Loading...
09-22-08 PC Agenda AGENDA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, September 22,2008 7pm 1. Approval of Minutes August 11, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 2. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - Quail Woods -1825 Quail Avenue - SU06-03 Applicant: Peter Knaeble (Golden Valley Land Co.) Address: 1825 Quail Avenue Purpose: The subdivision would create three separate lots and allow for the construction of two new homes. The existing home will remain. ---Short Recess--- 3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TrY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 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, August 11,2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Purpose: designation consistent with the General Land ation 1. Approval of Minutes June 23, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meetin MOVED by Eck, seconded by Cera and motion carrie 23, 2008 minutes as submitted. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Prope Applicant: Address: Grimes referred to acres on the northe Density Resid Land Use Pia Residenti and explained that this is a proposal to rezone 5.6 ouglas Drive and Golden Valley Road to the R-4 High n order to make it consistent with the current General at the properties are currently zoned R-1 Single Family Density Residential. Grimes 1999 the City adopted the current General Land Use Plan w . h desi se properties high density. Since that time staff has not rec end ning the properties even though state statute requires that zoning maps alland use plan maps be consistent. He explained that staff is now recomm these properties be rezoned because there has been a request to construct 175 units of housing which is approximately 30 units per acre. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this rezoning because it is consistent .with the General Land Use Plan map dating back to 1999. Kluchka asked why the City is proposing this rezoning now. Grimes stated that the City is proposing this rezoning now because United Properties is proposing to build 175 units of senior housing and the City's General Land Use Plan map and Zoning map have to match. He stated that this rezoning probably should have been done sooner. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 2 Schmidgall asked if it would be an option to make the General Land Use Plan map match the Zoning map instead of the other way around. Grimes stated that the City Council has the right to change the General Land Use Plan map how they want. The current policy of the City as shown on the General Land Use Plan map is high density residential. Within the past year, the Planning Commission has suggested as part of the Comprehensive Plan update that these properties remain designated high density because this is a logical location for higher density development in Golden Valley. Keysser opened the public hearing. is Eleanore Kolar, 6186 Golden Valley Road, said she is appalled an even at this meeting. She said she is amazed that the Planning heard of global warming because removing the trees from the deforestation. She said this shows the ignorance of governi the sense is in using this property for someone's monetary g Jamie Fitzgerald, 1400 Florida Avenue North, said th s for this meeting was very lax and the only way she foun rom a neighbor who said this proposal was already a done deal. She he h sing stock in the area and said "the GV Ghetto" is at the top of the hill f the area is small starter family homes with the majority being Ion ed residents. She expressed concern over the size of the ecause four-story buildings will tower over the neighborhood. Sb~"f.:r l'\l~~iiii8:~mcerns include ambulances constantly driving by and the loss .jg~en s.:~ce ancrtrees located on these properties. She said she is worried that thi a willchang~ too much and the City needs to consider the impact on the rh because she is afraid it won't be community friendly. She said she wo e posal to include a park or an area open to the public. She questioned t t creek and questioned what type of residents the proposed senior hous d have including violent people or people with dementia. She said 0 happy if a smaller assisted living home were built but the City needs co ct to the smaller single family homes in the area. alley Road, said he is concerned that a four-story building will . He is also concerned about what the building will look like III affect the traffic. He said this proposal will cause a lot of e difficult getting on and off Golden Valley Road during the Patty B 414 Golden Valley Road, said she did not receive a hearing notice for this meeting or for the meeting held by the applicant last Wednesday. She said at the applicant's meeting they were told that the Comprehensive Plan is calling for high density on these properties and that is what the City wants. She said she doesn't see how the City can pre-approve things without getting citizen input. She said she was also told by the applicant that they will not make any money from the 74-unit co-op building. She said that the proposed buildings will be too dense and questioned how many acres the project includes. Keysser stated that the project will be on 4.7 acres. Burrets expressed concern about how many people would be allowed to live on an acre. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 3 Grimes explained that the R-4 zoning district allows housing in buildings up to 8 stories or 96 feet in height before requiring a Conditional Use Permit. He said in terms of density generally 30 to 35 units per acre is considered to be pretty high density. He referred to the Calvary apartments and co-op property and stated that that has approximately 35 to 40 units per acre and is 10 or 11 stories in height and is the tallest development in Golden Valley. Burrets questioned why the applicant wouldn't just build a little bit bigger assisted living building and forget about the co-op building if they are not going to make money from it anyway. She stated people are very unhappy and this is distur . 'ves. She added that it isn't that people don't want this type of use it's the siz , J hel and design that are the issues. She said the City should be looking f g oth than assisted living buildings. They should be providing affordable ople to move into this neighborhood. roblem with down Golden she would prefer uildi . She said this is stioned how the City nning Commissioners don't rea. She stated that the City P~i~ij>.~he "Kyoto Protocol" and the new to hora the City to these promises. She low income housing 10 years from now ioned I other senior housing properties are at proposed new buildings looks very institutional . She asked that the applicant work with the ing an open space and said there are a lot of ique. She said residential properties have a big impact cerned about storm water issues and landscape used so close to the creek. She said she is also and hearing loud ambulance sirens all day long. She urged es. Stacy Hoschka, 6400 Golden Valley Road, said she a the notification process and she spent hours distributi Valley Road. She said she doesn't object to the assisted living or senior housing versus another going to be the highest density area in Golden wanted the area to look. She said it soundstb' even agree on the amount of density tt") shou has made promises with the Envisio Douglas Drive Corridor Study an said she is nervous that this pro if this project doesn't succe capacity and stated that t and they will tower over neighborhood regar ing I opportunities to be on the environ ent maintenance a concerne 0 the City R anne 00 Golden Valley Road, said she is opposed to rezoning this area. Sh ted t ears ago Covenant Manor approached her because they wanted to expa d they were not interested in her family, they only wanted money. She suggest ing nice single family homes and stated that the proposed project will change the neighborhood and the tall buildings won't fit in with the rest of the area. Janice Laulainen, 6040 Golden Valley Road, said she loves this area and what the City is doing is uncalled for. She said the gorgeous