Loading...
02-26-01 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, February 26,2001 **** Note: Earlier Meeting Start Time - 6:30P.M. **** I. Presentation by CommonBond Communities - Area B In Golden Valley II. Approval of Minutes- February 12, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting III. Informal Public Hearing - Property Subdivision (SU20-02) Applicant: Susan Gonyea Address: Lots 9, 10 & 11, Block 8 of Lakeview Heights located at 9120 Plymouth Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: The applicant is requesting a subdivision of the main parcel of land in order to create two new lots from the three existing lots that total about 27,500 square feet. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance - Zoning Code Section 11.55 V. Informal Public Hearing - Revisions to the Official Golden Valley Zoning Map -- Short Recess -- VI. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings VII. Other Business VIII. Adjournment ..,. . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2001 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday February 12, 2001. Chair Pentel called the meeting to Qrder at 7:00 PM. I. Approval of Minutes - January 22, 2001 Planning eese, Rasmussen n Olson and Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Ho and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning Mark Grimes, Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Shaffer and motion carr:' Planning Commission Meeting minutes. mously to approve the January 22,2001 II. Discussion of Various Zoning Code . Amendment to the Planned Unit D D) Ordinance - Zoning Code Section 11.55 Pentel asked if it would be possibl Valley compares to them and if t meetings in the past were bei r her cities PUD ordinances to get a feel for how Golden discussed at the joint City Council, Planning Commission in our code. Grimes stated that the a regarding what information suggested. Grimes Council and the PI who are applyi for PUD code is re t at are being proposed now are temporary to get over the issues . ed in the subdivision code. This is the language the City Attorney e issues that were discussed at the joint meetings between the City mmission are going to be policy. The policy is now handed out to people part of the information packet rather than changing the code. When the policy will be included in the new PUD code. Pentel asked if Hidden Lakes has submitted a complete packet. Grimes stated that that Hidden Lakes has submitted an application but it has not yet been determined if it is complete or not. Rasmussen asked if we have a list of the things discussed at the joint meetings and that she would like a copy of this list. .son stated he's typed up the list as a hand out for people who apply for a PUD. .... Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 2 . Grimes asked McAleese what he thinks about the proposed PUD Amendments. McAleese stated that essentially, this makes the existing ordinance conform to our existing practice. He stated some major revisions need to be done on the ordinance and the subdivision code to get the two things working together better. The language now gives too much dis . n and something important could be left out. Pentel stated the language in the proposed ordinance is unclear. e into conformance with he PUD Ordinance such as, ential sections do not address velopments. McAleese stated that it reflects the current practice. It brings th what we're doing already. .It's very important to look at the who I the various residential vs. commercial areas. For example, single family residential it really only applies to the larg Grimes stated this is a discussion item tonight, but wil ht back as an informal public hearing. Eck suggested making a detailed list of what need to be changed. are with the PUD ordinance and what things McAleese stated that some of these iss Once we have an agreement about the City Attorney can turn our de . what things belong in the code, or e addressed in the joint meetings with the Council. . ntal philosophy and what we want the code to look like, e roper language. The City Attorney can recommend long in a policy manual for the City to use. Grimes stated there is a f n Commission and Staff-d something the Plann. ue that needs to be solved between the Council, Planning nning Commission see the general plan of development? This is n and Council need to talk about. Pentel stated the Pr General Plan. e PI property. Plan is usually sketchy and the City Council sees so much more in the ing Commission generally just decides a PUD application is a good use for the Grimes stated that the information submitted with the Preliminary Plans is often the same or very similar to the General Plan. Because the Staff and Planning Commission are asking for more information at the preliminary design stage, there are not as many changes when it goes to the General Plan stage. Rasmussen stated that the difficulty she sees is that if someone comes in with a finished plan and we don't approve the concept, then they've put a lot of money into plans and all the preparation that really wouldn't be necessary if we don't approve it. Pentel stated that the Planning Commission should see the General Plan in order to advise the City . Council on whether the Preliminary Plan expectations have been met. