05-22-00 PC Agenda
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, May 22,2000
7:00 P.M.
I. Approval of Minutes - May 8, 2000
II. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit (No. 83)
Applicant:
Address:
Purpose:
Rick Anderson (Rico's Kickboxing Club)
1200 Mendelssohn Ave. No., Golden Valley, Minnesota
To allow by Conditional Use Permit a kickboxing business as found under the
Industrial Zoning District - Conditional Uses - Section 11.36, Subd. 4(A) All
conditional uses as provided for in the Light Industrial Zoning District -- See Light
Industrial Zoning District - Conditional Uses, Sec. 11.35, Subd. 4(K) - Health,
fitness and/or exercise facilities, including dance studio, gymnastic training, weight
lifting studio, aerobic exercise and gymnasiums.
III. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning
Applicant:
Address:
Purpose:
SVK Development, Inc.
2205-2209 Winnetka Avenue, Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot 1, Marimac Addition and
Outlot 1, Anderson's Addition
Rezone the subject properties from single-family residential to R-2 (Two-Family)
which would allow for the construction, along with PUD approval, of townhomes on
Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot 1, Marimac Addition and for the existing duplex at 2205-09
Winnetka Avenue North
III. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan Review for Golden Meadows Addition,
P.U.D. No. 89
Applicant:
Address:
Purpose:
SVK Development Inc.
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and Outlot 1, Marimac Addition and Outlot 1, Anderson's
Addition
To allow for the construction of two-family town homes on the vacant portions of
property for the subject Golden Meadows Addition, P.U.D. No. 89.
IV. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat
Applicant:
City of Golden Valley
Address:
That area bounded by Glenwood Avenue on the South, vacated Turner's Crossroad
on the East (west of Meadowbrook School), and the former Soo Line Railroad on the
West and North
Purpose:
The plat would create one lot including right-of-way for Xenia and Glenwood Avenues
-- Short Recess --
V.
Rep~rts on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of
Zonmg Appeals and other Meetings
VI.
Other Business
VII.
Adjournment
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Commission will
recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Commission's determination of whether the
proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not,
adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood.
The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals
are, and to permit-you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will
be used by the Council, along with the Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision.
With the completion of the informal public hearing(s) there will be a short recess before the Commission continues with the
remainder of the agenda.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission will utilize the following
procedure:
1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff. Commission members may
ask questions of staff.
2. The applicant will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the Commission.
3. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands.
The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire
to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments.
4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember, your questions/
comments are for the record.
5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions.
6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak
initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal.
7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action.
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 8, 2000
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission was held at the Golden
Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley,
Minnesota on Monday, May 8, 2000. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at
7:00 P.M.
Those'present were: Chair Pentel, Commissioners Eck, McAleese, Shaffer, Hoffman,
and Groger; absent was Rasmussen. Also present were Director of Planning and
Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson, and Recording Secretary Heidi
Reinke.
e
I. Approval of Minutes - April 24, 2000
Eck made a correction in the Approval of Minutes for April 1 0, 2000. On page 2, the
minutes stated, "Those uses... in the Industrial Zoning district." The original statement of
the April 1 0, 2000 minutes was correct as written.
McAleese noted a change on page 1, 6th paragraph. The following comment should be
inserted after the first sentence, "As a result of attending City Council meetings, he noted
that they were working with unapproved minutes during the meeting." The sixth
sentence in that paragraph shouldread, "The Council reads the minutes, but may not
watch the video." He added that it is not a problem for the Council to receive the draft
minutes, but it is important for the Council to be aware of any changes to the public
hearing items.
McAleese would like to omit a sentence in the 7'h paragraph on page 8. The statement,
"He added there are several camouflaged towers already in the City.", should be
omitted. On page 10, the statement, "McAleese suggested that the Commissioners
learn about the fundamental philosophy.", should be omitted.
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by McAleese, and motion carried unanimously to approve
the April 24, 2000 minutes with the above corrections.
II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, and other Meetings
Pentel said she attended the City Council meeting, which addressed the sidewalk issue
along the Olympic Printing property. She said the Council decided parking should be on
one side of the street and a sidewalk on the other side. A number of people attended
the meeting.
.
Shaffer attended the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. He said one topic of concern
was a variance for a new log house that brought up extensive discussion among the
members of the BZA. Some of the issues concerned the foundation and extensions of
logs beyond the foundation. He noted that it was discussed that if the applicant had kept
the old foundation, then there would have been a reason to grant the variance allowing
the new house to go into a setback area. Shaffer said the old foundation was
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 8, 2000
Page 2
e
demolished thereby requiring the owner to construct a foundation and new house
according to code. There was not a hardship presented for granting the variance. In
reviewing a current survey of the site, it was found that the proposed house could be
placed in a conforming location on the property. The Board denied the request for a
variance and recommended that the owner move the house 9 inches to the north, which
would remove the structure from the front setback area. The owner concurred. The
Board believed the log extensions on the home should be looked at as a cantilever that
does not occupy living space. Shaffer suggested that the extensions from log homes be
addressed when the zoning code is being discussed for revisions.
Eck attended the Laurel-Winnetka Open House last Wednesday. He said it was a well-
attended meeting. The main issue was the Laurel-Pennsylvania intersection to be
reconstructed to discourage traffic on Laurel.
Pentel noted that Rasmussen would take Eck's place at the next HRA meeting.
III. Other Business
A. Discussion on Golden Valley Zoning Code Amendment for Auto Related
Uses
Pentel made a chart of Golden Valley and the other suburbs. She found that it was
difficult to read the codes without seeing maps of the cities. She would like more
information to compare the city codes. Pentel said the Golden Valley City Code has
e been changed incrementally as regulations were created from specific requests.
Shaffer found that the wording of the code seemed too tight.
Eck inquired which zoning district allows service stations as a conditional use. Grimes
said service stations are allowed as conditional uses under the Industrial zoning district.
Shaffer stated that each city has its own way of writing the code, but have the exact
same type of districts. These districts are labeled differently in each city. Bloomington
has rezoned certain areas to have "brick or better" standards on their buildings.
Grimes said that Golden Valley used to have this rule, but now it is now illegal to require
"brick or better".
Eck had difficulty understanding the definition of auto related uses. The zoning code
does not sufficiently define auto. repair and other auto related uses. Grime noted that
auto wrecking and auto sales are defined.
McAleese pointed out that the City of Crystal has divided that definition for auto repair
into major and minor.
Grimes added that tire places are the most "dirty" of the auto-related uses. There are
parked cars and tires outside the building. Other uses, such as a transmission shop, are
much "cleaner". Most of the work is done inside; therefore, there is not outdoor storage.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 8, 2000
Page 3
e
McAleese said that uses that keep the work indoors do not create much dust or noise.
He added that outdoor storage is a problem. Parking should also be addressed in the
parking section of the code.
Pentel said new "tires" uses have more stringent parking and storage requirements.
McAleese inquired if battery and tire services are defined in the code and that battery
and tire service uses are allowed in the Industrial zoning district.
Grimes added that many tire service stations do more work than just tires, such as
cooling, brakes, and sometimes major repair.
McAleese said that the City has been trying to cooperate with applicants, thus allowing
more than what is written in the code. He believes that instead of changing the code,
uses are being allowed to expand.
Pentel noted that if the uses were detailed in the code, then it would be easier to hold to
the definition of the code.
Eck commented that what precipitated this issue was the previous use of the
~:&Gt'ir;R Iiell building at 10th and Boone. Grimes added that vehicles were being
repaired in the building. He added the truck/van terminal use, as found in the code, was
created for this building.
e
Grimes said that the Commercial zoning district allows auto repair. He believes that
cities are losing the smaller car repair places because larger repair operations are being
built. Grimes also said that he does not believe that a body shop is an appropriate use in
the Commercial zoning district.
Groger noted that the location is a factor to determine if the use is appropriate.
Appropriateness pertains to that adjacent to the location, such as residential. Each
property has its own unique circumstances. He said he is reluctant to make the code too
restrictive, thus making it difficult to deal with unique locations.
City Planner Olson said that the City of Plymouth has divided the speCific uses into
major and minor uses. He noted that many conditions are included in the code.
Grimes said that the City should look at defining performance standards. For example,
air conditioning in the summer might reduce noise from open doors, or a fence around
outdoor storage might help to "clean" up the area,
McAleese commented that zoning code ordinances are infrequently standard oriented.
Codes are often written as definition or legal statements of what is allowed. He said that
it may be possible to divide an ordinance into major and minor, and then create some
standards. McAleese said that he does not disagree with performance standard based
codes, but has not seen many codes written in this form.
e
Grimes added that the code is harder to enforce if it is written with performance
standards. Many people are used to the zoning code defining what is okay to do in the
specific district.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 8, 2000
Page 4
.
Shaffer said that if Luther Company wanted to put a body shop in the existing building at
the southeast corner of 10th and Boone, it would not be possible due to the definition
of the Light Industrial Code. Grimes added that much depends on the interpretation of
the definition as found in the code for public garages on repairing and storing motor
vehicles as found under the "conditional uses" in the Light Industrial zoning district. He
read from the code. The definition is unclear for public garages for repairing and storing
vehicles.
Pentel suggested continuing the discussion after a map has been reviewed.
Grimes added that the definitions should be addressed. Eck concurred.
Pentel inquired about the definition of a public garage. She felt that the "public garage"
is an outdated term for the City. A public garage is a gas station within a garage, not as
common as in the past. Shaffer agreed that this is an outdated term. The City should
change the wording of the definition.
