The URL can be used to link to this page

08-28-00 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday,August28,2000 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of. Minutes - August 14, 2000 II. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning - Residential to 1-1 Institutional (Churches & Schools) Applicant: Address: Purpose: IDS No. 270 and the Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority Lot 1, Block 1 Meadowbrook School 2nd Addition and the east half of vacated Turners Crossroads North lying north of Glenwood Avenue and south of the Canadian Pacific Railroad Line (N()rtheast corner of Xenia Avenue and Glenwood Avenue) Rezone pieces of Residential property to 1-1 Institutional. This rezoned property would be the location for a Community Center, Recreation, and for Early Childhood Pre-School Education III. Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan - Meadowbrook School 3rd Addition, P.U.D. No. 90 Applicant: Address: Purpose: IDS No. 270 and the Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority The Northeast Corner of Xenia Avenue and Glenwood Avenue and 5430 Glenwood Avenue (Meadowbrook School Site) The P.U.D. would allow for the construction of a Community Center, Recreation, and for Early Childhood Pre-School Education. This building would be attached to the existing Meadowbrook School by a walkway. -- Short Recess -- IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings V. Other Business VI. Adjournment t "', . . . Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 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,August 14, 2000. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7:00 P.M. Those present were: Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Hoffman, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer; absent was Groger. Also present were City Planner Dan Olson and Recording Secretary Mary Dold. I. Approval of Minutes - July 24, 2000 Moved by McAleese, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to approved the July 24, 2000 minutes with the following revisions: Page 3, Paragraph 6 - add the following language to the end of this paragraph: "Commissioner McAleese stated he advocated this position not because it is a wise one but rather to be consistent with prior precedent." Page 4, Paragraph 1 - Delete sentence "It is also important to keep in mind that some companies conflict." Replace with "It is also important to understand how companies have overlapping jurisdictionswhen it comes to media needs." Page 5, Paragraph 3 -- New Heading after second paragraph that reads "Future Business". Pentel added that she was not concerned that there would be a conflict of interest, but that she asked the City Attorney if there was a conflict of interest because she had attended Meadowbrook meetings. II. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning Applicant: SVK Development Address: 2205-09 Winnetka Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN Request: Rezone the existing duplex, which will be situated on its own lot, from the Single-Family Residential Zoning District to the M1 (Multiple Family) Zoning District in order to allow the existing building to be converted from a duplex to a triplex. City Planner Dan Olson reviewed the staffs report on the rezoning of the subject property. He showed a colored zoning map noting the existing zoning and the proposed zoning from Single- Family residential to M1 (Multiple Dwelling). Olson told the Commission the applicant, SVK Development, LLC wants to convert the existing duplex into a triplex. He added that the applicant is planning to convert this rental property into a Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 2 condominium and sell the three units. Olson said that the proposed rezoning is in coordination with the City's General Land Use Plan Map in that its use is low density - less than five units per acre. . Olson next talked about the traffic generation from the proposed triplex. He. said that according to the City Engineer the triplex would generate 10 additional trips per day onto Winnetka Avenue. He told the Commission that the proposed triplex would not at this time meet the requirements for parking of five enclosed parking spaces and three off-street non-enclosed parking spaces. Olson said there is space on the north side of the existing building to provide for two additional enclosed parking spaces. Olson told the Commission the existing duplex is currently nonconforming, so if it were rezoned to M1, and the building converted to three units, it would then be conforming. He also noted that the PUD would need to be approved in order to create the proposed lot. Olson said if the Commission recommends against rezoning the subject property to M1, staff suggest this property be rezoned to R-2, which would make the existing duplex conforming. Chair Pentel asked Olson the size of the proposed lot. Olson commented that the proposed lot would be approximately 16,632 sq.ft. Pentel asked if 12,500 sq.ft. is required for an R-2 designation. Olson said yes. Pentel said the required lot is 10,000 sq.ft. for single-family residential; Olson concurred. Pentel commented that because this is a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) the applicant . does not need to seek variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals. He added the County wants an additional seven feet along Winnetka Avenue. She asked if this building would meet the setback requirements for the M1 zoning district. Olson commented that he would address this during the P.U.D. discussion. He said under the proposed zoning district of M1, it would meet the front setback. Side and rear yard setbacks would meet the requirements in the M1 zoning district which is 50 feet. Pentel asked what the setbacks would be. Olson did not have this information available at this time. He said under the R-2 district it would meet all setback requirements. Commissioner McAleese asked Olson to clarify what is actually being rezoned, as the existing lot is significantly larger than what is being proposed to be rezoned under the P.U.D. He asked if the rezoning proposal is to only rezone a portion of the existing lot, which is part of a large outlot. Has this ever been done. Olson said he believed it had been citing the Wesley Commons P.U.D. Pentel also asked Olson to qualify the rezoning in that ifthe rezoning was approved, but the PUD for Golden Meadows P.U.D. No. 89, was not, would this mean the entire outlot would then be zoned M 1. McAleese questioned whether it would be legal to rezone a portion of a platted outlot. Olson commented that he assumed that the entire outlot would be rezoned, but could address this matter with the City's attorney. Commissioner Shaffer asked if the rezoning could be contingent on the approval of the P.U.D. McAleese said no. He added that a condition cannot be contingent on a rezoning but could on a P.U.D. McAleese said that if the Commission recommends approval of the P.U.D., it could add a condition for additional parking. He iterated if parking were a problem it would have to be . addressed during the P.U.D. phase of the informal public hearing. