles, eliminating queue spillback onto Glenwood Avenue.
A future two-way Lilac Drive connection will provide an alternate bus entrance/exit, separating
bus traffic from parent and parking flows. This connection requires acquisition of additional
right of way from private homeowners or shared collaboration to realign the existing access in
conjunction with the City and the County.
Breck proposes to construct a gate at the school’s Natchez / Chatelain access which will remain
closed during non-peak hours to prevent neighborhood “cut throughs.” This gate would still
allow pedestrian access to the campus. Additional mitigations include limited on-street parking
during peaks, pedestrian crossing signage, staggered bus departures and new sidewalk links
near the existing drop-off plaza. Quantifiable outcomes from these investments include a
significant reduction in total vehicle delay and a proposed Glenwood delay improvement from
19.3 to 9.8 seconds.
The consulting team and City staff have begun discussion on off-campus partnership
opportunities with the City and Hennepin County to pursue corridor-level safety and
connectivity enhancements that complement the PUD plan. These include installation of a
sidewalk along the west side of Natchez Avenue and Chatelain Terrace or creation of a
boardwalk through the existing wetland area to separate vehicles and pedestrians;
24
participation in a City-led speed-feedback sign program on Natchez Avenue and surrounding
roads; and support to lower the speed limit from 30 to 25 mph. Breck is also prepared to
partner with the City and County to explore an added eastbound turn lane at Ottawa and
Glenwood, a marked crosswalk near Ottawa or Natchez, and improved pedestrian connections
along Glenwood Avenue linking neighborhood sidewalks to the school frontage.
Please see the attached Traffic Study for further information, including existing conditions,
proposed improvements in the project plans, and off-campus recommendations.
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Coordination
For several months, City Staff and the Breck consultant team have been communicating with
staff at the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). The mission of
BCWMC is stewardship of the Ȟaȟá Wakpádaŋ / Bassett Creek Watershed to reduce flood risk
and improve ecosystem health. The Breck School project requires approval from the BCWMC as
well as receiving a stormwater management permit from the City. City staff, the Breck
consultant team, and BCWMC staff met on November 10, 2025, to discuss the project and
receive BCWMC’s initial comments on the plans.
The BCWMC process can run concurrently with the City approval process. BCWMC will begin
formal review of the plans once City Council approves the Final PUD and Plat. The City
stormwater management permit process may be started before BCWMC’s formal review
begins, but the City won’t issue a stormwater management permit until BCWMC issues a letter
to the City stating the project meets the Watershed’s requirements.
Preliminary PUD Conference and Development Review Committee
Per Section 113-123(d)(2), Breck School and the consultant team first met with City staff for a
preapplication conference on October 29, 2024. The group discussed the long term plans for the
site, land use controls, design standards, and the application process. Over the next several
months the consultant team continued to communicate with City staff as they prepared the
project plans.
Once Breck School submitted formal applications on November 3, 2025, the Development Review
Committee, which includes staff from planning, fire, building, public works, engineering, and
environmental resources, reviewed the project plans. Staff generated a list of corrections and
questions related to details in the civil plan set, and the revision list has been shared with the
consultant team. Staff recommends a condition of approval for the Preliminary PUD that all plans
must comply with Staff comments, when applicable.
Open Space and Recreation Commission
The Open Space and Recreation Commission (OSRC) advises, recommends, and assists Council
in policies and plans relating to open space needs, parks and recreation programs, trail systems,
and Brookview Golf Course. On November 24, 2025, Planning Division staff presented the
project to the OSRC to gather their feedback, particularly regarding how the plans might impact
Natchez Park. Commissioners highlighted the importance of sidewalk and crosswalk
connections on the east side of Natchez Park, crossing Ottawa Avenue, leading onto the
25
campus. Many residents in the neighborhood use the walking trails in the campus and the
Commission would like public access to the proposed trails to continue. The Commission also
noted that with reduced bus service to Meadowbrook Elementary nearby, the southern edge of
Breck’s campus will have more school-aged pedestrians. Planning for this increase in pedestrian
traffic will impact any future plans for Lilac Avenue reconstruction. Finally, the commission
discussed potential stormwater management impacts to Natchez Park as a result of this project.
Planning Analysis
Level of Discretion
The City has a high level of discretion when considering a PUD application. PUDs are an optional
land use control and thus City Council has a broad range of considerations that may go into their
final decision. City Code Section 113-123 contains findings of fact that PUD applications must
meet, but the code does not specify how City Council must determine how these findings are met.
A PUD must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City may impose reasonable
requirements in a PUD not otherwise required if the City deems it necessary to promote the
general health, safety and welfare of the community and surrounding area.
The City’s discretion in approving a subdivision is limited to whether the proposed plat meets
the standards outlined in the City’s subdivision and zoning ordinance and the conditions of
approval. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the subdivision.
Preliminary PUD
In reviewing this application, staff has examined the Preliminary PUD request in accordance with
the standards outlined in Section 113-123 of the Code, which provides the criteria for granting a
Preliminary PUD. The PUD district intent is “to provide an optional method of regulating land use
which permits flexibility from the other provisions of the City Code, including flexibility in uses
allowed, setbacks, height, parking requirements, number of buildings on a lot, and similar
regulations in exchange for public benefit in the form of amenities.”
Since the site has an active PUD that the applicant proposes to rescind and replace with a new
PUD, Staff included both existing campus conditions and the proposed plan when evaluating the
criteria below.
Approval of a Preliminary PUD requires the following findings be made by the City:
1. Quality Site Planning. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and
achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under
conventional provisions of this chapter. The proposed Preliminary PUD incorporates the
unique characteristics of the existing institutional campus and integrates stormwater,
circulation, and infrastructure upgrades.
2. Preservation. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the
site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep
slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands and open waters. The PUD plan preserves
and protects substantial and desirable existing site features, including open space,
26
mature tree canopy, and the natural character that contributes to Breck’s campus
identity. Sensitive environmental areas are avoided, and improvements are focused
within the existing developed core of the site. Where there are impacts to existing
wetlands, mitigation is proposed. The proposed site plan provides additional
landscaping, greenspace within new and existing parking areas, and maintaining
screening along campus edges.
Stormwater management improvements are fully integrated with the redevelopment
plan. Elevated athletic fields, coordinated grading, and new filtration and treatment
systems are designed to manage runoff on-site and protect downstream resources. A
detailed stormwater narrative prepared by the project engineer addressing water
quality treatment, rate control, basin configuration, and compliance with City and
BCWMC requirements is attached. The PUD plan is designed to deliver necessary
campus improvements that comply with and support City and BCWMC requirement
while also ensuring that educational and neighborhood priorities are met.
1. Efficient; Effective. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes
preservation) of the land. The plan clusters compatible academic and athletic areas to
promote operational efficiency and improved circulation for students and visitors. Vertical
construction of the new Middle School limits the building footprint while meeting a
demonstrated need and keeps development within the existing campus core. This
approach preserves open space and avoids extending facilities closer to residential edges.
Site improvements are designed to also improve external traffic impacts. Flexibility from
internal setback requirements along the campus’s internal drive aisles allows Breck to
make site circulation improvements benefit drivers and pedestrians alike. Circulation
enhancements related to traffic flow within the site will help avoid additional demand on
public streets. The proposed plans and building footprints bring the existing impervious
surface standards into closer compliance with the I-A District standard. Overall, the PUD
plan allows Breck to meet current needs and plan for future phases while maintaining a
functional campus layout.
2. Consistency. The PUD plan results in development that is compatible with adjacent uses
and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. The
PUD plan is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals for educational, civic,
and open-space use within the Institutional Zoning District. The campus has functioned
as an educational institution since the 1950s, three decades before Breck’s arrival, when
the site was home to Golden Valley’s high school and junior high programming.
The school’s continued use of the property as a preschool –12 educational facility is a
natural continuation of the site’s longstanding and intended purpose. The surrounding
residential neighborhoods were developed concurrently with the original school, and
Breck’s stewardship of the campus has maintained the established balance between
institutional and residential uses for over four decades.
27
The proposed infrastructure upgrades, circulation refinements, and building
replacements maintain the established institutional character while modernizing
facilities to meet contemporary educational, environmental, and accessibility standards.
1. General Health. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general
health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. The Breck School PUD
advances the public health, safety, and welfare of students, faculty, and the surrounding
neighborhood through the infrastructure improvements previously described alongside
addressing documented traffic conditions and implementing measurable safety
improvements. Breck is committed to an ongoing partnership with the City and Hennepin
County to improve traffic conditions and pedestrian connectivity in the surrounding area.
2. Meets Requirements. The PUD plan meets the intent and purpose provisions of Subsection
(a) of this section and all other provisions of this section. The application meets the intent
of the PUD district by allowing uses and site design that would otherwise not be achievable
through the normal zoning regulations. The table below describes performance standards
in the proposed PUD and an explanation when flexibility when a deviation from standard
zoning requirements is requested. Note that some of the items in the table are due to
existing conditions on the site.
Standard Requirement Proposal
Frontage on public street Minimum of 100 feet or adequate to
serve the development
Code Compliant
Maximum building height Institutional district: 3 stories or 36
feet
Maximum allowable building height of
70 feet (Chapel steeple is exempt per
zoning ordinance). Existing height is
already 70 feet, and no addition would
go higher. The Chapel steeple is
exempt from height restrictions per
Section 113-96(f)(2)
Principal building setback
(from R-1)
Principal building must be no closer
to rear or side lot line than its height
Current building is setback 25.8’ from
north property line, proposed plans
will not increase the existing deviation
All building setbacks
(internal streets)
Minimum 15 feet from back of curb
along internal roads
Varies, 8’ minimum on site required to
enhance internal circulation
Hard surface coverage Institutional uses: maximum 45% of
total site area
Existing: 34.6%
Proposed: 36.7%
Vehicular Parking Provide total existing and proposed
parking count
Existing: 489
Proposed: 543
Parking flexibility Demonstrate efficient and effective
land use (may allow reduced parking
Enrollment will not increase with the
project improvements. Opportunity
28
for shared parking facilities between
school and athletic facilities
Bicycle parking Pedestrian improvements and
alternative transportation system
investment
Existing: 8
Proposed: 24
Additional bike racks may be provided
for the Project- currently bikes are
stored near entrances without
supplemental infrastructure
Employees 594 employees including substitute
teachers, coaches and summer
program staff
Section 113-123 contains additional standards all PUD applications must meet. Below are the
standards relevant to this application.
1. Frontage. Frontage on a public street shall be at least 100 feet or adequate to serve the
development. Frontage along all public streets will not change with this Preliminary PUD
and well exceeds the 100 feet minimum.
2. Setbacks.
a. The City may allow some flexibility in setbacks if it benefits all parties and the
environment. The table above explains the setback flexibility requested by the
applicant. Staff recommends approval of this request.
b. No principal building shall be closer than its height to the rear or side lot line when
such line abuts on a Single-Family Zoning District. Condition met (unchanged from
existing conditions).
c. No building shall be located less than 15 feet from the back of the curbline along
those roadways which are a part of the internal road system. Some minor
deviations may be allowed provided adequate separation is provided through
additional landscaping, berming or similar means. The applicant has requested
some deviation from this requirement, as explained above. Staff recommends
approval of this request.
3. Hard surfaces. Hard surface coverage is expected not to exceed 45% for institutional uses.
The proposed plans show 36.7% hard surface coverage at the completion of the project.
4. Public space/park dedication. Properties within PUDs are subject to the dedication of parks,
playgrounds, trails, open spaces, stormwater holding areas, and ponds as outlined
in Chapter 109, pertaining to subdivisions, the Comprehensive Plan, redevelopment plans,
or other City plans. The site contains playfields, open spaces, ponds, and wetlands. The
project plans include additional stormwater holding areas, wetland and floodplain
mitigation, and other water treatment facilities. Both the Breck School parcel and the
29
American Legion parcel were previously platted, so Staff is not recommending collecting
park dedication fees.
5. Public Amenities. All applications for new PUDs submitted after December 1, 2015, must
provide at least one amenity or combination of amenities that total at least five points
from the public amenity option table outlined in the City Code. The project plans provide
a combination of public amenities that exceed the five-point threshold. The project
proposes demonstrable community benefits through on-site improvements, off-site
partnerships, and long-term commitments to environmental stewardship and public
accessibility. The PUD plan integrates these amenities as permanent, functional, and
visible enhancements to the community, consistent with the intent of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and the PUD ordinance’s purpose to achieve superior design. Staff
recommends including the amenities described below in the Development Agreement.
Staff recommendations on specific items are bold.
Amenity Category Improvement Description PUD Amenity Points
Public open space /
landscape enhancement
Campus “greening” initiative adding new trees
and landscaped areas throughout existing and
new parking areas, providing shade, visual
enhancement. Staff recommend updating
plans to show landscaping exceeding minimal
requirements.
4
Innovative stormwater
management
Comprehensive sitewide stormwater
reconstruction to improve rate control and
capacity; wetland expansion and preservation
(beyond City and Watershed minimum
requirements)
2
Pedestrian & bicycle
connectivity
Addition of new sidewalks, marked crosswalks,
and refuge medians on campus; partnership
with City for sidewalk or boardwalk along
Natchez and Chatelain Terrace; coordination
for Glenwood Avenue pedestrian connections.
2
Public art Integration of campus art and interpretive
elements reflecting Breck’s educational mission
and community identity; opportunities for
neighborhood and nonprofit educational
partnerships. One or more installations may be
subject to City’s future Public Art Policy. Staff
will work with applicant to provide more
details on this amenity/amenities for Final
PUD submittal.