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2001 ee3 McAleese said that the State statutes state, under the conditional use permit section, that governing bodies may create conditional uses including PUD's. The process that the Planning Commission goes through with preliminary design and general design is something that the City adopted. If there is a better approach we can recommend it. Hoffman asked if the City has a h ighway 100 that was open space that is now going to be red being called right-of-way. Grimes agreed with Pentel in seeing what other cities do in terms of the PI the General Plan. B. Revisions to the Official Golden Valley Zoning Map The following is discussion from the memo Dan Olson wrote Fe rding amendments to the Golden Valley Official Zoning map. PenteJ stated that PUD 16 is not on the new map. ay be no such PUD Number. Shaffer stated that Parkview Montessori School is rea garet Mary School and that Parkview leases space from St. Margaret Mary. Eck asked what area was open developme .imes stated there was some property a MnDot pond and suggested that i Grimes stated that with a permit the Council could vary height limitations. Groger asked why K' ' primarily side-by-s' area than a multiple zoned R-2 rather than M-1. Grimes stated because King's Valley is ot stacked units and that the density is more like a two family dwelling elling area. that go out into the lake and if the residents owned that part of the lake. Grimes stated techn Iy they did own that part of the lake but in Minnesota everyone has the right to use any body of water. Groger stated the Golden Valley Historical Society is the wrong color. It should be the same color as the library. Groger also stated that PUD 8 is M-1, which has a maximum height of 3 stories, but the senior citizen center is 8 stories. McAleese stated that technically it isn't required that the underlying zoning and the PUD be brought into .nformance. It's a good idea, but the PUD iSicthe thing that really counts. Minutes Of the Golden Valley Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 4 . Groger questioned the gas station on highway 100. Grimes stated that on our zoning map it's commercial because of the small business that exists there. MnDot purchased the rest of the property. On the comprehensive plan map it is designated as residential rather than commercial. This is something we should talk to our City Attorney about because it was zoned in the past as commercial and there is a commercial operation there. Grimes questioned if we are devaluing the property by rezoning to residential. B. Grimes Pentel mentioned that Old Medicine Lake Road is listed in parenthes s stated that used to be Old Medicine Lake Road, but it will be taken Shaffer asked why the streets in the Hidden Lakes Developme that it's because they are not public streets. Shaffer stated the parentheses too. theses. Grimes stated edley Park should be in III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing a Zoning Appeals and other Meetings ment Authority, City Council, Board of Rasmussen commented on the Sheriff attended. nd that the open house was successful and we~ IV. Other Business A. sion attendance Pentel stated that as we Planning Commissio spring and development time, it's important for people to attend the Pentel stated th can have a present n g Commission Meeting on the February 26 will start early (6:30 p.m.) so they n from CommonBond. C. Possibility of Planning Commission meeting on March 5, 2001 Olson stated there would need to be a Planning Commission on March 5, 2001 due to the number of agenda items coming up. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8: 15 . . . . , Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Planning Commission From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Minor Subdivision to Consolidate lots 9,10, and 11, Block 8, lakeview Heights (9120 Plymouth Ave. N.) into Three lots, Susan Gonyea, Applicant Date: February 22, 2001 Susan Gonyea has requested a minor subdivision of her property at 9120 Plymouth Ave. N. The property owned by Ms. Gonyea is now in three lots. The minor subdivision will consolidate the three lots into two lots. The total size of the property to be consolidated is 27,700 sq. ft. As indicated on the sketch of the consolidation, Parcel A (west parcel) will be 14,762 sq. ft. in area and Parcel B (east parcel) will be 12,928 sq. ft. in area. At the present time, a two-family dwelling exists on Parcel A. Ms. Gonyea owns this two-family house and rents it to tenants. A two-car garage exists on the property as indicated on the sketch plan. The existing garage will be removed and replaced with a new garage if the consolidation is approved. The property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan for Low Density Residential Uses. The zoning for the area is Residential. The existing two-family home at 9120 Plymouth Ave. was constructed at a time when two-family homes were considered permitted uses in the Residential- zoning district. (There is another two-family home to the west at the corner of Plymouth and Gettysburg that is also zoned Residential. This two-family home was also built when two-family homes were considered permitted uses in the Residential-zoning district.) In the past week, the staff consulted with the City Attorney about how to handle this non-conforming zoning situation. The City Attorney's opinion is that in order for this minor subdivision to be approved, the west lot would have to be rezoned to Two-Family Residential because the Subdivision Code requires that all lots in a subdivision meet the requirements of the Zoning Code. Therefore, the staff will schedule a public hearing for the March 5, 2001 Planning Commission meeting agenda. If the Planning Commission decides to recommend approval of the minor subdivision at the February 26, 2001 meeting, it should be conditioned on the approval of the rezoning of the west parcel to two-family residential. (It should be noted that the two-family home of the proposed west lot meets the requirements in the Two-Family Residential zoning district.) The proposed consolidation will create two lots with a north/south orientation. The west parcel will have the existing two-family home and garage on it. Access to this two-family home will continue to be the same as it is today. A driveway from Plymouth Ave. runs along the west side of the house and to the rear of the lot where the existing garage is located. Parking for the two-family home is behind the house. The same driveway will provide access to a new garage. The building setback for the two-family house and garage will exceed zoning code requirements after the new lot line between the two parcels is created. The east parcel is proposed to be created in order to provide another building lot for a single-family home. The east parcel is a rather odd shape due to lot size requirements found in the Residential , ~'.. district of the zoning code. The zoning code states that all lots for single-family homes have to be at least 10,000 sq. ft. in area. In addition, the lots have to have at least 80 ft. of frontage at the front . setback line. In this case, the front setback line for the east parcel is off the stub end of Flag Ave. to the north. The proposed east lot will exceed this minimum lot width requirement at that point. The west lot exceeds requirements found in the Two-Family zoning district for lot size and setback. The first request by Ms. Gonyea was to create two lots each with about 75 ft. of frontage along Plymouth Ave. This does not work because the minimum lot width at the front setback line is 80 ft. for single-family homes and 100 ft. for two-family homes. Also, the topography of the lot requires that the new house be farther to the north. The proposed new lot has quite a bit of topography as indicated by the sketch plan. (The lot drops about 26 ft. from east to west.) Ms. Gonyea has determined that the best place to build the house is as close to east property line as possible because this is the area that is the flattest. However, the house must be located at least 30 ft. from the east property line due to location of City sewer and water lines located in what was Flag Ave. right-of-way. (Currently, the City has a 20 ft. utility easement along the east property line and the City Engineer is requesting an additional 10ft. due to the steep slope in this area. This additional 10ft. of easement is requested as part of the subdivision process.) Due to the 30 ft. utility easement along the east side of this property, Ms. Gonyea plans to ask the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to allow the new house to be built to within about 15 ft. of the north (or front yard) property line rather than the required 35 ft. This variance will be requested due to the additional utility easement that is being requested by the City Engineer. If the variance were not granted, a smaller house that could meet the setback requirements would have to be built. Access to