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 3 McAleese questioned how a rezoning of a portion of an existing piece of a parcel could occur. Pentel suggested the Commission table the rezoning and review the Preliminary Design Plan for Golden Meadows PUD No. 89. McAleese concurred with this suggestion, but unfortunately there is a difficulty that the P.U.D. cannot be addressed if the rezoning does not match. He said there seems to be a chicken and egg scenario, in that which comes first, to rezone a parcel of land where a lot will be carved out of the larger parcel or create the lot through the P.U.D. process and then rezone. McAleese said that because the Commission is an advisory body, he suggested the Commission go forward on the rezoning request and then review Preliminary Design Plan and forward to the City Council comments concerning the rezoning of a lot that is not yet created. He believes the Council will need to address this issue. Commissioner Eck asked Olson if the building was occupied at this time. Olson said it was not. Eck asked if the units would be rental or owned. Olson said it was his understanding the units would be owner occupied. Eck asked if there are other duplexes in the area and no other triplex units in the area. Olson said there are two-family dwellings directly across the street from the proposed triplex, but there are no triplexes in the area. Eck said the rational for creating another unit in the duplex is a revenue generator. Olson concurred. Dick Curry, representative for SVK Development, said there is 2500 sq.ft. on the upper level of the existing duplex and 2000 sq.ft. on the lower level. He said the outside of the duplex looks bad. He added that the building is huge and that a four-plex could exist in the building with the amount of square footage available. Curry said the building would be residing and reroofing the existing dwelling, and if required, would construct a double car garage on the north side of the building. Pentel asked if the units would be rental to begin with and then sold later. Curry said the units would be rental to begin with. He said eventually a condominium plat would be filed with Hennepin County to allow for the units to be sold. He added that the condominium plat does not require action from the City. Eck questioned how this building would be divided into three units. Curry said with a condo plat. Shaffer commented that the preliminary plat shows the duplex lot as being split into to pieces and questioned whether the lot line is now erroneous because the applicant is planning to make this a triplex. Curry said the lot line is now erroneous. Eck said that it seems there is remodeling occurring at this time and asked whether a third unit was being created. Curry said that if the Council does not approve the rezoning to M1, then the duplex would remain as is with two units. Pentel asked Curry what materials would be used for the residing of the building. Curry said it would be vinyl. Shaffer said the plan shows two decks. Curry said those decks have been constructed. He added that if the triplex were approved, a patio would be constructed for the third unit and a double car garage would also be constructed. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Robert Krause, 8180 23rd Avenue North, said that he has problems with the duplex in that he believes that the residents of the duplex have used 23rd Avenue for off-street parking for many years. He added that this has been a very dangerous situation other vehicles using 23rd. He Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 4 . questioned whether there was adequate parking on the property atthis time. Pentel commented that parking of vehicles on 23rd Avenue may be a safety issue to call out for the City Council to review. She added that this is the time to address issues to call out that parking may be an issue along 23rd Avenue. Commissioner Hoffman asked if he lived within the 500-foot notice area. Krause said he did not. He also asked if additional parking was added to the site would that bother him. Krause said that adding parking to the subject property would not bother him and that parking on 23rd is his concern. He also said that a neighbor told him of the meeting because he is not within the 500- foot notice area. Bill Dreier, 2255 Valders Avenue, said his only concern is trying to rezone a portion of a larger parcel to M1. He asked what assurance there is that if the proposal is approved that it would be just for the subject piece of land and not the entire outlot. McAleese commented that the Commission would need to proceed as if rezoning the entire parcel. Pentel suggested not voting on the rezoning until after the Preliminary Design Plan for the PUD was discussed. McAleese said that these are two distinct processes. He said the Commission would need to make a decision, but give guidance to the Council so they understand that the Commission is in favor of rezoning only the small parcel of the larger outlot. Ed Muszynski, 7925 23rd Avenue North, said that he has lived in his house for many years and remembers when there was a hearing for a rezoning of the another lot for a duplex that was . turned down. He said then the subject duplex was constructed without a hearing. He questioned how a triplex would fit in this building. He suggested that another garage be added to the basement. He believes the building is an eye sore to the entire neighborhood. David Gaatz, representing the owner of 2200 Orkla Drive, suggested that the triplex is only a revenue generator and does not add anything to the area. He believes the higher density use will add traffic and people to the neighborhood. He is concerned about adequate parking on the subject property. Shirley Van Waes-Berg, 8140 23rd Ave. No., said she was confused on how a third unit could be added to the existing building. Curry explained that there are three parking spaces on the lower level at this time. There is one unit totally on the upper level and the second unit uses part of the upper level and a portion of the lower level. If a two-stall garage is added to the building on the north side, it would be dedicated totally to the lower third unit. Pentel asked how long the applicant had owned the property. Curry said approximately three months. He said that without City help the duplex could not be torn down; and therefore, the applicant decided to fix it up by residing and reroofing. Mike Jorgenson, 2200 Valders Avenue, asked if the new garage is built would the driveway be out to the proposed cul-de-sac to the west and would cars be parked on this cul-de-sac. Curry commented that parking is relatively easy to add to the property. He said he has never heard of the parking issue on 23rd Avenue and doesn't know where the vehicles are coming from. . Mark Kay Jorgenson, 22 Valders Avenue, asked if another garage is added to the lot would vehicles enter/exist from Winnetka Avenue. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 5 . Ed Muszynski, 7925 23rd Avenue No., asked if there was enough footage on the north side of the lot to meet the City's side yard setback requirements. City Planner Olson said the garage could be constructed in a conforming location. Muse. believes if garages are added to the north side of the subject building it would make the site look terrible. Commissioner Rasmussen commented that it sounds as though the applicant is trying to do improve the looks of the existing property. She suggested the Commission review the Preliminary Design Plan to bring everything together. Pentel said that the rezoning would have to be addressed separately from the P.U.D. and if you look at the lot, it does sit alone. She commented the site plan allows the proposed single-family homes to enter/exist from Valders and the existing site to use Winnetka Avenue. She said the P.U.D. would determine lot lines and the size of lots. Pentel believes the rezoning and P.U.D. need to be reviewed separately in order to see if the rezoning is compatible to the neighborhood. Rasmussen asked with the subject property being in the P.U.D. is there an effort to tie all the homes together? Pentel said she does not believe that this is true in this case because the seven new single family homes would be new and the duplex is existing. McAleese said the single benefit with this lot is to attach conditions onto the P.U.D. He added that zoning is something totally unrelated to the P.U.D. and something that lasts forever because it goes with the land. So if the building were to burn down, any appropriate use could be constructed. . Pentel noted that the proposed rezoning, at this time, would rezone the entire outlot to M1 (Multiple Dwelling). She asked Olson how high of a density could be in M1. Olson responded 15-27 units per acre. McAleese said M1 includes three-stories. Bill Dreier, 2255 Valders Avenue, said the rezoning is confusing. He is concerned that if the rezoning