Grimes said that there are many issues in the zoning code that are not up to date. As
technology changes, the code needs to be revised in accordance to the changing times.
The cell tower issue, discussed at the last meeting, is an example of advancing
technology.
B. Discussion of Golden Valley Zoning Code Revision
e
Grimes said that the Commission members should start thinking about questions that
can be discussed at a workshop.
Pentel commented that she is not happy with the role of the Planning Commission as
stated in the PUD ordinance. She would like to read what other city codes have written.
The code does not require enough information to be brought to the Commission. It is
not enough information for the Commission to make a decision.
McAleese noted that we may have to reevaluate the code language for a PUD. The
issue of Breck School was an important issue in which PUD definition came into play.
Grimes commented that in some cases, the Planning Commission requests applicants to
supply more information than is required by the code. Often the applicant will supply the
extra information because it is in their best interest to do so.
McAleese added that at Preliminary Design Plan review, landscape plans are not
addressed by the Commission. He believes the Planning Commission should review the
plans.
Shaffer interjected that the Commission should also address sign age since it is often
times incorporated in the building design. He noted it is the Building Board of Review
and the Building Inspector who currently address signage. Shaffer believes it is
important during the planning process to deal with signage issues. Grimes said that
there is a separate ordinance for signage.
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 8, 2000
Page 5
.
McAleese said that the Planning Commission should be involved in the General Plan of
Development review. He said that on occasion, the design that was reviewed during the
Preliminary Design Plan stage is different that what the Council reviews during the
General Plan of Development stage. Pentel added that the code does state that the
Council can refer an issue back to the Planning Commission.
Shaffer added that he would like to discuss the code on "home occupations". He
commented that he does not believe architectural service fits under this section of the
code. He said he could not have an employee with his home occupation, even though it
would not disturb the neighbors.
Grimes said that some home occupations, with employees, have disturbed
neighborhoods. Minneapolis allows one person, from outside the home, to work in a
home occupation. Grimes said it is impossible to write a zoning code to fit every
circumstance.
Pentel stated that the garage setback and front yard setbacks need to be addressed.
Grimes suggested that a lot coverage requirement might be beneficial. The zoning code
was written in the 1960s-1970s. He would like to help make the code more
understandable.
McAleese said the definitions in the code are circular. He would like to see the code
written more clearly.
.
IV.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M.
Richard Groger, Secretary
.
~
~
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
May 17, 2000
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Dan Olson, City Planner
Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit -1200
Mendelssohn Avenue North - Mr. Rick Anderson (Rico's
Kickboxing Club), Applicant
.
Mr. Rick Anderson is proposing to lease an existing building at 1200 Mendelssohn
Avenue North to house his business, Rico's Kickboxing Club. Mr. Anderson
currently operates this same business at 725 Winnetka Avenue North in the Tower
Square strip mall in Golden Valley, and is relocating to accommodate the "Area B"
re-development that has been recently approved by the City Council.
The business is a martial arts training center. The Golden Valley City Code requires
a Conditional Use Permit for this type of use in the Industrial zoning district: "Health,
fitness and/or exercise facilities. including dance studio, gymnastics training, weight
lifting studio, aerobic exercise and gymnasiums" (attached). Also attached is a
location map that shows the location of the building Mr. Anderson is proposing to
lease.
The Buildina. The applicant has submitted a site plan showing the existing building,
which is a 2 ~ story brick and block office/warehouse building with approximately
51,000 square feet. The building was constructed in 1959 as a paint factory.
Currently there is space for 17 different businesses. although only 11 businesses
currently occupy the building. A listing of the business names and types is attached
for your review. The leasing company for the building is Welsh Companies in
Bloomington.
The space Mr. Anderson would like to lease was most recently used by a company
to manufacture golf clubs. The 4,578 square foot space is now vacant. Except for
some new signage, no changes are proposed to the exterior of the building. The
space will house a reception area, weight training room. and a kickboxing training
area. Mens and women's restrooms are located nearby in a common building
hallway.
.
Parking. For recreational facilities in the Industrial zoning district, the Zoning Code
requires one (1) parking space for each four (4) members using the facility based on
capacity design. The applicant has indicated that the maximum number of members
using the facility at one time is seventeen (17). Therefore. this space would require
five (5) parking spaces.
.,.
According to Welsh Companies, this building has 130 parking spaces. At full .
leasing capacity, this building would require 144 parking spaces. However, based
on the amount of currently leased spaced (including this proposed use), 94 parking
spaces would be required. Therefore, based on current building occupancy, there is
ample parking for this proposed use. Mr. Anderson has indicated that parking is
located in the front and behind the facility.
Setback/Code Issues. The subject property is zoned Industrial and is surrounded
on the west by State Highway 169, on the north by single family residential, on the
east by light industrial, and on the south by railroad right of way and institutional
uses (city-owned building and a dog pound).
This building itself meets setback requirements. The parking lot on the north side of
the property does not meet setback requirements, and is therefore considered non-
conforming. However, according to City Code Section 11.90, Subdivision 2, relating
to non-conforming uses, this is not an issue since the building footprint is not
proposed to be changed.
Environmental Issues. Since the building footprint is not being changed, the
applicant would not be required to complete and submit a Grading, Drainage and
Erosion Control application or a landscape Plan. A Tree Preservation application
would also not be needed on this property because there are no trees being
displaced.
Staff has spoken with the Building Official and Fire Marshal on building code
requirements. Both officials have no additional requirements for this space.
Factors for Consideration
II') approving or denying any CUP, City Code requires that findings be made on ten
specified factors. Staff evaluation of those factors as they relate to the current
proposal are as follows:
.
1. Demonstrated Need for the Use: The City's standard basis for determining
need is that an applicant has identified a market of the proposed go.od or
service. That criterion has been met in this case.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The plan identifies the proposed
site for long-term industrial use. Health and Fitness related uses, by conditional
use, can be considered for that land use classification.
3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: Approval of the CUP will not
substantially alter the extent or nature of on-site development or activity. The
property is bounded by a single-family residential development north of
Plymouth Avenue. Vegetation on the north side of this property is sufficient to
help shield any negative impact the proposal could have on this residential area.
4. Effect of any Anticipated Traffic Generation Upon Current Traffic Flow and
Conaestion in the Area: The applicant has stated that approximately up to 6
six clients will use the facility in the daytime and up to 17 clients in the evening. .
At most, 2 employees will be on the site at one time. Staff does not believe this
will create an unnecessary traffic burden on this mostly industrial area. I
2
.
addition to private lessons, the hours of operation will be from Monday through
Friday 4:30 P.M. to 8:00 P.M., Tuesdays from 8:30 AM. to 10:00 AM., and
Saturdays from 9:00 AM. to Noon.
5. Effect on any Increase in Population: Staff does not believe that the number
of employees that will be on site will cause an impact to the area.
6. Increase in Noise Level: At this time, staff has no reason to expect that noise
impacts will extend outside of the building.
7. Any Odor. Dust. Smoke. Gas. or Vibration Caused by the Use: Any
Increase in Flies. Rats. or other Vermin on the Area Caused by the Use:
Because of the nature of this business, staff have no reason to expect that odor,
dust, smoke or other impacts will extend outside of the building. There should
be no increases in pests, because the proposed business is not the sort to
attract them.
8. Visual Appearance of the Proposed Structure or Use: The applicant has
indicated a desire to have window signage or a sign board. However, any
proposed signs would be regulated by the City's Inspections Department and
will have to meet established standards.
Other Concerns Reaardina the Use: The applicant is not proposing any
outside storage. The building appears well screened from the residential area
along Plymouth with a mature growth of vegetation.
.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the following conditions be made part of any approval of a
Conditional Use Permit for health and fitness related uses at 1200 Mendelssohn
Avenue North. An approved site plan becomes a part of the CUP approval.
1. The paved asphalt parking area shall be the only location where motor
vehicles may be parked. No parking shall be allowed within the required
landscape area.
2. Any signage for the building must meet the signage requirements of the
City's Inspection Department.
3. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met.
4. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds
for revocation of the conditional use permit.
.
Attachments:
. Section 11.36, Subd. 4(A) - See Sec. 11.35, Subd. 4(K)
. Location Map
. Narrative submitted by Rick Anderson
. Proposed Site Plans
. Listing of Businesses at 1200 Mendelssohn Avenue North
. Oversize Survey - not to scale!
3
S 11.35 .
SECTION 11.35. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Light Industrial Zoning District
is to provide for the establishment of warehousing, offices and light industrial
developments,
Subdivision 2. District Established. Properties shall be established within
the Light Industrial Zoning District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90,
Subdivision 3 of this Chapter, and when thus established shall be incorporated in this
Section 11.35, Subdivision 2 by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section
11.35 and which shall become a part hereof and of Section t 1.1 0, Subdivision 2 thereof,
as fully as if set forth herein. In addition the Light Industrial Zoning Districts thus
established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and
established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the City as
provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter.
Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses. The following uses and no others shall be
considered permitted uses within the Light Industrial Zoning District:
A. Offices.
.
B. Warehouses.
C. Wholesale-Retail distribution centers.
D. Electronics manufacturing.
E. Food packaging and processing; provided, however, that no
processing shall involve any cooking, heating, smoking, soaking or marinating
procedures.
Source: Ordinance No. 546
Effective Date: 9-18-81
F. Assembly and/or fabricating exclusive of sheet metal Or steel
fabricating, foundries and similar uses except for the fabricating of sheet metal as it is
used for the heating, ventilation and air conditioning business (which types of sheet metal
fabricating shall be permitted uses).
Source: Ordinance No. 674
Effective Date: 12-27-85
materials.
