Loading...
10-23-00 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers Monday, October 23, 2000 7:00 P.M. I. Approval of Minutes - September 25, 2000 II. Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan - Golden Meadows P.U.D. No. 89 Applicant: Address: Purpose: SVK Development 2125 Winnetka Avenue and 2205-09 Winnetka Avenue, which is part of Outlot 1 of Anderson's Addition and Outlot 1 of the Marimac Addition 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 tri-plex where the existing duplex is now located. The duplex would be converted into a tri-plex and be situated on its own lot. III. Informal Public Hearing - Property Subdivision (SU14-10) Applicant: Address: Purpose: Honeywell, Inc. Southwest corner of Douglas Drive and Sandburg Road - portion of Honeywell, Inc. located at 1885 -1985 Douglas Drive, Golden Valley, MN The applicant is requesting a subdivision of the main parcel of land in order to create two new lots along Sandburg Road at the corner of Sandburg Road and Douglas Drive -- 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 Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission . September 25, 2000 A regular meeting ofthe Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday September 25,2000. Chair Pentel called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Those present were: Chair Pentel and Commissioners Eck, Groger, Hoffman, McAleese, Rasmussen and Shaffer. Also present were Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes and City Planner Dan Olson. I. Approval of Minutes - September 11,2000 Groger had a change to the minutes on page 3; Para 5 the second to the last sentence was not completed. The sentence should read" Groger stated he felt screening would not look much better." . Southwest corner of Do located at ] 885 - ] 98 rove the September 11, 2000 Moved by Shaffer, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimousl minutes as amended. n. Informal Public Hearing - Property Subdivision (SU Applicant: Honeywell, Inc. Address: andburg Road - portion of Honeywell, Inc. five, Golden Valley, MN Purpose: i subdivision of the main parcel of land" in order to create dburg Road at the comer of Sandburg Road and Douglas Drive Mark Grimes, Director;and Development presented the Honeywell, Inc.'s request for a preliminary plat of the HOlleywell Go/ ,!~;;;:;iII/ey 2nd Additioll. This plat will include the main Honeywell plant campus that is located at ] 885 Douglas Dr. The primary purpose of this subdivision is to create one lot for the Honeywell plant and two additional lots along Sandburg Rd. These two lots will each be about 6 acres in size. In 1999, the City Council approved HOlleywell Go/dell Valley Adilitioll. This subdivision was done to create an ] I-acre lot where the Little League field is located. This lot was sold to the City of Golden Valley for park purposes in ] 999. The remaining 86-acre lot is the Honeywell plant lot. At that time, a smalll.2-acre parcel at the southwest comer of Douglas Dr. and Sandburg Lane that is owned by Honeywell was not included in the HOlleywell Go/tlell Valley Additioll due to some title issues. The proposed HOlleywell Go/tlell Valley]"d Adilitioll will include the small corner parcel since those title issues have now been resolved. This small comer parcel will become a part of one of the 6-acre lots along Sandburg Lane. Honeywell has entered into an agreement with Industrial Equities, a real estate development company, to purchase two-6 acre lots. Industrial Equities plans to construct two, single-story office/high-tech buildings similar to others they have constructed in the metro area. The mix is planned to be about 75% office space and 25% warehouse space. . The Honeywell property is designated on the comprehensive plan map for industrial uses. The zoning map indicates that the zoning is Industrial. The use proposed by Industrial Equities is considered a permitted use in the Industrial zoning district as long as all zoning code requirements are met. Therefore, no conditional use Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 2 permit or planned unit development (PUD) permit will be required for this development to go forward after the final plat is approved creating the new lots. In this case, the Zoning Code requires that the setback of buildings along the Douglas Dr. side be at least 75 ft. because the property on the east side of Douglas is zoned Residential. The proposed site plan indicates that the 75 ft. setback will be met on the Douglas Dr. side. All other setbacks requirements have been met. . Pentel questioned if the existing pond at the SE corner of the Honeywell site was an issue. Will the pond be broken off into a separate lot? Grimes responded that the pond will remain as part of the Honeywell property and that the city has an easement over the pond for drainage purposes. The pond is located on the far SEcorner of the site. Access to the existing Honeywell plant will remain as it is today. The two lots that will be created off of