trees will be gone and she can't understand with all of the senior housing in the area why they need more. She asked why this project isn't being built where the Douglas Drive Apartments or the Copacabana Apartments are located because there is a lot of crime in those areas. She said she's been told that the older people who would be living in the proposed new buildings won't Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 4 drive and that is "baloney". She said the City is really asking for problems and referred to all the buildings that are for currently for lease. She said the proposed buildings are too high and will block the sun and wreck the view. She asked why this corner and why this is a "cut and dry" deal. She added that if the Planning Commission wants to beautify Golden Valley they should do it with something else. Jeanne Nyatz, 1350 Douglas Drive, said she lives in the condominium building to the north and will look directly at the proposed buildings. She said she thinks the project is well planned and will be meticulously maintained and beautifully landsca She stated that she has never had a problem getting in and out her driveway on ive and she doesn't think that the density of the proposed new buildings will roble Lager asked about the cu Planning Commission h process, keeping th se p ap has been designated high the Zoning map consistent with ies need to be rezoned to the Fredric Lager, 6306 Golden Valley Road, suggested that peo through another presentation by United Properties because this meeting has been misinformed and is misrepresenting t United Properties is a local company which has been und their sixth or seventh similar proposal. They are not c pillaging Golden Valley. He said they will be a go area and he is in support of this proposal if they questioned if rezoning these properties is just fi Keysser explained that the City's Gen density for at least the last nine years. the existing General Land Use PI High Density Residential R-4 zo nsive Plan update. Grimes explained that the n as part of the Comprehensive Plan update designated high density. Jamie Fitzgera against the pr and that t I nue North, said she wants to reiterate that she is not ed that a mass mailing be done to a 10-block radius ission consider tabling this proposal. n Valley Road, referred to Mr. Lager's comment that there has erstanding regarding this proposal and said she wants to know what tood or misrepresented. Fredric 306 Golden Valley Road, stated that he assumes the notification process followed all of the requirements. Grimes explained that the City of Golden Valley mails hearing notices to all property owners within 500 feet. He added that the state statute requires hearing notices be mailed to property owners within 250 feet. Eleanore Kolar, 6186 Golden Valley Road, said she doesn't believe there has been any misrepresentation; people are just expressing their opinions. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 5 Mary Carson, 1601 Kelly Drive, said she drives by this area constantly and if something is going to be done it should be done tastefully because it impacts a lot of people in Golden Valley. She said from what she has heard this project is not well planned. They are going to come in, build, then leave because it is business to them. She said she is concerned about the loss of trees and added that there has to be a way to fit the architecture into the land. Dale Bates, 6140 Golden Valley Road suggested the developers build green roofs in order to release oxygen and save money on heating costs. Keysser clarified that this proposed project is not a "done deal" makes their decision. He also clarified that the City is not th project so it is not up to the City to tell the developer to build the proposed senior housing. but Grimes' memo es are currently Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser close Kluchka stated that the zoning map says the pro says R-4 and asked for clarification. Grimes stat zoned R-1 and R-3, and the proposal is to rezo Kluchka said he is concerned about g . R-3 zoning district allows for townhom less per acre. The R-4 zoning dis per acre. He stated that the Cit requirements on the Genera consistent. rimes explained that the ily buildings if they are 12 units or i- ami buildings with 12 or more units a zoning district to match the density because the two maps were not Keysser asked if the pro proposed project d the General La d U He explained t 'f properties 0 needs t City. zoned 0 R-4 High Density Residential and the if the property would remain R-4. Grimes reiterated that ows these properties should be high density housing. Commission and the CityCouncil believe that the ed for high density then the General Land Use Plan map se the High Density designation is the current policy of the bout the density of the condominiums to the north. Grimes said imately 50 units in the condominium which is approximately 25 to 30 density. Schmidgall stated that the City wasn't thinking when it designated these properties high density on the General Land Use Plan map because he can't imagine a 96-foot tall building in this location. He said he thinks medium density would be better in this location particularly because the zoning to the west is R-1 Single Family. He said it looks like this proposal is being squeezed on to these properties and he thinks the General Land Use Plan map needs to be corrected not the Zoning map. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 6 McCarty said he is concerned that if this property is rezoned to R-4 and this project doesn't go through then someone could build a 96-foot tall building. He suggested reconsidering the General Land Use Plan map designation. Eck said the issue to consider is if R-4 is appropriate in this location because if the land use is changed to R-3 it would shoot this project down. Kluchka questioned if rezoning the properties to R-3 would make the apartments "not developable" . Schmidgall noted that the properties n agreed and stated that the properties and if the apartments to the north density because of the facts of t hat if a ity would have rification that if me ng different they Eck stated that if the property is rezoned to R-4 it doesn't necessarily taller or higher density project would be approved. Keysser que e could be denied if it were to meet all the zoning code require . G' e that a PUD Permit requires a developer to stick to an appro Cera asked if the PUD stays with the land. Grimes sai developer in the future wanted to change an approve to rescind or amend the existing PUD Permit. K someone in the future wanted to build somethin would have to amend the PUD. Grimes said es n the same situation. Grimes .k are considered non-conforming y will more than likely be higher Cera asked if the City co Grimes reiterated that th Planning Commission d table the rezoning r plan designatio . He City has looke density b se areas higher rezoning request, but deny the PUD request. ci designated this area high density. If the ee that this area should be high density they could k the City Council to reconsider the comprehensive Iden Valley is currently 70% single family homes. The olden Valley for areas that could be designated higher 'ng Commission and City Council felt there needed to be density uses and it was felt that this was a good area for nt. y need to look at the City and see if there is a better location for this ent and she doesn't think there is. Keysser said he is comfortable with rezoning the property knowing the City has the PUD process for protection. McCarty said he is curious as to what the Douglas Drive Corridor study will find because this project will set the tone for the rest of the corridor if this project goes forward. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11,2008 Page 7 Keysser stated that the Douglas Drive Corridor study committee has looked at maps to see if change was wanted or not. Hogeboom added that the consensus of the Douglas Drive Corridor study committee was to change these properties to high density. Kluchka said this is one of the better places the City has to do this type of development and he is inclined to support the rezoning. However, he is concerned about traffic because nobody yields at the corner of Golden Valley Road and Douglas Drive, which needs to be thought about as a part of the Douglas Drive Corridor study. He said they also need to address traffic and impacts to the area. McCarty said he understands that Gol concerned that if these properties w building and if it meets all of the rvations. She said oject is an attractive Cera said he agrees that there is a need for higher density housing. Eck said this is a NIMBY issue and it is fair to say that higher never desirable for the neighbors living in the area. He said the neighbor's feelings but if the City was totally sensitive th change. Waldhauser said she supports the rezoning reque$twit~ Golden Valley needs more senior housing oppo~unities option for seniors. er density but he is one could propose at 96-foot tall ents they wouldn't need a PUD. Kluchka asked if there is an development. Grimes sai height of the structures t Zoning Code requir ment . properties until the it is in currently Kluc something mo som ype of overlay or control on future ink so. He explained that if the concern is the a ~Commission could consider changing the ded that if the City holds off on the rezoning of the edure it would hold the zoning of the .land in the state oesn't want to playa procedural game he would like ke to rezone the properties to R-3 Medium Density Density Residential. He said he would rather have a developer lIowed to build taller than have the City beg a developer to build McCart if the rezoning and PUD are approved and the developer decides not to build this project what the limitations are to the next developer. Grimes stated that the City Council can eliminate or rescind a PUD and go back to what the property is zoned and a future developer would probably have to replat the properties or a PUD can be amended to allow for something else. He reiterated that the PUD takes the plans submitted and holds the developer to them. He stated that from a staff perspective this proposal is consistent with what the City is calling for. He referred to the City's housing plan and noted that it also calls for providing an alternate form of housing. He stated that Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 8 other cities have built this type of product and have proved that this type of housing causes turnover and frees up single family homes for younger families to purchase. Waldhauser said the thinks the City should be looking at all the properties at the same time and needs to be thinking about the whole area. Grimes reiterated that state law requires that General Land Use Plan maps and Zoning maps are consistent with each other. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera and motion carried 6 to 1 to rezoning the following properties from their current zoning designatio Density Residential Zoning District. Commissioner Schmidgall voted . 1100, 1170, 1200 and 1300 Douglas Drive North from R- District to R-4 High Density Residential Zoning District . 6200 and 6212 Golden Valley Road from R-3 M District to R-4 High Density Residential Zonin D 3. Informal Public Hearing - Prelimina Development - Applewood Poi Applicant: - Planned Unit Address: Drive and Golden Valley Road Purpose: struction of a 4-story, 74-unit senior cooperative OS-unit assisted living building. and stated that the properties involved in this request of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road and are he previous rezoning request. He stated that United uild two buildings on these properties and create one lot for 74-unit senior cooperative housing building and the other will ng building. The proposed buildings will be three and four stated that the City Engineer and Hennepin County have reviewed e 'vely and Hennepin County has said they do not want access to the s Drive. Therefore there will only be one access located on Golden Valley said he feels comfortable with only one access because of the population of the buildings. He stated that both buildings will have underground and surface parking and that the amount of parking provided exceeds the City's parking requirements. Grimes referred to are located at the no He stated that one of staff's concerns was the additional 17 feet of right-of-way along Douglas Drive that the County is requesting to accommodate future road changes, turn lanes or sidewalks. He stated that United Properties is providing additional sidewalks and is improving sidewalk connections as a part of their proposal. He referred to the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 9 issue of height and explained that the City measures height from grade to the mid-point of the highest gable so the proposed buildings will be from 46 feet to 56 feet in height. He stated that previous speakers brought up the issue of "green" development and suggested the developer discuss their plans. However, regarding storm water management they have gone above and beyond the City's requirements. He stated that the City will be requiring maintenance agreements for the ponds and for the pervious pavers they are proposing. The applicant will also be required to do a tree preservation plan. He referred to the site plan and discussed a small triangular area to the north of their property. He explained that United Properties is in negotiations with condominium property to north to obtain that triangular property. With piece of property the proposal will not be allowed to go forward with t approval. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this p comments from the City Engineer, the Deputy Fire Marshall a ining the small triangular property to the north. McCarty noted that the setback along Douglas Drive i would require a variance. Grimes stated that variances PUD process and that the plans that are submitt Grimes added that the County is also asking for asked if the easement would affect the setback. determined from the official right-of-way fQl'tf\le!~t ed if that a part of the what gets built. sem t for trails. Kluchka no. The setback is Schmidgall asked if the buildings are act underneath. Grimes said the par . buildings is approximately 56 fe '.(3S in height with the parking hd reiterated that the height of the Alex Hall, United P rope rti United Properties. He st six years ago and th y h understands the ne meeting and h~~ invl landscaping andtqlk t Iked about the background and history of into the senior housing market approximately ive co-ops througf\lout the metro area. He said he rns and added that he has had a neighborhood orhood to go to another one of their sites and see the e who live there. 1I0w the City's Comprehensive Plan which calls for higher I a sed on that, they acquired the properties because they feel well on this corner. He referred to the 3-story condominium building to that their proposed new buildings will be less than 10 feet taller than buildings will not tower above the other buildings in the area. He referred omment that was made about not needing the co-op building and clarified that they do need the density of both buildings to make the project work, however the assisted living building will probably be more profitable. He referred to a site plan and stated that there will be one enclosed parking space per unit for the co-op building and the co-op building is "for sale" housing, not rentals. Hall referred to the concern expressed regarding traffic and stated that the use they are proposing is one of the lower traffic generating uses that can be found. He stated that they have done traffic studies in other cities where they have similar projects. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 10 Hall showed a rendering of what the proposed buildings will look like and explained that the colors shown are not the final color choices. He stated that their buildings use a variety of materials such as stucco, Hardie Board siding and stone. He said they welcome the neighbors input on colors and materials. Keysser asked about the roof materials. Hall stated that the roofs will be a dark color, asphalt shingle. Keysser asked about the co-op prices. Hall said the co-op units will sell for approximately $185 per square foot. Keysser asked why they are proposing co-ops instead of condominiums. Hall stated that there is a financial advantage for a co-op er because a co-op has a master mortgage, not individual mortgages like a condo e explained that co-op documents are set up to give residents a say in erty is run. He stated that they don't just construct the buildings and lea h eir own properties with an on-site housing manager and they als s sand committees which are not often found in condominiums. Hall referred to the City's Comprehensive Plan and di which show that the 65+ age group is the fastest gro a product that is needed now and in the future. H these types of communities it frees up single-fa orecasts p ey are building ople moving into ger families. Hall again referred to the City's Compreh stated that they have had a blight anal proposal meet the standard for bligh standards. He said what they are reiterated that their proposal m g blighted properties and f the 5 properties in this tax increment financing be a Improvement to the City and in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Kluchka asked Hall abou Bloomington site has 95 Bloomington units sid. Ha construction and th concerns were iti project but he "machine v Bloomington location. Hall said the p ately 3 acres. Keysser asked how the II of the units were sold before they were done with iting list. Kluchka asked how the neighborhood gton. Hall said he wasn't involved in the Bloomington I in the Roseville project where they created a buffer of between their project and neighboring single-family homes. , gineer for the project, stated that they want to be as "green" as d save as many trees as possible. He referred to a site plan and s will remain, which trees will be transplanted and which trees will stated that there will be permeable pavers in the courtyard and rock s in addition to the heavy landscaping being proposed. Keysser asked if there will be a LEED designation on this project. Hall said no because it is very difficult to get LEED certification on residential property. He stated that they will have a central boiler to increase efficiency in the assisted living building and that these proposed units will be more energy efficient than a single-family home. Kluchka asked if there are plans to install bike racks. Hall stated that all of their buildings have several bike racks in the garage level. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 11 Keysser asked about the location of the nearest bus stop. Grimes said there is a bus stop located across the street. Eck asked if the residents would be able to purchase an additional parking space if they would like. Hall said not in the co-op building because there will be one parking space per unit but there could possibly be spaces available to rent in the assisted living building. Keysser asked about the percentage of single people versus couples. H approximately 50% will be couples. the said Kluchka asked Hall to address the approachability of the entranc site plan and stated that the main entrances are on the interio there will be rear entrances in the back of the assisted livin entrances will have card access or key fob access. He adde installing benches near the creek. Kluchka explained that in previous proposals the buildings that don't look approachable. He said the neighborhood. Teppen stated that there will Drive with a central courtyard to welcom discussions the Planning Commission feels this proposal is different becaus Kluchka said he understands tha Craftsman look" or a large flat intersection and he's afraid i asked if there is a way to showed an elevation dr focal point. Kluchka tate look for ways the b give an imp res . t thinks the tree I h of the ass' d Valley Road. sion has discussed ave entrance or face in 'an gateway along Douglas stated that the previous office space. He said he nd therefore more private. 't wa the buildings to have a llfaux an institution because this is a gateway "Gold Valley" and it won't be appealing. He ore approachable to people driving by. Hall !lPgS and discussed the stone and entrance s is a significant mass of a building and he is trying to ind to the environment and feel approachable and Ii ewhere someone would want to live. Keysser said he massing feel. Hall stated that they turned the east end g to help not have such a long expanse of wall along Golden i he agrees that there is a lot of building along Golden Valley ed that instead of having so much open space with parking in the ider moving the parking to the outside of the building and camouflaging it, then t ing wouldn't be so close to the street. Hall stated that with that configuration they would lose density and they would have to have a T-shaped building. He said that they did consider turning the buildings and that this project as gone through several versions before the one being proposed. Keysser stated that the Douglas Drive side of the buildings looks good to him and questioned if anything could be done along the Golden Valley Road side to help break-up the fagade along the street. Hall stated that could have bump-outs in the fagade along Golden Valley Road. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 12 Fariborz Afsharjavan, JSSH Architects, Architect for the project, stated that some of the issues with the buildings have to do with the setback requirements, the density and the parking requirements. He said the buildings are broken up as much as possible and the site doesn't allow them to do anything differently. He said they are breaking up the fac;ade with the materials they are using. He added that the end user is going to drive the look of this project because people living in these units don't want to look at cars on Douglas Drive or Golden Valley Road. He referred to the entrance and discussed how it will be a visible focal point. ~lley Road, asked how tall the buildings are from the all said the buildings are approximately 57 to 58 feet inks a 60-foot high building would be considered a six story s to know if these buildings are four or six story buildings. City measures height from grade to the middle of the highest that the existing apartment building is a three story building. Grimes hts are greater today than when the apartments were built and e space between the floors. Sienko asked if she will only see one more story on posed new buildings compared to the apartments that are there now. Kluchka stated that these new buildings have a slightly steeper gable so essentially it will look like another story visually. Hall added that the proposed new buildings will be approximately 10 feet higher than the condominium building to the north. ). Hall F but nothing ey pay for it e in constructing pro ct. Grimes said that s of that are separate from Keysser opened the public hearing. John Paulson, 320 Edgewood Avenue North, asked if the City is taxes to aid this project in any way. Grimes stated that the applicant has requested Tax Increme added that they have had preliminary discussions wit e Ci has been finalized. Paulson said he not opposed to th themselves. He said he doesn't want to pay taxe another building and taxpayers shouldn't have t the issue of TIF is an HRA and City Council issu the land use issues they are discussing Kluchka asked how TIF is being use cost of the land. Kluchka asked about the TIF the area and he believes TIF is paid by the prope subsidies because i is no imes s Id there will be a development plan for mmission will review it. Keysser clarified that xpayers. Paulson said he doesn't believe in erican way to do business. Sienko asked how many feet there will be from the curb to the edge of the building. Grimes said there will be 43 feet from the curb to the building. Sienko asked if between the building and the curb there will be trees, sidewalk and grass. Grimes said yes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 13 Sienko asked why they are proposing so much parking if all the spots are not needed. She suggested they put in more green space instead. Kluchka said it is a matter of use versus capacity. Hall stated that visitors won't