G. Recycling centers, including the recycling of metals and other
.
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
2R4
(6-15-98)
"
e
e
e.
S 11.35
H. Other light manufacturing uses that would not constitute a
nuisance or health hazard to surrounding or adjacent residential or commercial districts.
Source: Ordinance No. 546
Effective Date: 9-18-81
I. Essential Services - Class I and Class III with the exception that
towers and related buildings may be constructed no closer to the Residential, R-2
Residential, Multiple Dwelling or Institutional Zoning District than the height of the tower.
Source: Ordinance No. 80, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 11-28-91
section.
J. Temporary Retail Sales in accordance with Subdivision 12 of this
Source: Ordinance No. 118, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 9-22-94
Subdivision 4. Conditional Uses. The following uses may be allowed as
Conditional Uses after review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council
following the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter:
A. Building materials yard (including inside and outside storage).
B. Public garages for repairing and storing motor vehicles.
C. Laundries and dry-cleaning plants.
D. Animal hospital where domestic animals are received for
treatment, care and cure by a duly licensed veterinary physician and surgeon in the
customary and ordinary pursuit of his profession.
E. Ball fields and other recreation facilities.
incidental thereto.
F. Research and development laboratories and pilot plant operations
G. Greenhouses with no outside storage, including an outside
growing area no larger than the greenhouse building area. Retail sales may be permitted
only where located inside and incidental to a wholesale business.
H. Packaging and/or bottling of soft drinks or dairy products.
I. Bakeries (commercial-wholesale).
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
285
(6-15-98)
9 11.35
.
J. Day care facilities provided that said facilities serve only
dependents of persons employed on the same premises as are otherwise permitted by
this Chapter.
Source: Ordinance No. 546
Effective Date: 9-18-81
K. Health, fitness and/or exercise facilities, including dance studio,
gymnastic training, weight lifting studio, aerobic exercise and gymnasiums.
Source: Ordinance No. 573
Effective Date: 8-27-82
L. Heliports, as herein defined.
Source: Ordinance No. 643
Effective Date: 11-16-84
M. Food packaging and processing that involves cooking, heating,
smoking, soaking or marinating procedures.
Source: Ordinance No. 664
Effective Date: 7-12-85
N. Child Care Facilities, as defined in this Chapter.
Source: Ordinance No. 712
Effective Date: 6-23-88
.
O. TrucklVan Terminals
Source: Ordinance No. 50, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 11-21-90
P. Medical clinics.
Source: Ordinance No. 82, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 2-27-92
Subnivision 5. Prohibited Uses. No building, structure, or land shall be
used, and no building or structure shall be erected, altered or enlarged which is intended
or designed, for any of the following uses:
A. Residential dwellings.
B. Hotels, motels, rooming houses, or tourist homes.
C. Institutional uses.
D. Retail commercial USGS, such as shopping centers.
.
GOLDEN VALLEY CC
286
(6-15-98)
I
I
I
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
N I
I
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
0'\ I
'Cl I
'1"'"""1 I
~ I
I
~ t
I
I
I
I
I
tat::: I
I
I
I .
0'\ IZ
'Cl I Q)
'1"'"""1 I~
~ I.E
I ~
~ I~
I]
I~
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
Iz
I~
I~
15
I~
Ig
1m
.5
"
.
5-1-200
City of Golden Valley
Planning office
Site usage as follows: Types of uses to take place are martial artslkickboxing training, class
and private instruction. There will be one to two employees at any time. Hours of operation
are 8:00 to 10:30 A.M./4:30 to 8:00 P.M. Potential clients in the morning time is three to
six people. Nighttime usage is up to seventeen clients. The weght training room will cover area
"A" on attached floor plan, front area and reception will cover area "BOO on attached floor plan
and the kickboxing area will cover area "COO on the attached floor plan. Mens and Womens
Bathrooms are located outside the reception area in the common hallway. Parking is located
In front of the facility as well as behind. Glass lettered Window signs will be used if approved
And or current sign board. We were located at 725 Winnetka Ave. North for two and three
Quarter years. Jeanie Ewald was the city official most familiar with me and my operation.
It worked out very well without any complaints from me or the City of Golden Valley.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rick Anderson
Rico's Kickboxing Club
AtJaJ~
.
.
.
.
;'
.,,~
It ,:-
.. ~..,. ~
~ . . ..' .
. ."
..,
'..
.""
W
V\;_
...4
.~
"'1.-
. ..
.' J.
',0,
. .
, '.
..' "':".
-
-
,"
... . --
p,.........-..,.....
~.
."
;
)
.
.~.
Prr-eQ-. f3
1'\ ..
~t\
\~\
" I
.-
....
. -,,'
.,', .
~'\::.
.,
"
.1' t.' .;_JO"
. ~.:. ':~t~'
., ~ '~: ,
. .
.'..
:~.~'"
"~.':..,;' .... ... ..... '.., '" :', ):~' :'#:.~~ ~...:
:..::..
, ,.-.,
.
. .
\' ". !
>
\
" ',.
C"
..~ .'
l. .~ '
..',. i"
'..
~...!,\.... ..: .
i,i .l,..-:.."
.) . l ."...:....
.!
..,.. ,~,.
. .
....
.'
,'/.. ",'
't' '-!
. .
~.,~):..,.
. .-\~;
'f'" -" .....
,.
'.
'. ):..~~
r.
~ .;...
..'
.. ~.
... .
,:l--
T
'l ."'i' .....
"
'"..,.
...:.c:.
~...
0'.
.'.-
...
'~l.
."
.
.'
:. i'!9.'".,
~'.,
-0
.:..
..
~, ...
. '.-
. .
, .....\i,.
"
:.
.:;
.
"-t'
.fA, i.'...;....
...../r.~". '..
M .~... :'.! ('.0. ;. '.r_
. .':;i ';1> . .
:,,",
~.. . ~
'.
.. .'(; . ,J
./(J
~x.~
~ "
.
.,
:"
It Ii'
'A~o... 14
fJ~G
f.
';'.. . .;" ... ..! :-"" :..~'" ;'.t. :
,. ..... , . ,
,. :.,...~.~.....
I, ... - \ .).~ .. ;.- J,,~(~~"
!:_ ,_, I
.(', .......;.
..,' ,
:'.t.::
...1
.... .... : .....:t;...'.
',;.r""
. ..~ .~.:
. ..:
';:, .
-'
';..
.~
~
~
,',
T.
,.
"t.
. ,
.,f .........' ..,.;
. -.
.(...,:..~... .~.
....":
.,.... " .. f',".
~.A~A.:"
'~)(~' .
':
~:.
~'.'
..
,~ .
.. .:. ~
..i
~
t.'
. ~.
....
.,'
., '.
. ':
..
,.
,
'~":-'.:.:
.'
.
.
"
., ....
. ~ .
-,'
. '
.~, .~~ . . .J~ ~;.\
~, '. .,.:.. .
"
~ ~ "..~
"0"
.',
f
.:~,..;~?{:.;..~ "
... .'
, ~.'
-.: . ..;.,. ;.; ,.:. j.~"
, :': .",.,.,.:;: :" :
.(,,:" . '~1',' .;.~~..'
.. .
" .
. .~
,.,~. f'
.' .',..
'.t"..,.
. ,
,"
,j. ... .....,:
..' of '.:' ....",. .
.. .. '. .'. ,.......~ .,: t,": .' ~ '.
". :.i.0::i;i;~~~:i.;;tl;~:,:..
':.~; /:7.-') '.&I'i..ft,' 2.'.~,
. '.~. . .iiIIII,I&P ' '..
. .....,.... ':. .....r .;;. .". . . .,
, .~'
".' ..
.' ::
"'.. to.
:'.3"'~'
: "'?;~ '.,.
'..-'
~':.,..
. ..,
~
U3
'0
,/
-.
'3
o
$:"
~
-
\o'l
<>(l
. .~
'"
. .......
IIHY-UO-UU nUN Uq.cq rn WtL;,n VU;,. il'iLJU;'II'UHL
I,
. t"
o .'\ .
rHh NU.
r. uc
.
A;
,
lUll VV vv IIVI' V"t'''''''t III 1'11..1..0..111 VVo..I. !l1vu';U\!n/..
r. UJ
.
.
~di.
~
~
0~( <:: ~
.
.
r n/\ nv.
5/02/00
User: JEANETTE
Property : MENDELSSOHN
GOLDEN VALLEY. MN 55427
T
TENANT
SO. FOOT
UNIT REF NO. OCCUPIED FROM
............................ ....-----.... ........-
1.072 5Q.FT
120-208 743 3/011
Comments: GROSS LEASE
JOHN GUNDERSON & ASSOC, INC. 120-209 598 7/011
Comments: GROSS LEASE'
LINDGREN ROTH. INC.
NORTH STATES INDUSTRIES
120-210 4410 8/011
Comments: GROSS LEASE
1ST OPPORTt
AVAIlABLE
"** VACANT *'**
120.2069
285
............--......----...... ---....... ......-...
TOT A L S 51430
Total Occupied Square Feet: .
Total Vacant Square Feet .
....................-........- .......... ..--......
GRAND TOTALS:
Total Occupied Square Feet :
Total Vacant Square Feet :
51430
.
i'
'. '.
"
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
May 18, 2000
Planning. Commission
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan for
Golden Meadows Addition, P.U.D. No. 89, South of 23rd
Avenue North, between Valders and Winnetka, SVK
Development, Applicant
.