1
Traffic & safety
enhancements
Major redesign of circulation and drop-off plaza
reducing queue spillback and improving
3
30
intersection level of service; installation of
speed feedback signage off campus.
Sustainability Preservation of open space, large tree canopy,
dark skies compliant lighting for field areas, and
commitment to long-term stormwater
maintenance and watershed partnership.
2
Partnership with City /
County
Collaboration with the City and Hennepin
County on off-site mobility and safety
improvements including turn lane
improvements (not essential for LOS),
crosswalk feasibility, and corridor speed
management.
2
Staff finds the application meets all the requirements for a Preliminary PUD in Section 113-123.
Preliminary Plat
The applicant proposes a Preliminary Plat to consolidate the parcels at 123 Ottawa Avenue and
200 Lilac Drive into one parcel, and to add currently residential parcels that Breck owns to the
overall subdivision. Consolidating the 200 Lilac Drive parcel with the campus parcel allows for
construction of a new athletic building, reconfiguring parking and circulation, and stormwater
management improvements. The addition of the residential parcels to the subdivision allow for
future reconfiguration of Lilac Drive.
Staff finds that the preliminary plat meets the standards for the creation of one lot. Per Section
109-67, the approval of a preliminary plat is tentative only, involving only the general acceptability
of the layout as submitted. The Council may require changes or revisions as it deems necessary for
the health, safety, general welfare, and convenience of the City.
Public Notification and Community Engagement
Breck School held five neighborhood meetings before submitting applications to the City. At
these meetings, the consultant team presented the comprehensive site plan, goals of the
project, and gathered feedback on neighborhood concerns. Breck also created a page on their
website with project information and updates on the planning application process:
www.breckschool.org/about-breck/neighborhood-updates. Please see the attached memo
summarizing the pre-application community engagement. The main concerns neighbors raised
were regarding traffic and potential changes to Natchez Park. After hearing the neighborhood’s
initial feedback on the plans, the school is no longer proposing any changes in the park.
The Neighborhood Notification Policy requires the applicant to hold an official neighborhood
meeting once they submit applications to the City. The meeting was held at City Hall on
November 20, 2025, and included a remote attendance option via Teams. Attendees included
City staff, the project team, and about 10 members of the public. The group discussed the
history of the school and site; the comprehensive site plan and phasing of the project;
31
stormwater, floodplain, and wetland management; and traffic and parking. No one in
attendance voiced opposition to the project.
As required by ordinance, a public hearing notice was published in the local paper of record and
mailed to all properties within 500 feet of the site.
At the time of this staff report, staff has received no additional comments on the applications.
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary PUD, subject to the findings in the staff report and
the following conditions:
1. All plans must comply with City staff comments, as applicable.
2. Include the PUD amenities described in the staff report in the development agreement.
3. To qualify for PUD Amenity points, applicant will update plans to show landscaping
exceeding minimal requirements.
4. To qualify for PUD Amenity points, the sitewide stormwater reconstruction, wetland
expansion, and wetland preservation must exceed City and watershed minimum
requirements.
5. One or more art installations may be subject to City’s future Public Art Policy. Staff will
work with applicant to provide more details on this amenity/these amenities for Final PUD
submittal.
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to the findings in the staff report and
the following conditions:
1. The City Attorney will complete the title review prior to Council considering the
Preliminary Plat.
2. The Preliminary Plat approval will expire 120 days after the date of approval unless the
applicant has filed a complete application for approval of the Final Plat.
3. Approval of the Final Plat is contingent upon City approval of the Final PUD.
Next Steps
City Council will act on the Preliminary PUD and Plat applications on January 6, 2025. If Council
approves the applications, the project team will apply for the Final PUD and Final Plat. Approval
of a new PUD would require rescinding the previous PUD 88. This would be done via City
Council resolution at the same time Council approves the Final PUD.
If City Council approves the Final Plat, the subdivider shall then file it for recording with the
Hennepin County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles within 120 days of the date of the
resolution approving the Final Plat. If not filed within 120 days, the Final Plat shall be null and
void unless an extension is given by the Council.
BCWMC will begin formal review of the project once City Council approves the Final PUD and
Plat. The City won’t issue a stormwater management permit until BCWMC issues a letter to the
City stating the project meets the Watershed’s requirements.
32
Following City Council approval of a Final PUD plan, City staff shall prepare both a PUD permit
and a development agreement which reference all the approved plans and specify permitted
uses, allowable densities, development phasing, required improvements, neighborhood
communication plan if applicable, completion dates for improvements, letters of credit and
other sureties, and additional requirements for each PUD, in accordance with the conditions
established in the City Council approval of the Final PUD plan and PUD ordinance. The PUD
permit and development agreement shall be signed by the applicant or property owner within
30 days of the City Council's approval of the permit and agreement.
Staff Contact Information
Prepared by:
Jacquelyn Kramer
Senior Planner
jkramer@goldenvalleymn.gov
Reviewed by:
Chloe McGuire
Deputy Community Development Director
cmcguire@goldenvalleymn.gov
33
Memorandum
To: Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director
From: Megan Rogers; Breck School Development Team
Date: November 3, 2025
Re: Summary of Pre-Application Engagement
I. Overview
Breck School has engaged in a comprehensive, transparent, and proactive neighborhood and
staff engagement process preceding the submission of its PUD and Preliminary Plat application.
The goal of this process has been to ensure that the School’s 25-year campus plan reflects
meaningful community input and City collaboration from the earliest stages of project
development.
II. City Staff Coordination
Prior to application submittal, Breck School through it’s consultant team met with City staff to
discuss process expectations, timelines, and initial conceptual proposals. These early meetings
established a shared understanding of procedural requirements, key policy considerations, and
community priorities that informed the design and phasing of the proposed comprehensive site
plan.
III. Neighborhood Engagement
a. Neighborhood Meeting #1 – Project Introduction. In May 2025, Breck hosted
an introductory neighborhood meeting to present the preliminary comprehensive
site plan to residents. Outreach methods included:
Mailed invitations to all property owners within 1,000 feet of campus
Development page established on Breck’s website:
https://www.breckschool.org/about-breck/neighborhood-updates
Email notifications to prior community participants and Tyrol Hills
listserve.
During this meeting, attendees were introduced to Breck’s dedicated development
website for ongoing updates and feedback opportunities. A neighborhood mailing list
was also created to facilitate direct communication and meeting follow-ups.
b. Topic-Specific Follow-Up Meetings: Feedback from the May meeting identified
two key areas of community interest: Natchez Park and traffic circulation. Breck
responded by organizing separate, focused meetings on each topic.
34
2.
Natchez Park Meetings (June/July 2025)
The preliminary plan proposed Breck-funded improvements to Natchez Park and expansion of
environmental learning trails extending throughout the Highway 100 field. Through two
community meetings, advertised via the development website, neighborhood listserv, and email
list, the School heard clear feedback that neighbors value the existing character of Natchez
Park and were not supportive of increased Breck programming or usage in that space. As a
direct result, Breck redesigned its plans to remove the proposed park improvements.
Traffic Meetings (October 2025)
Breck held two additional public meetings focused solely on traffic impacts, inviting City staff
and elected officials to participate. These sessions were also advertised through the same
outreach channels and helped refine circulation planning and coordination with the City’s long-
term transportation goals. The draft traffic study prepared by SEH was provided to attendees.
Neighbors requested ongoing engagement on the proposed plans and referenced their support
III. Ongoing Communication
At each meeting, Breck updated and expanded its mailing list to ensure comprehensive notice
and continued transparency. Meeting summaries, plan revisions, and schedule updates have
been regularly posted on the School’s public engagement webpage and shared with attendees
by email. In compliance with City requirements, Breck will hold a formal neighborhood meeting
at Golden Valley City Hall, currently proposed for November 20th, following submission of its
application, with mailed and electronic notice provided consistent with the City’s neighborhood
meeting and public notice guidelines.
Breck School has undertaken a sustained, good-faith effort to engage neighbors and City
representatives well in advance of formal applications. The School’s design evolution reflects
direct community input, particularly regarding Natchez Park preservation and traffic
management, demonstrating Breck’s continued commitment to thoughtful, collaborative campus
planning that balances institutional needs with neighborhood interests.
4904-4457-3559, v. 1
35
Breck School
Comprehensive Site Plan
Traffic Study
Golden Valley, MN
BRSCH 184195 | October 3, 2025
36
SEH is a registered trademark of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
Error! Reference source not found. BRSCH 184195
i
Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................. 1
2 Existing Conditions ..................................................... 3
2.1 Breck School Site ................................................................................... 3
2.2 Roadway Network .................................................................................. 3
2.3 Site Observations ................................................................................... 4
2.4 Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................... 17
2.5 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Volumes and Speeds ...................... 26
3 Proposed Conditions ................................................. 29
4 Traffic Operations Analysis ....................................... 30
4.1 2025 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... 31
4.2 2025 Build Conditions ........................................................................... 34
5 Conclusion ................................................................ 37
5.1 Recommendation ................................................................................. 38
List of Tables
Table 1 – Residential Neighborhood Daily Traffic Volumes ..................................... 26
Table 2 – Residential Neighborhood Daily Traffic Volumes ..................................... 28
Table 3 – Level of Service Thresholds ..................................................................... 30
Table 4 – 2025 Existing Traffic Operations – Typical Day ........................................ 32
Table 5 – 2025 Existing Traffic Operations – Weekday and Sunday Events............ 33
Table 6 – 2025 Build Traffic Operations – Typical Day ............................................ 35
Table 7 – 2025 Build Traffic Operations – Weekday and Sunday Events ................ 36
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Project Location ........................................................................................ 2
Figure 2 – School Site Map ........................................................................................ 5
Figure 3 – School Arrival Traffic Patterns ................................................................... 6
Figure 4 – School Dismissal Traffic Patterns ............................................................ 11
Figure 5 – AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................... 18
Figure 6 – School Dismissal Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................... 19
Figure 7 – PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................... 20
Figure 8 – Weekday Event Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................... 21
Figure 9 – Sunday Event Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............................................. 22
Figure 10 – 15-Minute Traffic Volumes – Typical Day .............................................. 23
Figure 11 – 15-Minute Traffic Volumes – School vs. Non-School Traffic ................. 24
37
Contents (continued)
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
ii
Figure 12 – 15-Minute Traffic Volumes – Typical vs. Event Weekday Evenings ...... 25
Figure 13 – 15-Minute Traffic Volumes – Sunday Event .......................................... 25
Figure 14 – Natchez Avenue Hourly Traffic Volumes ............................................... 27
Figure 15 – Chatelain Terrace Hourly Traffic Volumes............................................. 27
Figure 16 – Breck Site Plan ...................................................................................... 29
List of Appendices
Appendix A Intersection Turning Movement Counts
Appendix B Residential Neighborhood Volume and Speed Data
Appendix C Traffic Operations Analysis Results
38
BRSCH 184195
Page 1
Breck School Comprehensive Site Plan
Traffic Study
Prepared for Breck School
1 Introduction
This traffic study provides the findings related to the Breck School site as part of the school’s
Comprehensive Site Plan update, analyzing potential improvements both on-site and on the
adjacent roadway network. Breck School is located on the north side of Glenwood Avenue, also
known as County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 40, just east of Trunk Highway (TH) 100. Recently,
the school purchased the Golden Valley American Legion site, located adjacent to the school site
on Lilac Drive. With the purchase of the property, the school is looking to update their
comprehensive site plan, which includes a new athletics building, improvements to the existing
school buildings, and improvements to the outdoor spaces on campus. As part of the
comprehensive site plan, Breck is not planning to increase school enrollment above the existing
approximately 1,200 students.
It is Breck’s goal to plan for the future as well as be good neighbors for their North Tyrol
neighborhood. The purpose of this traffic study is to better understand the existing issues and
then analyze potential improvements to safety and traffic operations both on-site and on the
adjacent roadway network of Glenwood Avenue, Natchez Avenue, and Chatelain Terrace.
With no increase in school enrollment and limited growth expected in the area, traffic operations
were only analyzed under existing 2025 conditions, looking at the AM (school arrival), school
dismissal, and PM peak hours. In addition, this study observed and analyzed both weekday
events and Sunday events at the school.
Speed and volume data was collected at two locations within the residential neighborhood to the
east of the school campus, where there has been concerns from neighbors with vehicle volumes
and speeds on the neighborhood roadways.
This study analyzed six intersections adjacent to the site, including the three existing school
accesses, two along Glenwood Avenue and one to Natchez Avenue/Chatelain Terrace in the
residential neighborhood on the east side of the campus.
Glenwood Avenue at the Southbound TH 100 Ramps .......................... Traffic Signal
Glenwood Avenue at the Northbound TH 100 Ramps .......................... Traffic Signal
Glenwood Avenue at Lilac Drive/Ottawa Avenue S ...................... Minor Stop Control
Glenwood Avenue at Ottawa Avenue N ....................................... Minor Stop Control
Glenwood Avenue at Natchez Avenue ......................................... Minor Stop Control
Ottawa Avenue N at Natchez Avenue/Chatelain Terrace ............. Minor Stop Control
Figure 1 shows the project location, study intersections, and radar count locations.
39
40
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 3
2 Existing Conditions
2.1 Breck School Site
The existing Breck School site serves students from pre-school through 12 th grade, with
approximately 1,200 students currently enrolled. The school has three parts, the lower school
(pre-school to 4th grade), middle school (5th to 8th grade), and upper school (9th to 12th grade).
Breck School has three access points, with Glenwood Avenue at Ottawa Avenue N being the
primary access for buses, parking, and parent pick-up/drop-off. The access on the east side of
the site to Natchez Avenue also provides access to parking lots and the parent pick-up/drop-off
area. The Glenwood Avenue at Lilac Drive access serves as the access to a student/staff parking
lot, former Golden Valley American Legion site, and other businesses/homes along Lilac Drive.