to M1 is approved and the P.U.D. denied, then the entire parcel would be M1. He also asked if the garages on the lower level had their own space. Curry commented that they were contiguous. Robert Krause, 8180 23rd Ave. No., commented that before he moved to this area he inquired about the zoning of the properties and added that he does not understand how the duplex was allowed. He added that he is not within the 500-foot notice area. He questioned why the residents in the area would pay the cost of having the property rezoned and why the developer should make money and fl,.lin the neighborhood. Pauline Siepka, 2200 Orkla Drive, believes that some of the properties along Winnetka Avenue have deteriorated over the years and is concerned that a rezoning to M1 could further deteriorate the area. She said she is not in favor of a duplex in this area and of rental property. Dave Parks, 8200 23rd Ave. No., asked the applicant if the garages go all the way to the west end of the garage. Curry said yes and explained the configuration of the existing duplex. . Joy Gerber, 2135 Valders Avenue, commented that the duplex looks like a monster now and by adding another garage it would make it look even bigger. She said another concern is the true intent of the building - will it be rental or owner occupied. She said there is a difference if it is to be turned over from rental to owner occupied Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 6 McAleese asked the City Planner what density is allowed in M1 (Multiple Family) zoning district. Pentel responded 15-27 units per acre. . Rasmussen asked what the zoning was on the east side of the Winnetka Avenue. Olson noted there are duplexes (zoned R-2) across Winnetka from the subject property. Eck commented there are no other triplexes in the area. He said taking this into consideration and that the lots within the PUD are small, and contributing to the housing density in the area, he could not recommend in favor of the rezoning. He said he could support a rezoning of the subject property to R-2. McAleese said that he is opposed to the rezoning to M 1 because the General Land Use Plan notes this has low density that would support up to 5 units. He does not believe the rezoning issue can be reviewed as part of the P.U.D. He agrees with Pentel that because the existing property is a nonconforming use, the Commissioner does not need to take action on a rezoning of R-2 at this time. Pentel said she could not support the rezoning of the subject property. She added that it is not up to the City to assist in the demolition of the duplex. Pentel also commented she is pleased the developer is trying to make the subject property esthetically pleasing and that the units would market the units if the P.U.D. were approved. Rasmussen said she could not support the rezoning given legal ramifications. She believed she . could look more favorably upon it if she could see plans that showed it was part of the development instead of standing alone. MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Hoffman and motion carried by a vote of 6-0 (one commissioner absent) to recommend to the City Council denial of the proposed rezoning 2205- 09 Winnetka Avenue from Single-Family Residential to M1. III. Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan - Golden Meadows Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 89 Applicant: SVK Development Address: 2125 Winnetka Avenue North and 2205-09 Winnetka Avenue, which is part of the Outlot 1 of Anderson's Addition and Outlot 1 of the Marimac Addition Purpose: The P.U.D. would allow for the construction of seven single-family homes on the subject vacant land and include the existing single-family home, situated on its own lot along Winnetka Avenue, and a proposed triplex where the existing duplex is now located. The duplex would be converted into a triplex and be situated on its own lot. City Planner Olson reminded the Commission that a PUD was presented to them in April of 2000. This proposal included the existing duplex, existing single-family home on Winnetka and 10 proposed townhomes. The Commission at that time recommended denial of the PUD for the development of townhomes. He said the applicant has reworked the plans and is now . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 7 submitting a plan that shows the existing duplex (that he would like to turn into a triplex), the single-family home on Winnetka, and seven proposed single family homes, each on their own lots. Olson said the developer is proposing to sell the homes for $200,000 to $300,000. Pentel noted that the two existing homes on Valders that are situated on the proposed entrance into the development actually front the proposed street. Olson told the Commission that the City's Engineer has made many comments regarding the proposed development. He said he would review some of these items. Olson also commented that many of the Engineer's comments are carried over from the original memo he submitted with the town home proposal, and added that these comments have not yet been addressed. Olson pointed out that the Engineer is suggesting that the developer buy the vacant lot at the corner of 23rd Avenue and Winnetka Avenue for ponding purposes. Pentel said this is a PUD that can include variance requests. She asked Olson to note what variances are being requested for this proposed development. Olson referred to his staff memo noting that the lots do not meet the width requirement and 35-foot front yard setback requirement. He said the rear yard setbacks are being met on all the lots. He added that the side yard setbacks vary from lot to lot. Olson also commented that Hennepin County is requiring an additional seven (7) feet of right-of-way along Winnetka Avenue. . Hoffman questioned where water from the site would drain. Olson said water drains from the south to the north and added that the middle of the vacant lot is quite wet. Hoffman asked if there was sanitary sewer in the area. Olson said the City's Engineer has quite a few items that need to be addressed concerning drainage. He said the Engineer is suggesting some items be addressed before the PUD is taken to the City Council for consideration. Pentel said the plan shows that the developer is proposing a holding pond for water runoff. She asked the requirement of parking dedication is something that is reviewed by the. Commission. Olson said the Open Space and Recreation Commission would review the plan and determine the park dedication fee. McAleese referred to Page 3 of Olson's report identifying item no. 3 which reads "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. McAleese questioned how Olson came up with this criterion adding that the function is that there isa certain amount of greenspace and sunshine. Olson commented that he was told this by Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes. Shaffer referred back to the City Engineers report where it stated that the proposed pond did not meet requirement of the 1 OO-year flood elevation. He questioned how much the pond would increase if it met this requirement. Olson said he did not know and added that the developer is proposing a pond with a 1 O-year flood elevation. Shaffer suggested that the Engineer's memo is indicating that if the developer supplied the required ponding it would not fit in the .area being . proposed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 8 . McAleese asked about the width of the proposed road in that it does not meet the code requirement of 50 feet. Olson referred to the Engineer's report noting the road narrows to 38 feet in one location, which is unacceptable. Eck asked Olson where the additional required footage would come from. Olson responded it would be logical to take it from Lot 1, but these issues need to be worked out. McAleese referred to Section 12.20 Design Standard of the City Code citing Subd, 2(A) that states "all right of way shall conform to the following minimum dimensions of 60 feet". Olson commented that he was not sure how to address this issue and