Background
This is the second of two interrelated items that the applicant needs to gain approval in
order to achieve the goal of establishing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the
construction of five new double homes, one existing double home and one existing single-
family home. A location map is attached showing the location of the proposed PUD. The
app(oval of a previous rezoning item on the agenda would rezone the subject properties
from the Single Family Residential zoning district to R-2 (Two-Family) zoning district. This
establishes that the site is generally appropriate for two-family, town home-type
development. The PUD process will now begin to establish the exact requirements under
which the development would be built and operated.
There are two stages of approval for a PUD proposal. This is the first, or the Preliminary
Design Plan stage. The purpose of this stage is two-fold: to give broad concept approval
to the proposal and to call out issues that must be addressed in detail as the proposal
moves ahead to the General Plan of Development stage. Preliminary Plan approval does
not guarantee that a proposal will become reality. It gives the applicant some assurance
of being on the right track, and some guidance in how to proceed. In the case of the
Planning Commission, in particular, the limitations of Preliminary Plan approval are clearly
laid out. City Code Sec. 11.55, 6.D provides that:
The Planning Commission's consideration of the application shall be limited
to a determination of whether the application constitutes an appropriate
land use under the general principals and standards adhered to in the City
and, if necessary, its report shall include recommended changes in the land
use planned by the applicant so as to conform the application or
recommend approval subject to certain conditions or modifications.
.
Summary of Proposal
SKV Development is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a development
that contains 13 units consisting of 5 new double homes (10 units), 1 existing double
home (2 units), and one existing single-family home. The property lines for the existing
double and single-family homes would be changed as part of the PUD. The overall
development is 2.75 acres. It is located between Winnetka Avenue and Valders Avenue,
south of 23rd Avenue. Attached is a copy of the site plan and area map.
The 5 new double homes would be located on 10 new lots that would have access from a
new cul-de-sac from Valders Avenue. (Each side of the side-by-side double homes has
its own lot.) The double homes are side-by-side townhomes. A property line would run
down the middle of each building so that each side may be sold individually. Each unit
would be one level with a full basement. The units would each be priced between
$225,000 and $300,000. SVK Development has built similar units in St. Louis Park on
Virginia Avenue, about 1/4 mile south of Cedar Lake Road. Staff has visited this
development. The units are attractive but in a more dense arrangement. A picture of the
proposed town home is attached.
Staff has spoken with one of the planners from the City of St. Louis Park about the SVK
development. She indicated that the units were selling very quickly and that there is a
strong market for these types of town home units in St. Louis Park. She said that the
density of that development is about 10 units per acre or about twice the density of the
proposed SVK development is Golden Valley. The St. Louis Park townhomes are
currently priced more than the ones proposed in Golden Valley. This pricing could
change.
The existing double home on Winnetka Avenue would remain as part of the PUD. Two
lots would be created for this double home in order that each side could be sold. This
double home was built in the early 1980's when double homes were considered permitted
uses in the Residential zoning district. The double home is now undergoing restoration
after several years of neglect. (SVK recently contacted me about the possibility of adding
another unit to this double home. Staff has walked through the building and it is quite
large. It was too late to add this proposal about a third unit to the PUD application. SVK
may bring this up at the meeting.)
The existing single-family home at 2105 Winnetka Avenue was moved to the property last
year. The home was originally located in St. Louis Park. The home has been renovated
and will be put up for sale in the near future. It will be listed for approximately $160,000.
The house is located on an existing single-family lot. If the PUD is approved, the lot for
this single family home would be reduce in size by cutting the width of the lot to 85 feet
from 102 feet. This single-family lot would still exceed the minimum requirement of
10,000 sq.ft. for a single-family lot. The single-family lot is included in the PUD because
the lot that it is now on has to be altered. The new lot would become a part of the PUD
plat for Golden Meadows. Staff would suggest minimal requirements for this single-family
home in the PUD permit.
The overall density of the development is 4.8 units per acre.
Access to the single-family home and double home is on Winnetka Avenue, and will
continue from Winnetka Avenue. However, the access to the five new double homes
would be from a new cul-de-sac off Valders Avenue. Both the City and County Public
Works Departments have strongly stated that access from Valders is best for the new
homes because running a street out to Winnetka Avenue would add more conflict points
to that street. Access to Winnetka Avenue for these town homes would be made only from
one of the existing intersections at 23rd or Duluth Street. Accessing Winnetka at these
street intersections is safer.
2
/'
.
.
.
.
The proposed cul-de-sac would be a public street with a 90-foot radius at the cul-de-sac
end. The street from Valders would be constructed in a 50-foot wide right-of-way area.
This street would be built in a location where a street was planned in the late 1970's or
early 1980's. In fact, the two homes at the corner of the proposed cul-de-sac street and
Valders were placed to front on an easUwest street going into this PUD area. However,
there was never an agreement about the development ofthe area by the two owners .of
the area now proposed to be a PUD. The "street" was never dedicated to the City. This
past year, SVK acquired all the properties where the PUD is proposed. The proposed
street would be constructed at the total cost of SVK. The two property owners on Valders
would not be assessed for the construction of the street. The City staff recommended that
the street' bea public street rather than a private driveway. The City is then assured that
the street is wide enough to provide for public safety and service vehicles.
As indicated in City Engineer's memo dated May 18, the width of the right-of-way and cul-
de-sac is adequate to construct a street that meets City standards.
.
Eligibility of Application
City Code Section 11.55 regulates PUD's. Four subdivisions of Sec. 11.55 come into play
when screening PUD applications for eligibility. Staff has reviewed these eligibility
requirements and found that the proposed development qualifies as a PUD. Therefore,
the proposal may enter the preliminary design phase.
PUD Definition
This development clearly meets the terms of Subd. 2(A)(4) that allow townhome PUD's
consisting of "single family, attached dwelling units on separate parcels of land which are
constructed contiguous to one another and separated by a bearing wall or walls."
PUD Purpose and Intent
Applications must also meet the general purpose and intent of PUD's in Golden Valley as
set out in Section 11.55 Subd. 1. Staff believes the purpose and intent have been met.
SVK is proposing a PUD for this site because the PUD offers "an optional method of land
use regulations which permit design flexibility by substantial variances from the provisions
of the Zoning Code, including uses, setbacks, height, parking requirements and similar
regulations" .
Standards and Criteria for PUD's
City Code establishes basic requirements for different types of PUD's in Sec. 11.55, Subd.
5. Residential uses are discussed in Subd. 5(8). Although only apartment developments
fall into this category, the City has consistently applied the established standards and
criteria to all residential PUD applications, many of which have consisted of townhomes
and twinhomes.
There are eight items covered under the basic standards for residential PUD's. Staff will
comment on each of the eight items:
1. All residential PUD's must have at least 100 feet of frontage on a public street.
This development has over 370 feet of frontage on Winnetka Avenue.
2. Public sewer and water must serve all developments. Fire hydrants must be
installed according to a plan approved by City staff. Please refer to the attached
memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE to Mark Grimes, dated May 18, 2000.
.
3
Also, refer to a memo from Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, to Mark Grimes, .
dated May 15, 2000. .
3. No principal building in the PUD can be located closer than the measurement of
its own height to a rear or side property line when such line abuts a single-family
use. It appears that all lots meet this requirement with the possible exception of
Lots 1 and 13. (This criterion was developed for apartment buildings that are
much taller than townhomes. The proposed SVK townhomes are one level with a
full basement.)
4. Private roadways within the PUD must be constructed according to a plan and
approved by the City Engineer. There are no private roadways in the SVK
development. The access road to the five double homes is proposed to be a
public road to be paid for solely by SVK.
5. No building within the PUD may be located closer than 15 feet from the back of
the curb along any internal roadway. This requirement is made for each of the
townhome buildings.
6. Provisions for solid waste storage and disposal must be in accordance with a plan
approved by the City. In this case, each of the townhome owners would be
responsible for solid waste disposal similar to other townhome developments in
Golden Valley. The public street insures that garbage and recycling vehicles have
adequate access.
7. Landscaping must be in accordance with a detailed planting plan approved by the
City, and must meet the established minimum landscape standards for this type of
development. The landscape plan has not been submitted as part of the .
Preliminary Plan. This will be done as part of the General Plan submittal. I have
asked the developer to address landscaping at the informal public hearing. This
plan will include a tree preservation plan as required by City Code.
8. Shared land, buildings, or infrastructure must be either dedicated to the public,
placed under landlord's control, or regulated through a homeowner's association.
In this case, the stormwater holding pond will be the responsibility of the
homeowner's association. This is addressed in the City Engineer's memo. There
are no other common or shared facilities for this development.
Completeness of Application Packet
Staff has determined that the packet and application submitted by SVK Development is
complete.
Pla'nning Considerations
The types of issues that come up in connection with PUD applications can vary based on
the PUD type and on specific characteristics of each PUD. In this case, staff has
identified no particular concerns beyond those that generally accompany residential
PUD's. They can be grouped into the categories of zoning trade-offs, park dedication,
Livable Communities, and miscellaneous engineering/constructions issues. Each
category will be addressed in the following paragraphs:
Zonina
The "Purpose and Intent" paragraph of the City's PUD requirements make it clear that a .
major intent of the PUD process is to "permit design flexibility by substantial variances
4
.
from the provisions of the zoning chapter, including uses, setback, height, parking
requirements, and similar regulations." Thus, to some extent, variances are a given with
any PUD request.
Despite the basic intent of the PUD process with regard to variances, the City must
ensure that each proposal does not exceed the bounds of good design practices in the
type and extent of variances being requested. To that extent, it is useful to have an
understanding of how any proposal varies from the normal zoning standards.
