08-14-00 PC Agenda
III.
Applicant:
Address:
2125 Winnetka.
Anderson's ~Ada
ue and 2205-09 Winnetka Avenue, which is part of Outlot 1 of
ahd Outlot 1 of the Marimac Addition
A. Review of Attendance
B. MnAPAConference
. - - - - _: ;, . - ',,' - ,'- - . - - - - - : - -,-;- - - - - " :----"- -~.>-- - ',-'-,,'
.The -P,U iO.-wo~ldallow for the constructionofsevensingle-family.homes:-oh the
subject vacant land and include the existing single-family home, situated Qn its Own
lot along Winnetka Avenue, and a proposed tri~plex where the existin$) dlJplex is now
located. The duplex would be converted into atri-plex and be situated on its own lot.
F?urpose:
IV.
v.
VI.
...
e
e
e
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
;ORAFr
Has Not8ee ONLY
n ApProved
July 24, 2000
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,
July 24, 2000. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00 P.M.
Those present were: Chair Pentel and Commissioners McAleese, Rasmussen, Groger,
Shaffer, and Eck; absent was Hoffman. Also present were Director of Planning and
Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Dan Olson, and Recording Secretary Heidi
Reinke.
III. Approval of Minutes - June 26,2000
Chair Pentel requested in the future that the approvals and the minutes reflect all stated
conditions.
Commissioner Shaffer noted an error on page 10. The statement should read, "not too
many".
MOVED by Groger, seconded by Eck, and motion carried unanimously to approve the
June 26, 2000 minutes with the above stated correction and recommendation.
II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment No.2 - Preliminary Design
Plan-.;;..-Medley-Hi1IsP~U:O. No.. 76
Applicant:
GV Development
Address:
Southwest Corner of Medicine Lake Road and Ensign
Avenue
Purpose:
To provide four units within the development with 10'x12'
additions abutting inside property lines (common wall).
Director of Planning and Development Grimes reviewed the request by GV
Development to amend the Medley Hills P.U.D. No. 76. Grimes noted that this is the
second amendment since Medley Hills was developed in 1998. In late 1997, 33 town
home units were built on Medicine Lake Road and Ensign Avenue. He said some units
are still under construction, but most of them have been completed. Grimes told the
Commission that this development has provided an alternative for housing within
Golden Valley.
Grimes stated that the 1998 amendment was to allow for the GV Development to have
flexibility for porches and decks. He showed the revised development map with
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 24, 2000
Page 2
~
locations of decks and porches located on the rear of properties. At that time, the City
Council stated that decks or porches could be built within these areas of upto 240
square feet. A combination of a deck or porch could not exceed 240 square feet and a
deck or porch could be no larger than 10 feet by 12 feet. Grimes commented that it
came to the attention of the City that there had been an error in the placement of two
porches that were under construction. They were not constructed as in the footprint
areas on the approved plan..He said the option is either to amend the P.U.D. or move
the porches. Grimes noted that if the porches remain, building code issues would need
to be addressed.
e
Grimes said the Commission should help to define the terms deck or porch used in the
P.U.D. Staff suggested that the amendment include a porch or an addition. It is difficult
to determine the difference, especially between a 3 and 4-season porch. A 4-season
porch is insulated and a 3-season porch has limited heating/cooling system. The
amendment could state that an addition or deck, in combination, could be built up to the
240 square feet maximum.
Shaffer inquired about the difference between an addition and a porch. Grimes said that
if the structure fits within the rule, any type of addition could be built up to required
square footage.
Pentel said that decks are usually unenclosed. Porches are usually enclosed. 4-
season porches look similar to an addition.
e
Grimes said the developer told him that buyers would like more flexibility with the unit
they are buying. If an addition is allowed, the buyer could build a 2,3, or 4-season
porch, addition, or a deck within the guidelines. Grimes noted that in reviewing the plan,
the sites that contain three units may limit the middle unit in placement of a deck and/or
porch.
Arne Zachman, GV Development, LLC, commented that the deck or patio must remain
within the footprint. He said he needed some flexibility for buyers to build a 3 or 4-
season porch. The original plan included a deck or patio option. The deck or patios
cannot exceed 12'. Zachman said he is only asking for an amendment for four units
(Lots 4 and 7, Block 2; Lot 4, Block 3; and Lot 7 Block 1). He commented that when the
footings were done on two of the units, the City's Building Inspector noted that they
weren't in line with the P.U.D. requirements.
Zachman said that he applied for the amendment so that this problem could be
eliminated for two future 4-season porch requests. The application includes those
already built and the requests in the future. He said the developer would only offer to
build a 2-season or 4-season porch. It would be against the bylaws of the development
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 24, 2000
Page 3
e to build additions. The 4-season porch is built with footings and posts, and has a joist
system. The difference between a 4-season porch and an addition is that the addition
has a foundation.
Pentel commented that the amendment should include decks or 4-season porches.
Shaffer suggested that the amendment include additions or decks, to include all
different types of porches.