Sandburg Rd. will have access only from Sandberg Rd. The County will not permit driveway access from Douglas Dr. The City Engineer has some concern about the location of driv s from Sandburg Rd. The Public Works Department must approve these final driveway locations. ndicates that the middle driveway that will be located on the northeast lot will also serve as a he existing Honeywell parking lot and to both the lots from Sandburg Rd. Grimes stated that Commissioner Groger had asked him to 0 issue of parking on this property, not just related to this development but to the entire site. on will reduce some of the parking for Honeywell. Grimes stated that when the city appr ision to this property in 1999 the city reviewed the parking and had determined it to er the II-acre parcel was sold to the city. Grimes . calculated that Honeywell will lose appro~iffi~te 0 parking spaces with the proposed subdivision and that there is adequate space on the remaini w ite that will make up the approximate 150 parking spaces that will be lost. Grimes stated th~t w~,he fact that there are other areas on the site that Honeywell could use for parking and tak parking rather than require parking be constructed. Honeywell's employee count is down an . leir business at this time don't require the additional 150 parking spaces. Grimes recommended approva subject to' any recommendations from the City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, and ifany additional right of way is requested by Hennepin County. Grimes stated the plan has been sent to Hennepin County and he did not feel they would request any additional right-of-way because they already have 100 ft of right of way along Douglas Ave North. Grimes stated the subdivision must be subject to park dedication as outlined in the subdivision code, and that the memo from the Assistant Fire Marshal becomes part of this approval. Eck asked Grimes if he could clarify where the proposed pond would be. Grimes stated that there was adequate space along the set back area on the eastern side of the development and the pond would go there. Pentel asked if it was appropriate at this time to test the water quality on the entire site. Grimes stated that it would have to be addressed by the Bassett Creek Water management requirements. Grimes stated that he didn't believe the entire site would have to meet the water quality standards because it isn't the requirement we have in the ordinance. Pentel asked if it was all right to put detention ponds in set back areas. Grimes stated it was permitted. Shaffer asked if the transformer located in the NW corner was for the Honeywell facility. Grimes wasn't quite . sure what was in that corner. Shaffer asked if an easement would be necessary if access to that area was needed. Grimes stated that as suggested by Jeff Oliver there could possibly be a need for numerous easements due to Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 25,2000 Page 3 . the complexity of the plan. Shaffer asked about the areas mentioned in Jeff Oliver's memo about the parking areas going over the property lines. Grimes stated there were areas on the plan that did show that and that they would have to be corrected by changing the property lines. Shaffer asked if a variance was necessary if a parking lot were over the property line. Grimes agreed and stated that it was something that Jeff Oliver had pointed out and that the plans were difficult to read. The engineer that drew up the plans stated they were having trouble with their CAD programs and there was no apparent reason why they would want to have their parking lot on other property. Shaffer asked if the new parking met code. Grimes stated that for what they were proposing yes it did. Grimes recommended to them that they try to meet the parking requirements for an all office building so that they would have adequate parking for whatever was to go on the site. Groger askedifthe existing plat, Honeywell Golden Valley Addition, was platted and registered with Hennepin County. Grimes affirmed that it was. Pentel asked how far back the existing Honeywell building is set from Douglas Dr? Grimes stated it was 260 ft from the sidewalk, approximately 250 ft from the right of way line. Pentel questioned if the city had foreseen subdividing this property for new industry or if we would be creating new industry or industrial buildings on this site when Honeywell located here. G . stated he did not know what the original intent was and that there was no formal commitment or agre the city to not further subdivide the Honeywell property. Eck asked if the title issues on the e gas station had been was resolved. Grimes stated it had been all taken care of and that so e ere pollution related. Shaffer asked if all the pollution issues were taken care of. Grimes s nd that on-going monitoring was taking place for pollution related to past Honeywell manuf: e site. . Groger question the transformer area in the NE c fthere were any similar cut outs in lot lines in the city and if Honeywell