There is a one-way exit roadway on the west side of the school site that connects to Lilac Drive,
which serves as another exit point for vehicles on site, especially those using the parent pick-
up/drop-off.
Currently, all school buses enter the site on Ottawa Avenue N, loading and unloading students on
the north side of the building, and then exiting the site on Ottawa Avenue N. Athletic charters for
after school sports often enter the school site via Natchez Avenue.
On-site, there is student/staff parking located throughout the campus, with a single parent pick-
up/drop-off location on the south side of the school. Visitor parking on-site is provided in the
northernmost parking spaces of the parking lot on the west side of Ottawa Avenue N. Additional
visitor parking occurs on-street on Ottawa Avenue N.
Figure 2 shows the existing school site, noting major parking, pick-up/drop-off, and bus
loading/unloading areas.
2.2 Roadway Network
Glenwood Avenue (CSAH 40) is an east-west, minor arterial roadway that runs along the south
side of the Breck School site. Glenwood Avenue provides access to TH 100, just west of the
school site, as well as TH 55, I-394 (via Xenia Avenue), Theo Wirth Park, downtown Minneapolis
to the east, and many residential and commercial land uses. In the study area, Glenwood Avenue
is a 2-lane undivided roadway with turn lanes only at the TH 100 ramp intersections. At both
school access points (Lilac Drive and Ottawa Avenue N), Glenwood Avenue does not have any
existing turn lanes. The latest annual average daily traffic (AADT) for Glenwood Avenue east of
TH 100 is 7,765 vehicles per day. The posted speed limit on Glenwood Avenue is 35 mph.
Ottawa Avenue N serves as the main access point to Breck School and is a city roadway for
approximately 500 feet north of Glenwood Avenue before entering the school site. Other than
Breck School, Ottawa Avenue serves several residential properties located between Glenwood
Avenue and the school site. Ottawa Avenue N is a two-lane, undivided roadway with a speed
limit of 30 mph and a school zone speed limit of 20 mph.
Lilac Drive is a two-lane, local roadway that provides access to Breck student/staff parking, the
former American Legion site, Civil Site Group PC, and a single-family residence. The speed limit
on Lilac Drive is 30 mph.
41
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 4
Natchez Avenue is a two-lane, local roadway that runs north-south through the residential
neighborhood on the east side of the Breck School site. The roadway provides access to many
single-family homes as well as Natchez Park and the Breck School site. The speed limit on
Natchez Avenue is 30 mph.
Chatelain Terrace extends north from Natchez Avenue on the northeast side of the Breck School
site. The roadway provides access to single family homes as well as providing access to the
Breck School site. Chatelain Terrace provides a connection to the Olson Highway Service Road,
which provides access to/from TH 55. The speed limit on Chatelain Terrace is 30 mph.
2.3 Site Observations
As part of this study, the school site was observed during the AM (school arrival) peak hour,
school dismissal peak hour, and during two different event days on site to understand how the
campus currently operates to better analyze potential safety and operational improvements on
site and on the surrounding roadway network.
2.3.1 AM (Arrival) Peak Hour
During the AM peak hour, there is a significant amount of traffic entering the site between 8:00
and 8:30 AM to park or drop-off children. The significant traffic demands, especially in the 15-
minute just before school starts, result in congestion in and around the Breck School site. To
improve traffic flow and manage vehicle queues, there are three staff-controlled intersections and
one police controlled intersection in the school area, which are listed below:
Breck Staff Controlled (8:00 to 8:30 AM)
The west end of the parent drop-off area – staff member keeps drop-off traffic moving
and manages conflicts between pedestrians, buses, drop-off vehicles, and parking
vehicles in the drop-off area.
Ottawa Avenue N at the Pick-up/Drop-off Plaza – staff member manages conflicts
between pedestrians crossing the west side of the intersection, buses, drop-off vehicles,
and vehicles exiting the drop-off area.
Glenwood Avenue at Ottawa Avenue N – staff member facilities the heavy traffic flow
into the school site on Ottawa Avenue, working to keep traffic moving while reducing
eastbound queues on Glenwood Avenue. From 8:00 to 8:30 AM, southbound left turns
onto Glenwood Avenue are prohibited.
Police Officer Controlled (8:10 to 8:30 AM)
Glenwood Avenue at the Northbound TH 100 Ramps – officer controls traffic at the
intersection, working to manage queuing at the intersection, especially on the TH 100 exit
ramp. With eastbound queues from Ottawa Avenue N reaching the intersection, the
officer keeps vehicles from blocking the intersection and creating gridlock.
Figure 3 shows school arrival traffic conditions, including intersections that are controlled during
peak arrival periods as well as bus and drop-off vehicle routes. Below are additional observations
both on-site and on the surrounding roadway networks.
42
43
44
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 7
2.3.1.1 Internal Site – Arrival
Congestion on-site arises from the conflicts between left turns from Ottawa Avenue N
into the drop-off area, pedestrians in the crosswalk on the west side of the intersection,
and vehicles exiting the site to Glenwood Avenue from the tennis court area.
The high number of vehicles and pedestrians going through a single intersection,
especially during the 15-minute peak right before school starts, results in long
queues on Ottawa Avenue, which reach Glenwood Avenue at times.
When the school buses exit during the 15-minute peak period, often several in quick
succession, it increases congestion at this intersection.
There are vehicles dropping off, trying to park, and buses all in the drop-off area at the
same time, which increases congestion within the drop-off area.
Some drivers drop-off their students immediately after entering the drop-off area, without
pulling forward to the back of the line, which increases congestion.
It should be noted that there are signs instructing parents dropping off to pull forward.
Parked vehicles on Ottawa Avenue N, south of the drop-off area, cause some vehicles,
especially buses, to hesitate when exiting the site because the roadway space gets
narrow. This increases congestion and reduces the efficiency of traffic flow for vehicles
going into the drop-off area and exiting the site on Ottawa Avenue N.
2.3.1.2 Glenwood Avenue at Ottawa Avenue – Arrival
Staff member controls the intersection from 8:00 to 8:30 AM, no southbound left turns
during that same time period.
The person mostly controls conflicts between the heavy eastbound left turn
movement and westbound vehicles.
Eastbound through and southbound right operate as normal, although eastbound
throughs get struck in queues behind eastbound left turning vehicles.
The only time the staff member stopped traffic to allow for southbound vehicles to
enter Glenwood Avenue was when the school buses exited the site.
In general, the staff member does a good job managing queues on Glenwood
Avenue to reduce impacts as much as possible given the high volume of traffic
entering the site during the 15-minutes prior to the start of school.
45
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 8
Queues on Ottawa Avenue N would back onto Glenwood Avenue very briefly at times.
2.3.1.3 Glenwood Avenue at Lilac Drive – Arrival
Queues on Lilac Drive are generally short (2 or 3 vehicles) unless a vehicle tries to take a
left turn from Lilac Drive onto Glenwood Avenue.
At times, vehicles create two lanes on Lilac Drive exiting the school.
The eastbound queue on Glenwood Avenue blocks traffic from making a turn from
Ottawa Avenue S at times.
2.3.1.4 Glenwood Avenue at the Northbound TH 100 Ramps – Arrival
The signal is put into flashing red mode and controlled by a police officer from
approximately 8:10 to 8:30 AM. The exact time the officer begins controlling the
intersection depends on when eastbound queues start to reach the intersection.
The officer controls the intersection to manage queueing and gridlock at the
intersection during the school arrival peak, primarily for eastbound traffic and
southbound lefts turns from the TH 100 ramp entering the back of the queue from the
Ottawa Avenue N access.
The eastbound queue on Glenwood Avenue reaches the Northbound TH 100 Ramp
intersection regularly between approximately 8:10 and 8:25 due to the peak school arrival
traffic demands.
The queues would typically reach the intersection, move forward, and then fill again
regularly, resulting in more of a rolling queue rather than significant or persistent
gridlock/queueing.
46
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 9
2.3.1.5 Glenwood Avenue at the Southbound TH 100 Ramps – Arrival
This signal continues to operate normally during school arrival.
Eastbound queues on Glenwood Avenue from the Northbound TH 100 Ramp intersection
can reach the intersection at times, but vehicles do not block the intersection, and it does
not cause significant issues at the intersection.
The queues occur between 8:15 and 8:20 when traffic demands are at their highest
and reach the intersection for very short periods of time (10 to 30 seconds).
2.3.1.6 Ottawa Avenue N at Natchez Avenue/Chatelain Terrace – Arrival
Many vehicles drive over the double white lines painted on the west side of Chatelain
Terrace north of Ottawa Avenue N, which is supposed to be designated for pedestrians
walking along the roadway.
No school buses exiting to Natchez Avenue during school arrival.
Most vehicles exiting the school to Natchez Avenue/Chatelain Terrace come from behind
the school, perhaps an alternate route when exiting the drop-off area to avoid trying to
take a left turn onto Glenwood Avenue at the Lilac Drive access.
2.3.2 School Dismissal Peak Hour
During school dismissal, there is a significant amount of traffic entering and exiting the site
between 3:00 and 3:45 PM, especially in the 10 minutes on either side of the 3:20 PM dismissal
time. Within the school dismissal peak, there are two miniature peaks of traffic. The first is an
increase in traffic demands entering the site to pick up students, which occurs prior to school
ending. The second is the rush of traffic to leave the site after school dismisses at 3:20 PM. In
general, congestion on the site is lower during school dismissal because there are lower overall
traffic demands, however, there are still areas with congestion. To manage congestion and keep
traffic flowing during school dismissal, there are four staff-controlled intersections and one police
controlled intersection in the school area, which are listed below:
Breck Staff Controlled (3:00 to 3:40 PM)
The west end of the parent pick-up area – staff member keeps pick-up traffic moving
and manages conflicts between pedestrians, buses, pick-up vehicles, and other vehicles
in the pick-up area.
Ottawa Avenue N at the Pick-up/Drop-off Plaza – staff member manages conflicts
between pedestrians crossing the west side of the intersection, buses, pick-up vehicles
coming from the east, and vehicles exiting the pick-up area.
Ottawa Avenue N at the Visitor Parking Entrance – staff member closes northbound
Ottawa Avenue N to everyone except school buses between visitor parking entrance and
the pick-up area from 3:00 to 3:35 PM. This staff member then facilitates vehicles in and
out of the parking lot, either for pick-up or for vehicles exiting the parking lot.
Glenwood Avenue at Ottawa Avenue N – staff member facilities the heavy traffic flow
out of the school site on Ottawa Avenue, working to keep traffic moving while managing
westbound queues on Glenwood Avenue. The staff member helps create gaps in
Glenwood Avenue traffic for southbound left and right turning traffic exiting the school.
47
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 10
Police Officer Controlled (3:10 to 3:40 PM)
Glenwood Avenue at the Northbound TH 100 Ramps – officer controls traffic at the
intersection, working to manage queuing at the intersection, especially on westbound
Glenwood Avenue. With westbound queues on Glenwood Avenue reaching Ottawa
Avenue N, the officer keeps westbound traffic moving to avoid gridlock at the Ottawa
Avenue intersection.
Figure 4 shows school dismissal traffic conditions, including intersections that are controlled
during peak dismissal periods as well as bus and pick-up vehicle routes. Below are additional
observations both on-site and on the surrounding roadway networks.
48
49
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 12
2.3.2.1 Internal Site – Dismissal
With northbound Ottawa Avenue N closed to everyone except school buses between the
parking lot access and pick-up area from 3:00 and 3:35 PM, pick-up activity occurs within
the visitor lot.
Just before school ends, the visitor parking lot is full, and parents are waiting in the
driving aisle for their children or for a parking space to open.
To keep vehicles from exiting the north side of the visitor lot, the access is closed
during school dismissal.
With northbound Ottawa Avenue N to everyone except school buses, all vehicles using
the main pick-up area must enter the school site using Natchez Avenue/Chatelain
Terrace.
At times, queues on Ottawa Avenue by the tennis courts backs onto Natchez Avenue
There is also some pick-up activity for the upper school that occurs near the tennis
courts to avoid the main pick-up area.
Westbound Ottawa Avenue (by the tennis courts) uses all three lanes during dismissal,
with vehicles looking to exit the site driving westbound in the eastbound travel lane. Lane
uses are as follows (from north to south):
Upper school pick-up
Lower and middle school pick-up queue (going to the main pick-up area)
Existing vehicles using the eastbound lane to go westbound, mostly vehicles exiting
the senior lot or who have picked up their child.
At the pick-up area intersection, vehicles from all three lanes turn into the main pick-
up area, which causes confusion at times.
50
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 13
When picking up in the main pick-up area, some vehicles do not move up as the queue
moves, which leaves a gap and increases overall queuing.
It should be noted that there are signs instructing parents picking up to pull forward.
Buses arrive between 3:10 and 3:20 PM, as school pick-up traffic demands increase,
which leads to increased congestion.
All buses load in a line behind the school, with only buses allowed on the north side of
the school from 3:00 to 3:30 PM.
All buses exit at the same time while pick-up activity is still happening on site, which
causes increased congestion at the Ottawa Avenue N/pick-up intersection.
51
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 14
The queue of just buses exiting the site can extend up Ottawa Avenue N and reach
close to the pick-up area.
If buses waited approximately 5 minutes, the site would be almost totally cleared.
2.3.2.2 Glenwood Avenue at Ottawa Avenue – Dismissal
Staff member controls the intersection from 3:05 to 3:40 PM
The person mostly controls conflicts between all movements, helping to facilitate
gaps in traffic for southbound left and right turning traffic exiting the school.