Based on the related rezoning application, the standards to use for comparison with the
Golden Meadows proposal are those of the R-2 zoning district. After reviewing the
proposal, staff has found that there are several variances for the five double homes and
existing double home on Winnetka. None of the new double homes meet the 35-foot front
yard setback requiement. The front setbacks range from 21 to 33 feet. The rear yard
setback requiement is 20% of lot depth. The units on lots 9-13 may be short on this
requirement, depending how the lot depth is determined. The side setback requiement is
15 feet. Lots 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12 do not meet this requirement.
The existing double home on Lots 5 and 6 does not meet the rear yard setback
requirement of 20% of lot depth.
The R-2 zoning district requires that all lots for two-family homes be at least 12,500 sq.ft.
in area and be at least 100 ft. wide at the front setback line. One of the new double home
lots does not meet the area requirement and two or three do not meet the 100-width
requirement.
One other planning item affects the site, and potentially the number of variances that are
part of the plan. Winnetka Avenue is a county road. The right-of-way standard for
Winnetka Avenue is 80 feet. At this time, there is only 66 feet of right-of-way. The
County will probably ask the City to have 7 additional feet dedicated for Winnetka Avenue
as part of the plat. This will only affect the two existing buildings that are now located on
Winnetka Avenue.
Park Dedication
As a residential development, Golden Meadows is subject to the City's park dedication
requirement of land or its equivalent cash value. The plans show no land reserved for a
public park within the development. The staff has forwarded these plans on to the Park
and Recreation Department for their review and recommendation regarding park
dedication.
Livable Communities
Golden Valley, like most other metro area cities, has made a commitment to contribute its
best efforts toward increasing the supply of affordable and life cycle housing by
participating in the Livable Communities program created by state law. As part of its
commitment, the City adopted a policy of including a Livable Communities impact
evaluation in the consideration of any proposed housing development.
Staff has found that the proposed development has a positive impact on one of the four
Livable Communities measurements. There is a positive impact on housing variety
because the SVK development would add more townhomes to the City's housing stock.
The City currently has a shortage of townhome units. The SVK development would not
enhance ownership affordability because the units are to be priced well over $200,000.
The Livable Communities standard for owner-occupied affordability is about $135,000.
The proposed development is all owner occupied so the percentag~ of owner-occupied
.
.
5
units in Golden will increase with this development. The theory is that rental units usually .
provide lower cost housing units and another housing opportunity for those who do not
wish to own. Because the SVK development is relatively low density (less than 5 units per
acre) the development would not significantly alter the City's overall housing density.
With increased housing density, more affordable housing opportunities are usually
created.
Enaineerina/Conslfuctionlssues
Comments from the Public Works, Public Safety and Inspections Department are
attached. Since specific construction details generally do not come up until quite late in
the development process, the comments of the Inspections Department are brief.
Traffic
The ten-town home units to be constructed on the new cul-de-sac would generate about
100 trips per day. The existing local street system has the capacity to handle these
additional trips. These trips would be split in a manner that some would go north on
Valders to 23rd and some would go south on Valders to Winnetka Heights. About 20% of
the 100 trips would occur in the AM and PM peak hour. The trips from the existing
buildings on Winnetka Avenue would not have their access changed.
Staff Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Golden Meadows Addition,
PUD No. 89. The proposed 13-unit development would provide additional town home
units that are needed in Golden Valley. The staff has met several times with SVK and the
plan has been revised several times. Overall, the proposed development seems to work
well, although it appears denser than other townhome developments that have been
approved in Golden Valley. The recommended approval is subject to the following
recommendations:
1. All recommendations and requirements set out in the Engineering Department
memo from Jeff Oliver, PE to Mark Grimes dated May 18, 2000.
2. Any park dedication recommendation the Planning Commission deems
appropriate.
3. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Ed Anderson,
Deputy Fire Marshal to Mark Grimes dated May 15, 2000.
4. All recommendations and requirements set out in the memo from Gary Johnson,
Building Official, to Mark Grimes, dated May 18, 2000.
5. Determination regarding the dedication of additional right-of-way for Winnetka
Avenue as may be requested by Hennepin County.
6. The homeowner's association for the development may establish more restrictive
property regulations than those in City Code, but enforcement of such provisions
shall be the responsibility of the association. The association shall not establish
property restrictions in violation of applicable federal, state or local regulations
including the terms of the approved PUD permit.
7. The notation of "P.U.D. No. 89" shall be made a part of the plat name.
8. Proof of recording for the plat must be provided to the City before any construction
permits are issued.
6
.
.
Attachments:
.
.
.
Location Map
Portion of ~ section showing neighborhood (11" x 17")
Memo to Mark Grimes from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated May 18,
2000
Memo to Mark Grimes from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson
dated May 15, 200
Memo to Mark Grimes from Building Official Gary Anderson dated
May 18, 2000
Color Photo of Proposed T ownhome
Oversized Site Plans (3)
7
00
g
Q
<
~
~
z
~
Q
~
o
~
r.
o
~
~
<
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
.
----:)
z
..
o
~
.""
;:
,It
...
,
~. ~.Q I - ~I CD ;~I:J: ~.~\ ~~~.f;l~ ;;oz r-.. I . .~I~. ~I~.= ~I
::It 00/ '-r. .DtlI 'HI ~I 'SI/. 51' ',,'n,:;' -, /lr?; H.:ufl OO! " .. ~I " .t'1 001 loe
~~I DOR 0"'1 OZIZ._.~ _ g, ',"EEL-1~...!~,ID.C/ol ()OO~ ~tf~'ASNN~~~ c
:s\ f" 1"'" ..~ srf',w/.'I ~ ,f~"~ I"OZ IZOZ U"fdoz rlffV1' 1161 I~--!'
, : t /.€I :' I('/.~ 1 (101 - . "\;'01; c
. ~ ~,,~,,~osQ g'r Of __~~/ C~N'&; ';: . ~ . ~ ~~ III
~ ~I'~' 2 -. ~~~~ V~~O ~ "',~ . ~ It)~. ~-~
'f { " 0: - ~ -' __ ~.
~ I : 't '( ~ !!.. ~t) ".,,, 1.::'" . .. .~, '
e'/ I - l .~ ,~ ~ ~ !! , = ~ " · .. ... ... ~
~lr'-- I ':. \ . ~ = ~ ~ :'l~' ~.t! ,~ ~ 0"
~ I ~ I ' o.~' I ~ .: 'ON .3/.,1 :: ~;:9,3a~lip .... ~
, ..
~ : Cl'l.~' .
..
.,.
on -::t Z"'l ~I 1101 .. - 001
~ \ 30 ~ I~ _:~ ~ : --co.~ . 5 ~ ~. -. ~ Cl'l. CD'. ~ ; ~
~ ~ '- I~ '" ..... 2 ~ It.'. '.. !/":
~ ~ C);:. g ~ I ,.~ ~ ..:;;1;' tllIl ';OCI"'~ :".Slf...O'~ 18i6~ ,'fj~, ~
9. "- ~ .. g \ I ' ... ~. ;is ~ 'ON", ~ ""'" .. ~1,"\JI1"l~~;,oof,l.ll~
o '0 I l)l T~ lS"L~1 41()1 . S; .. o~1
l{ ~ ( ". c;)' '^ · · · · · · ~ ~
~Ll _ S ~ I: }\'~.'~ "!,,:.' :.. .~;.~ ~' .~. ~,"!~
l d . u,llt) : ~l' ~ ~. ~. =. 2. Cl'l' CD. ~. ~
- _1~7l ..... ..... -
.~ ~ $'.L~I 41411 .. .. # 0 001
<< I: .~ . ~.a '3^f/oz ~~iW'ffs ... 016/~061.:
<< G#'~ "I~~1. II~H I~~S t,,'I~ -e-'" ~0.1 ',ioz 100.1 ",61 4.L. 1.161 1061
::! ~. ~ ::lit) ~ ~ CD _ "'L~I 00/ .. . ~ . 001
lit ~ _ i.. lit ~ 0 1ft a '- Y: '" . . . .~.......
"'- .. - - O' -. ,0 "'l"""':C;~ J!:! - - N' ..,. .. ." U) ~
- "'" - ...<( - IC)~ ,- ~ -
_ - "'~.., > Iii..; a: .... : A- u. ~. ...""
.. too ... ~ ~ . 0 ::> . ~ - X" I l'llll Ia.. ~ 011/
CI) fi I '" ~ N..... a: a: a: 0.... IIht .c 111'"'' N (1(1/ . II. - ~ ~
I' ~ ~ - ~ ~ IIJ tI) Z lj~;.c;) j r--. -: ~ . ~~
/ a.. 'OO~Z i j ~ '" ... <(.. I- It .. I. - OZll':r N: ~, I~;~', -. Q. Cl'l. CD ~.~ ~~\;~ _
/ . ~~/.DK ~ U ~ ~ - ..J ~ lOl" i-....'l{fA:CI'l...:;.. \ '" - "f'e\. . . . ~ t1{
_ ~?~_ ~~ ~S:_ u';' _ _ __ _ ~_ _ _\. &1-"'" lit n-__ ~ "iJSI611-U I ~ '7a- ,$ISII 0(;: t'l'l;; \ 41~/ . . ~ i
-ILoO,!. .ON ,. ..........-... ./ .. ~ . . - a "'~
?f9.S;I/L"""'~L-L"':"''''-- _.....'<<1:.....W'.... )lI'm~IJ~ -?R.::-trm .. r./.I.it-.'-.~.?'-V)fJ.3NNI^,,, 001 " 001 ,! 001 ..!';., V1>1 .... 1\
,. "".Jo,,-,'" - 'p-.. #; "!iO/~i I~if:' IS-Oii':. l;roil II0ii' IM~-i:\, .'2'" :" =
: lP 001 I~1~1 ~ I rl! '.'6" · T ... .~.....~ - ',.... u' .......: i ~)Ol ' . · ..\ ~ ~1I
8~Z ;... gZ8Z;; ~ a: '{'j ~ _ _ ~i(',!;I~ i~.1"I' ':~'~'!"'.... .\.o~" : '
E ;- CD. ,:.". C) · ':: ~ : !\..s;g : --...roo...' .' ~,: !;; N~. ~ ~ ~ \~ ~ ~
() - .' __ ~ .. t 'if - . !'!!!i. :... I ~... ~ 11
'" ;i _L cO ,. J,""" 1 '!A'..-..' t~ {Ol'- ::! b : 001 ' \ J
, ~ ~ ill HI. __ II:I~I,. ~~..~ N. co ", _ v: ~ntlV ~ . n r bo,-,t 4101 "Of 'V1/ JS1
--J::-'li :.; ~ Q. ~;!~ ~~'I) ~ ,. ~. ....:. . .,: _. ~f~'. '0..,. ~. ....