Commissioner Rasmussen noted that the additions do not share any common walls.
They abut the property line, but do not have a common wall. Zachman stated that there
is a 2-inch air space between the units. The addition does not infringe on the airspace
of other units.
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Chair
Pentel closed the informal public hearing.
Pentel said that she is in favor of the amendment. The units are visually appealing.
The occupants are able to personalize their units with porches and decks. The
amendment should include decks and additions.
e Commissioner McAleese stated that the amendment should use the broadest
language, so that the P.U.D. does not have to be amended again. The broad
termi[lQIQgy v"-QLII<:IaIIQwforsQmeQn~LtQ~bJJUdana<:ld itiQO .Jo.theJuture. jfso~desired...
Shaffer noted that the bylaws could hold the association to specific restrictions.
Commissoner Groger added that the association could alter their bylaws in the future
without having to amend the P.U.D.
MOVED by Eck, seconded by McAleese, and motion carried unanimously to approve
the Medley Hills P.U.D. No. 76 as follows:
A. To provide four units within the development with 10'x12' additions
abutting inside property lines (common wall).
B. To allow for decks or additions to be built within a 240 square foot
maximum space within the footprint, without the deck or addition
exceeding the maximum of 10 feet in width and 12 feet in depth. The
owner can construct either a deck or porch of required size or both of
required size.
III.
Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 24, 2000
Page 4
Commissioner McAleese commented that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) is e
granting numerous substantial waivers for decks. He noted that there seems to be
numerous existing structures that are nonconforming. McAleese questioned the cause
for the number of variances being requested. Shaffer, who represents the Planning
Commission at the BZA meetings, replied that most of the nonconforming structures are
older buildings. It is possible that the code was different at the time they were built or a
permit was not needed at that time. It is important to review any nonconforming
structure before granting a variance.
Commissioner Eck said that on July 11, the Laurel Avenue issue was presented to the
Council. The next step is to have another open house for the public to review the
comments for the proposed planning. He noted that there was significant opposition by
businesses along Pennsylvania Avenue. The open house may be held in September.
Eck added that the proposed plan presents enough traffic calming measures to be
applied to Winnetka to slow down the traffic. He added that it is his understanding that
the City has not determined whether money is available for this project.
IV. Other Business
A. Discussion of Zoning Code Amendment - Telecommunications Ordinance
City Planner Olson stated that the Commission should address the definitions to be e
used in the wording of the Telecommunications Ordinance. As in Bloomington, the
CICi~~JJE:sseI'lJial $e!yiges was eliminated anclreOCimed.tQJit the~H>eGific Qrdinance..
The issue of where the accessory use or permitted use is allowed needs to be
discussed. It is also important to keep in mind that some companies conflict. There is
a possibility of working with a Telecommunications Consultant because the technology
is changing so rapidly. The consultant would be able to advise the City.
Eck commented that a number of ordinances were cited in the packet provided by
Olson. The City of Bloomington has a lengthy ordinance.
Pentel said that she received a telephone call from a concerned citizen with questions
about the ordinance.
Shaffer noted that the City of Bloomington's ordinance covered many issues that were
discussed at the last meeting. Several topics, including signs and advertising, were
worded well.
Olson said that the City of Bloomington has one of the best ordinances. Several cities
have used the Bloomington ordinance as a basis for their own. Some cities have cell
towers as conditional uses. Golden Valley might look into that option.
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
July 24, 2000
Page 5
e Grimes noted some uses permitted in the Light Industrial zoning district are also
permitted in the Industrial zoning district. There are a few radio and television districts
within Golden Valley. McAleese suggested incorporating the radio and television
districts within the scheme.
Grimes said that a consultant would be very helpful to answer questions and address
issues of concern. A consultant is necessary to help prove that the antenna is needed
in the area proposed.
Pentel said that the August 14th Planning and Development meeting needs to have four
voters. She has attended several of the meetings and was concerned that there may
be a conflict of interest. Grimes suggested that Hoffman might want to be in the
audience on that evening.
McAleese said that Pentel could step down during the discussion to avoid conflict of
issue. He said four commissioners are needed at the start of the meeting to meet the
requirements of a quorum. He added that if Pentel should step down, a three-person
vote would still maintain the quorum. He noted that Pentel would only need to step
down in the case of pecuniary interest.
e
v. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M.
Rick Groger. Secretary
e
e
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Dan Olson, City Planner
Subject: Informal Public Hearing --Zoning Map Amendment from Residential to M-l (Multiple
Dwelling) for 2205 - 2209 Winnetka Avenue North-SVK Development, Inc., Applicant
Date: August 9, 2000
e
Background
This Zoning Map Amendment is the first 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 7 new single family homes, one proposed 3-unit condominium and one existing single-
family home. The subject properties are located between V alders Avenue and Winnetka Avenue,
south of 23rd Avenue North. There are 2.73 acres in the proposed PUD area. SVK is proposing with
this Zoning Amendment to remodel the existing two-family home at 2205-2209 Winnetka Avenue
North to a three-unit condominium, and rezone this part ofthe PUD from Residential to M-l
. ...(Multiple-Dwelling)~ ...--.-..-.. ..
e
Zoning Code Requirements
The existing two-family home at 2205-2209 Winnetka Avenue North was recently purchased by SVK.