the east lot would be from the end of the Flag Ave. cul-de-sac. The Public Works Department would have to issue Ms. Gonyea a permit to use that portion of Flag Ave. south of the cul- de-sac for a driveway to her property. This access driveway would be built and maintained by Ms. Gonyea. The City would write the access permit and have it signed prior to subdivision approval. The Public Works Department has indicated that such a permit would be granted if it were determined that the property is buildable. The City staff is concerned about whether the proposed east lot is buildable due to the steep slope. As stated above, the lot drops off from east to west by about 26 ft. Ms. Gonyea and her builder insist that the lot is buildable with proper house design and building precautions. As stated in the Subdivision Code, the City Engineer may deny the subdivision if it is determined that the resulting new lot is encumbered by steep slopes. However, the minor subdivision may be conditioned on the applicant's submittal of a certified engineer's study showing how the lot may be so reconditioned as to allow development without adversely affecting adjacent sites. It should also be indicated that the Inspections Department would also require soil tests for the foundation of a house. Additional information may have to be submitted to the Inspections Department due to the location of the house on a steep slope. The staff recommendation is to allow the subdivision to go forward to the City Council after receiving a Planning Commission recommendation with the understanding that such an engineering study would have to be done prior to final approval of the subdivision. If the City Council approves the preliminary plan, the engineering study would have to be produced by the owner (and approved by the City Engineer) prior to the City Council giving approval to the final plat. The City Attorney has approved these steps for approval. This property has City utility services available to it. These utilities are located in the vacated Flag Ave. right-of-way along the east edge of the property. The owner has agreed to give the City an. additional 10ft. utility easement along the west edge of the existing utility easement. This additional 2 . . . . . , 10ft. is necessary due to the steep slope in the area. If it is ever necessary to dig up the utility lines in this area, the existing 20 ft. wide utility easement is not adequate, especially if there is a house right next to the utility easement as was first proposed by Ms. Gonyea. Due to the topography of the lot, special attention will have to be given during construction to avoid erosion. An erosion control plan approved by the Public Works Department will have to be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits. This erosion control plan will have to protect the City utilities that are in the ground in the vacated Flag Ave. right-of-way as well as the steep slope to the west. The information submitted by Ms. Gonyea meets the requirements for a preliminary plan for a minor subdivision as found in Section 12.50 of the Subdivision Code. At this time, a report from the City Engineer has not been done because the report from Ms. Gonyea regarding the slope stability has not yet been submitted. Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision to consolidate three lots into two lots if it can be shown that the east lot can be developed in a manner that is acceptable to the City Engineer. This will not be known until a soil stability study is completed and approved by the City Engineer. Although the staff is concerned about the steep slope situation, there have been other homes built in Golden Valley with similar situations that have been successful. The proposed west lot also must be rezoned in order to bring it into conformity with the zoning code. The staff does not see this as a major issue since the two-family house that now exists on the site appears to meet the zoning code requirements for the Two-Family Residential zoning district. This rezoning will be considered at the March 5, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. 3 " ~ 1 ') LOCA nON MAP AO.O SCAlE: H1S IIJdll!I!I """".... cp -- """"- S .....TIl'l! 0 -...... NOR11f ~ """-TIl'l! E9 ramt...... . I ~ ....- 0 -- ..... L~ --... & -- I ~ DOTAl. -$-.......- ~ TITLE 0 _T... TIILE_ M ..... <8>1 ...............- _ON.... . . VALLEY SQUARE COMMONS GOLDEN VALLEY TOWNHOMES GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA BUILDING BOARD OF REVIEW - CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY FEBURARY 20, 2001 INDEX TO DRAWINGS: NJ.D LOCATION MAP & PROJECT DATA CML Co1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PlAN C-2 SANITARY SEWER,WATERMAIN SERVICES AND STORM SEWER PlAN c.3 DETAILS COLLABORATIVE nesignGroup, inc. 801 Nlcollet Mall Suite 1600 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612.332.3654 Fax 612.332.3626 P~I~oo.DWG 2-20001 l_pmEST :i <t: o l/") 00 c:'! o --- o C:! l"l o - :; o ;>. oil ......l oj) .g l/") o o C') t- 0\ l"l \0 -- '<t o -- l/") o 9 C') t- 0\ l"l \Ol"l -- l"l Co Z- we<: --;:N i:.L; t, .