have access to the underground garage spaces. He explained that they could probably get rid of half of the underground parking under the assisted living building but it is not cost effective to dig out only half of the underground area. He said he does feel that they will need all of the surface parking. Sienko said her concern is the increased traffic on Golden Valley Road. She said she has concerns about people passing each other on Golden Valley Road when they have to slow down for their driveways. She stated that Golden Valley Road w . t replaced last year and now it will look like it did before it was replaced. She sai hinks that a 59-foot tall building is a big building. Hoschka asked if the applicant Hall said no. e e the She said the dings will largely concern and she is n d n't go through. She the trees too. Grimes ypically in effect for two e to be replaced. Grimes ation plan. Stacy Hoschka, 6400 Golden Valley Road, said she agrees wi about having a "faux Craftsman" look along Golden Valley architect said he is not a fan of the massive look. She asked buildings to look like they are proposing just to meet t appli aesthetics are her biggest concern and the four story overshadow the three story portions. She said tr concerned about what could be built at this loca asked if a PUD includes just the building plans 0 . stated that the PUD plans include a landspa~in growing seasons. Hoschka asked if tr die said the applicant will be required to :;i~sing geothermal heating and cooling. Hoschka asked if a main are proposing. Grim s sa nt will be required for the pervious pavers they Hoschka aske said the ponds ding was considered pervious or impervious. Kluchka rvious. Hoschka said ponds are impervious. Patty B Valley Road, expressed concern that there is only one entranc umber of cars coming in and out. She asked where deliveries wi be ma id she hopes it's not on Golden Valley Road. Keysser reiterated that th untyallow access on Douglas Drive. Burrets said the driveway on Golden Valle d . oing to be dangerous and asked how far away the entrance is from the bridge. said the bridge is about 20 feet away from the entrance. Teppen, stated that the distance from the entrance to the driveway was an issue discussed with the City Engineer and the Deputy Fire Marshal, also with the County. Burrets stated that Hall had said they were considering moving the entrance further to the west. Hall said they are still considering that. Burrets stated that people on Golden Valley Road go 35 to 40 miles per hour and there is not enough space for a person to stop. She said a project this size is not appropriate with one entrance and it is something that needs to be thought about. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 14 Burrets asked how the property is going to be lit. Hall said they would follow the City's lighting ordinance requirements. Burrets said she is surprised this property is as expensive as it is considering the blight. She asked how the taxes are figured on co-ops versus condos and how it compares to her house. Keysser stated that the co-op building pays the taxes versus the individuals. Grimes added that the City has no say in a building becoming a condo or a co-op. Hall stated that cities assess co-ops similar to apartment buildings. Burrets said she thinks this project is huge for the size of property it is on and it will be overbuilt. Seeing and hearing no 0 dies that the traffic sing will be less than the numbers ity does know that senior Janice Laulainen, 6040 Golden Valley Road, asked if Golden Valle p who pays to fix it, the developer or the people who live on Golden Val explained that the City policy is if a street is less than 5 years make it new again. He said the City has the same concern new streets torn up and not fixed. Laulainen said this project everyone. Grimes stated that the City can't stop devel ment street is new. Hoschka stated she is not opposed to the proje e involved in the aesthetics of it. Hall stated that he strongly believes b generated from the proposed four st . for a less dense, non-senior proj developments produce less pea to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Schmidgall said he for this site. see this project built but he thinks it is too big Keysser said supports buyers ject because there is clearly a need for it. Cera said he ell especially since it opens up single family homes for new us line. KI hka s ts to see the design better suit the site and he wants to see better tra safety ntersection. He said he is concerned about the safety of the entra an yield sign and crosswalk at that intersection. He said he wants conditio proval that require the building along Golden Valley Road to articulate and because of the lack of articulation he is going to vote no. Grimes said he can get more traffic and safety information from the City's consulting traffic engineer. He said the City also has concerns about the safety of that intersection and it will also a part of the Douglas Drive Corridor Study. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 15 McCarty said he agrees that Golden Valley needs this type of project but he is also concerned about the traffic and long stretch of building along Golden Valley Road so he is not inclined to support this proposal. Keysser suggested they add a condition to their approval that the building fagade along Golden Valley Road must articulate. Kluchka said his preference would be to table the req uest. McCarty said he would rather see one building be taller than have the 10 Golden Valley Road. 1. The "Preliminary Site Development Associates and dated 7/25/08 sh I consist of Sheets C-1.01, 2.0 8.01,9.01,9.02, and 10.01. Pointe" prepared by MRFA ;m~:~pf this approval. These plans 1, 4.02, 4.03, 5.01, 5.02, 5.03, 6.01, Eck said his initial reaction was that this is a lot of building for thi groups of apartment buildings all over Golden Valley that see in and out of them. He said he is inclined to support the proj MOVED by Cera, seconded by Waldhauser and motio carri approval of a PUD at the Northeast Corner of Dougla allow for the construction of a 4-story, 74-unit se 1 05-unit assisted living building with the followin Schmidgall voted no. 2. The preliminary archit by JSSH Architects a plans consist of Coop A2.7, A3.1, A3. A2.2, A4.1, and Applewood Pointe of Golden Valley prepared shall become a part of this approval. These eets , A 1.1, A2.0, A2.2, A2.3, A2A, A2.5, A2.6, 4.1, A4.2, A4.3, A4A, Assisted Living Sheets A2.1, 4., nd Indings made by City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, found in es, Director of Planning and Development and dated July 30, rt of this approval. ';Qations and findings made by Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson found ol'V1ark Grimes, Director of Planning and dated July 21,2008 shall rt of this approval. 5. Prior to approval of the final plan of development by the City Council, title to the triangular piece of property now owned by the condominium association north of Bassett Creek shall be in the ownership of Applewood Pointe. 3. 6. The applicant shall show some alternate designs regarding the fagade of the assisted living building along Golden Valley Road. 7. The City's consulting traffic engineer shall address the issues related to the traffic concerns before the proposal goes to the City Council. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 16 4. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Teacher Federal Credit Union - 601 Boone Avenue North - CU-123 Applicant: Teacher Federal Credit Union Address: 601 Boone Avenue North Purpose: To allow for the construction of a 7,700 square foot credit union building with 4 drive-through lanes in the Commercial Zoning District. The Conditional Use Permit is required for -through lanes. Keysser asked what the applicant is planning to Grimes said he didn't know. from North. st . n building rough lanes. ough lanes. Grimes stated that the applicant, Teacher Federal Credit Unio their existing location in Golden Valley to this new location a He explained that the applicant would like to tear down the and construct a new 7,700 square foot credit union bui ding w A Conditional Use Permit is required in this case beca they are currently in. Dan Lieberthal, Vice President Real Es have been in Golden Valley for a very their needs. He referred to a site nice credit union and they are they will have to construct the work with FEMA and the . I Credit Union, said they heir current facilities no longer meet ey are planning to build a very branding their image. He stated that piling ecause of the flood plain and they will e flood plain issues. Keysser asked if there ar said there are som or tanks before they bu ironm nt concerns due to the fuel tanks. Lieberthal but the current owner will be required to remove the tion is highly visible and asked the applicant if the credit r commercial use. Lieberthal said they won't lease out any ons are not allowed to own investment properties because they the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, the public hearing. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit at 601 Boone Avenue North to allow for the construction of a 7,700 square foot credit union building with 4 drive-through lanes in the Commercial Zoning District with the following conditions: 1. The site plan for the TFCU new branch facility at 601 Boone Ave. N. prepared by HTG Architects and dated 7/14/08 shall become apart of this approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 11, 2008 Page 17 2. The recommendations and findings of City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, found in a memo to Planning Director Mark Grimes and dated July 31, 2008 shall become a part of this recommendation. 3. The recommendations and findings of Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson found in a memo to Planning Director Mark Grimes and dated July 30, 2008 shall become a part of this recommendation. 4. A sidewalk connection between the sidewalk along Boone Ave. N. to the sidewalk in front of the proposed credit union building shall be constructed alon her site improvements. 5. The Building Board of Review shall review and approve the f this site. for 6. Any failure to comply with one or more of the conditions for revocation of the conditional use permit. ---Short 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housin a Council, Board of Zoning Appea pment Authority, City ngs No reports were given. 6. Other Business No other business was di 7. Lester Eck, Secretary Hey o Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: September 15, 2008 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Minor Subdivision of 1825 Quail Avenue North - Peter Knaeble (Golden Valley Land Co.), Applicant Summary of Request Peter Knaeble of Golden Valley Land Co. is proposing to subdivide the property located at 1825 Quail Avenue North (formerly 4915 Golden Valley Road), into three separate lots. Mr. Knaeble has proposed to create two additional residential lots of record to the north and south of the existing home. The existing home would remain in place as proposed Lot 2. The total area of all three proposed lots is .91 acres (39,714 square feet.) If the proposed subdivision were to occur, each new lot would exceed the required 10,000 square foot minimum set forth by the Zoning Code. Proposed Lot 1 (southern-most lot) would consist of approximately 12,618 square feet of land, proposed Lot 2 (middle lot) would consist of approximately 13,237 square feet of land, and proposed Lot 3 (northern-most lot) would consist of approximately 13,859 square feet of land. The existing home that would be located on Lot 2 would meet all setback requirements for the new lot. Setback boundaries on the other two lots would allow standard homes to be built without variance from City Code. Qualification as a Minor Subdivision The proposed three lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property located at 1825 Quail Avenue North is part of a recorded plat. In addition, this proposed subdivision will produce fewer than four lots and will not create need for public improvements (such as street reconstruction.) The applicant has submitted the required information to the City that allows for the subdivision to be evaluated as a minor subdivision. Staff Review of Minor Subdivision Staff has evaluated this lot subdivision request as a minor subdivision. This request creates three lots that each exceed the minimum lot requirements in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. (Minimum requirements are that lots must be at least 10,000 square feet in area with 80 feet of width at the front yard setback line which is 35 feet from the street right-of- way.) The applicant has submitted a survey for the property located at 1825 Quail Avenue North that denote proposed lot layout and setback boundaries following lot division. These documents provide the City with information necessary to evaluate the minor subdivision. All documents show the existing home at 1825 Quail Avenue as part of future lot configuration. City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, has submitted a memorandum dated September 12,2008 regarding recommendations from the Public Works Department concerning this request. Requirements set forth in this memo are itemized in the staff-recommended action area of this report. Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision According to Section 12.50 of the City's Subdivision Regulations, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions with staff comment related to this request: 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the appropriate zonino district. All proposed lots will meet the requirements set forth by the R1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not buildable. There is already an existing home on proposed lot 2 of the subdivision area. According to the City Engineer, the other two lots are adequate for the construction of a home. City services can be made available to all lots through developer 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. Sewer and water connections are already provided to the existing home on proposed Lot 2. If subdivided, proposed Lot 3 would retain water service from an existing line on Golden Valley Road. The other two proposed lots would receive water from a line on Quail Avenue. All sanitary sewer service would be provided from a line along Quail Avenue. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the grantino of certain easements to the City. The final plat must show all necessary easements as required by the City Engineer and City ordinances. 5. If public agencies other than the City have iurisdiction of the streets adiacent to the minor subdivision, the aoencies will be oiven the opportunities to comment. Hennepin County has reviewed the preliminary plat and has found it to be acceptable as submitted per their letter dated September 11,2008. 6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of certain easements. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 7. The minor subdivision may be subiect to park dedication requirements. In this case, a park dedication fee will be paid by the developer prior to final plat approval. The fee amount will be $1,100 as per City Code requirements. Recommended Action The Planning Department recommends approval of the minor subdivision with the conditions listed below: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. A park dedication fee in the amount of $1,100 shall be paid prior to final plat approval. 3. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council that will include issues found in the City Engineer's memo dated September 12, 2008. Attachments: Location Map ( 1 page) Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated September 12, 2008 (2 pages) Letter from Hennepin County Director of Transportation & County Engineer James Grube dated September 11,2008 (1 page) Site Plans (3 pages) 2010 1951 ~ L ~ J J ~ SORELL JIVE N J o 1943 4975 4955 4945 4935 4925 4875 4835 o 1931 z w :> <( ~ w III w 1:1: 1920 19110 1823 1817 I ;l! ... ... m -< ;l:I Q IUS 1819 1813 1816 1807 1811 1llOO 49110 U1D1 SPRlHG VAUEY an 1190 4941 4921 49lI1 4960 4930 4920 4912 SAINT CROIX AVE! N @ S025 5015 SOO5 4941 4927 4913 49lI7 4901 .M:~ f,7~ 'k<!