It is currently located ona large outlot of approximately 52,000 sq.ft. in area (1.2 acres). The proposed
PUD would create a new, smaller lot for the existing two-family dwelling. This new lot would be 168
feet by 99 feet or approximately 16,632 sq.ft. in area. The remaining 36,400 square feet of the outlot
would be used for some of the new single family lots in the proposed SVK PUD.
The General Land Use Plan that was approved by the City Council in 1999 designates this area for low
density residential uses. A copy of this General Land Use Plan Map is attached for your review. The
Plan indicates that low density residential is 0-5 units per acre. In this case, the total development is
4.0 units per acre (11 units on 2.73 acres of property). Because the proposed PUD would have less
than five units an acre, the General Land Use Plan does not have to be amended for this use.
This site is located in a residential area along Winnetka Avenue. Both the General Land Use Plan Map
and Zoning Map indicate that the area is designated and utilized primarily for single-family housing.
There are a couple of exceptions. First, there is an industrial/commercial area that exists northeast of
the intersection of 23rd and Winnetka. This area includes the Public Storage site that is about 220 feet
to the northeast of the proposed PUD. Second, there are four two-family buildings (8 total units)
located along the east side of Winnetka Avenue, across from the proposed PUD. These units were
built in the early 1980's as part of a small PUD. This is about the same time the existing two-family
home within the proposed PUD was constructed. The four double homes along the east side of
e
e
e
Winnetka directly abut only one single family home to the south. The four double homes along
Winnetka have been well kept and an asset to the City since they provide Golden Valley with life cycle
housing.
The existing double home at 2205-2209 Winnetka A venue North was built at a time when double
homes were considered permitted uses within the Residential zoning district. Therefore, the double
home is now a legal non-conforming use for that zoning district. The rezoning for this property would
make the proposed 3-unit condominium a permitted use in the Multiple Dwelling zoning district.
The proposed rezoning to a three-unit condominium would add 10 additional traffic trips each day to
Winnetka A venue. According to the City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, Winnetka has the capacity to handle
this additional traffic. SVK is not proposing to add another driveway access to Winnetka as part of the
proposed remodeling.
The proposed 3-unit condominium would meet the lot area requirements of the M-I zoning district.
However, adequate parking is not being provided for this proposed condominium. The Zoning Code
requires 5 enclosed parking spaces and 3 off-street non-enclosed parking spaces. The applicant is
only providing 3 enclosed spaces and 4 off-street non-enclosed parking spaces. The applicant has
expressed a willingness to construct a double car garage on site if the Planning Commission feels this
is necessary. This matter would be addressed as part of the PUD discussion.
Recommended Action
The staff is recommending approval of the Zoning Map amendment for the subject property. The use
of this property for three-family homes is consistent with the low density land use designation found
on the General Land Use Plan Map. The traffic impacts, because of remodeling the home to a 3-unit
condominium, are minimal. Although the immediate area of this building is zoned single-family
residential, other areas along Winnetka are zoned for commercial or higher density residential. If the
Commission feels th(itparkil1g isiIl(iclequate, a cOllditiOl1J~QlllcllJeaddedJQJhe PUDapproyaLthata2-
car garage be added to the site.
If the Commission decides not to approve the rezoning to M-I, staff recommends at the minimum to
rezone the area to R-2. This would make the current two-family building a legal conforming structure
instead of a legal non-conforming structure as is currently the case.
Attachments:
. Location Map
. General Land Use Plan Map
· Existing/Proposed Portion of Zoning Map
:i~W;,~:({5~~~~tS,;i ci.J:f;~i'~'~?~!/;::';~1{~~~~?'}:;:~~\::: {i;{~'~.:~\:~?;;i:~~','~:}{;';)i:]\'..!~'<:: ; '.
... --
M""". ~-~'-'''~1!\'''' ,} , " " ''''01.",' ,O!,~",,"'t
;(~~~: *:>'i';\';. t\.t'r.t ~~, 1,1', ." ,.,,~l-il~~:rr'>t;
~~:I< ~ ,,\O-.~,l rfl.;,,~ \,<1 ~I:>('" j' ,J: Rj~l..-r,;"" ',1'
- . ....... LI~~;,<;,>~;, ""',.'., "'~,Z
~UTH i iIB .' ~.........................'.'..).z................ W..._.........Z..lllI
. ,.... "Z_<_.W_~ ..... Ji
'"'''''''' ..~~'....~....~,j.,.,...,~
'. ,
:, : l}.~,\\:....:/~::}r
'. ,
e
)EN VALLEY
GENERAL LAND USE PLAN
RESIDENTIAL
l1li] Low Density (Less than 5 units per acre)
_ Medium Density (5 to 11.9 units per acre)
_ High Density (12 or more units per acre)
COMMERCIAL
_ Office
_ Commercial (also includes Office)
INDUSTRIAL
_ Light Industrial (also Includes Office)
.. Industrial (also Includes Office)
III Open Space - Public and Private Ownership
o Schools and Religious Facilities
H~~~$~l Public Facilities - Miscellaneous
.. Semi-Public Facilities - Miscellaneous
.. Open Water
Wetlands National WeUand InventorY - not field vertfied
(MInor adjustments made 10 some weUands)
~ Railroad
Existing Local Trail
Proposed Local Trail
Regional Trail
Proposed Regional Trail
Pedestrian Bridge
Road Rights-of.Way
~--~
-
Municipal Line
1 inch = 1,833 feet CI>
Thibault
~Tn
,--
-
-
-
Comprehensive Plan 1999 . 2020
Surface Water Management Plan
.