+" . . '" 20 40 60 ~-- , SCALE IN FEET EROSION CONTROL NOTES LEGEND 1. JU PERfUEl"ER SILT FENCE IHO ROCK COHSTRUCnDN ENTRANCES SHNJ. BE INSTAU.ED PRtOR TO COHS1RUCT1ON. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SfoW.L CONSIftucr DRAltU.CE BASINS PRIOR TO SITE GRADING. J. -.-996--......-....... DENOTES EXISTING COHTOUR -----99a----- DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR ----1.:2L- DENOTES PERCENT OF GRADE DENOTES OlWIWlE ARROW ~ DENOTES EXISTING S'I'ORW SEWER ~ DENOTES PROPOSEO STOIlM SEWER Daf01ES SPOT EL.EVA11ON. WHEN SHOWN NEAR A CURB UNE, DENOTES CUTTER El.E.VAl1ON 4. THE .CDHJRACrOR SHALL GRADE snE AND INST.HJ. U11lJnES. tHE CONTRACTOR SHAIJ. INSTAU. CATCH 8ASfN EROSION CONTROL MI:"'''.'''' 5. JU DlSTUR8ED NIOS stW.L BE STABlUZED wmi SEED, SOD OR ROCK BASE. REFER TO lMOSCAPE PLAN. e. #L.I. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SfWl.' BE INSTAU.EO AND MNNTAlNED IN ACCORDANCE WRH CITY ~D WATERSHED DISTRICT. ""..... DENOTES TOP Of WAU. aLVA110N 7. THE CClNT1W:I'OR SH.tLL' WoINTAlN AU. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. INCUJO\NG THE REMOVAL OF' ACCUMULATED SflT IN FRONT OF SILT FENCES, OURINC THE DURA110N OF THE CONSTRUCTlOH. 8. NlY EXCESS SEDIMENT IN PROPOSED BAsINS stWl.. BE REMOVED BY TliE CON11W:TOR. 9. RENOVE ALl. EROSION CONTROl. MEASURES AFTER VEOETAl1ON IS ESTABUSHED. 10. lHE CONTRACTOR SHAI.l. REMOVE AU. SOILS AND SEDIMENT lRACKEO ONTO EXISJING !mEETS AND PAVED MfAS. 11. If' BI.OWING DUST BECOMES A NUISANCE, THE CONTRACTOR SHAll. APPLY WATER f'lK)M A TANK TRUCK TO AlL CONSl'RUcnON ARrAS. 12. SWEEP 10JACENT STREET IN ACCORDNiCE WITH CITY REQIJIREt.lENTS. OCOCOCOOCQOOOOO DENOlES EROSION CONTROl. FENCE PAVEMENT SECTIONS I':,,:,':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':-:-l """"AY 1 1/2-' MnDOT 23.31 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE 2 . MnDOT 2331 BfTUMINOUS SASE COURSE 8- CL 5 GRAVEL (1~ CRUSHED QUARRY STONE) BASED ON STABLE SUBGRAOE. INCREASE THICKNESS IF NOT STABlE _"._>_.~___>.."......__>~_~........>.__"......._...,.>_..~..."_~'l>-_"'_-.> ~w.."........w."-".........'",,",...'~ SlTUNINOUS PAlIi .......m................ ~.1f{S:.~k.emJc::~ = =~E BASED ON STABLE SUBGRADE, INCREASE THICKNESS IF NOT STABLE Ii!',;.r":"c;-O:;',":::.".';:~<';J CONCRETE SWEWAIJ( CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. REFER TO ARCHITECTS snE FVH FOR SUIUXNG ~D PARKING LAYOUT DIMENSIONS NID COORDINAtES. 2. PlACE AND COMPACT A M1NfNUM OF 4. CL 5- ACOREGATE UNDER CURB & CUTIER. J. REFER TO ARCHOECTS PUNS FOR REPtACENENT AND REt.lOVAL PlANS. CONCRETE CAST IN PlACE RONNING W1LL WITH tw4D RAIL (REFER 10 ARCHITECTS P1.ANS) WARNING ....... 'tEMPORARY ROCI< CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CONCRETE "'-;;;::~ .J N'R'CITY REVIE\lIt'SUBMITJ_~_L___ J=EBRUABY=20~=2~01==-ffi---~-:: ".. III ("l NOTE: ELEVATIONS AND SIDEWALl< IN THE WINNETKA AVENUE RIGHT -Of' -WAY AR~ ~~ _SJREfi.SCAP!:-p();RS- - - - - --...... \ --- -----......\ \ -.--=:::- S.M.1. PROJECT NO. 62973-005 SHEET 1 OF 3 SHEETS .~ SMMA \ Sjorr':"'!H!\1 !Je!!'ll & McKee Associates 801 Nicollet Mall Suite 1600 MInneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612.332.6854 Fa;o;612.332-3526 Dl.TE: _ REG. NO. REII1EWED BY: _ I>>.TE_ ~~ ISSUE LOG -6. " CLOUOED CHANGE GOLDEN VALLEY TOWNHOMES GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD GOLDEN VAlLEY. MN. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN CHECKED BY PROJ.PJGR. ~ .srht.lESI.WNItl.MCllEEASSOCIATI:S. INC. 200il C1 . . tfllli; CONNECT TO EXISllNG RCP AT INV-BM.7 INSTALL 18 If t 8" RCP 0 O.M: CB/llH 1 - RlM-M8.8 INV-e88.8i 34 LF 12" RCP 0211.'" (TIE..... JOINTS) CB/llH 2 RIM-t04.5 1NV-8V8.92 ~2. ~ (COORDI~ WIl'H RET....NING WALl. CONTRACTOR.) INV-e8 . 1.8 C'f OEOTEXTILE F: N.L CONstRlJCn0t4 BY RETAINING WALL TO HEADWALl. 4 WESlEY CONMONS PlAH SET. AELDVERIFY LOCAl1ON AND ELEVA110N OF SLEAW: THROUGH RETAINING WAlL 58 LF 12" HOPE .'.OX PLUG INV-895.0 ::E" <t: \0 0 0; N - - ;:; -- 0 C:.l N 0 -= 0 >. C<:I ...J ~ "t:I <ri 0 0 M t- 0\ N \0 ~ l/") 0 9 M t- 0\ N \ON 68 z- pJ~ -;:N r.r.. RIGtIT-oF-WAY---. 1Jo1. If-12'' HOPE. 1.OX WITH PYC DRAIN (WIINS . 20' INlERV.tLS WITH IRON SLOTIED GRATES RIM El.EV'S.905.8 v.4 LF-12" HPDE 0 '.OX WITH ONE PVC DRNN BASIN Ru..-905.e fNVa901,0 HOlE: ElEVATIONS AND SIDEW,tLK IN THE WINNETKA AVENUE RIGHT-Of-WAY ARE ~ _SJREEL.$CAPE"""PI:mS-- - - - - -', ~-~-- - -l I -----------------------------------------------/ . . --, -- \ ------ ----t -- I -=- ,., (:=============================== c=========------ WINNETKA A VENUE '" ~ .