was going to do any ping around it. Grimes stated they will probably leave the existing access to it and that the e re do the existing parking lot and provide access into the area where the transformer sits. Gr 'mes to address the odd configuration of the lot. Grimes stated the shape of the lot can be if g as it meets all the requirements and setbacks. Grimes did address this issue with Honey d not feel it was cost effective to move the transformers and as long as they can provide acshould be fine. Groger questioned if the lot would be able to meet the setbacks with that cut 0 lt it was an awkward lot and that it would make it difficult to build on it properly and that it would use problems down the road. Grimes agreed that the lot was of an odd shape but that they would have to meet the setbacks and if that meant building a smaller building than that's what will have to happen. Rasmussen asked if the lot was buildable as it is. Grimes said yes. McAleese asked if the topographical information was on the original development plan. Grimes stated it was and that Jeff Oliver stated that if it was adequate for them it wasn't needed now. McAleese then stated that it was a requirement of the ordinance and if that was the case we might want to look at rewording the ordinance. John Allen, managing partner of Industrial Equities, 321 - 151 A venue No. came forward, he had nothing to add. Pentel asked what type of uses Industrial Equities was hoping to market for this lot. Allen replied that they were attracted to this site because it was an injill site within a first-ring suburb and there is a strong market for these sites. . He stated they knew there were more limitations to injill sites than to vacant sites but he didn't feel it was a difficult design. Allen stated they were purchasing this for their own portfolio and that they were not going to sell it off to a third party. Allen noted that Grimes had pointed out that the site would be more for a showroom and office use. Allen stated they are looking for high tech companies, Corporate 2000 businesses that are looking to pay for image, higher quality buildings and sites that are closer to public areas such as retail and restaurants. Allen stated that with injill sites comes oddities and that YOll work with what you get and felt they Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 25,2000 Page 4 could do a very adequate job in this site. Allen stated they were excited about this site and he felt they could even elevate the view with landscaping and make it a high-class business campus. Allen stated that it was important that the commission knew they were not a "merchant builder" like many of the developers in town. They don't build buildings to sell, they hold on to them in their own portfolios and because of that they try to incorporate more detail into their buildings with more glass, more brick and more landscaping for the intrinsic value. . Pentel asked Mr. Allen ifhe was a part of the group that came before the Board of Zoning Appeals several months ago. Mr. Allen stated he was. Pentel explained that there was a proposal brought before the BZA to see if they could get variances to build one building less than the required 75ft setback from Douglas Dr No. Allen stated yes at that time they had planned to only buHd one building but that they now incorporated the other building on the site. Shaffer asked if there were any plans to make the pond look more natural than what it looked like on the plans. Allen stated they would do landscaping around the pond. Pentel stated that ffOliver's memo that there would have to be a landscaped buffer all the way along the edge of the R p of wetland species and native grasses. Allen stated they have other ponds in the Twin Cities ave natural growth around them, he felt the pond would look adequate. Shaffer asked about ththe existing transformer building, with concern about the parking areas going over pr ffer stated that if that were the case would the location of the building be changed to meet ents? Allen stated they would have to modify the building or obtain a variance. Shaffer stat was that they couldn't grant a subdivision that would later have to go the BZA for variance ess there is a hardship. Pentel stated there is no hardship. Pentel stated you couldn't create you Ip to claim hardship. Shaffer felt that the cut out section in the lot where the transformer is "ribly cause problems in the future with the loading dock area for the building. Grimes stated tl final design is presented it would have to meet all the cities requirements for access with the fire codes. Grimes stated we are here to approve the lot not the building plans. Allen stated th le building in a manner that would shelter the transformer from the street and so loading do be visible from Douglas Dr. . Pentel opened the informa Mr. Armand Maanum of2300 Douglas Dr No, Golden Valley came forward. Mr. Maanum lives on the east side of Sandburg Rd and his concern is the traffic. He stated that there are currently