. _ ......N r-: ",f/). ... '~- ~ . .......... "'! ,~ .::'q -,,,,'" . _ ,,;;
. .. . -' -e ~..... .1 . ...- - ...... .... ~_i ~,'" - ... NO'" ~ ~ !
~ .It. ~;;: . ~ . C ;.ltJlI . ,~ '~~;;J 0- ~ ~.... :;!. CII:::: 1"S ~ ;
~... HI .\l:::i IIDI . ~'l'ltl~ t: ~.. .., ~:: Ki"!/i/llffillJ "li'~.. .., , .:? Sow, "::F -....... "", ....
~ ~'I - .""- .Aar!~"-i~O'wfJOO . to,; ~ :. ~ . ~ . ::j J-' ", ." t6 ~l.a ~ oz~. ('I-,~:ra 0;61 1f.J.no.5
() '1,~~J ~. .:w ~~g.;l 'il\ ~ ~ ~'~: \ ~ '1 '~"'. I . "';;51'~ ~ ?~8'~1.1 ~- ~ : o;~ '''(),,~' :J^V ~d: 0 I y'A i=\ 0161 ~
g. .; o{l~! ~Qbj,7G' 'L'101 t ~ ~ _. i-o.' \-11' I I'NJ In-. ~~ :..i ~J"ZI L"2' QL 10l"SIII l"SOI.,1..
llil ,., ... '" ~ ~ ~ ' ' .. - -.. c;) '" 0 '-a .... 00.... "3 .II
') 0 ~ . ~ ,...,. co '- ~. ;.., I . · I' . A,'o,..r... q, .. ": '';:; .... ~Qs fir...., ... ~-~.
. . ~ - ~ '-_ '- -~ 'It I . .....S.-::::_ ....... ~ II) c;) ="",,,::: CD:;,"
U/;. .~ s ~o~j: ~OZ .............I.~,. i 1:-~2~ 0::: :::. ~~~~. :: I.. .;
~Ift'~":~ ')L>>~~~C) ., .tilt U ',. ..- rtL"'~W'" L&J ~ 0" CD ...... :t
~ t.: ::t' ~ : ~....aCII ~ aD\,).: ~ . .... .. LO . ~f...ts~Ja~o O",Z.. ",- 08!1 co ~ ,.,'/ ~ "." a:: ~Zl ~ l'SZI ~
...t:' -~...... ... '.:I~ -.;;JT\V '.i(f .~'^~ JIINf;Ol.1WO Z~Oii::, <( 0 Ql:) ~ e." 0 o~ ~ 51
.'Q~ZI!! ~.... ~..... '..' 1'2' . .., '" 001 ';k Ol.,!.. .. en !<S .., ""!. CD' ~ ~ l I- ! ~1\oO It)..:: ~~
IWI .ft..: ~ ci ~ ....'~ ..gglZ ~ t;OU ill. ~ !- · b....;:;.. or! ~ q, .... ~ q, lit. :'- ~if
'ICDrf.~~~~~~; .':. ~~~.~- ~N..\r: .., ~t;c_""';l'I~~J~:Sa";'~ IL'nllL.."" .. .-p. , ~
, l...,. ~ s.~ II - a~. ~.. .... ~... . '" f ~l5 S;"~ t:! &.. . . !AI - 09::.1 a: ,~. ~l
, fO/~:.~~ ~L"t\)Lzt.l\';r;: __ 1J:\ Of'." iNoo~l It'll:: = Il'Cftj ~=/~~'N ;:io~ ~ \ r= ~~. CII !LI ! ,.... ;,~~. _.~. ~ ~ ~i
~ Ul ~nll ~ pi 1f'l'1 001 . t/. ...~..... 001 ~ llC' ~ ...... It-
\0'011 ~,. ~ . ~ I ..,. .:e tot). wlI#.r \~:. ~ !:~. ~ t"'''' frt/ ,'. .... ." 'Q .;.. (f)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~; !! g ~! ;: o"i'zz ~ ;;;ZZ i ~ t o:~~~ ~ O~I ~ '. 'D ~ \. ~ ~ Q _ 3 CD ~ ~: .., ,: ~, ~ I
= ~ ,Q .'1: I.'S"~ 'nl'~ ~ OOZZ ~ ~. '#II" ""1" "'/ ~ .. .::. . ~ ~ ~ ~}~.
~3:. UI'''" f:~'!' .I:_!'",:I I.'HI," '12' ~.~-".Is,"I/' .S.~"'/II l.t of ,<ii: ".,zi T ".,.,...... ,.. ........ ;a
I "'" . "!. _ 0:. Ill:S ,~/." II' .'II,"""t.:...~ ,..., l"''''~. . "... .......
V'Ll ~ ~ ~ .. . . 0 ~ ~i~LI'lr"'~" /I.... 'lU - A -IU" ...~..1t. 3 Q~ ~ W1.!!.:!..4!')I~OU~ .). ...... ~:
.., ..~ o~ ! '1!f ~ ; ~ .... ~ ~ \.s' ~:"("H.. .'Q:~~')J'!Jo-~:'~:~!f.'t;:#./~ im~u """,~Yn; ~ :::: ~ Nil:::; N '~~
. tit.. i\ ~ "1""1 .:J~ ;!.?, ;:.,.: :' '......: : AnL ~~~.:~,in~ tll' t::.J "~'~,,,,:;; .;;::0
IlL'",. ~'. ....Z, - .., .,~, "Zz....':5/~~"lS /,/,,~,"~, .~~~1':~~l~..-~;"":' · ~ 1IlI) ~ :.( -c::. - ". f
' .'\G ..... .. ~..- ~ .....',,'" ..I'~ .1. :- ~'... ""'. - ....1 .' - .
'Z .~o~~ ~.. ! ~. /{w ::~;;~ ' ~ 60ZZ ''"/s;;';'~ ~~; ~~-' ~;: - : 0 N,^'''' ~ ~ ~ - ~! -.;.~:
., ," ... ~ ~ I '" "' ,... lor) p~.. .... ":' r. ~IZ- ~ ~..cti - :. 'lInN ii'
.., 9/~, . _ . \ _ ~ . .-:""::! ~ ~~ In-.F - r: .,.,g",Z", fl'l" .0.' ,"0' H"," ~ or ~:' /7/1'Sl"
,~:",<.1. "0. . S ~ L'.,,1.\ () i..tl: N ~ :'t'.fJ""~.' ~.~, I -#,~;~, I~""'.:' '101 I.. ;0/ rO',O! "Of SZI... ZO'9Z:. '" ..:
J..,\ . ~ an" ......- J' ,...~; \O~ ... 'rn;/on... s.,-", ~ - ~ " ,..,.lU.vJ" J ~ '1to,S ~ ~ OJ'..: 5'd-.: d CD 2~' I
~~ \'It\\O.. '0',,11 ~r;;! ~a~ . t' .~".(~.; ~ .. ~ . ~ .- ~ l ~ .- ~ ~,~~"_ : 9~q) ~
~,\ ''a.O\'~ 0:;: ~:. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~'!. ,"01 - ~ ...,. 0 . . .,0/ .1> r- ""I~: ~N ~ ~ ~ ~ oS
~ ~."'lit ; '!~ = ~n .t.~Z'3~!1 Q9IZ^- O;/i..Il,"'.' OVCM ~ (X)OZ:i\ . ~ -. of' 0 ;j -,,..