believed that because this is a P.U.D. the road width could be reduced. McAleese said that this particular Section of the City Code is not part of the Zoning Code and therefore it cannot vary from the requirements, It could be a private street and be a smaller width, but public streets are to meet these requirements. Pentel noted that a number of the lots do not meet the required frontage of 80 feet at the front setback line. Olson added that only one lot meets this requirement. Pentel commented that this could be varied as part of the P.U.D. request. She added that the City Engineer, via hismemo, seems to be concerned about the amount of frontage being supplied. Hoffman made a motion to table this item until a time when the City Engineer can submit a more concrete report or possible actions on what this development should be. . McAleese said he favors this idea because there are many issues that need to be addressed, He also said that the City has notified neighbors that there would be an informal public hearing, McAleese believes the Commission should take testimony from those present who wish to speak on the proposed preliminary design for PUD No. 89 and from the representative for SVK Development. Hoffman removed his motion. Olson commented that staff believed there were many issues to be addressed and by bringing the PUD proposal forward it would bring out what issues needed to be addressed. Dick Curry, representative for SVK Development, came forward and said that he would like to see the item tabled at this time. He commented that it was the City would want to see a cul-de- sac in the development. He said he has serious arguments with regards to the City Engineer's memo and would like to meet with him. Pentel said that see was not sure that Hennepin County would allow a street to go through onto Winnetka Avenue. Curry believed the County would permit it. Shaffer noted a letter that the City received recently indicating that they would not allow any more entrances/exists onto Winnetka Avenue. Curry reviewed the site plan of the seven single-family dwellings on a cul-de-sac, which he stated the City demanded. He said the townhome proposal would have generated less traffic. Curry showed a sketch of what the single-family homes would look like. . Rasmussen did not believe it would be appropriate to let residents speak on the topic because she was not sure what items they would speak to. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 9 Pentel said the Commission does have a plan before them and believes the public should be able to speak to the proposed development. McAleese concurred with Pentel. Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Bill Dreier, 2255 Valders Avenue, was concerned with the ponding regardless of where it was located. He talked about the local water table and the possible water problems to homes in the area David Gaatz, 2200 Orkla Drive, talked about the water problem in the area and believes there is a water issue underground. He asked about the materials to be used on the proposed homes and noted that the proposed homes may be sold for $200,000 to $300,000 in an area where most homes have a value of $125,000. He believes one of the proposed lots should be eliminated Joy Gerber, 2135 23rd Avenue North, commented that she does like the look ofthe proposed homes. She questions the rezoning of property and asked if there was a reason that the forefathers set up zoning districts. . John Blythe, 2140 Valders Avenue, believes there are too many lots in the proposed development. He lives on the west side of the development and is concerned that the development will limit the amount of sun to his property. Mary Kay Jorgenson, 2200 Valders Avenue, has several concerns that include high density, traffic and the water level in the area. She said there is a pond in the middle of the vacant property in the springtime and questions where this water will go. She is concerned also about parking in front of her house. She questioned whether a 50-foot street was wide enough to allow for emergency vehicles. Shirley Van Waes-Berg, 8140 23rd Avenue North, requested to see the site plan. She did not understand where the proposed pond would be located. Olson said on the back portions of Lots 1, 2, and 3. She asked if the ponds were then in the back yard of these lots. Pentel said yes. She suggested that five homes be constructed instead of the proposed seven. Ed Muszynski, 7529 23rd Avenue North, requested to see where the ponds would be place. He said the pond would come right up to the edge of his property. Olson said there would be a pond easement. Pentel assured Mr. M. that the pond and easement would all be located on the proposed development and would not infringe on his property. Mr. M. inquired who would be responsible for the pond. Olson said the City would eventually take over the maintenance of the pond. Mr. M expressed concern that if the City takes over the pond, then it is the taxpayers that are paying for it. He believes the developer should be responsible for the pond. Pentel explained that the City is trying to improve water quality, by creating ponds the water is filtered before it runs off into the Mississippi River. She said the developer would be required to set aside the land and the City has decided that it is a greater good to maintain the water quality of the City. Mr. M. questioned why the taxpayers should pay for the upkeep of this pond. . McAleese said his question is a good one and the City Council could answer this question. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 10 Pentel said there seems to be a number of outstanding issues. Pentel said she would entertain a motion to either table the item or have the Commission recommend approval or denial. . Moved by Hoffman to table the Preliminary Design Plan Review for Golden Meadows P.U.D. No. 89. McAleese said that he could not recommend in favor of the proposal at this time because of the City Engineer's concerns as addressed in his memo. He said the Commission is looking at the general concept and there could be changes to the size of the pond and the street design. He is also in favor of tabling this item until some of the issues can be resolved. McAleese seconded the motion to table the Preliminary Design Plan review noting the City Engineer's issues. Curry concurred with the motion of the Commission to table this item. Rasmussen asked if the public would be able to make further comments on this proposal when it is brought back. If there were a new proposal, there would be another public hearing. McAleese suggested this be treated as a temporary withdrawal so the applicant would not be need to submit additional fees. Pentel called for the motion. By a vote of 6-0 (one commissioner absent) the Commission tabled the item for Preliminary Design Plan review until a future date. . IV. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Hoffman said he attended a City Council meeting in August when KFC/Pizza Hut Express was discussed. He said everything went well. He added there was discussion at the City Council meeting concerning sidewalks and the sidewalk committee is very positive in placing sidewalks where there is development. Shaffer said he had attended a BZA meeting. V. Other Business A. Attendance. Chair Pentel reviewed the attendance. B. MnAPA Conference. Pentel, Eck and Shaffer noted that they would be attending. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:00P.M. . . . . r Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) alley To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Map Amendment from Residential to 1-1 Institutional (Churches and Schools) for Lot 1, Block 1, Meadowbrook School 2nd Addition and the east half of vacated Turners Crossroads North lying north of Glenwood Avenue and south of the Canadian Pacific railroad line - Hopkins ISO #270 and the Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Applicants Date: August 23, 2000 Background The zoning map amendment is the first of two interrelated items that the applicants need to gain approval for in order to achieve the goal of establishing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the construction of a community center attached to the Meadowbrook School. In order for the school to be expanded to the west to include a new community center, the zoning of the property where the expansion is planned must be consistent with the proposed use. At the current time, the east half of vacated Turners Crossroads adjacent to the school and all of Lot 1, Block 1, Meadowbrook 2nd Addition are zoned Residential. Until last year, there were several two-family houses and one single-family house located on this area proposed to be rezoned to 1-1. The City purchased these residences in order that Xenia Avenue could be extended to the north. The excess property that has not been used for Xenia Avenue right- of-way was consolidated into one lot. This consolidation was given final approval by the City Council on August 2, 2000. These lots were consolidated into Lot 1, Block 1, Meadowbrook 2nd Addition. The City and HRA, are currently negotiating an agreement with the School District to construct a new community center attached to Meadowbrook School. The following is a sketch of the proposed terms of the agreement: The HRA would finance the construction of the facility and own the new facility. It would be located on a lot owned by the HRA. The HRA would lease the new facility to the school district. The school district would then enter into an agreement with the City to use the facility during certain times. The City would compensate the school district for its use of the facility. In 1999, the City Council approved an updated Comprehensive Plan Map for the City. At that time, the City and school district had begun discussions regarding the joint development of a community facility attached to Meadowbrook School. Because of those discussions, the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for this site is for "Schools and Religious Facilities" (see attached map). Therefore, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council in 1999. . . . Recommended Action Staff is recommending approval of the Zoning Map amendment for the subject properties. This use of the properties for the expansion of Meadowbrook School is consistent with the General Land Use Plan Map approved by the City Council in 1999. When the General Land Use Plan Map was changed for this area in 1999, both the City Council and Planning Commission understood that this change would give the school the opportunity to expand to the west. Issues regarding specific site development are addressed as part of the Planned Unit Development. Attachments: Location Map Colored rendering of current zoning and proposed rezoning Portion of Colored General Land Use Plan Map . . . ;;'';' ...; t N . EXISTING ZONING - SINGLE-FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL & /-1 INSTITUTIONAL . . ~. .'.. .1.. .... .j.. w...... . . . . . ~ 'I \ \~\~ '.",-1..:. ................., ,.,..../.\.. ..... ......................---.- _ l...,,- :.J . :] ~ : PROPOSED REZONING ~~i';. 1-1 INSTITUTIONAL ~~ (CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS) . · ,ll ~.W -""a ~ .- ..- . .- ..- .- w.- ..- . u......... ........... ft"'_.._'!___._~.._.._ _ \ . . rY AIILILIE1yr RESIDENTIAL c=I Low Density (Less than 5 units per acre) r:~~if,~ Medium Density (5 to 11.9 units per acre) .. High Density (12 or more units per acre) COMMERCIAL c:J Office .. Commercial (also includes Office) 'NDUSTRIAL r='il Light Industrial (also includes Office) l1li Industrial (also includes Office) m~iJ Open Space - Public and Private Ownership CJ Schools and Religious Facilities I==:J Public Facilities - Miscellaneous .. Semi-Public Facilities - Miscellaneous .. Open Water r---l Wetlands NatIonal WeUSnd Inventory - nolfield verified L--I (Minor adjustments made 10 some weUSnds) ~ 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 (j) Thibault A5IOCL\tES .-- - - - Comprehensive Plan 1999 - 2020 Surface Water Management Plan . . . Hey e ora u Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) To: Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing-Preliminary Design Plan for Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. gO-Meadowbrook School 3rd Addition-Hopkins ISO No. 270 and the City of Golden Valley, Applicants Date: August 24, 2000 Background The City of Golden Valley and the Hopkins School District are in the process of negotiating an agreement to construct a 23,800 sq. ft. community center addition at Meadowbrook ~1. This building would be connected to the west side of Meadowbrook School by an enclosed link. The community center is planned to include two gyms and classrooms for early childhood and pre-school education. The City of Golden Valley and the Hopkins School District are sharing in the cost of developing the community center. The City, through the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, will sell bonds to help finance the construction. The HRA will actually own the structure and the land on which it is located. The HRA will lease the community center to the school district. As part of the agreement, the City will rent the gym space for its recreation programs during non-school hours. I am enclosing a copy of an article from the August 23, 2000 edition of the Golden Valley/New Hope Sun Post. This article describes the proposed use of the community center. The property on which the community center will be built is primarily located on the property west of vacated Turners Crossroads that is currently owned by the City. The City purchased this land in order to accommodate the extension of Xenia Ave. north of Glenwood Ave. The property on which the community center is to be located is the excess property that was not needed for street construction. This City property is about 1.8 acres in area. The remainder of the school property is about 7.5 acres. The total area within the proposed PUD is 9.3 acres. The City and School District have requested that the proposed community center become a part of a PUD for the entire Meadowbrook campus. The proposed PUD will include two lots-one for the existing school and one for the community center. There will be a lot line running north to south that will go through the link between the school and the community center. This development is eligible to be considered as a PUD because the development consists of two principal use structures (school and the community center) on two or more lots. In order for the PUD to go forward, the Planning Commission must also consider the rezoning of the west 1.8 acres from Residential to 1-1 Institutional (churches and schools). The entire area proposed for the PUD would then be zoned 1-1. If the entire Meadowbrook PUD site were zoned 1-1, the zoning designation would then be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the proposed site. The current Comprehensive Plan Map designation is Schools and Religious Facilities. This rezoning is to be considered at the same meeting the preliminary design plan for the Meadowbrook PUD is reviewed. . Existing Site Description The total site is about 9.3 acres. This includes the existing school site that is 7.5 acres in size and the property owned by the City that is about 1.8 acres. The site is north of Glenwood Ave. between Xenia Ave. and TH 100. The school is adjacent to the Minneapolis Crisis Nursery and Boy Scout Council buildings to the south and east. To the west across Xenia Ave is a pond. To the south across Glenwood Ave. is a church and single-family houses. To the north is the old picnic area for TH 100 that is owned by MnDOT. TH 100 is located east of the playground. Access to the existing school is from both Glenwood Ave. and Xenia Ave. There is a shared driveway with the Crisis Nursery for access to the 73-space parking lot east of the school. There .is also access from new Xenia Ave. at two points. One access drive serves the bus drop-off area and one drive serves the access to the front of the school where there is minimal parking and a drop-off