e
e
-
--
........ .,
. -.
.
I
I
r
I
EXISTING ZONING
. . .
. . . . . SINGLE-F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL
....1....J...t...J li..J"1 L....l....J 1...}I..,
.. ..L..... .~...l.-.. .... ~.....
. .
'"
.J'
---
. .
. .
.. ..
PROPOSED REZONING FOR ONE LOT
FROM SINGLE-F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL
TO M-l (MULTIPLE DWELLING)
I- · · 4 · · ..
.....;.... I...,....
p . .
e
e
e
Hey
ra
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Dan Olson, City Planner
Subject: Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan for Golden Meadows Addition, P.U.D.
No. 89, South of23rd Avenue North, between Valders and Winnetka, SVK Development,
Applicant
Date: August 9, 2000
Background
The Planning Commission reviewed a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application for this site,
along with a property rezoning, at its May 22, 2000 Meeting. At that time, the site plan consisted
mostly of two-family housing units. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the PUD and
rezoning to the City Council because it was felt that the development was too dense for a single-family
neighborhood. After that recommendation, SVK elected to withdraw their application, revise the
PUD site plan, and resubmit it to the Planning Commission.
This resubmitted PUD Preliminary Design Plan is the second of two interrelated items that the
applicant needs to gain approval in order to achieve the goal of establishing a PUD for the construction
of 7 new single family homes, one proposed 3-unit condominium and one existing single-family
home. The first item is a zoning map amendment for a portion of the property. A location map is
attached showing the location of the proposed PUD. The pun 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 ofthis 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.
e
e
e
Summary of Proposal
SVK Development is requesting a PUD for a development that contains 11 units consisting of 7 new
single family homes, a proposed 3-unit condominium, and one existing single-family home. The
overall development is 2.73 acres. The overall density ofthe development is 4.0 units per acre. It is
located between Winnetka Avenue and V alders Avenue, south of 23rd Avenue. Attached is a copy of
the site plan and area map.
The 7 new single family homes would be located on new lots that would have access from a new cul-
de-sac from V alders Avenue. Each home would be one level with a walkout basement. The homes
would each be priced between $200,000 and $300,000. Photographs and renderings of similar type
homes are attached for your review. SVK is proposing to have a homeowner's association that would
be responsible for lawn care and snowplowing. The applicant would like to have the City takeover
the ownership of the proposed storm water retention pond and be responsible for its maintenance.
The existing double home on Winnetka Avenue is a part of the PUD, and is proposed to be remodeled
to a 3-unit condominium. These are lots 4 and 5 on the site plans. Because of this remodeling, SVK
is asking to have that part of the PUD rezoned from Residential to M-1 (Multiple Residential). This
rezoning is also included on tonight's agenda for the Planning Commission's consideration. 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.
The existing single-family home at 2105 Winnetka Avenue was moved to the property last year. This
property, lot 8 on the site plan, is also a part of the PUD plat for Golden Meadows. The home was
originally located in St. Louis Park and has been renovated and is up for sale. It is 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 reduced in size by cutting the width of the lot to
77 feet by 122 feet (9,394 sq.ft.). This single-family lot does not meet the minimum requirements of
10,000 sq.ft. for a single-family lot and at least 80 feet of width at the front setback line.
Access to the existing single-family home and proposed 3-unit condominium is on Winnetka Avenue,
and will continue from Winnetka A venue. However, the access to the seven new single family homes
would be from a new cul-de-sac offValders 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 A venue would add more conflict points to that street. Access to Winnetka
Avenue for these single family homes would be made only from one of the existing intersections at
23rd or Duluth Street. Accessing Winnetka at these street intersections is safer.
The proposed cul-de-sac would be a public street with a 45-foot radius at the cul-de-sac end. The
street from Valders would be constructed in a 50-foot wide right-of-way area, but this narrows to a 38-
foot right of way near the cul-de-sac. 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 comer of the proposed cul-de-
sac street and Valders were placed to front on an east/west street going into this PUD area. However,
there was never an agreement about the development of the 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 be a 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.
2
e
e
e
As indicated in the City Engineer's memo dated August 10,2000, the width of the right-of-way is not
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 max enter the preliminary
design phase.