~lA~':NS " {;<J;....Y't~,tf! ~:::-~ tcom GiS ~ (~ 11": - alley Memorandum Public Works 763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax) Date: September 12, 2008 To: From: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineec:!f!J Quail Woods Subject: Public Works staff has reviewed the plans for the proposed Quail Woods residential subdivision. This proposed development is located south of Golden Valley Road and west of Quail Avenue. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan This proposed development includes subdivision of an oversized lot with an existing single-family home into three single-family lots. The proposed plans include retaining the existing home, but demolishing the existing detached garage and constructing a new garage. Golden Valley Road, adjacent to this proposed development to the north, is a Hennepin County road (County Road 66). Therefore, the plans must be reviewed by the County. The developer will be required to dedicate any additional right-of-way or easements identified by the County during its review. The developer had submitted preliminary plans to Hennepin County for comments, and a small right-of-way dedication is shown on the preliminary plat just west of Quail Avenue. This right-of-way dedication is parallel to the centerline of Golden Valley Road and creates a consistent right-of-way across this property. The final plat for this development must include easements on all property lines consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. These required easements are shown in an acceptable manner on the preliminary plat. The driveways to all three of the lots within this development will connect to Quail Avenue, which was reconstructed by the City as part of its 2006 Pavement Management Project (PMP). The PMP project included three $3,500 unit assessments to the property being subdivided. One of these assessments was levied to the property, and two of the unit assessments were deferred until the property was subdivided. G:\Developments . Private\Quail Woods\Review 091208.doc Therefore, the developer will be required to pay the deferred assessments, totaling $7,000 prior to approval of the final plat. The developer will be required to obtain Right-of-Way permits from the City for all work within the right-of-way of Quail Avenue, including driveway construction and utility service installation. This issue will be discussed further in the Utility portion of this review. Utilities City water and sanitary sewer service is available to the property being subdivided, and there is adequate capacity available within these City systems to accommodate the development. The existing home on this property must comply with the City's Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance. The home is not currently in compliance. The existing home on this property currently receives City water service from the watermain in Golden Valley Road, and sanitary sewer service from Quail Avenue. In order to eliminate crossing the private property being created with a private water service, a new water service must be installed from Quail Avenue for the existing home. The existing water service from Golden Valley Road may be utilized for the proposed home on Lot 3. The developer must install all of the required sanitary sewer and water services to the lots in this development prior to issuance of any building permits for the subdivision. The construction of these services must not be assigned to builders for installation at the time of home construction. The developer will also be required to post securities with the City as part of the development agreement for the utility services and the restoration of Quail Avenue. As outlined within the City's Right-of-Way Management Ordinance, the restoration requirements for streets that are excavated are based upon the age of the street. The reconstruction of Quail Avenue in 2006 places the roadway into the highest restoration standards category. Therefore, following excavation of the street for utilities and driveway apron installation, the developer will be required to perform a full width pavement mill and overlay between Golden Valley Road and the south line of the subdivision. This work must be performed immediately following utility service and driveway apron installation. GradinQ, DrainaQe and Erosion Control The developer has indicated that there is no overall site grading proposed for this development. There will be individual lot grading performed on each of the parcels at the time new homes or garages are constructed. G:\Developments - Private\Quail Woods\Review 091208.doc . . This development is subject to the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission's (BCWMC) Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals. Based upon the size of this development, the BCWMC policy requires that best management practices for erosion and sediment control be implemented. The developer will be required to submit the plans for the development to the BCWMC for review and comment. There will be no permits for work on the site until approval by the BCWMC is received. This development is also subject to the City of Golden Valley's Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Ordinance. Therefore, the developer or builders will be required to obtain a Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Permit from the City at the time each home or garage is inspected. The best management practices required by the BCWMC will be implemented into these plans. Tree Preservation This development is also subject to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Therefore, individual tree preservation plans and permits will be required at the time of building permit applications. Summary and Recommendations Public Works staff recommends approval of the Quail Woods preliminary plat subject to the comments contained in this review. Approval is also subject to the comments of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission and other City staff. C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Joe Hogeboom, Planner Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections Gary Johnson, Building Official Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal G:\Developments - Private\Quail Woods\Review 091208.doc Hennepin County Transportation Department 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340-5421 612-596-0300, Phone 763-478-4000, FAX 763-478-4030, TDD www.hennepin.us September 11, 2008 Mr. Mark Grimes, Director of Planning City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Mn 55427 Re: Preliminary Plat - Quail Woods CSAH 66, Southwest Quadrant Quail Avenue North Section 18, Township 29, Range 24 Hennepin County Plat No. 3149 Review and Recommendations Dear Mr. Grimes: Minnesota Statutes 505.02, 505.03, and 462.358, Plats and Surveys, allow up to 30 days for county review of preliminary plats abutting county roads. We reviewed the above plat and offer the following comments: · Hennepin County Transportation finds the plat acceptable as submitted. · Please inform the developer that all proposed construction within county right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to driveway and street access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Appropriate forms can be obtained by contacting our Permits Section at (612) 596-0336. Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at (612) 596-0355. Sincerely, ~~~~ James N. Grube, P.E. Director of Transportation & County Engineer DKZ/sew Cc: Plat Review Committee-Byers / Lindgren / Holtz / Drager / Zetterstrom / Fackler / Lemke Mark Larsen, Hennepin County Surveyor's Office An Equal Opportunity Employer Recycled Paper wi.. #4920".. . ... . .. .,.\ GOLDEN VALLEY RD. 3 4 1/4940 GOLDEN VALLEY RD. c <( o ~ >- ~~ ~~ Z lJJ C .-J o C) /1 /" I ,/' I '" I ",'" I I 589 Sf (ADO.: ROW) I , I I I I I I . I 8 I N I ;! I I I I I I , I I I 1 I .J I I I'" I 0IIt Ill! : 8 d I!;: I. ... .... l:il ", ~ L_~_________~ 1/4945 GOLDEN VALLEY RD. .0 ~ ~ ~ Sc /YOO r-----~-----------------------------I \ 12.5' sse , \ r--------:----l I \ :: I \ \ i i 1m I \ i /i to. I \ \ ! / i Illl I \ LOT 1 ! ~--l-- I ,\ ' . , . 