area for students. After Xenia Ave. was completed in 1999, the new access drive to Xenia Ave. was constructed. The school is a one level building and now serves grades K-6. Before and after school child care is provided which extends the day from 6:30 AM to 6 PM. The school has about 60,000 sq. ft. of floor space after its latest addition in 1996. The school has about 550 students. The largest number of employees on site at anyone time is 75. There are about 73 parking spaces east of the building and a few spaces in front of the building. The bus drop-off area to the north of the building is used for parking after the regular school day is over. It can handle about 65 cars. . In 1983, the School District sold the building where the Crisis Nursery is now located. At that time, a new lot was created for that building. (The Crisis Nursery building was formally a school or administrative building when it was part of the old Golden Valley School District.) This lot was also rezoned to Business and Professional Office so that it could be sold as an office building. As part of the subdivision, several variances were granted to make the Meadowbrook building legally non- conforming. These variances related to setback issues. In 1996, another variance was issued to Meadowbrook when the Media Center was added. This variance was granted to permit the pump house building to permanently remain within the front setback along Glenwood Ave. This pump building is now used for storage of lawn equipment and supplies. Proposed Development The preliminary design plan proposal would allow for the construction of a 23,800 sq. ft. community center with two gyms and early childhood education space. The building will be connected by an enclosed link to the west side of the school. The development will also include the construction of a 40 space parking area north of the community center and an outside play area for the early childhood education students. A representative of the school district will be at the public hearing to describe the proposed used of the Community Center. The City will rent the gym space from the School District after school hours and on weekends for City recreation programs. The gym space will be used for both adult and children activities. This type of arrangement for the use of gym space in school facilities has become more common throughout the metropolitan area. In fact, the Hopkins School District has already done this at the Lindberg Center and the Harley Hopkins Center. . The school district has prepared plans for the proposed community center building. They are attached for your review. There is also building elevations that illustrate the scale and the material to be used. -2- Planning Issues . There are several issues that staff would like to highlight in the discussion of this proposed PUD. They are as follows: 1. Parking-The proposed site plan indicates that there will be 113 parking spaces (40 west of the school and 73 east of the school). The plan also indicates that the bus drop-off area will accommodate 64 parking spaces after normal school hours. The Zoning Code requires that schools provide one space for every three seats whether it is an elementary school or a high school. The staff does not have an exact seat count but it is known that there are about 550 children enrolled at Meadowbrook. If it were assumed that each of the 550 students has a seat, a total of 183 spaces would be required (550 divided by 3). None of these children are old enough to drive to school on their own. Theywalk, come by bus or are driven by a parent or guardian. There are a maximum of 75 employees on site at anyone time. On average, there are 8 volunteers on site at anyone time. Based on employee and volunteer count, there is a minimum need for 83 spaces assuming they all drive. With the new addition, there will be an early childhood education program. It is anticipated that this program will have 6-12 employees on site. There will also be some parents that drive to the school for early childhood training. However, the School District does not expect more than 15-20 parents driving to the new addition at anyone time. Based on these uses in the two buildings, it would appear that the 113 spaces would be adequate to meet the normal, everyday needs of Meadowbrook School. . During the day, the school will use the gyms for their physical education and other programs. It will not create a demand for more parking during the day. After school is over, the City will program the gym. The 40 spaces north of the community center addition and the 64 spaces where the bus drop-off is located should be more than adequate to handle non-school hour use of the gym. (As an example, with two adult basketball games going on at one time and assuming that there are 10 adults on each team and each adult drove themselves, there would be a need for 40 spaces. Assume that 4 teams are waiting to play the next game; this would mean the need for 40 more spaces. In this case, a total of 80 spaces would be needed. There are a total of 104 spaces in the two lots that would serve the gym space. Even with some evening use of the early childhood training rooms, there should be adequate parking. In any case, the 73 parking spaces east of the school are available at night. These spaces require a longer walk but a sidewalk around the north side of the school building can access them. The school building will not be open in the evenings to allow people to park their cars east of the school and walk through the school to the gym. After school hours, the gym will only be accessible from the north entrance off Xenia Ave. . As happens today, there may be times when parking gets tight at Meadowbrook. There may be special events where large groups gather in the gyms for a presentation. At that time, parking is at a premium. Parking in the Lutheran Church across Glenwood Ave. may have to be used. (Staff understands that such a parking arrangement has been in existence between the school and church.) In a school situation, it is almost impossible to provide on-site parking for all occasions. The staff does not believe that paving a portion of the playground for parking that may be only occasionally utilized makes good sense. The School District and City have committed to work together when scheduling events in order to avoid overflow situations. For - 3 - . . . instance, when the School District knows that they will have a crowd at the school at night for a specific event, the City will not have recreation programs that night. 2. Access/Circulation The 73-space parking lot east of the school will continue to have access from Glenwood Ave. The School District has an easement to access this parking lot through the Crisis Nursery property. Access to the parking lot north of the proposed community center is from a driveway from Xenia Ave. This driveway permits full movements to the north and south. As indicated in the City Engineer's memo to me dated August 23, 2000, this driveway and parking lot were designed along with Xenia Ave. Staff has worked with the School District to design both the driveway and parking lot to accommodate cars, busses and emergency vehicles. A driveway also serves the bus drop-off area from Xenia Ave. This driveway has full access to both the north and south. Existing Xenia Ave. was designed in order to provide adequate capacity for full utilization of both parking lots off Xenia Ave. This full use of these parking areas will occur during non-peak hours when there is more than adequate capacity to handle the vehicle trips in and out of the parking lots. With the construction of Xenia Ave. in 1999, there is now improved trail/sidewalk access to Meadowbrook School. 