With westbound queues backing from the Northbound TH 100 Ramp intersection and
briefly reaching Ottawa Avenue at times, the staff members works to control
westbound queuing while maintaining traffic flow for all movements.
Queues on southbound Ottawa Avenue tend to get longer when a vehicle wants to
make a southbound left turn because the staff person must stop both directions of
Glenwood Avenue traffic.
When all of the buses exit the site, the staff member stops all traffic at the
intersection to allow the buses to exit, which lasts approximately 2 minutes. To
bypass the southbound queue on Ottawa Avenue, school buses drive down the
wrong side of Ottawa Avenue N when exiting.
52
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 15
From 3:00 to 3:20 PM, before school ends, there is increased traffic demands entering
the school site. After 3:20, the primary movement then shifts to vehicles exiting the site.
2.3.2.3 Glenwood Avenue at Lilac Drive – Dismissal
Queues on Lilac Drive are generally short (2 or 3 vehicles) unless a vehicle tries to take a
left turn from Lilac Drive onto Glenwood Avenue.
At times, vehicles create two lanes on Lilac Drive exiting the school.
Queues westbound on Glenwood Avenue block the intersection at times, which
contributes to some longer queues (5 or 6 vehicles)
2.3.2.4 Glenwood Avenue at the Northbound TH 100 Ramps – Dismissal
The signal is put into flashing red mode and controlled by a police officer from
approximately 3:05 to 3:40 PM. The exact time the officer begins controlling the
intersection depends on when traffic demands and queueing starts to increase.
The officer controls the intersection to manage queueing and gridlock at the
intersection during the school dismissal peak, primarily for westbound traffic exiting
the school site.
Eastbound Glenwood Avenue queues do not reach the Northbound TH 100 Ramp
intersection during school dismissal, except briefly during the time when school buses
are exiting the site and all other traffic is stopped at the Ottawa Avenue intersection.
2.3.2.5 Glenwood Avenue at the Southbound TH 100 Ramps – Dismissal
This signal continues to operate normally during school dismissal.
Eastbound queues on Glenwood Avenue from the Northbound TH 100 Ramp intersection
can reach the intersection at times between 3:15 and 3:20 PM during the peak of pick-up
traffic arriving at the school.
No westbound Glenwood Avenue queueing issues, except briefly when all of the buses
are leaving the school site.
2.3.2.6 Ottawa Avenue N at Natchez Avenue/Chatelain Terrace – Dismissal
Vehicles drive over the double white lines painted on the west side of Chatelain Terrace
north of Ottawa Avenue N, which is supposed to be designated for pedestrians walking
along the roadway.
No school buses entering or exiting using Natchez Avenue or Chatelain Terrace. Athletic
charters for after school sports often enter the school site via Natchez Avenue.
53
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 16
Westbound queues on Ottawa Avenue N can reach Natchez Avenue at times, resulting 3
to 6 vehicles waiting on Natchez Avenue to enter the school area.
A few parents pick up their children directly on Chatelain Terrace or Natchez Avenue to
avoid entering the school site.
Some exiting vehicles come from behind the school, likely either staff or parents after the
school buses clear out from the north side of the building.
2.3.3 Weekday Events
Weekday event site operations were observed on Tuesday, April 22, 2025. On that evening,
there were several events on the school campus, with different start times. Events on campus
included a middle school track meet, varsity boys’ tennis match, JV and varsity baseball, and
indoor rentals of all 6 of Brecks basketball courts. As a result of the multiple overlapping events,
there was traffic entering and exiting the site throughout the evening.
During typical weekday events, all intersections operate as normal with no additional traffic
control or turning restrictions. Below are the observations from the weekday evening events.
Despite the many events occurring on the campus, there is plenty of parking on-site to
accommodate event traffic.
Drivers tend to park in the parking lot closest to the area of their event, with minimal
walking across the school site.
There was some pedestrian crossing activity on the east end of the drop-off/pick-up
plaza for people using the indoor gyms. Generally, they would cross in larger groups
going to/from the gym.
There was some level of parking activity in all of the parking lots on the site, including on-
street parking on Ottawa Avenue.
For the track and field meet, there was some activity on the field on the east side of
Ottawa Avenue, so there were athletes/parents crossing Ottawa Avenue.
There is no marked crosswalk to the field so people tended to cross wherever they
could between parked vehicles.
At times, the parked vehicles on Ottawa Avenue made it difficult for vehicles driving
through the site to see pedestrians that were going to cross.
Overall, there was no significant congestion for vehicles entering or exiting the site. There
would be spot congestion as an event would end and everyone would attempt to leave
the site at the same time, but no major queuing or delay issues.
54
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 17
2.3.4 Sunday Events
Sunday event operations were observed on Sunday, April 13, 2025. On that day, the Breck
School site hosted NFL flag football as well as a group renting the fieldhouse. Flag football runs
from 9 AM to 5 PM, with players, coaches, and parents coming in and out of the school site
throughout the day as each game starts and ends.
During Sunday events, all intersections operate as normal with no additional traffic control or
turning restrictions. Below are the observations from the Sunday events.
Flag football took place in McKnight Stadium, with teams practicing on the field and in the
park on the east side of Ottawa Avenue. As a result, most of the parking occurred in the
lot on the west side of Ottawa Avenue and on-street along Ottawa Avenue N.
At peak times, during the overlap between teams arriving and leaving, vehicles were
parked all along both sides of Ottawa Avenue near the practice field and on just the
west side of Ottawa Avenue all the way to the single-family homes south of the
school site.
With flag football activity taking place on both sides of Ottawa Avenue, there was
significant pedestrian crossing activity along Ottawa Avenue, with most children and
parents crossing at a convenient location between parked cars rather than a marked
crosswalk.
At times, the parked vehicles on Ottawa Avenue made it difficult for vehicles driving
through the site to see pedestrians that were going to cross. This was especially
difficult during the times between games when traffic volumes were highest.
Overall, there was no significant congestion for vehicles entering or exiting the site. There
would be spot congestion between games as teams would be arriving and leaving at the
same time, but no major queuing or delay issues.
2.4 Traffic Volumes
Turning movement counts were collected at the six study intersection during three separate time
periods to capture typical weekday, weekday event, and Sunday event conditions. As part of the
counts, passenger vehicles, heavy vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists were separated. Below is
a summary of the time periods traffic turning movement data was collected. The full traffic counts
can be found in Appendix A.
Typical Weekday – Tuesday, March 11, 2025 – 6 AM to 7 PM
Weekday Events – Tuesday, April 22, 2025 – 2 PM to 9 PM
Sunday Events – Sunday, April 13, 2025 – 8 AM to 6 PM
Based on the traffic volumes, three typical peak hours and two event peak hours were identified
for analysis, which are shown below. Figures 5 through 9 show the peak hour traffic demands
as well as the distribution of traffic between the school driveways and external routes for each
peak hour.
AM Peak Hour – 7:45 to 8:45 AM
School Dismissal Peak Hour – 3:15 to 4:15 PM
PM Peak Hour – 5:00 to 6:00 PM
Weekday Event Peak Hour – 4:30 to 5:30 PM
Sunday Event Peak Hour – 11:15 AM to 12:15 PM
55
56
57
58
59
60
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 23
Similar to all schools, Breck School has significant peak traffic demands during the 30-minute
periods before and after school, with limited traffic volumes outside of the arrival and dismissal
peaks. As a result, there is often congestion around schools for 30 minutes before and after
school, which was seen during the observations of the site. During the remaining 23 hours of the
day, there is minimal congestion related to school traffic in the area. Figure 10 shows the 15-
minute volumes entering and exiting the school site during a typical day through the 13-hour
count period. Looking at the Breck School 15-minute traffic volumes, there are two significant 30-
minute peaks, 8:00 to 8:30 AM (arrival) and 3:15 to 3:45 PM (dismissal), with significantly higher
traffic demands during the AM peak hour. During the rest of the school day, there are less than
50 trips in and out of the school site during each 15-minute period. After school hours, there is
increased traffic demand in the evenings, with events happening within the Breck School site.
Figure 10 – 15-Minute Traffic Volumes – Typical Day
Figure 11 compares the 15-minute traffic volumes for Breck School with all non-Breck trips in the
study area. Based on the traffic counts, Breck School traffic outnumbers non-school traffic during
the AM peak hour. In addition, the AM peak hour of the roadway overlaps with the school arrival
peak period, resulting in higher overall traffic demands and increased congestion seen on-site
and on Glenwood Avenue. In comparison, the school dismissal peak for the school occurs before
the typical PM peak of the adjacent roadways, which results in lower overall traffic demands and
less congestion.
61
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 24
Figure 11 – 15-Minute Traffic Volumes – School vs. Non-School Traffic
Figure 12 compares the 15-minute traffic volumes for Breck School on a typical weekday
evening with an event. The traffic counts show that on days with a larger number of events on
site, there are lower traffic demands during the school dismissal peak period, as more students
stay on site for after school activities. Then, as events begin and end, there are peaks in traffic
demands in and out of the school site, which are spread throughout the evening. Weekday event
peak traffic never reaches the level of a typical school arrival or dismissal peak period, which is
why there is minimal congestion on site and no significant impacts to surrounding roadways.
Figure 13 shows the 15-minute traffic volumes during the Sunday Flag Football event on the
Breck School site. The traffic counts show that there are short peaks approximately each hour as
traffic circulates in and out of the site between each game. Sunday event peak traffic never
reaches the level of a typical school arrival or dismissal peak period, which is why there is
minimal congestion on site and no significant impacts to surrounding roadways.
62
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 25
Figure 12 – 15-Minute Traffic Volumes – Typical vs. Event Weekday Evenings
Figure 13 – 15-Minute Traffic Volumes – Sunday Event
63
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 26
2.5 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Volumes and Speeds
There have been concerns from neighbors about vehicle volumes and speeds on the
neighborhood roadways directly east of the Breck School site. To better understand the potential
issues, volume and speed data was collected on both Natchez Avenue and Chatelain Terrace
from Saturday, April 12, 2025, through Friday, April 18, 2025. Volume data was compared to a
count from a 2012 study within the neighborhood, which counted when school was and was not
in session to understand the impact of Breck School on neighborhood traffic volumes. The speed
data was analyzed, and school peak speeds were compared to other times of the day. The
location of the two radar counters used to collect volume and speed data are shown in Figure 1
and described below. The locations for the radar were chosen to avoid lower vehicle speeds near
intersections. Full volume and speed data for each location can be found in Appendix B.
Natchez Avenue near Natchez Park
Chatelain Terrace between Ottawa Avenue N and Westwood Drive
2.5.1 Volume Data
Daily traffic volumes on Natchez Avenue and Chatelain Terrace for the weekdays were
compared to counts completed in 2012 as part of a previous study looking at traffic volumes on
neighborhood roadways with and without Breck School traffic. Table 1 shows a comparison of
the 2025 daily traffic volumes to the 2012 daily traffic volumes with and without Breck School
traffic.
Based on the traffic data, traffic volumes on Natchez Avenue have not changed significantly
since 2012 and traffic volumes are approximately 300 vehicles per day higher when school is in
session. On Chatelain Terrace, traffic volumes have increased since 2012 by approximately 60
vehicles per day, with 40-100 more vehicles per day on Chatelain Terrace when school is in
session.
Table 1 – Residential Neighborhood Daily Traffic Volumes
Roadway
April 2025 April/May 2012 June/July 2012
School in Session School in Session Summer Break
(no School)
Natchez Avenue 640 630 350
Chatelain Terrace 340 280 240
Figures 14 and 15 show the typical hourly weekday traffic volumes on Natchez Avenue and
Chatelain Terrace. For both roadways, there are peaks in traffic volumes in the 8 AM and 3 PM
hours, during school arrival and dismissal. During dismissal, there is a higher peak on Natchez
Avenue, which is likely due to parents picking up needing to use Natchez Avenue to access the
school due to northbound Ottawa Avenue being closed for vehicles wanting to use the main
school pick-up area. During arrival, there is also a peak in Natchez Avenue traffic, despite all
drop-off traffic being allowed to enter/exit the site on Ottawa Avenue, this could be due to drivers
preferring the Natchez Avenue access to avoid the congestion on Glenwood Avenue and Ottawa
Avenue. Chatelain Terrace provides a route that is likely preferred over other routes to access
the school from TH 55, which is why there are peaks in traffic volumes around school arrival and
dismissal.
64
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 27
Figure 14 – Natchez Avenue Hourly Traffic Volumes
Figure 15 – Chatelain Terrace Hourly Traffic Volumes
65
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 28
2.5.2 Speed Data
Speed data was reviewed for both Natchez Avenue for both school peak periods and non-peak
periods to determine if there was a change in overall speed on the neighborhood roadways
related to school traffic. Based on the traffic data, there is less than a 1 mph difference between
average and 85th percentile speeds during school peaks and the rest of the day, so there is no
major change in vehicle speeds related to school traffic.
Table 2 summarizes the average and 85th percentile speeds on both Natchez Avenue and
Chatelain Terrace.
Based on the speed data, the average speed on Natchez Avenue is 29 mph, with an 85th
percentile speed of 33 mph. Approximately 37% of all vehicles exceed the 30 mph speed limit,
with approximately 8% exceeding 35 mph. While the speeds on Natchez Avenue are not
excessive, it would be beneficial to lower speeds on the roadway, especially with the adjacent
park and single-family residences.
Based on the speed data, traffic speeds on Chatelain Terrace are within normal operating speeds
for a 30 mph roadway, with both the average and 85th percentile speeds being under 30 mph.