1:; \ III 12.309 SF ! ..... J I~ 8 .; I ~ \ 1 "~ I::> ai CD \ ;;; i i I ell I, \ ._L.:_' i~ \ \ I 'L____~~ , L_________________________________~ 10' O&U TYP. 150.00' 150.00' #4900 FRONTENAC AVE. 2 1/4920 Q FRONTENAC AVE. Af;)Jo 1 ~1' S 4 3 r----, 60' ROW d z ~ <( .-J <( ::> o 1/1840 QUAIL AVE. N. 1 #1830 QUAIL AVE. N. 2 Sc /YOO #1816 QUAIL AVE. N. 2 #1800 QUAIL AVE. N. 3 Q-1~ <:)('-1; S 4 PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR: QUAIL WOODS GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA SHEET INDEX SHEET DESCRIPTION 1 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN / PRELIMINARY PLAT 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN 3 PRELIMINARY GRADING/UTILITY PLAN L.E:GEND: -0 B-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DENOTES SILT fENCE/GRADING UMIT -- -1()".€- - DENOTES EXISl1NG CONTOURS -1056- DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS _>_>- DENOTES STORM SE'KR _; ; DENOTES SANITARY SEYfUl --8" 'r DENOTES WATERMAlN . '_23 DENOTES EXI5nNG SPOT ELEVAl10N X 1056.0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVAllON ECF.1C&.O DENOTES EMERGENCY O\'ERf"LOW ElEVAllON FE:E OMIER HENRY HALVORSON C/O LEN BRENNY TRUSTEE 4721 155TH LANE NW, RAMSEY, MN 55303 APPUCANT GOLDEN VALLEY LAND COMPANY C ~ 6001 GLENWOOD A VENUE GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 763-593-9325 OFFICE f' - ~!:.- 0 CONTACT: PETER KNAEBLE P.E. MATT PAVEK P.E. W L[GAl D~ON AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 330 N E s SITE INmRUA nON TOTAL SITE AREA = 20 o 20 39,714 SF = 0.91 ACRES. WARNING THE LOCAllONS Of" EXlSllNG UNDERGROUND Ul1UTIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCAllON Of" ALL EXISl1NG Ul1Ul1ES BEfORE COt.tMENClNG V<<lRI<. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE F"Ul.l. Y RESPONSIBLE fOR ANY AND ALL DAIoIAGES WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS f AlLURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES. = SCALE IN fEET ~ ... ~ N 0 N N .... ... In In In .., .. :l <D ::0 0 ~ ~ = ;c ~ ~. t2. g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .!! & C') <l' .. 0> ..... .. In 8 ~ ~ <D ~ ~ I' aI ! p..Jl(A(JU'. NV. p..u:. ~~] ~ !!Ui lil~~ i';'1oU "hsl'O ni~i i d z t oJ 0: i c " .; . .. ;d ~ o z en ~ ~ a. z I- :e ~:5 >= ena. 1.&.1 >- >- en:::t D::: D::: Q-< << 0> ~~ ~z :e:e ...J W :J:J - 9 ww < D::: D::: ~ 0 a.a. OC> ; DATe 8/21/08 40 1 PRO.JCCT NQ 08-114 $HUT NQ 1 4 #4940 GOLDEN VALLEY RD. RD. -I ~..ot-<::) 2 / ~ ~:' ~ t-V'" '0'01 ~~I ~Q. GOoS' I\..CP. I '< C:J/' ,.\./ 2t">o ~ ",'- /' .......... I ,--" ...1~ " ",/ ~//;" ~ ,," -,-",/ ",," /","~ " //" // / , --'" /"," .. (.{}",-- /" " r~" ell '/ .. _ . ,," tI>'pl'V' "t\~ ';"--" Io-g " 'II!: /' .<1-" ... /-\> / /f/~ 0> iI!" /"f:'. ,! <; J / '/ I . ., ,i · , ! (* I 11 ~/, 'I> I I J-\>fjlo '0 I b- I ({ / 4<tT /" 1'<: / '_ -870/ I" ,~ / I ' I , ," , \ ,,/ ! I \ /l>~':> ~~~ /1 - /-. I ,~ ~ I 1 I X I / I ~ 1 {~ , ,;;. I I ~ ~ I /1 .../;\+L / I - /'~ / I / ~,~ / I Vi' '%~ " ( C?r ,+../ ~ . 19'~ # ~ ~ .'1> ! ItJt> ..~ ~. // .~'\\\ I ( , I /1 ' I <v'", ,.// I""'~ / 1/ .c- ...4P I I I ; I #1816 QUAIL AVE. N. #4920 GOLDEN VALLEY RD. 3 Q. U #1840 QUAIL AVE. N. 1 , . <D , ... ", 0\1\.\11\"1 S1REE1' tCO. RO. 66) C <C o t:t: >- 1JJs:- ::I .... \ <C -\ > () \ ~ #1830 QUAIL AVE. N. 2 ~ . 0 Z . '876 ~ .. Z -<. <( ~ (f) ..J d . <C m ... ::> ,., 0 / / I I I I I /'~--870---) I I / #4945 _/ / GOLDPt~~E'f RD. I , I I , I I I I I MH 100 RIM-876156 INV-865181 VERIFY So 1y0b 3 "0 ~ ..... ~ I I I I I , I I I I I I I / ,,'" 'b I / I / C"\c // I \), .:.1:", ~1~ -"'.r~,t\' I'J/ '" v ,~ -' /' - " " ... </-, , ' , , '" ,/ I ~~_&$O--- ...'- -,- / /....'B1'O". / I / I I I I I I I I I I I I I , , 1 ,-, / , '" , " , " , " , ,s;' " "tJ' ... " , / \ / \ 2 I I / I , I z <( (f) \ \ \ , I, \ \ \ \ ~ '" \ \ \ \ J 4 . m ~. 150. #4900 ,FRONTENAC AVE. \ \ \ I I I 4 \ \ \ 2 " ,;;.>/.1 #4920 _~ Q FRONTENAC AVE / ~ 1 . /--_f~<€'tl,_ S "3-882-, . ' #1800 QUAIL AVE. N. - '1184_ '- , , SUIWEYED 8-18-2008 E.G. RUD. Nfl SONS INC. 8778 lAKE DRIVE N.E., SUrTE 110 UNO LAKES. MN M014 liaen ~ B-5 DENOlES SOIL BOR1NG _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DENOlES SILT F'EHCE/GRADlNG UMIT - -105&- - DENOlES EXISlING CONTOURS -1056- OENOlES PROPOSEO CONTOURS _>>->>- DENOlES STORM SEllER _>-->- DENOlES SANITARY SEVo'ER -8~W-- DENOlES WATERIoIAIN , ,.".,,, DENOlES EXlSnNG SPOT ELEVAllON X 1-.0 DENOlES PROPOSEO spOT ELEVA noN BF.,0l51.0 DENOlES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVAnON N w s 20 o 20 SCALE , IN WARNINC THE LOCAnONS OF EXISl1NG UNOERGROUNO UllUnES ARE SHO'M'l IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE EXCAVAllNG CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCAnON OF ALL EXIS11NG Ul1UllES 8EFORE COMMENCING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE f"Ul.1. Y RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AK) ALL OANAGES WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESER't'E ANY AND ALL UNOERGROUNO ununES. E ... ... ... N 0 N N ... ... It) It) .. ~ m ::> .. ... C (I) .. ! ~ ~ I :i It) . N II) CO) :: '" .!! 8. CO) <D .. '" ~ " II) 8 ~ m to :Ii ... Jil~ IC$IGIG ....... CHCC/f:D p.Jl(JlUU'. 1Ut.P. p..JJ(. ~ 40 , 5 ~ 0 D.. f3 z CJ) z z :i 0 F ~i c ~ C) z z F ..,JUJ CJ) <9 x ~8 UJ I DATe 8/21/08 I'IID.I<<T lID. 08-114 ~ 2 rEET . 1 INESTURB #4920 GOLDEN VALLEY RD. 3 4 #4940 GOLDEN VALLEY RD. OUL\.rn-\ SiRE.E.' (CO. RO. 66) o <C o ~ >- 1.LIs:' ::I .... \ <C -\ >0\ ~ / / / / I I I /'~--870---) / / I I #4945 ,.- / GOLD~_~~Y RD. I I I I I I. I I I I I ---878, _ ....":>'\ / ~~~~'.I"I 0:- r ~~O-'- 1 ........ C- 'it' l I I I I I I I I I ,,'I, " 1''' [~~ . ~ I~ ~ f I _ :.~___________ ~~ _-___1- _ _1-- \ ___--- ---EiaJTINGDR~WAY 2 I I I I f I , I I I r t I I I / ~ 'l> I I I I I &~// I 1!>1~ / ~L'- " -' - <':/J\ '/)/ / /' V iI /"'#4920 AVE -_/' /'/ -../ FRONTENAC . / Q 1 -----. -_!j'O"'.J~',_, 882 -- -_/ o(;;}VS 3- -', -,- - --------- \ , #4900 '\,FRONTENAC AVE. \ \ \ I I I 4 \ \ Z \ < \ (j) \ . 2 "\ 0) \ \ \ \ ~ #1800 0> QUAIL AVE. N. \ \ ~ 4 --- r------------~-- I I \ J \ _1 \ --'/ ~;-, I ,..,'" " \ //. " I /~1\); LOT to" r 12,309 r &&0- / \ ~-- I \ LOT ;f6.. BE CUSTOM \ G,,(DED 'ex. BUILDER \ / , I / , / , \ .&J" ',I I /1', 1".'l1' ,~I, ~--------------~------------------~ / \ 10' D&U T'I'P. I I .,--------~---.., _-.-" )0/> I - Jr I .<1' I I SANISERV. I I / 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I -, ", 0''>0', I I I I I I a. U --'I ~ \ .... ...., ~/ #1840 QUAIL AVE. N. 1 ..J ~I <C ::> a MH 100 RlM-876156 INV-865J81 VERIFY #1830 QUAIL AVE. N. 2 Sc /y~o 3 #1816 QUAIL AVE. N. PROP INV 0 WYE -866.5:t: .tIDES: 1. SILT FENCE BY BUILDER. 2. INSTALL TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT EACH DRIVEWAY BY BUILDER. 3. CURB CUTS BY BUILDER. 4. ALL UTILITY SERVICES BY BUILDER. RESTORE STREET IN KIND. PER CITY STANDARDS. 5. ALL PADS TO BE CUSTOM GRADED BY BUILDER. ( LEGEND: ~ B-5 DENOtES SOL BORING ---...--- DENOtES SILT FENCE/GRADING UMlT - -1056- - DENOtES ElOSTlNG CONTOURS -1056- DENOtES PROPOSED CONTOURS ->>->>- DENOtES STORM SEY€R ->->-- DENOtES SANITARY SEv.t:R --a"--JN- DENOtES WATERMAlN X1056.23 DENOtES EXISTING SPOT ElEVATION X 1056.0 DENOtES PROPOSED SPOT ElEVATION EOF.,..o DENOlES EMERGENCY O~RflOW ELEVATION N W E s 20 o 20 SCALE IN WARNING THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTlUTlES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING U1lJTlES BEf'ORE COMMEHaNG WORK. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE f'VLL Y RESPONSIBLE f'OR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WIlla! MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS f'AlLURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESER~ ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTlUTlES. .. ... .. NO N N . ... :g It) .. :l ~ ::> 0 .. C en .. ~ ~ ~ ... :E It> I ..... .. It) = 01 .!! 8. t") CD CO 01 ... .. It> 8 ~ ~ '" ::e .. Jilll I/CS1IIIG 1IfA"'" CHI:CIID 1'.JJ(J/I.IU'. HI./'. 1',JI(. 15151 ! till> A'~j ,U~I h~l15 nn i ~ o ~ z z ::IE ~~ C)a. ~~ ~::J ~5 . >->-Ul~ ~~S> zz -- z ::IE :::IS ..I LtJ aiil=<9 ~~::)o a. a. GO ; DATC 8/21/08 40 -1 I'IttIJCCTHC/. FEET 08-114 SHaTHC/. 3