3. Setbacks In 1983, the School District received several variances for setback in order to permit the subdivision of their property. This subdivision created the lot for the Crisis Nursery building. The variances were for front setback for the school building from Glenwood Ave. and side setback from the new property lines created for the Crisis Nursery lot. In 1996, the School District was granted another variance to permit the pump house along Glenwood Ave. to remain as a permanent structure on the property within 22 ft. of Glenwood Ave. The pump house was originally to be a temporary building to help eliminate a pollution problem. The proposed community center addition and parking lot will not meet all setback requirements. Along the Glenwood Ave. side, the gym is as close as 10-11 ft. from the street right-of-way line. The new parking lot north of the community center comes to within 10-11 ft. of Xenia Ave. In both cases, the setback requirement is 35 ft. Even though the proposed community center will be as close as 10ft. to the Glenwood Ave. right-of-way line, the building will be no closer to the north edge of Glenwood Ave. than the existing school to the east. In fact, the new community center building will be over 40 ft. from the north edge of Glenwood Ave., which is about the same distance as a significant portion of the existing school building. One of the reasons for the PUD is that the building link between the community center and school building will cross the property line. The sideyard building setback requirement in the 1- 1 district is 50 ft. This requirement will not be met because of the zero lot line situation. -4- . . 2. 3. 4. 5. . 6. 4. Landscaping The School District has submitted a landscaping plan that indicates the plant material that will be used around the building addition. As many of the existing trees as possible will be saved. A final landscape plan will be presented and approved by the Building Board of Review. The site is also subject to the Tree Preservation ordinance. 5. Engineering Issues I have attached a memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated August 23, 2000 that address the comments of the Public Works staff. These comments will be added as a condition of approval to the Preliminary Design Plan. 6. Building and Public Safety Issues I have attached a memo from Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson dated August 16,2000. This memo address issues related to fire safety matters. Building Official Gary Johnson indicates that the structure must meet all requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Recommended Action The staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for the Meadowbrook School 3rd Addition. The proposed PUD will allow for the expansion of the school by adding a community building. This community building will benefit the entire city by offering expanded educational opportunities for younger children and by needed gym space for the City's recreational programs. The proposed PUD appears to work well from a traffic and parking situation. Staff believes that the parking will be improved over the existing situation even though 23,8000 sq. ft. of new building areas is being added. Due to the configuration of the site, the reduced setbacks from streets appear reasonable. In the case of Glenwood Ave., the new community center will maintain the same setback from the roadway edge (Glenwood Ave.) as a good portion of the existing school building. The staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. The plans submitted by the School District and City with the preliminary design plan application shall become a part of this approval. These plans include the following prepared by Cunningham Architects: Existing conditions map dated 7/7/00, Site Plan dated 7/17/00, Planting Plan dated 7/17/00, Tree Preservation Plan dated 7/17/00, Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan dated 7/17/00, Property Line Map dated no date, and Building Elevations dated 6/14/00. These plans indicate the construction of a 23,800 sq. ft. community center building connected by a link to the existing 60,000 sq. ft. school. The memo dated August 23, 2000 and prepared by City Engineer Jeff Oliver shall become a part of this approval. The memo dated August 16,2000 and prepared by Deputy Fire Marshal Ed Anderson shall become a part of this approval. All signs for the new school campus shall meet the sign requirements for a school in an 1-1 Institutional zoning district. Final approval of the General Plan of Development shall not be given until an agreement regarding the development and use of the community center is reached between the School District, HRA, and City. The landscape plan submitted with the preliminary design plan shall become a part of this approval. However, the pian must be submitted to the Building Board of review for final approval. - 5 - . . . 7. The site plans have been submitted to both Hennepin County and MnDOT for comments because the PUD is adjacent to both a County Road (Glenwood Ave.) and a state highway (TH 100). The comments from these agencies will be taken into consideration as the approval process goes forward. -6- '. . www.mr.5un.com C'YSla~.~t:bi.~.~da_~, New H~pe/Golden Valley Sun.Postf\."eone.~o.c:y~ ~~. 23. ~~~ .M~2QW~I:Q9~~I.~W~~~ry~:"j ~.naytieCo~e PreK~6prograIl1, By Sue Webber';' SunN_ The eXp~ion of Meadowb;""k Ele, mental}' School-In partnership with the city of Golden Valle)' - may be an oppor. , tunity 10 recon1igure the program there. . Meadowbrook Principal, Diane, Schimelpfenic Iold the Hopklna School Board Thursday that a Croup of Mead- ' owbrook and district .taft'members and .~~-i~i~~~;'.... " ,', ,f'ireplaces dlJ{>" ~to"e~ke Royal. [)over!AlTow*. KOiy* fl Sel*lc.' , ytoduc\S, Stone & Bri~k..." .', ,eat-"-ala 4,JI Cabinets & Mantles tocaHy pw~ed &. Operated FIREJ>~ACEWOB~I>JLC. ,'" !lows: Mon.-Fri.:: 10am-6pm~ Sat.- lOani-4pm . Sun. - 10-4 ' '.,;,.\ Hopkins Main St. "~Oakll, '. 952~919~9091.'~~ You May Qd~litVfa;r@RCl: A worldwide study ,QRCt ,~,il' J.H'''''''' ~.......t......<:"'~"'''~''''''''I''\''''' ~"',",~It TT....,.,~'Mlr\T~n'Mf n'M ("l;".l,..l...,;n ~Annf'fT . . . . Memorandum Public Works 763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax) Date: August 23, 2000 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer ~ Review of Meadowbrook Sch~ed Unit Development From: Subject: Public Works staff has reviewed the plans for the proposed Meadowbrook School Planned Unit Development. This proposed project consists of a gym and classroom building on the west side of the existing building and is located at the northeast corner of Xenia and Glenwood Avenues. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan: This development is located on remnants of several properties that were originally acquired by the City of Golden Valley for right-of-way for Xenia Avenue. In addition, the vacated street right- of-way for Turners Crossroads North and the existing campus of Meadowbrook School are also incorporated into the PUD and preliminary plat. Site access for this redevelopment will be from a driveway located on the northern portion of the site onto Xenia Avenue. This driveway access was located and constructed by the City during the Xenia Avenue project for maximum visibility and safety. The school will also continue to utilize the existing bus parking area to the north of the building and the staff parking area on the east side of the building that is accessed from Glenwood Avenue. Additional parking at the school is being provided with this project. The new parking lot is located immediately north ofthe proposed addition. This lot will also serve as a pickup and drop off area. The driveway is also designed to accommodate busses and emergency vehicles. The proposed plans also include restriping the existing parking lot on the north end of the existing building. This parking lot is currently used for busses and overflow parking. Painting the parking stalls will help insure that the maximum capacity of the lot is achieved during peak parking demand. There are two locations along Glenwood Avenue where the trail installed with the Xenia Avenue extension project is outside the right-of-way and on the property being redeveloped. These portions of trail must be placed within a trailway easement that is dedicated to the City of Golden Valley via a separate easement document. The trailway easement must extend one foot beyond the property side of the trail. Legal descriptions of these easements must be provided with the General Plan submittal for the PUD for easement preparation and recording by the City. Ail other proposed easements shown on the preliminary plat are acceptable as shown. G:\Developments-HRA\Meadowbrook School\PUD Review.doc . . . There is an existing 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement located in the center portion of this site that needs to be vacated as part of the redevelopment. This easement was originally dedicated with the Meadowbrook School Addition on the west plat boundary (former east right-of- way line of Turners Crossroads North). This easement vacation must occur concurrently with the final plat for this PUD. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control: This proposed development is located within the Sweeney Lake subdistrict of the Bassett Creek Watershed and is therefore subject to the review and comment of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC). The BCWMC meets on the third Thursday of each month. Plans and an application form signed by the City must be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to the meeting that the plans will be considered at. No work is to begin on this site until the BCWMC has approved the project. During early design on this proposed project the City of Golden Valley requested that the BCWMC review the classification of the project as it relates to the Bassett Creek Water Quality Policy. This review by the BCWMC confirmed that the project is classified as an Institutional Redevelopment. Therefore, based upon the size of the project, water quality ponding is not required. However, the project must incorporate best management practices during and after construction. The BCWMC also required that the City investigate the possibility of providing water quality treatment in the existing Glenwood Ponds located north and west of the site across Xenia Avenue. As required, the City has performed a study to determine if providing water quality treatment in the Glenwood ponds is possible or feasible. The consulting engineering firm of SEH performed this study for the City. This study determined that it is possible to route storm water discharge from this site, but these construction efforts would be costly due to the extensive construction required. Furthermore, because of the location of these ponds and the fact that they were originally constructed for flood control, not water quality, minimal nutrient removal can be accomplished. Therefore, due to cost constraints and minimal water quality benefits, routing runoff into the Glenwood ponds is not feasible and will not be pursued further. The installation of an "environmental manhole" (one brand name is StormCeptor) is required with this project as a water quality best management practice. The environmental manhole must be installed at the downstream end of the site to provide nutrient and sediment removal prior to the runoff being discharged to the Sweeney Branch of Bassett Creek, which is located on the extreme northern end of this site. This environmental manhole must be shown on the plans downstream of CB 7. In addition, computations for the sizing of this structure and construction details must be submitted for review. In order to insure the ongoing efficiency of the environmental manhole the school will be required to enter into a maintenance agreement with the City. This agreement includes annual inspections and maintenance requirements, and allows the City to perform this maintenance if it is not completed within the terms of the agreement. Another best management practice that can be implemented on this site includes a formalized parking lot sweeping program. A written program that includes the schedule for sweeping must be submitted along with the General Plan submittal for this project. . . . The school will also be required to comply with the recently adopted ordinance that prohibits the use of phosphorus fertilizers in Golden Valley. The site grading proposed for this project has been planned to minimize the impacts to the landscaping and trail installed by the City as part of the Xenia Avenue project. In addition, existing storm sewers are utilized to avoid excavations in Glenwood or Xenia Avenues. A gravel construction entrance must be shown on the grading plan. Standard detail plates for each of the erosion and sediment control devices used on site must be included on the grading plan. A note must be added to the plan discussing the interim and long term revegetation of the site. A City of Golden Valley Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Permit will be required for this project. No earth disturbing activities can be performed on site until this permit has been obtained. Utility Plan: The utility plan reviewed is acceptable as submitted, with one minor exception. It does not appear that water service to the new building has been shown. It is our assumption that the existing water stub located next to the sanitary sewer service will be utilized. Tree Preservation: This development is subject to the City of Golden Valley Tree Preservation requirements. A tree mitigation plan has been submitted for review and appears to be acceptable as submitted. However, an updated landscape plan needs to be submitted indicating that the tree mitigation requirements and minimum landscape standards are met. The landscape plan or grading plan also needs to show tree protection fencing for all existing trees to remain. Recommendation: Public Works staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for the Meadowbrook School Planned Unit Development subject to the comments contained in this review, the comments of other City staff and the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Jeanne Andre, Assistant to the City Manager Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Gary Johnson, Building Official Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall Kathryn McFadden, Cunningham Group . Memorandum To: Mark Grimes Director of Planning From:Ed Anderson Deputy Fire Marshal Date: August 16, 2000 Re: Plan Review comments for the Meadowbrook School I have reviewed the site plan for the Meadowbrook School addition. Listed below are my plan review comments. . 1) The fire department access road shall be a minimum 20 feet of unobstructions travel for the fire apparatus 2) The turning radius for the fire apparatus shall be no less than 45 feet inside turning radius 3) The fire alarm system in the building shall be upgraded to meet the current recognized standards and the Golden Valley Fire Department requirements. 4) The fire sprinkler system shall be reevaluated for the expansion of the current system into the new building. The reevaluation report for the system shall be submitted to the Deputy Fire Marshal. 5) The Installation of fire lanes signs and stationary posts shall be installed in accordance with the Golden Valley Fire Department standards and in conjunction with the City of Golden Valley City Code. 6) The relocation of the fire hydrant, the fire department sprinkler connection (FDC) post indictor valve (PIV) and the fire department lock box shall be reviewed and approved by the Deputy Fire Marshal. . 1 " August 23, 2000 . 7) The construction site and the building under construction shall meet the requirement as listed in the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Article 87. 8) When it is necessary to shut-down the entire sprinkler system or the fire alarm system during school event or other events in the building the Deputy Fire Marshal shall be notified. 9) Construction materials shall not block access to the building, fire hydrant or any egress corridor/hallway in the building. The occupied area shall be separated from the construction zone. 10) Address numbers shall be posted on the building. The address numbers shall be legible and visible from the roadway or street. If there are any questions, please contact me at 593-8065 . . 2