about 30,000 cars driving up and down Douglas Dr. No. and that Honeywell and the industrial area to the west have a lot of truck traffic there during the day and well into the night. He stated that the current plan will have 500 parking spaces. This will increase the traffic drastically. Maanum stated that Douglas Dr is already very busy and with a showroom type business the in and out traffic would increase. Maanum stated the traffic light that is right at his front yard would have to be checked or he would not be able to leave his yard. Maanum stated the light is set so that the north bound traffic can continue through if the south bound traffic is stopped and that the intersection is already dangerous and an increase in the traffic would make it even more dangerous. Maanum stated that at the zoning hearing there was someone there that knew of the deal that Honeywell made with the City years ago to leave the front area in grass and that they weren't going to build there. If this plan goes through he is concerned about the vehicle fumes increasing and his quality of air decreasing. Maanum questioned if the people to the east of him had been informed about this meeting, stating it was the 3rd time this public hearing had been continued and a lot of people were not aware of it. Pentel asked Mark Grimes if this plan had been put on and taken off of the docket numerous times. Grimes stated it was and that each time notices were sent to all property owners within 500 ft of the Honeywell property. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 25,2000 Page 5 . Pentel asked if anyone else wanted to speak. Mr. Jim Olson, whose wife owns the property at 221 o Douglas Drive No came forward. He was concerned with the plan that is being proposed now because it is quite a bite larger than that, which was proposed at the variance committee meeting. He wondered how the increase building size from 93,000 sq ft to 139,000 sq ft in two buildings and the increase of38% (374 cars to 516 cars) would affect the amount of impervious surface and therefore have a negative effect on water quality. He was afraid that this increase would cause a lot of blacktop to be built and that it would take away the green area. He was concerned that a business would come in that would have a lot of truck traffic and that we would be creating a greater problem. Mr. Olson questioned why a lot of the sod had been removed from the area where the gas station had been. He assumed they were taking soil samples and wondered if the conclusion was ever stated if there was contaminated soil there or not. He wanted to know how you could approve a lot split if there was contamination on the site. He stated that whatever is put on this site would cause a huge change for the neighborhood and the city. He commended the city on what they have done over the years in regards to the campus and that it appeared to him that this would become a high-density industrial park and that there is a lot to think about b this is approved. Pentel had a concern regarding the "fi a oor" issue on such a large area that is zoned for industrial use. She stated that the new buildjlJg would be on Sandburg Rd or Douglas Dr and that the back door would be facing Honeyw" when you go north on Douglas Dr you will see there back door. She felt the city needed to hen they move forward on making a decision about this building. Hoffman questioned ift I Honeywell would be leaving this site or selling off part of its building and if Honeywell owned t re piece of property. Grimes stated Honeywell does own the entire property and that he didn't feel Honeywell was going to leave this site. Grimes continued to say that buildings do change owners and we can't change that fact, he sited a few examples where changes had taken place. Groger questioned if they should base their decision on the now as well as the future. He was concerned with the changes that were going to have to be made with the parking. He felt that with Honeywell being there it wasn't going to be an issue but if the property were to change hands in the future that we would need to know ifit would work from a parking perspective. He would like to have hard numbers to ensure that the parking would meet all codes. Pentel stated Honeywell has a lot of green space now and to make up for the lost parking spaces they would have to use the green space they have left to do that. Grimes stated whatever additional parking they create they would have to meet all of our codes and setbacks and he felt they had space to make up the 150 spaces. Grimes stated that when they did the other subdivision they did meet the overall parking space requirements. McAleese stated that the analysis originally included this land that is now be split off. ing was closed. Pentel asked if anyone else wanted to come forward, no one came so Pentel asked Grimes ifheknew what had been done at that s' was aware of some monitoring that was taking place. He t else's property that it is an agreement between those they