; ,." \ O"Z ,~.e{\-3 I. ~it4Y'1r: E;t!;u' Mn ",alA) - g,.,;t .11 Gi'!IJ 'I~" :JlIJL 1M":? S\..1 t- 9Z' . ~ZO'SZl1 ~
,t.\ .~~~+,'_: 101 ~tA ~ :tli'~ in'/ 110/ .. .~", . - ~/ Sri' L. ~; o.ii!~ 00f'I~ 01"
~Z (lliQ""I~j.N'SNO;;J~.!.! -'" '~..1 51zZ ~:~ . ~ . . ...... . . .. .;...... ~ '~":.r i !.....,~.., i
1'1..'\ 0(1".,. ~~ ,~z"t'&\ !: 5.;. .. n~ ....; "" ...... on' \II ,.., 40 ~ i "'10 ':ZriOI ZO~OI ~.iJ!f
L . 'n~~!'J. \;(.( \ ~ ~. r- . i ll~ ~ Sll1;;; tal .. - .. . - ~~I mil \J ~ '3nN3^~.:t M.VI,OO.oN :
~I--.'.' ,~.~.". -'f_~, -. : ~ .u "',, Oil' .0' 00' I I 110' '~'~'! II' \ H \ .~~, ~-O'~'~NO~SI"":'~
~ . G' :,.....,.-: ~'.!;\~ U"Lil ~i. II) ~;; It) 31 L '..(Z,l~CI':.s' J \ ~. ~'" l.. "{t _~ ~H'f U S- /'
- 9GEI ~II''''''U)-~io ~ ~ N ~ 1':. ;;; 1t)~:.U)!:, ~ ~ CD ~ ~ ,"'J'.~,,~~:~ 8~61 ... n
I^.."il \ "I p. ~ ~ lIil . .;:: ,., ~ .. :! 'A.'IO' 011.1"'4 CJI~J' ~ . ':!i Cl'l';' 2 ~?,.!t ~,:". 1)1'1. ~. CJI ~ 0.... ~
"_, 001, oOJ -.; - .; .., . ...., ~t'O", ~~ ~'...; . . .......:.oil', .If:.<t'." - -...._
........... 'tf-'-\I" :!: 'o~ . e:\~ -'io".l ~ 'H' ,;rll~~ _ r'. ,..-' J:o '",:- ~ ~ I
~ ~~~: ~ "~11 f":;::;. ~ . ~. .,..~......;;;;zz ,oa~l?.Jlf''P.lZ:ll;o;q ?I"lo/ .u~. k. ;~.~"" otQo CD ~ SI'lol - I
,..,. "'^ Ie "'Iit'; ._ P ;. - '~,~"" .Ii ~ -::.,.~...~! :....:.::....~; ~h~~ -- 'i: I\, . ,0. :,
· · - 0 -, <1" . . ";' .~. ~ . ~ .., .\ ~.. 1
-,. . ~:: . =: ~ t' .t,i.' \0 ,II 1,1 ~"i ., ~ _". ..4'/'~~' #~,~ = .'!!:)'"
00' OO~ 001 t~'Stl 010 . "~', 0 ",~ ~r-~' 1'.,.... ::t' ~ i ,/~j.~ '($"'''~ ';f/ '~I.hJt - --t':'.... !. ~
'L$Z OGQ~ Q$8Z . OOEZ ~ I 1O"7W'~ ~~... ."~ q,>:'; 'Ii;' CD' x",{,.~ .'t6r~ . 11'7'::00" "l~"~' w11'7ri1-
l{ 0 :'l '''/IS:-r~ .... . U) . I, '. .......fIt.. .'.-; l" 'I ---
. ,It ~;-;;, ,. ,c,... . ....~:: ."'''I~.lj ",ft.'" fI,~~ . U) '/ 0 .
.., t. . c..;. . . " ~ ........ l.. ,": o. N 0
, - ...
rr
l>>IZ
011
-- :i:
>-
LLJ
..J
.J
~
z'O,~., u~Jo
,
!
. a(
~~
~
F
co
...
Z
LLJ
o
..J
o
C)
~L&..
O----=- ,)
l-_ ~J
~
~~
j: ~
~~
S'
" \'
r/lt
. OfI'$'.Fr :~
, M..'E"./t/.'" ~i'" ~ lIE
t...
Z .'11
~~
o ~ ~
i= It) ~
010 ~
Q
Cci
....::$
.!!o.:
~
~
r:I:J
~j
:(
i!
-.:
~
..
...
..:
~~
t
..
~
~
'"
~
(
.
.
.
PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
~~lley
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
May 18, 2000
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer ~
Preliminary Design Plan Rev~ned Unit Development #89,
Golden Meadows
Public Works staff has reviewed the Preliminary Design Plan submittal for the proposed
Golden Meadows Planned Unit Development #89. This proposed development is
located between Winnetka and Valders Avenues North, just south of 23rq Avenue North.
Preliminary Plat:
This proposed development is located on vacant property between Winnetka and
Valders Avenue south of 23rd Avenue North. This vacant property is actually two outlots
created during the platting of adjacent subdivisions. The northern outlot contains an
existing duplex, and the southern outlot contains a single family home that was recently
moved onto the property by the developer, SVK Development, Inc.
The proposed Golden Meadows development will incorporate the duplex and single-
family home into the development on platted lots. The proposed plat will therefore
include a total of 13 lots.
Access into this proposed development will be provided by a public street off of Valders
Avenue North. The outlots discussed above each included a 25 foot wide leg that are
adjacent to one another and extend westward to Valders Avenue North. This 50 foot
wide strip will become the street right-of-way for this development. Although the
subdivision ordinance requires a minimum street right-of-way of 60 feet, the proposed
50-foot right-of-way will be adequate to meet the needs of this development. Therefore,
it is proposed to reduce the right-of-way to 50 feet through the PUD process.
The cul-de-sac and street for this development will be constructed according to city
standards to allow full access for emergency and maintenance equipment.
The preliminary plat includes an oversized drainage and utility easement along the west
line of Lot 1 to accommodate storm sewer. This easement must be revised to a total
width of 20 feet centered over the proposed storm sewer.
\\GVJS1\SYS\GROUPS\ENG\DEVELOPMENTS.PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO.DOC
1 ,
The proposed ponding easement shown on the preliminary plat must be revised on the .
final plat to be a drainage and utility easement.
The drainage and utility easement in the southeast corner of Lot 6 must be revised to
provide a minimum of ten feet of easement on each side of the utility.
The preliminary plat also shows a sharp jog along Winnetka Avenue. that appears to
have been intended for a street radius. This irregularity in the Winnetka Avenue right-
of-way must be corrected to be a straight line with the plat.
The plat will be subject to the review and comments of the Hennepin County Public
Works Department due to its frontage on Winnetka Avenue. Any comments from the
county must be incorporated into the final plat.
The developer must incorporate any additional easements discussed in this review into
the final plat.
As previously stated, this development consists of 13 total units, three of which currently
have driveway access onto Winnetka Avenue North. Therefore, the ten new units will
access the new street. This arrangement will result in approximately 100 vehicle trips
per day being generated from the development being distributed onto the street system.
Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan:
.
This proposed development is located within the Main Stem Subdistrict of the Bassett
Creek Watershed District. The extent of the proposed project will require that it comply
with the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) Water Quality
Policy. This policy includes the construction of a nutrient removal pond, the preparation
of an erosion and sediment control plan and implementation of best management
practices. The plans that have been submitted will be forwarded to the BCWMC for
review and comment. No site disturbing activities may begin on the site until the plans
have been approved by the BCWMC.
The development of this site will also be subject to the City of Golden Valley Erosion
and Sediment Control Ordinance. This ordinance requires that the grading plan be
prepared according to city standards. A copy of these standards has been forwarded to
the developers engineer for incorporation into the final grading plan. The developer
must also fill out an application for a permit, post the applicable securities, and receive
permit approval prior to beginning work on site.
The developer must obtain a MPCA Storm Water Discharge Permit for this project. A
copy of the application form, and the permit once obtained, must be provided to the city.
It appears that the water quality pond shown on the grading plan will be sufficient to .
meet the requirements of the Bassett Creek Water Quality Policy. However, the outlet
from the pond must be revised to include a submerged outlet to provide for skimming
\\GV_FS1\SYS\GROUPS\ENG\DEVELOPMENTS-PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO.DOC 2
, (
. .
.
rather than the wooden weir noted on the plans. A detail of the outlet structure must be
provided on the final plan.
In addition, an emergency overflow must be provided at the 100 year high-water level
for the pond. This overflow should direct any pond overtopping towards Winnetka
Avenue.
City records do not indicate that the existing storm sewer that will drain the pond is a
city facility. Therefore, the developer must demonstrate that they have the right to use
this pipe for their drainage purposes. This must include the dedication of a 20-foot wide
drainage and utility easement centered over the pipe to Winnetka Avenue. In addition,
in order to make this existing pipe part of the city system a new manhole, constructed to
city standards, must be constructed where the current inlet structure is located.
Additional silt fence must be shown on the plan between Lots 6 and 7, and on the west
sides of Lots 5 and 6. Silt fence must also be added along the entire northern and west
plat boundaries, and on both sides of the proposed street.
.
The proposed storm sewer along the western plat boundary must be extended
southward to the southwest corner of Lot 13. This storm sewer extension will
accommodate drainage from the back of Lots 10 to 13, and intercept runoff from the
adjacent property to the south. An additional 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement
must be shown over this storm sewer extension.
The drainage pattern on the eastern edge of the proposed plat must be revised. The
proposed pattern includes a significant length of rear yard drainage from the rear of Lot
10 to the pond. As proposed the runoff pattern will require significant turns and must
cross between a proposed retaining wall and the existing duplex building. As proposed
this drainage pattern will be problematic and will likely create problems on several
properties.
The extension of storm sewer to the lot line between Lots 6 and 7 must be considered
for the drainage concern discussed above. If storm sewer is installed it must drain into
the pond in a location as far as possible from the pond outlet to avoid short-circuiting of
the pond. In addition, dedication of 20-foot wide drainage and utility easements over
the storm sewer is also required.
Because the location of all the proposed driveways for this development are already
known, the street construction must include B618 concrete curb and gutter rather than
the surmountable curb shown on the grading plan. Each driveway must also have an
apron installed according to city standards.
The following items must be incorporated into the final grading plan:
.
1) The location of all storm sewer inlet protection during various phases of
construction must be shown on the plan.
\\GV]S1\SYS\GROUPS\ENG\OEVELOPMENTS.PRIVATE\GOLOEN MEAOOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO.DOC 3
( .
~. ,
2) The location of a gravel construction entrance must be shown. .
3) Standard detail plates for all erosion control measures to be incorporated must
be included with the plan.