+. '" 20 40 60 SCALE FEET IN LEGEND ~--e-- DENOTES EXISTING $lORN SEWER ~ts--- DENOTES PROPOSED STORM SEWER ~,--t... DENOlIS ElClSl1NG WATERMAlN. HYDRANT " GAlE VALVE ~i~ DENOTES PROPOSED WATERMAlN, HYDRANT &: GAl[ V/lL.VE ~ DENOTES EX1SflHG SNm'ARY SEWER ~uu.. - - DENOTES PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER ----~9e----- DENOTe PROPOSED CONTOUR CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. REFER 10 MCHIlECT"S SITE Pu.N FOR BUILDING MID PARKING LAYOUT, DIMENSIONS NW LOCATIONS. 2. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, THE CON1RACfOR SHAU. FIELD VERIFY AU. EXtSTIW UflUTY lOCAllONS NID INVERTS, SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN. Nf( DfSCREPANCY BEtWEEN PLANS AND FIEI.D CONomOHS SHAU. BE REPORTED TO THE OWNER MtErMTELY. J. 'THE UT1UTY CONTRACTOR SHH.L. VERIFY THE lOCAnOHS N<<) EU.VAlIONS OF THE BUIlDING PIPE SYSTEM PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING SERVICE CONNECTIONS. 4. AU. UllllTY WORK SHAU. BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CllY OF GOlDEN VAU..EY SPECIF1CA11ONS AND BUIlDING PERMIT REQUIRDlENTS. 15. SEE SHEET C1 FOR RUNNING WAlLS. e. SITE CClN'TRACTCIR SHAU.. COORDINATE CONSTRUCTlON SCHEDULE WITH CITY CONTRACTORS INST,tUJNG RETAINING WALLS, STREEtSCAPE IWPROYENENTS AND STREAN BANK PROTECT1ON. WARNING THE CClHJRAC1QR SHAll.. CONTACT AlL PUBUC UTIUl1ES FOR LOCA11ONS 0; M.L UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONOUITS, PIPES. MANHOLES, VILVES. OR OTHER BURIED STRUC11JRES BEFORE OIG01NG. HE SHAlL REPAIR OR REPtACE THE JBWE WHEN DAW.GEO DURING CON5mUCllON AT NO COST TO OWNER. .-- -'- ---~ ---------- "-'" CITY REVIEW SUBMITTAL FEBRUARY 20. 2001 .~ Sf\1MA \ Sym~€~ Mfj!l1i Mc.i\ee A$$Cci'Jt~ll 801 Nicollet Mall Suite 1600 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612.332.3654 FilX612.3:l2.3626 SCHOEU & MADSON, INC. (952) 546-7601 FAX: 546-9065 DfoTE: _ REG. NO. RE.VlEWED BY: _ DAtt_ "ME DATE ~~~ON ISSUE LOG ^ .. CLOUOEOCHANGE GOLDEN VALLEY TOWNHOMES GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD GOLDEN VALLEY, MN, SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN SERVICES AND STORM SEWER PLAN SCACE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY PROJ ARCH PROJ_MGR. ~ .Sl'hf.1ES.~.lAINI&MCKEEASSOClAm,INC.2000 C2 S.M.!. PROJECT NO. 62973-005 SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEETS i -< 0\ - 0\ c:-! - - - 0 --- 0 C:' N 0 - .... ;:l 0 ~ ....l oB ~ V'l 0 0 M r- 0\ N :9 '<t 0 --- V'l 0 52 M r- 0\ N 'ON 6~ ~~ ___ C'l ~ ., '" CATOl BASIN FRAME AND GRATE: NEENAH R-2504 MAHOL.EfRAME ANO UO: NEENAH R-171J , 24. CONCRElE ADmllNG RINGS "" RlNG.JOINTS NOTE: ~CON~~~ 14' ~~~ORvnH ~r APPRO\m EQUAl. T .L .. T PRECAST OR BlOCK I I __-=-_~-:J '""'- POURED OR PftEtAST CCJNCR[li: SASE. NOTE: DASHED tJH[ DOt01ES !ilJMP. If" SP!C1FED. IN MANHa.E. -~ \. ,... CITY etOlHEER fIIEC 23110 ~,.,... STORM SEWER CB!MANHOLE CITY or GOLDEN" ~ VALLEY - VI' CITY 01' GOLDEN" ~ VALLEY - VI' ROCK CONSTRUC11ON ENTRANCE CITY ENGINEER REG 23110 O-RINGS ON JOINTS L~. ffi=t=!j :G$ ".....1. I '.~~~ '( ~] GEOlEX11I.f FABRIC kl; I LF~ ANCHORAGE 1AENCH. IAa<F'lU. .,.. TMftO ~ NAT\.IIW. SOL "'. ..IT .:1. NOTE: l\tIERE PVC PIPE IS USED lHE ~.. lIIANHOLE SHALL If[ FURNISHED ;. 'MTH INlERPACE BOOT OR APPROIoelEllUAL ~'~I I .. .. ............... 1110""""" NO STEPS SHALl.. BE '"STALLED ON MANHOLO LOS lHAN 15 FT. DEEP. OVER 15 FT. NON CORROSI~ STEPS SHAlL BE INSTALLED. o 3.-t~'~f}...r Ir PRECAST CONe. OR CAST-IN-PLACE BASE APP~ '. ,... erN ENGINEER REO 23110 APPROIoel;Z"- aTY ENCIHEER REC 23110 CITY or GOLDEN" ~ VALLEY - VI' STANDARD SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE DES. C AND CASnNG SlL T rENCE SHAPED SUBGRAOE --..... pve ... ~ ~ Be: - OlITSlDE DW.lOER tt - 8ACKfILl COVER ~ TOP OF PIPE D - INSIDE DiAMETER d - DEPTH Of' &mOlNG ~ 9Et.OW PIPE TYPlCALIIDOING DlTAIL CITY REVIEW SUBMITTAL FEBRUARY 20, 2001 . . UNDER. NPfIAP . IW'RAP ~~~MWE1~F'ABIllC ~ ...., ... EQUAl. ...... ..... .......... ..' flL"" IILNll<El" ~~ -;Z"'''' CITY "!NQtI!EIIl REG 231'10 RIPRAP AT OUnLETS CITY 01' GOLDEN" ~ VALLEY - VI' FOUNJAlKlH (MAY NOT BE REQURO.) IF 1HERE IS NO m:w ON THE PROPOSAL: FORI.! f(R GRANULAR NADAl. FOR BACKFIU.. BEODING. OR FOUNDATION, lifE COST 5HAl.L BE INCLUDED IN H UNIT PRICE. F'OA PIPE. APPR~ l,ti" Qrr ENGINEER REG 23110 INSTALLAnON 01' CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE PIPE CITY 01' GOLDEN" ~ VALLEY - VI' . I;. d I~ ill ~~ TYPICAL DRIVEWAY. SECTION FOR DESIGN I CONCRI!Te CURB AND GUTTER ~.lnEl Of BACKflLL I5'STRlPS M1RAGftID 5T . 1/3 POINTS OF EXPOSED WAll. EXlEHD ORAlHTlLE OUT THROUGH rACE OF WALl. EVERY 100' TO 1Stl', CAP EXPOSED E~ \liTH APPRO\IED GRATE. . NOTE: INSTAI.J. 