Speeds are likely lower on Chatelain Terrace due to the two curves in the roadway.
Table 2 – Residential Neighborhood Daily Traffic Volumes
Roadway Measure Northbound Southbound Combined
Natchez
Avenue
Average Speed 29 mph 28 mph 29 mph
85th Percentile Speed 34 mph 33 mph 33 mph
% > 30 MPH 44% 30% 37%
% > 35 MPH 9% 6% 8%
Chatelain
Terrace
Average Speed 23 mph 23 mph 23 mph
85th Percentile Speed 27 mph 27 mph 27 mph
% > 30 MPH 7% 2% 5%
% > 35 MPH 1% 0% 1%
66
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 29
3 Proposed Conditions
As mentioned previously, Breck recently purchased the former American Legion site located on
the south side of the existing school site. With the purchase of the additional parcel, Breck is
updating their Comprehensive Site Plan, looking at improvements on their site, including
improvements to the existing school building, a new athletics building, an improved drop-off
plaza, and outdoor environmental classrooms. Figure 16 shows the latest site plan with the site
improvements included in the Comprehensive Site Plan.
Figure 16 – Breck Site Plan
With the improvements to the Breck site, the school does not plan to increase school enrollment
above the existing approximately 1,200 students. With no increase in school enrollment and
limited growth expected in the area, traffic operations were only analyzed under existing 2025
conditions and no future traffic forecasts were developed as part of this study.
67
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 30
4 Traffic Operations Analysis
Traffic operations analyses were conducted to determine the level of service (LOS), delay, and
queueing information for the AM, school dismissal, PM, weekday event, and Sunday event peak
hour conditions.
LOS is a qualitative rating system used to describe the efficiency of traffic operations at an
intersection. Six LOS are defined, designated by letters A through F. LOS A represents the best
operating conditions (no congestion), and LOS F represents the worst operating conditions
(severe congestion). For the study intersections, it was assumed that a LOS D or better, for all
approaches and the overall intersection, represents acceptable operating conditions.
LOS for intersections is determined by the average control delay per vehicle. The range of control
delay for each LOS is different for signalized and unsignalized intersections. The expectation is
that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes and will experience
greater delays than an unsignalized intersection. Driver tolerance for delay is greater at a signal
than at a stop sign; therefore, the LOS thresholds for each LOS category are lower for
unsignalized intersections than for signalized intersections. Table 3 shows the LOS thresholds
for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Table 3 – Level of Service Thresholds
Level of
Service
Average Vehicle Delay (sec/veh)
Signalized
Intersection
Unsignalized
(Stop or Roundabout)
Intersection
A 0 to 10 0 to 10
B > 10 and ≤ 20 > 10 and ≤ 15
C > 20 and ≤ 35 > 15 and ≤ 25
D > 35 and ≤ 55 > 25 and ≤ 35
E > 55 and ≤ 80 > 35 and ≤ 50
F > 80 > 50
All traffic operations analysis was performed using the Synchro/SimTraffic (version 11) software
package. The results reported in this analysis are an average of 10 simulation runs in SimTraffic.
For the AM and school dismissal peak hours, the intersections of Glenwood Avenue at the
Northbound TH 100 Ramps and Glenwood Avenue at Ottawa Avenue N were modified to attempt
to replicate the staff and police control at those intersections, using traffic signals in
Synchro/SimTraffic. For the signals used to replicate human traffic control, phasing and splits
were developed based on video observations of the intersection and were adjusted to replicate
the delay/queueing seen in the observations. All relevant traffic operations results tables can be
found in Appendix C.
Signal timing information for the two TH 100 Ramp intersections was provided by MnDOT.
As was mentioned previously, only the 2025 traffic demands were analyzed as Breck does not
plan to increase enrollment and limited growth is expected in the area surrounding the school.
68
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 31
4.1 2025 Existing Conditions
Under existing AM peak hour conditions, each intersection operates acceptably overall at LOS C
or better over the whole peak hour. As was discussed under the site observations section, there
are higher delays and queues during the 30-minute school peak from 8:00 to 8:30 AM before
school starts, specifically during the 15-minutes right before school starts. During the peak school
arrival peak, queues on eastbound Glenwood Avenue can back up from the Ottawa Avenue N
intersection to the TH 100 Northbound Ramp intersection. Both of these intersections are
controlled by school staff/police, who can react in real time to reduce queueing issues, avoid
gridlock, and facilitate the movement of traffic along Glenwood Avenue as efficiently as possible
given the significant traffic demand during the 15-30 minutes before school starts.
During the AM peak hour, there are delay issues for vehicles turning left onto Glenwood Avenue
from Lilac Drive or Ottawa Avenue S, which was seen during the site observations. The delay
issues are primarily due to queues on eastbound Glenwood Avenue blocking the intersection.
During the school dismissal peak hour, each intersection operates acceptably overall at LOS B or
better over the whole peak hour. As was discussed under the site observations section, there are
higher delays and queues during the 15-minutes immediately before and after school ends. While
the queueing and delay issues during the school dismissal peak hour are generally contained to
the school site, there are westbound queues on Glenwood Avenue that extend between the TH
100 Northbound Ramp intersection and Ottawa Avenue N. Similar to the AM peak hour, both
intersections are controlled by school staff/police, who can react in real time to reduce queuing
issues and facilitate the movement of traffic out of the school site and along Glenwood Avenue as
efficiently as possible, avoiding gridlock along the roadway network.
During the PM, weekday event, and Sunday peak hours, traffic volumes in and out of the school
site are significantly lower, and each of the six study intersections operates normally without
additional traffic control, operating at LOS B or better, with each approach operating at LOS D or
better. There are no significant delay or queueing concerns during the PM, weekday event, or
Sunday event peak hours.
Table 4 shows a summary of the 2025 existing traffic operations during the typical AM, school
dismissal, and PM peak hours. Table 5 shows a summary of the 2025 existing traffic operations
during the weekday and Sunday event peak hours.
69
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 32
Table 4 – 2025 Existing Traffic Operations – Typical Day
Intersection Approach AM Peak Hour School Dismissal
Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Approach
(delay / LOS)
Intersection
(delay / LOS)
Approach
(delay / LOS)
Intersection
(delay / LOS)
Approach
(delay / LOS)
Intersection
(delay / LOS)
Glenwood Ave at
TH 100 SB
Ramps
(Traffic Signal)
SB 11.9 / B
7.7 / A
18.7 / B
10.2 / B
20.4 / C
9.8 / A EB 3.7 / A 6.6 / A 7.1 / A
WB 7.5 / A 10.5 / B 7.8 / A
Glenwood Ave at
TH 100 NB
Ramps
(Traffic Signal)
SB 10.7 / B
12.6 / B
10.6 / B
13.0 / B
29.9 / C
15.8 / B EB 11.0 / B 10.7 / B 11.9 / B
WB 15.7 / B 17.2 / B 10.6 / B
Glenwood Ave at
Lilac Dr
(Minor Stop)
NB 141.2 / F
5.9 / A
21.9 / C
1.9 / A
16.6 / C
1.0 / A SB 29.3 / D 16.6 / C 7.7 / A
EB 0.6 / A 0.6 / A 0.6 / A
WB 0.6 / A 0.5 / A 0.5 / A
Glenwood Ave at
Ottawa Avenue
(Minor Stop)
SB 5.5 / A
19.3 / C
10.1 / B
13.6 / B
14.0 / B
5.9 / A EB 19.2 / C 13.5 / B 6.2 / A
WB 24.5 / C 18.0 / C 0.9 / A
Glenwood Ave at
Natchez Ave
(Minor Stop)
NB 7.8 / A
2.5 / A
8.6 / A
2.6 / A
9.2 / A
1.7 / A SB 7.1 / A 6.5 / A 4.6 / A
EB 3.3 / A 2.9 / A 1.9 / A
WB 1.2 / A 0.5 / A 0.5 / A
Ottawa Ave at
Natchez
Ave/Chatelain
Terr (Minor Stop)
NB 3.2 / A
2.6 / A
2.2 / A
2.7 / A
1.8 / A
2.0 / A SB 0.5 / A 0.1 / A 0.1 / A
EB 4.1 / A 3.7 / A 3.2 / A
70
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 33
Table 5 – 2025 Existing Traffic Operations – Weekday and Sunday Events
Intersection Approach Weekday Event
Peak Hour
Sunday Event
Peak Hour
Approach
(delay / LOS)
Intersection
(delay / LOS)
Approach
(delay / LOS)
Intersection
(delay / LOS)
Glenwood Ave at
TH 100 SB
Ramps
(Traffic Signal)
SB 26.6 / C
13.6 / B
9.3 / A
7.3 / A EB 7.8 / A 5.6 / A
WB 15.8 / B 8.0 / A
Glenwood Ave at
TH 100 NB
Ramps
(Traffic Signal)
SB 26.4 / C
14.0 / B
11.2 / B
8.2 / A EB 11.8 / B 9.0 / A
WB 9.4 / A 5.4 / A
Glenwood Ave at
Lilac Dr
(Minor Stop)
NB 25.7 / D
1.4 / A
13.5 / B
0.8 / A SB 14.3 / B 8.8 / A
EB 0.6 / A 0.9 / A
WB 0.6 / A 0.5 / A
Glenwood Ave at
Ottawa Avenue
(Minor Stop)
SB 16.6 / C
6.6 / A
6.1 / A
4.0 / A EB 7.8 / A 4.9 / A
WB 1.2 / A 0.7 / A
Glenwood Ave at
Natchez Ave
(Minor Stop)
NB 8.6 / A
1.8 / A
5.9 / A
1.0 / A SB 5.7 / A 3.6 / A
EB 2.1 / A 1.0 / A
WB 0.5 / A 0.3 / A
Ottawa Ave at
Natchez
Ave/Chatelain
Terr (Minor Stop)
NB 1.3 / A
2.4 / A
1.1 / A
2.3 / A SB 0.1 / A 0.0 / A
EB 3.2 / A 3.8 / A
71
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 34
4.2 2025 Build Conditions
To improve traffic operations and safety along Glenwood Avenue, a build scenario with a
dedicated eastbound left turn lane at Ottawa Avenue N was analyzed. The eastbound left turn
lane would serve the heavy eastbound left turn into the school site, provide additional storage for
eastbound traffic between Ottawa Avenue and the Northbound TH 100 Ramp intersection, and
allow for eastbound Glenwood Avenue traffic to continue through the intersection without getting
stuck behind eastbound left turning traffic.
During the AM peak hour, with the addition of an eastbound left turn lane, delay and queueing at
the intersection of Glenwood Avenue at Ottawa Avenue N are improved, with eastbound queues
being reduced by approximately 50% and overall delay improving by approximately 10 seconds
per vehicle.
During the school dismissal peak hour, there the eastbound left turn has lower volumes
compared to other times of the day, however, the eastbound left turn lane would still provide an
operational and safety benefit. The queues on westbound Glenwood Avenue would continue to
exist but can still be managed by the staff/police controlling the intersections along Glenwood
Avenue.
During the PM, weekday event, and Sunday peak hours, there are no significant queuing or delay
issues under existing conditions, but an eastbound left turn lane would provide a safety and
operation benefit, with eastbound left turning traffic volumes expected to be high during any time
there is significant traffic entering the school site, during school arrival or events.
Table 6 shows a summary of the 2025 Build traffic operations during the typical AM, school
dismissal, and PM peak hours. Table 7 shows a summary of the 2025 Build traffic operations
during the weekday and Sunday event peak hours.