4) A note describing the interim and final site stabilization and vegetation must be
included.
5) A note indicating that the developer/contractor must sweep adjacent streets on a
daily basis, or more frequently if directed. This sweeping must be performed with
a pickup sweeper satisfactory to the city. Failure to perform this street sweeping
will result in the city performing the sweeping and billing the costs to the
developer or contractor.
6) A note outlining the erosion control permit requirements discussed earlier in this
review must be included.
7) The invert elevations of inlets and outlets at the pond must be provided.
8) The volume and class of riprap required at each storm sewer discharge point in
and out of the pond must be included on the plan.
As outlined in the city standards for erosion control plans, topography on adjacent
parcels must extend well beyond what is shown on the plan. At a minimum the
topography must extend to the mid-point of all adjacent homes.
The developer will be required to enter into a storm water maintenance agreement for
the pond. This agreement will become the responsibility of the homeowners association .
following development.
The plan indicates that the retaining wall along the south side of the pond is to be
constructed of riprap. Because riprap can be easily moved it is recommended that the
wall be constructed of modular retaining wall blocks. In addition, top and bottom spot
elevations of the wall should be shown at 50-foot intervals.
Utility Plan:
The proposed utility plan appears to be adequate to provide the service necessary for
this development.
An additional fire hydrant must be added at the intersection of Valders Avenue and the
new street into this development.
Gate valves must be added at the connection points to the existing watermain stubs.
The developer will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate MPCA and Department
of Health permits for the utility construction.
Tree Preservation:
This development must comply with the City of Golden Valley Tree Preservation .
Ordinance. A copy of the ordinance and the plan requirements for the tree preservation
\\GV_FS1\SYS\GROUPS\ENG\DEVELOPMENTS.PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO. DOC 4
''6 . ., ·
.
.
.
plan are being forwarded to the developer. This plan must be included as part of the
General Plan submittal.
Public Improvements:
As previously discussed, the street serving this development is to be a public roadway.
In addition, all the sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer improvements will also
be oWl1ed and maintained by the City of Golden Valley. Therefore, these improvements
must be constructed according to city standards.
The developer will be required to prepare a complete set of construction plans and
profile sheets, as well as specifications, for this project. These plans will be subject to
the review and comment of the city. These plans must be provided to the City in digital
format following approval in a format consistent with our CAD system.
Once the construction documents are approved the developer will also be responsible
for the construction of the improvements. The City will provide inspection services of
these improvements. The costs for these inspection services will be the responsibility of
the developer.
The developer will be required to provide all staking and surveying services for this
development at their expense.
In order to insure that these improvements are constructed in a timely manner and
according to the approved plans, the developer will be required to post a letter of credit
for these improvements. This letter of credit must be based upon an approved
construction cost estimate in an amount equal to 150% of the construction cost
estimate. The developer may incorporate the securities required for the erosion control
permit if they so desire. The letter of credit shall be for a period of one year and
renewable as desired by the City. In addition, the letter of credit must be from an
institution acceptable to the City and may be drawn down no more frequently than once
a month, with a 10% retention held by the city through the warranty period.
Conclusion and Recommendation:
The plans submitted for the Preliminary Design of Golden Meadows PUD #89 are
acceptable in a conceptual manner. The developer will be required to submit final plans
incorporating the comments outlined in this review for the General Plan approval of the
PUD.
Public Works staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Golden
Meadows, PlJD #89. This approval is subject to the revision of final plans to incorporate
the comments contained in this review, and the comments of other city staff.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
\\GV_FS1\SYS\GROUPS\ENG\DEVELOPMENTS.PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO.DOC 5
. ,
C:
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
Don Taylor, Finance Director
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Joe Paumen, Engineering Technician
Gary Johnson, Building Official
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
\\GV_FS1\SYS\GROUPS\ENG\DEVELOPMENTS-PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO.OOC 6
. .
.
.
.
. ,
.
I
j
't
~
Memorandum
To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal
Date: 05/15/00
Re: Golden Meadow Townhouse Development(Preliminary Site Review}
Listed below are the plan review comments from the Golden Valley Fire
Department for the Golden Meadow Townhouse Development.
1} ~rovide automatic fire suppression system for all townhouse/dwellings
units)n accordance with recognized standards.
2} T!:t~,~~tomatic fire suppression systems will be installed by a sprinkler
.c()~t..actor and in accordance with state and local regulation and
. . standards.
.'
3} The automatic for suppression system shall be inspected and tested
annually, by a sprinkler contractor. The fire/sprinkler contractor shall
submit documentation and test reports too the Golden Valley Fire
Department
4} Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the requirements from
the city engineer and in conjunction with the Golden Valley Fire
Department
5} Fire hydrants shall not be obstructed. (I.e. mailboxes, street lights and
other vegetation) Maintain the proper clearance around the circumference
of the fire hydrants.
If you have any questions please contact me at 763-593-8065
1
. .
ley
.
DATE: May 18, 2000
TO: Mark Grimes,
Director of Planning and Development
FROM: Gary F. Johnson, Building Official
SUBJECT: Review of Preliminary General Plans of Golden Meadows
P.U.D. #89
GFJ :jm
Must submit application for Board of Building Review.
Hydrant locations must be approved before issuance of building
permit.
.
Building must be built to the '97 V.F.e., '97 V.B.C., '94 V.M.C.
and the MN State Plumbing Code.
.
.
I
.
MEMORANDUM
RE:
May 17, 2000
Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes
Director of Planning and Development
Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat of MEADOWBROOK
SCHOOL 2ND ADDITION - City of Golden Valley, Applicant
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
.
The City of Golden Valley is proposing a consolidation of properties that it owns
west of Meadowbrook School near the intersection of Glenwood Avenue and
Xenia Avenue. The consolidation would create one lot with right-of-way for
existing Xenia Avenue and Glenwood Avenue. The total size of the area to be
. consolidated is 3.8 acres. The one lot that would be created is 1.4 acres in area.
The area to be consolidated currently consists of 7 parcels and the west half of
vacated Turners Crossroad north of Glenwood Avenue.
The properties that make up the consolidation were purchased by the City of
Golden Valley in 1998 and 1999 for construction of Xenia Avenue, north of
Glenwood Avenue. Prior to the construction of Xenia Avenue, there were four 2-
.
family houses and one single-family house located on the properties. The west
half of vacated Turners Crossroad, north of Glenwood, is also a part of this
consolidation. This portion of Turners Crossroads was vacated in 1999 by the
City Council. (The east half of that portion of Turners Crossroads that was
vacated north of Glenwood went to the Hopkins School District.)
This property is currently designated on the Comprehensive Plan for Schools
and Religious Facilities. This designation was given to these properties when
the new General land Use Plan Map was approved by the City Council in 1999.
At that time, the City had acquired these properties in order to extend Xenia Ave.
to the north. It was also known at that time that the Hopkins School District was
interested in acquiring that portion of the properties not needed by the City for
Xenia Avenue right-of-way. Early discussions with the school district indicated
that an addition on the west side of the existing Meadowbrook Elementary School
was a possibility.
At the current time, the zoning of the area to be consolidated is Residential.
Within the Residential zoning district, single-family homes are the most prevalent
permitted use. In the case of these properties, there were four 2-family homes on
four of these properties. At the time these four 2-family homes were constructed,
2-family homes were considered permitted uses in the Residential zoning district.
.
.
I
At the time the four 2-family homes were demolished, they were considered non-
conforming uses.
The Residential zoning on this site is proposed to be changed to Institutional (1_
4) at the same time the Hopkins School District applies for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to add a gym and community education space to
Meadowbrook School. It is anticipated that this will be before the Planning
Commission in June 2000. The zoning change is necessary because the
underlying zoning must be consistent with the use proposed as part of the PUD.
The Planning Department has not seen the official plans for the Meadowbrook
expansion. However, the staff understanding is that the school district will create
a PUD that would allow for the expansion of the school on to the property now
owned by the City. There would be a property line running north/south at the
point where the expansion is connected to the existing school. The PUD is
. necessary because there would be one building located on two lots. The east lot
in the PUD would be owned by the school district and the west lot by the Golden
Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). (The City Council will soon
be transferring ownership of the proposed lot to the HRA in order that the HRA
can enter into a lease and financing agreement for the property and building
expansion with both the school district and City of Golden Valley.)
The school district and HRA will prepare a new plat as part of the PUD for the
expansion to Meadowbrook School. This plat will include the property located in
the Meadowbrook School 2nd Addition and the property owned by the school
district for Meadowbrook School. This will be a two-lot plat.
The Public Works Department has been consulted on this preliminary plat. They
have provided the information to the surveyor regarding the necessary right-of
way needed for Xenia Avenue. (The right-of-way for Xenia Avenue is quite wide.
The Public Works staff recommends that the right-of-way for Xenia Avenue
extend to the Soo Line Railroad tracks. There would not be enough property
west of a standard width right-of-way for Xenia Avenue to create a legitimate lot.)
This preliminary plat has been forwarded to Hennepin County Public Works
Department for their review. The County must review all plats along County
roads. The County will need to determine if additional right-of-way is needed for
Glenwood Avenue.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
preliminary plat for Meadowbrook School 2nd Addition. This plat creates the
necessary right-of-way for both Xenia Avenue and Glenwood Avenue. It also
creates a single lot that will become part of a future PUD for the expansion of
Meadowbrook School. The proposed preliminary plat meets the requirements of
the Subdivision Code and has been given a positive recommendation by the
Public Works Department. The Hennepin County comments will be taken into
consideration when the final plat is drawn.
Attachments:
· Location Map
· Preliminary Plat
.
.
.
2