P UD Definition
This development clearly meets the terms ofSubd. 2(A)(5) that "developments having two or more
principal use structures located on two or more lots in single or multiple ownership, provided the
combined area totals one or more acres and the plan submitted includes the entire area to which the
planned unit will apply".
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 aPUD
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 ofPUD's in Sec. 11.55, Subd. 5.
Residential uses are discussed in Subd. 5(B). Although only apartment developments fall into this
category, the City has consistently applied the established standards and criteria to all residential PUD
applications.
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 August 10, 2000. Also, refer to a memo from
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, to Dan Olson, dated July 26, 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. This criterion was
developed for apartment buildings that are much taller than single family homes. The
proposed SVK single family homes are one level with a walk out basement. Lots 1, 8 and 10
do not meet this requirement.
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 seven single family 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 met for each of the housing units in the PUD.
3
.
e
e
6. Provisions for solid waste storage and disposal must be in accordance with a plan approved by
the City. In this case, each ofthesingle family owners would be responsible for solid waste
disposal similar to other single family 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, SVK is
proposing to have a homeowner's association that would be responsible only for lawn care and
snowplowing. The applicant would like to have the City takeover the ownership of the
proposed storm water retention pond and be responsible for its maintenance
Completeness of Application Packet
Staffhas determined that the packet and application submitted by SVK Development is complete.
Planning 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:
Zonin~
The "Purpose and Intent" paragraph ofthe City's PUD requirements make it clear that a major intent
of the PUD process is to "permit design flexibility by substantial variances 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.
The standards to use for comparison for the single family homes in the Golden Meadows proposal are
those of the Residential zoning district. After reviewing the proposal, staff has found that there are
several variances for the eight single family homes. The Residential zoning district requires that all
lots for single family homes be at least 10,000 sq.ft. in area and be at least 80 ft. wide at the front
setback line. Lots 6,8, and 10 do not meet the area requirement, and only lot 10 meets the 80-foot
width requirement.
With the exception of the existing single family home on lot 8, none of the single family homes meet
the 35-foot front yard setback requirement. These front setbacks range from 15 to 21 feet. The rear
yard setback requirement is 20% of lot depth, and all of the lots meet this setback requirement. The
4
.
e
e
side setback requirements vary depending on the lot width. Lots 2, 6, and lO do not meet these side
yard requirements.
Under the R-2 zoning district requirements, the existing double home on Lots 4 and 5 meets all lot
area, width and setback requirements. Under the proposed Multiple Residential (M-l) zoning district,
lot area, lot coverage, and the front yard setback are met. However, the side and rear yard setbacks of
50 feet from a residential area are not met.
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. See the attached letter from Hennepin
County regarding this development.
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.
Staffhas found that the proposed development has a positive impact on one of the four Livable
Communities measurements. The proposed development is all owner occupied so the percentage of
owner-occupied 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. The SVK development would not
enhance ownership affordability because the homes are to be priced well over $200,000. The Livable
Communities standard for owner-occupied affordability is about $135,000.
EnJ;!ineerinJ;!/Construction Issues
Comments from the Public Works 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 seven single family homes to be constructed on the new cul-de-sac would generate about 70 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 70 trips would occur in the AM and PM peak hour.
The trips from the existing buildings on Winnetka A venue would not have their access changed.
5
e
e
e
Staff Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for Golden Meadows Addition, PUD No.
89. The proposed II-unit development would provide additional single family homes that are needed
in Golden Valley. The staff has met several times with SVK and the plan has been revised several
times. The recommended approval is subject to the following recommendations:
1. Any park dedication recommendation the Planning Commission deems appropriate.
2. The recommendations of City Engineer Jeff Oliver as found in his memo dated August 10,
2000 become a part of this approval. This PUD should not be forwarded beyond the Planning
Commission for further review until the City Engineer is sufficiently satisfied with the site
plans.
3. The recommendations of Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall, as found. in his memo dated July
26, 2000 become a part of this approval.
4. Determination regarding the dedication of additional right-of-way for Winnetka A venue as
may be requested by Hennepin County.
5. 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.
6. The notation of"P.U.D. No. 89" shall be made a part of the plat name.
7. Proof of recording for the plat must be provided to the City before any construction permits are
issued.
Attachments:
Location Map
Portion of ~ section showing neighborhood (11" x 17")
Photographs and Renderings of Similar Single Family Homes
Memo to Mark Grimes from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated August 10,
2000
Memo to Dan Olson from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson
dated July 26, 200
Letter From Hennepin County dated August _, 2000
Oversized Site Plans (3)
6
'~:, :::t,(1..)%'. !
,;1-, AI'r..l.1r.,,!Ir
,', ~';: ; ;.. .' .
I ~ 7, ,', . .'
:.!,l.....
'.
0' ,_r
'. ; ~ ',.
m............. (/) ~N
:5 .J ,
~
0::
o ....
. '
, .' .
"
YNNWOOD RD
~
-~ rl
<:!.'