72
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 35
Table 6 – 2025 Build Traffic Operations – Typical Day
Intersection Approach AM Peak Hour School Dismissal
Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Approach
(delay / LOS)
Intersection
(delay / LOS)
Approach
(delay / LOS)
Intersection
(delay / LOS)
Approach
(delay / LOS)
Intersection
(delay / LOS)
Glenwood Ave at
TH 100 SB
Ramps
(Traffic Signal)
SB 11.8 / B
7.7 / A
18.0 / B
9.9 / A
20.4 / C
9.9 / A EB 3.7 / A 6.4 / A 7.1 / A
WB 7.4 / A 10.1 / B 8.0 / A
Glenwood Ave at
TH 100 NB
Ramps
(Traffic Signal)
SB 10.4 / B
12.1 / B
10.8 / B
13.0 / B
29.9 / C
15.8 / B EB 10.8 / B 10.7 / B 11.9 / B
WB 14.6 / B 17.2 / B 10.5 / B
Glenwood Ave at
Lilac Dr
(Minor Stop)
NB 47.7 / E
2.1 / A
14.5 / B
1.4 / A
14.4 / B
0.9 / A SB 8.2 / A 10.4 / B 6.6 / A
EB 0.6 / A 0.6 / A 0.6 / A
WB 0.5 / A 0.5 / A 0.5 / A
Glenwood Ave at
Ottawa Avenue
(Minor Stop)
SB 4.7 / A
9.8 / A
8.5 / A
6.8 / A
11.3 / B
3.7 / A EB 8.7 / A 4.6 / A 3.1 / A
WB 13.8 / B 9.3 / A 0.9 / A
Glenwood Ave at
Natchez Ave
(Minor Stop)
NB 7.5 / A
1.7 / A
6.8 / A
1.8 / A
9.1 / A
1.3 / A SB 6.5 / A 5.8 / A 4.6 / A
EB 1.5 / A 1.7 / A 1.2 / A
WB 1.1 / A 0.5 / A 0.5 / A
Ottawa Ave at
Natchez
Ave/Chatelain
Terr (Minor Stop)
NB 3.2 / A
2.6 / A
2.2 / A
2.7 / A
1.8 / A
2.0 / A SB 0.5 / A 0.1 / A 0.1 / A
EB 4.1 / A 3.7 / A 3.2 / A
73
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 36
Table 7 – 2025 Build Traffic Operations – Weekday and Sunday Events
Intersection Approach Weekday Event
Peak Hour
Sunday Event
Peak Hour
Approach
(delay / LOS)
Intersection
(delay / LOS)
Approach
(delay / LOS)
Intersection
(delay / LOS)
Glenwood Ave at
TH 100 SB
Ramps
(Traffic Signal)
SB 26.6 / C
13.6 / B
9.1 / A
7.3 / A EB 7.7 / A 5.5 / A
WB 16.0 / B 8.0 / A
Glenwood Ave at
TH 100 NB
Ramps
(Traffic Signal)
SB 26.4 / C
13.9 / B
11.1 / B
8.1 / A EB 11.8 / B 8.9 / A
WB 9.3 / A 5.4 / A
Glenwood Ave at
Lilac Dr
(Minor Stop)
NB 13.9 / B
1.0 / A
12.5 / B
0.8 / A SB 8.3 / A 7.0 / A
EB 0.6 / A 0.9 / A
WB 0.5 / A 0.5 / A
Glenwood Ave at
Ottawa Avenue
(Minor Stop)
SB 9.7 / A
3.3 / A
6.0 / A
3.1 / A EB 3.5 / A 3.1 / A
WB 1.1 / A 0.7 / A
Glenwood Ave at
Natchez Ave
(Minor Stop)
NB 9.2 / A
1.3 / A
6.1 / A
0.8 / A SB 5.7 / A 3.6 / A
EB 1.1 / A 0.6 / A
WB 0.5 / A 0.3 / A
Ottawa Ave at
Natchez
Ave/Chatelain
Terr (Minor Stop)
NB 1.3 / A
2.4 / A
1.1 / A
2.3 / A SB 0.1 / A 0.0 / A
EB 3.2 / A 3.8 / A
74
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 37
5 Conclusion
Breck School recently purchased the former site of the Golden Valley American Legion, located
on the south side of the school site. With the purchase of the property, the school is looking to
update their comprehensive site plan looking at improvements on their site, including
improvements to the existing school building, a new athletics building, an improved drop-off
plaza, and outdoor environmental classrooms. As part of the mast plan, Breck is not planning to
increase school enrollment above the existing approximately 1,200 students.
It is Breck’s goal to plan for the future as well as be good neighbors for their North Tyrol
neighborhood. As part of the comprehensive site plan, a traffic study was completed to better
understand the existing issues and then analyze potential improvements to safety and traffic
operations both on-site and on the adjacent roadway network of Glenwood Avenue, Natchez
Avenue, and Chatelain Terrace.
Based on site observations and traffic operations analysis, the following issues currently exist on
and around the Breck School site.
Internal School Site
During the school arrival peak, there is bottleneck on site due to conflicts between left
turns from Ottawa Avenue N into the drop-off area, pedestrians in the crosswalk on the
west side of the intersection, and vehicles exiting the site to Glenwood Avenue from the
tennis court area.
The high number of vehicles and pedestrians going through a single intersection,
especially during the 15-minute peak right before school starts, results in long
queues on Ottawa Avenue, which reach Glenwood Avenue at times.
During the school dismissal peak, northbound Ottawa Avenue N between the parking lot
access and the pick-up plaza is closed to all traffic except buses, therefore, all vehicles
using the main pick-up area must enter the school site using Natchez Avenue/Chatelain
Terrace
At times, queues on Ottawa Avenue by the tennis courts backs onto Natchez Avenue
During both school arrival and dismissal, most of the buses exit the site at the same time,
which temporarily increases delay and queueing on site.
Currently, all buses must drive through the drop-off/pick-up area when entering the
school site, which increases congestion with buses disrupting drop-off/pick-up activity.
During events, when there is significant parking demand on-street on Ottawa Avenue N,
there are times when parked vehicles make it difficult for vehicles driving through the site
to see pedestrians crossing the roadway, especially as pedestrians tend to cross the
roadway at whatever location is convenient for them along the roadway, often crossing
between parked cars.
Adjacent Roadway Network
During the AM peak hour, there are a significant number of eastbound left turns onto
Ottawa Avenue from Glenwood Avenue. To better facilitate traffic at the intersection, a
staff member controls the intersection, working to manage conflicts between eastbound
left turns and westbound vehicles. During the peak 15-minute school peak, there are
eastbound queues on Glenwood Avenue from the Ottawa Avenue N intersection to the
Northbound TH 100 Ramp intersection.
75
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 38
To avoid gridlock at the Northbound TH 100 Ramp intersection, a police officer
controls the intersection, managing queuing and avoiding gridlock at the intersection,
primarily for eastbound Glenwood Avenue and southbound lefts turns from the TH
100 ramp entering the back of the queue from the Ottawa Avenue N access.
There is currently no eastbound left turn lane on Glenwood Avenue at Ottawa
Avenue N, as a result, eastbound through vehicles often get stuck in the eastbound
queue behind the heavy eastbound left turning traffic demands.
During the school dismissal peak hour, there as westbound queues on Glenwood
Avenue between the Northbound TH 100 Ramps and Ottawa Avenue N. To address the
queuing, both intersections are staff/police controlled to reduce queueing, avoid gridlock,
and facilitate the movement of traffic along Glenwood Avenue during the 30-minute
school dismissal peak.
There have been concerns from neighbors about vehicle volumes and speeds on the
neighborhood roadways directly east of the Breck School site. While speeds on Natchez
Avenue and Chatelain Terrace are not excessive, it would be beneficial to lower speeds
in the neighborhood, especially with the adjacent park and single-family residences.
5.1 Recommendation
Based on observations and analysis of the Breck School site, the following improvements to the
site and surrounding roadway network are recommended
Current Traffic Conditions that Should Continue
Community police officers and staff controlling the below intersections to facilitate safe
traffic flow, manage queueing, and avoid gridlock during the school arrival and dismissal
peaks.
Glenwood Avenue at the Northbound TH 100 Ramps
Glenwood Avenue at Ottawa Avenue N
Ottawa Avenue N at the drop-off/pick-up plaza
The west end of the drop-off/pick-up plaza
Ottawa Avenue at the Visitor/Student Parking Lot driveway (school dismissal only)
Closing Ottawa Avenue northbound between 3:00 and 3:35 north of the visitor/student
parking lot driveway
If in the future buses are routes to enter the site via Lilac Drive, this could be opened.
However, it would be important to still encourage some pick-up activity in the
Mustang parking lot to avoid long pick-up queues.
Prohibiting southbound left turns off of Ottawa Avenue N at Glenwood Avenue from 8:00
to 8:30 AM
On-site Improvements Already Included in the Site Plan
Improved pick-up/drop-off plaza area creates better separation for pick-up/drop-off traffic
and parking vehicles.
Median refuge island for the crosswalk on the east end of the pick-up/drop-off plaza will
allow pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time.
During the school arrival period, pedestrians could cross the eastbound lane, then
wait in the refuge area for the staff member to stop northbound left turning traffic. By
76
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 39
making this crossing shorter, northbound left turning traffic will be stopped for a
shorter period of time, improving operational efficiency and reducing queue lengths.
Future two-way connection from the Lilac Drive access to the school could provide an
alternate route for buses to enter the school site in the future, separating them from
parent pick-up/drop-off and parking traffic. In order to accommodate buses turning into
Lilac Drive, a larger turn radius would be needed at Glenwood Avenue.
Parent pick-up/drop-off traffic should still use the Ottawa Avenue access even with a
two Lilac Drive connection.
Keeping the roadway west of the pick-up/drop-off plaza as one-way westbound to keep
parents from entering at Lilac Drive to try to pick-up/drop-off their children.
Gate on the east side of the school at the Natchez Avenue/Chatelain Terrace access,
which could be closed during non-peak school traffic times to force all traffic to enter and
exit the stie via the Glenwood Avenue accesses. This access is still needed during peak
arrival and dismissal periods to maintain acceptable traffic flow and circulation on the
school site.
By closing the gate during non-peak times, it would reduce the overall traffic volumes
in the neighborhood throughout the day.
During non-peak times, there is less congestion on Glenwood Avenue and Ottawa
Avenue N, so all traffic can be handled with only the Glenwood Avenue accesses.
Additional Improvements that Could be Added to the Site Plan
Limit parking on Ottawa Avenue N within the school site during school arrival and
dismissal peak hours. The current on-street parking creates additional congestion during
school arrival and dismissal with limited space on Ottawa Avenue N.
77
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 40
On-street parking could be prohibited during school arrival and dismissal peaks but
allowed throughout the rest of the day and during events.
Consider using the parking lot within the pick-up/drop-off plaza for visitor parking instead
of staff parking. These spaces could then be used for parent pick-up/drop-off for the early
learning center and be visitor parking during the school day.
In addition, consider adding a parking aisle on the north side of the parking lot if
feasible without impacting the buffer area between the pick-up/drop-off plaza and the
parking area.
Consider adding a sidewalk connection to the pedestrian crossing locations on either
side of the pick-up/drop-off plaza.
Add pedestrian crossing signage (S1-1 and W16-7P) at all marked pedestrian crossing
locations on site that are not controlled by stop signs. These signs will bring attention to
the pedestrian crossing and increase pedestrian visibility and stop compliance. See map
of locations and example of signal below.
78
BRECK SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY BRSCH 184195
Page 41
During the arrival peak hour, it would reduce congestion on site if the school buses did
not exit the school site between 8:15 and 8:30 AM. This would mean some buses waiting
an extra 5 to 10 minutes on the north side of the school before exiting the site. Currently,
most of the buses exit at once during the 15-minute school arrival peak, which results in
increased congestion on-site during the busiest 15-minute period.
If possible, buses could try to exit before 8:15 AM to avoid the arrival congestion on
site. Currently, some buses do leave before the peak 15-minute arrival period.
Improvements Requiring City Approval (Breck to Partner)
Consider adding sidewalk on the west side of Natchez Avenue and Chatelain Terrace in
the areas adjacent to the school site to provide a separation between vehicle and
pedestrian traffic.
Add a 20-mph school zone speed limit along Natchez Avenue and Chatelain Terrace.
Due to limits with school zone speed limits, the school zone limit could only be placed
approximately 200 to 300 feet north and south of the Natchez Avenue school access
because Natchez Park is not school property, thus there is no school zone.
If a school zone speed limit, it would be recommended that the signs either be “when
flashing” or during specific times of the day, rather than “when children present”.
Add speed feedback signs on Natchez Avenue and Chatelain Terrace to alert drivers that
they are speeding.
Consider reducing the speed limit on Natchez Avenue and Chatelain Terrace. At one
point, the City of Golden Valley was exploring lowering the statutory speed limit on most
City streets to 25 mph.
Other traffic calming measures like curb bump outs could be considered by the city to
reduce speeds on Natchez Avenue and Chatelain Terrace.
Some of the site and operational improvements at Breck School will hopefully result in
more people using the Glenwood Avenue accesses and result in less traffic in the
neighborhood, such as:
Natchez Avenue school access gate
Added turn lane on Glenwood Avenue to improve safety, queuing, and traffic
operations at the Ottawa Avenue N intersection.
Improvements Requiring County Approval (Breck to Partner)
Add an eastbound left turn lane on Glenwood Avenue at Ottawa Avenue N to improve
safety, queuing, and traffic operations at the intersection during all times of the day.
Given the existing bike lanes on Glenwood Avenue, the roadway would likely need to
be widened between the Northbound TH 100 Ramp intersection and just west of
Ottawa Avenue to accommodate the turn lane. The roadway could be widened to the
north side of the roadway, which is primarily on parcels that are owned by Breck
School.
Consider adding a marked pedestrian crossing on Glenwood Avenue at either Natchez
Avenue or Ottawa Avenue to improve safety for pedestrians crossing Glenwood Avenue
to access Breck School, Natchez Park, or Meadowbrook Elementary School.
79
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NARRRATIVE
BRECK
SITE MASTERPLAN
80
Breck Site Masterplan HGA Commission Number: 1449-005-00
Stormwater Management Narrative
SECTION 1.0 – Site Background and Areas
Breck proposes to construct a series of site improvements as part of their campus Masterplan
located on their property at 123 Ottawa Avenue. These improvements will be constructed in
phases and each series of projects will include new stormwater Best Management Practices
(BMPs) that will meet or exceed the stormwater management requirements of the City of
Golden Valley (City) and those of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
(BCWMC).
A Breck Preliminary PUD and Plat application narrative is submitted under separate cover for
additional site background and proposed Masterplan information.
Much of the site is located within the FEMA floodplain elevation of 840.0 feet (MSL). The City
and BCWMC have also modeled the watershed with current precipitation information and have
established a floodplain elevation of 842.4 feet (MSL) on site, which encompasses an even
greater portion of the campus property. For purposes of analyzing the floodplain impacts on
site, the City and BCWMC floodplain elevation will be used in this submittal.
The site areas for the preliminary PUD (See Appendix A) are:
•Total site area - 401,185 s.f. (9.209 Acres).
•Existing Impervious Area – 846,306 s.f. (19.429 Acres)
•Proposed Impervious Area – 898,988 s.f. (20.638 Acres)
•New and/or Disturbed Impervious Area – 218,073 s.f. (5.006 Acres)
SECTION 2.0 – Existing Conditions
The existing conditions are shown on the site survey.
The existing site contains three stormwater basins that were constructed as part of the Breck
School Remodel and Expansion project in 2000 (See Appendix D). It’s anticipated that the
stormwater ponds from that project met the stormwater management requirements at that
time.
A Wetland Delineation Report was prepared by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc.