'IIIITH A YNlNUW Of' OttE COURSE BElOW CRACE. .. ~- ~ OTY ENI3lHEER FlBEROl.ASS PIllS WAll. TYPE AND STYlE (F BLOQ( TO BE DETERMINED BY OWNER. WALL DESIGN BY SUPPUER. TYPICAL INSTAlLAnON RETAINING WALL DETAIL APPRO~ 1, 1999 REG 23110 NOTE: TWO r II r fOOD STNCU OR ~ BARS IN EA<:H.BALE AND EMBEDOED IN tHE lIROUNO.(1V .. 1lU1M) APPROIoel ;Z"'''' CITY- ENGINEER REG 23110 BALE CHECK TO PROTECT STORM SEWER INLETS CITY OF-..r GOLDEN VALLEY ';'~...f:~~ii4 ""'" ~=-FlA~~ SLAlISlAlstKINE~TlNO '""""" ......- AlXlNCREItiWlOLEstW.l. IE l"DUREO MOUND THl!: CI'.l 1lINC!i.1\oISstW.l.MOT,1II)IK\I[R, 'IWo'ElHE"Ol.'INCREfEGROUT IlET'AUNTHERlNGS. 2"AD.IUSIlNGIUNGS 2MlNIliUt.l '''''''''"" ~.~ ' ~ ,..."" .;F.....'. ~ .J / .".,.,;...".. .- '"., ,. L1 ,':;:':';"~'" " """'" OR'" I """"'" "".... 12-w. DEAD END CATCH BAliN ~o__s .~ SMMA \ Symm~s' Melfi; -& M<,Xee AssccJot",... 801 Nicollel Mall Suile 16{)O Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612332.3654 Fax612.332.3626 SCHOELL at MADSON, INC. (952) 546-7601 rAX: 546-9065 Dl'TE:_REG.NO. REVIEWtD Eft: _ DAlE:_ OWNER REVIEW DATE ~~~ tSSUELOO ~ '" a.oUOEO CHANGE GOLDEN VALLEY TOWNHOMES GOlDEN VALLEY ROAD GOLDEN VALLEY, MN DETAILS CHECKED BY JQ6ND. oSYY\lES,th\lN&IdC~EE.\SSOO/"fES,Ir<<:.2OOll C3 S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 62973-005 SHEET 3 OF 3 SHEETS . . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: February 21, 2001 Golden Valley Planning Commission Dan Olson, City Planner Informal Public Hearing on Amendments to the Golden Valley Official Zoning Map Background At the February 7th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed a Draft Golden Valley Official Zoning Map. At that meeting, the Commission asked for some minor changes to the Draft: · PUD # 16 -the Commission was unable to locate this PUD. Upon further research, staff has determined that this should have been stated as.PUD # 1b (as in "boy"). PUD # 16 does not exist. · Rezone 2 properties purchased by MnDDT for storm water ponding along Highway 100 to righ~-ofway (shown as white on the map). This has been done. · Correct the color of the Minnesota Historical Society - this has been done. · Put private streets in parentheses - LOGIS is working on adding this to the base map. · Change the zoning from Commercial to Residential for the former gas station property along Highway 100. Our City Attorney has advised Staff not to rezone the property because of pending legal action between the property owner and MnDOT. For your reference, here are the rezonings that the Planning Commission reviewed.onFebruary ih: . Rezone little league ballfield near Honeywell from Industrial to Institutional (1-4) . Rezone city-owned storm water retention pond north of Honeywell from Industrial to Institutional (1-4). . Rezone Golden Valley Historical Society (6731 Golden Valley Road) from I -1 (church) to 1-2 (museum) · Public Library (830 Winnetka Avenue North) from 1-4 (city offices) to 1-2 (libraries) · All properties zoned Open Development would be rezoned to their General Land Use . Plan Map designation. · Change the underlying zoning classification for the following PUD's: · PUD # I b - Multiple Dwelling (M-2) to Multiple Dwelling (M-4) · PUD # 5 - Residential to Two-Family Residential (R-2) · PUD # 8 - Residential to Multiple Dwelling (M-I) · PUD # 13 - Residential to Two-Family Residential (R-2) · PUD # 14 - Residential to Two-Family Residential (R-2) · PUD # I8a - Residential to Multiple Dwelling (M-I) · PUD # 22 - Industrial to Business and Professional Office · PUD # 24 - Residential to Two-Family Residential (R-2) · PUD # 26 - Multiple Dwelling (M-2) to Multiple Dwelling (M-4) · PUD # 27 - Residential to Multiple Dwelling (M-I) · PUD # 30b - Residential to Two-Family Residential (R-2) · PUD # 34 - Institutional (I-2) to Institutional (I-I) · PUD # 36 - Residential to Two-Family Residential (R-2) · PUD # 42 - Commercial to Business and Professional Office · PUD # 48 - Residential to Two-Family Residential (R-2) · PUD # 53 - Commercial to Business and Professional Office · PUD # 54.. Residential to Two-Family Residential (R-2) · PUD # 67 - Industrial to Business and Professional Office · PUD # 87 - Commercial to Business and Professional Office . Recommended Action Staff requests that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of these changes to the Official Golden Valley Zoning Map in a Formal Public Hearing. Attachment: Revised Draft of the Official Zoning Map . 