-:}.,
0::1
o
'-
r-
i
r
I
----,
i
\'."''''\''
rH ST . '. (" } .... I';':;";,;.",;,;~,~,;
',',:"\':~'"~.,>'lfT~;~Nln;!ii2'.rl;7)~i.;:.,,y~:.-;;}~,'1 ,',"':-" :"'~'- .
,
I
i
I
i
. -~.;, '0.
,\ ',{ ~~.
~
,1-
I\-
w
-;;:
.:zl
-I
21
?
I;
!
r
i
f
~
.:. ...;...-,"
1,. '.t',.
"t>:: ..:~
...
j_iS.
" "71'
"
~ :
'.
,'.
\ ':,.,:: ',:; \..'::;::: :.:';:':.s\:::~';':>::~.j
e
'.,-
"
e
B
B B
E3
IRIGHT ELEVATION I
!/4"..,'_(/'
8fE
EB (Ef!l E3 B
888GB B E3 B
IREAR ELEVATION I
I/~,,"-d
IFRONT ELEVATION I
1/."."-0"
_n _
" -
""'I
c.oo Fr.E 11"RC-J2'
.t rvo-i
-10
S L/JL'E. *"
e
alley~
PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
August 10, 2000
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer ~
Preliminary Design Plan Revi~anned Unit Development #89,
Golden Meadows
Public Works staff has reviewed the Preliminary Design Plan submittal tor the proposed
Golden Meadows Planned Unit Development #89. This proposed development is located
between Winnetka and Valders Avenues North, just south of 23rd Avenue North.
e
This proposed PUD was previously submitted as a townhome development. The
development plan has been revised and includes seven single-tamily lots, and incorporates
two existing structures. The first existing structure is a single-tamily home that the
developer moved onto the site in 1999. The second existing structure is the duplex shown
on Lots 4 and 5 along Winnetka Avenue. It is our understanding that the developer wishes
to convert the duplex into a triplex.
It should be noted that a signiticant number of the issues raised in this review were also
included in the May 18, 2000 engineering review ot this proposed PUD. These issues were
not addressed in any manner in the plans that are currently being reviewed.
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 ot adjacent subdivisions. The existing homes discussed above are
located on these outlots.
Access into this proposed development will be provided by a public street off ot Valders
Avenue North. The outlots discussed above each included a 25 toot wide leg that are
adjacent to one another and extend westward to Valders Avenue North. This 50 toot wide
strip will be platted as the street right-ot-way tor this development. Although the subdivision
ordinance requires a minimum street right-ot-way ot 60 teet, the proposed 50-toot right-ot-
way will be adequate to meet the needs of this development.
e
The preliminary plat submitted varies the street right-ot-way in tront ot Lots 1 and 10
through a series ot angle points on the right-ot-way line. This right-ot-way varies trom the
maximum ot 50 teet discussed above to a minimum ot 38 teet in width. Due to the need to
provide utility service and snow storage capacity within this development it is not acceptable
G:\DEVELOPMENTS-PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO-2.DOC
e
to have any public street right-of-way less than 50 feet wide. Therefore, the developer must
revise the preliminary plat to show all right-of-way as 50 feet in width.
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 and are
acceptable as shown on the plans.
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. The storm sewer must be located a minimum
of 10 feet from the property line.
The proposed ponding easement shown on the preliminary plat must be revised to be a
drainage and utility easement. In addition, the drainage and utility easement covering the
pond must extend a minimum of one foot upward from the calculated 100-year high water
level of the pond.
Additional oversized drainage and utility easements must be shown on the west line of Lots
9 and 10, Block 1 to cover storm sewer that is discussed later in this review.
The drainage and utility easement on the north line of Lot 6, Block 1 must be expanded to a
point 10 feet south of the proposed watermain location.
e
The preliminary plat also shows a sharp jog along Winnetka Avenue on the east line of Lot
6 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.
Grading. Drainage and Erosion Control Plan:
This proposed development is located within the Main Stem Subdistrict of the Bassett Creek
Watershed. 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. No site
disturbing activities may begin on the site until the plans have been approved by the
BCWMC.
e
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. 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.
G:\DEVELOPMENTS-PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO-2.DOC
2
e
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.
The entire storm drainage system within this proposed development will be owned and
maintained by the City of Golden Valley following construction and acceptance of the
improvements from the developer. Therefore, all the storm sewer and ponding must be
designed in accordance with City standards.
The grading plan that was submitted includes the construction of a water quality and rate
control pond on the northern edge of the subdivision. Upon review it appears that the pond
does not meet the NURP requirements as outlined in the Bassett Creek Water Quality Plan
and the City of Golden Valley Surface Water Management Plan. In specific, the required
bench below the normal water elevation must be one foot deep at a point ten feet into the
pond from the normal water level. This plan shows the depth at the required point as 0.2
feet. The plan must be revised to address this issue and insure that all other NURP and
BCWMC requirements are met.