could. Grimes stated it was not the City's re not. If there were any contamination, then it w sampling. Grimes stated that he when someone wants to buy someone that if they wanted to have testing done te whether the property was contaminated or cleaned up. . . Groger stated he had concerns about the cut out portion of this subdivision for the utility building and that we could be creating problems down the road, he stated he would vote against it. He felt he wanted to do a good job of ensuring it was done right and that the applicant did not sound too enthusiastic about altering the design and layout to accommodate the cutout. He felt that by following city code strictly and working around the cut out it would make it difficult to put in a building with a decent layout and parking and fire lane structure, etc. He felt we were creating a bad legacy. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 6 Pentel stated that the oddity of the shape of the lot was brought up at the BZA meeting. Shaffer stated they are trying to fit the most they can on this lot. He thought that it looked like the lot lines were wrapped around the Building instead of the other way around, the building made to fit the lot lines. He agreed that cut out will cause problems and that it would look out of place. Shaffer stated he would like for the pond area to look natural but that it will probably look like a ditch with water. Shaffer also stated he was concerned about the access points onto Sandburg Rd. He felt the one furthest to the east would not function at all because of the buses that are parked there. Shaffer recommended that if this subdivision were to pass that all but one access point be taken out for the safety of traffic and the children at the school there on Sandburg Rd. He also felt we were creating something that would look like it were compacted on a small site especially with Honeywell sitting there with all of its green space. Shaffer stated he would be voting against this also. Eck stated if all the concerns are addressed and if the developer is willing to live with the difficulties and if the city has adequate safeguards in our process he was in the opinion then that we did not have a legal case to deny this request. He would be voting in favor ofthe subdivision. Rasmussen stated she would also be voting in favor ofthe subdivision. She felt they were not there to vote regarding the b g configuration and that she did not like the odd shape the subdivision would create but if the develo 'lIing to live with what we set forth she was in favor of it. McA leese stated that he came to the h with the thought that they were there to approve a basic subdivision, however, he has a proble cause even though there are safeguards in place there have been times when the safeguar that if we vote in favor of this tonight the applicant may come forward with a need for a hat their hardship is because of the oddity of the shape in the lot layout. He felt that he c a lot in good faith that would only create variances to make it work; therefore he would vo haffer stated that they are not voting on the building tonight but that they are voting on wh ) mg would work on this site. He felt that the way it was set up was making it difficult to mak ings work on this site and that the site itself was creating issues for the building. Pentel stated s at ommissioner Ecks view and that this was a simple subdivision although she would h ve 'ith the other commissioners that they would be creating other issues. She did not feel they c division that would later require variances. She felt they called out some very good issues I to consider. She wants the Council to consider the Honeywell property and how it wor ,to think forward of the Honeywell property that they would create with a subdivision of this type ho II fit. Ifit were to be developed as a PUD with Honeywell we could then state that it would have to meet siml ar setbacks of the current Honeywell site. But because it is being sold offwe lose that control and as long as the buildings, if the subdivision goes forward, and the buildings meet setbacks there is no further public discourse or comment on this. She felt this change to the neighborhood would not be . minor and that she would be not in approval ofthis. Hoffman put forth the motion to accept the staff recommendation for this subdivision of Honeywell's Golden Valley 2nd Addition so worded with the five conditions mentioned in the memo. Grimes stated that it appeared that the recommendation would be for denial and that maybe, based on the information given here tonight, the developer be given the option to have the decision tabled so that changes could be made to the plat that were stated here tonight. Pentel stated that if the positive motion were to not pass we could then have a second motion to deny. Pentel stated she would leave it up to the applicant as to whether they wanted the motion tabled. Mr. Allen came forward and stated they did not wish to have the application tabled and that he felt the commission was denying him their legal right to this subdivision and he wished it to go on to the council. Hoffman then re-stated his motion as a positive motion to accept the staff recommendation for this subdivision with the five conditions stated in the memo. Seconded by Shaffer. . . . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission September 25,2000 Page 7 Those in favor were Commissioners Rasmussen and Eck, those not in favor were Commissioners Hoffman, Groger, McAleese, Shaffer and Chair Pente!. The motion was denied 5 to 2. Chair-Pentel then asked for a motion to deny the application. Shaffer moved to deny the application, Hoffman seconded. The reasons for the denial are: I. Condition of the unknown parking requirements on the remaining lot. 2. The odd configuration of the northeast lot making a variance request possible. 3. Concern that the building indicated on the submitted plans fit on the lots. 4. Traffic concerns onto Sandburg Rd. Those in favor of this application being denied were Commissioners Hoffman, Groger, McAleese, Shaffer and Chair Pentel, those not in favor of this application being denied were Commissioners Rasmussen and Eck. The motion was passed with a vote of 5 to 2. ~\(, II. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Auth6"; Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings. Pentel talked about the MN APA Conference and stated she distributed to those who did not go. Discussion took place was determined that there was none as of yet. McAle residential areas. He felt there were some that we I rials that needed to be copied ana nda items for the next 2 meetings. It city to review home businesses operating in ems. Ill. Other Business IV. Adjournment Richard Groger, Secretary . Hey Mem randu Planning 763-593-8095 I 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: October 18,2000 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 ~ecause it was felt that the development was too dense for a single-family neighborhood. After that .ecommendation, SVK elected to withdraw their application, revise the PUD site plan, and resubmit it to the Planning Commission. SVK resubmitted their revised Preliminary Design Plan, along with a property rezoning for the duplex on the site, at the August 14, 2000 Planning Commission. After reviewing these two items, the Planning Commission took the following actions: · Recommended denial of the rezoning to the City Council. This rezoning has yet to be heard by the City Council. · Tabled the Preliminary Design Plan so that the proponent could work out planning and engineering issues prior to a final review by the Planning Commission. Resubmitted Preliminary Design Plan The proponent has met with both the City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, and the City Planning and Development Director, Mark Grimes, and is now ready to submit a revised Preliminary Design Plan for review by the Planning Commission. SVK 's Preliminary Design Plan still consists of7 new single family homes, one existing duplex, and one existing single-family home. A location map is attached showing the location of the proposed PUD. The PUD process will now begin to establish the exact requirements under which the development would be built and operated. Staff has reviewed the site plan for this resubmittal and makes the following comments: . · Jeff Oliver has discussed in his memo the revisions made in the area of drainage, grading, and erosion control. · The proponent has revised the site plan to include a 50-foot street right-of-way. Previously, this right-of-way narrowed to a 38-foot right of way near the cul-de-sac. . · In regard to the zoning requirements of the Residential zoning district: · 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 still do not meet these requirements. Only lots 3, 7, 9 and 10 meet 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 side setback requirements vary depending on the lot width. Lots 2, 6, and 10 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. 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. The recommendations of City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, as found in his memo dated October 16,2000 become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations of Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall, as found in his memo dated July 26, 2000 become a part of this approval. 3. Dedication of 7 feet of additional right.of.way for Winnetka Avenue as has been requested by Hennepin County. 4. 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. 5. The notation of"P.U.D. No. 89" shall be made a part of the plat name. 6. Proof of recording for the plat must be provided to the City before any construction permits are issued. Attachments: Memo to Mark Grimes from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated October 16, 2000 Minutes of the August 14,2000 Planning Commission Meeting Staff Memo to the Planning Commission dated August 9, 2000 and attachments Oversized Site Plans (4 sheets) . 2