2 t .. . . . MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: February 21, 2001 Golden Valley Planning Commission Dan Olson, City Planner Informal Public Hearing on Amendments to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance of the Golden Valley Zoning Code Background At the February ih Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed some draft language changes for the City's PUD Ordinance. As you recall, these amendments would allow the following: · Gives the Staff discretion in what types of information are provided by the applicant for a PUD application. · Specifically state that the PUD regulations not only apply to the Zoning Code, but also the Subdivision Regulations (Chapter 12 of the City Code). At the February ih meeting, the Commission asked that some minor changes be made to the proposed language: · Section 2 A - the language has been changed to be made more clear (see attached) · Section 3 - the Commission stated that this language is not a complete sentence. The City Attorney pointed out that this section of the ordinance is a "laundry list" of required information and is not intended to be a complete sentence. Recommended Action Staff requests that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of these PUD Ordinance changes in a Formal Public Hearing. Attachments: Proposed new PUD Ordinance language , II ORDINANCE NO. ,2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Planned Unit Development Regulations . The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains: Section 1. The City Code is hereby amended in Section 11.55, subd. 1, by changing the last sentence thereof to read as follows: It is the intent of this Section to provide an optional method of land use regulations which permit design flexibility by substantial variances from the provisions of tRis-Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code; including variances in uses, setbacks, height, parking requirements, and similar regulations. Section 2. The City Code is hereby amended in Section 11.55, subd. B.A, by changing the first two sentences thereof to read, in part, as follows: A. An applicant for a PUD permit shall complete and submit to the Planning Department an application in a form prepared by and containing information needed by the Planning Department. Except to the extent the Director of PlanninQ requires more or less information, n::_he application shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: . Section 3. The City Code is amended hereby in Section 11.55, subd. 7.8.(8) to read as follows: Unless waived by the City, all data required on a preliminary plat and on a final plat, including streets, utility easements, existing or proposed subdivision of ownership, and such other information, if any, as required by the Subdivision Regulations Chapter12 (Subdivision ReQulations) of the City Code~ (provided, however, that the application for the PUD may request variances therefrom':" and, if so, the submitted data shall include the information and rationale required by Section 12.54 of the City Code for variances from the Subdivision ReQulations. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor of Petty Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. . . . . . Adopted by the City Council this day of ,2000. Mary E. Anderson, Mayor ATTEST: Shirley J. Nelson, City Clerk Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun Post on 132389_1 ,2000. . e e Hey M ran u Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Dan Olson, City Planner Subject: Handout relating to PUD's Date: February 21,2001 Attached for your review is a handout that Planning Staff now gives out to PUD applicants. This handout is based on the disqussions by the Planning Commission and City Council at their joint meetings. If you have any questions, please contact me. WWW.Ci.goUm_vll~ Y February, 2001 In recent joint meetings, the Golden Valley City Council and Planning Commission discussed what items applicants for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) should be ready to discuss in presenting their application for consideration and approval by the Council and Planning Commission. Providing this information will help the developer to explain why they want the development to look the way it does. Below are those items of concern: . Has a neighborhood meeting been held ? . Describe landscaping . Describe buffering . Describe snow storage . Describe garbage removal . Describe street maintenance . Describe yard maintenance . Setbacks - what are they and why? · Street width - is it adequate for emergency vehicles and parking for the homes? . Ponds - how are ponds buffered? . Describe pedestrian access, if applicable . Describe public space, if applicable . How is the site accessed by traffic? . Is this life-cycle or affordable housing? · What is the lot coverage of hard surfaces ? . What is the density per acre ? . What are traffic counts ? . Architectural elements for the homes, including computer generated photos if possible, should be supplied If you have any questions, contact the Planning Department at 763/593-8095.