(Kjolhaug) dated May 2, 2025 (See Appendix B). This report identified the current wetland
edges along with the jurisdictional and incidental wetland areas.
A Geotechnical Evaluation will be prepared and provided as part of future development on site
when individual projects are submitted for City and BCWMC approval. However, preliminary
soil borings and the associated report were prepared by Braun Intertec Corporation, dated
November 19, 2024(See Appendix C).
81
Breck Site Masterplan HGA Commission Number: 1449-005-00
Stormwater Management Narrative
•The soil borings identified a surficial layer of fill with varying layers of Silty Sand (SM) or
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM). However, Organic and Clayey soils were found in
the soil borings to depth. Thus, it is not anticipated that stormwater infiltration on site
will be possible. Alternative stormwater BMPs are planned to be used to meet BCWMC
stormwater management requirements.
SECTION 3.0 – Proposed Conditions
The proposed conditions are noted in the Site Background and Areas section of this report and
shown in the preliminary PUD plans.
The Masterplan projects will include (in no specific order of construction) the following items:
•Relocation and of the existing baseball and softball fields
•Construction of a new multi-purpose field for soccer and lacrosse
•Construction of a new Athletic Building and associated parking lot
•Construction of a new Stadium Gateway building and surrounding parking lot
expansion
•Construction of new building additions to the main building
•Roadway improvements to the main vehicle drop-off and parking area
Throughout the course of these projects there will be impacts to the wetlands and floodplain
on site. These impacts will require mitigation and approval from the appropriate authorities. In
this case, the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) for the wetland impacts and BCWMC for impacts
to the floodplain.
Wetland Impacts
The Masterplan includes the reorientation of the baseball field which will impact the adjacent
wetland. Kjolhaug has been retained by Breck to lead the wetland permitting process and is
proceeding with the necessary submittals for this work.
Floodplain Impacts
The new fields will be raised from their current elevations to approximately 840.0 feet (MSL) to
improve their playability and minimize disruption of team activities during large rainfall and
snowmelt precipitation events. Raising the elevation of the fields will impact the flood storage
volume on site. To mitigate the loss of flood storage volume, the new fields will include a
subgrade comprised of coarse aggregate and pipe distribution systems. (See sheet C512)
SECTION 4.0 – Stormwater Management
This site is in the City of Golden Valley and within the boundaries of Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission (BCWMC). BCWMC has permitting authority for the stormwater
82
Breck Site Masterplan HGA Commission Number: 1449-005-00
Stormwater Management Narrative
discharge from this site as the project will exceed the site disturbance thresholds identified in
BCWMC rules for project review. This project is considered a redevelopment project as defined
by BCWMC rules.
A Hydrologic model (HydroCAD) of the site (existing and proposed conditions) will be prepared
and submitted as part of the formal submittal process for individual projects.
Below is a description of the proposed stormwater management concept for the site. Each
individual project proposed for construction will be submitted for permitting separately prior to
construction.
Athletics Building and adjacent parking lot
A new filtration basin is planned to be const ructed between the access drive and the softball
field that will meet the stormwater management requirements for the tributary impervious
area.
Stadium Gateway Building and adjacent parking lot revisions
A new filtration basin is planned to be const ructed between Ottawa Ave and the existing
parking lot that will meet the stormwater management requirements for the tributary
impervious areas on site. In addition, new pretreatment structures (Rain Guardian) will be
added to the existing parking lot curb cuts.
Athletic Fields and Main Vehicle Drop-Off
A central part of the Masterplan is the construction of new baseball, softball and multi-purpose
fields. The new athletic fields are planned to be constructed of artificial turf. While it is
understood that the City identifies the artificial turf fields to be pervious surfaces, the BCWMC
identifies these surfaces as impervious for purposes of meeting their water quality
requirements. As previously noted, the new fields are planned to be raised from their existing
grades to minimize disruption from spring flooding on campus. With this grade change, the
proposed field subgrades will be replaced with a coarse aggregate layer that will provide 40%
void space to mitigate the floodplain volume lost by raising the fields.
One option for the coarse aggregate being explored is the use of Tire Derived Aggregate (TDA)
that can provide the necessary void space and may also provide water quality benefits.
The existing stormwater basin to the east of the softball field, identified as Wetland 5 in the
Wetland Delineation Report, will be expanded to meet the current stormwater management
requirements of the tributary site areas. A bathymetric survey of the existin g basin is being
prepared and will then be used for the design of the expanded basin.
83
ATHLETICSBUILDINGMULTI-PURPOSEFIELDSOFTBALLFIELDBASEBALLFIELDMCKNIGHTSTADIUMOTTAWAFIELDBRECKSCHOOLBRECKSCHOOLTENNISCOURTSLOWERSCHOOLMIDDLESCHOOLLOWERSCHOOLSTADIUMGATEWAYWETLAND NO. 1WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWL
WL
WL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL
W
L
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWL
W
L
W
L
WL
WL WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WL WL WLWLWLWL WLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL
WL
WLWLWL
WL
WL
WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWETLAND NO. 2WETLAND NO. 3WETLAND NO. 7WETLAND NO. 5WETLAND NO. 6WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
SCALE IN FEET080160ZONING INFORMATIONSITE ADDRESS: 123 OTTAWA AVENUE NORTHEXISTING ZONING: PUD 88PROPOSED ZONING:NO CHANGEADJACENT ZONING:(I-A) ASSEMBLY(I-P) PARKS & NATURAL AREAS(O) OFFICE(R-1) RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILYTHIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SHORELAND DISTRICTSUBDISTRICT 27-32: BASSETT CREEKSETBACK SUMMARY: BUILDING:25.8' FROM NORTH PROPERTY LINEPARKING:8' MINIMUM SETBACK FROM DRIVE AISLESPARKING SUMMARYPARKING REQUIREMENTS PER SEC 113-151 - OFF-STREET PARKINGAND LOADINGELEMENTARY AND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL:2 STALLS PER CLASSROOMHIGH SCHOOL:2 STALLS PER CLASSROOM PLUS 1 SPACEPER 6 STUDENTS SITE AREAS AREA (SF) AREA (AC)TOTAL SITE 2,448,259 56.204WETLAND 310,180 7.121UPLAND 2,138,07949.084 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS 846,30619.429EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE 34.6%PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS 898,98820.638PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE 36.7%MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE 45%BUILDING AREASAREA (GSF) AREA (AC)EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA 292,404 6.713PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA 336,116 7.716PUD AGREEMENT SUMMARYPARKING COUNTSPARKING LOT # EXISTING PROPOSED1 - NORTH OF BUILDING149972 - SENIOR STUDENT 75753 - DROP-OFF AREA 73364 - MAIN LOT164 1865 - OTTAWA AVE 28286 - MULTI-PURPOSE FIELD -147 - AMERICAN LEGION PROPERTY167 -8 - ATHLETICS BUILDING - 107TOTAL 656 543HGA NO:DATE:NODESCRIPTIONDATE123 Ottawa Ave NGolden Valley, MN55422NO
T
FO
RCONSTRUCTIONCOPYRIGHT HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC.ISSUANCE HISTORY - THIS SHEETPRELIMINARY PUDSUBMITTALNOVEMBER 3,20251449-005-00SiteMasterplanPRELIMINARYPUD SITESUMMARY PLANC00284
ATHLETICSBUILDINGMULTI-PURPOSEFIELDSOFTBALLFIELDBASEBALLFIELDMCKNIGHTSTADIUMOTTAWAFIELDBRECKSCHOOLBRECKSCHOOLTENNISCOURTSLOWERSCHOOLMIDDLESCHOOLLOWERSCHOOLSTADIUMGATEWAYWETLAND NO. 1WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWL
W
L
W
L
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL
WL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWL
WLWL
W
L
WL
WL
WL WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
W
L
WL
WLWLWL
WL WL
WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWETLAND NO. 2WETLAND NO. 3WETLAND NO. 7WETLAND NO. 5WETLAND NO. 6WLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
SCALE IN FEET080160ZONING INFORMATIONSITE ADDRESS: 123 OTTAWA AVENUE NORTHEXISTING ZONING: PUD 88PROPOSED ZONING: NO CHANGEADJACENT ZONING: (I-A) ASSEMBLY(I-P) PARKS & NATURAL AREAS(O) OFFICE(R-1) RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILYTHIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SHORELAND DISTRICTSUBDISTRICT 27-32: BASSETT CREEKSETBACK SUMMARY: BUILDING: 25.8' FROM NORTH PROPERTY LINEPARKING: 8' MINIMUM SETBACK FROM DRIVE AISLESPARKING SUMMARYPARKING REQUIREMENTS PER SEC 113-151 - OFF-STREET PARKINGAND LOADINGELEMENTARY AND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL:2 STALLS PER CLASSROOMHIGH SCHOOL:2 STALLS PER CLASSROOM PLUS 1 SPACEPER 6 STUDENTS SITE AREAS AREA (SF) AREA (AC)TOTAL SITE 2,448,259 56.204WETLAND 310,180 7.121UPLAND 2,138,079 49.084 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS 846,306 19.429EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE 34.6%PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS 898,988 20.638PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE 36.7%MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE 45%BUILDING AREASAREA (GSF) AREA (AC)EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA 292,404 6.713PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA 336,116 7.716PUD AGREEMENT SUMMARYPARKING COUNTSPARKING LOT # EXISTING PROPOSED1 - NORTH OF BUILDING149972 - SENIOR STUDENT 75753 - DROP-OFF AREA 73364 - MAIN LOT164 1865 - OTTAWA AVE 28286 - MULTI-PURPOSE FIELD -147 - AMERICAN LEGION PROPERTY 167 -8 - ATHLETICS BUILDING - 107TOTAL 656 543HGA NO:DATE:NODESCRIPTION DATE123 Ottawa Ave NGolden Valley, MN55422N
O
T
F
O
RCONSTRUCTIONCOPYRIGHT HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC.ISSUANCE HISTORY - THIS SHEETPRELIMINARY PUDSUBMITTALNOVEMBER 3,20251449-005-00SiteMasterplanPRELIMINARYPUD SITESUMMARY PLANC00285
WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWL
W
L
W
L
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL
WL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWL
WL
WL
W
L
WL
WL WL WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL WLWLW
L
WL
WLWLWL
WL
WL
WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
F
P
FPFPFP
FP
FP
FPFPFPF
P
F
P
F
P
F
P
F
P
F
P
FPF
PFPFP
FPF
P
FPFPFPF
P
FP
F
P
FP FP
FPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFP
F
P
FPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFP
FPF
P
F
P
FP FPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPF
P
FPFPFPF
P
FPFPFPFPFPF
P
FPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPFPF
P
FP
FPFPFPFPFPFP
FPFPFPFPFP FP FP
FPFPFP
FPFPFPFPFP FP
FPFP
FPFP
FPFPFP FP
FPFP
F
P
FP
F
P
F
P
FPFP
FP
F
P
FP
F
P
FPFPFPFPFPFPFP
FP
F
P
FP FPFP
FPFPF
P
F
P
F
P
F
P
F
P
FPFPF
PWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
KEY NOTES:SILT FENCE SEEINLET PROTECTIONEROSION CONTROL BLANKETROCK CONSTRUCTION EXITSEDIMENT CONTROL LOGSFIPECBCESCLNOTES:1. SEE SHEET C001 FOR CIVIL NOTES AND LEGEND2. SEE SHEET C101 FOR EROSION CONTROL DETAILSSCALE IN FEET080160ATHLETICSBUILDINGMULTI-PURPOSEFIELDSOFTBALLFIELDBASEBALLFIELDMCKNIGHTSTADIUMOTTAWAFIELDBRECKSCHOOLBRECKSCHOOLTENNISCOURTSLOWERSCHOOLMIDDLESCHOOLLOWERSCHOOLSTADIUMGATEWAYIPECBIPIPIPIPIPIPECBECBSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFECBSF833835840838837834839836 840839844
844847
848846
845845848847846
84985084884
7
847836847838839840841842 8
3
8
841
840
840
842841
842840 8438
4
2839