The City of Golden Valley and the BCWMC also require that the storm storage for this
development is sufficient to meet the 5 and 100-year storm event runoff rates. Storm water
computations previously submitted indicate that the pond is sufficient to store runoff from
the 10-year event. Therefore, the pond must be revised to provide the required storage.
e
The storm water pond must also be designed and constructed with a buffer strip of non-
maintained vegetation that is a minimum of ten feet wide above the normal water level. The
types of vegetative plantings for this buffer strip can be finalized with the final plan for the
site. This buffer area and no-mow zone must be clearly labeled on the grading plan.
An emergency overflow from the pond must be provided at the 100-year high water level.
This overflow should direct any pond overtopping towards Winnetka Avenue and must be
clearly shown on the grading plan. The emergency overflow swale must be placed within a
10-foot wide (minimum width) drainage and utility easement that must be included on the
preliminary and final plats.
The previously submitted plans indicated that the outflow from the proposed pond would be
into an existing private storm sewer located on the vacant lot on the northeast corner of the
subdivision. This plan indicates construction of a new storm sewer line from the pond and
the installation of a new structure on the County storm sewer in Winnetka Avenue. This
proposed storm sewer must be within a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement centered
over the pipe. The emergency overflow swale discussed above may also be located within
this drainage and utility easement. The easement covering this storm sewer must be
shown on the preliminary and final plats.
e
The inclusion of the water quality pond within this development, and the density of housing
that the developer is proposing, create a situation where the pond will be a tight fit in the
backyards of several existing and proposed properties. The developer should consider
either a reduction of the number of units within the development or purchasing the vacant
lot located near the northeast corner of the project for the construction of the pond. The
construction of the pond in this vacant lot would be consistent with the existing runoff
G:\DEVELOPMENTS-PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO.2.DOC
3
r
e
patterns from the site and would be readily accessible to the storm sewer systems in
Winnetka Avenue and 23rd Avenue.
Additional silt fence must be added to the grading plan along the entire northern plat
boundary and be extended southward in the rear of Lot 4 to meet the silt fence currently
shown on the plan.
The proposed storm sewer along the western plat boundary must be extended southward to
the southwest corner of Lot 9 and must be located a minimum of ten feet from the property
line. This storm sewer extension will accommodate drainage from rear yard areas and from
the property to the south. An additional 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement must be
shown over this storm sewer extension as discussed previously in this review.
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 7 to
the pond. As proposed, the runoff pattern will require significant turns through backyard
areas, past trees and overland into the storm water pond near the outlet. This proposed
drainage pattern will likely result in significant drainage problems in the future. In addition,
because a significant portion of the development is proposed to drain through this swale,
the nutrient removal efficiency of the pond will be reduced due to the short-circuiting.
Therefore, the extension of storm sewer to a point within the proposed swale on the lot line
between Lots 5 and 6 will be required. This storm sewer must also be within drainage and
utility easements that are shown on preliminary plat.
e As previously discussed, the street serving this subdivision will become a city street
following construction and acceptance of the improvements. Therefore, the street must be
constructed to City specifications. The following items must be revised on the typical street
section shown on the plans:
1) 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.
2) The thickness of the base course of asphalt must be revised to 3 inches.
3) The subgrade correction shown must be revised to include a subcut of up to three feet,
and the installation of geotextile fabric, as determined by the City Engineer. The depth
of the subcut and the installation of the fabric will be determined during construction
based upon the conditions encountered in the field.
4) The street width must be shown between curb faces rather than from the back of curb
as shown.
The following items must be incorporated into the final Grading, Drainage and Erosion
Control plan:
e 1) The location of all storm sewer inlet protection during various phases of construction.
2) The location of a gravel construction entrance.
G:\DEVELOPMENTS.PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO.2.DOC
4
e
e
e
3) Standard detail plates for all erosion control measures to be incorporated.
4) A note describing the interim and final site stabilization and vegetation. This note
must include seed types, application rates and other applicable information.
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.
7) The invert elevations of inlets and outlets at the pond.
8) The volume and class of riprap required at each storm sewer discharge point in and
out of the pond must be included and graphically illustrated.
9) The finished low floor elevation for each home must be clearly labeled on the plan.
The low floors for homes adjacent to the pond must be a minimum of one foot above
the 100 year high-water level of the pond.
10) The legend shown on the plan must be revised to clearly show what the numbers
shown inside each house pad denote.
11)A standard detail for lot benching must be included.
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, but should extend outward to the streets.
This item is critical in this development in order to insure that drainage issues are not
created on adjacent parcels due to grade changes. With the topography currently included
on the grading plan it is impossible to make this determination.
Draintile must be shown on the grading plan at the low point in the street to insure that
water entering the subgrade can be drained. In addition, the storm sewer in this location
must be deep enough to allow the draintile to flow into the storm sewer.
The city reserves the right to require the installation of draintile behind the curbs at any
location behind the curb based upon conditions encountered in the field.
The developer will be required to obtain all required permits from Hennepin County for work
in the Winnetka Avenue right-of-way and for the proposed connection to the County storm
sewer system.