840841836839840 841842841SFECBKEY NOTES:SILT FENCE SEEINLET PROTECTIONEROSION CONTROL BLANKETROCK CONSTRUCTION EXITSEDIMENT CONTROL LOGSFIPECBCESCLNOTES:1. SEE SHEET C001 FOR CIVIL NOTES AND LEGEND2. SEE SHEET C101 FOR EROSION CONTROL DETAILSSCALE IN FEET080160HGA NO:DATE:NODESCRIPTION DATE123 Ottawa Ave NGolden Valley, MN55422NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONCOPYRIGHT HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC.ISSUANCE HISTORY - THIS SHEETPRELIMINARY PUDSUBMITTALNOVEMBER 3,20251449-005-00SiteMasterplanC101EROSION ANDSEDIMENTCONTROL PLAN86
WETLAND NO. 1WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWL
W
L
W
L
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL
WL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWL
WL
WL
W
L
WL
WL
WL WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL WLWLW
L
WL
WLWLWL
WL
WL
WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWETLAND NO. 2WETLAND NO. 3WETLAND NO. 7WETLAND NO. 5WETLAND NO. 6WL WL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
SCALE IN FEET080160HGA NO:DATE:NODESCRIPTION DATE123 Ottawa Ave NGolden Valley, MN55422N
O
T
F
O
RCONSTRUCTIONCOPYRIGHT HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC.ISSUANCE HISTORY - THIS SHEETPRELIMINARY PUDSUBMITTALNOVEMBER 3,20251449-005-00SiteMasterplanSITEDEMOLITIONPLANC20087
ATHLETICSBUILDINGMULTI-PURPOSEFIELDSOFTBALLFIELDBASEBALLFIELDMCKNIGHTSTADIUMOTTAWAFIELDBRECKSCHOOLBRECKSCHOOLTENNISCOURTS131161212179917121215LOWERSCHOOLMIDDLESCHOOLLOWERSCHOOLSTADIUMGATEWAYWETLAND NO. 1WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWL
W
L
W
L
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL
WL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWL
WL
WL
W
L
WL
WL
WL WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
W
L
WL
WLWLWL
WL
WL
WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWETLAND NO. 2WETLAND NO. 3WETLAND NO. 7WETLAND NO. 5WETLAND NO. 6WLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
2" BITUMINOUS WEAR (MnDOT 2360)2.5" BITUMINOUS NON-WEAR (MnDOT 2360)10" AGGREGATE BASE - (MnDOT 3138)T.A. APPROVED SUBGRADE5" CONCRETEREINFORCING - NONE4" AGGREGATE BASE (MnDOT 3138)T.A. APPROVED SUBGRADESURFACING LEGEND:BITUMINOUSPAVEMENTCONCRETEWALKSCALE IN FEET080160WETLAND MITIGATION AREASTORMWATERBASINSTORMWATERBASINSTORMWATERBASINCONSERVATION EASEMENT COMPLIANT WALKWAYMATERIALSEE SHEET C301SEE SHEET C302HGA NO:DATE:NODESCRIPTION DATE123 Ottawa Ave NGolden Valley, MN55422NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONCOPYRIGHT HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC.ISSUANCE HISTORY - THIS SHEETPRELIMINARY PUDSUBMITTALNOVEMBER 3,20251449-005-00SiteMasterplanC300SITE LAYOUTAND SURFACINGPLAN88
ATHLETICSBUILDINGMULTI-PURPOSEFIELDSOFTBALLFIELDBASEBALLFIELDMCKNIGHTSTADIUMOTTAWAFIELDBRECKSCHOOLBRECKSCHOOLTENNISCOURTS131161212179917121215LOWERSCHOOLMIDDLESCHOOLLOWERSCHOOLSTADIUMGATEWAYWETLAND NO. 1WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWL
W
L
W
L
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL
WL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWL
WLWL
W
L
WL
WL
WL WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
W
L
WL
WLWLWL
WL
WL
WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWETLAND NO. 2WETLAND NO. 3WETLAND NO. 7WETLAND NO. 5WETLAND NO. 6WL WL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
SCALE IN FEET080160HGA NO:DATE:NODESCRIPTION DATE123 Ottawa Ave NGolden Valley, MN55422N
O
T
F
O
RCONSTRUCTIONCOPYRIGHT HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC.ISSUANCE HISTORY - THIS SHEETPRELIMINARY PUDSUBMITTALNOVEMBER 3,20251449-005-00SiteMasterplanC310CONSERVATIONEASEMENTIMPACTS PLANFuture DevelopmentConservation Easement Impact Area(~2,700 s.f.)Baseball Field ConstructionConservation Easement Impact Area(~2,200 s.f.)Baseball Field ConstructionConservation Easement Impact Area(~15,000 s.f.)Wetland & Floodplain Mitigation AreaProposed Conservation EasementImpact Mitigation Area (~44,000 s.f.)Proposed Conservation EasementImpact Mitigation Area (~10,000 s.f.)Proposed Future ConservationEasement Impact Mitigation Area(~40,000 s.f.)LEGENDEXISTING CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREAPROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENTIMPACTS AREAPROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENTIMPACTS MITGATION AREAPROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENTCOMPLIANT WALKWAY MATERIAL89
ATHLETICSBUILDINGMULTI-PURPOSEFIELDSOFTBALLFIELDBASEBALLFIELDMCKNIGHTSTADIUMOTTAWAFIELDBRECKSCHOOLBRECKSCHOOLTENNISCOURTSLOWERSCHOOLMIDDLESCHOOLLOWERSCHOOLSTADIUMGATEWAYWETLAND NO. 1WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWL
W
L
W
L
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL
WL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWL
WL
WL
W
L
WL
WL
WL WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
W
L
WL
WLWLWL
WL
WL
WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWETLAND NO. 2WETLAND NO. 3WETLAND NO. 7WETLAND NO. 5WETLAND NO. 6WLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL SEE SHEET C401SEE SHEET C402STORMWATERBASINSTORMWATERBASINSTORMWATERBASINSCALE IN FEET080160HGA NO:DATE:NODESCRIPTION DATE123 Ottawa Ave NGolden Valley, MN55422NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONCOPYRIGHT HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC.ISSUANCE HISTORY - THIS SHEETPRELIMINARY PUDSUBMITTALNOVEMBER 3,20251449-005-00SiteMasterplanSITE GRADINGPLANC40090
WETLAND NO. 1WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWL
W
L
W
L
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL
WL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWL
WL
WL
W
L
WL
WL
WL WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL WLWLW
L
WL
WLWLWL
WL
WL
WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWETLAND NO. 2WETLAND NO. 3WETLAND NO. 7WETLAND NO. 5WETLAND NO. 6WLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLFLOOD VOLUMEEG-BALL FIELD WEST TO 842.40CUT=34,384 CYFLOOD VOLUMEEG-MULTIPURPOSE FIELD TO 842.40CUT=15,348 CYFLOOD VOLUMEEG-BALL FIELD EAST TO 842.40CUT=21,172 CYFLOOD VOLUMEEG-NORTH LOT TO 842.40CUT=3,661 CYFLOOD VOLUMEEG-EAST EXCAVATION TO 842.40CUT=11,097 CYFLOOD VOLUMEEG-SOUTHEAST LOT TO 842.40CUT=4,363 CYSCALE IN FEET080160EXISTING EARTHWORK VOLUMES BASED ONFLOODPLAIN ELEVATION OF 842.40RANGE ID123456MINIMUM ELEVATION-5.0+-5.0-2.50.02.55.0MAXIMUM ELEVATION-5.0-2.50.02.55.07.5+COLORHGA NO:DATE:NODESCRIPTION DATE123 Ottawa Ave NGolden Valley, MN55422NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONCOPYRIGHT HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC.ISSUANCE HISTORY - THIS SHEETPRELIMINARY PUDSUBMITTALNOVEMBER 3,20251449-005-00SiteMasterplanEXISTINGFLOODPLAINEARTHWORKPLANC41091
WETLAND NO. 1WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWL
W
L
W
L
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL
WL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWL
WL
WL
W
L
WL
WL
WL WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL WLWLW
L
WL
WLWLWL
WL
WL
WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWETLAND NO. 2WETLAND NO. 3WETLAND NO. 7WETLAND NO. 5WETLAND NO. 6WLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL833835840838837834839836838840840839844
843844847
848846
845
845
84884784684985084884984
7
8478368408448478388398408
4
3
8
3
8
841
840
840ATHLETICSBUILDINGMULTI-PURPOSEFIELDSOFTBALLFIELDBASEBALLFIELDMCKNIGHTSTADIUMOTTAWAFIELDBRECKSCHOOLBRECKSCHOOLTENNISCOURTSLOWERSCHOOLMIDDLESCHOOLLOWERSCHOOLSTADIUMGATEWAYFLOOD VOLUMEFG-BALL FIELD WEST TO 842.40CUT=30,006 CYFLOOD VOLUMEFG-ATHLETIC BLDG TO 842.40FILL=25,741 CYFLOOD VOLUMEFG-MULTIPURPOSE FIELD TO 842.40CUT=14,438 CYFLOOD VOLUMEFG-BALL FIELD EAST TO 842.40CUT=13,487 CYFLOOD VOLUMEFG-NORTH LOT TO 842.40CUT=2,552 CYFILL=225 CYNET=2,327 CY (CUT)FLOOD VOLUMEFG-EAST EXCAVATION TO 842.40CUT=17,958 CYFLOOD VOLUMEFG-SOUTHEAST LOT TO 842.40CUT=4,151 CYSCALE IN FEET080160PROPOSED EARTHWORK VOLUMES BASED ONFLOODPLAIN ELEVATION OF 842.40RANGE ID123456MINIMUM ELEVATION-7.5+-5.0-2.50.02.55.0MAXIMUM ELEVATION-5.0-2.50.02.55.07.5+COLORHGA NO:DATE:NODESCRIPTION DATE123 Ottawa Ave NGolden Valley, MN55422NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONCOPYRIGHT HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC.ISSUANCE HISTORY - THIS SHEETPRELIMINARY PUDSUBMITTALNOVEMBER 3,20251449-005-00SiteMasterplanPROPOSEDFLOODPLAINEARTHWORKPLANC41192
WETLAND NO. 1WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWL
W
L
W
L
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL
WL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWL
WL
WL
W
L
WL
WL
WL WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL WLWLW
L
WL
WLWLWL
WL
WL
WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWETLAND NO. 2WETLAND NO. 3WETLAND NO. 7WETLAND NO. 5WETLAND NO. 6WLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL833835840838837834839836838840840839844
843844847
848846
845
845
84884784684985084884984
7
8478368408448478388398408
4
3
8
3
8
841
840
840
Existing surfaceto new finishedgrade ~8356,861 c.y. (Cut)ATHLETICSBUILDINGMULTI-PURPOSEFIELDSOFTBALLFIELDBASEBALLFIELDMCKNIGHTSTADIUMOTTAWAFIELDBRECKSCHOOLBRECKSCHOOLTENNISCOURTSLOWERSCHOOLMIDDLESCHOOLLOWERSCHOOLSTADIUMGATEWAYSOFTBALL FIELD AREASoftball Field Area = 38,440 s.f.Flooplain Volume replacing standard fill with CoarseAggregate (40% void space).Install Coarse Aggregate from elev 833.0 to 838.0Floodplain volume reduction5 ft x 38,440 s.f. x 40%/ 27 = 2,847 c.y.BASEBALL FIELD AREABaseball Field Area = 100,475 s.f.Flooplain Volume replacing standard fill withCoarse Aggregate (40% void space).Install Coarse Aggregate from elev 835.0 to 838.0Floodplain volume reduction3 ft x 100,475 s.f. x 40%/ 27 = 4,465 c.y.MULTI-PURPOSE FIELDMulti-purpose Field Area = 81,000 s.f.Flooplain Volume replacing standard fill with Coarse Aggregate(40% void space).Install Coarse Aggregate from elev 834.0 to 838.0Floodplain volume reduction4 ft x 81,000 s.f. x 40%/ 27 = 4,800 c.y.3 ft x 100,475 s.f. x 50%/ 27 = 5,582 c.y.North Lot1,334 c.y. (Fill)Existing suface to newfinished grade ~8407,685 c.y. (Fill)Existing surface to newfinished grade ~8404,378 c.y. (Fill)Existing surface to newfinished grade ~840910 c.y. (Fill)SCALE IN FEET080160Southeast Lot204 c.y. (Fill)HGA NO:DATE:NODESCRIPTION DATE123 Ottawa Ave NGolden Valley, MN55422NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONCOPYRIGHT HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC.ISSUANCE HISTORY - THIS SHEETPRELIMINARY PUDSUBMITTALNOVEMBER 3,20251449-005-00SiteMasterplanPROPOSEDFLOODPLAINMITIGATIONPLANC412FLOODPLAIN EARTHWORK/VOLUME TABLESITE AREAEXISTING (CY) PROPOSED (CY) NET (CY)MITIGATIONCREDIT (CY)NET (CY)1-SOFTBALL FIELD34384300064378284715312-BASEBALL FIELD 21172134877685446532203-MULTI-PURPOSEFIELD15348144389104800-38904-ATHLETICBUILDING2541125741-330-3305-NORTH LOT36612327133413346-SOUTHEASTLOT436341592042047-EASTEXCAVATION1109717958-6861-6861TOTAL115436108116732012112-4792NOTE: THE EARTHWORK VOLUMES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS (SHEETS C410, C411& C412) ARE BASED ON THE BCWMC & CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY FLOODPLAINELEVATION OF 842.4 AS THE BASE SURFACE AND THE EXISTING AND PROPOSEDEARTHWORK SURFACES BEING THE COMPARISON SURFACES.THUS, A LOWER CUT NUMBER IN THE PROPOSED COLUMN INDICATES AREDUCTION IN FLOODPLAIN VOLUME AND REQUIRES MITIGATION93
WETLAND NO. 1WLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWL
W
L
W
L
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
WL
WL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWL
WLWL
W
L
WL
WL WL WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
W
L
WL
WLWLWL
WL
WL
WL WL
WLWL
WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWETLAND NO. 2WETLAND NO. 3WETLAND NO. 7WETLAND NO. 5WETLAND NO. 6WLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLSTORMWATERBASIN
ATHLETICSBUILDINGMULTI-PURPOSEFIELDSOFTBALLFIELDBASEBALLFIELDMCKNIGHTSTADIUMOTTAWAFIELDBRECKSCHOOLBRECKSCHOOLTENNISCOURTSLOWERSCHOOLMIDDLESCHOOLLOWERSCHOOLSTADIUMGATEWAYSTORMWATERBASINSEE SHEET C501SEE SHEET C502STORMWATERBASINSCALE IN FEET080160HGA NO:DATE:NODESCRIPTION DATE123 Ottawa Ave NGolden Valley, MN55422NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONCOPYRIGHT HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC.ISSUANCE HISTORY - THIS SHEETPRELIMINARY PUDSUBMITTALNOVEMBER 3,20251449-005-00SiteMasterplanSITE UTILITYPLANC50094
95
96
¼
of
www.sunde.com
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF:
BRECK SCHOOL
GOLDEN VALLEY,MN
1 1
97