Utility Plan:
As with the streets and the storm drainage system, the sanitary sewer and watermains to
serve this proposed development will be owned and maintained by the City following
construction and acceptance of the improvements.
The proposed utility plan appears to be adequate to provide the service necessary for this
development. However, the plan shows sewer and water passing through the front yard
and boulevard areas of Lots 1, 2 and 3. For future maintenance reasons it is preferable that
these utilities be located within the roadway. Therefore, the sanitary sewer and water must
5
G:\DEVELOPMENTS-PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO-2.DOC
.
shift into the center of the proposed right-of-way beginning at a point near the east lot line
for Lot 3.
The plans do not indicate if there is an existing fire hydrant on Valders Avenue near the
intersection with the proposed street. Therefore, a new hydrant must be installed in this
location.
Gate valves must be added at the connection points to the existing watermain stubs.
As discussed earlier in this review, the developer is proposing converting the existing
duplex into a triplex with this project. No indication has been given regarding how separate
sanitary sewer and watermain services will be provided for this new unit. The developer
must provide this information on the Utility Plan.
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 tree preservation plan, prepared consistent with City Code and standards, must be
submitted for review and comment.
e
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
owned 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 and other agencies as required. 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
G:\DEVELOPMENTS-PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO-2.DOC
6
e
e
e
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:
As discussed earlier in this memo, Public Works staff prepared a review, dated May 18,
2000, for the developer's first proposal on this site. Although the current submittal has
different housing types, the issues raised in this previous review are still valid for the current
plan and have not been addressed in any manner.
Based upon the significance of many of these issues Public Works staff recommends that
the proposed Golden Meadows Planned Unit Development be approved contingent upon
the issues raised in this and the May 18, 2000, reviews being addressed. This PUD should
not be forwarded beyond the Planning Commission for any further review until revised plans
addressing these issues are submitted for review, and approved by staff. These issues are
summarized as follows:
1) The preliminary plat be revised to show a uniform right-of-way width no less than 50
feet.
2) Revise the drainage and utility easement on the west line of Lot 1 to 20 feet in width with
the storm sewer pipe located a minimum of 10 feet from the lot line.
3) Revise the ponding easement to a Drainage and Utility Easement that extends a
minimum of one foot above the 100-year high water level of the pond.
4) Revise the drainage and utility easement on the west lines of Lots 9 and 10 to be a
minimum of 20 feet wide with the storm sewer a minimum of 10 feet from the property
line.
5) Expand the drainage and utility easement on the north line of Lot 6 to a point at least 10
feet south of the watermain.
6) Include a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement across Lot 4 that covers the
proposed storm sewer outlet from the pond and the emergency overflow swale.
7) Eliminate the Winnetka Avenue right-of-way irregularity on Lot 6.
8) The proposed storm water pond must be designed to all pertinent City, Watershed and
NURP standards including rate control.
9) Clearly label a 10-foot wide no maintenance buffer strip around the storm water pond.
10) Install an emergency overflow swale from the proposed pond.
11) Provide a submerged outlet from the pond.
12) Revise the grading plan to include additional silt fence as outlined in this review.
13) Extend additional storm sewer to the southwest corner of Lot 9 as discussed in this
review.
14) Install additional storm sewer to a point on the line between Lots 5 and 6 as discussed
in this review.
15) Revise the standard section for streets to be consistent with City standards.
16) Revise the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control plan to incorporate the items
discussed in this review.
17) Extend the topography of property adjacent to this development as discussed in this
review.
18) Show draintile on the grading plan as discussed in this review.
G:\DEVELOPMENTS.PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO.2.DOC
7
e
e
e
19) The developer applies for and receives a Hennepin County Right-of-Way permit prior to
beginning any work on this site.
20) Relocate the sanitary sewer and watermain to the centerline of the street as discussed
in this review.
21) Show the location of the separate sanitary sewer and watermain services to the
proposed new unit in the existing duplex.
22) Revise the utility plans to incorporate other comments contained in this review.
23) The developer apply for and receive the required permits from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and. the Minnesota Department of Health for the storm sewer and utility
systems on site.
24)The developer submits a Tree Preservation Plan consistent with City Code.
25) Subject to the review and comments of Hennepin County, the Bassett Creek Water
Management Commission and other agencies as required.
26) Subject to the review and comments of other City staff.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
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
8
G:\DEVELOPMENTS-PRIVATE\GOLDEN MEADOWS\PRELIM DESIGN MEMO-2.DOC
e
Memorandum
To: Dan Olson City Planner
From: Ed Anderson Deputy Fire Marshal
Date: 07/26/2000
Re: Golden Meadow Development (Preliminary Site Review)
Listed below are the plan review comments from the Golden Valley Fire
Department for the Golden Meadow Development. (Single Family Dwellings)
e
1) Provide automatic fire suppression system for all dwellings units in
accordance with recognized standards.(NFPA 13D System) The developer
has agree to this provision.
2) The automatic fire suppression systems will be installed by a sprinkler
contractor and in accordance with state 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 to 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
e
1